History Talk: The British Monarchy

[staveDarsky]

23 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I watched the movie "The Young Victoria" with Emily Blunt last night and it ends with the suggestion that, following the attempt on the life of the young queen during which Prince Albert was shot, Victoria became much more open with him about her duties and leaned on him as a sort of behind-the-scenes co-monarch.  That is only suggested of course (she brings his desk into her office and has it set up directly opposite hers so that the two of them would face one another across their desks) but I'm guessing there is some evidence of her relying on him as a key advisor.  

This show depicts Elizabeth as very carefully NOT allowing Philip to play such a role -- refusing to let him see the contents of her daily box from parliament despite his asking to  I wonder how much of both situations is true and, if they are being accurately depicted, I wonder WHY Elizabeth was so careful to draw the line between monarch and spouse so much more rigidly.  There's a line in "The Young Queen" where Victoria says to her aunt, the Dowager Queen something along the lines of "You didn't play a role in the governing of the country" to which the Queen replies, "You don't know what I did."  I guess that's the real answer.  We'll never know just what Philip's real role has been in "ruling" the country all these years.

I propose a few reasons why Albert was able to be more involved.

1. Phillip renounced the titles he was born with in order to marry Elizabeth. Did Prince Albert also give up all his birth claims or did he remain a prince throughout? I know he was naturalized British just before his marriage and allowed to be called "Royal Highness" in the UK. If he retained his own titles, he had more power than Phillip.
2. Politically in the 1950s, Britain had just come through World War II in which Phillip's home countries were under fire. The first episode gave the sense that Phillip was distrusted because of his birth heritage and what that meant during the war. Politically, it would have been quite scary in 1952 to give Phillip much power. Albert was from a much earlier more peaceful time.
3. All the damage done by Edward VIII abdicating was still very raw. You can see in a later episode how Tommy Lascelles saw his job as royal secretary to protect the Crown from any damaging rot and he stood against the Queen at times and WON. He had massive power which likely earlier courtiers did not. That means it was easier for Prince Albert to slip into the role of Queen's private secretary and advisor where Phillip couldn't.

In the end, the moment that Elizabeth, having just landed at the airport, receives the note from Queen Mary directing her that the Crown has to have higher priority than her family, and she honours it,  you can see Phillip's role shrink. Even if the note didn't actually exist, it is well known that Queen Mary was very strict and Elizabeth obeyed her.

This series is doing a great job of painting how the Queen's public persona came to be and sticks to the way things were in the 1950s. Had the story been set 30 years later, she'd likely have bucked some of her elders' advice and defined things her own way. You can also see the seeds of trouble that happened when Diana and Sarah Ferguson joined the family and dealt with the palace staff and royal advisors.

Edited November 22, 2016 by staveDarsky

[SeanC]

3 hours ago, staveDarsky said:

1. Phillip renounced the titles he was born with in order to marry Elizabeth. Did Prince Albert also give up all his birth claims or did he remain a prince throughout? I know he was naturalized British just before his marriage and allowed to be called "Royal Highness" in the UK. If he retained his own titles, he had more power than Phillip.

Albert retained all his titles.  In fact, because his older brother Ernst died without a male heir, had he still been alive in 1893, Albert would have become the reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (by then a component part of the German Empire) and been a sovereign in his own right.  The title instead passed to his second son Prince Alfred (also Duke of Edinburgh, coincidentally), and, on Alfred's death also without a male heir, to the son of Albert's fourth son Prince Leopold, who had died young -- Edward VII and third son Prince Arthur had both renounced the Saxe-Coburg succession because, in the former's case, they didn't want the British monarch to acquire any more continental territories, and in the latter case, he just wasn't interested.

[roamyn]

28 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Albert retained all his titles.  In fact, because his older brother Ernst died without a male heir, had he still been alive in 1893, Albert would have become the reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (by then a component part of the German Empire) and been a sovereign in his own right.  The title instead passed to his second son Prince Alfred (also Duke of Edinburgh, coincidentally), and, on Alfred's death also without a male heir, to the son of Albert's fourth son Prince Leopold, who had died young -- Edward VII and third son Prince Arthur had both renounced the Saxe-Coburg succession because, in the former's case, they didn't want the British monarch to acquire any more continental territories, and in the latter case, he just wasn't interested.

