Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

History Talk: The British Monarchy

zxy556575

By zxy556575
in The Crown

formerlyfreedom
Message added by formerlyfreedom

As the title states, this topic is for HISTORICAL discussion stemming from The Crown. It is NOT a spot for discussion of current events involving the British royal family, and going forward, any posts that violate this directive may be removed. Thank you.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

merylinkid

merylinkid

Never happen.   It's been discussed before.   Although other countries have a tradition of the older monarch stepping down and handing things over to the younger generation, the Queen is only a short remove from Edward VIII.   Abdication is a dirty word in Britain.   She promised to do her duty for her entire life.   She will.   

Now will Charles, et al do more of the ceremonial duties like investitures and trips?   Yes.   But she will get the red box and she will make the Queen's Speech to open parliament.  

  • Love 11
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Minivanessa
Minivanessa

This discussion sparked my interest in Edward and Wallis. Because it's been a long time since I read any books about them, I borrowed a few from our public library. Last evening I plowed through Princ

WatchrTina
WatchrTina

I don't think anyone on this board can really answer that question but the portrayal of Elizabeth so far is in sync with everything I've ever heard about her.  She was a child when King Edward abdicat

monakane
monakane

I'm enjoying the more nuanced portrayal.  I always thought he was a pathetic figure.  I think he clung to "that woman" because he felt unloved.  In the end, it was the best thing that could have happe

Posted Images

PRgal

PRgal

10 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Elizabeth takes her accession oath extremely seriously. She was anointed queen. There could be a regency if she's incapacitated somehow, but there's no way she'll ever abdicate.

I wonder if all those articles really mean a regency after QEII turns 95?  My grandmother is the same age and in just as good health.  She doesn’t travel anymore though and has not met her great-grandson (my son).  I haven’t seen her since 2016 when she came for a family wedding.  That said, I told several of my friends that I think the abdication thing is fake news, but they refute by saying it comes from credible sources. 

Jan Spears

Jan Spears

22 hours ago, xtwheeler said:

For a real "YIKES" moment, google "king george romanovs" -- they were first cousins (through Queen Victoria, Grandmother of Europe, of course) and they look like twins in some pictures. They were said to be very close. They were about a day or two from escaping Russia to take shelter in London with the BRF, There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether the BRF withdrew their offer of refuge to the King's first cousin, or the Russians scuttled it somehow.

George V of England and Nicholas II of Russia were first cousins and they bore a striking resemblance to one another. But the close cousinage didn't derive from Queen Victoria. Instead, it flowed from a common grandfather, King Christian !X of Denmark.

Christian's eldest daughter, Alexandra, married the future King Edward VII of England. George V was their son. Christian's middle daughter, Dagmar, married Tsar Alexander III of Russia and took the name Marie Feodorovna. Nicholas II was their son. So, George and Nicholas were first cousins because their mothers were sisters. The two sisters were very close throughout their lives and that carried over to the relationship between the two cousins/sovereigns.

George V did extend an invitation to Nicholas and Alexandra to seek refuge in England after the Russian Revolution began and then rescinded it. History has judged George harshly for that although it is debatable whether the Saint Petersburg Soviet ever would have allowed Nicholas and Alexandra and their family to leave. In his diaries, the French ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue, wrote that the Soviet was adamant about not letting the now-deposed monarchs leave the country.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 3
Ellaria

Ellaria

21 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Never happen.   It's been discussed before.   Although other countries have a tradition of the older monarch stepping down and handing things over to the younger generation, the Queen is only a short remove from Edward VIII.   Abdication is a dirty word in Britain.   She promised to do her duty for her entire life.   She will.   

20 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Elizabeth takes her accession oath extremely seriously. She was anointed queen. There could be a regency if she's incapacitated somehow, but there's no way she'll ever abdicate.

10 hours ago, PRgal said:

I wonder if all those articles really mean a regency after QEII turns 95?

That article - and the others exactly like it - suggest that she will not abdicate but that she will “retire” from some of her official duties and let Charles take over some of those responsibilities. Stepping down would be abdication and, yes, she would not do it.

  • Love 2
PeterPirate

PeterPirate

(edited)
On 11/28/2019 at 6:22 AM, Ellaria Sand said:

Hope this is the right place for this link:

Queen Elizabeth may soon retire to hand ‘reigns’ to Prince Charles

From that article:  "The queen — the world’s longest-reigning current monarch — won’t be able to officially retire without abdicating her throne, according to royal succession rules."

I am wondering, are there really rules that require a sovereign to do anything except (to use a line from The West Wing) continue to have a pulse?  I understand that George III and Henry VI were both incapacitated for a time, and while their duties were handed to others, they were not deposed.  

Edited by PeterPirate
  • Love 1
Roseanna

Roseanna

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I understand that George III and Henry VI were both incapacitated for a time, and while their duties were handed to others, they were not deposed.  

Henry was deposed, although not when he was unconconcious of his surrondings. In the middle age there was no set rule (who or which body) will rule when the king is incapacitated or minor, although it was vital.

When George III was mad, his eldest son ruled as Regent. But at that time the matter was less important as there was already Parliament and government.

Umbelina

Umbelina

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

A documentary of Charles' time in Wales, before and after the investiture.  Contains some good stuff, but also a fair number of advertisements.  

Annoying commercials, but this certainly covers the same ground as much of this season.  Aberfan, the Wales crowning (why didn't we hear about the bomb?)

  • Love 1
kwnyc

kwnyc

(edited)
Quote

the Queen is only a short remove from Edward VIII. 

...one degree of separation! Since she is only the second monarch to serve since the Abdication, I agree she will NOT step down. I'm sure they have her funeral plans in place (like the Queen Mum's, which were used for Diana), but she will reign until death o'ercomes her, and Charles will be king if he outlives her.

Victoria was Queen for 63 years, and Edward VII was King for less than a decade. 

Though since both Charles's  mom & dad are still hanging in there well after 90, and his Granny hit 103, so he could go another 20 or more years, even if he gets the Crown in his 70s.

Edited by kwnyc
Edited for facts
  • Love 2
Roseanna

Roseanna

On 12/4/2019 at 8:49 PM, kwnyc said:

...one degree of separation! Since she is only the second monarch to serve since the Abdication, I agree she will NOT step down. 

There is also a possibility of Regency if Elizabeth becomes physically and mentally incapacitated. Which is probably inevitable at least some time before her death, especially if she lives over 100 years. Thus she would remain the Queen until her death, but Charles would become Regent. 

