Messages

31

The Windsors / Re: Government starts effort to change succession law

« on: January 02, 2013, 06:44:30 AM »

The suggestion was made as has been mentioned at the time of the couple's marriage as part of an attempt to satisfy those people who were still opposed to the idea of Charles and Camilla marrying at all.
It has no standing in law - as was made very clear in the 1930's it would take a parliamentary act (in all the monarch's realmz) to introduce the idea of a wife not sharing her husband's styles and title and creating a new style of title for her.
I have absolutely no doubt that if or when Charles succeeds then Camilla should be Queen.
Personally I agree with another poster that she should be styled Princess of Wales (she is styled Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland as Diana was before her) - there is usually no delay in the title passing on apart form a short delay in creating the future George V as Prince of Wales largely because his parents (Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark) were rather protective of the title having born it for so many decades - for several months George V was known as Duke of York and Cornwall much to his irritation (he wasted no time on his accession in creating the future Edward VIII prince of Wales).

32

The Windsors / Re: Government starts effort to change succession law

« on: December 27, 2012, 10:54:13 AM »

Well would assume that any legal challenge would have to be mounted by the individual affected so it would be unlikely to succeed.
I do think the whole issue is a complete waste of time although switching to gender blind succession is a sensible and practical change and relatively easy to achieve.
There are significant reasons why the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England and currently cannot be a Roman Catholic or marry one (although the framers of the legislation never assumed a RC would be willing to convert)
No-one in direct line has ever lost out because of it since the death of Queen Anne in 1714 (when a whole host of people were excluded) - currently the only people who would be excluded in the immediate line are the Duke of Kent's children (who have converted) and Prince Michael of Kent (who married a Catholic though his children are Anglican and remain in the succession)
Of course it is discriminatory, partially because the acts do not prohibit marriage to any other religion such as Orthodoxy etc, but then so is the whole aspect of monarchy - a job one is 'born to' etc.
Many others of the surviving European monarchies had or still have religious requirements for their monarch enshrined in law or their constitutions. Principally the Protestant ones where the monarch has a position in connection with the national church.
The people who wrote and devised the legislation after the 'Glorious Revolution' were reacting to the idea that it had proved damaging to have a Roman Catholic monarch, they were also reacting to the fact that most of Europe's absolute monarchies were RC and they were creating or expanding a limited parliamentary monarchy.
The oath to maintain the Protestant religion is a legal requirement and now only applies to the United Kingdom (not the monarchs other realms and territories).
As has been pointed out the next two heirs to the throne (Charles and William) are married to Anglicans so that effectively means the issue should be booted to the long grass.

33

The Windsors / Re: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

« on: August 20, 2012, 02:27:21 PM »

I think there is a clear desire to present the family at the moment as the Queen and her consort and the Wales' (Charles Camilla, William, Catherine and Harry). Partially to emphasise continuity etc and the fact that William and Harry are now undertaking far more duties.
The York girls are undertaking some public appearances with their father (and grandparents) but it has been a limited number and sometimes has simply been the desire of the Duke of York to have one or the other of his daughters with him.
I think it is clear that Edward (partially by not allowing his children to use the HRH they are entitled to) does not wish his children to be so lumbered rather in the way the Princess Royal has chosen to enable her children to lead as relative a private life as they can manage.

34

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alix's suitor's

« on: July 31, 2012, 08:57:46 AM »

I don't know anything about the first part of the question ref Alix making some kind of committment in her youth to marry for love - it sounds extremely romantic and invented to me (but happy to be proved wrong).
As to the final thing - Victoria may have been a major match maker and quite willing to ignore the personal desires of her children and grand children she was also quite a romantic. When Eddy turned up at Balmoral to confess his love for the Helene of Orleans she was quite willing to support them. (it was Helene's family and the Pope that put a spoke in the match over her conversion to Anglicanism)
I am sure she understood Alix's decision and her reluctance or more accurately concern over the match with the Czar was more to do with the fact that she knew the Empress Marie was not keen and she saw the country as unstable. Victoria was also not fond of Alexander III ( a feeling that was mutual), Russia was regarded as a British Imperial rival, and she was not overjoyed with her daughter in law Marie Alexandrovna the wife of Prince Alfred. After the fact she seemed less concerned.