I doubt Albert would've been allowed to retain the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.  Cabinet &Parliament would've considered that to be a conflict of interest from Victoria's "rule".  Also, Germany/Prussia was not exactly on good terms with Britain at the time, regardless of Vicky's marriage. Albert was alsi seen as being 'too German', and there was much distrust against him during most of his married life.

[SeanC]

16 minutes ago, roamyn said:

I doubt Albert would've been allowed to retain the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.  Cabinet &Parliament would've considered that to be a conflict of interest from Victoria's "rule".  Also, Germany/Prussia was not exactly on good terms with Britain at the time, regardless of Vicky's marriage. Albert was alsi seen as being 'too German', and there was much distrust against him during most of his married life.

It's an open question what would have been done, but nevertheless, he was in line to inherit still.

[staveDarsky]

Bringing this over from the episode 10 discussion: (http://forums.previously.tv/topic/50067-s01e10-gloriana/?do=findComment&comment=2723550)

Quote

 

I don't know, Charles is the future Defender of the Faith. It's likely he's held to a higher standard than others. Anne had to go to Scotland to get remarried, and she wasn't anywhere near top of the line of succession. Though that was in 1992.

Who knows what would happen today. Social mores have changed dramatically, and it's been nearly 20 years since Diana died. And in December it will have been 80 years since Edward VIII's abdication.

 

Other differences between Charles remarrying in 2005 vs Anne remarrying in 1992.

In 1992, Anne was 42 and still theoretically capable of having another child, even though she was far down the line of succession.
Charles' separation from Diana had just been announced 3 days before Anne's second wedding. Andrew's marriage had broken up earlier in the same year. And the Windsor Castle fire had just happened raising the public's attention and ire regarding how much money the Royal Family got from them.
It was far better to hold Anne's wedding away from all that anger and unhappiness happening in London.

By contrast, in 2005, Camilla was over 56, and certainly past menopause. Charles already had an heir and a spare. So the matter of Charles and Camilla producing children together who could be in line to the throne was moot. That must have relaxed some of the reservations the Queen and the government might have had.
Diana had been gone for 7.5 years. The Queen Mother, and Princess Margaret were dead, taking with them any objections they might have raised about Charles marrying a divorcee. Plus the Queen had received a major wake-up call regarding her popularity in the wake of her initial response to Diana's death.

A lot had changed in the 12+ years between the two siblings' remarriages.

[millk]

Bringing this over from Gloriana.

Quote

Surely public attitudes about gender roles (and especially names) have changed somewhat in the past sixty years, though. 

Could someone in Philip's position nowadays be equally macho about these things? Sure. But I wouldn't say that any guy going through this today would be just as frustrated.

Over in Sweden there is a guy pretty much in Philip's position, Daniel Westling. He was a total commoner who was a personal trainer and owned 3 gyms when he met Crown Princess Victoria in 2001. He was her personal trainer. He had to step down from his businesses before they got married in 2010 and one of the reasons it took so long to get married was because Victoria wanted him to be sure about giving up his independence. He is now Prince Daniel and added Bernadotte (the royal family's last name) to his official name. ( Olof Daniel Westling Bernadotte) Their children are Princess Estelle and Prince Oscar. (and I can still gush over their wedding)

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, millk said:

Bringing this over from Gloriana.

Over in Sweden there is a guy pretty much in Philip's position, Daniel Westling. He was a total commoner who was a personal trainer and owned 3 gyms when he met Crown Princess Victoria in 2001. He was her personal trainer. He had to step down from his businesses before they got married in 2010 and one of the reasons it took so long to get married was because Victoria wanted him to be sure about giving up his independence. He is now Prince Daniel and added Bernadotte (the royal family's last name) to his official name. ( Olof Daniel Westling Bernadotte) Their children are Princess Estelle and Prince Oscar. (and I can still gush over their wedding)

Their wedding was really beautiful. There will be more in the future with the heirs of both the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain being girls.

