History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Crs97]

http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/charlesandcamilla/prince-charles-prepping-for-transition-to-be-king-70248

Something about the princesses wanting working titles?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popsugar.com/celebrity/What-Prince-Charles-Do-When-He-Becomes-King-44132782/amp

probably a better article to read

[merylinkid]

Instead of all of Queen Elizabeth's kids, and her cousins, and their kids carrying out royal duties, only Charles and his issue will carry out royal duties.   There is no civil list anymore.   The Queen gets an income from the royal properties and it is divided up amongst those doing royal duties.   Presumably with fewer people doing royal duties there will be more to go towards upkeep.   Not holding my breath.    Charles makes spectaculary bad money decisions.

 

Beatrice and Eugenie sorta have jobs.   They seem to get about 12 weeks of holiday a year.    Their jobs consist of their employers being able to list Royal princesses as employees to attract high profile customers.   They don't actually DO anything.

[dubbel zout]

Answered by others.

[madam magpie]

7 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Beatrice and Eugenie sorta have jobs.   They seem to get about 12 weeks of holiday a year.    Their jobs consist of their employers being able to list Royal princesses as employees to attract high profile customers.   They don't actually DO anything.

I don’t know about Beatrice, but I read an article that said Eugenie worked at an art gallery. She’s 26 or something and already in an associate director (or just director?) role. But I think it’s a real job!

[merylinkid]

At 26 you don't get to be a director on your talents alone -- unless you are amazing.   She is not showing up every day for work and helping pick out the art work for the gallery or selling to patrons.   She's a director because she is Princess Eugenie.   If she were plain Eugenie York, she would still be getting coffee in the hopes of maybe accompanying someone to auction to see how its done.   

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

At 26 you don't get to be a director on your talents alone -- unless you are amazing.   She is not showing up every day for work and helping pick out the art work for the gallery or selling to patrons.   She's a director because she is Princess Eugenie.   If she were plain Eugenie York, she would still be getting coffee in the hopes of maybe accompanying someone to auction to see how its done.   

If she's lucky.  Otherwise, she'd be the barista MAKING the coffee for the intern to take to her boss.

[PeterPirate]

From the thread for Marionettes:

15 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

I dislike historical fiction - even though this is hardly history for me, because I'm Charles's age, and was certainly aware of the young Royal family in the 1950s - because we now think of Philip as a nasty, insulting husband, given to carping at his wife and her physical appearance; the Queen Mum as somewhat dotty and bitter; and Elizabeth as a snob and an out-of-town puppet. Were those true? When some details are exactly right, and some are completely wrong, how is a casual viewer expected to react? Accept all, reject all?

 

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Regard it as fiction. Already Shakespeare altered much. 

 

A few years ago, Aaron Sorkin--speaking through a fictional US Poet Laureate--had this to say on the subject: 

Quote

You think I think that an artist's job is to speak the truth. An artist's job... is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. If we stumble into truth, we got lucky, and I don't get to decide what truth is.  

It's hard to figure out how to approach this show.  There's value in discussing the show as fiction, and there's also value in discussing the real life characters and how this show deviates from that reality.  I really can't say which is the better choice.  But I think it's safe to say that Peter Morgan has a very similar outlook to Sorkin's. 

Speaking of Sorkin and history, here is an article about his foray into this site's predecessor.  The long back story of Aaron Sorkin, West Wing, Televisionwithoutpity and the "U.S. Poet Laureate" episode.   

I'd like to see Peter Morgan venture onto these boards.   

[madam magpie]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

At 26 you don't get to be a director on your talents alone -- unless you are amazing.   She is not showing up every day for work and helping pick out the art work for the gallery or selling to patrons.   She's a director because she is Princess Eugenie.   If she were plain Eugenie York, she would still be getting coffee in the hopes of maybe accompanying someone to auction to see how its done.   

Right, but my point is that it sounds like she has a real job, not that she’s just working for the gallery so they can say they have a royal on the payroll. Whether she’s good at the job or a good worker, I have no idea. Even William and Harry had real jobs at one point: William did search and rescue, and Harry was in the military. No doubt, their family and position brought them attention and authority they hadn’t earned the regular way, but they did have real jobs, not just figure-head type positions.

[LilJen]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 9:00 AM, Jeeves said:

^^These comments are in the discussion of the "Vergangenheit" episode.

I believe that Philip did no such thing. He was born in 1921, and had four (much) older sisters. The youngest of them was 7 years older than he was. His sisters married into German royal families, beginning around 1930, when Philip was still a child. 

