Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

The Royals: All the People Who Unironically Wear Robes and Crowns

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

I think the thought of her possibly doing just that (and having the legal means in the UK to do so) has crossed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's minds at least once- especially when making the decision to keep him in Canada while they went back to the UK to face the music in person after making their bombshell annoucement.

I'm curious as to what 'legal means' you are referencing.

Share this post


Link to post

42 minutes ago, Beany Malone said:

I'm curious as to what 'legal means' you are referencing.

 Essentially, the Queen has legal custody of ALL minor royal children in the UK. It dates back to George I who had a poor relationship with his son and decided to take control of the grandchildren. It's not been openly used in quite some time but all the successors to George I up to and including Her Majesty have taken no steps to repeal that statute. So, with that in mind, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may not want to chance compromising (or losing) their rights as parents to have the final say over how their infant son is to be raised.  IOW, sad to say they'd have to weigh whether taking their son to see his only living great-grandmother would be more beneficial to the boy than the risks in doing so would entail re their rights as parents. 

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/bizarre-reason-why-meghan-and-harry-wont-have-custody-of-their-children/news-story/5070826afa1e1869db31304d4674bd3b

  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/7/2020 at 10:37 AM, Dani said:

Really bad (and unnecessary) photoshop. Here’s another photo of her in the same spot.

 image.jpeg.e43f21fac82be5b286bcfadbfde93512.jpeg

Does she spray tan?  Her hands are so pale compared to the rest of her!

Share this post


Link to post

That's a poor quality photo.

Also, I find it hilarious that newspapers think the QE2 is going to embroil herself in a messy and politically damaging custody fight over the 7th in line to the throne. 

I also believe not one word of "insiders are saying" reports.

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, Blergh said:

 Essentially, the Queen has legal custody of ALL minor royal children in the UK. It dates back to George I who had a poor relationship with his son and decided to take control of the grandchildren. It's not been openly used in quite some time but all the successors to George I up to and including Her Majesty have taken no steps to repeal that statute. So, with that in mind, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may not want to chance compromising (or losing) their rights as parents to have the final say over how their infant son is to be raised.  IOW, sad to say they'd have to weigh whether taking their son to see his only living great-grandmother would be more beneficial to the boy than the risks in doing so would entail re their rights as parents. 

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/bizarre-reason-why-meghan-and-harry-wont-have-custody-of-their-children/news-story/5070826afa1e1869db31304d4674bd3b

It’s not a law. It was a royal prerogative. There is no need to repeal it because later custody laws trump it. Even if that was a law that could be enforced it wouldn’t stretch to Archie because it specifically says grandchildren. 


No, the Queen Doesn't Have Legal Custody Over Her Great-Grandchildren!

Here’s an explanation from a lawyer. 
Will Harry and Meghan have custody of their own children?

 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Again, even if true why would she?   This is just more "Meghan is ruining the family" dog whistling.    No one said anything about keeping her grandchildren from their mentally unstable mother when Charles and Diana divorced.   And that did directly affect the succession.   No one grabbed Beatrice and Eugenie from Fergie.    Hmmm, let's see what the difference is?

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

No one said anything about keeping her grandchildren from their mentally unstable mother when Charles and Diana divorced. 

I don't agree that Diana was mentally unstable but certainly some of her actions and life choices would not ever have been approved of by the Queen and Diana was directly influencing the future King.  If Queen E didn't exercise  that Royal perogative then she certainly won't be doing it now!  And I totally agree with you and others that the only reason in this world that it gets written about is because Meghan is half African American.

Edited by Beany Malone
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

The Queen and the rest of the royal family would have thrown how many shit fits if the future king of the UK had a Muslim step-dad?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 So, if it's not due to the parental wishes of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex not wanting to chance not having the final say over how their infant son is to be raised, does this mean that they've permanently relocated him to Canada because they'd rather he eat Tim Horton's instead of  at Wimpy's? Time will tell.

  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Blergh said:

does this mean that they've permanently relocated him to Canada because they'd rather he eat Tim Horton's instead of  at Wimpy's?

Nobdy said they were permanently relocating him to Canada.   They have said in every single announcement about this they would be dividing their time between Britain and Canada.   They might not bring Archie every time because well, small child and long travel hours.   But if time permits they will probably bring him.    I am also willing to prognosticate that he goes to Eton when the time comes.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

15 hours ago, Blue hues said:

Does she spray tan?  Her hands are so pale compared to the rest of her!

For some reason, I thought she liked to garden?  Maybe at the time that picture was taken (I don't know when it was, but it was before the dress underwent the sleeve modifications discussed above), it was summer and she'd been doing something outside with gloves on.