The second possibility if the time is short that there is goup of people who will sign the laws and documents as well as Civil and military appointments. When George V was ill in 1928, these people Queen Mary, the Prince of Wales, the Archibishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor. In 1936 before George V' death  in 1936 this group was smaller, only Queen Mary and their four sons.

Gareth3

Gareth3

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The second possibility if the time is short that there is goup of people who will sign the laws and documents as well as Civil and military appointments.

Yes, those are the Counsellors of State, the spouse of the monarch and the next four adults in the line of succession. In the Queen's case it would be Phillip, Charles, William, Harry, and... uh-oh.

  • LOL 1
  • Love 2
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

@ruby24 As far as Charles loving Diana- I do think he grew to respect and value her, especially given what a loving Mother she was and everyone who knew her said she had a kind heart, but being “in love”- I don’t think so. He may have had “love for her” on a human level, and because they both loved their boys, and maybe would’ve grown into a settled friendship had she lived but I don’t think he was ever “in love” with her in the romantic sense. 

Quote

At the time Diana died, she and Charles had a pretty decent relationship, as exes and as co-parents. You'd have to be pretty heartless not to be sad about the death of your kids' mother, if only for how it affects them. Charles definitely has issues, but I don't think heartless is one of them.

 

Yes @dubbel zout I agree. 

  • Love 8
merylinkid

merylinkid

The night she died, he could have just issued a statement and left it at that.   Instead, he joined her sisters in flying to Paris to bring her home.   On a royal jet.  He didn't leave her family to deal with all that alone.   He made arrangements to make it easier for them.

He has his faults (heavens knows) but he stepped up at the moment -- for whatever reason.   

  • Love 12
Umbelina

Umbelina

5 hours ago, merylinkid said:

The night she died, he could have just issued a statement and left it at that.   Instead, he joined her sisters in flying to Paris to bring her home.   On a royal jet.  He didn't leave her family to deal with all that alone.   He made arrangements to make it easier for them.

He has his faults (heavens knows) but he stepped up at the moment -- for whatever reason.   

She was his boys' mother, and they were in the bedroom in shock and grief.  He was also afraid he was going to be killed.  I'm sure he was also very aware of his image at that time in the country, which was not favorable.  I'd bet decent money that he also felt guilt about his callous treatment of her during their marriage, specifically but not limited to Camilla.  He was massively jealous of Diana's popularity as well, so he was certainly savvy enough to know he damn well better get to Paris if he intended to be King someday.

Yes, he did the right thing there, and I think his motives were quite mixed.  I'm sure that a large part of that motivation was facing his boys and looking them in the eye if he did not show some consideration/care of their dead mother.  So props for that, but no hosannas.  

  • Love 1
Roseanna

Roseanna

15 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

he also felt guilt about his callous treatment of her during their marriage, specifically but not limited to Camilla.  He was massively jealous of Diana's popularity as well, so he was certainly savvy enough to know he damn well better get to Paris if he intended to be King someday.

I am not sure that Charles felt guilty, at least no more than it's usual after the death.  

No doubt Charles was "callous" in believing that his young bride would understand and accept that his former mistress was still his best friend. 

But from his own POV, Charles had done his best but had been totally unable to understand Diana's physical and mental problems (mood changes, bulimia, suicide attempts, depression).   All this is simply too much that it could be simply explained with jealousy towards Camilla (and in fact Diana was jealous towards all people who were near to Charles and he accepted to separate from them, and even towards her sons' nanny).

Diana had an unsecure childhood because of her parent's divorce and she was too young to marry and too inexperienced to her new role. But she didn't fail only in her marriage, her many affairs were only brief. 

No doubt Charles was envious of Diana's popularity, but who wouldn't be if a dress or haistyle gets more space than serious projects. And she had soon mastered the art to manipulate the press, not even caring how her revelations about her marriage would influence on her sons, not to speak of monarchy. 

  • Love 12
Roseanna

Roseanna

7 hours ago, Razzberry said:

His marriage to Diana would have been heavily influenced by Mountbatten.   He was closer to him than his own father and Uncle Dickie advised him to marry someone young and inexperienced so that she'd be docile and malleable.  lol  In reality, this rarely works out long-term.

Actually at least one author say that Mountbatten would have adviced against marrying Diana, but he was killed and Charles extremely vulnerable because of it. Almost all his friends (including Camilla) favored Diana and he didd't listen to those who tried to warn him. Unluckily Diana's grandmother who had her doubts was silent.  

  • Love 2
Razzberry

Razzberry

Probably because Mountbatten never gave up hope that Charles would marry his granddaughter Amanda, but she turned him down and that was never gonna happen. 

Charles and Diana first bonded while discussing Mountbatten's funeral, a year after the fact.  Charles still felt bereft, Diana said something kind, and it was ON.  “The next minute he leapt on me, practically. It was strange. I thought, ‘This isn’t very cool’...but I had nothing to go by because I’d never had a boyfriend.  He’d found the virgin, the sacrificial lamb, and in a way he was obsessed with me,” she said.

  • Love 4
Roseanna

Roseanna

8 hours ago, Razzberry said:

Charles and Diana first bonded while discussing Mountbatten's funeral, a year after the fact.  Charles still felt bereft, Diana said something kind, and it was ON.  “The next minute he leapt on me, practically. It was strange. I thought, ‘This isn’t very cool’...but I had nothing to go by because I’d never had a boyfriend.  He’d found the virgin, the sacrificial lamb, and in a way he was obsessed with me,” she said.

No doubt Diana made a good impression by showing empathy towards Charles - which had been her intention although she had been also genuine (unlike when she pretended to love the country in Balmoral).  

But nothing in his behavior proved that he was obsessed with her, on the contrary: he asked his friends opinion about Diana, had doubts and needed their encouragement to propose. 

Instead, it was Diana who was obsessed - perhaps not so much with the man himself whom she didn't know than to marry well and with the imaginary concept "love" born of romances.

  • Love 5
MadyGirl1987

MadyGirl1987

On 12/22/2019 at 3:21 AM, Razzberry said:

Probably because Mountbatten never gave up hope that Charles would marry his granddaughter Amanda, but she turned him down and that was never gonna happen. 

