History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Rinaldo]

I think I mentioned this book in another thread, but I can't immediately track it down. And it fits here, so:

The book The Tongs and the Bones by the 7th Earl of Harewood, in the course of recounting his life, gives a number of interesting personal looks at royal life in the period covered by this series. He was a first cousin of the Queen through his mother Princess Mary (in fact he was the first grandchild of George V, though not of course in the line that counts), and on his father's side a cousin of "Tommy" Lascelles (Lascelles being the Harewood family surname). So there are anecdotes about family gatherings at times -- not all that often, it seems.

He served in WWII (a POW for its last year), and worked primarily as an arts administrator, having responsibilities for both London opera companies in turn, along with various festivals, and a writer about music (in fact he and I both contributed to some of the same music books). And he rather tested the divorce laws when he wanted to end his first marriage because he had fallen in love with someone else. There was some delay getting the paperwork approved by the Queen (he being a close enough relation that she was officially required to approve), and he and his fiancée weren't getting any younger, so they went ahead on starting a family -- that son being therefore excluded from succession. When they were finally able to marry, to avoid crowds and comment (and avoid having to cry the banns 3 times and all that) they did it quietly in Connecticut.

Anyway, I found it an entertaining read, though obviously a lot of it isn't about the royal family and my music background gives me a particular interest. Used copies are going for as little as $2 for those interested.

[Nire]

On 7/23/2017 at 8:26 PM, OtterMommy said:

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.

This article spells things out more there will be a time jump between Season 2 and 3 and another between 4 and 5.  Apparently Diana will also be introduced in season 3 and heavily featured in season 4.  I'm curious how they'll do a time jump between 4 and 5.  So much was happening in the 80s/early 90s in terms of the Queen's children's relationships.  It seems hard to find years that would be able to be skipped assuming they do include all the Queen's children and not just Charles with the rest being background characters.  I would think skipping time between 5 and 6 starting after Diana's death would make more sense.  I'm so excited for all the future seasons.  

[Fireball]

19 hours ago, Nire said:

This article spells things out more there will be a time jump between Season 2 and 3 and another between 4 and 5.  Apparently Diana will also be introduced in season 3 and heavily featured in season 4.  I'm curious how they'll do a time jump between 4 and 5.  So much was happening in the 80s/early 90s in terms of the Queen's children's relationships.  It seems hard to find years that would be able to be skipped assuming they do include all the Queen's children and not just Charles with the rest being background characters.  I would think skipping time between 5 and 6 starting after Diana's death would make more sense.  I'm so excited for all the future seasons.  

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

[orza]

1 hour ago, Fireball said:

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

I agree. I think they need to stop at the beginning of the Thatcher era. Show the fist few years of the Queen trying to get along with Margaret Thatcher and then be done. Once the children are adults it could get really soapy and boring if we have to sit through their bad marriages.  Not at all interested in Charles and Diana or Andrew and Sarah.

The events of season 1 happened so long ago that few people are still alive to remember them so the story works as a fictional period drama. As we get closer to the present time people will recall events as they were reported in the news and the period drama aspect may not work any more. Also 6 seasons of the royal family? They are not that interesting to warrant so much screen time over so many years. They could go out strong with 2 seasons but 6 seasons could be a death march.

[Fireball]

2 hours ago, orza said:

I agree. I think they need to stop at the beginning of the Thatcher era. Show the fist few years of the Queen trying to get along with Margaret Thatcher and then be done. Once the children are adults it could get really soapy and boring if we have to sit through their bad marriages.  Not at all interested in Charles and Diana or Andrew and Sarah.

The events of season 1 happened so long ago that few people are still alive to remember them so the story works as a fictional period drama. As we get closer to the present time people will recall events as they were reported in the news and the period drama aspect may not work any more. Also 6 seasons of the royal family? They are not that interesting to warrant so much screen time over so many years. They could go out strong with 2 seasons but 6 seasons could be a death march.

I completely agree. I'm not really interested in watching any of the "newer" royals; I can see the show turning very soapy.