8 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Again, even if true why would she?   This is just more "Meghan is ruining the family" dog whistling.    No one said anything about keeping her grandchildren from their mentally unstable mother when Charles and Diana divorced.   And that did directly affect the succession.   No one grabbed Beatrice and Eugenie from Fergie.    Hmmm, let's see what the difference is?

Was there a "danger" of Harry or his brother or cousins being raised on a different continent, though?  Those guys had a royal upbringing, but Archie's going to be running around in the forest with Bigfoot.  (I'm not saying that the queen is going to seize the baby or that people aren't racist, but that doesn't seem to me to be the relevant difference in the situations mentioned.)

Edited by janie jones
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, janie jones said:

Those guys had a royal upbringing, but Archie's going to be running around in the forest with Bigfoot.  (I'm not saying that the queen is going to seize the baby or that people aren't racist, but that doesn't seem to me to be the relevant difference in the situations mentioned.)

Bigfoot? Aren't they living in a mansion near Victoria?  A gorgeous city and highly unlikely to be populated by Sasquatch or his relatives!   Anyway with regard to the royal upbringing it is true (as far as I know) that none of the other grandchildren or great grandchildren were or are being raised outside England but it's also not as though Harry or Archie are ever likely to be King.  Unless something catastrophic happens there are 5 people ahead of Harry as of now, so 6 ahead of Archie.  I think that makes a big difference here - no way would William be allowed to up stakes and move to Canada or anywhere else for that matter!

Edited by Beany Malone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Beany Malone said:

Bigfoot?  Aren't they living in a mansion near Victoria?  A gorgeous city and highly unlikely to be populated by Saquatch or his relatives! 

It was a joke.  The point is they are going to be living over 4,000 miles away from the rest of the family.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, janie jones said:

It was a joke.  The point is they are going to be living over 4,000 miles away from the rest of the family.

Sorry I knew you were joking!  I should have used a smilie face or something!  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Beany Malone said:

... it's also not as though Harry or Archie are ever likely to be King.  Unless something catastrophic happens there are 5 people ahead of Harry as of now, so 6 ahead of Archie.

Every time reference is made to how far down the line of succession Harry and Archie are I get a case of the giggles thinking about the wonderful Ealing Studios 1949 comedy, Kind Hearts and Coronets (& A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder the Tony Award winning musical based on its source novel), both of which involve a disgruntled heir who removes all of the people ahead of him in the line of succession. Of course, those fictional accounts don't involve royalty. Offing the competition used to be rather common among some royal families (e. g. Clovis the Frank, Charlemagne). I doubt that Harry or Archie would want to bother. Still makes me giggle, though.

Edited by praeceptrix · Reason: omitted a word by accident
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The Queen and the rest of the royal family would have thrown how many shit fits if the future king of the UK had a Muslim step-dad?

That is why I subscribe to a certain conspiracy theory about Diana's death. This is not the place to debate that speculation though.

Edited by Joimiaroxeu
  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

If you want wild ways to become king, then watch King Ralph.   That's where the entire royal family is doing a photo op, and get electrocuted, and a distant American cousin who is a Las Vegas lounge singer becomes King.   ( There actually are lists of distant relatives of the royals living in the U.S. )   

Whatever happens, I hope Harry, Meghan, and Archie will have a wonderful life, and as a friend's toast at his brother's wedding "Live long and Prosper"  (He was a Trekkie, but what more could you wish for someone?). 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Beany Malone said:

no way would William be allowed to up stakes and move to Canada or anywhere else for that matter!

What, legally (tradition / sense of duty / logistics aside) would prevent William and Catherine from saying "F this noise, we're going to [insert other country] and relinquishing our titles, see ya!"? Would they be thrown in the stockades or locked in a bell tower? Is the Queen (aka the grandmother & great-grandmother) going to kidnap W & Cs children and hold them for ransom like some Lifetime movie of the week? People act like grown adults don't have a say in their lives. Sure, financial logistics make it nearly impossible for W & C to do this, but if they really, truly wanted to, they could.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

Sure, financial logistics make it nearly impossible for W & C to do this, but if they really, truly wanted to, they could.

Valid point, and it's not like there's no precedent for someone abdicating (of course he abdicated after he ascended the throne) but I do think if William didn't want to take on the role he is living it would have to be because he chooses to relinquish being the heir apparent.  Speculative hat on - should he have chosen to do that, would that mean he could make that choice for his own children as well?  And if so does that hand the throne to Harry after Charles is gone?  Of course it's not going to happen but it it did then down the road I hope Piers Morgan is still alive to have an apopolectic fit when Archie becomes king 😎.

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Beany Malone said:

would that mean he could make that choice for his own children as well?

Why not? They're minor children. Their parents get to make their life decisions for them. If they were older teenagers then perhaps they should get a say, but at their current ages? W & C get to have the final say in the decisions about their children.

2 minutes ago, Beany Malone said:

I hope Piers Morgan is still alive to have an apopolectic fit when Archie becomes king 😎.

