History Talk: The British Monarchy

[ProudMary]

On 3/10/2017 at 10:52 PM, Rinaldo said:

I miss the old days of Wikipedia, when that page was computed out to thousands of places. This page remains, but it isn't as elegantly laid out or as readable. (It also doesn't attempt to exclude "Papists" from the line.) I loved the idea that there was some German ex-Count somewhere who got excited every time someone died and he moved up a slot. 

But anyway, it does show how you keep going in a single line of succession -- boys first, but then girls, each time on down to their descendants -- before the line is considered extinguished and you move back up to the last junction on the tree and start to follow that one down. And of course you must be an "heir of the body": no adopted kids or impatient types whose arrival preceded the wedding need apply.

I'm sure that you and most of this thread's participants are well aware of this--I quoted you only because you mentioned the boys, then girls rule--but for anyone else looking for information from this thread, there was a change to the laws of succession in 2011 so that sons and daughters of any future monarchs will have equal rights to the throne.  The first to be affected by the new law is Princess Charlotte.  Should William and Kate have another son, Charlotte's position in the line of succession will not be changed.  Her position will only be usurped by the future offspring of Prince George.  If the Duke and Duchess had had a daughter as their first born, she would have been third in line, regardless of the fact that sons may have been born after her.   The law is not retroactive.  For example, Anne is not jumping ahead of her brothers Andrew or Edward despite the fact that she is the Queen's second born child.  

Here's a link to a BBC article with all the details.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-15492607

[dubbel zout]

Absolute primongeniture. It's about time.

[Badger]

The law affects anyone in the line of succession who was born after 2011.  Both the daughters of HRH The Duke of Gloucester had a daughter and then a son.  Under the old rules, those sons would have gone ahead of their sisters in the line of succession.  But since the boys were both born in 2012, their sisters are still ahead of them.  Of course, they're far enough back so there's very little chance of them ever becoming Monarch.

[roamyn]

A bit behind, but I honestly feel that if Prince Charles & Camilla had been allowed to marry in the late 60s, as they wanted, then that is the real love story that everyone wanted to see w/PoW & Diana.

I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong - that it was QETQM who put the kibosh on that marriage because Camilla wasn't a virgin.

But you can definitely see the love between the two, even now, years later.  Prince Charles is far happier than he was with Diana.  Though C&C could've been more discreet, and the PssoW was no angel, herself.

[Roseanna]

My newspaper had made today a big story about the book of Riitta Jallinoja, Families, Status and Dynasties 1600-2000.

From the 17th century on, the royals no more accepted nobles as their spouses but only married other European royals. The younger princes were often (nominally) single as they couldn't offer power and a realm to princesses. in fact, they cohabited or other relationships with non-royals. 

Then the strong kings lost their power. The royals could again marry nobles and in the end commoners. Princess Margaret could marry Anthony Armstrong-Jones. That was the end of the royal marriage market.

But nowadays there is a new marriage market - the university. Earlier noble, priest and industrial dynasties have often got also to the top of academic class.

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137580726

[Hanahope]

17 hours ago, roamyn said:

I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong - that it was QETQM who put the kibosh on that marriage because Camilla wasn't a virgin.

Was Camilla already married/divorced when she and Charles started dating and wanted to get married?  I always thought that was the big problem, that again an heir wanted to marry a divorcee, which the CoE frowned upon.

[dubbel zout]

Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles when it was obvious Charles wouldn't/couldn't ask her to marry him. Cam and Chaz carried on after they were both married.

[Pallas]

Journalists on the scene in London during the '70's and 80's are persuaded that the younger Camilla enjoyed and sympathized with Charles but had no desire to be Princess of Wales, was in love with the then-dashing, much-desired Andrew Parker-Bowles, and was thrilled to accept his proposal after Charles left on tour in the Navy.  She loved Charles like a brother but loved Andrew like her brother,  the handsome and rakish Mark Shand -- just as Charles surely saw features of Anne in Camilla. 

[chitowngirl]

What Happens When Queen Elizabeth Dies

[Arynm]

I am an American who has never been to the UK (that will change in 6 months). When the Queen dies it will be a monumental event, one I hardly want to think about. I know she is in her 90s and everyone has to go sometime, but she is the only Queen of England I have ever known, the only Queen my mother has ever known. That is a huge deal.

