History Talk: The British Monarchy

[merylinkid]

It goes through the heir, the heir's kids (and their kids), then the next sibling of the heir, that sibling's kids, then the next sibling.   Think down, then over.    So the current line is:

Prince Charles (heir)

Prince William (heir's kid)

George (heir's kid, kid)

Charlotte (heir's kid, kid)

Prince Harry (heir's kid)

Prince Andrew (heir's next sibling, the primogeniture change is only going forward so Anne did not move up)

Beatrice (sibling's kid)

Eugenie (sibling's kid)

Prince Edward (heir's next next sibling)

John (sibling's kid)

Louise (sibling's kid)

Princess Anne (heir's next next sibling)

Peter (sibling's kid)

Savannah (sibling's kid, kid)

Isla (sibling's kid, kid)

Zara (sibling's kid)

Mia (sibling's kid, kid)

Then if necessary it goes to the current Monarch's nearest sibling (Margaret, deceased) kids.  

[Normades]

Thanks so much for the kind responses to my question about succession!  I appreciate the opportunity to learn!  Also, this has been a great site to learn about great books and documentaries.  I watched "Edward VIII - The Nazi King" at the recommendation of posters here.  It was very enlightening.  I really appreciate the info on this board.  

In watching and learning about the royals, it seems that the Duke of Windsor and Princess Margaret seemed to have in common their wish to keep all their perks without the sense of duty, while George VI and Elizabeth II had that sense of duty.  We're lucky things worked out as they did.  I can't imagine if DoW had stayed on the throne or PM had been first born.  

[dubbel zout]

38 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

John (sibling's kid)

James /nitpick

[Athena]

26 minutes ago, Normades said:

In watching and learning about the royals, it seems that the Duke of Windsor and Princess Margaret seemed to have in common their wish to keep all their perks without the sense of duty, while George VI and Elizabeth II had that sense of duty.  We're lucky things worked out as they did.  I can't imagine if DoW had stayed on the throne or PM had been first born.  

I won't excuse David, and I'm not a Margaret fan per se.  I do wonder how Margaret would have been the first born. I agree it is lucky that QEII was born naturally as very dutiful and responsible. Churchill knew her as an infant and wrote about it. Both Margaret and Elizabeth were/are probably clever, but under educated. I do wonder how things would have been different if their parents took the Prince Albert model and had the girls educated in maths, sciences, politics, etc. As mentioned above poor Princess Victoria was too educated for her own husband's court in Prussia but that kind of education would have helped both girls growing up in the 20th century. Margaret was spoiled by their father as David was spoiled by like... everyone.  I think Margaret was sheltered as well. Elizabeth and many other members of the royal family participated in the war effort, but no one expected Margaret given her age. It's good they protected her teenage self, but this probably didn't help with her sense of entitlement or her seeming lack of empathy for anyone in the lower classes. 

[j5cochran]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

It goes through the heir, the heir's kids (and their kids), then the next sibling of the heir, that sibling's kids, then the next sibling.   Think down, then over.    So the current line is:

Prince Charles (heir)

Prince William (heir's kid)

George (heir's kid, kid)

Charlotte (heir's kid, kid)

Prince Harry (heir's kid)

. . . .

Insert "Cambridge Kid #3 (heir's kid, kid)" after Charlotte -- remember, Katherine is expecting again!

[merylinkid]

But the baby is not born yet.   I listed the line of succession as of today January 2, 2018.    

[Athena5217]

I just read this article about Princess Margaret’s morning routine: https://www.wmagazine.com/story/princess-margaret-morning-routine. The 12:30 pm cracked me up and depressed me in rapid succession. It’s too bad Margaret didn’t seem to share her sister’s love of dogs. Dogs are excellent at getting you out of bed in the morning.

[Scarlett45]

11 hours ago, Normades said:

Thanks so much for the kind responses to my question about succession!  I appreciate the opportunity to learn!  Also, this has been a great site to learn about great books and documentaries.  I watched "Edward VIII - The Nazi King" at the recommendation of posters here.  It was very enlightening.  I really appreciate the info on this board.  