You caught me! That's my master plan. Watch Archie become King and see all the racist asshats keel over from the vapors.

 


 

Edited by theredhead77
  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, theredhead77 said:

Why not? They're minor children. Their parents get to make their life decisions for them.

Boy I'd be pretty pissed if my parents had decided to remove me from the direct line of succession to the throne!  Or at least I think that's how I'd have felt.  It's an eventuality that would never have happened for me of course!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I scrolled through the 200 photos of Catherine's fashions on the previous page and was reminded once again of how much I HATE the dress she wore to Pippa's wedding.  The color, the cut, the fit...absolutely everything about it.  It's like she deliberately selected the most unappealing dress so as not to overshadow the bride.  If that was the plan, it worked!  I would be very glad to never see that dress again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's too bad about Peter and Autumn.   I thought that Anne's children being out of the limelight had less pressure so had a better chance of making it.   Guess even marriages of those with Royal blood fail no matter what.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Beany Malone said:

Valid point, and it's not like there's no precedent for someone abdicating (of course he abdicated after he ascended the throne) but I do think if William didn't want to take on the role he is living it would have to be because he chooses to relinquish being the heir apparent.  Speculative hat on - should he have chosen to do that, would that mean he could make that choice for his own children as well?  And if so does that hand the throne to Harry after Charles is gone?  Of course it's not going to happen but it it did then down the road I hope Piers Morgan is still alive to have an apopolectic fit when Archie becomes king 😎.

According to this, if Charles & William died, George would be next in line for the throne, so I would think that abdicating would create the same scenario. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I would think abdication would mean all of your bloodline is out of the succession. William’s kids are only in the succession because of him. If he was to take himself out, it would follow any of his line would be out. Wouldn’t it hurt George’s legitimacy to be a King whose father rejected the throne?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, theredhead77 said:

What, legally (tradition / sense of duty / logistics aside) would prevent William and Catherine from saying "F this noise, we're going to [insert other country] and relinquishing our titles, see ya!"? Would they be thrown in the stockades or locked in a bell tower? Is the Queen (aka the grandmother & great-grandmother) going to kidnap W & Cs children and hold them for ransom like some Lifetime movie of the week? People act like grown adults don't have a say in their lives. Sure, financial logistics make it nearly impossible for W & C to do this, but if they really, truly wanted to, they could.

Even without the financial logistics it is not that simple. William couldn’t just give up his spot in line. It requires an act of parliament to alter the line of succession. 

 

24 minutes ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

I would think abdication would mean all of your bloodline is out of the succession. William’s kids are only in the succession because of him. If he was to take himself out, it would follow any of his line would be out. Wouldn’t it hurt George’s legitimacy to be a King whose father rejected the throne?

Not necessarily. When Edward VIII abdicated his future heirs were specifically excluded but it doesn’t have to be that way. In that case it was necessary because any children he had would have automatically been ahead of George VI. Because William already has three heirs that is not the case here. It would just depend on what the Act of Parliament passed to address the abdication said. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

OoOooo...Peter back on the market. Come a little bit closer, you’re my kind of man.

I have always had a thing for him. And right there, royal great grandchildren who might be raised in Canada, and in fact did spend years in Canada and a year or two in Hong Kong and the rumor has always been that Peter, as the oldest of her grandchildren, is the QE2’s favorite. 

This is absolute nonsense about the palace taking custody of Archie and is just about continuing to write H&M stories. Ugh. If they really want to get H&M clicks, isn’t the poor optics of the JP Morgan appearance enough?

Give me tiaras and Maxima’s hats, scruffy Fred, Wax with his ever present folder of papers, Letizia’s incredible wardrobe, Maria Teresa and her general nasty demeanor, Louis of Luxembourg knocking someone else up, CPV in a suit. In other words, the really interesting royals. 

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

If you want wild ways to become king, then watch King Ralph.   THat's where the entire royal family is doing a photo op, and get electrocuted (or something similar), and a distant American cousin who is a Las Vegas lounge singer becomes King.    There actually are lists of distant relatives of the royals living in the U.S.    

Whatever happens, I hope Harry, Meghan, and Archie will have a wonderful life, and as a friend's toast at his brother's wedding "Live long and Prosper"  (He was a Trekkie, but what more could you wish for someone?). 

I love that movie. I love Ralph, Cedric and Duncan. And yes the entire royal family was electrocuted. They were delayed in their photo op due to a rain storm but when it stops they take their positions and seats surrounded by cords all wet and soaking in water all around them. They don't seem bothered by that and neither does the photographer. Its hilarious because its so stupid. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Dani said:

William couldn’t just give up his spot in line. It requires an act of parliament to alter the line of succession. 

