Messages

196

The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Kate Middleton

« on: September 26, 2008, 07:33:47 AM »

Her problem is that as the girlfriend of the second in line to the throne she attracts enormous press interest whatever she does.  If she doesn't work then she is criticised, if she does work then there is the risk of her being constantly doorstepped by the paps and the ever present risk of compromising herself (in the way that the Countess of Wessex did by carrying on her pr work after her marriage)....working for her parents company is the obvious answer to both those problems - it means she has employers who understand her personal circumstances, avoids people callling her a layabout and means she can earn an income of her own.   As to all this nonsense about partying - she's photographed when out because of who she is - but she's also a young woman in her twenties with plenty of friends who enjoys going out - in other words no different from hundreds of thousands of other young men and women who also probably go out and about every weekend whether to clubs, pubs, restaurants or parties!
Whether she and William marry or not is still very up in the air but she rarely puts a foot wrong and a lot of the unkind gossip that's appeared about her comes from some of the overprivileged, over indulged wealthy society friends that are aquainted with both William and Harry and either don't like her personally or don't like the idea of her.

197

The Windsors / Re: The Prince of Wales' "Initiatives" after succeeding the throne

« on: September 23, 2008, 02:49:45 PM »

Apart from Queen there aren't that many alternate titles to chose from - on his accession Charles' existing titles merge with the crown.  His son automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall (Prince of Wales is usually granted shortly thereafter but not always - Edward VII delayed granted the then Duke of York and Cornwall the future George V the title for many months - whereas George V created his son Prince of Wales very quickly)as already has been discussed there is no provision in law for the wife of the King not being Queen. Back in the thirties one suggestion for Wallis had she and Edward married and had he stayed on the throne was if Parliament here in the UK (and in every other commonwealth country of which the monarch remained head of state) would legislate for morganatic marriage and she would have perhaps been HRH, The Duchess of Lancaster (as the Duchy estates of Lancaster still provide a substantial income for the monarch).  The situation now is different as Charles and Camilla are already married on his accession she automatically becomes Queen - this was and always has been the law of the land.  Currently Clarence House maintains that she will be known as Princess Consort - whatever her legal status - but that fiction won't stand up after his accession and in my view it shouldn't.
At the time of the abdication George VI refused the HRH to Wallis on the grounds she had not been judged fitting to be Queen therefore to raise her to the status of a Royal Highness made a nonsense of the abdication. If Camilla is good enough to be a Royal Highness and thereby a member of the Royal Family then to deprive her of the title of Queen Consort kind of makes a nonsense of her existing titles and styles.  As has already been mentioned there is every possibility that she or her husband will predecease the Queen therefore the point becomes moot.
As a British Subject i'd rather she was Queen Consort if it does happen than creating some kind of odd compromise in part because i am a bit traditional about these things!

198

The Tudors / Re: "Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)

« on: September 10, 2008, 07:42:16 AM »

Kimberley sorry i was quoting an earlier post on the moan about "bloody mary" - as far as i am concerned its fine to call the thread that or anything else - Mary is a much misunderstood woman and its easy to feel sympathy for her.  However much she believed in what she was doing - she still sent hundreds to a gruesome death in order to save their souls - the bloody will always stick.  Its not so much about anti catholic propogranda but the reality of her reign!  her actions did more damage to the revival of Catholicism in England than almost any other act apart from the Gunpowder Plot.

199

The Tudors / Re: "Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)

« on: September 09, 2008, 12:50:58 PM »

It is rather an oversimplification to state that Elizabeth was responsible for the deaths of more Roman Catholics than Mary I was responsible for the deaths of protestants. 

Firstly irrespective of our own view - neither of them "murdered" anyone.  A legal execution (whatever our views of the death penalty) is still a legal act. 

Secondly - Mary I reigned for five years and although figures are debatable around 300 protestants died during that five years.  Elizabeth I reigned for 45 years and the figures of Catholics who died is similar - however most Protestants who died under Mary I died under heresy laws (they died for their religious convictions) however under Elizabeth the majority died under treason and related charges (Elizabeth's purges varied whilst Mary's were quite consistant - Elizabeth's increased particular during the mid reign after her excommunication and from Norfolk's plot right through to the death of Mary Stuart).

With reference to centuries of anti catholic propoganda - i think there is an element of truth in it - BUT I would point out that in England today there are numerous churches and schools dedicated to the varying English Catholic Martyrs and virtually none dedicated to the memory of the many many Protestants who died for their faith under Mary I.

"I have been watching this thread since it started and the title of this thread is offesive to Catholics. As we all well know Elizabeth I murdered more Catholics than Mary I murdered Protestants. The thread should be changed from Bloody Mary to the neutral Mary I. I call upon Romanov Fan or the moderator to make this change. Centuries of anti-Catholic propoganda have made the name Bloody Mary de rigeur among English speakers but it is just as offensive as referring to Elizabeth I as the Heretic Elizabeth or the Bastard Queen."

200

The Tudors / Re: Genealogy

« on: August 19, 2008, 11:38:22 AM »

Of course they are - sorry but you know what i meant - not only still her descendants but legally the rightful heirs of the English throne (under Henry VIII's will and by Act of Parliament)

There will be numerous descents in the female line - through Princess Mary Tudor (daughter of Henry VII) and her older sister Margaret Tudor.

