History Talk: The British Monarchy

[dleighg]

2 hours ago, Anothermi said:

Think EU or any  "free trade" deal. Membership brings economic benefits.

Very interesting that those last two have no historical ties-- I never would have guessed. Thanks! I guess I still have that image of the Queen on their postage stamps!

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I've done a quick google search and found this website.  I haven't explored all of it, but here is the opening synopsis:
 

Think EU or any  "free trade" deal. Membership brings economic benefits.

Thank you so much for the information. That makes a lot more sense.

[AZChristian]

On 2/18/2018 at 5:48 AM, merylinkid said:

Apparently the heads of the Commonwealth are meeting to decide who will be the leader when the Queen dies.   Obviously, it has been thought it would be Charles but there is no requirement that it be.   The Queen is on a PR offensive to make sure he succeeds her.   This tells me a lot about how the rest of the world feels about Charles as King.   If he were popular, it would be a no brainer that he succeed her as head of the Commonwealth.   That alternatives are even being discussed says so much.

Can you provide citation for this?  From what I've found, Charles is the "heir apparent."  He will follow Elizabeth to the throne.  If he were the "heir presumptive," someone else could jump the line.  

From Wikipedia:

"An heir apparent is a person who is first in a line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person. An heir presumptive, by contrast, is someone who is first in line to inherit a title but who can be displaced by the birth of a more eligible heir."

The only way Charles doesn't become king is if he predeceases Elizabeth.  If that happens, William become heir apparent.

[JessDVD]

5 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Can you provide citation for this?  From what I've found, Charles is the "heir apparent."  He will follow Elizabeth to the throne.  If he were the "heir presumptive," someone else could jump the line.  

From Wikipedia:

"An heir apparent is a person who is first in a line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person. An heir presumptive, by contrast, is someone who is first in line to inherit a title but who can be displaced by the birth of a more eligible heir."

The only way Charles doesn't become king is if he predeceases Elizabeth.  If that happens, William become heir apparent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/13/commonwealth-begins-planning-succession-secret/ - is helpful. tl;dr Charles automatically becomes king upon the queen's passing, but head of the commonwealth is not a hereditary position that automatically passes to him.

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, JessDVD said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/13/commonwealth-begins-planning-succession-secret/ - is helpful. tl;dr Charles automatically becomes king upon the queen's passing, but head of the commonwealth is not a hereditary position that automatically passes to him.

Okay, that clarifies it.  Thanks!!!!

[CousinAmy]

Elizabeth will never die. Not if I have anything to do with it. (I have a real affection for Elizabeth. She and my mom share a birthday, although my mom was 2 years older. So I remember her as a young mom, and grew up with Charles - six months older than me - and Anne. My mom died 4 years ago, but Elizabeth endures.)

[CousinAmy]

The Royal Family's Twitter account has just released a report on the Commonwealth's meeting: https://www.royal.uk/commonwealth-and-overseas

[Arynm]

I thought I read somewhere that Australia is only staying in the Commonwealth until the Queen dies (God Forbid). They have only stayed in as a sign of respect for her. I would guess that a few other countries feel the same and might leave.

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Arynm said:

I thought I read somewhere that Australia is only staying in the Commonwealth until the Queen dies (God Forbid). They have only stayed in as a sign of respect for her. I would guess that a few other countries feel the same and might leave.

I've heard that a few times but have no idea if its true or not.

I was going to put this in Pride & Joy but this is more of an overall thing. It never stops amazing me how unprepared heirs are for their roles. George V only became heir after his older brother died. You'd think he would then education all or his oldest two or three sons. You would think George VI would have made sure to educate both his daughters Elizabeth for her role and Margaret just in case. But nope. Did not do that. They realize how big the role is but then don't actually educate their heirs for it. The other thing which comes up in other monarchies too (to be fair the not educating comes up in other monarchies too) is when pretty much everyone realize the heir is not actually a good pick. It becomes clear he is not going to do a good job and is not good fit. Everyone knew Edward VIII was going to be a disaster and he was. Luckily he abdicated. But there's no real plan or allowed to make a better choice the heir. Instead the only plan is to hope he drops dead soon or screws up and abdicates. Even though there's usually a much better option in a younger brother.       