In watching and learning about the royals, it seems that the Duke of Windsor and Princess Margaret seemed to have in common their wish to keep all their perks without the sense of duty, while George VI and Elizabeth II had that sense of duty.  We're lucky things worked out as they did.  I can't imagine if DoW had stayed on the throne or PM had been first born.  

No silly questions here- us Anglophiles are happy to answer!!?

And yes I agree with you about David and Margaret. One could say Margaret was coddled as the younger daughter and thats why her personality was such, but David was Prince of Wales for a bit before he was King (I need to look up when George V succeeded, I believe it was 1910 and David would’ve been alive but young, I just checked, he was born in 1894 so late teens), and the first born- he would’ve been raised to accept his duty and he just didn’t have it in him. This was a man that was an adult through TWO world wars, was born before automobiles and died after we landed on the moon but had little vision. I’m just imagining the changes he saw in his life and the lack of legacy he left behind.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Scarlett45

[CousinAmy]

I'm 68, which certainly sounds like a grown-up person, but when I talk to my 71 year old brother I still feel like the little sister (even when our mom died, and I handled most of the arrangements with some input from him, I was amazed that I was so competent.) There's a lot to be said for birth order. If Margaret had been born first, she would have had those special years as the only Princess, plus whatever thrills one gets by being treated as the eldest. (I wouldn't know.) Most likely she would have stepped up as Queen, but I don't think she would have let her husband bully her, as Elizabeth did. She could have been the first divorced Queen.

[hendersonrocks]

Quote

I just read this article about Princess Margaret’s morning routine: https://www.wmagazine.com/story/princess-margaret-morning-routine. The 12:30 pm cracked me up and depressed me in rapid succession. It’s too bad Margaret didn’t seem to share her sister’s love of dogs. Dogs are excellent at getting you out of bed in the morning.

There's a new book about Princess Margaret out called Ma'am Darling: 99 Glimpses of Princess Margaret that is supposed to be really good (it's gotten great reviews) - this W Magazine tidbit is pulled from the book. I'm on the list for it at my library - it sounds like a very creative look at this quite complex woman.

[Roseanna]

20 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

And yes I agree with you about David and Margaret. One could say Margaret was coddled as the younger daughter and thats why her personality was such, but David was Prince of Wales for a bit before he was King (I need to look up when George V succeeded, I believe it was 1910 and David would’ve been alive but young, I just checked, he was born in 1894 so late teens), and the first born- he would’ve been raised to accept his duty and he just didn’t have it in him. This was a man that was an adult through TWO world wars, was born before automobiles and died after we landed on the moon but had little vision. I’m just imagining the changes he saw in his life and the lack of legacy he left behind.

David wasn't spoiled as a child, on the contrary: his father was severe and his mothe was distant. But it may be that he was spoiled as an adult when he became such a charmer that he was admired around the world. He evidently believed that he could do anything without undertanding  how powerless the king really is.

Also, maybe it was hereditary. His uncle, the older brother of the future George V , Prince Eddy who died, leaving a fiancee who then married his younger Brother and became Queen Mary, was unsuitable for becoming the king.           

On 1/2/2018 at 0:15 PM, Athena said:

I won't excuse David, and I'm not a Margaret fan per se.  I do wonder how Margaret would have been the first born. I agree it is lucky that QEII was born naturally as very dutiful and responsible. 

 

18 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

If Margaret had been born first, she would have had those special years as the only Princess, plus whatever thrills one gets by being treated as the eldest. (I wouldn't know.) Most likely she would have stepped up as Queen, but I don't think she would have let her husband bully her, as Elizabeth did. She could have been the first divorced Queen.

Cousinamy, we can't know who Margaret would have married if she had been the Queen. Evidently not Tony (who actually bullied her, not in the macho way Philip did but sadistically).. Maybe she would have been so busy as a Queen that she woudn't have time to the romance with Townsend. So one can't say anything about divorce except that it would hardly being possible before the 90ies. 

