History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Ziz]

On 06/02/2017 at 2:57 AM, dubbel zout said:

At the same time the rules of succession for the monarch were changed, there was a bill in Parliament to change the male primogeniture law for peerages, but it didn't make it out of committee, and no further action has been taken.

There have been some interesting articles about what would happen if the first born was a transgender person. How would that affect inheritance?

Transgender doesn't change primogeniture. A male-born person entitled to inherit retains their entitltement regardless of whether they later transition to being a woman. Likewise, if the oldest child is born female and has younger brothers, she still does not gain inheritance rights by transitioning to male. 

[Rinaldo]

2 hours ago, Ziz said:

Transgender doesn't change primogeniture. A male-born person entitled to inherit retains their entitltement regardless of whether they later transition to being a woman. Likewise, if the oldest child is born female and has younger brothers, she still does not gain inheritance rights by transitioning to male. 

Primogeniture is really strict that way. An adopted child does not inherit. A child born before the parents' marriage does not inherit, even if the parents do later marry (which legitimizes the child in other legal contexts).

[Ziz]

11 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Primogeniture is really strict that way. An adopted child does not inherit. A child born before the parents' marriage does not inherit, even if the parents do later marry (which legitimizes the child in other legal contexts).

Good old fashioned sexism really. 

[dubbel zout]

#ThePatriarchyIsAliveAndWell

[PRgal]

8 minutes ago, Ziz said:

Good old fashioned sexism really. 

Not only that, but very blood-family focused.  Chinese/Confucian-influenced  cultures are like that too - to the point that many "normal" (i.e. non-royal/non-aristocratic) people frown upon adoption, hide the fact they're adopting and/or don't tell their kids that they're adopted.  It has its consequences.  I know of a guy who found his adoption papers when he was in his mid-20s.  He apparently never knew/was never told (geez, your parents are a little older than most parents of people your age - wouldn't you have guessed?  Or perhaps wondered whether your mom used a donor egg?).  That was only a few years ago, so it wasn't like it happened back in the day when ALL cultures hid it.  

[dubbel zout]

When a woman's worth is measured by her uterine capacity, it's logical having to adopt is considered shameful. She's failed her one duty.

[chitowngirl]

1 hour ago, Rinaldo said:

Primogeniture is really strict that way. An adopted child does not inherit. A child born before the parents' marriage does not inherit, even if the parents do later marry (which legitimizes the child in other legal contexts).

Actor Christopher Guest is the perfect example of this. He is Baron Haden-Guest. Parents were not married at the time of his older brother's birth, so Christopher inherited the title. His children are adopted, so the title will pass to his younger brother, Nicholas. 

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

When a woman's worth is measured by her uterine capacity, it's logical having to adopt is considered shameful. She's failed her one duty.

Or a family's reputation being measured by bloodlines.  To be honest, I see that as more of an issue than fertility itself.  And fertility goes both ways (even though a woman is more likely to be shamed when she is unable to get pregnant).   

[Rinaldo]

2 hours ago, chitowngirl said:

Actor Christopher Guest is the perfect example of this.

Great minds etc., @chitowngirl. I very nearly mentioned Christopher Guest to illustrate both my points, and then decided not to.

Another example of the strictness of behavior demanded of those in immediate line of succession, whom I mentioned several pages (months) back in this topic, is the 7th Earl of Harewood, the Queen's first cousin through his mother. (His name was George Lascelles, and Tommy Lascelles was another of his cousins, obviously on his father's side.) When he wanted to be divorced from his first wife, it was quite the scandal. She refused for several years, precipitating further scandal because the earl and the woman he wanted to marry decided to start having children. Their son was born in 1964 (thereby excluded from the line of succession), and when the divorce finally happened in 1967, he had to apply to the Queen for permission to remarry, because of the Royal Marriages Act (which was modified in 2015 to apply to only the first six in line). When the permission came through after considerable delay, the pair went to Connecticut to get married -- they needed to be married abroad because divorced people could not be married in the Church of England, and people covered by the Royal Marriages Act could not get married in a registry office (roughly equivalent to US "justice of the peace" marriages).