35

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alix's suitor's

« on: July 30, 2012, 10:26:32 AM »

Reference refusal to marry Eddy - a letter from Eddy to the Prince of Battenburg I believe, and in letters from Queen Victoria to the Empress Frederick (Vicky).
Much of what we know of Victoria's opinions and inveterate (often misguided) matchmaking comes from her letters to Vicky and the letters of the Empress to her mother. There were thousands of them brought back to London after the Empress died.
We also have some stuff from her copious diaries though they were heavily edited by her youngest daughter Princess Beatrice.
Victoria had a very firm view of the importance of her position as Queen of Great Britain and Empress of India she would no doubt have thought it the pre eminent position (lol).

36

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alix's suitor's

« on: July 20, 2012, 12:30:51 PM »

I think from memory Edward had been rather taken with Alix in 1889 - but the affection wasn't returned.
He often thought himself 'in love' - in 1890 of course he began his whirldwind romance with Helene of Orleans and after that granny decided he best marry 'sweet' May.

37

Nicholas II / Re: Nicholas and his father

« on: July 20, 2012, 12:08:14 PM »

I don't think that point flies too well.
Politically the two nations were not close and were imperial rivals but for a shift in Russian Foreign Policy under Alexander III and Nicholas II (away from Germany and Austria towards France) they would not have been allies in 1914 for example.
There was little affection between Alexander III and Victoria (which was not helped by Alexander's sister's experiences as the wife of Victoria's second son Alfred at the far less formal British Court) - however Alexander had quite a warm personal relationship with his wife's brother in law (Edward VII) and certainly the family holidays in Denmark meant that relationship between the Wales' and the Imperial Family was good.
There was a clear seperation between the personalties and the politics though - Nicholas continued his affection for his and his wife's british relatives whilst celebrating British defeats during the Boer War (although that wasn't unusual since most of European public opinion was pro-Boer at the period) equally Britain was not supportive of Russia's abortive campaign against Japan.
Victoria herself was quite fond of Nicholas - her concerns over the marriage related to the country, religion and the fact she knew that the groom's mother wasn't keen on the match.
The concerns over Alex on the Russian side may simply boil down to the fact she hadn't been the first choice of either of Nicholas' parents rather than anything else.
On the whole Russian Empresses had been chosen because of a low Royal status (not connected to the great powers) to avoid them becoming 'political'.

38

The Russian Revolution / Re: What Could Nicholas II Have Done to Preserve the Imperial Throne?

« on: July 20, 2012, 11:10:20 AM »

Have read some of the recent posts with interest though am steering clear of Archbishop's comments.

Few thoughts feel free to disagree

Without the outbreak of war in 1914 - I think it highly likely that Nicholas II could have preserved the status quo in Russia for some time but it would have been difficult if not impossible to preserve it over the long-term.
Whilst unrest and strikes had continued since 1905 the Emperor was still relatively unchallenged and secure, the economy was improving from what I have read and opposition to the autocracy was still divided and weak.
However there was little incentive in the Russian system for the educated or wealthy non aristocratic classes to support a regime that effectively excluded them from sharing power.
I have no doubt that over time ,with or without a war, opposition to the regime would continue to grow and the harder it was stamped on by the Emperor's government the stronger it would grow.
Nicholas was on the whole unwilling to embrace political change that altered his view of himself or his role as Emperor.
He was not someone who would innovate policy shifts in order to save his throne because he simply doubted the validity of other systems of rule.
I don't think Nicholas II was particularly weak nor do I think he was necessarily the hen-pecked victim of first his mother and then his wife.
However I do believe that his affection for his wife not only blinded him to her own faults but also allowed himself to become isolated from the rest of his family.
Both his and his wife's biggest problems were their increasing inability to face the reality of the situation they faced.

In wider terms the rest of his family appear to have in the years leading up to the February Revolution simply given up on both Nicholas and the throne.

39

The Final Chapter / Re: OTMA's titles post-abdication

« on: June 07, 2012, 11:06:07 AM »

Most monarchies would have recognised the Romanov family by the titles they held prior to the revolution.
Republican government's might have taken a different approach.
Confusion in the modern world relates largely to the more distant descendants of former ruling houses and what their correct style and title should be.
A lot depends on where the deposed royals end up living.