Margaret would have been raised differently if she had been the eldest child and become less selfish. She would have suited better than Ellizabeth for the happenings where she could charm people, but she would liked the hard work of reading papers.

Elizabeth would evidently liked to be a wife and mother and live quietly in the country, raising horses and dogs. 

[CousinAmy]

So George V had a brother named Prince Eddy. George VI was actually David but named George when he was crowned. Albert became George VII? What are they going to call little Prince George when he becomes King: Seymour?

Not very creative when it comes to naming royalty, I fear. 

[Magnumfangirl]

19 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Sarah(Lady Chatto) was also one of the Royals watching old footage she seems like a very sweet person and one of the most down-to-earth people in the family.

I watched this documentary and was struck by how much Sarah Chatto looks like George VI.

 

11 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

It's so hard being a cynic. I do want to believe in the fairytale.

I don't think any of it is a fairytale, when you read up on the extended family it's more convoluted than the daytime soaps!  I just wish the show would portray the Queen and the rest of them having a little fun once in a while.

[Anothermi]

On 2018-01-03 at 8:31 PM, CousinAmy said:

So George V had a brother named Prince Eddy. George VI was actually David but named George when he was crowned. Albert became George VII? What are they going to call little Prince George when he becomes King: Seymour?

Not very creative when it comes to naming royalty, I fear. 

David became Edward VIII

Albert (Bertie) became George VI

Both these brothers were baptized with a long string of former kings names but chose to reign under a name not given to them. 

Elizabeth broke with tradition (hee) and became Elizabeth II

There hasn't been a George VII yet.

ETA: the part in italics is wrong and is corrected in posts below.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Anothermi
correction

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Anothermi said:

David became Edward VIII

Albert (Bertie) became George VI

Both these brothers were baptized with a long string of former kings names but chose to reign under a name not given to them. 

Elizabeth broke with tradition (hee) and became Elizabeth II

There hasn't been a George VII yet.

Also Edward VII born Albert Edward, his mother Queen Victoria wanted him to be Crowned King Albert. With his son and grandson likewise when it was their turn to rule. He didn't want to when she died he chose Edward. Although that one probably had more to do with how she treated him.     

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, Anothermi said:

David became Edward VIII

Albert (Bertie) became George VI

Both these brothers were baptized with a long string of former kings names but chose to reign under a name not given to them. 

How so? As you say, the name they chose to reign was one of their Christian names, so it was given to them.

Actually, David was called that only by his family and later his mistresses, but to all others he was Prince Edward before he became the Prince of Wales. Therefore, he had no reason to use any other name as a king than Edward with which he was known in public.

Bertie evidently thought that after Abdication it was wise to take his father's name as it stressed on continuity. In addition, Albert was associated with the Prince Consort and therefore with Germany and the royal family wanted to hide their German roots. Victoria insisted that her male descendants were called after her husband but once she was dead, her own son Albert Edward chose to reign as Edward VII.  

[Inquisitionist]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Bertie evidently thought that after Abdication it was wise to take his father's name as it stressed on continuity. 

Whose abdication?

ETA:  Never mind.  I see that by Bertie you meant George VI.  I was confusing him with Edward VII.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Inquisitionist

[Roseanna]

I scanned this photo where Elizabeth is in bed after giving birth to Edward in 1964, surround By Anne (13), Charles (15) and Andrew (4) from Kitty Kelley's book The Royals, or actually the Finnish translation Kuningasperhe (not very good book, too much sheer gossip). The text says that the photo was published only once in Britain because the Court regarded it too personal.  Hope this is legal. p

[kassygreene]

Waalll..... this picture is one of a bunch that were stolen.  If I remember correctly, this one was taken by Prince Phillip.

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, Magnumfangirl said:

I watched this documentary and was struck by how much Sarah Chatto looks like George VI.

