Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

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

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Macbeth said:

Prince Harry grew up in actual castles.  Not just one - Kensington during the week and High Grove on the weekends.

I get your point. But, Kensington is a palace, not a castle. (Windsor is a castle.) Highgrove is neither a palace nor a castle, but a large country home. 

On another BRF topic, I re-watched an episode of a documentary on Netflix about the Windsors the other night. It was about Prince Philip's bumpy ride early in his married life. He was an outsider and more of a forward thinker than the ossified old farts surrounding the throne. The episode went into the issue of his kids not having his name (Mountbatten) which c. 1950 was apparently a huge fricking deal in Britain because OMG imagine a married man not giving his children his surname, yada yada yada. (As a woman I find this not an instinctive matter of concern.)

Then, the documentary explains, later on it was decided by TPTB that the royal house would remain Windsor but the kids would bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor (except the ones in line for the goodies, or some such exception.) Great rejoicing. Anne who I think wouldn't have had to do so, signed her marriage license as Mountbatten-Windsor which I always thought was a nice touch of showing her loyalty to her dad.

But in all that hoo-hah, what NOBODY said about "Philip's NAME" and giving "his NAME to his children"? Because you know, otherwise they would bear their MOTHER's name?

`Mountbatten is Philip's MOTHER's family name. His father's family name was the not so lilting Germanic "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg." When he was signing on the line to arrange or confirm his British citizenship prior to his marriage (after serving with distinction in the British Royal Navy during WWiI), he chose to become Lt. Philip Mountbatten (his mother was born Alice Mountbatten) which dodged that whole awkward Germanic thing not to mention the savings in printing costs and time signing sh*t.

So all that male privileged angst was about this:  instead of bearing their own mother's family name, his kids could bear HIS mother's family name. Ironic. Rather richly ironic.

Edited by Jeeves
  • Like 12
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

38 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

On another BRF topic, I re-watched an episode of a documentary on Netflix about the Windsors the other night. It was about Prince Philip's bumpy ride early in his married life. He was an outsider and more of a forward thinker than the ossified old farts surrounding the throne.

Prince Philip was a progressive? Which century was this again?

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post

Prince Phillip was born in 1921- the only son of Prince Andrew of Greece and his wife who'd been born Princess Alice of Battenberg but had married Prince Andrew in 1903. It was not until 1917 that her mother's cousin George V forced his English resident cousins named Battenberg to adopt a more 'English sounding' surname as HE had when he changed his own dynastic name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor. Hence while Princess Alice's parents went from being Prince Louis and Victoria of Battenberg to the  Louis and Victoria Mountbatten, the Marquis and Marchioness of Milford-Haven (or risk their royal cousin refusing to receive them AND being called plain 'Mr. and Mrs.'), Prince Phillip's mother herself had NEVER used Mountbatten. It was only prior to his marriage to the future Queen, that Phillip renounced his Greek princely titles and paternal surname of Glucksburg [the DANISH dynastic surname] and took his UNCLE's Anglicized newfangled  surname of Mountbatten. I suppose since Lord Louis'Dickie'  Mountbatten and his wealthy wife Edwina had provided him with a swanky place to crash whenever he had time off in the UK from the Royal Navy, he may have felt he owed it to his uncle to take on the concocted surname and later to try to pass it onto his offspring. He  (and Uncle Dickie) even went so far as to try to say that with Elizabeth's succession, that the Mountbatten Dynasty ALREADY was in place but that simply wasn't true.

 

 Heiress monarchs traditionally always kept their paternal dynastic names even after their marriages and were considered the last of the original dynasties BUT whose male heirs would henceforth use their own paternal surnames upon succession. IOW, Victoria was born a Hanover and stayed so until her death 1901 was the last of the Hanovers even with her marriage to Albert. The Saxe-Coburg Gotha Dynasty only STARTED with their son Edward VI in 1901 and for all her zillions of monuments, mementos over Albert, Victoria had never contemplating changing her own dynastic name either upon marriage or after widowhood. 

But then again, the Dutch Monarchy has STAYED the Orange Dynasty despite the last actual heiress to it (Wilhelmina) abdicating in 1948 and dying in 1962 and the current king Willem-Alexander being her maternal-maternal great-grandson but Wilhelmina decreed it would stay Orange even after her own heiress Juliana succeeded and it seems neither Juiliana or Beatrix had any interest in having themselves or their children to use their paternal surnames. 