Charles and Diana first bonded while discussing Mountbatten's funeral, a year after the fact.  Charles still felt bereft, Diana said something kind, and it was ON.  “The next minute he leapt on me, practically. It was strange. I thought, ‘This isn’t very cool’...but I had nothing to go by because I’d never had a boyfriend.  He’d found the virgin, the sacrificial lamb, and in a way he was obsessed with me,” she said.

 

21 hours ago, Roseanna said:

No doubt Diana made a good impression by showing empathy towards Charles - which had been her intention although she had been also genuine (unlike when she pretended to love the country in Balmoral).  

But nothing in his behavior proved that he was obsessed with her, on the contrary: he asked his friends opinion about Diana, had doubts and needed their encouragement to propose. 

Instead, it was Diana who was obsessed - perhaps not so much with the man himself whom she didn't know than to marry well and with the imaginary concept "love" born of romances.

Yeah, I was going to say those comments about him “being all over her” doesn’t sound like Charles at all from what I’ve read, seen and heard about him. 

  • Love 5
Ame

Ame

Extracted from Who’s In, Who’s Out: The Journals Of Kenneth Rose Extracted from me 1, 1944-1979, edited by D.R. Thorpe

November 26, 1969
I am invited to a large dinner party in the rue de Lota in Paris to meet the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
I notice that most of the guests greet the Duchess as if she were Royal. After dinner, she sits in the main drawing room talking mostly to other women.
The Duke, however, sits on a sofa in an alcove, and people are brought up to talk to him in the Royal fashion. When my turn comes, he keeps me talking for the rest of the evening.
The first thing that strikes one is how tiny and shrunken he is. Standing, he leans heavily forward on a stick. But his head remains very handsome, in spite of a long upper lip, and he is dressed in an almost dandified fashion: his dinner jacket has vents at the back and he sports a red carnation. Throughout our talk, he drinks quite a lot of whisky, rather fussily demanding of the butler that it should be mixed exactly as he likes it. He also smokes, or rather plays with, a large cigar. Apparently, the sight of one eye has gone, as he seems to have difficulty in applying a match to the tip whenever it goes out.
He has a somewhat staccato voice, with a slight Canadian accent. ‘Oh, yerse, oh yerse,’ he keeps saying.
But what he really enjoys talking in is German. He is very proud of speaking it so fluently, and keeps interjecting, ‘Jawohl, jawohl’ in the course of our conversation.
I gently lead him on to the subject of the Abdication, and he readily responds. On the refusal of the Government to make the Duchess of Windsor Her Royal Highness, the Duke says: ‘I served my country well for 17 years and all I got in return was a kick in the ass.’
I mention that I am seeing [former leader of the British Union of Fascists] Sir Oswald Mosley tomorrow. He tells me that they are friends and dine with each other.
‘He should have been Prime Minister, but it all went sour on him.’
The Duke tells me he is selling his house in the country because he can no longer garden in comfort. Not expecting to be taken seriously, he adds: ‘And another reason is that I am broke.’ At this point the Duchess bustles up, looking quite remarkable for her [73] years. She is smaller than I should have expected, but very trimmed and plucked and pressed, more like a woman of 40.
She is dressed simply in pale blue, with a huge sapphire round her neck. She has a harsh voice, but great vivacity and friendliness.
She says to the Duke in slightly bullying tones: ‘We must go, everyone is longing for you to go.’
A few more pleasantries, and they depart very regally, with much bowing and scraping all the way to the door.
Thirty-three years after his Abdication, he is still very much a King in manner, and nobody takes the slightest liberty with him.

January 14, 1970
Lunch with [Baron] Charles Tryon. When he was appointed Keeper of the Privy Purse, he was warned that the Duke of Windsor would keep coming to him in order to screw more money out of the Royal Family — but that he was to harden his heart.

January 29, 1972
Lunch with [ambassador] Christopher and Mary Soames at the British Embassy in Paris.
Mary says that they are on very friendly terms with the Windsors and dine privately with each other about once a year. But they cannot really appear very much together in public, as Christopher, being the Queen’s representative, must always take precedence.
In the evening, I go on to dine with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor at their house in the Bois de Boulogne. I sign the visitors’ book, and am then shown into the drawing room.
It is like stepping into a fairyland of fantastic luxury. Almost everything seems to be made of gold or crystal. There are wonderful carpets, exquisite gilt furniture, little tables covered with thickets of jewelled bric-a-brac.
The only light comes from candles, which cast their golden haze from chandeliers and sconces. Two pictures dominate the room — one of the Duke in Garter Robes and another of Queen Mary.
I am quite staggered by the Duchess’s appearance — the very slender figure of a schoolgirl and beautifully arranged auburn hair.
She wears a very severe dark-blue dress with a bare back, two huge diamonds on her left breast. A third large diamond on one of her fingers that perhaps is a mistake, as it draws attention to her large hands. The Duke roars at me in his very strong American accent: ‘Why, Mr Albany himself [Albany was the name of Rose’s Sunday Telegraph column].’ He then personally takes me round, introducing me to the other guests.
He takes me across to a large silver-framed photograph of the Emperor Hirohito, given to him the other day. The Duke says: ‘He came to see me. But he didn’t seem all there.’
We move off to dine next door. The room is again lit entirely by candles. There are two tables of eight or ten each, covered with gilt and silver objects, painted porcelain candlesticks, delightful flowers and porcelain-handled cutlery that is rather heavy and difficult to manage.
Endless butlers and footmen, all in white ties. Throughout the meal, the Duchess catches their eye so that they may receive swiftly whispered instructions, perhaps even rebukes.
The Duchess tells me a story of how her husband one day wanted to telephone the office of a new lawyer. He rang, and after inquiring who he was, the secretary said that her boss would ring back. But he did not do so, so the Duke tried again. Still the call was not returned. By now furious, the Duke made a third telephone call and absolutely insisted on talking to the lawyer.
The secretary replied: ‘Do you really think I am going to believe that you are the Duke of Windsor with such an American accent?’
After the meal is over, the Duke obediently hobbles after the Duchess on his stick, and we all follow. At once, a man sits down at the piano and begins playing Smoke Gets in Your Eyes and other antique melodies.
A little pug dog called Diamond comes and sits on my lap, then jumps onto a pretty little sofa until the Duchess shouts at it across the room to get down. By now, it is 12.15 and the party begins to break up. I notice that all the women say goodbye to the Duchess with a kiss and a curtsy.