[Jazzhands]

11 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I was going to put this in Pride & Joy but this is more of an overall thing. It never stops amazing me how unprepared heirs are for their roles. George V only became heir after his older brother died. You'd think he would then education all or his oldest two or three sons. You would think George VI would have made sure to educate both his daughters Elizabeth for her role and Margaret just in case. But nope. Did not do that. They realize how big the role is but then don't actually educate their heirs for it. The other thing which comes up in other monarchies too (to be fair the not educating comes up in other monarchies too) is when pretty much everyone realize the heir is not actually a good pick. It becomes clear he is not going to do a good job and is not good fit. Everyone knew Edward VIII was going to be a disaster and he was. Luckily he abdicated. But there's no real plan or allowed to make a better choice the heir. Instead the only plan is to hope he drops dead soon or screws up and abdicates. Even though there's usually a much better option in a younger brother.       

But even if a younger sibling might be more suited to the role, that’s not an option,  at least under the rules governing the British monarchy.  

It makes me think of the people saying that the crown should pass over Prince Charles to Prince William when the Queen dies because he’s more popular and more temperamentally suited. That’s not how it works.  

Given that, you’d definitely think that rulers would do the best job possible in preparing their heirs.  But that doesn’t seem to happen often, sadly. 

[dubbel zout]

3 minutes ago, Jazzhands said:

But even if a younger sibling might be more suited to the role, that’s not an option,  at least under the rules governing the British monarchy.  

It's not an option for any monarchy, especially contemporary ones, as they all depend on primogeniture to continue the line. It's kind of the whole point. The eldest gets the crown to maintain stability. There's a reason the joke is "an heir and a spare."

9 minutes ago, Jazzhands said:

Given that, you’d definitely think that rulers would do the best job possible in preparing their heirs.  But that doesn’t seem to happen often, sadly. 

I think these days it definitely does. Most of the Euro heirs, if they don't have a college degree, have done stints at various governmental agencies/offices as well as taken specialized courses that will prepare them for their future duties.

[CousinAmy]

I doubt the Commonwealth will reject Charles. He must be the most prepared to assume the role. And it would be a slap in the face to tradition - and the memory of Elizabeth.

[PinkRibbons]

I wonder how well one can prepare someone for ruling. If anything this show is about how the monarchy deals with archaic structures in modern times. Elizabeth rules in a world so different than the one her father ruled it may as well be on a different planet. Who knows what the world will look like by the time Little George or even William ascends? What can you teach someone and be sure it will be useful? In Elizabeth's childhood her manners and mastery of French were incredibly important. We can now make a grand list of courses and lessons that could have helped her in her reign, but she never did get them and she muddled through somehow. She's where she is now (loved and respected all around the world) by just digging her heels in and doing the job, and learning as she went.

[Jazzhands]

6 minutes ago, PinkRibbons said:

I wonder how well one can prepare someone for ruling. If anything this show is about how the monarchy deals with archaic structures in modern times. Elizabeth rules in a world so different than the one her father ruled it may as well be on a different planet. Who knows what the world will look like by the time Little George or even William ascends? What can you teach someone and be sure it will be useful? In Elizabeth's childhood her manners and mastery of French were incredibly important. We can now make a grand list of courses and lessons that could have helped her in her reign, but she never did get them and she muddled through somehow. She's where she is now (loved and respected all around the world) by just digging her heels in and doing the job, and learning as she went.

What I meant in my comment above was not merely university degrees or tutoring lessons by third parties. What I meant was the actual monarch sitting down with the heir on a regular basis to provide basically on-the-job instruction.  For example, when there are choices to be made or actions to be taken, sitting down and explaining the thought process in the decision making:  ”In this particular situation, I had A, B, and C options.  I considered X, Y, and Z options.  Based on long-term priorities 1, 2, and 3 as well as input from these particular advisers, I selected Choice B.  My personal preference was really choice C, but because of the position that the Prime Minister had previously taken on a related issue, Choice B was the correct action at this time.   In the future, if G happens, then we will need to look at H, I, J, and K factors.”  