I thought she looked a lot like her father.  Her brother looks just like Princess Margaret.

 

[Anothermi]

18 hours ago, Roseanna said:

How so? As you say, the name they chose to reign was one of their Christian names, so it was given to them.

True.  I think I confused myself with the rabbit holes I'd been down previously and mixed one search of names with another subject. 

Apologies for confusing others.

[Athena5217]

It is easy to mix up members of the royal family since they re-use the same names. I know that is done in other families too, but I think it’s worse with the royals because they have so many given names and no surnames., if I were queen, I would want to give my kids names like Phoebe and Ian because they wouldnt get confused with anyone else, I’d be tempted to call my oldest son Elvis, but I guess that would cause the mustachesto just fall off from shock.

[SoWindsor]

In looking at pictures of Margaret I’m shocked by how much she aged in her 30s. She went from very fresh-faced to old looking practically overnight. I’m sure the smoking was a contributing factor and her hairstyle and dress were so matronly. It’s odd to think that was ever fashionable since it’s so unflattering. But I guess the same can be said for the ultra thin eyebrows of the late 90s. Just bad!

[Roseanna]

On ‎5‎.‎1‎.‎2018 at 5:13 AM, Anothermi said:

True.  I think I confused myself with the rabbit holes I'd been down previously and mixed one search of names with another subject. 

Apologies for confusing others.

There has been royals who have taken a completely different name, but usually they had changed also the country. The most famous is the empress of Russia Catherine II (in Russian Jekaterina) who was originally a German princess Sophie Auguste Friederieke.

When the French marshal Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte became the Swedish Crown Prince in 1810, he took the Swedish names Carl Johan (later King Carl XIV Johan). Luckily his son had a suitable Nordic name Oscar. When a Danish Crown Prince Carl became King of Norway in 1905, he became Haakon VII and his son Alexander became Olav (later Olav V).

[CousinAmy]

Will Prince Charles become King Charles? Then King William? I guess they'll keep George VII for Little George. And, Queen Charlotte.

[Bill1978]

4 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

Will Prince Charles become King Charles? Then King William? I guess they'll keep George VII for Little George. And, Queen Charlotte.

I read somewhere, I admit possibly Wikipedia, that Charles doesn't intend to be Charles III to avoid any issues with the Jacobite camps who claim that James II's son (or grandson) was Charles III (Bonnie Prince Charles)

From his Wikipedia page:

"If he uses his first name, he will be known as Charles III. However, it was reported in 2005 that Charles has suggested he may choose to reign as George VII in honour of his maternal grandfather, and to avoid association with the Stuart kings Charles I (who was beheaded) and Charles II (who was known for his promiscuous lifestyle), as well as to be sensitive to the memory of Bonnie Prince Charlie, who was called "Charles III" by his supporters.Charles's office responded that "no decision has been made".

[Roseanna]

13 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

Will Prince Charles become King Charles? Then King William? I guess they'll keep George VII for Little George. And, Queen Charlotte.

Charlotte can become the Queen only if her brother George dies without issue. Normally, George's eldest child becomes King/Queen - providing that Britain is still a kingdom.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Roseanna
add a word "her"

[biakbiak]

6 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

 

"If he uses his first name, he will be known as Charles III. However, it was reported in 2005 that Charles has suggested he may choose to reign as George VII in honour of his maternal grandfather, and to avoid association with the Stuart kings Charles I (who was beheaded) and Charles II (who was known for his promiscuous lifestyle), as well as to be sensitive to the memory of Bonnie Prince Charlie, who was called "Charles III" by his supporters.Charles's office responded that "no decision has been made".

Though 2005 was long before there was a child in line for the thrown with the name George.

[ombelico]

It will be interesting to see whether Charles chooses a different regnal name or not since Elizabeth chose to continue using her primary given name, and so the memory in the general public of someone choosing a different name as a regnal name may be fading. Plus, Charles is already so widely known to the public as Charles (more so than Edward VIII or George VI were known to the public as David or Albert/Bertie). For heaven's sake, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge is still regularly referred to as Kate Middleton.  Even if Charles chose a different name, he'd often still be called Charles anyway, at least in the media. 

