Jump to content
fykeylicious

Royal Wedding

Recommended Posts

My guess is male heir named Charles, in honor of Prince Charles the Grandfather. ( I could see the Queen bypassing Charles and giving the throne to William. Not sure if this is possible.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( I could see the Queen bypassing Charles and giving the throne to William. Not sure if this is possible.)

The Queen cannot do it - but Charles could abdicate in honor of William. There's been speculation about that for years. I personally don't think Charles would do it if the Queen died while he was still healthy. Isn't he the longest Heir Apparent in British history at this point?

 

Actually, the Queen might be able to do it, but I don't think she would. Henry VIII did it (a LOT) but he did it by declaring various children legitimate/illegitimate and I think the inheritance rules have changed in the past 500 years :P

 

As for Catherine - hospitalized due to acute morning sickness sounds AWFUL! I hope she feels better soon! (Lainey speculating that the hospital stay is the reason for the announcement - she thinks it's probably WAYYYYYYY early and the Palace didn't want to do it but knew there would be leaks with a hospital stay so they maintained control of the information. I pretty much agree)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( I could see the Queen bypassing Charles and giving the throne to William. Not sure if this is possible.)

The Queen cannot do it - but Charles could abdicate in honor of William. There's been speculation about that for years. I personally don't think Charles would do it if the Queen died while he was still healthy. Isn't he the longest Heir Apparent in British history at this point?

 

Actually, the Queen might be able to do it, but I don't think she would. Henry VIII did it (a LOT) but he did it by declaring various children legitimate/illegitimate and I think the inheritance rules have changed in the past 500 years :P

 

As for Catherine - hospitalized due to acute morning sickness sounds AWFUL! I hope she feels better soon! (Lainey speculating that the hospital stay is the reason for the announcement - she thinks it's probably WAYYYYYYY early and the Palace didn't want to do it but knew there would be leaks with a hospital stay so they maintained control of the information. I pretty much agree)

 

 

I am also under the impression that only Americans want Charles to be skipped and have the thrown go direct to William. I hear actual British citizens think that idea is ridiculous. No idea how accurate that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I like Charles a LOT more these past 15 years. I don't know if it's an age thing - as he's gotten older, he's more comfortable doing what he wants to be doing and not just what he should be doing? Or if Diana dying freed him to be more free? (sorry about that sentence, I can't figure out a better way to say what I mean right now ;-) He seems happily married, working for environmental issues and sustainability and architecture and fulfilling his Royal obligations but finding a way to use his position to promote what he wants to.

 

I would happily see him as king.

 

Camilla only gets to be a Consort, right? :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why was diana a princess, but kate is a duchess?

Good question, I looked it up and here's what it said:

 

Why was Diana princess but not Kate Middleton?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Diana_pr..._Kate_Middleton

Best Answer

The reason is because Kate was a commoner

 

While it had been tooted before Diana got married that she was a commoner she actually was the daughter of a Earl and herself was styled "Lady Diana Frances Spencer" before the wedding. She could also claim royal descent as she was the direct descendant of Charles II from several of his illegitimate children.

 

Kate however actually was a commoner even though there is specualtion that she is actually a descentant of Henry VIII (via the daughter he had with Anne Boleyn's sister Mary.) Therefore she herself is not eligable to be styled Princess Catherine and why she is refered to simply as Duchess of Cambridge

Do we have any British fans on the site that care to enlighten us with what the locals think??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://starcasm.net/archives/169205

 

Kate Middleton (who’s currently involved in a topless scandal) married a prince (I know, no one ever talks about it, you’ve probably forgotten,) so why is she not a princess? Williams mother Diana Frances Spencer was a princess, but Kate is officially called Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, (she also gets the titles Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus.)

 

Apparently she is the Duchess of Cambridge because Princes Edward and Charles went to Cambridge, and Prince Philip is the Chancellor. According to The Hollywood Reporter she won’t be a princess until William becomes King (sooo, does that mean she wont’ be a queen? This is SO confusing.)

 

The Queen updated the Order of Precedence when Prince Charles married his second wife Camille. She rearranged it based “on blood principles” so Kate is required to curtsy to “blood princesses” Princess Royal, Princess Alexandra, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who are daughters of the Duke of York, when William is not by her side.

 

Apparently she can still be called a princess without officially having that title, but it still seems that not being given that official title is somewhat of a snub from the Queen. Being a Royal can be quite dicey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks!

 

it appears the queen likes Kate, maybe she'll give her the title later .... sorta like dubbing knights, lol?