February 24, 1972
Prince Eddie [now Duke of Kent] is interested to hear about my visit to the Windsors, but speaks bitterly of the Duke.
‘At the time of the Abdication, he treated even my father [Prince George, fourth son of King George V] badly — and he was his greatest friend.’

July 18, 1972
At 6pm to the Savoy for a drink with Noel Coward. Find him suffering from phlebitis and sitting rather mummified in an armchair wearing scarlet pyjamas.
He never cared for the Duke of Windsor [who had died on May 28th]. ‘When he was Prince of Wales, I had to play the piano for him for hours on end while he learned the ukulele: it was a rough time. And the next day he would cut me in Asprey’s.’

November 1, 1972
At the Ritz to lunch with Oswald Mosley in a private suite. He tells me two stories about the Windsors. Although he was a fairly close friend of the Duke in the Twenties, he naturally saw little of him during his own Fascist phase. But during the Duke’s brief reign, [socialite] Emerald Cunard asked him to come and meet the King, who was accompanied not only by Mrs Simpson [as the Duchess of Windsor was then known] but also by [her husband] Ernest Simpson. [They later divorced in 1937.]
The Duke, with his love of talking about the past, exchanged steeple-chasing memories with Mosley until there came a sharp rap on the table from Mrs Simpson: ‘Remember, sir,’ she said, ‘that Sir Oswald is a very serious person.’
The other story is of a dinner party given by the Windsors after the war. [Viscount and politician] Walter Monckton was also there, and the Duke turned to him and said: ‘Come on, Walter, admit that it was the Jews who brought us into the war.’
Monckton naturally refused to agree with the Duke, who then turned to Mosley and repeated the question.
Mosley says to me: ‘As I was interned for three and a half years for maintaining just that, I had had enough and declined to discuss the matter with the Duke.’

November 25, 1975
Prince Eddie tells me that the Duchess of Windsor is less dotty than many people think. ‘She hates England, and is determined that none of the Duke’s possessions — least of all David’s money — shall find a final home in England.’ I suppose one can hardly blame her.

May 12, 1976
The Duchess of Windsor, Martin Charteris tells me, is rather ill and could die at any moment. ‘I hope it will not be in Ascot week,’ he says.

November 6, 1976
[Baron and scientist] Solly Zuckerman tells me the Queen Mother hates Mountbatten because he changed sides from the Duke of Windsor to King George VI too late for her to appreciate it, and he never exerted himself to get his friend Noel Coward made a knight.

November 26, 1976
Lunch with [the Queen’s private secretary] Martin Charteris at White’s [gentlemen’s club]. Dickie Mountbatten continues to buzz with self-importance.
‘I have about three letters a week from him,’ says Martin, ‘usually on some topic such as how his decorations are to be arranged on the third cushion at his funeral.’
November 26, 1977
Dickie Mountbatten has been trying to persuade the Duchess of Windsor to return certain objects, particularly jewels that the Duke had inherited.
But the Duchess has never forgiven Dickie for supposedly deserting them both in favour of George VI, and he got nothing out of her.
[Baron Altrincham, historian] John Grigg tells me that when Queen Mary was at Badminton during the war, she came over to see [his mother-in-law] old Lady Islington at her house.
As was usual on such visits, the Queen admired several objects which she wanted to be given as presents, including a large vase. But Lady Islington remained silent.
Queen Mary, determined to secure at least one trophy, poured praise on a little table. Silence. So she had to continue her tour of the house without it. But at the front door, as she was about to get in her car, Queen Mary turned to Lady Islington and said: ‘I really must go back and say goodbye to that charming little table.’
So Lady Islington led her back and Queen Mary said goodbye to it. Still Lady Islington refused to make a gesture of giving her it, and Queen Mary departed in rather a huff. It must be the first time she had ever been outwitted in that way."

These are from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6296539/amp/Shocking-day-former-King-blurted-Jews-brought-war.html


February 2, 1958
Saw Martin Gilliat at Clarence House, on the eve of a six-week Commonwealth tour with the Queen Mother.
He showed me a most interesting document he had prepared for her. It was divided into two columns.
One showed the engagements to be done in each town on the tour. By the side of this, in the second column, were shown the engagements she did 31 years ago in the same towns when Duchess of York.
It explains why the famous ‘royal memory’ is so often admired.

January 12, 1961
Dine at Pratt’s [gentlemen’s club] and have much talk with Ralph Anstruther, who recently became Treasurer to the Queen Mother. He says that the Royal Family simply do not think of themselves as ordinary people nor imagine why their private lives can possibly be of interest to the public.

April 16, 1962
In the evening, Martin Gilliat in for a drink. He talks of the Queen Mother’s solitary evenings at Clarence House, where she hardly ever has guests in the evening or goes out to dine. She eats alone and watches TV. One of the things though she does like is gossiping about racing with friends such as [racehorse trainer] Peter Cazalet.

April 8, 1963
At Kempton Park races recently, the Queen Mother was not pleased when a television was put on in the box to see a football match.
Then the TV started to play the National Anthem. ‘Oh do turn it off,’ said the Queen Mother. ‘It is so embarrassing unless one is there — like hearing the Lord’s Prayer when playing canasta.’

July 21, 1963
I hear that when Oliver Dawnay [the Queen Mother’s former private secretary] was in the Royal Household, the Queen Mother suggested he should have a grace-and-favour house in Windsor Great Park.
Dawnay and his wife went to see it. It was a huge barracks of a place, so they came back and told the Queen Mother they did not think it would be quite suitable.
‘Yes,’ she replied, ‘I knew it would be too small.’

February 3, 1964
James Pope-Hennessy [a biographer] tells me that the other day he had the Queen Mother to tea. She was enjoying herself so much that she lingered, and he managed to get rid of her only five minutes before the Windsors [the Duke of Windsor’s abdication in 1936 forced her husband to become King George VI] arrived for drinks.
That indeed would have been an encounter.

April 11, 1964
Pope-Hennessy tells me a story which came to him from the Queen Mother.
When the King died in his sleep in 1952, she broke the news to little Prince Charles. She explained that when the valet had taken in the King’s tea that morning, he had found the King dead.
Prince Charles listened gravely to the news, then enquired: ‘Who drank the tea?’