[ProudMary]

Queen makes surprise appearance at London fashion week
 

Quote

There are few people that can get the usually aloof fashion crowd giggling in a state of high excitement. But then there is only one Queen of England.

Her Majesty was a surprise guest on Tuesday afternoon at Richard Quinn’s show, the last of London fashion week and his second ever. There was a hush as she entered the room, with the audience standing up to greet the monarch and, of course, raising their phones to get that all-important social media picture. 

The Queen sat front row, of course, between her dressmaker, Angela Kelly, and Vogue’s editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour. A special cushion was placed on her seat.

[anna0852]

Queen Elizabeth is probably one of the few people in the world to whom Anna Wintour would defer to.

[Eri]

I was literally reading the episode thread featuring Billy Graham this morning and then I read the news headline today on the New York Times.  

RIP Billy Graham.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Eri

[merylinkid]

I do wonder how Queen Elizabeth is going to react to this news.   If she will issue an official statement or what.

[dubbel zout]

She will be "saddened" to hear of his death. That's the standard statement from Buck House for this sort of thing. She might send a private note to the family with a more personal message, though.

[VCRTracking]

9 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

She will be "saddened" to hear of his death. That's the standard statement from Buck House for this sort of thing. She might send a private note to the family with a more personal message, though.

You called it:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/922184/the-queen-billy-graham-dead-the-crown-american-evangelist-dies-aged-99

[LakeLover]

I have a question that I have not seen asked or answered, although it's possible that I've missed it. With regard to protocol, I've read several places that people are not to turn their back on the queen as it is considered rude; however, I don't see this being followed by most of the characters on the screen - I don't seen people "backing out" of the room, for example. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks in advance.

[Athena]

Found this browsing reddit the other day. Princess Elizabeth and Philip at a private party and hoedown in Canada in 1951:

[kassygreene]

I remember reading in the 1964 biography of The Queen (don't remember title or author, but I do remember that when it came to royal biographies my library only had that book and Crawfie's Little Princesses) that during that  Canadian tour this shindig was a late addition to the schedule.  Since Western/Square Dancing clothing was not packed for either of them, Bobo MacDonald & the Duke's valet made a very fast department store run, and bought these outfits. 

I seem to remember the book stating that they had a blast at that party.

[Trillium]

How much to do want to bet that The Queen is wishing Tommy Lascelles and his glorious mustache were still alive to handle Meghan’s crazy family. He would have squashed their shenanigans months ago. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Trillium

[Kathira]

On 2/20/2018 at 2:08 AM, CousinAmy said:

I doubt the Commonwealth will reject Charles. He must be the most prepared to assume the role. And it would be a slap in the face to tradition - and the memory of Elizabeth.

The Commonwealth has in fact accepted Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth - https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/europe/prince-charles-next-commonwealth-head-intl/index.html

From the article: 

Quote

Leaders of the Commonwealth -- the 53-member group of mostly former British territories -- have agreed that Britain's Prince Charles will be the body's next head.

The decision was announced by leaders gathered for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the UK.

In a speech formally opening the summit at Buckingham Palace in London on Thursday, Queen Elizabeth II said it was her "sincere wish" that her son Charles, the Prince of Wales, would head the Commonwealth "one day."