 

btw, the mother of the heir to the throne should not have to curtsy to anyone, even blood princesses.

Edited by l1zz1e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, the Queen isn't married to a King - he's Prince Phillip - Duke of Edinburgh. I don't have a problem with that at all. Order of Precedence based on blood? So be it.

 

There was a great article before their wedding - not sure if it got posted here? One of the british papers guessing what title the Queen would give them as a wedding present - going through what had died out and why and why so many of the options weren't appropriate. As an American (anglophile, to be sure!) I really enjoyed it! I can't find the article now (hard to search, since we know the titles now....)

 

PS One of the Wiki articles I was reading says that Camilla would be HRH Princess Consort with Charles on the throne. Presumably Kate would be the same?

Edited by Hoyaheel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS One of the Wiki articles I was reading says that Camilla would be HRH Princess Consort with Charles on the throne. Presumably Kate would be the same?

I thought that the biggest issue with Camilla is that she's wife #2??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS One of the Wiki articles I was reading says that Camilla would be HRH Princess Consort with Charles on the throne. Presumably Kate would be the same?

I thought that the biggest issue with Camilla is that she's wife #2??

 

I think it's all about image, though, not actual law. For instance, Camilla IS the Princess of Wales, but prefers not to use that title because of its recent connotations. Kate is a commoner, so I'm not sure about the "Queen" thing. Wasn't Camilla at least an Hon? Though apparently it's easier to throw around "Queen" than "King" (maybe not with the new inheritance rules that allow girls to inherit....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, anyone who isn't HRH royal (or a Lord I think) is a commoner so there are a lot of us out here. Diana was a princess because she married a prince, the Prince of Wales. It's like it was her last name, Diana, Princess of Wales. She kept it after the divorce. As the daughter of and Earl, she went by "Lady" Diana. William is a prince of England as the grandson of a reigning sovereign, so Kate may be called The Princess William, but Duchess of Cambridge sounds much better.

 

Camilla, too, is Princess of Wales but she/they chose to go by lesser titles so as not to stir up the resentment of Diana lovers like me. She is the Duchess od Cornwall, Countess of Renfrew, the Duchess of Rothsey, etc. Charles has a lot of titles and the Queen has even more. When Charles assumes the throne, and he will, Camillia will be the Queen (consort). Some of us will feel sad about that after what happened to a naive, innocent and mentally fragile 19 year old who thought she was marrying a man who would love her forever. After the ugliness and shock of the abdication of Elizabeth's Uncle, no one will even consider it. You do your duty.

 

Phillip can't be a king because then he would outrank his wife. He was a Prince of Greece when he married her, though, so he is rightly called Prince, but better called by the British title Duke of Edinborough. It is expected that Prince Edward will inherit that title when Phillip passes. His wife Sophie, Countess of Wessex wanted to be styled Princess Sophie but the Queen would not allow it. Their children will be styled Lord and Lady rather than prince/princess as are Anne's children but they are all in line to the throne. For once we have a surplus of heirs so the Royal line is assured. Now that Harry is moved to third, he can stop all this fine, upright behavior and let loose a little. :wacko: The boy is too uptight.

 

I think William and Harry are doing great jobs and I like Catherine a lot. Very excited about the baby and hope it all goes well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

Nurse Who Took Prank Call at Kate's Hospital Found Dead

By Aaron Parsley and Andrea Billups

12/07/2012 at 12:10 PM EST

people.com

 

The nurse who answered a prank call to the hospital treating the Duchess of Cambridge for severe morning sickness was found dead in an apparent suicide.

 

"It is with deep sadness that I can confirm the tragic death of a member of our nursing staff, Jacintha Saldanha," John Lofthouse, the chief executive of King Edward VII Hospital in London, said in a statement. "She was an excellent nurse and well respected and popular with all of her colleagues. We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital."

 

On Tuesday, two radio disc jockeys – Mel Greig and Michael Christian from Australia's 2DayFM – called the hospital impersonating Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles and inquired about Kate.

 

The hospital said Wednesday that it deeply regretted the call had been put through to one of the nurses who was caring for the Duchess.

 

Saldanha was found dead on Thursday of a suspected suicide, according to The Times of London.

 

"The hospital had been supporting her through this very difficult time [since the hoax]," the hospital executive said. "Jacintha was a first-class nurse who cared diligently for hundreds of patients during her time with us. Everyone is shocked by the loss of the much-loved and valued colleague. Out thoughts and deepest sympathies are with her family and friends."