In the meantime, some or all of his German brothers-in-law became Nazis. I haven't tried to track it all down in detail. I believe at least one of them was a fairly ardent Nazi. Maybe they all were.

But all that was happening when Philip was an adolescent, hardly in any position to "put up with the Nazis" in the sense in which the original comment suggests - i.e., an adult choosing to support the Nazi party vs. some other political philosophy.

Here's what Wikipedia says that Philip did for a couple of years in Nazi Germany - beginning at age 12: 

BTW. Gordonstoun is the school portrayed in the episode "Paterfamilias," which Philip insisted Charles attend, and Charles loathed. 

At age 18, Philip joined the British Royal Navy, and graduated the next year (1940) from the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, as the best cadet in his course. He served in the British Navy during World War II, apparently with distinction, in both the Mediterranean and Pacific theaters. 

I'm not aware that Philip as an adult ever said anything that showed support for the Nazis.

EDITED to add: during his childhood and adolescence, especially after his mother's mental breakdown and hospitalization, Philip was taken under the wing of his mother's family the (British) Mountbattens. Actually, Philip's uncle who first took him in and was his guardian was Dickie's brother, George, Lord Milford Haven, who died of cancer in 1938. After that, uncle Dickie stepped up to the role of guardian. As far as I can tell, most of Philip's education, except the two years in Germany and some early schooling in France, was in British schools. 

The comment (about Philip supporting the Nazis) was a joke--about time-traveling Philip, since Matt Smith played Doctor Who #11. Very meta.

[WatchrTina]

Quote

Is William Wales a Prince? I thought he was Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, but his wife is not a Princess, just a Dutchess. I think that's bizarre, too. 

As I understand it, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge could technically also be called Princess William of Wales (the feminine version of her husband's highest royal title) but the Royal Family has not elected to make use of that style other than in the case of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.  In all other recent cases the wife has used her husband's lesser title of Duke/Duchess or (in the case of Prince Edward) Earl/Countess.  Diana was never properly "Princess Diana" -- she was always Diana, Princess of Wales.

I can understand why they have dropped that particular style -- can you imagine referring to Catherine as "Princess William of Wales."  I'd be interested to know why Prince and Princess Michael of Kent elected to use that style. I think it has to do with the fact that the Queen has only one sister and not very many cousins.  When she ascended to the throne she needed some royals of suitably high status that she could deputize to make appearances on behalf of the royal family so that she and Margaret didn't have to do every public event themselves.

The Royal family is not always consistent in how titles are used.  For example Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrews daughters, are styled as "Princess", which they are entitled to as granddaughters of the Monarch via a male line.  This means that Edward and Sophie's children are also entitled to be styled as prince / princess but the royal family has decided not to do that.  I'm guessing it has something to do with allowing them to lead more private lives but it also means they won't be put on the royal payroll nor expected to cut ribbons and make public appearances.  I'm guessing the thought was that two princes and two princesses in that generation was sufficient to satisfy the demand for public duties.  And I've read (on these boards) that when Charles ascends the throne he's planning on cutting Beatrice and Eugenie off the royal payroll along with, I presume, all of his siblings.  Won't that be interesting? 

Edited December 19, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Athena5217]

15 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

As I understand it, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge could technically also be called Princess William of Wales (the feminine version of her husband's highest royal title) but the Royal Family has not elected to make use of that style other than in the case of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.  In all other recent cases the wife has used her husband's lesser title of Duke/Duchess or (in the case of Prince Edward) Earl/Countess.  Diana was never properly "Princess Diana" -- she was always Diana, Princess of Wales.

I can understand why they have dropped that particular style -- can you imagine referring to Catherine as "Princess William of Wales."  I'd be interested to know why Prince and Princess Michael of Kent elected to use that style. I think it has to do with the fact that the Queen has only one sister and not very many cousins.  When she ascended to the throne she needed some royals of suitably high status that she could deputize to make appearances on behalf of the royal family so that she and Margaret didn't have to do every public event themselves.

The Royal family is not always consistent in how titles are used.  For example Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrews daughters, are styled as "Princess", which they are entitled to as granddaughters of the Monarch via a male line.  This means that Edward and Sophie's children are also entitled to be styled as prince / princess but the royal family has decided not to do that.  I'm guessing it has something to do with allowing them to lead a more private life but it also means they won't be put on the royal payroll and expected to cut ribbons and make public appearances.  I'm guessing the thought was that two prince and two princesses in that generation was sufficient to satisfy the demand for public duties.  And I've read (on these boards) that when Charles ascends the throne he's planning on cutting Beatrice and Eugenie off the royal payroll along with, I presume, all of his siblings.  Won't that be interesting? 