[millk]

The Crown club used to be all boys and Victoria but with the abdications in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain there are lots of girl members now with others coming up in Norway and hopefully Japan (if they get their heads out of the 1300s) I know the royal families are all friendly so there is a lot of support for the next generations.

Queen Margarethe of Denmark and former Queen, now Princess Beatrix of the Netherland are apparently as close as ones can be because very few people have the Queen experience. 

[dubbel zout]

I like to think that all the queens (and former queens) are good friends, and they text one another when a big event is coming up to make sure their tiaras don't clash. Hee.

On the Continent, at least, the heirs and/or their spouses seem to get together every so often to talk. I know Willem-Alexander and Maxima hosted a weekend before his "promotion."

[Athena]

The BBC Magazine had a recent article about Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend:

Quote

But in fact, papers available in the National Archives since 2004 show that the Queen and Eden drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret could marry Townsend while keeping her royal title and her civil list allowance of £6,000 a year plus another £9,000 on marriage. She could live in this country and even continue with public duties if the public approved, as was highly likely.

[maraleia]

Someone mentioned in the episode threads about gay royal family members and one already came out this year- Lord Ivar Mountbatten (the Queen's cousin). Here's the story from a bunch of different sources http://www.eonline.com/news/795984/meet-the-first-openly-gay-member-of-the-british-royal-family

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/09/lord-ivar-mountbatten-comes-out-gay

http://www.advocate.com/coming-out/2016/9/18/first-british-royal-family-member-comes-out-gay

http://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2016092033590/lord-ivar-mountbatten-comes-out-as-gay/

Edited November 23, 2016 by maraleia

[Inquisitionist]

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 8:26 PM, MrsR said:

Remember, Margaret was divorced as well, and there have been many, many, many unhappy royal marriages in the past. And divorces and anullments and beheadings.

Something I've never understood (and have not taken time to research) is why the Church of England is so opposed to divorce and remarriage (at least for royals) when, as I understand it, the Church of England's primary reason for breaking away from Roman Catholicism was so that Henry VIII could divorce several wives.  I suppose my understanding is overly simplified.  Could someone offer a succinct explanation or direct me to a good web-site for understanding this seeming contradiction? 

[Rinaldo]

25 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

Something I've never understood (and have not taken time to research) is why the Church of England is so opposed to divorce and remarriage (at least for royals) when, as I understand it, the Church of England's primary reason for breaking away from Roman Catholicism was so that Henry VIII could divorce several wives. 

It wasn't a divorce that Henry VIII sought; it was an annulment, on the grounds that the marriage was invalid, as Catherine of Aragon had first been married to his brother (yes, possibly a pretext, but his official reason). The Pope had the power to make such a ruling but chose not to (or more precisely, did not agree with Henry, who cited Leviticus 20:21, that the previous papal dispensation allowing the marriage was invalid). So Henry had legislation enacted making the Church of England, not the Holy See, the final authority on matters of faith. That became the primary difference between the two churches.

[toodles]

On 11/18/2016 at 8:31 PM, WatchrTina said:

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 abdicated but she was old enough to realize what a scandal it was for the country.  She grew up seeing how hard it was on her father to have to step into the role of king and then to see the way the country came to respect and admire him for the resolve he displayed by staying in London (with his family) during the Blitz.  She really did serve as a mechanic during WWII and she really did save her ration books in order to be able to buy the fabric for her own wedding dress (though Parliament voted her extra ones to help out.)  She was formed in the crucible of scandal and war and my impression is that as a result of those early experiences the need to do her "duty" has always been the dominant guiding force in her life. And she really is crazy about horses.  So no, I don't think there is much white-washing going on.  But that's just my perception.

While I agree we will never real know the complete truth, I believe her sense of duty is QEII's guiding light.

I also think the Windsors have always been much loved in Britain, particularly after the war.  I read somewhere that ordinary people sent ration books to help with Elizabeth's wedding.  They wanted her to have a nice affair.  I think that really says a lot.