 

On Friday, a St. James's Palace spokesman released a statement: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are deeply saddened to learn of the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Their Royal Highnesses were looked after so wonderfully well at all times by everybody at King Edward VII Hospital, and their thoughts and prayers are with Jacintha Saldanha's family, friends and colleagues at this very sad time."

 

The radio station, which broadcast the call on the air, said Wednesday that the prank "was done with lighthearted intentions."

 

Kate was released from the hospital on Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, anyone who isn't HRH royal (or a Lord I think) is a commoner so there are a lot of us out here. Diana was a princess because she married a prince, the Prince of Wales. It's like it was her last name, Diana, Princess of Wales. She kept it after the divorce. As the daughter of and Earl, she went by "Lady" Diana. William is a prince of England as the grandson of a reigning sovereign, so Kate may be called The Princess William, but Duchess of Cambridge sounds much better.

 

Camilla, too, is Princess of Wales but she/they chose to go by lesser titles so as not to stir up the resentment of Diana lovers like me. She is the Duchess od Cornwall, Countess of Renfrew, the Duchess of Rothsey, etc. Charles has a lot of titles and the Queen has even more. When Charles assumes the throne, and he will, Camillia will be the Queen (consort). Some of us will feel sad about that after what happened to a naive, innocent and mentally fragile 19 year old who thought she was marrying a man who would love her forever. After the ugliness and shock of the abdication of Elizabeth's Uncle, no one will even consider it. You do your duty.

 

Phillip can't be a king because then he would outrank his wife. He was a Prince of Greece when he married her, though, so he is rightly called Prince, but better called by the British title Duke of Edinborough. It is expected that Prince Edward will inherit that title when Phillip passes. His wife Sophie, Countess of Wessex wanted to be styled Princess Sophie but the Queen would not allow it. Their children will be styled Lord and Lady rather than prince/princess as are Anne's children but they are all in line to the throne. For once we have a surplus of heirs so the Royal line is assured. Now that Harry is moved to third, he can stop all this fine, upright behavior and let loose a little. :wacko: The boy is too uptight.

 

I think William and Harry are doing great jobs and I like Catherine a lot. Very excited about the baby and hope it all goes well.

 

Thanks Gracenote!! I always have such a hard time keeping everything straight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, anyone who isn't HRH royal (or a Lord I think) is a commoner

But there are quire a few of those Lordly bits about, aren't there (I mean, demographically, yes, certainly they're in the minority but always have been)

 

Maybe I read too many historical romances but there's always lots of Lords of varying levels. Though I went & looked up Camilla and her mother was an Hon - daughter of a baron - but her dad was a commoner and I think that goes through the paternal line so she wouldn't have been entitled to be Hon growing up?

 

And yes, I've just spent too much time in a Wikipedia cycle ;-)

 

Peerage is fascinating to me!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Princess Anne's children don't have royal titles at all; they have no automatic entitlement through their mother because Anne's a woman (and therefore lesser under the old rules) and none through their father as Mark Philips was a commoner. So while Edward's daughter is Lady Louise, Zara is plain Miss Philips/Mrs Tindall.

 

Kate will be Queen Consort if William becomes King. Camilla would technically be Queen Consort but I believe they intend to go with Princess Consort to appease Diana's fans. I think it's a bit harsh on Camilla, to be honest.

 

That said I'm a Brit and a republican (which in this context means I don't believe we should have a monarchy), so I can't say that the idea of the royal line being assured fills me with delight. I obviously wish William and Kate a smooth and happy pregnancy but no more than I would every other pregnant woman in the country.

Edited by Wordsworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Princess Anne's children don't have royal titles at all; they have no automatic entitlement through their mother because Anne's a woman (and therefore lesser under the old rules) and none through their father as Mark Philips was a commoner. So while Edward's daughter is Lady Louise, Zara is plain Miss Philips/Mrs Tindall.

 

Kate will be Queen Consort if William becomes King. Camilla would technically be Queen Consort but I believe they intend to go with Princess Consort to appease Diana's fans. I think it's a bit harsh on Camilla, to be honest.

 

That said I'm a Brit and a republican (which in this context means I don't believe we should have a monarchy), so I can't say that the idea of the royal line being assured fills me with delight. I obviously wish William and Kate a smooth and happy pregnancy but no more than I would every other pregnant woman in the country.