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Anduin said:

Prince Philip was a progressive? Which century was this again?

He was trying reform how the households ran but they wanted to keep things 'as was' with things being run on Victorian lines (if not more ancient origins) . Ironically, Prince Phillip's great-great-grandfather Prince Albert had run into the very same problems- and also it seemed the courtiers had no idea exactly what the male spouse of a female monarch was supposed to do or how he was supposed to be considered in  both the mid 19th and mid 20th centuries! The female spouse of a male monarch is supposed to have precedence  and automatically get respect over every other member of the Royal family apart from the King himself but both Albert and Phillip more or less had to fight for whatever rights they had as the queens' husbands. 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Blergh said:

He was trying reform how the households ran but they wanted to keep things 'as was' with things being run on Victorian lines (if not more ancient origins) . Ironically, Prince Phillip's great-great-grandfather Prince Albert had run into the very same problems- and also it seemed the courtiers had no idea exactly what the male spouse of a female monarch was supposed to do or how he was supposed to be considered in  both the mid 19th and mid 20th centuries! The female spouse of a male monarch is supposed to have precedence  and automatically get respect over every other member of the Royal family apart from the King himself but both Albert and Phillip more or less had to fight for whatever rights they had as the queens' husbands. 

Yes this is my understanding. We may not think of Phillip as progressive (and he probably isn't in the conventional sense), but to the royals, some of his ideas about modernizing certain aspects of the household that aren't even that weird sounding probably came across as little short of an anarchist bombthrower to someone steeped in those traditions. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yes this is my understanding. We may not think of Phillip as progressive (and he probably isn't in the conventional sense), but to the royals, some of his ideas about modernizing certain aspects of the household that aren't even that weird sounding probably came across as little short of an anarchist bombthrower to someone steeped in those traditions. 

That's true! Among other things Prince Phillip undid was providing the monarch a wine bottle for a nightcap every single night. Prince Phillip didn't understand why Her Majesty had to have this (since SHE did command or even ask for it), but then discovered that their ancestress Victoria had commanded it in the 19th century. .. and NONE of her successors had bothered to countermand/abolish that particular command for over half a century after her death! 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Yes this is my understanding. We may not think of Phillip as progressive (and he probably isn't in the conventional sense), but to the royals, some of his ideas about modernizing certain aspects of the household that aren't even that weird sounding probably came across as little short of an anarchist bombthrower to someone steeped in those traditions. 

Certainly one way that Philip showed himself to be more progressive than the Windsors was his early understanding of the use of the medium of television to tell the royal story.  He pushed for televising Elizabeth's coronation which many palace insiders thought was undignified and beneath the monarchy. Turns out, it gave millions of people a glimpse of the pomp and circumstance of the British monarchy which greatly enhanced interest in the royal family as well as promoted British tourism.  He wasn't a progressive as we think of them today, but he certainly saw the usefulness of the medium of television before the rest of the family and courtiers.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, theredhead77 said:

I prefer this sort of "gossip" Harry and Meghan obsessed with In n Out. Also: I'm totally jealous and would cut a bitch for some In n Out right about now.

Oh no, this makes me disappointed in them. Anybody who prefers In N Out to Five Guys is just wrong.

Edited by GaT
  • Like 4
  • Laugh 8
  • Surprise 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Blergh said:

That's true! Among other things Prince Phillip undid was providing the monarch a wine bottle for a nightcap every single night. Prince Phillip didn't understand why Her Majesty had to have this (since SHE did command or even ask for it), but then discovered that their ancestress Victoria had commanded it in the 19th century. .. and NONE of her successors had bothered to countermand/abolish that particular command for over half a century after her death! 

Normally I'd think you were kidding. "Her ancestor regularly drank herself to sleep, we expect the same from her." But I've heard enough crazy things about that family that I completely believe it. No bloody wonder Harry decamped to LA. It's still messed up, but perhaps less so. He has no idea how to deal with sanity. I hope he has a good therapist.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

@Blergh, thank you for setting me straight that in fact Philip's mother wasn't born Alice Mountbatten. I'd lost track of the history of the family which indeed bore the name Battenberg and were some kind of German royalty. I should have remembered that Princess Alice was long married by the time the Anglicized 'Mountbatten' was forced on the family and she wouldn't have used that name herself. 