[Inquisitionist]

4 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

It wasn't a divorce that Henry VIII sought; it was an annulment, on the grounds that the marriage was invalid, as Catherine of Aragon had first been married to his brother (yes, possibly a pretext, but his official reason). The Pope had the power to make such a ruling but chose not to (or more precisely, did not agree with Henry, who cited Leviticus 20:21, that the previous papal dispensation allowing the marriage was invalid). So Henry had legislation enacted making the Church of England, not the Holy See, the final authority on matters of faith. That became the primary difference between the two churches.

Which begs the question, why doesn't the Church of England just grant annulments to make these remarriages possible?   At the end of the day, that religion still owes its existence to a horny headstrong king who had the power to have wives that displeased him executed.  A little annulment, or even divorce, hardly seems like a trifle in comparison. ;-)

[Crs97]

Quote

yes but Edward Fox as DoW was good, and Cynthia Harris looked like her, but it was a more romantic take on the story.

I watched that miniseries in one sitting (sick child did not let us leave his bedside for anything) and didn't consider it romantic at all.  She was manipulative; he had mistresses right and left, was incredibly weak, and had no interest in being king beyond its perks.  I thought it was pretty clear how terrible they were individually and together.  I don't remember it as a love story at all.

[Jeeves]

7 hours ago, Crs97 said:

I watched that miniseries in one sitting (sick child did not let us leave his bedside for anything) and didn't consider it romantic at all.  She was manipulative; he had mistresses right and left, was incredibly weak, and had no interest in being king beyond its perks.  I thought it was pretty clear how terrible they were individually and together.  I don't remember it as a love story at all.

That's interesting!

It's been awhile since I watched it, and from my reading about them was already not a big fan of the couple. I think of it as "romantic" mostly because late in the series, maybe at the very end, Wallis finally answered a question posed by her Aunt Bessie. Bessie had asked her something like was she in this for the man or the King, or was she in love with the man or with the King. Finally, Wallis says in what I recall as a treacly tone, "Aunt Bessie, it's the man." Yecch.

I think it's available on Acorn and I may stream it again, to see how my memories match up with the actual series. 

[Crs97]

I almost feel compelled to watch it again now as well.  Perhaps the romance gets lost when you have spent six hours in bed with a child who can't sleep, asks every five minutes if he feels hot, and begs you to come back quickly if you have to get up for any reason.

[vibeology]

17 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Which begs the question, why doesn't the Church of England just grant annulments to make these remarriages possible?   At the end of the day, that religion still owes its existence to a horny headstrong king who had the power to have wives that displeased him executed.  A little annulment, or even divorce, hardly seems like a trifle in comparison. ;-)

Because all of Henry's annulments were based on scripture and law. His first, to Catherine of Aragon was justified because he claimed that Catherine lied as part of the original dispensation and that her marriage to his older brother Arthur had been consummated. With Anne Boleyn, the annulment came from a pre-contract to marry Henry Percy making Anne's marriage to Henry invalid. Anne of Cleves and Henry never consummated their marriage making it possible to annul. He never had his marriage to Katherine Howard annulled though he probably could have found grounds. 

A marriage needs a reason to be annulled. None of the Windsors or their potential spouses had real or "real" (because I have a hard time believing that devoted Catherine of Aragon lied to church officials) reasons.

Edited November 26, 2016 by vibeology

[Inquisitionist]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 3:36 PM, vibeology said:

A marriage needs a reason to be annulled.

As an extremely lapsed Catholic, I find the whole annulment/divorce circus absurd -- including the CoE side-show.  So much personal misery to uphold technicalities...  Ah, well, it gives us some entertaining stories!

[Constantinople]

The Prince of Hanover divorced his wife.  That didn't prevent him from becoming George I, King of Great Britain.

[VCRTracking]

The Disastrous Shadow Looming over The Crown Season 2

I'll admit the only thing I knew about the Suez Crisis until looking it up recently was it being listed in Billy Joel's "We Didn't Star the Fire"!

[jhlipton]

13 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

The Disastrous Shadow Looming over The Crown Season 2

I'll admit the only thing I knew about the Suez Crisis until looking it up recently was it being listed in Billy Joel's "We Didn't Star the Fire"!

They've been leading up to it with the Nassar plot-line.

[Arynm]

16 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

The Disastrous Shadow Looming over The Crown Season 2

I'll admit the only thing I knew about the Suez Crisis until looking it up recently was it being listed in Billy Joel's "We Didn't Star the Fire"!