40

The Windsors / Re: The Diamond Jubilee - 2012

« on: June 07, 2012, 10:49:26 AM »

As the article states i think there were several reasons for the "slimmed down" balcony appearance.
The appearance was limited in part to send a message about the enduring continuity of the monarchy and the fact that the Royal Family is well aware that packing the balcony with all the Queen's children, grandchildren, cousins and their children etc might have been subject to criticism given the state of the economy and the financial struggles of many of Her Majesty's subjects both in the UK and abroad.
In fact it is noticeable that at all recent state occassions in Britain a firm order of precedence has been maintained.
A jubilee in particular is rather different to a Royal Wedding where you would normally see a balcony full of people (the groom, bride, parents of both, the bridesmaids and page boys along with the Queen etc)
The York girls are still relatively young and at their ages William and Harry's public duties and appearances were relatively limited.
However, Princess Beatrice accompanied her grandparents to the Royal Maundy Service in York at Easter and Princess Eugenie has also accompanied her father on several public engagements (particularly those in the North of England given she is at University in Newcastle)

41

Having Fun! / Re: What Ifs or Alternate Histories

« on: March 12, 2012, 04:44:16 AM »

That might have been awkward -

Luton Hoo had been the home of Sir Julius Wernher (who ironically was born in Hesse)

In 1917 it was owned by his second son Harold and his wife Anastasia de Torby daughter of Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovitch given his relationship with the Czar was poor it might have been an uncomfortable solution.

I think I read in a post that there was talk of settling them at Luton Hoo which is now a grand hotel.

See http://www.lutonhoo.co.uk/

Petr

42

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Was Alix of Hesse disliked by British royals?

« on: March 09, 2012, 11:29:40 AM »

From memory the "ice veined bitches" comment was made by the Duke of Windsor in a letter to his wife during the period he returned to England for funeral of George VI.

He was fighting and angry because Palace officials were trying to persuade the new monarch that the allowance paid by "Bertie" to "David" which had caused so much rancour after the abdication should stop because it was the personal gift of the late King.

I think the letter was published in the 80s in one of the numerous biographies of Edward and Wallis. And is usually taken as attack on both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth

He was equally vitriolic after he visited his dying mother in early 1953 and repeated the phrase about "ice in her veins".

It contrasts somewhat with the descriptions of his mother that he made in his autobiography when he speaks of the pleasure they had when she was alone with her children without George V around.

George, Mary and Princess Victoria were exceptionally kind and generous to Xenia throughout the remainder of her life as the book "Once a Grand Duchess" reveals which i heartily recommend.

The initial invitation/offer of asylum was made at Cabinet level in Britain and followed an inquiry from the Provisional Government - it was withdrawn after the urging of the King via Lord Stamfordham and also at the urging of Russia's provisional government.

Details of Foreign Office docs relating to the asylum offer can be found here http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=The_Fate_of_Tsar_Nicholas_II_of_Russia

43

Having Fun! / Re: What Ifs or Alternate Histories

« on: March 09, 2012, 11:02:15 AM »

Sandringham was George's favourite residence (though during his mother's lifetime he and his wife lived in York Cottage) - but it was left to his mother Queen Alexandra for her lifetime - I've no doubt she'd have taken them in but it wouldn't have been considered an ideal solution.

The King had access to numerous "grace and favour" residences (such as the one eventually given to GD Xenia) but housing the former Emperor in a property that was technically maintained at the State's expense would have also been awkward.

44

The Final Chapter / Re: did the children have the right to leave russia after the revolution?

« on: December 16, 2011, 04:51:12 AM »

There was a bit of a problem either way - had George V insisted on the government offering asylum it would have been an unconstitutional act just as him insisting the offer was withdrawn would have been.
Arguably it was Lloyd George's responsibility - the Government made the initial offer (not the King), it was withdrawn a) at the request of the Provisional Government and b) after concerns relayed to the Government by the King's Private Secretary.
George V had a very strong view of his constitutional position far more than his father for example and it wasn't in his character to insist on anything with regard his official position (rather different to the way in which he conducted his private life and ran his household).
Over time of course the idea grew that the Government had hindered any offer of help or assistance and the King had been unable to act....which wasn't strictly true ...nor do I think there was any conspiracy theory designed to suppress the information.

45

Nicholas II / Re: What did King George the Vth do in England to help his Imperial Cousins

« on: December 16, 2011, 04:39:53 AM »

He certainly did support the Grand Duchess during her remaining years in England after the revolution as did his son and grandaughter.