So yeah, they were hardly going to go against Elizabeth's "sincere wish" while she is still alive to know about it. Whether or not they all stay in the Commonwealth is a different question. Although I think the Firm is trying to work on that issue also, by connecting the younger generation of royals to the Commonwealth. Harry was already a "youth abassador" to the Commonwealth, and now Meghan is also - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/prince-harry-revealsmeghan-markle-will-take-commonwealth-role/

It makes sense that they would do this to strengthen the connection regardless of Charles's personal popularity. It gives Harry (and Meghan) a job that will theoretically help not only his father, but his brother as well, as the younger generation becomes the face of the royal family.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Kathira

[MelodyK]

On 8/10/2017 at 2:47 PM, Fireball said:

I'm not really excited for the seasons that are closer to the current time period if that makes any sense. Also I'm not at all interested in seeing the Charles & Diana drama. I kind of wish that we were spending a bit more time in the current time period with the current actors. 

I'm not either.  I'm older and remember those years vividly and am still quite tired of them. For so many years it seems every magazine had Diana on the cover, and then the drama of the divorce and then later, sadly, her death.   While I admit being glued to it back then, I really don't care to visit it all again.  I was never interested in the Fergie/Andrew drama though, and definitely not now.

Edited May 29, 2018 by MelodyK
Adding on

[dubbel zout]

Don't forget the purloined love letters of Princess Anne.

Everything got super soapy for a while there. 

[MelodyK]

Just a quick post to say I read through this entire thread and you all are so interesting and informative and delightful. A breath of fresh air on forum message boards.

I thought I was pretty well informed on the British monarchy and I realize that is not the case and I have so much more to learn. I can’t wait to jump into that journey.  Just want to say thank you.

[PeterPirate]

On 3/15/2018 at 10:18 AM, Athena said:

Found this browsing reddit the other day. Princess Elizabeth and Philip at a private party and hoedown in Canada in 1951:

That is one happy couple.  

 

On 5/17/2018 at 8:25 AM, Trillium said:

How much to do want to bet that The Queen is wishing Tommy Lascelles and his glorious mustache were still alive to handle Meghan’s crazy family. He would have squashed their shenanigans months ago. 

Lascelles might have had some objections regarding the bride, too.  The monarchy's experience with American divorcees isn't one of the highpoints.  

Along those lines, I chanced upon this documentary on Youtube:  The Plot to Topple a King.  It won't provide any new information for those who follow the royals, but for a neophyte like myself it gave some good backstory, especially about the friction between David and the Archbishop.   

[toolazy]

On 5/17/2018 at 8:25 AM, Trillium said:

How much to do want to bet that The Queen is wishing Tommy Lascelles and his glorious mustache were still alive to handle Meghan’s crazy family. He would have squashed their shenanigans months ago. 

How?

[kassygreene]

With wonderfully complex yet elegantly grammatical paragraphs of prose, never drawing a noticeable breath.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I hope this is the right thread for what I'm going to post--if not, please let me know where, and I'll move it.

I came to this show late and binge-watched both seasons last week. And thanks to all of you who are so knowledgeable about this period, I spent yesterday watching Edward VIII: The Nazi King, Prince Phillip: The Plot to Make a King, and Elizabeth at 90. My knowledge of the Windsors is cursory at best; I was wee and remember watching Diana's wedding to Charles; and being a fan of Diana. Thought she got a raw deal, and when she died, I had been watching Saturday Night Live, and thought it was a classless skit they did announcing her death; then realized it wasn't a skit. I remember thinking badly of Queen Elizabeth at what, at the time, seemed to me, a cold response to her death. And I was old enough to know better. After watching this show, and especially the three documentaries listed above, I've come away that Queen Elizabeth was judged too harshly; by people/her subjects, and by me. Just from watching the home movies, seeing what a great sense of humor she has; that she is, in fact, a warm person, in private. That she was a loving mother--if those videos are anything to go by. But she was also the Queen.  Now I'm disappointed and envious of those that actually got to meet her. I LOVE that both William and Harry call her "granny" when talking about her; though I wonder if they address her as such. I found it very curious that Phillip was not interviewed in the Elizabeth at 90. Maybe he refused? 

And aside from the latter, everything else I've seen (this show), the documentary that showed how Mountbatten was determined to marry Phillip with Elizabeth, make him a real asshole. Yet, yet..before this series, I never really thought about him. Truthfully, I thought he'd died long ago. And whenever I've seen him, well, he was just there. And the Elizabeth at 90, and the archival footage? Well, I see a couple who love each other. I just don't know how to feel about him.