Everything I know about history I learned about because of that song. If I didn't already know it I looked it up when the song came out. Thanks Billy Joel!

[roamyn]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Constantinople said:

The Prince of Hanover divorced his wife.  That didn't prevent him from becoming George I, King of Great Britain.

But he divorced her before becoming King, the Royal Marriages Act wasn't in play (written by George II), and the only real alternative was Bonnie Prince Charlie, who was most assuredly Catholic - which had to be avoided at all cost.

He was never popular w/the nobility or the people, but he was immensly more tolerable than a Catholic king.  If only one of Queen Anne's many children had survived and hwd children of their own, the British Monarchy would probably be vastly different.

[Deanie87]

I finished this last night...what a wonderful, well done series, I loved it!  I am a big Anglophile and a bit of a Royal fangirl and I was, once again, so impressed with Elizabeth and the sacrifices she made.  Over the course of the series, I felt for Margaret and even Phillip,  but this drove home what an honor and a burden the crown really is.  All world leaders bear a huge burden, but most of them choose that burden and are able to relinquish it at some point.  I know that the Royals didn't necessarily have a lot of real political power, but the burden was there just the same.  The fact that Elizabeth (and her father before her) were willing to put duty and country first, before many of their own interests, moved me more than I thought it would.  Maybe its our current political situation or the fact that Elizabeth is roughly the age of my father, but that generation knew how to sacrifice and did it with a minimum of whining and navel gazing. I'm probably romanticizing all of it, but I do think that is something that has been lost over the years.  I'm glad that Diana was able to raise her boys the way she wanted and I'm glad that William was able to marry the woman of his choice and that they seem like a normal couple, able to live a relatively normal life (at least by British Royal standards), but I also admire the stoicism, majesty, traditionalism (and I'm sure snobbery and bloodline arrogance) of those who came before.  Society needs progress and institutions need to modernize to stay relevant, but there is beauty and value in some tradition too.

Speaking of Diana, this series gave me the same sort of feelings as The Queen with Helen Mirren.  It humanized Elizabeth for me and boy, is there something to be said for reserve and dignity, especially in these days of reality TV, social media and every z list celebrity going on Dr. Phil to talk about their latest scandal.  There was a scene in the movie outside of the gates of Buckingham Palace with hordes of people wailing and tearing their hair out about Diana, angry that Elizabeth hadn't shown "proper" emotion, it really annoyed me.  Honestly, I think that world could use quite a dose of that kind of decorum right about now.  

On another note, one of my favorite Royal interviews with Charles where he said that he got his sister a Welcome Mat for Christmas.  Royals - they're just like us! Only more cheap and boring!

Edited December 1, 2016 by Deanie87

[Constantinople]

On 11/28/2016 at 5:43 PM, Constantinople said:

The Prince of Hanover divorced his wife.  That didn't prevent him from becoming George I, King of Great Britain.

 

21 hours ago, roamyn said:

But he divorced her before becoming King, the Royal Marriages Act wasn't in play (written by George II), and the only real alternative was Bonnie Prince Charlie, who was most assuredly Catholic - which had to be avoided at all cost.

The Royal Marriages Act was passed during the reign of King George III, though it applies to descendants of George II, and says nothing about divorce.

Bonnie Prince Charlie had yet to be born when George I became king.  At that time, there were approximately 50 alternatives to George who had better claims to the throne, including Bonnie Prince Charlie's father, James "the Old Pretender" (still a youthful 26).  Of course, all of them were Catholic.

But my main point is that it's a little odd that the Church of England can't countenance the marriage of the third-in-line to the throne to a divorced person when it had no problem with another divorced person serving as Head of the Church of England (and who wasn't even Anglican).

[roamyn]

49 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

 

The Royal Marriages Act was passed during the reign of King George III, though it applies to descendants of George II, and says nothing about divorce.

Bonnie Prince Charlie had yet to be born when George I became king.  At that time, there were approximately 50 alternatives to George who had better claims to the throne, including Bonnie Prince Charlie's father, James "the Old Pretender" (still a youthful 26).  Of course, all of them were Catholic.