I personally wish the series had spent more time with Bertie as King. I liked Bertie. It also would have allowed us to see Elizabeth and Philip in their life before the crown; maybe it would have convinced me why Elizabeth loved Philip. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Fireball

[Bill1978]

I know it's a long way down the track but I do think the creators might be able to balance the story with the soap as we head into the 90s. As long as they remain focussed on The Queen as the central character, I believe the soap aspect will disappear if we see the drama unfold through The Queen's eyes and how it impacts upon her. What I really liked with the first season was how The Queen was the central character for each episode  but a supporting character got character development by being the special focus with an episode. They didn't try to tell all the supporting character's story at the same time. But they showed how the supporting characters impacted on The Queen's story.  I know some would think it is strange, but I wouldn't be surprised if they skim over the week of Diana's death, especially since the writer has already covered that in the movie 'The Queen', I just can't see what new angle they could come up with for the show that would be different to the movie.

[Fireball]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:49 AM, Bill1978 said:

I know it's a long way down the track but I do think the creators might be able to balance the story with the soap as we head into the 90s. As long as they remain focussed on The Queen as the central character, I believe the soap aspect will disappear if we see the drama unfold through The Queen's eyes and how it impacts upon her. What I really liked with the first season was how The Queen was the central character for each episode  but a supporting character got character development by being the special focus with an episode. They didn't try to tell all the supporting character's story at the same time. But they showed how the supporting characters impacted on The Queen's story.  I know some would think it is strange, but I wouldn't be surprised if they skim over the week of Diana's death, especially since the writer has already covered that in the movie 'The Queen', I just can't see what new angle they could come up with for the show that would be different to the movie.

Unfortunately, it already sounds like the show is moving away from The Queen being the central character. According to the article that Nire posted 

Spoiler

season 2 will focus more on Philip – how his childhood and upbringing "might have impacted him as a man, a father and as Prince Consort" and on his relationship with the young Prince Charles.

Also according to the article:

Spoiler

Princess Diana will debut towards the end of season three and is said to be "heavily" featured in the fourth and fifth seasons.

Reading the article hasn't made me excited for the coming seasons.

[Crs97]

I don't need yet another whitewash of Diana as the most perfect person who ever lived so will probably be out early as well.

[StaceyNotStacie]

I agree. After all of the Diana specials that have been shown over the last month or so, I'm Diana'd out. 

The Smithsonian Channel is showing a series on Sundays called Inside Windsor Castle that is very interesting. 

[Fireball]

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 10:22 AM, Stacey1014 said:

I agree. After all of the Diana specials that have been shown over the last month or so, I'm Diana'd out. 

I haven't watched any of the Diana specials; I actually find all the documentaries and specials a bit in poor taste. But it seems like there have been a lot of them; The Story of Diana, Diana In Her Own Words, Diana Her Story, Diana and the Paparazzi, Diana and the Day We Said Goodbye, Diana Our Mother: Her Life and Legacy, Diana 7 Days that Shook the World. 

I guess it shows that people are still very interested in Diana which makes it not that surprising that she will be

Spoiler

"heavily" featured in the fourth and fifth seasons.

However, I'm not interested in watching the Diana show or the Philip show.  I don't really see myself lasting the whole series. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Fireball

[Nire]

On 8/10/2017 at 7:30 PM, orza said:

The events of season 1 happened so long ago that few people are still alive to remember them so the story works as a fictional period drama. As we get closer to the present time people will recall events as they were reported in the news and the period drama aspect may not work any more. Also 6 seasons of the royal family? They are not that interesting to warrant so much screen time over so many years. They could go out strong with 2 seasons but 6 seasons could be a death march.

I find this interesting since I feel like I knew way more about the abdication and the Queen's childhood then I do about things like Princess Anne's marriage.  I definitely seem to be in the minority but I think more recent events could be very interesting.  However I'm very sad to no longer have the current actors.  I understand they would look a bit silly playing so many years older but I feel like they've done a really wonderful job.  I'd have preferred if they had aged them for Season 3 and then recast for seasons 4-6. 

[Fireball]

I'm not exactly sure if I should post this article here or in the media forum, but since we've been talking about Diana I'll post it here. The article makes it sound like 

Spoiler

season 4 & 5 are going to be Charles & Diana drama heavy.