Sure, in theory. But nothing but tradition and sense of duty is preventing them from just ghosting on everyone and moving to the middle of nowhere. Is it feasible? No. Could they? Sure. Unless they are being held hostage or are robots.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Not the British royal family, but when Tsar Nicholas II abdicated his throne in 1917, he abdicated for himself and then had to abdicate his son Alexei separately. So, removing himself from the throne didn't automatically remove his heir. 

I'm assuming if William did decide he didn't want to be in line for the throne, it would not automatically remove his children, and that would be a separate process. 

  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, film noire said:

Dead but still fabulous:  from the legendary Romanov Winter Ball - a three day kegger that started February 11th, 1903, and ended two days later -  Princess Olga Orlova:

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/07/16/romanov-costume-ball-1903/

 

olga.jpg

I have some books that catalog various Russian imperial jewelry and whatnots, and it is all so sumptuous and stunning-looking. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

The reason that Edward VIII's abdication included the provision that none of his children were in the line of succession is that marrying Wallis Simpson was bad enough (twice divorced, and a few other unsavory facts in her background.  I found a biography about her fascinating).   

However, they wanted zero chance that any of her children would inherit.    Even though Edward pitched the idea of a Morganatic marriage, where Edward would be King, but Wallis would have no hereditary titles, and children would have no succession rights.  Plus, Wallis and any children wouldn't inherit any property, titles, or rank.   

There's an explanation of the issues with Morganatic marriage for Edward and Wallis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Zella said:

I have some books that catalog various Russian imperial jewelry and whatnots, and it is all so sumptuous and stunning-looking. 

I went to an exhibit of the Romanov treasures once.   Even the trash can had gold embellishments on it.   Ya kinda understand why the peasants who were living in mud huts wanted to overthrow them.   Then the stupid commies came in and sold off the jewels for a pittance.   Hello?   At least get market value for them.   

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I went to an exhibit of the Romanov treasures once.   Even the trash can had gold embellishments on it.   Ya kinda understand why the peasants who were living in mud huts wanted to overthrow them.   Then the stupid commies came in and sold off the jewels for a pittance.   Hello?   At least get market value for them.   

Haha yes, anytime I looked at the Russian imperial stuff, my reaction was basically, "y'all have exquisite, impeccable taste--but I can't blame the February Revolution for happening because this is ostentatious as hell."

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

This is genuinely gross looking. Like this is the ugliest thing I’ve seen on anyone’s head.

That era's way of saying

giphy.gif

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

That era's way of saying

giphy.gif

Or since it looked like a halo from an Orthodox icon painting, it may have been to try to show everyone else that one was supposedly holier than thou.

I hope it was worth the almost certain headache and neck pain issues that likely resulted from wearing it for an extended period. 

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Or since it looked like a halo from an Orthodox icon painting, it may have been to try to show everyone else that one was supposedly holier than thou.

I mistook it as a jewel-encrusted pizza.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 13

Share this post


Link to post

I was wondering if anyone knew what the people of England feel about Harry's decision to step down and live abroad.  Does the majority support him and what he has chosen to do?  I'm just curious.  I suppose the older Britons feel somewhat betrayed and the younger Britons don't give a darn.  Obviously it's more complicated than that but has anyone found information on this?  Thanks!

Also, I looked at all the opulent costumes in film noire's link above.  That party was happening 117 years age TODAY!

Edited by Oosala
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Or since it looked like a halo from an Orthodox icon painting, it may have been to try to show everyone else that one was supposedly holier than thou.

I hope it was worth the almost certain headache and neck pain issues that likely resulted from wearing it for an extended period. 

Official imperial court costumes for women were no joke back then.  All of the women wore kokoshniks for important occasions.  From Town and Country--

The uniquely Russian style has its origins in traditional folk dress. “The kokoshnik’s heavy, helmet-like form embodies majesty, though the ornament is borrowed from the traditional Russian peasant headdress, which is a disc-shaped halo made of cloth and typically embroidered with colored beads and fastened by ribbons," says Fernando Bustillo, managing partner of Upper East Side’s F.D Gallery, which specializes in rare and collectible jewels.

"This style was adopted by the Russian royals in the early 17th Century but it was around the time of Nicolas I, who encouraged the ‘Russification’ of the imperial court, when the kokoshnik became a mandatory part of the costumes worn by the Empress and her ladies.”

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Official imperial court costumes for women were no joke back then.

Check out what certain era Korean royalty did with their hair...talk about wig game! Originally the addition used to be made with actual human hair (!), but after the prohibition on wigs, it was made with wood carved and painted in black in order to make it resemble human hair. Apparently the wooden addition was actually lighter than the addition made with human hair.

Myeongseong.jpg

This was a more typical wig:

1229667448l0.jpg

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 4
  • Useful 3
  • Surprise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Giant Misfit

Don't get snippy in your responses with other members' opinions with which you do not agree.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size