Prince Michael of Kent has an FAQ on his official website that explains the "Princess Michael of Kent" title: "Traditionally, all wives of male members of the British Royal Family, the aristocracy and members of the public take the style and title of their husbands. Diana, Princess of Wales was not “Princess Diana” as the media called her, because she was not born a British princess. Her correct title was The Princess of Wales and when she divorced she became Diana, Princess of Wales. When the present Duke of Gloucester was still Prince Richard prior to the death of his father, his wife was known as Princess Richard. It just so happens that Prince Michael is the only grandson of a king titled HRH who is a second son and so there are no other princesses with the name of their husbands. The other princesses in the British royal family were all born into the royal house."

 

There is some other interesting information on the FAQ page of his website if you are interested in titles.

[WatchrTina]

12 minutes ago, Athena5217 said:

It just so happens that Prince Michael is the only grandson of a king titled HRH who is a second son and so there are no other princesses with the name of their husbands.

I find that quote above very confusing but IF I'm interpreting it correctly then Harry, who is an HRH and the grandson of a monarch (the present Queen) and a "second son" is in the same position as Prince Michael was.  Nevertheless I'm fairly certain we won't be referring to Meghan Markle as the Princess Harry of Wales after the wedding.  I presume she'll be styled as a duchess, like Catherine currently is and like Sarah, Duchess of York was (former wife of the second son of Queen Elizabeth).

I was a bit confused by this: 

22 minutes ago, Athena5217 said:

When the present Duke of Gloucester was still Prince Richard prior to the death of his father, his wife was known as Princess Richard.

But the Duke of Gloucester is STILL Prince Richard.  I guess they mean his wife stopped using the "Princess Richard" title when Prince Richard's father passed away two years after Richard's elder brother died in a plane accident and Prince Richard, a second son, inherited the Duke of Gloucester title.

[dubbel zout]

42 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I find that quote above very confusing but IF I'm interpreting it correctly then Harry, who is an HRH and the grandson of a monarch (the present Queen) and a "second son" is in the same position as Prince Michael was.

Prince Michael is the second son of a younger son of a monarch. Harry is the second son of an eventual monarch. That's where things differ. 

45 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

But the Duke of Gloucester is STILL Prince Richard.  I guess they mean his wife stopped using the "Princess Richard" title when Prince Richard's father passed away two years after Richard's elder brother died in a plane accident and Prince Richard, a second son, inherited the Duke of Gloucester title.

Yes, that's what it means. Royal dukedoms are a little different from regular ones, in that the title holder is already an HRH. Technically they're still Prince X, but once they get their dukedom, they're formally known as HRH the Duke of Z. Informally they're still Prince X.

To confuse things even more, when married to Charles, Diana was the Princess of Wales, and then when she divorced Charles, she became Diana, Princess of Wales. (She lost the HRH and the "the.") Just like Camilla is always called the Duchess of Cornwall, not Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

[CousinAmy]

I'm a little sad that I won't live long enough to see Will and Kate become King and Queen. I'm Charles's age, so I'll probably buy the farm around the same time as he does. 

[merylinkid]

Some of this is personal also.   Princess Anne was adamant about her children not having royal titles.    I am pretty sure that Edward was the same about this children.   After all they are so far down the line of succession (and getting further) why have titles?   Diana very well could have been the Princess of Charles.    At the time of their wedding, much was made that Sarah Ferguson would become The Princess Andrew.    It's just more modern for the woman not to lose her name entirely.

When Prince William and Duchess Kate sued the French papers over the naked papparazzi pictures, she was Catherine Middlebrooke in the case.  

[Pallas]

5 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

I'm Charles's age, so I'll probably buy the farm around the same time as he does. 

We'll buy the farm; he'll inherit.

[MissLucas]

9 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

As I understand it, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge could technically also be called Princess William of Wales (the feminine version of her husband's highest royal title) but the Royal Family has not elected to make use of that style other than in the case of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. 