July 21, 1976
Staying at Boughton House [in Northamptonshire] for a party. The Queen Mother is among the guests. I tell her that I am writing a book about King George V, at which she shows much interest, even enthusiasm.
The King was always sweet to me,’ she tells me. ‘But he simply could not bring himself to praise his children. The Duke of Gloucester once came to dine after being away for six months, but arrived a minute or two late. All that the King said to him was: “You’re late, as usual.”’

May 6, 1977
To Clarence House at 12.15 to talk to the Queen Mother. In the drawing room, good French furniture and masses of tulips. The Queen Mother simply dressed in a flowered blue frock with hardly any jewellery. As always, that wonderful smiling welcome.
I begin by asking about King George V’s discouraging attitude towards his children. The Queen Mother rather plays down this side of the King’s character, emphasising that he was essentially a Victorian parent, weighed down by a sense of duty: ‘Even the slightest departure from custom would annoy him.
‘I remember a storm at breakfast once because the Prince of Wales was wearing hunting boots with pink tops.
‘He was always angelically kind to me, but then I was never frightened of his gruff ways. He had an obsession about punctuality, and if ever he had to wait for somebody he would stamp about furiously.
‘One reason why he got on so well with his Labour ministers was his early life at sea — weevily biscuits and all that sort of thing. It made it easy for him to understand how other people lived.’
At this point, I say: ‘His attitude towards the Labour Party was all the more remarkable in that he was a Conservative in all other things — perhaps I should say a conservative with a small “c”.’
Queen Mother: ‘I think that most of us are! Of course, the Labour ministers in those days were not the same as today — or even, between ourselves, as they were in the King’s day, my King that is. They were not intellectuals.’ The Queen Mother’s summing up of King George V: ‘He stood for duty and integrity. Those things are born in one. That is why it was so resented when the Prince of Wales took himself off [abdicated].’
As I take my leave, I hear her use the word ‘spiffing’. Did ever a woman in her eighth decade enjoy life so much!

May 12, 1977
I talk with Martin Gilliat about the Queen Mother’s generous style of living, which she continues in the face of all difficulties, particularly expense and scarce servants.
Princess Margaret likes to propose herself to lunch quite often and then the Queen Mother feels she must have some amusing guests. But Princess Margaret often falls into long melancholy silences, which do not add to the success of a luncheon party.
As long as the Queen Mother is alive, nobody, not even that restless reformer Prince Philip, attempts to curb her financial exuberance.

January 12, 1978
I hear the story of the Queen Mother watching on television the burial at sea of Edwina Mountbatten and saying: ‘Of course, dear Edwina always wanted to make a splash.’

April 24, 1979
To Clarence House at 2.30 for another talk with the Queen Mother. Two corgis accompany her: one friendly which licks my hand, the other unpredictable, which I am warned not to touch. We launch at once into our talk on King George V.
‘It is not true to say that he inspired fear in his children; it was more a sense of awe,’ she says. ‘The upbringing of children in those days was very severe everywhere. When my husband went to Osborne [Royal Naval College] as a naval cadet, it was real torture.
‘When the King was convalescing at Bognor [in 1929], he said he thought David [later Duke of Windsor] would never take over from him. We were astonished, and hardly understood what he meant.’
This leads us on to some talk about the Windsors. ‘I am afraid David never liked anything English, though he missed it all afterwards [he moved to France after the abdication],’ she says.
On the Duchess of Windsor: ‘When I was last in Paris I tried to see her, but she was guarded by a dragon and I was told she saw nobody.’
I mention all the evidence I have found that the King felt both nervous and inadequate. She replies: ‘I suppose every Sovereign feels nervous and inadequate: the task is so overwhelming.’
When she speaks of the King’s insistence on the correct clothes, even down to the last button, I say: ‘What a lot of time seems to have been spent in changing one’s clothes in those days. I have read that one even changed for tea at Sandringham.’
The Queen Mother: ‘Well, we still do change for tea at Sandringham!’
She loved her father-in-law’s jokes. But they had an unfortunate consequence. ‘As he told his stories, he would bang you on the arm. By the end of a visit, it would be black and blue.’
By now it is about 1.30. We lunch at a round table in the small dining room. We have a hot creamy egg and cheese dish, chicken in a tomato sauce with mashed potatoes and courgettes; black cherries and an ice cream (I receive a surprised glance on declining the big silver jug of cream) and cheese. It is served by three men in livery.
The claret is in an enchanting jug, shaped like a bird, with the beak as its spout, ruby eyes and claw feet. The Queen Mother tells me she saw it in a catalogue.
We talk about politics. She makes no attempt to conceal her strong Conservative sympathies.
On Margaret Thatcher, she is whimsical, particularly about the troubles she has with her voice, but her remarks stop just short of disparagement.
She thinks Ted Heath has behaved disgracefully in refusing to say a nice word about Mrs Thatcher. ‘If only he had a wife to tell him how to do things in the right way.’ She adds: ‘He never listens to what I am saying — I can see his eyes wandering. The only time I have ever seen him entirely at his ease was when conducting a children’s concert.’
She is upset about the revolution in Persia [Iran] which has removed the Shah and led to the slaughter of his supporters. She will always be grateful, she adds, to have seen Persepolis and Shiraz before the Shah’s regime collapsed.
Then in more playful mood: ‘What if such a thing were to happen here . . . I suppose Dickie [Mountbatten] would be the first to be shot.’
On Suez she says: ‘The Americans let us down. They usually do. It is the same in Ireland. We can’t abandon the people in the North who are so loyal to us.’
When I say I have never accepted [former leader of the British Union of Fascists] Oswald Mosley’s claim not to have encouraged violence or anti-Semitism, she taps the table and agrees with considerable vehemence: ‘He did, he did.’

From https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6300951/Why-Queen-Mum-bear-hear-National-Anthem-TV.html


About the Queen & Prince Philip:

January 10, 1956
David Loram to dine. Much amusing talk about his work as equerry to the Queen. He says she takes ‘a most minute interest’ in the running of her household.
‘One cannot move a cushion from one chair to another without her permission.
She knows everybody’s name, arranges table seating plans, introduces all guests to others herself, makes sure a guest sits next to her at dinner the night before he leaves.’

April 22, 1956
Good story of Sir Henry Marten [Provost of Eton] when giving private tuition to the then Princess Elizabeth. Every lesson, he would begin by sitting down at the table, opening the book, and saying: ‘Page 96, gentlemen.’

May 17, 1956
Jim Cilcennin [First Lord of the Admiralty] says it broke Prince Philip’s heart to leave the Royal Navy, which provided an anchor to his life. As he once complained rather pathetically to Jim: ‘I never really had a country.’