[Roseanna]

47 minutes ago, ombelico said:

Plus, Charles is already so widely known to the public as Charles (more so than Edward VIII or George VI were known to the public as David or Albert/Bertie). 

Edward VIII was not known in public as David - that name was used only by his family and his mistresses. In public he was first known as Prince Edward and then as the Prince of Wales.  I am not as sure about his brother but I believe that Bertie was a family pet name and in public he was called first Prince Albert and then the duke of York. 

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Edward VIII was not known in public as David - that name was used only by his family and his mistresses. In public he was first known as Prince Edward and then as the Prince of Wales.  I am not as sure about his brother but I believe that Bertie was a family pet name and in public he was called first Prince Albert and then the duke of York. 

I don't know how accurate it is. But in King's Speech Lionel suggest calling him Bertie and he response that only his family calls him that.   

[Gareth3]

I've heard that she's referred to as "Kate Middleton" because of search engine optimisation - that's the name most people type in to search for mentions of her, so you'll get more hits if you keep repeating the old name in your article.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Gareth3 said:

I've heard that she's referred to as "Kate Middleton" because of search engine optimisation - that's the name most people type in to search for mentions of her, so you'll get more hits if you keep repeating the old name in your article.

But it's quite easy to make a reference in the search engine. F.ex. if one writes "Daniel Westing", one gets articles about "Prince Daniel". In other countries she is called with her new name, just as all others who have married royals.

I can't help but thinking that using "Kate Middleton" denies her new status, and it's odd that it happens just in Britain.   

[merylinkid]

I believe Catherine still uses Middleton officially.   When she and Prince William sued the French papers for publishing nude photos of them, she sued using the name Catherine Middleton and he used William Wales.    So the Middleton use is accurate.   But Kate is a moniker stuck on her by the tabs and never ever used by her  or her family.

Edited January 7, 2018 by merylinkid

[Cara]

18 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I don't know how accurate it is. But in King's Speech Lionel suggest calling him Bertie and he response that only his family calls him that.   

I assume he meant only his family was permitted to be so familiar with him. Everyone else addressed him as Your Royal Highness or Sir.

[Fireball]

I always took the media's use of Kate Middleton instead of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, as a slight; kind of like we don't like you/think you're good enough for the royal family so we will refused to use your real title.  It will be interesting if the media does the same with Meghan Markle.

[dubbel zout]

Diana was also called Lady Di, and there’s Fergie, so I think it has more to do with marrying in.

[katie9918]

1 hour ago, Fireball said:

I always took the media's use of Kate Middleton instead of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, as a slight; kind of like we don't like you/think you're good enough for the royal family so we will refused to use your real title.  It will be interesting if the media does the same with Meghan Markle.

Likely they will do it; hopefully it’s remembered that it was done to Kate Middleton first, so it’s really just the usual jerky shenanigans in play.

[Dejana]

On 1/7/2018 at 10:04 AM, merylinkid said:

I believe Catherine still uses Middleton officially.   When she and Prince William sued the French papers for publishing nude photos of them, she sued using the name Catherine Middleton and he used William Wales.    So the Middleton use is accurate.   But Kate is a moniker stuck on her by the tabs and never ever used by her  or her family.

During their engagement interview, William refers to her as Kate multiple times. Tom Bradby, the interviewer, was a friend of the couple (his wife also worked with the now-Duchess during her time at Jigsaw) and he too addresses her as Kate throughout. I've always looked at the "she's only ever been called Catherine" narrative as some sort of reinvention of her image that the courtiers dreamed up for the future Queen.

[biakbiak]

On 1/7/2018 at 1:41 PM, Fireball said:

I always took the media's use of Kate Middleton instead of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, as a slight; kind of like we don't like you/think you're good enough for the royal family so we will refused to use your real title.  It will be interesting if the media does the same with Meghan Markle.