Just to make this more confusing. William was indeed referred to as Prince of Wales until 2011 when he was made Duke of Cambridge upon his marriage but he was never the Prince of Wales, a title used for the heir apparent. The territorial designation 'of Wales' was then dropped as is usage when receiving a peerage.  The heir apparent is of course Charles whose official title is HRH The Prince of Wales and the only woman currently entitled to carry Princess of Wales (a honorary title reserved for the spouse) is Camilla but TPTB decided that it would be wise to not go there since the title is so closely associated with Diana.

Catherine might carry the title one day. Meghan Markle will only get it in case of major catastrophic event à la King Ralph.

[secnarf]

17 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I find that quote above very confusing but IF I'm interpreting it correctly then Harry, who is an HRH and the grandson of a monarch (the present Queen) and a "second son" is in the same position as Prince Michael was.  Nevertheless I'm fairly certain we won't be referring to Meghan Markle as the Princess Harry of Wales after the wedding.  I presume she'll be styled as a duchess, like Catherine currently is and like Sarah, Duchess of York was (former wife of the second son of Queen Elizabeth).

I am incredibly confused by all of this naming, but I don't think Meghan Markle will become a duchess unless Prince Harry becomes a duke? Which he currently is not.

[dubbel zout]

It's traditional for the queen to give the new title the day before or day of the marriage. William became Duke of Cambridge before the ceremony, so he was a duke when he married Kate.

[biakbiak]

16 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

It's traditional for the queen to give the new title the day before or day of the marriage. William became Duke of Cambridge before the ceremony, so he was a duke when he married Kate.

Current speculation is that it will be the Duke of Sussex.

Edited December 19, 2017 by biakbiak

[dubbel zout]

I saw that, too, @biakbiak. 

[WatchrTina]

I wonder what Dukedom Harry will be given?  (ETA my question was answered above WHILE  I was typing .) And I wonder if any estate (and related revenue) will come with it? I assume that is part of the purpose of granting the these titles to newly-married princes -- to give them an income of their own and thus a means to independently support their eventual family.

I read somewhere recently (possibly here) that the reason Prince Edward is *only* an Earl (and thus Sophie is a Countess, not a Duchess) is that it is intended that he will be granted his Father's title, Duke of Edinburgh, when the present Duke passes away. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by WatchrTina

[dubbel zout]

I believe the only income-producing royal dukedoms are Cornwall (which is for the Prince of Wales) and Lancaster (which goes to the monarch; interesting tangent, the queen is referred to as the Duke of Lancaster). Harry has his inheritance from Diana (in fact, he got more dough than William because William will eventually get the PoW/monarch stuff), he gets money for being a working royal, and it's not unreasonable to think the queen will leave something to her children and/or grandchildren after she dies. I'm sure Charles has made arrangements, too. Harry will be able to support his family just fine.

[Pallas]

11 hours ago, MissLucas said:

William was indeed referred to as Prince of Wales until 2011 when he was made Duke of Cambridge upon his marriage but he was never the Prince of Wales, a title used for the heir apparent. T

He wasn't ever styled as Prince of Wales, but rather as Prince William of Wales: the "of Wales" referring to his father's title. He is now Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Harry is still officially Prince Henry of Wales.

Quote

I assume that is part of the purpose of granting the these titles to newly-married princes -- to give them an income of their own and thus a means to independently support their eventual family..

 

Nope: purely honorary. But in the past all Royal Dukes could expect to receive annuities, in exchange for their royal ducal duties. Not so today, with royal annuities abolished: Philip's was the last, and I assume discontinued with his retirement, while he now draws a pension. The Queen (through her several sources of income) pays Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie for their prince-or-princessing, while Charles (from revenues for the Duchy of Cornwall) currently supports his sons. 

[OtterMommy]

4 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I believe the only income-producing royal dukedoms are Cornwall (which is for the Prince of Wales) and Lancaster (which goes to the monarch; interesting tangent, the queen is referred to as the Duke of Lancaster). Harry has his inheritance from Diana (in fact, he got more dough than William because William will eventually get the PoW/monarch stuff), he gets money for being a working royal, and it's not unreasonable to think the queen will leave something to her children and/or grandchildren after she dies. I'm sure Charles has made arrangements, too. Harry will be able to support his family just fine.

So, when Charles ascends, he will get Lancaster and William will get Cornwall?   

Also, don't William and Harry run a foundation/non-profit to continue Diana's work?  I'm assuming that will become Harry's once William ascends to the throne and, even though it is a non-profit, he might still earn a salary from it.

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, OtterMommy said:

So, when Charles ascends, he will get Lancaster and William will get Cornwall?   