Lord Harewood was an interesting and important figure in classical music -- editor of an opera magazine, administrator of more than one music festival an opera house. He also wrote knowledgeably about opera performances and recordings; he and I were co-contributors to a couple of books with chapters of that sort.

[PRgal]

7 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Great minds etc., @chitowngirl. I very nearly mentioned Christopher Guest to illustrate both my points, and then decided not to.

Another example of the strictness of behavior demanded of those in immediate line of succession, whom I mentioned several pages (months) back in this topic, is the 7th Earl of Harewood, the Queen's first cousin through his mother. (His name was George Lascelles, and Tommy Lascelles was another of his cousins, obviously on his father's side.) When he wanted to be divorced from his first wife, it was quite the scandal. She refused for several years, precipitating further scandal because the earl and the woman he wanted to marry decided to start having children. Their son was born in 1964 (thereby excluded from the line of succession), and when the divorce finally happened in 1967, he had to apply to the Queen for permission to remarry, because of the Royal Marriages Act (which was modified in 2015 to apply to only the first six in line). When the permission came through after considerable delay, the pair went to Connecticut to get married -- they needed to be married abroad because divorced people could not be married in the Church of England, and people covered by the Royal Marriages Act could not get married in a registry office (roughly equivalent to US "justice of the peace" marriages).

Lord Harewood was an interesting and important figure in classical music -- editor of an opera magazine, administrator of more than one music festival an opera house. He also wrote knowledgeably about opera performances and recordings; he and I were co-contributors to a couple of books with chapters of that sort.

When was the Royal Marriages Act changed so people COULD marry outside of a church?  Because Charles and Camilla did so in 2005.

[dubbel zout]

I hope the Royal Marriages Act was changed in part because someone finally realized that if you're 43rd in line to the throne, it shouldn't really matter where you get married, since it's beyond unlikely you'll ever be called on to rule. And your spot in line will only get further away from the throne as those ahead of you have children, and their children have children, etc.

[ProudMary]

Interesting, well written article by a journalist who ran in the Armstrong-Jones' social circle.

The Real-Life Story of Princess Margaret and Tony, Wild Swingers of Netflix’s ‘The Crown’

[Rinaldo]

2 hours ago, PRgal said:

When was the Royal Marriages Act changed so people COULD marry outside of a church?  Because Charles and Camilla did so in 2005.

Hoo boy. There's an entire Wikipedia article devoted just to the marriage, and I'm sure that's just the "... for Dummies" version. As I understand it from my on-the-spot research (and there may assuredly be others here way more informed), a civil ceremony for a royal wedding WAS questioned on grounds of the Royal Marriages Act at the time. Arguments were presented that those restrictions had been repealed by the Marriage Act 1949, though those holding the contrary opinion remained unconvinced. There may well be strict constructionists who still consider the marriage illegal.

Here are some more factoids having to do with the intricacies of official permissions and such:

"In Canada, the Department of Justice announced its decision that the Queen's Privy Council for Canada was not required to meet to give its consent to the marriage, as the union would not result in offspring [because of Camilla's age] and would have no impact on the succession to the Canadian throne."

"The marriage was scheduled to take place in a civil ceremony at Windsor Castle, with a subsequent religious blessing at St George's Chapel. The venue was subsequently changed to Windsor Guildhall, because a civil marriage at Windsor Castle would oblige the venue to be available to anyone who wished to be married there."

And @dubbel zout, I misspoke earlier: The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was in fact repealed in 2015, and for exactly the reason you state. Its repeal was a result of the 2011 Perth Agreement, which in addition to ending male-preference primogeniture for those born after 2011 and allowing marriage to Catholics, also limited those needing royal approval for marriage to the first 6 in line.

