Just read on the news that Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, died today at the age of 101. It's particularly sad given that she lost her younger daughter, Margaret, only a few weeks ago.

I once knew a woman that lived to be 101. Her comment? "This has gone on entirely too long." May the Queen Mum find rest at last.

Just yesterday, a man who works for me, shared a picture of the Queen Mum and himself as they met in 1941. What a sad day to be sure. And for those doing the math, the man in question is 83 years old. He is a volunteer for Meals on Wheels.

I've got a nice bit of footage of her on Super-8 that my dad took of her back in '64. Considering there were few televiosion reporters back in those days most of the other photos of her that day woudl have been Black and White stills. I really shoudl dig it out some time and transfer it to CD.

More sad news...I know the Queen Mother was held in a special esteem by her countryman. My condolences to all our British friends at her passing.

My condolences to all our British friends at her passing.
From me, also. I do know that among other things, she loved horses, so that put her in my good graces!

She also loved gin. Well-preserved, don't they call it?

She was an institution, and the world will seem a strange place to all the currently living generations without her.

Hear hear.

I still can't believe it. She epitomized what it means to be royal. While I'm still loyal to those who remain, I feel that none of them (bar the Queen) can hold a candle to her. With her death comes the death of an era. Somehow I never thought about her really dying, though I knew it was inevitable - she seemed as though she'd always be there.

She's that rare thing, a legend in her own time. She will go down in the history books as one of the great women of all time.

A serene woman who, despite finding herself on the throne (allegedly against her wishes), never lost her perspective and served as an example to all.

I am not a royalist (or any sort of "ist" really), but credit given where credit is due. I feel Elizabeth has many of her mother's qualities. Long may she live.

stales

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother
A serene woman who, despite finding herself on the throne
Okay, I'm confused. The Queen Mother's name was also Elizabeth? And she also reigned as Queen? But I thought the current queen was Elizabeth II. So wouldn't that have made her mother Elizabeth I? Yet I thought E. I's reign was hundreds of years ago...

Now watch the colonial make a fool of himself...(then stand aside for the poms and others that know/care about these things reveal the truth.

The Queen Mum was Queen to the King - the erstwhile Duke of Norfolk - that took the throne when the previous King took off with Mrs Simpson. As such she was not really the Queen. So, when the King died, it was his eldest child - Elizabeth - that inherited the throne. In doing so Mummy lost the gig.

Same when ERII dies, Phil the Greek won't get the job if he's still around - it'll be The Prince of Wales. Now, as to who (or what!!) he'll have as a Queen is very interesting. He'd hafta be another candidate for abdication wouldn't he?

stales

Well Jackie - I've just fallen from grace!

stales

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons married Albert, Duke of York and became the Duchess of York thereby. When Edward VIII abdicated, Albert became King George VI. His wife became Queen through her marriage as she had become Duchess of York, not in her own right.

George VI was not a physically strong man at the best of times, and his wife probably carried more of the burden of the public face of the monarchy than many queens before her; certainly Queen Mary, George's mother, was not often heard.

When George VI died, his widow was really in a very similar position as she had been when he was alive. She was mother to the Queen, and we know that Queen Elizabeth leant heavily on her for support and advice. The British handled the situation with some aplomb by naming her Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, or just the Queen Mother. I can't find any reference to a similar title being used in the past. The present Queen has always taken her position very seriously, and her mother provided the world with a more human view of the monarchy. She seemed to have found a niche in that area.

She had what is called "the common touch" and could work a crowd of lords or of stable boys with equal aplomb. I was speaking to someone on Saturday who met her some years ago. It was a convention of some sort, and apparently it took the Queen Mother no time at all to work out what was going on and what the atmosphere was. She went away leaving, apparently, a bunch of devoted slaves behind her. That ability does not come from position, it comes from personality. It would appear that Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, has inherited the knack. Her older brother seems to be fairly good at it too.

On the down side, it seems that it was the Queen Mother who finally nixed Princess Margaret's association with Peter Townshend which, in retrospect, would have probably been the best thing for her, so the old girl's judgement wasn't always sound. But that's family, and one's judgement isn't always sharpest when it comes to those nearest and dearest to you.

As for Prince Charles, I have always felt sorry for him. It was a fair bet that, illness aside, his mother wasn't going to pop her clogs young, and he's never really been able to find the kind of niche that his grandmother carved out for herself. After that farcical marriage, his credibility dropped until people began noticing that he was actually quite a good father. I personally see no reason why he shouldn't become King when mum finally dies. His relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles is quite interesting. Once of the major things against Wallis Simpson was the fact that she had been married twice before. Camilla doesn't have that impediment. She's also English and from a "good" family. Personally, I think that marrying her would be good for Charles, he's too much of a straight arrow to relish sneaking around. I also think that the British people would shrug and say "oh well, good on them" if they did get married, although that wasn't the case a couple of years ago. I don't know whether the Great British Public would stomach her as queen, but the marriage could be morganatic so that everyone's sensibilities would be accounted for.