March 6, 1957
Dine alone with Jim Cilcennin, then settle down to a great deal of gossip over brandy and cigars.
Prince Philip asked him to go round the world with him in Britannia several months before he left the Admiralty.
He not only wanted a friend and experienced politician, but knew that Jim would be able to have daily treatment for his arthritis in the sick bay of the Royal Yacht.

September 17, 1959
At the end of a Privy Council meeting, the Queen asked [Viscount] Antony Head how his Guernsey herd was doing.
Head replied: ‘Not at all well. The artificial insemination people sent me a Red Poll bull instead of a Guernsey by mistake.’
[Baroness] Woolton was furious at this flippancy, but the Queen was enchanted by it.

August 15, 1961
I have Sir Austin Strutt, Deputy Under-Secretary at the Home Office, to lunch at the Savoy. Small, energetic, friendly, indiscreet.Strutt dislikes Prince Philip — ‘He will bring the whole monarchy down in ruins.’ He tells a story of how he was with Philip on the Royal Yacht during a Channel Islands visit with the Queen and a party of officials.
It was necessary to change plan owing to bad weather.
The Queen did not understand why it was necessary, and asked.
At which Philip, in front of everybody, said to her: ‘Haven’t you the intelligence to realise . . .’

October 13, 1961
Lunch with [the Queen’s assistant private secretary] Martin Charteris at the Savoy. We discuss Prince Philip. Martin agrees with me that he is arrogant, largely because he is praised so much as an after-dinner speaker. Nor do his staff criticise him as they should.

October 25, 1961
A characteristic story about Prince Philip. The other day he came to the Café Royal to present awards to Regent Street shopkeepers for export-window displays, or some such thing.
Among those presented was Mr Rayne of the shoe firm. The following conversation ensued:
Prince: ‘What do you do, Mr Rayne?’
Rayne: ‘I make shoes, sir.
Prince: ‘Are you the company’s export manager?’
Rayne: ‘No, as a matter of fact I am Chairman of the company, which has the honour to make the Queen’s shoes.’
Prince: ‘That’s why she’s always complaining about her feet, no doubt.’ Prince Philip simply cannot realise the harm that this perpetual banter does him.

April 16, 1962
At 12, I see Michael Parker [friend and former private secretary of Prince Philip] at his office in Conduit Street. He asks me how I think Prince Philip is getting on.
I mention one or two of the obvious failings — his running-down of British industry when abroad; the impression he gives of despising the Press; and his tendency to drop people, having previously taken them up with some degree of intimacy.
Jim Cilcennin [who went around the world with Philip on Britannia] complained to me often about this during the last year of his life.
The trouble is, adds Parker, that the Royal Family have few friends and not many acquaintances.
Part of Prince Philip’s problem actually springs from shyness. But this could be avoided by a staff of skilled advisers.

December 17, 1967
Hans von Herwarth, former German Ambassador, tells me that on the occasions both of the death of George VI and of the Queen’s Coronation, the Queen received more letters from Germany than from any other country outside the Commonwealth.
He was most touched on the occasion of the Coronation in 1953 by the Queen’s kindness.
His little daughter, then aged ten, complained to him that it was a pity she had not been asked, too, ‘as it is a girl who is being crowned’.
He mentioned this to the British High Commissioner in Germany, as a joke. But an invitation duly arrived, together with a seat for her in the stand outside the Abbey.

May 11, 1968
Selwyn Lloyd [63-year-old former Tory Foreign Secretary and Chancellor] tells me that Prince Philip said to him recently, ‘What, are you still alive?’ Later, he apologised to Selwyn for his rudeness.

February 6, 1971
I talk to [the Queen’s former assistant private secretary] Edward Ford about the Suez Crisis in 1956.As in almost every other house in the country, it caused a split in the secretariat at Buckingham Palace.
Edward and [her assistant private secretary] Martin Charteris were against it, [her private secretary] Michael Adeane was for it.
Their conflicting attitudes puzzled the Queen, who said: ‘I have three Private Secretaries and all of them give me different advice.’

July 20, 1974
At the gala at Covent Garden last Wednesday, Prince Eddie [now Duke of Kent] says that not only were the speeches far too long, but that [former Opera House chairman] Garrett Drogheda made Prince Philip furious by mocking the Royal Family’s indifference to opera. Apparently, the Prince told Garrett after his speech: ‘Buggered if I ever come again.’

June 17, 1975
Alec Home [former Tory PM] recalls the Queen’s reply when he asked if she would object to meeting Idi Amin of Uganda at a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers: ‘It would not be the first time I have met murderers there.’

These are from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6304779/Prince-Philip-snipe-Queen-Royal-Yacht-revealed-secret-diaries.html

  • Love 4
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

14 minutes ago, Ame said:

his dinner jacket has vents at the back

*gasp!* Heretical!

15 minutes ago, Ame said:

On the refusal of the Government to make the Duchess of Windsor Her Royal Highness

That is up to the monarch, no?

19 minutes ago, Ame said:

Still Lady Islington refused to make a gesture of giving her it, and Queen Mary departed in rather a huff. It must be the first time she had ever been outwitted in that way."

LOL. Queen Mary was notorious for admiring other people's things and expecting them to give them to her. Most did, of course, given she was queen, but good for Lady Islington for standing firm! She obviously didn't care if she never saw the queen again.

  • Love 3
Ame

Ame

About Princess Margaret & Tony Armstrong-Jones

February 26, 1960
Press Agency reports official engagement of Princess Margaret to Antony Armstrong-Jones. Staggering.

March 10, 1960
I know Tony Armstrong-Jones a little. I taught him at Eton 12 years ago and found him intelligent and agreeable. At the end of one half, he gave me some not very good photos he secretly took of me in school as I held forth: I thought it a good joke. Since then I have seen him from time to time. But of course he has a past which needs living down.

May 6, 1960
Princess Margaret’s wedding. A lovely sunny day. Superb seat in Abbey. See John Betjeman wandering about gazing up at details of architecture.
Then the Royal Family. The Queen has a sulking Queen Victoria face throughout the entire service — not a ghost of a smile. Queen Mother, on the other hand, like a great golden pussycat, full of sad little smiles. Prince Philip full of funny jokes and a great pink flower in coat.