Yep. Charles will also get other incomes that are attached to the Crown.

1 hour ago, OtterMommy said:

Also, don't William and Harry run a foundation/non-profit to continue Diana's work?  I'm assuming that will become Harry's once William ascends to the throne and, even though it is a non-profit, he might still earn a salary from it.

I don't think any working royals take money from other sources, even nonprofit, to avoid the appearance of influence, access, and favoritism. That's one reason Andrew keeps getting into hot water. Edward and Sophie got into a spot of trouble early in their marriage for taking money they shouldn't have, and of course Fergie is notorious for that scam where she promised an introduction to the queen for $500,000. It was definitely access for cash, at any rate. That happened after the divorce, but you don't trade in on your royal connections that way.

[OtterMommy]

2 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I don't think any working royals take money from other sources, even nonprofit, to avoid the appearance of influence, access, and favoritism. That's one reason Andrew keeps getting into hot water. Edward and Sophie got into a spot of trouble early in their marriage for taking money they shouldn't have, and of course Fergie is notorious for that scam where she promised an introduction to the queen for $500,000. It was definitely access for cash, at any rate. That happened after the divorce, but you don't trade in on your royal connections that way.

How does one define a "working royal"?  Does that mean that they do official appearances and such?  I can see how this will be a bit of a mess to sort out as they transition from the larger family receiving a royal income to just those in direct line to the throne and the rest having to find their own way.  

[dubbel zout]

Yes, the working royals are the ones doing official appearances and such, representing the queen at overseas events (weddings, funeral, trade visits, etc.) and within the UK (hospital openings, charity functions, etc.). Charles wants to limit the number of working royals to his siblings and their spouses (where appropriate) and then his kids. He doesn't want more of William and Harry's generation to be getting money from the civil list (it doesn't exist anymore, but for simplicity's sake, I'll use that term), partly to save money and partly I think because he feels it "modernizes" the royal family by having more of them out in the world making their own way, as it were.

The streamlining has been happening for a while. It really affects only the York princesses at the moment, as Anne's kids aren't royal, and Edward's are too young. The older generation will reduce its workload naturally, and their kids have never been expected to pitch in anyway, as they're not royals. (George V saw to that when he restricted who would get the HRH: children of the Sovereign, the male line grandsons of the Sovereign, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Because of that last one, the queen had to make a special Letter of Patent so that Charlotte, and any other children of William, and Harry's kids would be a princess/prince and get the HRH.)

Whew.

[doodlebug]

16 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

How does one define a "working royal"?  Does that mean that they do official appearances and such?  I can see how this will be a bit of a mess to sort out as they transition from the larger family receiving a royal income to just those in direct line to the throne and the rest having to find their own way.  

Working royals are those members of the family who participate in royal duties, mainly public appearances at hospitals, opening of various festivals, etc, military events and such.  The Queen receives an annual allowance from the government and she decides which members of the family will receive an income from that fund and how much they will receive; generally based on the amount of time and effort spent making these personal appearances.   Currently, all of the Queen's children do these duties; Princess Anne is known for making more appearances than any of them and being a tireless patron to many, many charities.  Virtually no one begrudges her whatever she earns as a royal; she puts in the time.  Sophie, Edward's wife, also makes appearances while Anne's husband does not.  Anne's children do not have titles and do not perform these duties.  Andrew's daughters do a few royal gigs and are paid an income from the Queen, but, as noted earlier, they are not all that active and it looks like Charles will cut them out once he ascends to the throne.  Edward's kids are too young to do PR for the crown and it is doubtful they will ever play a significant role even as adults.

The Queen had a couple of cousins who used to do some royal work, but they've all died or retired.  Princess Margaret's children have regular jobs and don't do royal appearances; since the Queen has more than enough kids to do the work these days.

As mentioned above, Charles receives a substantial income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he owns vast farmlands there.  Therefore, he and Camilla do not draw a salary from the Queen's funds since they are easily able to support themselves.  I actually knew someone who had a summer job working on one of Charles' farms and the Prince made an appearance one day and had lunch with the workers, this was back around 1980.  My friend, as an employee of the Duchy at the time, received a tiny piece of wedding cake in a special box when Charles and Diana married.  His mother immediately relieved him of it, so he never got a taste.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by doodlebug

[Megan]

This might be a really dumb question answered in the show that I don't remember or should just know as an a relatively informed person... Why Didn't David once King Edward just be all screw you old dummies, I'm marrying Wallis Simpson and we're going to rule. What would have happened?