I also read that the show

Spoiler

will likely depict Diana over a span of at least fifteen years, from her wedding to Charles at 20 to her untimely death at 36.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Fireball

[merylinkid]

I do hope they cover Anne's marriage (she married REALLY young, personally I believe to get out of Charles' shadow).   The attempted kidnapping of Anne is also huge.   I would love to see the Queen's reaction to the fact that someone actually tried to kidnap one of her kids -- and Anne's kick ass response "Not bloody likely."

There's a lot in the 1970s and 1980s going on that had nothing to do with the kids and their marriages.   The Troubles.  The assassination of her cousin Lord Mountbatten. The economy.   The Falklands War.    The Queen had to approve a war in which she KNEW her favorite child would be in harm's way.   That had to have an affect on her.

Edited August 16, 2017 by merylinkid

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

The attempted kidnapping of Anne is also huge.  I would love to see the Queen's reaction to the fact that someone actually tried to kidnap one of her kids -- and Anne's kick ass response "Not bloody likely."

It's an awesome story. Anne doesn't have time for your kidnapping fantasies!

[SeanC]

Regarding the overall structure of the show, the first season basically covered late 1951 to early 1956.  From there:

Spoiler

Season 2 has been announced as being 1956 to 1964.  I assume it will end with Harold Wilson taking office, signalling the beginning of the more tumultuous, reform-oriented period.

So really, the first two seasons of this planned six season project only covered 13 years of the Queen's now 65-year reign.  It seems like the following seasons are going to accelerate the pace considerably.

Since we've been told that Diana will show up at the end of Season 3, that means that Season 3 will have to go from 1964 well into the 1970s.  If they depict Charles and Diana's first meeting, the earliest logical time for her to show up, that's as far as 1977, as long as the first two seasons combined.  If they can pull that off, they could probably get the series on track to something more of a one season = one decade model, with Season 4 being (approximately) the 1980s, Season 5 the 1990s, and Season 6 the 21st century.

There's also the obvious question of what Morgan has in mind for the ending of the show.  Now, the easiest thing for him would of course be if the next couple of years "writes" an obvious stopping point, i.e., one or both of the Queen and the Duke pass away.  But assuming that doesn't happen, he'll have to choose something else.  The Diamond Jubilee in 2012, or maybe the birth of Prince George in 2013, would be two potential points in time that come to mind.

I'll also be interested to see how Morgan handles Diana's death in the series, since he'll have the additional hurdle of trying to avoid a rerun of his own earlier dramatization of that incident.

[dleighg]

On 3/8/2017 at 3:31 PM, dubbel zout said:

he Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

I'm late to the party, and most assuredly not a royal-watcher, but don't the princes William and Harry use "Wales" as their last name in the military? Or is that just a sort of shortcut nickname. 

[doodlebug]

17 hours ago, dleighg said:

I'm late to the party, and most assuredly not a royal-watcher, but don't the princes William and Harry use "Wales" as their last name in the military? Or is that just a sort of shortcut nickname. 

Yes, but that's because their father is the Prince of Wales.  Andrew's kids use York and William's son, George, is attending pre-school with the last name of Cambridge.  The kids' surnames are based on the highest title of their father.  Hence, the Duke of Edinburgh's kids were Mountbatten-Windsor until they grew up and were given their own titles.  Philip, born a prince of Greece, didn't have a formal last name and used the title of his beloved uncle, the Earl Mountbatten as his.

Edited September 26, 2017 by doodlebug

[Pallas]

5 hours ago, dleighg said:

Or is that just a sort of shortcut nickname. 

 

Yes, a shortcut: a title can be used as a sort of informal yet elevated surname. The Prince of Wales and his immediate family can be known as Wales (title) as well as Windsor (family name). Before William was given his own title of (Royal) Duke of Cambridge, he was Prince William of Wales -- as Harry remains, for now, Prince Henry of Wales. The shortcut usage is to refer to an aristocrat not only by his given name, family name and title, but by his given name/title: so, not only Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham, but Robert Grantham. 