[dubbel zout]

I'm sure approval for the person 43rd in line to throne was pro forma anyway, but getting rid of that requirement for anyone more than, say, 10th in line, was long overdue regardless. (I know it's necessary now only for the top six; I was speaking more generally.)

[biakbiak]

9 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

sure approval for the person 43rd in line to throne was pro forma 

Yeah the queen is probably like "new phone, who dis?"

[Roseanna]

On 12/21/2017 at 0:41 PM, Rinaldo said:

Primogeniture is really strict that way. An adopted child does not inherit. A child born before the parents' marriage does not inherit, even if the parents do later marry (which legitimizes the child in other legal contexts).

 

On 12/21/2017 at 0:54 PM, Ziz said:

Good old fashioned sexism really. 

No doubt, from today perspective. But at the time it made sense when one thinks the opposite: if there was no certain rules who had a right to inherit, how would the decision would be made? Societies where a ruler had many wives and could choose which of his sons would inherit or the sons struggled among themselves after their farher's death, haven't been very succesful. 

That said, there was famous exceptions in the English history: John Gaunt married his mistress and their children born before the marriage were legitimized. Inspite of this, Henry Tudor's claim to the English crown via his mother was shaky - he ruled rather by conquest.   

On 12/21/2017 at 1:05 PM, PRgal said:

Not only that, but very blood-family focused.  Chinese/Confucian-influenced  cultures are like that too - to the point that many "normal" (i.e. non-royal/non-aristocratic) people frown upon adoption, hide the fact they're adopting and/or don't tell their kids that they're adopted.  It has its consequences.  I know of a guy who found his adoption papers when he was in his mid-20s.  He apparently never knew/was never told (geez, your parents are a little older than most parents of people your age - wouldn't you have guessed?  Or perhaps wondered whether your mom used a donor egg?).  That was only a few years ago, so it wasn't like it happened back in the day when ALL cultures hid it.  

Not all cultures. In the ancient Rome adoption was an usual and honorable practice that also Emperors used: Caesar adopted posthumously Octovian who, as Augustus, adopted Tiberius.  Notice that with the excpection that Augustus at first adopted his daughter's sons who died before his own demise, the adopted men were adults whose capabilities were already known (althogh Octavian's were undervcalued by his enemeis).  

[gator12]

On 12/17/2017 at 0:48 PM, Roseanna said:

In other respect Wiliam and Harry had a harder childhood because their parents' affairs became public. To Diana winning Charles seems to have been so important that she didn't think what quarrelling with him in public would mean to their sons. 

Story is Diana's used to tell William, a a child about her issues. 

On 12/19/2017 at 10:37 PM, dubbel zout said:

Yes, the working royals are the ones doing official appearances and such, representing the queen at overseas events (weddings, funeral, trade visits, etc.) and within the UK (hospital openings, charity functions, etc.). Charles wants to limit the number of working royals to his siblings and their spouses (where appropriate) and then his kids. He doesn't want more of William and Harry's generation to be getting money from the civil list (it doesn't exist anymore, but for simplicity's sake, I'll use that term), partly to save money and partly I think because he feels it "modernizes" the royal family by having more of them out in the world making their own way, as it were.

The streamlining has been happening for a while. It really affects only the York princesses at the moment, as Anne's kids aren't royal, and Edward's are too young. The older generation will reduce its workload naturally, and their kids have never been expected to pitch in anyway, as they're not royals. (George V saw to that when he restricted who would get the HRH: children of the Sovereign, the male line grandsons of the Sovereign, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Because of that last one, the queen had to make a special Letter of Patent so that Charlotte, and any other children of William, and Harry's kids would be a princess/prince and get the HRH.)

Whew.

HRH only to William's Children

[dubbel zout]

5 minutes ago, gator12 said:

HRH only to William's Children

Yes, you're right. The queen could decide to make an exception (as she did for Charlotte and Cambridge #3), but I suspect Harry would prefer his kids not to have the HRH so their lives will ostensibly be more private.