Mary Tudor's younger daughter Eleanor had one daughter Lady Margaret Clifford - she left numerous descendants in the male and female lines.

Mary Tudor's granddaugher Lady Catherine Grey has numerous descendants as well (if you accept the validity of her marriage).


And if you don't accept the validity those people are still her descendants!!


 

201

The Tudors / Re: Did King Henry VIII die a Roman Catholic?

« on: August 13, 2008, 10:53:30 AM »

The Early post reformation Church in England was essentially different to most european protestantism - whilst it broke the link with Rome and whilst many churchmen and politicians leant towards the reformist nature of Luther and Calvin - the English Church under Henry VIII remained pretty much Catholic in form and attitude  Under Edward VI there was a significant shift towards a more european protestantism reversed under the staunchly catholic Mary I - the Elizabethan settlement trod a more central ground which under the Stuarts became the Church we have today.  James I much preferred the anglican style with bishops and its emphasis on the monarch as the head of the church than the calvinist presbytarianism of his upbringing.  Elizabeth and her successor James I would in modern terms probably be regarded as high anglicans, Henry probably as Anglo Catholic.

202

The Tudors / Re: Genealogy

« on: August 12, 2008, 11:39:21 AM »

There will be numerous descents in the female line - through Princess Mary Tudor (daughter of Henry VII) and her older sister Margaret Tudor.

Mary Tudor's younger daughter Eleanor had one daughter Lady Margaret Clifford - she left numerous descendants in the male and female lines.

Mary Tudor's granddaugher Lady Catherine Grey has numerous descendants as well (if you accept the validity of her marriage).

203

The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)

« on: August 12, 2008, 11:15:55 AM »

I think our perceptions are largely coloured by the fairly useless life The Duke and Duchess lived after the abdication - its certainly true that The Duke had a selfish streak (along with an aversion to taxes which was why they settled in france) - as to Wallis i think she drew the short straw having to be the devoted wife for those many years - one hopes that it was true love otherwise you'd have to pity her.  The letters on the abdication from ordinary people in their thousands do show considerable support for Edward VIII (his public were always far more adoring than those who knew him at court) and for his marriage and a considerable distaste for Baldwin and Cosmo Lang (the archbishop of Canterbury).  Arguably his distaste for stuffiness and the formality of his fathers court alongside his wife's natural sense of style and wit might have made them a rather popular couple - but with war on the horizon it might not have lasted!  Personally i don't have much time for him - sympathising with the miners in Wales (largely his role and his demand that "something be done" was overegged by the anti Baldwin Beaverbrook press to cause mischief) and the same night ordering more stunning jewels from Cartier for Wallis and telling his dinner party guests that "he approved of splendour".

204

The Windsors / Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II

« on: July 31, 2008, 08:04:03 AM »

As has been pointed out the Coronation service has evolved over many years - its been changed numerous times - George VI's was different to his fathers because changes had to be made to reflect the feelings of Ireland (he was still King of the free state in 1937), Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa (all of who's status had changed since 1911).  So he only swore to maintain the Protestant Faith in the UK for example.  Changes again were made for Elizabeth II's and no doubt more changes will be made for that of Charles III or George VII. 

And i'm with Grace i don't think as head of the established church and as a parliamentary monarch (who is required by Parliament on accession to guarantee and maintain the protestant succession) he can "represent" any other religion.  The Queen has trod a very careful path - maintaining her own clearly devout faith and Anglicanism whilst showing respect to other faiths. 

Its also worth pointing out that the majority of people in the UK still identify themselves as Christian (and the majority of those would belong to the various Protestant faiths - although Roman Catholics form a signficant and sizeable group) - in the 2001 census for example the figures for the UK - suggest that all the other faiths (islam, sikh, buddist, judaeism, hindu etc) account for only around 5% of the population in fact after Christianity the biggest group say they have no identification with any religion.
 

205

Having Fun! / Re: Your Ten Most Disliked Royals and why Pt II

« on: July 29, 2008, 08:40:53 AM »

Tom i appreciate that with hindsight most of us would think he should have moved heaven and earth to rescue his cousin - two points on this though - once rumours broke in Petrograd that the British had offered him asylum certain Duma members insisted that the provisional government guaranteed that the family would remain in Russia making it quite difficult for Kerensky to get them out, the foreign office telegram concerning the offer and the King's reaction are available on line - i discussed them in posts to this discussion http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=11224.0 if you want to have a glance.  He might have put his throne before his family, and he was a pretty appalling father but he wouldn't make my top ten.