August 3, 1961
Dinner party at my flat. Martin Gilliat [Queen Mother’s private secretary] stays behind to talk about Princess Margaret and Tony Armstrong-Jones. We agree that at the present time of economic difficulty, some gesture waiving the £50,000 to be spent on their new house in Kensington Palace is needed. Their popularity is lower than ever.
Martin says John Griffin [Queen Mother’s press secretary] thinks I am the only person apart from Princess Margaret who has any influence on Tony. And Martin thinks it would be wise if I talked to Tony about this

August 4, 1961
I telephone Tony to ask to see him. ‘It’s nothing awful, is it?’ he nervously enquires. I agree to see him before lunch at their present house in Kensington Palace. Wearing a check jacket, trousers, suede boots, no coat and huge spectacles. He is rather deaf from having been to his shooting school this morning in readiness for Balmoral.
Leads me up to his bed-sitting room. The house is so small, he says, that ‘for the first time in my life, I have no room of my own except a bedroom’.
Then Princess Margaret comes in, warm in her welcome. But she tiresomely interrupts everything Tony says.
I launch into my set speech on the need for them to make some gesture towards the economic needs of the country, such as announcing that they have asked for the postponement of renovations to their larger KP house.
This is not at all well received. With a shrug of her shoulders, the Princess whines: ‘We must have a roof over our heads.’And when, a few minutes later, I am alone again with Tony, he bursts out: ‘She has given 20 years of service to the country, works very hard indeed and deserves something in return.’
I don’t bother to point out that she is still only 30, and already receives £15,000 a year from the State for a far from heavy burden of public duties.
Instead, Tony takes me to see the terrible tumbledown state of 1A, which the Ministry of Works has wantonly neglected. Inside it is no more than a ruin, with gaping holes in the floorboards.
Agree with Tony that the public has no idea of the state of the place. He asks me to draft a letter for him to send to the Minister of Works.
Rose duly wrote Tony’s letter for him, pointing out that regardless of who went to live at 1A, the Ministry would have to spend £50,000 to stop this ‘magnificent example of Wren architecture crumbling to ruins.’ The Commons subsequently approved a payout of £85,000.

October 11, 1961
On the subject of Tony Armstrong-Jones’s peerage, Strutt tells me that Prince Philip was against it.
Princess Margaret not only insisted, but made herself quite ill with rage when she learned that the peerage patent would not be ready in time for Tony to carry out an official engagement in Glasgow as Earl of Snowdon. Even though special measures were taken to speed up the patent, she had to bear this disappointment.
Strutt thinks that Prince Philip is still interfering too much in official matters

November 16, 1961
John Griffin [Queen Mother’s press secretary] to dine at the flat. He says the Household at Clarence House are very bored indeed with Tony. When drinks are being poured out, he expects this to be done for him by the Household, and so on. They are also much shocked by his extraordinary dress.

June 20, 1962
Pam Berry [wife of Daily Telegraph owner Baron Hartwell] telephones, full of a story about Princess Margaret and Tony. Apparently, they tried to photograph the Chichester Festival Theatre, but were driven away by Laurence Olivier with rude cries of ‘No Press, No Press!’

December 13, 1971
Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe comes to dine. He tells me that at the State Banquet the other day at Buckingham Palace, Princess Margaret put out her tongue at him.
When he raised his eyebrows in interrogation, she whined: ‘You voted against our money.’

December 22, 1971
Princess Margaret telephones to say how much she would like to come to my party. She is so exactly like Jeremy Thorpe’s imitation of her that I almost say: ‘For heaven’s sake, do stop clowning!’

February 8, 1978
Princess Margaret comes to my flat for a drink. We talk of learning languages. She says she does not know any German.
‘You see, my mother and father made the mistake of beginning my German lessons in 1939. As I determined during the war never to talk to a German again, I didn’t get very far.’

Taken from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6309087/Princess-Margaret-ill-rage-Philips-bid-block-peerage-writes-KENNETH-ROSE.html

  • Love 3
merylinkid

merylinkid

Welp that's Margaret for you.   "Our money" indeed.  

Philip, Philip, Philip, he majorly suffers from foot in mouth disease.   He thinks he being funny.   but he's not.    He so tries to fit in from the lonely orphan boy with no home, to Buckingham Palace.   He really does just want to protect his home and not be on the streets again.   But he goes about it all wrong.

dubbel zout

dubbel zout

This is HUGE. I'm surprised and not surprised. I wonder, if like the Swedish royal family, if they'll keep the Sussex title but lose the HRH. That's a way to distance themselves from the BRF and give them more freedom, but as they are senior members regardless, simply by dint of Harry, so I think they need to be really careful about how they go about becoming "financially independent."

Here is [url=https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-announce-shocking-move-to-step-back-as-senior-members-of-royal-family/]People[/url] magazine's take. The Sussex/Cambridge "feud" is mentioned, which might have some bearing, but I feel like Harry has been looking at this for a long time, even pre-Meghan. She and Archie just give him a good reason to step back. And I'm sure he's talked with his father about it, since Charles has been trying to streamline the BRF doing official duties. 

  • Love 1
ProudMary

ProudMary

BBC reporting that no other members of the royal family had advance notice of the decision. 😲

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

"The BBC understands no other royal - including the Queen or Prince William - was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is "disappointed".  Senior royals are understood to be "hurt" by the announcement."

  • Love 1
Umbelina

Umbelina

16 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

BBC reporting that no other members of the royal family had advance notice of the decision. 😲

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

"The BBC understands no other royal - including the Queen or Prince William - was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is "disappointed".  Senior royals are understood to be "hurt" by the announcement."

Good for them!  

The press harasses her just as they harassed Diana.  He has tried appealing to them, and tried to focus on things they care about, but all of it in vain.  He has lived through this horror before, and has said he wants to protect his wife and child.

Honestly, I really do think the monarchy ends with Elizabeth.  Charles may get a year or two, OR if he dies first, the public might welcome William and Kate in some role, possibly reduced.  

Harry, IMO, is making the absolutely correct choice here, for himself, and for his wife and child.  He's been in the hostile goldfish bowl long enough.

  • Love 5
Ohiopirate02

Ohiopirate02

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

This is HUGE. I'm surprised and not surprised. I wonder, if like the Swedish royal family, if they'll keep the Sussex title but lose the HRH. That's a way to distance themselves from the BRF and give them more freedom, but as they are senior members regardless, simply by dint of Harry, so I think they need to be really careful about how they go about becoming "financially independent."