[Booger666]

On 12/17/2017 at 5:16 PM, merylinkid said:

Charles makes spectaculary bad money decisions.

Can you explain?  I’m not a royal follower.

Saw the posts about Charles “streamlining” the royals when he becomes king and how that would impact Beatrice and Eugenie.  If that happens, could they appear and take money directly or are royals prohibited from being paid for appearances unless it is requested via the queen/king and they are assigned?

[doodlebug]

5 hours ago, Booger666 said:

Can you explain?  I’m not a royal follower.

Saw the posts about Charles “streamlining” the royals when he becomes king and how that would impact Beatrice and Eugenie.  If that happens, could they appear and take money directly or are royals prohibited from being paid for appearances unless it is requested via the queen/king and they are assigned?

It would be considered incredibly tacky, but it has happened on occasion.  They would most likely be hired by corporations who would pay an appearance fee.  Even now, Andrew's daughters have 'jobs' with large corporations owned by Brits who have connections to the royal family and their duties are somewhat ill-defined and the perks of their jobs include lots of vacation time.  A lot of rich kids end up 'working' for friends of the family in these sorts of jobs; so it's not just the princesses, however, their names and status give a little cache to the enterprise where they are employed.  Andrew doesn't have near the wealth that Charles has; he's largely dependent on the Queen for income, so it's best if his kids find other ways to earn some dough.  Also, their mother doesn't have a fraction of the wealth that Diana had, so the girls  can't count on her financial support, either. At least not to live at the level that they are accustomed to having.  Even if Charles cut the boys off without a penny (never happen); both of them have a large inheritance from Diana's estate and could live pretty comfortably for the rest of their lives without another source of income.

Recall also that Sarah, Duchess of York, did Weight Watchers commercials shortly after the end of her marriage.  Supposedly, the royals didn't like it, but, she wasn't independently wealthy, she needed the money and there wasn't much they could do about it.

Edited December 26, 2017 by doodlebug

[Cara]

3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Recall also that Sarah, Duchess of York, did Weight Watchers commercials shortly after the end of her marriage.  Supposedly, the royals didn't like it, but, she wasn't independently wealthy, she needed the money and there wasn't much they could do about it.

Didn’t she get into a bit of trouble a few years ago for trying to sell access to Prince Andrew or something? I don’t remember the details. I’ll have to look them up.

[OtterMommy]

Also, didn't Sarah Ferguson go bankrupt a few years ago?  I think that might have been around the time she tried to sell access to Prince Andrew (and shortly before her reality show on the Oprah network....)

[dubbel zout]

Fergie's had money problems since her divorce. She thought that not pushing for more of a settlement would leave her on decent terms with the royal family, which it didn't, her bad luck. Plus, Andrew's naval salary wasn't that large—£30,000/year, maybe?—and he never had much of his own money. (Mummy supports him.) I think Fergie spent a lot of money trying to keep up with her much wealthier friends, and that put her in the red quickly. Her American endorsements and autobiography deal were to get quick money.

[doodlebug]

16 hours ago, Cara said:

Didn’t she get into a bit of trouble a few years ago for trying to sell access to Prince Andrew or something? I don’t remember the details. I’ll have to look them up.

Yep, she worked out a plan to sell access to her ex for 500,000 pounds.  Unfortunately for her, a reporter posing as a Middle Eastern sheikh managed to get her on tape accepting a down payment of $40,000 and explicitly stating that she was selling access to Andrew, who, in addition to being a son of the reigning monarch, held a position advocating international business and trade in Great Britain.  This was in about 2010.