As for Edward VIII? I don't find him at all attractive, and yowza! Shallow pool, but the real Wallis was FUGLY. And this should probably go in the Unpopular Thread, but I really, really, really, really hate this "dramatizations" documentaries have started to do over the past few years. Like showing Wallis and David dancing and snogging, while the oh so serious BRITISH narrator continues with the story. Give me archival footage instead if you have it; like they did for most of the documentary. It's very offputting and takes me right out of whatever he/she is saying.

I have also always admired Winston Churchill. But then recently, I learned what he said about India (not on this series) and her people and my admiration took a deep dive. Because although I'm first generation American, India is where my family comes from; my grandfather was a freedom fighter. And his statement about how Mountbatten "gave India away" just rubs me the wrong way.

Okay, now I have a question I hope someone can answer? Because I'm too lazy to look it up. Did Queen Elizabeth actually lower the flag when Kennedy was assassinated? Or was that dramatic license? And if the former...oh, never mind. Diana wasn't a head of state like Kennedy was. And since there isn't a thread in the movies for The Queen, I think I saw an error? I could have sworn, in the 20 year anniversary of Diana's death documentary, that both William and Harry said that they got a phone call, informing them of Diana's death? I can't remember where they were, but I SWEAR Harry said that he came to the phone and got the news that way. Yet in the movie, they show us both young princes at home. And Charles in their room, informing them.

[Crs97]

I have always heard that Charles told them. The only phone call I heard about was that was their last conversation with Diana, and they regret now that they were not paying attention to her because they wanted to get back to playing.

[kassygreene]

The crash happened at 12:23 a.m. in Paris, which is an hour ahead of the UK.  So late night at Balmoral; she died at 4:00 a.m. in Paris  The boys were not woken up until it was over, and their father broke the news.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks @Crs97 and @kassygreene .

[dubbel zout]

Regardless of the history between Charles and Diana, it had to have been one of the worst things he ever had to do. The pictures of him in Paris bringing her body back shows how stricken he was.

[Minivanessa]

44 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Regardless of the history between Charles and Diana, it had to have been one of the worst things he ever had to do. The pictures of him in Paris bringing her body back shows how stricken he was.

Yes, I agree. The War of the Waleses was played out in the media by both Charles and Diana in the months (years?) leading up to their divorce, and IMO neither of them behaved all that well in that. I'm not all that maternal by nature but as each of them gave their self-serving media interviews including admissions of adulterous affairs, I couldn't help but think, "Holy carp, are you thinking for even a hot minute about how this stuff being aired in public affects your CHILDREN?" Sheesh.

But according to one of the best books I've read about Diana, The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown, after the divorce Charles and Diana ceased the trash talk about each other. I think that despite their personal problems, each of them was a loving parent, even if in the heat of their battles they said things in public that they may have later regretted.

I don't doubt that Charles was deeply grieved by Diana's death, as the father of their children, and as her ex-husband. At least they had a bit of time before her death in which things settled down a bit, IMO. I also saw those pictures of him bringing her body back from Paris. That was a man in deep shock and grief, no doubt about it.

[CousinAmy]

On 6/18/2018 at 9:01 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I hope this is the right thread for what I'm going to post--if not, please let me know where, and I'll move it.

I came to this show late and binge-watched both seasons last week. And thanks to all of you who are so knowledgeable about this period, I spent yesterday watching Edward VIII: The Nazi King, Prince Phillip: The Plot to Make a King, and Elizabeth at 90. My knowledge of the Windsors is cursory at best; I was wee and remember watching Diana's wedding to Charles; and being a fan of Diana.

I have also always admired Winston Churchill. But then recently, I learned what he said about India (not on this series) and her people and my admiration took a deep dive. Because although I'm first generation American, India is where my family comes from; my grandfather was a freedom fighter. And his statement about how Mountbatten "gave India away" just rubs me the wrong way.