However, whether she personally used it or not, 'Mountbatten' was Philip's mother's family name. When he signed on the line to give up his Greek royal title and clams to that throne, he didn't reach into his father's family tree for a surname which he darn well could have done. 

What struck me as so ironic about those parts of the documentary, was the way the guys were talking about how horrible it was for poor Philip to not have his children bear HIS name. One of them said that Philip, unlike every other man in the country, couldn't give his legitimate children his name. Like he wasn't born into one European royal family and married into another, with all the intricacies of the various royal houses and their names. For pete's sake, he wasn't a hardworking cabinetmaker named Harrison, from a long line of Harrisons, who married a woman named Anderson and saw his kids being named Anderson, which would have been an aberration in 1952. (In those days, legitimate birth vs. bastardy was a big big thing in society in general.)

But Philip was unlike every other man in the country, and I was unpersuaded by that argument which IMO wasn't offensive, exactly, but not far from it.

Of course the joker in this hand is his ambitious uncle Louis, who if the story is true, overplayed his hand with that horrible toast that the "House of Mountbatten now reigns" so soon after George VI died. That brought the full weight of the Palace old guard down on that upstart idea. Perhaps if Louis had kept his mouth shut instead of stirring the sh*t, it could have been calmly decided back in 1952 or thereabouts, that yes, the monarch is of the House of Windsor, but the family name would be Mountbatten, or Mountbatten-Windsor, minus the drama. Instead of taking nearly another decade to do so. 

Still, for me, at the end of the day, the irony is that all that fuss was over Philip's mother's family name. Like heaven forbid his children should bear their mother's family surname, while he bore his mother's. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Last night I had a dream that the Queen realized she was in her 90s and wanted a rest, so she announced she was stepping down.    I was all "OMG, we are finally having a King Charles."   Then I rushed right here to discuss it.   So you all have appeared in  my dreams.  

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 16

Share this post


Link to post

If anyone needs more proof that Prince Harry needed to get away from the British press, this article should give it to them. His family is probably the only thing more important to Harry than the Invictus Games and The Sunday Times went after him on that. I won't link to the original article because it is vile, but even that had a denial from the Invictus Foundation, although it was buried deep in the article. How can the British press get away with stories like this?

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, annzeepark914 said:

Will we ever get to see a current photo of Archie? 

Obviously, that’s probably up to Harry & Meghan. I was thinking he might grow up with an American accent, instead of a British accent, if his family lives here long enough. Also, I didn’t post it (but I can go find it & post it if someone wants me to), but The Express recently ran an article about how Harry was apparently trying to adopt a more American accent now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway got confirmed on Saturday, which means... BUNADS!

14dfba49a56408fd17bbccd8a8f756455f53bd4b

2f268c6a-b86f-4bc6-b376-c66ae613e51e?fit

f41a57d2-5505-404f-85a2-83b23c8fd2e5?fit

Princess Märtha Louise (with the crutches) may be extremely eccentric (claims she can communicate with angels, had an "angel school" etc) but she and her late ex-husband, Ari Behn, raised some amazing daughters. The oldest daughter held the eulogy at her father's funeral after he died by suicide and she was incredible. I'm a blubbering mess 30 seconds in.. 

 

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Last night I had a dream that the Queen realized she was in her 90s and wanted a rest, so she announced she was stepping down.    I was all "OMG, we are finally having a King Charles."   Then I rushed right here to discuss it.   So you all have appeared in  my dreams.  

Were we naked?

  • Laugh 13

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Silje said:

Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway got confirmed on Saturday, which means... BUNADS!

14dfba49a56408fd17bbccd8a8f756455f53bd4b

2f268c6a-b86f-4bc6-b376-c66ae613e51e?fit

f41a57d2-5505-404f-85a2-83b23c8fd2e5?fit

Princess Märtha Louise (with the crutches) may be extremely eccentric (claims she can communicate with angels, had an "angel school" etc) but she and her late ex-husband, Ari Behn, raised some amazing daughters. The oldest daughter held the eulogy at her father's funeral after he died by suicide and she was incredible. I'm a blubbering mess 30 seconds in.. 

 

I love the outfits, which I assume are traditional Norwegian costumes, on the women. I wish the men would dress up in traditional costumes as well.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, GaT said:

Were we naked?