[doodlebug]

8 minutes ago, Pallas said:

 

Yes, a shortcut: a title can be used as a sort of informal yet elevated surname. The Prince of Wales and his immediate family can be known as Wales (title) as well as Windsor (family name). Before William was given his own title of (Royal) Duke of Cambridge, he was Prince William of Wales -- as Harry remains, for now, Prince Henry of Wales. The shortcut usage is to refer to an aristocrat not only by his given name, family name and title, but by his given name/title: so, not only Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham, but Robert Grantham. 

Anyone descended from Queen Elizabeth via Prince Philip can also use Mountbatten-
Windsor instead of their title as a last name.  For example, Prince William used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor when he and Kate filed suit against the magazine that published the topless photos of her while he was William Wales in school and the military.  Yet his son is a Cambridge at school.  They can go either way as they prefer.

Edited September 25, 2017 by doodlebug

[ItCouldBeWorse]

9 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Hence, the Duke of Windsor's kids were Mountbatten-Windsor until they grew up and were given their own titles.

Duke of Edinburgh.

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Duke of Edinburgh.

Oops, sorry, wrong Duke!

[chitowngirl]

Doesn't Prince Edward use Edward Windsor as his family name?

[dubbel zout]

Yes; formally, his daughter is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (though Mountbatten is often left off, most likely for space reasons.)

[VCRTracking]

A video from "Today I Learned" YouTube channel:  "What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?"

Surprisingly, a lot.

[kwnyc]

She has the power to remove apostrophes?

[kwnyc]

She has the power to remove apostrophes?

[dubbel zout]

9 minutes ago, kwnyc said:

She has the power to remove apostrophes?

Think of the havoc that causes!

[GaT]

I'm not really sure where to post this, but I'm posting it here just because it seems like the best place. I watched The Crown, & I also watched some documentaries about the British Royal Family on Netflix, & I noticed that everyone always says how handsome Prince Philip was when Elizabeth met him. I keep looking, but I'm not seeing it. Apparently he was a player in his youth because of his looks, so it seems like a lot of people agree, is it just me not getting it? Do other people think he was a really hot guy?

[Pallas]

3 hours ago, GaT said:

I noticed that everyone always says how handsome Prince Philip was when Elizabeth met him.

Philip in 1938, age 17, the year before he met Elizabeth. 

[GaT]

21 minutes ago, Pallas said:

Philip in 1938, age 17, the year before he met Elizabeth. 

Nope, just not doing it for me.

[Athena]

11 hours ago, GaT said:

Nope, just not doing it for me.

Attractiveness  is subjective so you may never see it. I objectively think Philip was good looking for the standards of that era. Also, he seems to have had a good amount of charisma and ease with women. I got the sense from those early photos and accounts of their courtship and marriage that he treated Elizabeth very well and was  deferential to her. He posed with a lot of confidence. I think that can go very far in attractiveness as well.  

[Yokosmom]

Quote

I don't need yet another whitewash of Diana as the most perfect person who ever lived so will probably be out early as well.

Do we know that it will be a whitewash?  They may focus on her neuroses and suicide attempts.

[dubbel zout]

At this point, I feel like everyone knows she had problems and the marriage was a disaster on both sides, if for different reasons. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by dubbel zout
Spelling

[andromeda331]

17 hours ago, GaT said:

I'm not really sure where to post this, but I'm posting it here just because it seems like the best place. I watched The Crown, & I also watched some documentaries about the British Royal Family on Netflix, & I noticed that everyone always says how handsome Prince Philip was when Elizabeth met him. I keep looking, but I'm not seeing it. Apparently he was a player in his youth because of his looks, so it seems like a lot of people agree, is it just me not getting it? Do other people think he was a really hot guy?

 

2 hours ago, Athena said:

Attractiveness  is subjective so you may never see it. I objectively think Philip was good looking for the standards of that era. Also, he seems to have had a good amount of charisma and ease with women. I got the sense from those early photos and accounts of their courtship and marriage that he treated Elizabeth very well and was  deferential to her. He posed with a lot of confidence. I think that can go very far in attractiveness as well.  