If you grew up in my generation, right after WW2, or my parents' generation, who were young adults during the War, you remember him as a hero and just as responsible for winning the War as FDR. Of course we all know now that they were much more complex characters than we were led to believe, but their heroic reputations resulted from those War and post-War years.

[latetotheparty]

On 6/18/2018 at 8:01 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I have also always admired Winston Churchill. But then recently, I learned what he said about India (not on this series) and her people and my admiration took a deep dive. Because although I'm first generation American, India is where my family comes from; my grandfather was a freedom fighter. And his statement about how Mountbatten "gave India away" just rubs me the wrong way.

It’s perfectly reasonable it should rub you the wrong way. It was a horrible attitude to have and a racist thing to say. Colonialism has a lot to answer for.

Some of Elizabeth’s speeches have been horrifying too but I’m glad they haven’t tried to sugarcoat it. 

[PeterPirate]

Some people might find Tokyo Trial, on Netflix, interesting.   As the title indicates, it's about the prosecution of Tojo and other Japanese leaders following World War 2.  Paul Freeman (Belloch from Raiders Of The Lost Ark) played Lord William Patrick, the British judge.  The opinion of the judge from India was, shall we say, unique.  

Edited June 27, 2018 by PeterPirate

[VCRTracking]

On 6/25/2018 at 12:18 PM, CousinAmy said:

If you grew up in my generation, right after WW2, or my parents' generation, who were young adults during the War, you remember him as a hero and just as responsible for winning the War as FDR. Of course we all know now that they were much more complex characters than we were led to believe, but their heroic reputations resulted from those War and post-War years.

And as The Darkest Hour showed Winston didn't have the best rep going into the PM job. He had a lot of failures on his record going back to Gallipolli.

Also didn't realize until recently his personal doctor, Charles Wilson, 1st Baron Moran who we see in the very first episode of The Crown wrote a book after Churchill's death, "The Anatomy of Courage".

From Vanity Fair:

What the Royal Family Really Costs British Taxpayers

Excerpt

Quote

The royal family cost each British taxpayer 69 pence last year (up 4 pence compared to last year), with courtiers insisting the royal family is “excellent value for money.”

Wow, when they put it that way it doesn't seem like that much! 69 pence is 90 cents in America.

(ETA That wasn't sarcasm btw I genuinely went:

Edited June 29, 2018 by VCRTracking

[VCRTracking]

On 6/18/2018 at 6:01 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I have also always admired Winston Churchill. But then recently, I learned what he said about India (not on this series) and her people and my admiration took a deep dive. Because although I'm first generation American, India is where my family comes from; my grandfather was a freedom fighter. And his statement about how Mountbatten "gave India away" just rubs me the wrong way.

On the one hand he did condemn Colonel Reginald Dyer after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre:

Quote

at the time Britain's Secretary of State for War, who called the massacre "an episode without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire… an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation... the crowd was neither armed nor attacking" during a debate in the House of Commons. In a letter to the leader of the Liberals and former Secretary of State for India, the Marquess of Crewe, he wrote, "My own opinion is that the offence amounted to murder, or alternatively manslaughter."

on the other? The way he handled the Bengal famine of 1943 has not been forgotten whenever I check Twitter.

 

On 6/18/2018 at 6:01 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

And aside from the latter, everything else I've seen (this show), the documentary that showed how Mountbatten was determined to marry Phillip with Elizabeth, make him a real asshole. Yet, yet..before this series, I never really thought about him. Truthfully, I thought he'd died long ago.

He was assassinated by the IRA in 1979 who planted a bomb on his boat which also killed one of his young grandsons. One thing I found out reading about him, Mountbatten was in love with his cousin Princess Maria Romanov of Russia. She was killed along with the rest of the Tsar's family after the Russian Revolution. He kept a photo of her by his bed his whole life.