Sarah got a rather paltry divorce settlement with alimony of only about $20 grand a year, hardly enough to keep her in the style to which she was accustomed.  As noted above, she consented to the settlement in hopes that she would be able to stay on good terms with the rest of the royal family which didn't happen since many of them disliked her from the start and were happy to see the last of her.  She also was concerned about the sort of press coverage that a prolonged battle over money would cause would be hurtful to her daughters.

Interestingly, Sarah and Andrew have rather famously remained friendly since the divorce and share a home, the Royal Lodge at Windsor as well as a ski chalet in Switzerland for which they paid $13 million (most likely the Queen paid most of it).  The Royal Lodge doesn't belong to Andrew, but he's got a 75 year lease from the Crown Estates (the monarch owns it).  The house itself has some 30 rooms including 7 bedrooms, so it's not like he and Fergie have to share a bathroom or anything.

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

She also was concerned about the sort of press coverage that a prolonged battle over money would cause would be hurtful to her daughters.

Charles and Diana were battling it out at the same time, and Sarah wanted to avoid that kind of attention, which is to her credit. 

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

Interestingly, Sarah and Andrew have rather famously remained friendly since the divorce

I think their divorce wasn't because they couldn't get along (as was the case with Charles and Diana), but because Andrew was gone so much as a naval officer and Sarah didn't know how to deal with that, hence the toe-sucking and other indiscreet behavior. If they hadn't been royal, the embarrassment would have passed. I think they'd remarry in a second if Philip didn't hate her so thoroughly. A part of me likes to think he's hanging on solely to keep that from happening. Dude holds a grudge. (The queen probably wouldn't care [Andrew is allegedly her favorite], and as sixth-soon-to-be-seventh in line to the throne, he doesn't need her formal permission anymore.)

[2727]

Season 2 scene comparisons for The Crown vs historical footage. There's a similar video on YT for season 1 if interested.

[Athena5217]

Thanks, 2727.  I am so impressed with how well the costume and set designers have done in recreating these moments. It’s interesting what the show gets exactly right, like Elizabeth’s Christmas speech dress, and what it gets wrong, like the reason Philip’s sister was flying and Kennedy’s accent.

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I think their divorce wasn't because they couldn't get along (as was the case with Charles and Diana), but because Andrew was gone so much as a naval officer and Sarah didn't know how to deal with that, hence the toe-sucking and other indiscreet behavior. If they hadn't been royal, the embarrassment would have passed. I think they'd remarry in a second if Philip didn't hate her so thoroughly. A part of me likes to think he's hanging on solely to keep that from happening. Dude holds a grudge. (The queen probably wouldn't care [Andrew is allegedly her favorite], and as sixth-soon-to-be-seventh in line to the throne, he doesn't need her formal permission anymore.)

If a woman has two young children, she usually has enough to do by taking care for them. But if she can't be without sex when her husband is away, she can conduct her affair discreetly, not in the front of her children. Sarah's actions showed that she lacked normal decency and common sense.  

Being friends with your ex doen't prove that you want to remarry her/him,

[Gareth3]

I was just watching the first season, and I can't understand the bit where they have to move into Buckingham Palace. Clarence House is just as secure, and no further away from the government. Even the argument from tradition doesn't work - the monarchs have lived in several places in London over the last 900 years. Plus, forcing you to move your young family into a drafty old art museum really hammers home that you have no power at all. So why did the government insist on it?

[dubbel zout]

Tradition? After the Abdication, it was especially important to keep the symbolism of the Crown intact. Also, a lot of the day-to-day work of the monarch happens at Buck House: receiving ambassadors, meetings with ministers, various ceremonies, etc. Living above the shop, as it were, means people come to you. If the family had stayed at Clarence House, the queen would be running back and forth between locations.

[merylinkid]

It's not only everyone is received at the Palace, after all that could be as easily switched to Clarence House.   After all, the Kinds/Queens used to move between palaces when the outhouses needed a rest.   It's that a lot of the bureacracy of the crown is physically located in offices at the Palace.   All those people would not fit into Clarence House.   So even if all the receiving were done down the lane, she would still be running up there for all the workaday things.    It's just not realistic.    Sadly, so.  