Can you explain what the royals actually DO, if they don't actually rule? I mean, besides the obvious answer of doing charitable works, throwing parties, attending events, etc.

 

More to the point, if they really have no "power" over the populace, isn't it as though you *don't* have a monarchy, as they are little more than celebrities? Or do they still receive a portion of British taxes, etc.?

 

I ask because I heard people who were angered over the lavishness of the wedding and talked about its effect on the taxpayers, etc. but I didn't understand why -- it seems to me that they aren't spending the public's money, only their own, so who cares what they do with it? Unless they really ARE spending the taxpayers' money, in which case I'm confused as to why and/or how they have access to taxpayers' money when they do not actually rule and should have amassed more money than God by this point in time, anyway.

 

So basically I'm just confused :unsure:

 

Can anyone enlighten me? I know I sound like a dumb American!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the Queen is still our Head of State with all of its associated power; it's just that the power is wielded by parliament (and the prime minister) on her behalf. That is why the Queen formally opens parliament every session and dissolves it before elections - I imagine in a major crisis she could also act. Outside that it is largely ceremonial.

 

The Queen is currently given an annual grant through the Civil List, although this has been trimmed down and is in the process of being reformed again to the point of replacement, partly because its not good for business if people see the monarch as a drain on public finances. Technically the Queen receives this in exchange for giving up income from the land she owns (of which there is a lot, given she's Queen). It is a really sensitive topic and trying to manage it also led to the Queen agreeing to pay income tax. They also now publish public accounts for transparency - you can see a lot of stuff here http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/...s/Overview.aspx

 

Re the wedding, i believe all of the police security etc that was required was funded by taxpayers. The royals did fund other elements.

 

Edit - a quick google suggests the security cost the government (so taxpayers) c£20m.

Edited by Wordsworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the Queen is still our Head of State with all of its associated power; it's just that the power is wielded by parliament (and the prime minister) on her behalf. That is why the Queen formally opens parliament every session and dissolves it before elections - I imagine in a major crisis she could also act. Outside that it is largely ceremonial.

 

The Queen is currently given an annual grant through the Civil List, although this has been trimmed down and is in the process of being reformed again to the point of replacement, partly because its not good for business if people see the monarch as a drain on public finances. Technically the Queen receives this in exchange for giving up income from the land she owns (of which there is a lot, given she's Queen). It is a really sensitive topic and trying to manage it also led to the Queen agreeing to pay income tax. They also now publish public accounts for transparency - you can see a lot of stuff here http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/...s/Overview.aspx

 

Re the wedding, i believe all of the police security etc that was required was funded by taxpayers. The royals did fund other elements.

 

Edit - a quick google suggests the security cost the government (so taxpayers) c£20m.

Thank you so much for the explanation - makes sense now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. :1smile: The Queen has actually done a pretty good job over her 60 years to modernise the monarchy and avoid alienating people - paying tax, ditching minor royals from the civil list etc. it's still happening, with them changing the rules of succession so first born girls can inherit. They're also abolishing the clause that goes back centuries that says a royal gives up their place in line if they marry a Catholic - Peter Philips's Canadian wife converted her faith before they married as a result of that rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think I am the only person then who thinks that Prince Charles will never be king. I think it was a deal he made with Queen Elizabeth to be able to marry Camilla. I don't know why I think this but I do. Too many novels I guess. I have read numerous books on the current monarchy my favorite was about Queen Elizabeth, Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, and the Queen Mum. The book stated how Princess Margaret was in love with a divorced man. She wanted to marry him but Queen Elizabeth would not give her the permission that she needed to be able to do so. Maybe this might be my reasoning. Maybe I love a good conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. :1smile: The Queen has actually done a pretty good job over her 60 years to modernise the monarchy and avoid alienating people - paying tax, ditching minor royals from the civil list etc. it's still happening, with them changing the rules of succession so first born girls can inherit. They're also abolishing the clause that goes back centuries that says a royal gives up their place in line if they marry a Catholic

Agreed. Plus she even has social media accounts, way to enter the 21st century!! :D

 

If anyone hasn't seen The Kings Speech, go see it!!! Great movie. About Queen Elizabeth's Dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone hasn't seen The Kings Speech, go see it!!! Great movie. About Queen Elizabeth's Dad.

Loved that movie. And not *just* because I adore Colin Firth doing pretty much anything. Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush were also amazing. It was such a good film! I saw it on a plane last year and then again on tv? Can't remember but I know I saw it twice last year!

 

But I admit to being obsessed with English history, especially upper "social classes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×