When the pope died(John Paul II) It was also a big deal,I am not a Catholic but he was the only pope that I knew as well. I remember when Diana died and it was shocking, and I think the Queen will be the same, regardless of how it happens.

I am sure it will be very orderly and done by the book, because that is how the Queen would have wanted it.

[ProudMary]

2 hours ago, chitowngirl said:

What Happens When Queen Elizabeth Dies

Quite an amazing piece.  Fair warning everyone; it is loooooong!  (But worthwhile.)

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, Arynm said:

I am an American who has never been to the UK (that will change in 6 months). When the Queen dies it will be a monumental event, one I hardly want to think about. I know she is in her 90s and everyone has to go sometime, but she is the only Queen of England I have ever known, the only Queen my mother has ever known. That is a huge deal.

When the pope died(John Paul II) It was also a big deal,I am not a Catholic but he was the only pope that I knew as well. I remember when Diana died and it was shocking, and I think the Queen will be the same, regardless of how it happens.

I am sure it will be very orderly and done by the book, because that is how the Queen would have wanted it.

I have actually seen the Queen when she visited Finland in 1976. I happened be quite near (perhaps one meter) when she walked away agter visiting the hero cementary. She looked quite young for her age (especially her skin) at that time.

There was also a funny happening as the Queen was brought to the forest in order to show where the paper Finnish comopanies have from the end of 9th century sold to Britain comes. She had her ordinary shoes which must have made walking quite difficult. She also refuse to put the security helmet on her head.

I am not sure whether these can seen abroad:

http://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2006/09/08/kuningatar-elisabet-ii-saapuu-suomeen

 However, I don't expect to have any great emotions when the Queen will die for Elizabeth is so distant in public that one can't really know her. Also William and Kate were unemotinal in their wedding, compared to Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (and of course the Swedish royal house is for historical reason dearest to the Finns, even if the house of Bernadotte had never ruled us, they visit Finland quite often and always when there are common historical celebrations).

Rather, I am curious to see Charles's coronation as there are no more such a ceremony in other monarchies.   

Edited March 18, 2017 by Roseanna

[Sandiscot]

Could I just note that HM Queen Elizabeth II is not, never has been and never will be, the Queen of England. She is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales.

[secnarf]

11 hours ago, Sandiscot said:

Could I just note that HM Queen Elizabeth II is not, never has been and never will be, the Queen of England. She is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales.

They're not mutually exclusive. QEII is the Queen of England, just as she is the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and about a dozen other Commonwealth nations.

[Sandiscot]

No, she's not. England is not an independent nation. Similarly, she is not Queen of Scotland. "England" is not the equivalent of "Great Britain" .

[Arynm]

Considering that Scotland is voting again to leave and Australia has already said that when she dies, they will have no other figurehead like she was, her title will be vastly different than when she started.

[Sandiscot]

Quite possibly. Although no indyref vote is currently scheduled for Scotland and if/when it is, there's no saying what the outcome will be.

[Snappy]

Anyone know when season 2 begins?

[doodlebug]

6 hours ago, Snappy said:

Anyone know when season 2 begins?

They're filming it now, it's supposed to be out late this year; Netflix hasn't announced a date yet.

[Snappy]

10 hours ago, doodlebug said:

They're filming it now, it's supposed to be out late this year; Netflix hasn't announced a date yet.

Thanks doodlebug. The wait is killing me.

[VCRTracking]

Reading this Vanity Fair article and man I feel bad for Charles:

The Lonely Heir: Inside the Isolating Boarding School Days of Prince Charles

As I posted in another thread he really could have used this:

 

I really want to see Charles more in season 2. One because by the time it airs, the chances are QEII and he'll be king. Second,  after showing what a shitty husband Phillip was, they need to show he was a shitty dad too. We got glimpses in season 1 but also Elizabeth wasn't great because she was busy being queen and was distant. Third, after her involvement in keeping Margaret and Peter Townsend apart, the Queen Mother needs to be shown in a more positive light. Her being a continuous source of love, affection and support for a bullied and lonely young Charles would do.