[Gareth3]

OK, that make sense.

[Minivanessa]

18 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Tradition? After the Abdication, it was especially important to keep the symbolism of the Crown intact. Also, a lot of the day-to-day work of the monarch happens at Buck House: receiving ambassadors, meetings with ministers, various ceremonies, etc. Living above the shop, as it were, means people come to you. If the family had stayed at Clarence House, the queen would be running back and forth between locations.

 

17 hours ago, merylinkid said:

It's not only everyone is received at the Palace, after all that could be as easily switched to Clarence House.   After all, the Kinds/Queens used to move between palaces when the outhouses needed a rest.   It's that a lot of the bureacracy of the crown is physically located in offices at the Palace.   All those people would not fit into Clarence House.   So even if all the receiving were done down the lane, she would still be running up there for all the workaday things.    It's just not realistic.    Sadly, so.  

I agree, living above the shop makes a lot of sense for the Queen and her family, especially as to the day to day routine of the Crown's business. But the Queen doesn't necessarily hang out at Buckingham Palace when she's off the clock (so to speak).

I recently watched a four part documentary about Windsor Castle (on the Smithsonian channel). The documentary characterized Windsor as the place the Queen really considers "home" and where she spends a lot of time including weekends. It had a lot of THs with Paul Burrell who apparently buttled for the Queen before he buttled for Diana. He described a Friday afternoon routine of loading Her Majesty and HM's numerous Corgis into the back of a Royal car which would then drive them all down to Windsor from BP.  

And of course there's Sandringham for six weeks starting every Christmas, and, for the month of August every year, Balmoral. 

[PeterPirate]

There's also the tourism angle.  People travel to London to see Buckingham Palace, the guards, and maybe get a glimpse of the royals.  

As I understand it from watching The Queen, there's a flag that flies above the palace only when Queen Elizabeth is at the palace.  Seems to me it would a smart marketing move to keep that flag flying at all times.   

[dleighg]

27 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

As I understand it from watching The Queen, there's a flag that flies above the palace only when Queen Elizabeth is at the palace.  Seems to me it would a smart marketing move to keep that flag flying at all times.   

Ah, but when the Queen "moves" that's a big tourism deal too. We happened to be at Edinburgh Castle when the Queen arrived at Holyrood Palace (just down the road, so to speak). They had a big ceremony at Edinburgh Castle which we had front row seats for, with canons booming and a military parade and all. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by dleighg

[dubbel zout]

51 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

As I understand it from watching The Queen, there's a flag that flies above the palace only when Queen Elizabeth is at the palace.  Seems to me it would a smart marketing move to keep that flag flying at all times.  

If the royal standard flew all the time regardless of the queen being there, it would defeat the purpose of flying it in the first place, which is to show to monarch is in residence.

Times are changing a little bit, courtesy of that royal agitator Diana, Princess of Wales. Per Professor Wiki:

Quote

Controversy arose regarding the lack of a flag at half-staff over Buckingham Palace following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. The Queen was then in summer residence at Balmoral; and according to established custom, no flag was displayed over Buckingham Palace, as the monarch was not present. The Queen proposed a compromise whereby the Union Flag would be flown at half-staff on the day of Diana's funeral.[3] Since then, the Union Flag has flown regularly in the Queen's absence and has been lowered to half-staff to mark several occasions such as the death of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother,[4] the September 11 attacks and the 7 July 2005 London bombings.[5]

[PeterPirate]

31 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Times are changing a little bit, courtesy of that royal agitator Diana, Princess of Wales. Per Professor Wiki:

Quote

Since then, the Union Flag has flown regularly in the Queen's absence

 

Great minds think alike.  ;)

[CousinAmy]

St. James Palace is the official home of The Crown. (US Ambassadors are posted to the Court of St. James.) I understand that Windsor is only slightly west of London, and probably not a long drive. But why do they go specifically to Sandringham specifically for Christmas? They already have so many castles! 