It is subjective. A lot of people might find him attractive and others don't. I land in the don't category as well. I always thought the opposite that he didn't treat Elizabeth well. He always seemed like a jerk to me. The series isn't really changing my opinion of him. Some moments were nice like planning the coronation and wanting to modernize it. Then bitches about having to courtesy to his wife. He complains about nothing to do then bitches about going off on a tour. When you knowingly marry the heir to the throne you can't be surprised the direction your life took. I liked him not wanting to blame Peter's wife for the affair and teaching the young boy to drive. But for the most part he whines, complains and is a jerk to his wife.  

[Athena]

1 minute ago, andromeda331 said:

 

It is subjective. A lot of people might find him attractive and others don't. I land in the don't category as well. I always thought the opposite that he didn't treat Elizabeth well. He always seemed like a jerk to me. The series isn't really changing my opinion of him. Some moments were nice like planning the coronation and wanting to modernize it. Then bitches about having to courtesy to his wife. He complains about nothing to do then bitches about going off on a tour. When you knowingly marry the heir to the throne you can't be surprised the direction your life took. I liked him not wanting to blame Peter's wife for the affair and teaching the young boy to drive. But for the most part he whines, complains and is a jerk to his wife.  

I should have specified their early marriage. I think the show is more or less accurate in portraying him as a bit of petulant jerk after she becomes Queen. Before though, they both seemed very happy when courting and in Malta.

[dubbel zout]

The reality of his position hits Philip when Elizabeth becomes queen. As a royal himself—even a minor one—he should have had a better idea, but given his personality, it had to be a lot to swallow. I don’t feel sorry for Philip, though. It was no surprise Elizabeth would be queen one day.

[GaT]

23 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

 

It is subjective. A lot of people might find him attractive and others don't. I land in the don't category as well. I always thought the opposite that he didn't treat Elizabeth well. He always seemed like a jerk to me. The series isn't really changing my opinion of him. Some moments were nice like planning the coronation and wanting to modernize it. Then bitches about having to courtesy to his wife. He complains about nothing to do then bitches about going off on a tour. When you knowingly marry the heir to the throne you can't be surprised the direction your life took. I liked him not wanting to blame Peter's wife for the affair and teaching the young boy to drive. But for the most part he whines, complains and is a jerk to his wife.  

I'm watching "The Royal House of Windsor" on Netflix, & Philip apparently pitched such a fit (aided by Lord Mountbatten) about the kids last name being Windsor & not Mountbatten that Elizabeth legally changed the last name of the male descendants to Mountbatten-Windsor.

[Ceindreadh]

25 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

The reality of his position hits Philip when Elizabeth becomes queen. As a royal himself—even a minor one—he should have had a better idea, but given his personality, it had to be a lot to swallow. I don’t feel sorry for Philip, though. It was no surprise Elizabeth would be queen one day.

It was no surprise that she was going to be Queen one day, but I don't think anybody expected it to be so soon.  King George was only in his mid 50s when he died, and given the longevity of his ancestors, it's likely that Philip and indeed Elizabeth expected that they'd have at least 15 to 20 years to just be a 'normal' married couple (or as normal as they could be) before having to take on all the extra responsibilities of the crown (moving out of their home, changing the name).

[Crs97]

Quote

Do we know that it will be a whitewash?  They may focus on her neuroses and suicide attempts.

Seeing how the show continued the myth of Margaret being denied the love of her life because it was more romantic to think of her as tragic rather than selfish, I have no illusions that they will treat the royal family's most popular princess with anything but kid gloves.  If they show her issues, I have no doubt it will be because Charles drove her to it.  No sense losing your audience by using facts over sensationalism.

[Dejana]

On 10/15/2017 at 8:28 PM, GaT said:

I'm not really sure where to post this, but I'm posting it here just because it seems like the best place. I watched The Crown, & I also watched some documentaries about the British Royal Family on Netflix, & I noticed that everyone always says how handsome Prince Philip was when Elizabeth met him. I keep looking, but I'm not seeing it. Apparently he was a player in his youth because of his looks, so it seems like a lot of people agree, is it just me not getting it? Do other people think he was a really hot guy?