 

Of course, Elizabeth would still be heir since there was no way Wallis was having any kids.

[Athena5217]

40 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Working royals are those members of the family who participate in royal duties, mainly public appearances at hospitals, opening of various festivals, etc, military events and such.  The Queen receives an annual allowance from the government and she decides which members of the family will receive an income from that fund and how much they will receive; generally based on the amount of time and effort spent making these personal appearances.   Currently, all of the Queen's children do these duties; Princess Ann is known for making more appearances than any of them. and being a tireless patron to many, many charities.  Virtually no one begrudges her whatever she earns as a royal; she puts n the time.  Sophie, Edward's wife, also makes appearances while Ann's husband does not.  Ann's children do not have titles and do not perform these duties.  Andrew's daughters do a few royal gigs and are paid an income from the Queen, but, as noted earlier, they are not all that active and it looks like Charles will cut them out once he ascends to the throne.  Edward's kids are too young to do PR for the crown and it is doubtful they will ever play a significant role even as adults.

The Queen had a couple of cousins who used to do some royal work, but they've all died or retired.  Princess Margaret's children have regular jobs and don't do royal appearances; since the Queen has more than enough kids to do the work these days.

As mentioned above, Charles receives a substantial income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he owns vast farmlands there.  Therefore, he and Camilla do not draw a salary from the Quee;s funds since they are easily able to support themselves.  I actually knew someone who had a summer job working on one of Charles' farms and the Prince made an appearance one day and had lunch with the workers, this was back around 1980.  My friend, as an employee of the Duchy at the time, received a tiny piece of wedding cake in a special box when Charles and Diana married.  His mother immediately relieved him of it, so he never got a taste.  

Princess Alexandra, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester are the Queen's cousins and working members of the royal family. They are not dead or retired.  The Court Circular listed 12 pages of royal engagements for the Duke of Kent in 2017 on the official royal family website.  All three of them had more royal engagements than Prince Harry in 2016: http://royalcentral.co.uk/other/prince-charles-was-2016s-hardest-working-royal-followed-by-princess-anne-74220.

[Athena5217]

8 minutes ago, Megan said:

This might be a really dumb question answered in the show that I don't remember or should just know as an a relatively informed person... Why Didn't David once King Edward just be all screw you old dummies, I'm marrying Wallis Simpson and we're going to rule. What would have happened?

 

Of course, Elizabeth would still be heir since there was no way Wallis was having any kids.

In the past few centuries, monarchs who do not have the support of their people have usually been either executed or deposed.  I think Edward being forced to abdicate was a likely possibility if he had not done so voluntarily.  Prince Philip's uncle, King Constantine of Greece, was forced to abdicate.

[PeterPirate]

I doubt there would have been a priest or bishop of the Church of England who would have been willing to perform the marriage ceremony.  Even if David had found a renegade Anglican priest or someone from a different church to do so, it would not have been recognized by his own church or by Parliament.  

Also, David had not yet been anointed in the coronation ceremony.  That would have been a non-starter if David eloped.   

I'm not exactly sure how the government and the church would have gotten rid of David had he married Wallis and refused to abdicate, but I am sure they would have done so.  My best guess is that Parliament would have passed a new law allowing for the involuntary removal of the monarch, since they had to write one for David's voluntary abdication. 

Whether David would have suffered the same fate as Charles I is debatable. But in all likelihood he would have lost claim to all of the property he was allowed to keep by abdicating. 

ETA: After some more reading, I am not certain that Parliament could have removed David using legal, non-violent means.

Edited December 20, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

I'm not exactly sure how the government and the church would have gotten rid of David had he married Wallis and refused to abdicate, but I am sure they would have done so.  My best guess is that Parliament would have passed a new law allowing for the involuntary removal of the monarch, since they had to write one for David's voluntary abdication. 

The method to get rid of the monarch was quite easy in England: the government would resign and all parties would refuse to form a new government.  

The king, whatever his faults, wanted to go with dignity. 

[CousinAmy]

I have to laugh at the idea of Harry looking for a job! He's a man of many talents - he recently recorded a podcast interview with President Obama. I'm not worried about Harry and Megan starving.

Harry, Kate and Will make such a formidable team - I'm always awestruck when I see them together. I think Harry will always be somewhat unconventional, while Will and Kate will do the expected. (I don't yet know how Megan will fit in, but I think she's a good match for Harry - independent, bright, funny. 