But my main point is that it's a little odd that the Church of England can't countenance the marriage of the third-in-line to the throne to a divorced person when it had no problem with another divorced person serving as Head of the Church of England (and who wasn't even Anglican).

Oh, I thought the RMA was KGII, but it was passed in 1772, so duh! 

Thank you for the correction on BPC.  I wasn't sure if it was him, or his father alive then, and was too lazy to look it up.

[Jeeves]

11 hours ago, CathinAZ said:

When Queen Mary escaped up Scotland and was interested in buying that old rundown castle - did she really buy it? Does the family still own it? Does it have a name?  Can a royal just casually sit buy property like that?

Bringing this over from another conversation. 

1. It was Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, not Queen Mary.
2. Yes, she bought the property, which is known as the Castle of Mey, in 1952.
3. The Queen Mother deeded the property to a charitable trust in 1996.
4. I assume that a member of the British Royal Family may buy real property just as any other Brit can, whether "casually" or not.

The castle is open to the public: http://www.castleofmey.org.uk/index.cfm

Edited January 3, 2017 by Jeeves
Correct version of castle name

[Azubah]

Regarding the Suez Crisis -- did anyone watch "The Hour"? It was on Netflix; I don't know if it's still there. It was a terrific show set in England in the 1950s, and focused on an hour-long news show called "The Hour". The Suez Crisis was a significant plot point. Very good series.

[roamyn]

The Queen was seen today, for the first time in a month (not counting televised statements).

[PinkRibbons]

I'm rewatching and discovering a slightly morbid fascination with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's nicknames for everyone. We know: Cry Baby (Churchil), Shirley Temple (Elizabeth), and Cookie (The Queen Mother). While I've found about six different mean nicknames they called The Queen Mother, I find myself wondering what he called Margaret, or his other siblings, or his own mother for that matter. Anyone know if there's a record?

[Constantinople]

Lord Snowdon, a.k.a Antony Armstrong-Jones, Princess Margaret's former husband, died

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/13/lord-snowdon-royal-photographer-dies-aged-86

[Readalot]

Please help me. When Queen Mary died, didn't she have more children other than the Duke alive? I think he mentioned both he and his sister were summoned in her last days. Why did they only show him at her funeral? I know they weren't the Crown, but why not background characters? 

[Inquisitionist]

Yes, her son Prince Henry was still alive, as was her daughter, Princess Mary. 

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Readalot said:

Please help me. When Queen Mary died, didn't she have more children other than the Duke alive? I think he mentioned both he and his sister were summoned in her last days. Why did they only show him at her funeral? I know they weren't the Crown, but why not background characters? 

 

7 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Yes, her son Prince Henry was still alive, as was her daughter, Princess Mary. 

I agree they could have them as background characters. Like one or both sitting with Queen Mary when the Duke came to visit her or leaving when he came to visit. In the King's Speech they had a dinner scene with the other sons and daughter when they were waiting for the King George V to come to dinner even though they never spoke.  

[Jeeves]

11 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Yes, her son Prince Henry was still alive, as was her daughter, Princess Mary. 

 

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

 

I agree they could have them as background characters. Like one or both sitting with Queen Mary when the Duke came to visit her or leaving when he came to visit. In the King's Speech they had a dinner scene with the other sons and daughter when they were waiting for the King George V to come to dinner even though they never spoke.  

That sounds like they'd be the human equivalents of wallpaper. My take on it is different: I'm fine with the series not being cluttered up with the seventh or twelfth in line to the Crown, or whatever they were by 1947 when the series begins. That's because although I'm interested enough in the British monarchy to have read several books (including most recently Princes at War, That Woman, and several lengthy bios)? I have no clue who's in line for the Crown after, say, Prince William's kids, and I don't really care. 

I suppose those who are interested in that stuff, would be interested to see the understudies sitting around with Queen Mary. But, not me. This is a highly dramatized TV show about the Crown and those who wore/wear it, and the private/public issues faced by the monarch. If only for dramatic purposes, the less cluttered it is, the better.

It would be fun if in future seasons the show brings us some relevant stories of issues faced by the monarch, that haven't been publicized/dramatized to death already. If Prince Henry or Princess Mary feature in them, all the better.