[Nire]

On 4/3/2017 at 2:12 PM, VCRTracking said:

I really want to see Charles more in season 2. One because by the time it airs, the chances are QEII and he'll be king. Second,  after showing what a shitty husband Phillip was, they need to show he was a shitty dad too. We got glimpses in season 1 but also Elizabeth wasn't great because she was busy being queen and was distant. Third, after her involvement in keeping Margaret and Peter Townsend apart, the Queen Mother needs to be shown in a more positive light. Her being a continuous source of love, affection and support for a bullied and lonely young Charles would do.

I agree and would like to add that since Charles will undoubtedly be important in later seasons it would be nice to have him starting to become more important now.  By slowly making him a more important character it won't be like he suddenly becomes important.

[VCRTracking]

Okay it's 9:30 PM PST as I'm writing this. I have no idea what's going on now. Twitter and social media is going crazy speculating about:

Queen Elizabeth’s entire staff called to ‘highly unusual’ emergency meeting at Buckingham Palace

Is the Queen dead? Is Phillip? What's going on?

Edited May 4, 2017 by VCRTracking

[Readalot]

44 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Okay it's 9:30 PM PST as I'm writing this. I have no idea what's going on now. Twitter and social media is going crazy speculating about:

Queen Elizabeth’s entire staff called to ‘highly unusual’ emergency meeting at Buckingham Palace

Is the Queen dead? Is Phillip? What's going on?

Interesting! Maybe the Queen is stepping down? 

[VCRTracking]

3 minutes ago, Readalot said:

Interesting! Maybe the Queen is stepping down? 

Whoa, didn't think of that one.

[Readalot]

7 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Whoa, didn't think of that one.

They are both a hop skip and a jump away from 100! I hope that is what it is. I'm PDT too, can't wait for morning to hear the news (although I can't find anything about it in US mainstream media ). 

[roamyn]

1 hour ago, Readalot said:

Interesting! Maybe the Queen is stepping down? 

Nope.  Course, never say never but she has repeatedly stated that her role is for life.  Esp since she experienced the last abdication and all it's drama.

 

ETA:  if the announcement at 8am is big, my guess is that PP is on his deathbed, and that's why everyone is being gathered.

Edited May 4, 2017 by roamyn

[Ceindreadh]

40 minutes ago, roamyn said:

Nope.  Course, never say never but she has repeatedly stated that her role is for life.  Esp since she experienced the last abdication and all it's drama.

 

 

True, but stepping down after a long reign and when your heir apparent has been expecting the role, it's a long way different from being thrust into the role in a hurry as with the last abdication.  

[katie9918]

Prince Philip is retiring.

 

He had to call a meeting at 3:00AM for that? Oh, well.

 

I enjoy yourself, Philip. Most people in the position to be able to retire are retired by their mid-seventies.

[VCRTracking]

The average person would scoff "Retiring from what?" but it's clear from watching The Crown that royal tours can be very tedious and does take a toll physically! It was also not a particular job he wanted to do,(he would have preferred staying in the Royal Navy) but he did it and did it for a looooooong time.

Edited May 4, 2017 by VCRTracking

[andromeda331]

11 hours ago, katie9918 said:

Prince Philip is retiring.

 

He had to call a meeting at 3:00AM for that? Oh, well.

 

I enjoy yourself, Philip. Most people in the position to be able to retire are retired by their mid-seventies.

Yeah, they could have waited a few more hours before calling a meeting on that! Way scare the crap out of people.

[Yokosmom]

I've only made it through episode 3 so far and I have a question regarding the red boxes that the Queen reviews every day.  I can remember reading biographies of Queen Victoria and that she dutifully went through the boxes as well.  However, since the Queen has no real power, and is mostly a figurehead, what is the purpose of her going through the boxes?  Is this just a courtesy from the government, so she'll know what's going on in the country?  It's not as though she can do much with the information....

[dubbel zout]

There are bills and other papers for the monarch to sign, as the government is always acting in his/her name.

Edited May 15, 2017 by dubbel zout

[Hanahope]

25 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

There are bills and other papers for the monarch to sign, as the government is always acting in his/her name.

Has there been an instance where the queen refused to sign something she strongly didn't agree with?

[dubbel zout]

Her signature technically isn't necessary, but refusing to sign would provoke a constitutional crisis, as it makes the monarch politically active. Ironically, the play Charles III deals with this exact situation.

