Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Taren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
French Royals / Re: HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco
« on: July 03, 2011, 12:39:25 PM »
While royal weddings of the past could certainly be considered cold, more recent ones have been anything but -just look at Victoria and Daniel or William and Kate in the past year or any of the other crown princely couples married in the last decade. No one is expecting heated passion, but they could have at least glanced at each other and smiled once or twice. They barely seemed to like each other. Also, it has been confirmed that Albert is set to take a paternity test for what would be his third illegitimate child.

The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Kate Middleton
« on: January 07, 2011, 09:32:57 PM »
I believe that Kate is allergic to horses, which might help explain why she wouldn't necessarily want to be near them on her wedding day.

The Windsors / Re: Change of name to Windsor in 1917
« on: December 16, 2010, 11:13:18 AM »
There was no need for the sarcasm. I didn't know that Royal Proclamations were posted online. Now I do. Thank you.

The Windsors / Re: Change of name to Windsor in 1917
« on: December 15, 2010, 10:20:09 PM »
I'm actually really interested in the change of name. Where would the document where the name change was announced be held? Would it be at the National Archives or Royal Archives?

The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)
« on: September 26, 2010, 07:18:33 PM »

Yes. That is the one. There is another one about Lady Pat jumping into a carriage for princesses, even though she gave up the title when she married. It shows she still think of herself as a princess and minded the precedence very much.

I thought the anecdote was that she had to be reminded to get in the carriage for princesses because she didn't think of herself that way anymore.

The Windsors / Re: Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York Pt II
« on: May 29, 2010, 12:12:52 AM »
A new divorce settlement? Hasn't she been divorced longer than she was married? I'm all for someone getting what they're entitled to, but I think she's shown that she's more than capable of generating an income. The fact that she blows through it so quickly really isn't Andrew or the Palace's fault.

I went to the Enchanted Palace exhibit last week and absolutely hated it. Mind you, my standard for satisfaction was set pretty low. I've wanted to visit London forever and just getting to set foot in some of these places was enough. But no, despite the face that several princesses had lived there prior and that was the basis of the exhibit, they ruined it. Going into it, I knew who the princesses were. I know more about some than others, but all in all, enough to get by in a conversation. But the exhibit was just so vague as to what room belonged to which princess. "Here's a room for a princess who cries a lot", "this is for a rebellious princess", "this princess likes to buy china". Only at the end are the princesses themselves named, but never in such a way that makes it clear just which rebellious princess they were referring to (when I could see several of them fitting that bill). I was with three friends who know only what I've told them about royalty and they were as lost as last year's Easter egg.

I just don't understand the purpose. Is it meant to educate or entertain? It's difficult to navigate as an adult, yet they handed us a piece of paper to fill out, like something you'd find on a child's menu at a fast food restaurant. If it was meant to be more artistic than educational, fine, as some of the gowns were really lovely, but most of the art itself, especially the scribblings written on the walls, was pretty amateurish. However, the weirdest part of the whole experience had to be this actor who ran around ahead of us, running through and slamming doors. Then, when we finally caught up with him (which some of us would have preferred not to have done) he was wearing a lit pith helmet, scribbling in an old book while looking at an exhibit and mumbling to himself. As I had done my research before showing up, I tentatively asked if he was Peter (part of the draw of the thing apparently is that a feral wild child who lived during the reign of George II has returned to the palace to crazy it up and we as the tourists are supposed to look for him) and he said no, that he was sure looking for him though. My friends and I sort of raised our eyebrows as a signal that we really needed to get away from this guy fast. We never did find out what he was doing there and we never found Peter the wild boy either. Some parts of the exhibit were interesting -seeing the actual clothes and furniture of the princesses as well as this played tape conversation of Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill's big fight, but all in all it was a huge disappointment and I'm still wondering what it all means.

The Windsors / Re: Movies about the British Royal family
« on: December 07, 2009, 02:27:23 AM »
Someone has put it on Youtube. Part one can be found here:

One can compare any two people, whether they share many similarities or not. I don't really see the point of all the endless Diana comparisons. It tends to be "she was beautiful and kind and died tragically" and so did *insert people to compare her to here*. Nothing new or terribly thought provoking. But maybe that's just me.

The Hesse-Darmstadts (Hesse and by Rhine) / Re: Books on the Hesse Royals
« on: October 25, 2008, 02:06:53 PM »
My site did a review of The Royal Mob I thought it was fantastic -and will confess to crying on the last page as well. Theresa, I've emailed you about it, but want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to write about your book!

The Windsors / Re: Portraits of the Royal Mob
« on: September 14, 2008, 06:10:07 AM »
That's what she just said.

The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall
« on: August 24, 2008, 08:01:07 PM »
I agree...yet Diana was always referred to as Princess Diana even before her diorce. Kate would be Princess Kate regardless of the formality of title.

Well...Queen Camilla or Princess Camilla sounds the same really...

Just because the media refers to someone one way, that doesn't necessarily make it the right one. Diana was always referred to as Di, yet she disliked that nickname.

The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Kate Middleton
« on: August 23, 2008, 02:01:34 PM »
I'm a part of the public and I'd love for the wedding to be a huge one.

Millions watched his parents get married and some still remember when his grandparents were married. We've watched him grow up, through the sad times when his parents were divorced and then when his mother died. It would be nice for there to be a huge public event that was all about his happiness. Charles and Diana may not have gotten a happy ending together, but I'm willing to bet I'm not the only person who would like to see their children get theirs.

The Windsors / Re: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall
« on: August 22, 2008, 04:49:43 PM »
If William is not given a title in the event of his marriage, Kate/Catherine's title would be Princess William of Wales. She could only ever be Princess Kate/Catherine if a letter's patent was issued granting her that style in her own right. For the record, she spells Catherine with a C.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36