Edited June 29, 2018 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

 

 

He was assassinated by the IRA in 1979 who planted a bomb on his boat which also killed one of his young grandsons. One thing I found out reading about him, Mountbatten was in love with his cousin Princess Maria Romanov of Russia. She was killed along with the rest of the Tsar's family after the Russian Revolution. He kept a photo of her by his bed his whole life.

No, I thought Prince Phillip had died long ago. Not Mountbatten. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

Ooh! I love all things Romanov! How’d I miss this little bit of history?

[PinkRibbons]

Oh the Romanov girls were some of the most popular potential brides in Europe. Victoria and Albert had set the precedent of marrying for love but also marrying someone of relatively equal station. They were very careful about this when marrying off their own children, and then their children were in almost every royal house of Europe and doing the same. So when a European monarch at the time was looking for a candidate to marry their child off to, they were searching for a good lineage but also a genuinely good match, and the pool of candidates was not large. 

It's funny to think that for all that being four girls in a row was a disaster for Russia, it was fantastic for the other royal houses of Europe: four girls, all beautiful, all charming, and all educated for life as nobility. Add to that no baggage from being in the line of inheritance and also the fact that they were part of one of the richest monarchies in the world and therefore could be expected to come with insane dowries, and they were utterly ideal. A book I read on the sisters mentioned that at every public event the girls were at from the time they were toddlers, they were being surveyed as brides. I believe Edward VIII/Uncle David was mentioned as being quite fond of Olga. Imagine if she had lived and he'd made a proper royal marriage with her!

[dubbel zout]

9 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Mountbatten was in love with his cousin Princess Maria Romanov of Russia. She was killed along with the rest of the Tsar's family after the Russian Revolution. He kept a photo of her by his bed his whole life.

The 13-year-old girl in me finds this both impossibly heartbreaking and wildly romantic.

[Anothermi]

10 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Mountbatten was in love with his cousin Princess Maria Romanov of Russia.

This gave me a start, thinking "but he's not old enough to habour a desire to marry her" until I remembered the Mountbatten I was picturing was the actor in this show.  One of the downsides of some casting choices.

I googled for images of Mountbatten at 79 when he died and at about 57 when Charles was sent to the boarding school, to compare them to the actor cast as Mountbatten in this series, and the actor seems much younger to me. However, that might just be the filter of my own age now. When Charles was sent to boarding school he was about 9. When I was 9, a man 57 years old would have looked ancient. Not to mention that men (and women) in the 50's dressed to look older.  The actor actually looks like he could be in his 50s but looks younger to me. 

But back to my original observation. The man in the photos I googled looks like he would have known, even met, the Romanov girls.

ETA: couldn't find workable links for the photos. Too bad.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Anothermi
trying to correct links

[dubbel zout]

Mountbatten was born in 1900; Maria was born in 1899. They were direct contemporaries as well as first cousins through their mothers.

[Pallas]

Greg Wise is 52; he played Willoughby in Ang Lee's Sense & Sensibility, adapted by Emma Thompson. He and Emma married in 2002, and have two children. His resemblance to Mountbatten in his prime is breathtaking. 

[Anothermi]

4 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Mountbatten was born in 1900; Maria was born in 1899. They were direct contemporaries as well as first cousins through their mothers.

2 hours ago, Pallas said:

Greg Wise is 52; he played Willoughby in Ang Lee's Sense & Sensibility... His resemblance to Mountbatten in his prime is breathtaking. 

Thanks to both dubbel zout and Pallas for providing the information I looked up, but didn't add to my post. 

I agree, @Pallas, that Greg looks quite a bit like Mountbatten in his prime - yet, to me,  still younger than him.)

;-)

(I do accept that it is my own subjective lens that formed that judgement.)

That's why I had to research how old Mountbatten was and when he was born. I don't think I would have had to if I had a picture of the real Mountbatten in my head (based on the images google provided).

Edited June 30, 2018 by Anothermi
added quotes

[roamyn]

They also tried to match Olga up w/CP Carol of Romania.  In some respects she’s lucky she dodged that bullet (no pun intended).