206

Having Fun! / Re: Your Ten Most Disliked Royals and why Pt II

« on: July 29, 2008, 07:02:59 AM »

Personally i'd put George V pretty high on my list of "successful" monarchs - his arch conservatism was probably the one thing that helped ensure that the British Monarchy survived the aftermath of the first world war and the social upheaval of the twenties - i won't go into the issue around asylum for Nicholas II and his immediate family as its been discussed elsewhere although he had sound reasons for it.  As to the rest of the family - Xenia received financial support and a home from George V, George VI and Elizabeth II until her death and she remained on good and friendly terms with George V, Queen Mary and Princess Victoria until their deaths, George V also paid a not insignificant pension to the Dowager Empress until her death - to be fair George V in financial terms did more than any of their other royal relations and Xenia and her mother were included in British Royal occassions throughout the twenties.  Xenia was still attending and being invited to events into the 1950's. 
It is worth bearing in mind that the only surviving Romanov's closely related to George V were Grand Duchess George (Greek Minny - 1st cousin - born Princess Marie of Greece), Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna (1st Cousin), the Empress Dowager (aunt) and Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (1st cousin).

207

The Tudors / Re: "The Other Boleyn Girl" dramatized?

« on: July 29, 2008, 06:50:00 AM »

Its an interesting point reference his claims through both his parents - he is fairly low down though as most of the aristocracy had similar Plantagenet claims (in fact you'd be hard pressed to find many of Elizabeth's courtiers who didn't) but added to his religion, his relationship with Elizabeth, and his undoubted public popularity ahead of his rebellion it was a fairly heady mix!

208

The Tudors / Re: "The Other Boleyn Girl" dramatized?

« on: July 28, 2008, 10:47:12 AM »

Reference this comment -

"And also of the two, Catherine Carey was the elder sibling instead of her brother. That would make her half sister and full cousin to Elizabeth I. Also that would make the execution of Lettice Dudley's son, a necessity since he does have Royal blood through his grandmother..."

The Earl of Essex's illegitimate royal blood (if Catherine was Henry VIII's daughter) would be largely irevelant seeing as he had numerous legitimate Royal Line of descent which would have been far more of a problem.

Here's his main ones from Edward III - though he has many more descents from Edward I.

Edward III - Edmund Duke of York - Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge - Isabel Plantagenet Countess of Essex - William Bourchier Viscount Bourchier - Cecily Bourchier - Walter Devereux 1st Viscount Hereford - Sir Richard Devereux - Walter 1st Earl of Essex - Robert 2nd Earl of Essex.

Edward III - Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Gloucester - Anne of Gloucester -(by her first marriage) Humphrey Stafford 1st Duke of Buckingham - Henry Stafford 2nd Duke of Buckingham - Anne Stafford - Dorothy Hastings - Walter 1st Earl of Essex - Robert 2nd Earl of Essex

Edward III - Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Gloucester - Anne of Gloucester - (by her second marriage) Henry Bourchier Earl of Essex - William Bourchier Viscount Bourchier - Cecily Bourchier - Walter Devereux 1st Viscount Hereford - Sir Richard Devereux - Walter 1st Earl of Essex - Robert 2nd Earl of Essex.

Edward III - Lionel Duke of Clarence - Phillippa Mortimer Countess of Ulster - Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March - Anne Mortimer -  Isabel Plantagenet Countess of Essex - William Bourchier Viscount Bourchier - Cecily Bourchier - Walter Devereux 1st Viscount Hereford - Sir Richard Devereux - Walter 1st Earl of Essex - Robert 2nd Earl of Essex.

Edward III - John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster - Joan Beaufort - Anne Neville - Henry Stafford 2nd Duke of Buckingham - Anne Stafford - Dorothy Hastings - Walter 1st Earl of Essex - Robert 2nd Earl of Essex.

sorry bit off topic

209

The Windsors / Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II

« on: July 28, 2008, 07:03:02 AM »

Its long been rumoured and considered that in tribute to his grandparents he would opt to be George VII rather than Charles III - i don't think it will make a great deal of difference in the great scheme of things.

210

The Windsors / Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II

« on: July 27, 2008, 12:48:12 PM »

Well most polling (however much you can rely on it) suggests that opinion is shifting slightly in her favour - around the time of the marriage less than 10% favoured her being Queen - i think from memory that has now pushed up to around 25 to 30 %.   ANother five or ten years will probably see an even bigger shift.

My main objection to the idea of a Princess Consort is not out of any great fondness for either of them but I do not like the idea that the wife of the future King is to be the only woman in the UK not entitled to bear her husbands style and titles based largely on the fact that she's divorced and had an affair.   Arguably it smacks of the ultimate hypocracy that we're happy (and most are still happy) to crown Charles (a man who is also divorced and has also confessed to having had an affair) but not crown his wife or allow her to be called Queen on those grounds.

I don't believe it sets good precedent does that mean for the rest of time if the Press decides that a Royal Bride isn't up to the mark it the Palace will be forced to back down and we get yet another Princess Consort? 

Its consistantly stated that it was her wish for this to be her style and title on his accession however i am a bit of an old fashioned traditionalist when it comes to these things - and i don't like it....i could understand it more if the Queen Consort had any official constitutional role that Camilla wanted to avoid but in the British system she doesn't

Incidentaly - Charles automatically inherits on his mother's death unless he was removed from the succession before her death.  You can't have a death in the crown - the business of tying it up legally is done at the accession council where the monarch would make the oath regarding the church or Scotland (usually the oath regarding preserving the protestant succession is done at the first opening of parliament following the accession)