[Rinaldo]

1 hour ago, Jeeves said:

This is a highly dramatized TV show about the Crown and those who wore/wear it, and the private/public issues faced by the monarch. If only for dramatic purposes, the less cluttered it is, the better.

I agree with this, and I think it applies to questions of not mentioning Nazi sympathies, too. Any good dramatic rendering of history is in large part a matter of excision -- the temptation to include all the fascinating facts and people who turn up in research (and I genuinely do find them fascinating myself; I've pored through the long list of those in line for the crown) is great, but there has to be a focus in the interest of clarity. I've seen stage dramatizations of epic stories (at the RSC, for instance) that tried to include everything, and they became one-thing-after-another endurance tests without dramatic point.

[Eyes High]

On 1/13/2017 at 0:14 PM, Constantinople said:

Lord Snowdon, a.k.a Antony Armstrong-Jones, Princess Margaret's former husband, died

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/13/lord-snowdon-royal-photographer-dies-aged-86

That supremely catty obit pulled no punches when it came to Princess Margaret:

Quote

The comptroller of the royal household bade farewell to the headstrong princess on her way to the abbey with “Goodbye, your royal highness,” adding under his breath: “And we hope for ever.”

Quote

The princess, unwillingly enduring the tedium of life at court – though she never objected to the privileges of royalty – was (...)

Quote

The royal family, well knowing the princess’s tantrums, tended to take his side.

Quote

Margaret floated off into a largely empty life with unsuitable lovers such as the playboy Roddy Llewellyn and long holidays on Mustique, until a series of strokes precipitated her death in February 2002.

Quote

At formal dinners the princess was served first, bolting her food in the knowledge that none could continue eating after she had finished, nor leave before she did (when interested, she could stay into the early hours, when not, she could be staggeringly rude to both hosts and servants).

Jesus Christ.

[Badger]

There's a story that the Johnsons used to leave White House parties early so that those who wanted to, could go home.  Then they'd go back and dance the night away with their remaining guests.

[dubbel zout]

I think a lot of Margaret's horrible behavior was because she was desperately unhappy. It doesn't excuse being a rude asshole, of course.

[Rinaldo]

A year or two ago, I read the biography of the actor Alan Bates. For whatever it's worth, there's a dishy story about Princess Margaret in it. They met at a reception around 1970, at the height of his career (and visual appeal), and she indicated that she was interested in a "thing" with him. Being otherwise committed, and in any case dubious about that kind of complication, he declined. And (again according to him) that was why he didn't receive a knighthood ("Sir") until 2003, long after most comparably eminent actors of his generation -- the Princess kept blocking it.

[blackwing]

I saw on the PBS website that there is going to be a show called "King Charles III" which is an imagination of what happens when/if Charles ascends to the throne.  This would be interesting to watch.  I remember at one time Charles had said that he was anxious (or maybe "impatient") to rule, which naturally was a comment that was not received very well by the Queen who would obviously have to be dead in order for him to rule.

Is there any kind of consensus on what Charles' regnal name would be?  It would be interesting if he was Charles III considering that neither of the earlier Charleses is particularly warmly regarded by history.  His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George so I always just assumed he was going to reign as George VII.  Then one day, assuming no unexpected circumstances, there would be William V and then George VIII.

On 1/12/2017 at 9:19 PM, PinkRibbons said:

I'm rewatching and discovering a slightly morbid fascination with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's nicknames for everyone. We know: Cry Baby (Churchil), Shirley Temple (Elizabeth), and Cookie (The Queen Mother). While I've found about six different mean nicknames they called The Queen Mother, I find myself wondering what he called Margaret, or his other siblings, or his own mother for that matter. Anyone know if there's a record?

I've been wondering too.  The only names mentioned in the show were Cry Baby, Shirley Temple and Cookie, and they were mentioned repeatedly.  When I searched online for info, these were the only three names that turned up as well.  What were some of the others?