[spottedreptile]

On 13/03/2017 at 11:37 AM, dubbel zout said:

Absolute primongeniture. It's about time.

Just like to correct a common misconception here. Primogeniture is not actually the law that males get the throne and women are excluded: that is Salic Law which is common in Europe for royalty and nobility. That is the law which has been recently changed in Britain so the first-born of a sovereign will reign, regardless of gender.

Primogeniture is the law, especially relevant in the UK, whereby the first male descendant or heir inherits all of the estate/s of the current title holder. In other words, the estate is not cut up between all the descendants; as used to happen with French nobility - if a Duke had nine sons, each would have been entitled to a share of the estate and so it got reduced to just about nothing over a fairly short period of time, which is why they all had to marry rich women so they could carve out a decent holding for themselves. 

In the UK, the heir got the lot. This way the estate was 'entailed' - in other words, passed to the heir only. The younger sons got bugger all, and the daughters nothing; in Jane Austen's novels this is why Mrs Dashwood had to leave her family home with her daughters, her husband had a living son by his first marriage who got the whole shebang, and so they were dispossessed, even though she was married to the titleholder. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by spottedreptile

[Rinaldo]

5 hours ago, spottedreptile said:

In the UK, the heir got the lot. This way the estate was 'entailed' - in other words, passed to the heir only. The younger sons got bugger all, and the daughters nothing; in Jane Austen's novels this is why Mrs Dashwood had to leave her family home...

Exactly, and it's why Mrs Bennet in Pride and Prejudice becomes a different person when one rereads the book after growing up and becoming better informed about inheritance and entails. On first reading, she seems just dreadful, with her mania about getting all her daughters married off to someone wealthy, it hardly matters who. On better-informed rereading, one sees that vulgar and tactless though she may be, she's also right -- the daughters will inherit next to nothing (and late in the story, will never get any sort of husband if they have a sister cohabiting unwed) and will have nowhere to live after their father dies. Unless they marry someone who can provide for them; because all the property must go intact to the nearest male relative, Mr. Collins.

Or as late as Dorothy Sayers, there's a short story set after Lord Peter and Harriet are married and have three sons. A busybody guest goes on about how unfair that only the oldest boy will inherit, and "how bad it is for the children to feel that one is more important." To which Harriet replies mildly, "Yes, but it's very good for the property."

[Miss Chevious]

This is a little off topic, but I didn't know where else to post this. It's an observation actually, why do British women (some of the royals included) wear such ridiculous looking concoctions on their heads? 

And why doesn't Beatrice (Prince Andrew's older daughter) get her teeth fixed. Those teeth take over her entire face! 

[Nire]

Is there a future season speculation area?  I didn't see it.  Anyways I'm thinking if this show can get to have a season 3 then they're probably going to get to do the whole series.  I've read that season 2 is 1955-1964 so if you assume season 3 gets you to 1974 then interest will probably start to ramp up because season 4 would include Diana.  I really hope that that the show gets to tell the story of her life and reach the present day or at least fairly close to the present day.  

[dubbel zout]

The plan is do have ten seasons, one for each decade of Elizabeth's reign. Whether than actually happens will likely depend on future ratings/interest/budget.

[Crs97]

Do you mean six seasons?

[formerlyfreedom]

3 hours ago, Nire said:

Is there a future season speculation area?

This topic is pretty much the discussion for the future seasons - it's tagged 'Spoiler' because...well, you can't really speculate about what they'll cover without discussing the actual events, so its a conundrum!

[dubbel zout]

Oops, Crs97, I do mean six! Thanks for catching that.

[JessDVD]

I definitely think if they get a season 3, they'll get the rest. Season 4 including Charles/Diana's wedding and William/Harry's births, season 5 their divorce, season 6 Diana's death - people will tune in for those absolutely, more so than season 2 and 3. Maybe in 5 years when they're done with season 6, the years of 2004-15 will be far enough removed that they can get a bonus season with Will & Kate, George & Charlotte.