[PeterPirate]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The method to get rid of the monarch was quite easy in England: the government would resign and all parties would refuse to form a new government.  

The king, whatever his faults, wanted to go with dignity. 

But what if David refused to go, dignity or not?  As far as I can tell there was/is no legal mechanism for removing a monarch in Britain.  And there have been periods in British history when kings ruled without a Parliament. 

In this case, David might have simply asked Parliament to form a new government, and dared them to leave the nation without one.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Pallas]

31 minutes ago, Megan said:

Why Didn't David once King Edward just be all screw you old dummies, I'm marrying Wallis Simpson and we're going to rule. What would have happened?

 

Married to Wallis, King Edward might have been uncrowned; he would have been unconstitutional. Wallis's divorce became final in May 1937, the same month as Edward's planned coronation. The Church of England would never have married them, nor anointed her  -- nor him, perhaps, against the wishes of his government 

Edward therefore promoted a morganatic marriage, an idea he presented to Prime Minister Baldwin in November 1936. Personally opposed to the idea, Baldwin polled his cabinet and the Opposition leaders, as well as the leaders of the five Dominion states: none approved. Had Edward remained on the throne and held to his plans to marry outside the Church of which he'd be crowned the Supreme Governor, the Prime Minister and his cabinet would have resigned, and the Opposition would likely not have sought to form a new government. Constitutional crises don't come any better than that. 

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

But what if David refused to go, dignity or not?  As far as I can tell there was/is no legal mechanism for removing a monarch in Britain.  And there have been periods in British history when kings ruled without a Parliament. 

In this case, David might have simply asked Parliament to form a new government, and dared them to leave the nation without one.  

The King doesn't ask the Parliament to form a new goverment, he gives the task to an individual person, usually the leader of the party that had won the elections or his successor. The government must have support of the Parlament, otherwise it can't govern. 

If there is no government, there must be new elections. And as Baldwin explained to the King: would he really want that the issue in the elections would have been his right to marry Mrs Simpson for that would mean that press would have revealed all what was known about her past and the priest would have condemned her from the pulpit? Wallis was already afraid of attacks against her and had fled to France.

One man can't oppose the whole system. Even the Prime Minister, if he has has the Cabinet and party against him, can't help but resign.

In David case, instead of allegiance and admiration he was used to, he would meet the opposite reaction. There was already at least one case where people refused to stand up and sing "God save the King".  And that would only be a beginning. 

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

The King doesn't ask the Parliament to form a new goverment, he gives the task to an individual person, usually the leader of the party that had won the elections or his successor. The government must have support of the Parlament, otherwise it can't govern. 

If there is no government, there must be new elections. And as Baldwin explained to the King: would he really want that the issue in the elections would have been his right to marry Mrs Simpson for that would mean that press would have revealed all what was known about her past and the priest would have condemned her from the pulpit? Wallis was already afraid of attacks against her and had fled to France.

One man can't oppose the whole system. Even the Prime Minister, if he has has the Cabinet and party against him, can't help but resign.

In David case, instead of allegiance and admiration he was used to, he would meet the opposite reaction. There was already at least one case where people refused to stand up and sing "God save the King".  And that would only be a beginning. 

I think you are correct that in David's case, the British people would have made life so miserable for Wallis that she would have stayed in Paris, and he would have followed her.

But what if the ruling monarch, king or queen, becomes psychotic or otherwise unfit to rule, but won't abdicate?  What then?   As far as I can tell there is no legal, non-violent mechanism for the removal of the monarch. 

As to my use of "Parliament" vs. "the Parliament", that's just me trying to follow the usage that I recall hearing on British TV.  I understand it's standard form to say that a person is "in hospital", while we Americans usually say "in the hospital". 

Edited December 20, 2017 by PeterPirate

[dubbel zout]

I think there’s a way for a regent to be declared if a monarch becomes unfit to rule. 

[PinkRibbons]

^George III comes to mind. IIRC, his son was ruling in his stead for quite a while before he officially ascended.

I wonder if a situation with David refusing to step down would turn into a modern-day War of the Roses, (or just plain less glamorous-sounding Civil War), with part of the country rejecting David entirely and swearing fealty to his brother instead.

[kwnyc]

Quote

I think there’s a way for a regent to be declared if a monarch becomes unfit to rule. 