[Inquisitionist]

5 hours ago, blackwing said:

Is there any kind of consensus on what Charles' regnal name would be?  It would be interesting if he was Charles III considering that neither of the earlier Charleses is particularly warmly regarded by history.  His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George so I always just assumed he was going to reign as George VII.  Then one day, assuming no unexpected circumstances, there would be William V and then George VIII.

Wow, he's been Prince Charles for so long that it never occurred to me that he'd be anything other than King Charles.  Assuming he outlives his mother.  ;-)  Maybe enough time has passed that the name King Charles has been rehabilitated, kind of like with Pope Paul VI choosing that name after it had been avoided for 300+ years.

[andromeda331]

16 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Wow, he's been Prince Charles for so long that it never occurred to me that he'd be anything other than King Charles.  Assuming he outlives his mother.  ;-)  Maybe enough time has passed that the name King Charles has been rehabilitated, kind of like with Pope Paul VI choosing that name after it had been avoided for 300+ years.

Wow, so did I. I assume that as well since his mother didn't change her name that it would just continue that way with his son staying William and grandson staying George. I had wondered if William was picked when he was born because he's most likely to be King in 2066 which will mark the 1000 years since William the Conqueror and that tends to be considered the beginning date they use for the monarchy despite the different houses since it wasn't a name they used in awhile and they could have easily gone with George then.  Maybe I over thought that and its just a name for until crowned and become another George.  

[blackwing]

7 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Wow, so did I. I assume that as well since his mother didn't change her name that it would just continue that way with his son staying William and grandson staying George. I had wondered if William was picked when he was born because he's most likely to be King in 2066 which will mark the 1000 years since William the Conqueror and that tends to be considered the beginning date they use for the monarchy despite the different houses since it wasn't a name they used in awhile and they could have easily gone with George then.  Maybe I over thought that and its just a name for until crowned and become another George.  

Could be.  I just remember seeing sometime back that Charles might consider being George VII because the first Charles is the only English/British king to be executed for treason and the second is known mostly for being a philanderer.  So not a lot of good association with the name.  Then again, when Mary II ascended with her husband William III upon the death of Queen Anne, I don't think there was talk of her changing her name to avoid recollection of "Bloody" Mary Tudor.

As far as William the Duke of Cambridge, I think he's 35?  If he is king in 2066 he will be almost 85.  I think it's certainly possible, but I would not exactly say it is "likely".  Then again, Philip is 95 and still going strong.  The Queen is 90.  So maybe longevity is in the genes.

[dubbel zout]

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was nearly 102 when she died, so I'd say longevity is definitely in the genes.

[kwnyc]

Quote

Could be.  I just remember seeing sometime back that Charles might consider being George VII because the first Charles is the only English/British king to be executed for treason and the second is known mostly for being a philanderer.  

Yeah, probably not good optics for Charles to take a name of a beheaded king. Philip (his father's name) might not be his choice either (do they get along better than they did?); Arthur:  no, they'd probably not want to set up comparisons to a "new Arthurian age." I bet he'll go with the family favorite, "George."

[OtterMommy]

6 minutes ago, kwnyc said:

Yeah, probably not good optics for Charles to take a name of a beheaded king. Philip (his father's name) might not be his choice either (do they get along better than they did?); Arthur:  no, they'd probably not want to set up comparisons to a "new Arthurian age." I bet he'll go with the family favorite, "George."

I still think he'll stick with Charles.  The cult of celebrity around the British royals is new (as in, it didn't exist in the same way as it does now when Elizabeth took the throne.  Say what you want about her, but Diana changed things).  The world knows him as Charles and for him to take another name would be jarring to the public, even though it was something that was accepted in the past.  Honestly, I think people will be far more concerned if whether or not Camilla will be Queen than what Charles calls himself.  He could change his name to just about anything, but he'll still be Charles in the eyes of the worldwide public.

Plus, when he does ascend, his reign will be relatively short.  He's 68 now and, if he were to become King tomorrow, the best he could expect would be a couple of decades.  I can't see how he could be considered the harbinger of an "age."  (Although I could completely see William bringing in a new age if he were to ascend at a fairly young age).

[millk]

William was probably primarily named after Prince William  of Gloucester, a first cousin to the Queen and Charles' cool cousin. He died in a plane crash in 1972. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_William_of_Gloucester