I was a little disappointed when I took a Google Street View tour of Windsor and found it swarming with tourists. I know that all these castles have public tours, but are they open when the Queen is in residence? It doesn't seem like a getaway when people are roaming around your home with their cell phones snapping photos.. 

[dleighg]

5 minutes ago, CousinAmy said:

but are they open when the Queen is in residence?

Certainly when the Queen arrived at Holyrood, that meant that tours of Holyrood Palace were out of the question. There were large notices to that effect wherever you would buy tickets to Edinburgh Castle, etc. I imagine that's the case at the other residences.

[Quilt Fairy]

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 6:10 AM, Roseanna said:

If a woman has two young children, she usually has enough to do by taking care for them. But if she can't be without sex when her husband is away, she can conduct her affair discreetly, not in the front of her children. Sarah's actions showed that she lacked normal decency and common sense.

I have no doubt that when Sarah was married to Andrew, their children had a nanny and other servants to take care of them.  It doesn't excuse her behavior, but many of the royals seem to live very empty lives, IMO.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, CousinAmy said:

I was a little disappointed when I took a Google Street View tour of Windsor and found it swarming with tourists. I know that all these castles have public tours, but are they open when the Queen is in residence? It doesn't seem like a getaway when people are roaming around your home with their cell phones snapping photos.. 

We've toured Windsor Castle when the queen's flag was flying, so we knew she was in residence.  Did she invite US for tea?  Noooooo.  But the "private residence" portion of Windsor Castle - like the "private residence" portion of Buckingham Palace is nowhere near the open-to-tourists area.

My favorite part of the visit to Windsor was going into St. George's Chapel and visiting the areas around the sanctuary where the modern-day royals are interred.  

[Pallas]

9 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

But why do they go specifically to Sandringham specifically for Christmas?

Family tradition, and family time. The six weeks at Sandringham are one of the Queen's two annual country retreats. Like Balmoral, Sandringham is her own property, and a setting for sport: riding and shooting. Sandringham is also where Elizabeth's father died, and his father before him. Wikipedia notes that at Sandringham each year, on February 6th, the Queen privately observes the anniversary of her accession, before returning to London. 

[Arynm]

9 hours ago, AZChristian said:

My favorite part of the visit to Windsor was going into St. George's Chapel and visiting the areas around the sanctuary where the modern-day royals are interred.  

My favorite part was seeing where the not so modern day Royals were interred. St. George Chapel was awesome and I can't wait to see Harry and Meghan get married there so I can nudge my husband and remind him of when we were there. Windsor Castle is huge, I'm not even sure where the private buildings were to be honest.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Arynm

[retired watcher]

There is a good series on Netflix called The Royal House of Windsor. It traces the house starting with WWI when the name was changed to Winsor. There are a lot of letters from the Families Archives. Also lots of films of the Royal Family. It is an interesting companion the The Crown.

[StaceyNotStacie]

1 hour ago, retired watcher said:

There is a good series on Netflix called The Royal House of Windsor. It traces the house starting with WWI when the name was changed to Winsor. There are a lot of letters from the Families Archives. Also lots of films of the Royal Family. It is an interesting companion the The Crown.

Is this the same series that aired on the Smithsonian Channel earlier this year?

[Inquisitionist]

On 11/28/2017 at 11:14 AM, dubbel zout said:

I loved that book. Her last days were pretty awful—she had breast cancer, and the German doctors wouldn’t give her enough morphine for pain management, as they didn’t want her to become addicted. As a consequence, she got relief for only a small period of time after a dose. She was in so much pain that her screams upset the guards enough that she was moved to a different part of the palace so they couldn’t hear her. So grim and sad!

And of course, her son was a disaster, and that caused a lot of guilt (because of his birth defect [the withered arm]) and frustration.