...as we discovered during the failed attempt by Victoria's mama and her lover to have her removed in favor of a Regent. And of course the Regency period is named for when George III was bonkers (with porphyria, or whatever) and his son had to take over.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, PinkRibbons said:

I wonder if a situation with David refusing to step down would turn into a modern-day War of the Roses, (or just plain less glamorous-sounding Civil War), with part of the country rejecting David entirely and swearing fealty to his brother instead.

Not possible. Although the King was a nominal head of the army, he couldn't order a single soldier. 

[andromeda331]

Couldn't the Parliament introduce a bill to remove the King? If there's no legal way to remove the King, it doesn't mean they can't introduce a bill or something to remove him? 

[PeterPirate]

8 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I think there’s a way for a regent to be declared if a monarch becomes unfit to rule. 

That sounds good.  We have a similar mechanism in the US called the 25th Amendment.  The President can be declared "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and relieved of his powers.  In that case the Vice President becomes the Acting President.  The President retains his title but has no powers. 

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Couldn't the Parliament introduce a bill to remove the King? If there's no legal way to remove the King, it doesn't mean they can't introduce a bill or something to remove him? 

I don't think so.  The King's signature is required on all acts of Parliament.  David's last action as Edward VIII was to sign the act or Parliament that removed him from the throne.  

According to one source, the only legal way to get David off the throne was through murder, either by or at the behest of his brother Albert.  Then, as the next in line of succession and the new monarch, George VI-nee-Albert could not be prosecuted for the deed. 

By the way, in trying to find out whether "Parliament" or "the Parliament" is more correct, I found this article:  State Opening of Parliament.  It contains the following tidbit, which I found to be a hoot:

Quote

Delivery of Parliamentary hostage

Before the monarch departs from Buckingham Palace the Treasurer, Comptroller and Vice-Chamberlain of the Queen's Household (all of whom are Government whips) deliver ceremonial white staves to her.  The Lord Chamberlain, on behalf of the monarch, keeps the hostage MP (usually the Vice-Chamberlain) "prisoner" for the duration of the state opening, by tradition as a surety for the safe return of the monarch. The hostage MP is well entertained until the successful conclusion of the ceremony, when he or she is released upon the safe return of the Queen.  The Vice-Chamberlain's imprisonment is now purely ceremonial, though he does remain under guard; originally, it guaranteed the safety of the Sovereign as he or she entered a possibly hostile Parliament. The tradition stems from the time of Charles I, who had a contentious relationship with Parliament and was eventually beheaded in 1649 during the Civil War between the monarchy and Parliament.  A copy of Charles I's death warrant is displayed in the robing room used by the monarch as a ceremonial reminder of what can happen to a monarch who attempts to interfere with Parliament.

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Pallas]

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

But what if the ruling monarch, king or queen, becomes psychotic or otherwise unfit to rule, but won't abdicate?  What then?   As far as I can tell there is no legal, non-violent mechanism for the removal of the monarch. 

That seems to be right. But I'm pretty sure that if the need arose, a practical statute could reluctantly yet swiftly be drawn up by the Government and the Palace establishment. Perhaps there already is a tacitly understood mechanism to follow. In a realm with an unwritten constitution, however, it's probably not the sort of thing one puts forward oneself...

[MissLucas]

They have no written constitution but there is a massive amount of literature around dealing with that particular problem - it's pretty arcane now but during the 16th and 17th century plenty of books were written on the question if/when and how a monarch could be deposed if his rule became unlawful (which makes him a tyrant and those are fair game). Specialists for political theory and constitutional law would have field day digging through those things.

[WatchrTina]

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

A copy of Charles I's death warrant is displayed in the robing room used by the monarch as a ceremonial reminder of what can happen to a monarch who attempts to interfere with Parliament.

Damn.  That's cold. Parliament don't play.

Edited December 21, 2017 by WatchrTina

[PRgal]

Has anyone seen The Queen at 90 on Netflix (it was a suggestion for me since I saw The Crown)?  It features many of her family members talking about their memories of Elizabeth II, including her cousins, a niece, and two of her children (I wonder why Andrew and Edward (or "Ed" as the family calls him) weren't on it.  Does anyone know if they have "issues" with their mother?).  William and Harry speak as well.  

 

It's an interesting piece - you learn a lot more about the Royal Family - though the film makes them seem more..."normal" than one might think.  Well, as normal as the British Royal Family can be, I guess.  

[dubbel zout]

I think Edward and Andrew weren't on because they were busy elsewhere. I don't think the reason is any more nefarious than that.