Given some of the figures I've seen described as handsome/beautiful by the Daily Mail, there seems to be a very different bar for attractiveness among the British horsey aristocratic set. It's all subjective, but with him it's not a total headscratcher like some of the great beauties of the 1700/1800s. Anyway, here is the real Philip in motion at 26:

[GaT]

15 minutes ago, Dejana said:

Given some of the figures I've seen described as handsome/beautiful by the Daily Mail, there seems to be a very different bar for attractiveness among the British horsey aristocratic set. It's all subjective, but with him it's not a total headscratcher like some of the great beauties of the 1700/1800s. Anyway, here is the real Philip in motion at 26:

Yeah, he's just not doing it for me LOL but I do find the wacky waves the royals use quite amusing.

[Pallas]

"...And a group of Indianapolis naval cadets."  -- British Pathé voice-over 

Straight from Queenmaryland.

[Quilt Fairy]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 2:01 PM, GaT said:

I'm watching "The Royal House of Windsor" on Netflix

Just coming here to post about this series which is very interesting.  It's apparently a British production which had access to letters and documents previously kept private.  Six parts going from the creation of the house of Windsor during WWI up to the modern day.  It certainly does NOT whitewash Diana.

[GaT]

10 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

It certainly does NOT whitewash Diana.

No, it doesn't. It also doesn't whitewash the fact that apparently Charles & Diana barely even knew each other when they got married, she was totally the wrong person for him to marry, but since she seemed perfect on the surface, they did it. 

[dubbel zout]

In one of the numerous specials around Diana’s death anniversary, she herself said she and Charles had met 11 or 13 times before they got married. She seemed astonished too.

Edited October 18, 2017 by dubbel zout

[Quilt Fairy]

I was also astonished to find out that the Queen Mother let Charles and Camilla use one of her Scottish castles as a bolt hole during their affair.

[roamyn]

On 10/18/2017 at 7:12 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

I was also astonished to find out that the Queen Mother let Charles and Camilla use one of her Scottish castles as a bolt hole during their affair.

That actually does shock me, because SHE was the one who put the kibosh on Charles & Camilla marrying (for the most part) because Camilla wasn't a virgin.  She convinced QEII that Camilla should not "taint" Buckingham Palace with her presence.  She was also the one who put the kibosh on the DoW receiving "her royal highness".  Maybe because Camilla was a mistress vs. wife, QETQM saw her differently.  She made her Charles happy.

I also read, at the time of her death, that she disliked both Diana and Sarah, though Sarah more.  I wonder if that's true?  I have just gotten up to Ep 4 on the Netflix series, so we'll be diving into those marriages this episode.

[Inquisitionist]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 11:01 AM, Athena said:

Attractiveness  is subjective so you may never see it. I objectively think Philip was good looking for the standards of that era.

Oh, absolutely.  And as royals go, he was pretty dishy.

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 2:30 PM, Ceindreadh said:

It was no surprise that she was going to be Queen one day, but I don't think anybody expected it to be so soon.  King George was only in his mid 50s when he died, and given the longevity of his ancestors, it's likely that Philip and indeed Elizabeth expected that they'd have at least 15 to 20 years to just be a 'normal' married couple (or as normal as they could be) before having to take on all the extra responsibilities of the crown (moving out of their home, changing the name).

Yeah, I got the impression that the suddenness of it, while they were both so young, was a big factor in his difficulty adjusting.  Victoria was already queen when Albert married her, and I've read that his adjustment to being consort was not without its difficulties.

[andromeda331]

How good was his health from Elizabeth's marriage to the end?  Maybe my memory's off because I thought his health wasn't that good. He seemed like had a few health problems the last few years. Of course its possible he kept that from his family so maybe they weren't aware of how serious things really were (which I completely understand my family has done that too). Or he wasn't aware himself. I think in the first episode that they were keeping him in the dark. Was his health fine when she married until the last couple years? Or was it already declining? Maybe it declined faster then anyone thought? 

[chitowngirl]

Isn't he the King the doctors kept the cancer diagnosis from him?