No.   It was all faceless just like all our communications.   But for some reason, the Queen was seated on her throne in Parliament (fully clothed in one of her Angela Kelly creations)  wearing her tiara and making her speech about stepping down.   Which somehow is not how I think it would happen -- if she were to ever do it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, praeceptrix said:

I love the outfits, which I assume are traditional Norwegian costumes, on the women. I wish the men would dress up in traditional costumes as well.

Hmmm... that would mean blousey looking shirts, embroidered vests, knickers, and clog-like shoes. I bet they were happy to appear in these suits.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, annzeepark914 said:

Will we ever get to see a current photo of Archie? 

The birthday video is probably the last he’ll be seen until the Christmas card (assuming they do a Christmas card this year).

 

9 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

Also, I didn’t post it (but I can go find it & post it if someone wants me to), but The Express recently ran an article about how Harry was apparently trying to adopt a more American accent now.

 The Express of those sites I won’t visit but here’s another site covering it. 
 

Expert explains what Prince Harry's shifting accent really means 

Pretty typical clickbait. He isn’t adopting a American accent but is beginning to use some American pronunciations. 

Edited by Dani

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Dani said:

He isn’t adopting a American accent but is beginning to use some American pronunciations. 

Which makes sense if they are going to raise Archie in the states and send him to school in the states. 

My mom is from Nova Scotia and she likes to remind me she gave up zed when I was born so I would learn to speak proper American English and use Z instead of zed.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

Harry "adopting" an American accent is simply a retread of Meghan's supposedly developing a British accent that was bandied around in the months right after the wedding. Of course the tone and words used about Harry will be significantly less harsh than the ones used about her. It's like a tabloid handbook with some of these stories.

As for Archie, I do not understand the desire or interest to see anyone's kid. He's barely two. I doubt he's doing anything that interesting - well other than interesting to his parents who probably like many parents think everything he does is amazing.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I sort of wonder if Harry will begin to use the American spelling of words instead of, or in addition to, the British spelling (where they differ, like the U in “color“ & other words, etc.). I think I remember seeing something either actually written by Meghan or copied into an article about her, after the wedding, where she had used the British spelling of a word or words instead of the American.

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To remove unnecessary underlining.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if they will use Farrow and Ball paint and which coloUR they will choose.

20 hours ago, annzeepark914 said:

Will we ever get to see a current photo of Archie? 

4 hours ago, Dani said:

The birthday video is probably the last he’ll be seen until the Christmas card (assuming they do a Christmas card this year).

I'm a fan of cute kid photos (especially these days) but I don't think it's cool to be plastering embarrassing photos all over FB and Instagram. That internet is forever. This means that I'm a huge fan of the sparse release of photos of all the kids done by H & M and K & W. Their privacy, as little as they have (and will have as they get older), is still important.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/7/2020 at 11:59 PM, GaT said:

Oh no, this makes me disappointed in them. Anybody who prefers In N Out to Five Guys is just wrong.

Or Shake Shack

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Harry "adopting" an American accent is simply a retread of Meghan's supposedly developing a British accent that was bandied around in the months right after the wedding. Of course the tone and words used about Harry will be significantly less harsh than the ones used about her. It's like a tabloid handbook with some of these stories.

Someone on social media took a look at old tabloid stories and immediately noticed the same articles and/or phrases were used over and over again, only the royal name had  been changed.   There probably is a tabloid handbook and they recycle their Top Ten favorites, fully expecting their audience to forget they read the exact same story but with a different royal the previous year.  

Edited by MissAlmond
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Dani said:

He isn’t adopting a American accent but is beginning to use some American pronunciations.

I've heard from people who came here from other parts of the world, this easily happens due to the prevalence of American pop culture.  I remember watching a French film with English subtitles.  At one point Character A asks Character B an obvious question.  Character B immediately responds in English "HELLO!" with the same usage and inflection of the States.  No subtitle was needed.  

Edited by MissAlmond
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

I've heard from people who came here from other parts of the world, this easily happens due to the prevalence of American pop culture.  I remember watching a French film with English subtitles.  At one point Character A asks Character B an obvious question.  Character B immediately responds in English "HELLO!" with the same usage and inflection of the States.  No subtitle was needed.  

Same with "ok"and "no".  Both seems to have become universal no matter the country or culture. 

BOT - Agree with others, Five Guys is delish. Their fries are to die for. I can forgive Harry for choosing In and Out Burger over Five Guys, considering the latter appears to be more prominent in California than the former.  LOL.  What choice does he have when those choices are limited. Ha ha. 