[Dejana]

It seems that Prince Charles maintained a decades-long correspondence with the Reagans and discussed many topics with Nancy in particular, including unflattering biographies and his marriage, along with more expected subjects like the president's health and the Queen Mother's death. The letters were uncovered as the Reagan Library makes its way through Nancy's effects. Some excerpts:

On Charles and Diana's visit to the White House:

Quote

In the letter to President Reagan, Charles speaks about the ‘wonderfully relaxed’ visit and how he would be ‘watching with interest to see how your meeting with the Soviet president goes…’ (Reagan was about to have his historic summit with Mikhail Gorbachev)

Proudly, he writes: ‘Diana still hasn’t got over dancing with John Travolta, Neil Diamond and Clint Eastwood in one evening not to mention the President of the United States as well!’

The show has cast John and Jacqueline Kennedy for Season 2 so it's not out of the question that other US presidents might make the cut for later seasons. The image of Diana dancing at the White House is pretty iconic. Good luck, casting director!

 

Another letter, in response's to Mrs. Reagan's encouraging words in 1992 after the release of Diana, Her True Story (he wrote to her in the wake of a very unflattering Kitty Kelley biography the year before):

Quote

Tormented by the very public breakdown of his marriage to Princess Diana, a sombre Prince Charles picked up his fountain pen and poured his emotions on to the page: ‘No one can really understand what it all means until it happens to you, which is why it all keeps getting worse and worse. One day I will tell you the whole story. It is a kind of Greek tragedy and would certainly make a very good play!’

 

Charles made an earlier official visit to Washington, during his engagement to Diana:

Quote

On May 3, airborne, he writes to thank the Reagans for hosting a dinner at the White House the night before. President Reagan had been shot by John Hinkley [sic] on March 30 and Charles wrote how ‘honoured’ he was that ‘you should have found time to see me on Friday – particularly after all you have been through recently’.

The Prince gushed about sitting next to Nancy – ‘I am a devoted admirer for life!’ – and seemed thrilled to have had a pudding, Crown of Sorbet Prince of Wales, named after him: ‘What more could anyone want than an enjoyable visit to Washington and a special culinary creation named after you!’

In another letter to Mrs Reagan, Lady (Mary) Henderson, wife of Sir Nicholas Henderson, then UK Ambassador to Washington, wrote of an exchange after the same dinner: ‘The Prince said: “I have fallen in love with Mrs Reagan – she is wonderful” to which I said: “Well Sir, I told you so.” The Prince then added: “I wanted to kiss her – to thank her…’ Nick: “Well, why didn’t you?” The Prince: “Well.. you know... we British... are…” ’

Did Camilla have competition? :)

Edited June 4, 2017 by Dejana

[Nire]

On 6/2/2017 at 4:07 PM, JessDVD said:

I definitely think if they get a season 3, they'll get the rest. Season 4 including Charles/Diana's wedding and William/Harry's births, season 5 their divorce, season 6 Diana's death - people will tune in for those absolutely, more so than season 2 and 3. Maybe in 5 years when they're done with season 6, the years of 2004-15 will be far enough removed that they can get a bonus season with Will & Kate, George & Charlotte.

I think once they reach it they'll be able to show more current things.  I'm curious how they'll do the 90s.  I feel like 1992 could probably be a season by itself!  I'm hoping season 2 and 3 are well done to justify going forward.

[Yokosmom]

Two scenes I would like covered--the Royal Variety Performance with the Beatles (Princess Margaret & the Queen Mother attended) and the break-in at the palace when Elizabeth awoke to find a deranged (but non-violent, thankfully) man in her bedroom.  I doubt that they will cover the former but can't imagine them not covering the latter, if only for the impact on the household staff (surely, heads rolled, figuratively speaking).

[Nire]

I read an articles that said Charles will have a larger role in season 2 and Camilla is going to first appear in season 3.  I'm thinking we may get a time jump between 2 and 3.  Since they're recastingthe leads it makes sense to jump a few years as well.

[OtterMommy]

14 minutes ago, Nire said:

I read an articles that said Charles will have a larger role in season 2 and Camilla is going to first appear in season 3.  I'm thinking we may get a time jump between 2 and 3.  Since they're recastingthe leads it makes sense to jump a few years as well.

I believe each season represents a decade.  So, next season is the 60s, then the 70s, etc.  It could be that the bulk of season 2 is in the early 60s, which would give more of jump when we get to the 70s/ season 3.  We shall see...  I honestly don't know much of what happened between 1960 to 1980, so I'm not sure how it will all fall out.

[dubbel zout]

Charles and Camilla started dating in the '70s, I think, which would be season 3.