Here is [url=https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-announce-shocking-move-to-step-back-as-senior-members-of-royal-family/]People[/url] magazine's take. The Sussex/Cambridge "feud" is mentioned, which might have some bearing, but I feel like Harry has been looking at this for a long time, even pre-Meghan. She and Archie just give him a good reason to step back. And I'm sure he's talked with his father about it, since Charles has been trying to streamline the BRF doing official duties. 

 

44 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

BBC reporting that no other members of the royal family had advance notice of the decision. 😲

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

"The BBC understands no other royal - including the Queen or Prince William - was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is "disappointed".  Senior royals are understood to be "hurt" by the announcement."

I heard rumors that the reason for the "feud" between brothers was that Wills cheated on Kate while she was pregnant with Louis with a friend of the family.  Harry supposedly was furious for putting Kate in that position and it brought back painful memories of his childhood.  In turn, the Royal Family maneuvered the press into attacking Meghan to take the heat off of William.  Not to mention the Queen's favorite Andrew and his close personal friend acquaintance Jeffrey Epstein.  If any of this is true, I can see where Harry would want to put an ocean or two between his new family and the rest.  Quite frankly, I don't blame him.  I also don;t think that Harry owes his grandmother or father or brother any explanation if they are willing to throw his wife to the wolves to deflect from other family members behaving badly.

  • Love 5
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

1 hour ago, ProudMary said:

BBC reporting that no other members of the royal family had advance notice of the decision

This surprises me, though I guess it's a way not to be talked out of it.

46 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I also don;t think that Harry owes his grandmother or father or brother any explanation if they are willing to throw his wife to the wolves to deflect from other family members behaving badly.

I think he does owe them an explanation, regardless of the situation. They basically ditched their official obligations without warning. This isn't the way to calm the waters. It's immature, petty, and dumb. At least shoot a copy of the press release over to everyone five minutes before it gets posted online.

A scorched-earth approach might be satisfying now, but it usually brings regrets later. Harry and Meghan haven't been especially smart in their handling of the press, IMO. They can't win in some ways, but they could be a bit more measured when it comes to stuff like this.

  • Love 9
Umbelina

Umbelina

27 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

This surprises me, though I guess it's a way not to be talked out of it.

I think he does owe them an explanation, regardless of the situation. They basically ditched their official obligations without warning. This isn't the way to calm the waters. It's immature, petty, and dumb. At least shoot a copy of the press release over to everyone five minutes before it gets posted online.

A scorched-earth approach might be satisfying now, but it usually brings regrets later. Harry and Meghan haven't been especially smart in their handling of the press, IMO. They can't win in some ways, but they could be a bit more measured when it comes to stuff like this.

OR, they made it a "done deal" because they knew the mustaches would never agree to this, and the Queen and the rest of the family would try to browbeat and shame them into doing things the way "it's always been done."

He wants off the UK dole, and wants to live his life, as does his wife.  I honestly see nothing wrong with that, which is probably at least partly because I think a Monarchy is outmoded and patently ridiculous.  Sorry, but I do.

He was born into this rather absurd archaic privileged world, he saw his mother die at a very young age, after being harassed by the press and the palace for years.  He's had to watch his wife go through personal attacks, including racial attacks, by the same press that helped kill, and certainly helped destroy any chance at happiness for his beloved mother.

He wants to walk away, support himself, and get the hell out of hostile England and finally, once and for all, live his chosen life.  He's 6th in line now anyway, suck it up Royal Family, or keep a few more of the hangers on "royals" employed for a bit longer to cut ribbons and open factories.  

Further he and she intend to devote much of their life to charitable causes that matter to them and the world.

This isn't some spoiled brat running away from home, IMO, it's a man who cares about his wife and child, thinks that the whole royal system is a waste of his time and effort, wants to stop taking money from them, earn his own way (Diana left him money, and Megan has money from her work) and live a happy life away from men wearing giant ridiculous hats and livery, horse drawn carriages, arcane and embarrassing rules, and get on with his own desires, which include continuing to give back.

BRAVO.

The palace comparing this to the abdication is a bit over the top, since he is 6th in line, but I think what they really mean is "we have to maintain the Royals or we are all out of a job."  Including a dozen footmen for tea.

  • Love 14
Umbelina

Umbelina

3 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

My objection is how they disengaged from their official life, not the disengagement itself.

All we have is a very brief statement from the palace about that.  We really don't KNOW that this is as "out of the blue" as that short statement crafted by the mustaches, indicates.  I wouldn't be surprised if private talks about this possibility have taken place, were dismissed, or ignored, or simply not believed serious.  No "declarations" until this one, but does anyone really believe this subject has never been broached?  Not even with his dad who is determined to throw most of the royals out of a job as soon as mommy dies?  

I also think having a son has made him, and Megan, seriously reevaluate things.  Harry, above all, knows what it's like to be raised with cameras in your face all the time.  He hated it as a child, he hates it now, and I think he wants more for his own son.

Life will never, or course, be completely "normal" for any of them, but I do think he stands a better chance in Canada.  Also, Megan MAY want to continue acting at some point, as many "mothers" do.  Buckingham Palace would never allow that, and they both know that.  

I think the statement indicates both support for the Queen, and that they will show up if needed for the big ceremonies and hoohahs.

  • Love 10
ProudMary

ProudMary

This could get interesting if the Duke and Duchess were forced to give up their titles.

Sussex Royal: The Making (and Protecting) of a Royal Foundation

From the article: "The announcement follows from media speculation that change was afoot for the two royals and their son, the 8-month old Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, and has prompted an array of questions, including whether the Duke and Duchess will keep their formal titles, which is an interesting inquiry given the two trademark applications for registration that were lodged with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) last year on behalf of their foundation. 

Originally filed in June 2019, the two trademark applications – one for “Sussex Royal” and the other for “Sussex Royal The Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” – made headlines last month when they were formally published by the UKIPO, thereby enabling anyone to “make observations on the acceptance or oppose the registration” of the marks, a formality in the registration process in which others, namely, other trademark holders that believe they might be damaged by the registration of a pending trademark application may oppose its registration."

 

formerlyfreedom
Message added by formerlyfreedom

As the title states, this topic is for HISTORICAL discussion stemming from The Crown. It is NOT a spot for discussion of current events involving the British royal family, and going forward, any posts that violate this directive may be removed. Thank you.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...