I do think one of the reasons for the continued use of "Kate Middleton" is that she was around for some many years before they got married it's how most of the public perceives her. 

[Roseanna]

13 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I do think one of the reasons for the continued use of "Kate Middleton" is that she was around for some many years before they got married it's how most of the public perceives her. 

Is Duchess of Cornwall still called Camilla Parker Bowles?         

[dubbel zout]

Not as frequently, but yes. 

[biakbiak]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Not as frequently, but yes. 

Yeah I bet many people in the US dont even realize the Duchess of Cornwall is Camilla. 

[Arynm]

I am from the US and I have trouble with the titles vs the actual names. I still go with Kate Middleton and Camilla Parker Bowles, not because I mean any disrespect, but because I just can't keep the titles straight. I really love me some Kate and William and their adorable kids, but I just can't remember their titles AND when the Queen dies (God Forbid) they will get new ones that I will have to learn.

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, Arynm said:

I am from the US and I have trouble with the titles vs the actual names. I still go with Kate Middleton and Camilla Parker Bowles, not because I mean any disrespect, but because I just can't keep the titles straight. I really love me some Kate and William and their adorable kids, but I just can't remember their titles AND when the Queen dies (God Forbid) they will get new ones that I will have to learn.

I can understand that ordinary people have difficulties at first, but in Finland the papers began to write "Duchess Catherine" and "Duchess Camilla" (although I know that they aren't their proper titles) and people learned quickly (photos helped). I can't believe that English-speking people have worse memory.

Instead, using their former names will make it difficult to younger people - and there are every year more of them.     

[Pallas]

In the S2.E10 thread, a poster cited real-life coverage of the Kennedy assassination (vs. how itr was depicted in S2.E8); Anothermi replied, 
 

Quote

 

Here is an article the explains why British TV was so slow to deliver the news.  This WAS, after all, the 1st crisis news story where people expected television to deliver the facts to them. And it seems it broadsided the new medium.

 

Thank you! And now I want to see a profile of elusive BBC newsreader John Roberts. I did find this. The website linked in the post is now defunct, but the post itself reveals that John Roberts came off the bench and on the air for the BBC at least one other time in 1963: to announce the suicide of Stephen Ward.

[Pallas]

On 1/2/2018 at 0:19 PM, AZChristian said:

"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.

Also: during David's 10-month reign, Albert was heir presumptive and not heir apparent, since it was possible that David might father an heir. Throughout Albert/George VI's 15-year reign, Elizabeth was heir presumptive and not heir apparent, in recognition of the vanishingly small possibility that Albert might still father a legitimate son: either by his consort or, were she to predecease him and he to remarry, by a second wife. 

[txhorns79]

Quote

I can understand that ordinary people have difficulties at first, but in Finland the papers began to write "Duchess Catherine" and "Duchess Camilla" (although I know that they aren't their proper titles) and people learned quickly (photos helped). I can't believe that English-speking people have worse memory.

Instead, using their former names will make it difficult to younger people - and there are every year more of them.     

If I ever had the opportunity to meet them in person, I'd address them as they wish to be addressed.  Otherwise, I don't know how much it matters.  I see her called "Kate Middleton" in news stories and magazines in the US, likely because that is how she is popularly known here.   

[CousinAmy]

What does William call her? Catherine? Such a formal name. 

Fashion bloggers Tom and Lorenzo and the Bitter Kittens call her Cathy Cambridge which is as good a name as any.

[Scarlett45]

55 minutes ago, CousinAmy said:

What does William call her? Catherine? Such a formal name. 

Fashion bloggers Tom and Lorenzo and the Bitter Kittens call her Cathy Cambridge which is as good a name as any.

I’m sure William calls her Kate, just like he did while they were dating. Throughout school her peers called her Kate. 

Im sure “Catherine” was reserved for when she was in TROUBLE with mom&dad.