Also In and Out Burger offers drive-thru service, were as Five Guys does not (at least none that I know of). It's likely more convenient for them, considering who they are, to pick up their food via drive-thru rather than walking into the restaurant and waiting. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/7/2020 at 11:59 PM, GaT said:

Oh no, this makes me disappointed in them. Anybody who prefers In N Out to Five Guys is just wrong.

 

13 hours ago, Camille said:

Or Shake Shack

 

2 hours ago, Enero said:

Same with "ok"and "no".  Both seems to have become universal no matter the country or culture. 

BOT - Agree with others, Five Guys is delish. Their fries are to die for. I can forgive Harry for choosing In and Out Burger over Five Guys, considering the latter appears to be more prominent in California than the former.  LOL.  What choice does he have when those choices are limited. Ha ha. 

In n Out is in a league of it's own. Five Guys and Shake Shack (not a fan) would be more on par with The Habit (which I'd also cut a bitch for right about now). 

Quote

Also In and Out Burger offers drive-thru service, were as Five Guys does not (at least none that I know of). It's likely more convenient for them, considering who they are, to pick up their food via drive-thru rather than walking into the restaurant and waiting. 

Could you imagine being the person at the drive-through? Or seeing them walk in to place a to-go order? Seeing celebs out and about in LA isn't  uncommon but I suspect H &M would raise more interest than someone else at this current point.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

49 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

In n Out is in a league of it's own. Five Guys and Shake Shack (not a fan) would be more on par with The Habit (which I'd also cut a bitch for right about now). 

Well, you're wrong too 😄 but now you have me thinking of The Habit's tempura green beans, mmmmmmm love them.

Share this post


Link to post

He could have had Shake Shack and 5 Guys in London, no In -N- Out though.

Share this post


Link to post

The scandalous saga of the illegitimate daughter of the former king of Belgium is heating up. I think I need some popcorn.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54112797

From the article:

The love child of the former Belgian King Albert II is hoping a court will grant her the same rights and titles as her father's legitimate children.

Artist Delphine Boël, 52, has taken her case to the appeals court in Brussels.

King Albert finally admitted he was Ms Boël's father in January this year, having fought her paternity claim for more than a decade.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, praeceptrix said:

The scandalous saga of the illegitimate daughter of the former king of Belgium is heating up. I think I need some popcorn.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54112797

From the article:

The love child of the former Belgian King Albert II is hoping a court will grant her the same rights and titles as her father's legitimate children.

Artist Delphine Boël, 52, has taken her case to the appeals court in Brussels.

King Albert finally admitted he was Ms Boël's father in January this year, having fought her paternity claim for more than a decade.

Not saying it's right, but I'm rather surprised the Belgium royal house doesn't have clauses covering situations like this.  Most of the royal houses do.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MissAlmond said:

Not saying it's right, but I'm rather surprised the Belgium royal house doesn't have clauses covering situations like this.  Most of the royal houses do.  

They probably do/did. This is all still part of the court case determining her paternity that includes the court deciding what her surname will be. Who knows if she just wants the legal acknowledgement that she is equal to her siblings or if she will actually try and get King Philippe to give her the title. 

 I’ve read that Belgium’s inheritance laws are very strict so she’s seems to have a sound argument legally. The no longer distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children. It’s an interesting case. 

  • Like 4
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Dani said:

They probably do/did. This is all still part of the court case determining her paternity that includes the court deciding what her surname will be. Who knows if she just wants the legal acknowledgement that she is equal to her siblings or if she will actually try and get King Philippe to give her the title. 

 I’ve read that Belgium’s inheritance laws are very strict so she’s seems to have a sound argument legally. The no longer distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children. It’s an interesting case. 

But the question is- did the law distinguish between marital and nonmarital offsoring 52 years ago when she was born? Somehow, I think the question of whether the current law can be retroactively applied to the Belgian royal family might add to the drama!

Of course, Belgium itself is a rather late addition to Europe via only being established in 1830 (which is when they recruited Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld [Princess Charlotte of Wales's widower and the future Queen Victoria's uncle]) to be its first monarch.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blergh said:

But the question is- did the law distinguish between marital and nonmarital offsoring 52 years ago when she was born?

It’s doesn’t matter because Belgian applies it to current cases even if the child was born before the law changes. There isn’t any doubt that she is going to be declared his daughter and will be legally entitled to an eighth of his estate. The only real question is if that forces the royal family to give her a title. 