Finally finished the book a few days ago.  You're correct about Vicky's last days -- one more excruciating episode owed, in part, to the infighting between German and English doctors (much like her childbirth experience with Wilhelm and her husband Frederick's throat cancer).  Of course, once the breast cancer spread to her spine, it would have been incredibly painful.  Thank goodness she had the foresight to preserve her legacy.  As Hannah Pakula writes:

Quote

 

The Kaisers's efforts to hide the real facts of his mother's life came out in a conversation that took place shortly after her death, when [Frederick] Ponsonby, who had spirited her letters out of Germany a few months earlier, returned with Edward VII for the funeral.

One evening after dinner, the King's secretary was approached by Count August zu Eulenburg, head of the Kaiser's household. Eulenburg said that no letters or papers had been found when the Dowager Empress died, although a "thorough search" had taken place. The Kaiser had instructed him to find out "whether by chance these letters were in the archives at Windsor."

Ponsonby, who had never taken the letters out of his own home, replied that he would write at once to Lord Esher, the keeper of the archives at Windsor. In due course, a note came back, saying that the letters were "certainly not in the archives."

The letters that told Vicky's story remained safely locked away in Ponsonby's house for over a quarter of a century. Not until 1928, in answer to the publication of a self-serving memoir by Wilhelm II, exiled in Holland after World War I, did Fritz's godson edit and publish these letters.

It was Vicky's one and only triumph over Bismarck and her son.

 

The wiki article about Vicky provides a good overview of her life.

[Normades]

If the Duke of Winsdor (heaven forbid) had continued to be king and did not have any children, would Elizabeth have been his heir or would it have passed on to one of his brothers?  I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I'm not as well versed as some on succession rules of the time. 

Also, after hearing Prince Philip's supposed reaction to Princess Margaret's marriage to Armstrong-Jones.  I really wonder what his true feelings are about the Harry/Meghan engagement.  It's interesting how much things have changed in a relatively short period of time. 

[Athena]

14 minutes ago, Normades said:

If the Duke of Winsdor (heaven forbid) had continued to be king and did not have any children, would Elizabeth have been his heir or would it have passed on to one of his brothers?  I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I'm not as well versed as some on succession rules of the time. 

When Elizabeth was born, she was third in the line of succession to the throne, behind her uncle Edward, Prince of Wales, and her father, the Duke of York. This pattern would have remained if David/Edward not produced any heirs. If her father died and Edward was still alive as King, Elizabeth would have moved to being second in line. This is what happened to Queen Victoria.

If Elizabeth's parents had a son at any point, he would have been heir apparent. This male primogeniture succession has been changed recently. William and Catherine Cambridge's first child would have stayed heir apparent if she had been a female with male brothers. History was not changed since they had George first. 

[AZChristian]

11 minutes ago, Normades said:

If the Duke of Winsdor (heaven forbid) had continued to be king and did not have any children, would Elizabeth have been his heir or would it have passed on to one of his brothers?  I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I'm not as well versed as some on succession rules of the time. 

Also, after hearing Prince Philip's supposed reaction to Princess Margaret's marriage to Armstrong-Jones.  I really wonder what his true feelings are about the Harry/Meghan engagement.  It's interesting how much things have changed in a relatively short period of time. 

"Bertie" was still next in line if King Edward VIII had no children, and then Elizabeth would have been next. So the same thing would have happened, just later. If Bertie died before his brother, THEN Elizabeth would have been next.

[TexasGal]

On 12/21/2017 at 7:47 PM, ProudMary said:

Interesting, well written article by a journalist who ran in the Armstrong-Jones' social circle.

The Real-Life Story of Princess Margaret and Tony, Wild Swingers of Netflix’s ‘The Crown’

Thanks for this, good read!  The quote that Tony was "very well made" almost had me snorting my morning coffee though.

Edited January 2, 2018 by TexasGal