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

Somehow, I think the question of whether the current law can be retroactively applied to the Belgian royal family might add to the drama!

Interestingly when Belgium switched to absolute primogeniture in the early 90’s it was done retroactively. At the time Princess Astrid’s went from being excluded from the line of succession to being 3rd in line. So there’s precedent for the royal family being impacted retroactively by changes to Belgian law. 

Edited by Dani
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Dani said:

It’s doesn’t matter because Belgian applies it to current cases even if the child was born before the law changes. There isn’t any doubt that she is going to be declared his daughter and will be legally entitled to an eighth of his estate. The only real question is if that forces the royal family to give her a title. 

Interestingly when Belgium switched to absolute primogeniture in the early 90’s it was done retroactively. At the time Princess Astrid went from being excluded from the line of succession to being 3rd in line. So there’s precedent for the royal family being impacted retroactively by changes to Belgian law. 

They had to change the laws of succession to do it.   I am betting the law that went to absolute primogeniture did not include any changes to distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children.    He may be required to give her  1/8 of his estate, it does not mean she gets a title and a place in the succession.   Royalty are a bit of sticklers on whose butt sits on the throne.   They want to make sure its from the "right" bloodline.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

They had to change the laws of succession to do it.   I am betting the law that went to absolute primogeniture did not include any changes to distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children.    He may be required to give her  1/8 of his estate, it does not mean she gets a title and a place in the succession.   Royalty are a bit of sticklers on whose butt sits on the throne.   They want to make sure its from the "right" bloodline.

I’m sure it included that exclusion but that happened before Belgium essentially eliminated the classification for illegitimate children. The royals don’t determine the line of succession. If the courts decide she’s in the line then it doesn’t matter what the royals want. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

For me the ideal outcome would be I get all the money and jewels and a nice castle or palace but don't have to be in the line of succession. Just give me the perks and let someone else kiss all the babies and wave at everyone. 🙂

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dani said:

I’m sure it included that exclusion but that happened before Belgium essentially eliminated the classification for illegitimate children. The royals don’t determine the line of succession. If the courts decide she’s in the line then it doesn’t matter what the royals want. 

But would the current king's half-sister have precedence over his own eldest child (a daughter   Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant who is due to be  that nation's first queen regnant- barring catastrophe).? I don't think so! 

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, Blergh said:

But would the current king's half-sister have precedence over his own eldest child (a daughter   Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant who is due to be  that nation's first queen regnant- barring catastrophe).? I don't think so! 

Huh? I didn’t say that she would. Why would anyone think that she would jump to the front of the line? She would be 17th in the line of succession. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Dani said:

Huh? I didn’t say that she would. Why would anyone think that she would jump to the front of the line? She would be 17th in the line of succession. 

Thanks for clearing that up!

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, praeceptrix said:

The scandalous saga of the illegitimate daughter of the former king of Belgium is heating up. I think I need some popcorn.

Now THIS is a juicy royal scandal!!!  Brits beware—you’ll have to up your game to compete!—who is paying what bills from what source of funds isn’t gonna cut it against this!!!!  Just fantastic!!

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Dani said:

Huh? I didn’t say that she would. Why would anyone think that she would jump to the front of the line? She would be 17th in the line of succession. 

That's so terribly boring. I say install her on the throne right now.

  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

Bastards always got royal titles.   It was a way to compensate the family when they couldn't inherit.    That was when Kings had control over the titles and could create all the ones he wanted.   James II made a lot of Dukes that way.

As for the succession, just so its clear, it goes to the eldest, then the eldest children, for the sake of argument, they don't have kids, then to the siblings of the eldest, their kids, and so on and so on.   It goes down the line, then over.    So the current succession would be the King, his kids, THEN any siblings, including the half-sister.   The chances of her getting any actual shot at the throne would take something really unfortunate happening.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

Hey it worked for King Ralph. 

I liked John Goodman better as the Kingfish (Huey Long)!

 To bring it back to royal talk, I'm wondering how much the courts will be settle  on the former  Belgian king's nonmarital daughter! It's not as if he can be compelled to pay for college! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
OtterMommy

Everyone has stated their views on the Sussexes and no one is going to change anyone's mind.  Any further excessive bickering may lead to a temporary suspension of this thread.  If you do not agree with someone's opinion, please scroll to the next post.  If you feel the need to take a stronger action, please use the ignore function.

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