FWIW

As was told to queen Anne, (and others i am sure), to give Parliament the power to make a king is to give them the power to unmake a king.
The title queen, thought, is very different. The Queen mother had the title queen extended to her, as the wife and consort to the sovereign, but she was not an anointed queen.

The Queen Mother (Elizabeth) held the title of "queen" as an honorary, she was not the ruler, nor had she any right to the throne. in days past she would have been referred to as a dowager queen.

Queen Elizabeth had a coronation, a ceremony when she was crowned, and anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and made Queen. (there is usually one year between the death of old ruler, and coronation of new... it was in that period that Edward resolved to marry Mrs. Simpson. So he was King Edward (by virtue of the fact his father had died,) but he had not yet been crowned king. once he made it clear he was going to marry mrs. simpson, the government stopped his coronation.)

i think William and Mary where the only king and queen who each had rights to the throne, and ruled jointly.

"morganatic"...?, please?
And thanks for all the clarification, you-all. Dowager queen, I think I'd have understood.

Well explained, Helen!


i think William and Mary where the only king and queen who each had rights to the throne, and ruled jointly.

However, the above would take an aeon to outline and perhaps the other board members would be well to read up about it. It is a quite complex and fascinating account of British history!! William was the Protestant King of Holland and Mary was the sister of James II who was a Catholic! (Hence the Jacobian wars). The acceptance of the the ruler of Orange (as the dutch royal family was known) gave rise to the Orangemen, the fierce loyalists to the British crown who still mark the marches to the Jacobean battles by parading through the streets of Northern Ireland every summer.

Albert became King George VI.

And why is this? Do they all change their names, meaning that Prince Charles will be King something-else? Is there some type of rule about what a royal family member can be named? William is pretty normal, too. What if William named his son Ethan, or Austin. Would they allow a King Austin?

And why is this? Do they all change their names, meaning that Prince Charles will be King something-else?

Yup. Just like the Popes the British royalty have the right to call themselves what they so wish. The current queen was in Treetops when she heard the news of her father's death and returned by plane. She was met at the airport by a royal dignitary who asked her what name she wished to be known by. Why? Elizabeth, of course!, she replied.

Is there some type of rule about what a royal family member can be named? William is pretty normal, too. What if William named his son Ethan, or Austin. Would they allow a King Austin?

There are no rules per se by which a royal may name their child. Tradition tends to dictate that and the royals are no different to any other family in the world who tend to hold on to family names. Elizabeth was named after her mother and was the first prominent royal to bear that name since Elizabeth R. back in the mid-sixteenth century.

George and William were the common names for the Prince of Wales for the past two hundred and so years and only Prince Albert (who became George V) and the current inmcumbent of that title (Charles) have been the exception to that tradition.

William is now making a comeback through Charles' son and Prince Henry (Harry) will be the first Harry since Henry VIII to hold the title Duke of York (yes, Henry VIII was Duke of York as his elder brother held the Prince of Wales title until his early death).

Had Charles not married Diana and had two sons Andrew would assume the title after him and then the lineage would pass down via his two daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie. There has never been an Andrew on the English throne so he would probably be advised to take another titular name.

As for Ethan or Austin I don't think that a Prince would be given such a name. There is a strong sense of tradition in a tightly knit family like the Windsors and they probably have a bandobast before deciding on a final handle which probably comes from a list of names decided upon and accepted by the monarch. After all, it is very unlikely that the current monarch would like to be followed by a King Wesley or a Queen Kylie a few generations down the line. But Harry Pothead may be the first Royal rebel to turn all of this on its head and throw such a spanner in the works.

Okay Jazzo, why aren't you Chris? Why am i not Helen?

People get to pick their own names! when you get to be king, you have a choice! most royal princes have 5 or 6 given names, and chose from one of them. i think i remember reading the names get retired too, that a general concensis is reach, that this king, or queen, is so spectacutlar, the name should never be use again.. No law, just a general agreement.

(and like royalty, i have 4 given names -- i could be queen helen, mary, bernadette or patricia.. )

Names are interesting. many cultures still have "public' and "private" names, or diminutives. Aliases are only a bad thing if you are using them for fraud-- so as long as i don't try to sell you this really wonderful bridge, just out side, and down the block from where i work, i can be of troy.

Don't you have any relatives like mine?
My cousin has a given name of Elizabeth, but only her sister calls her that.

Most people call her annabell (i don't know why, but they do)

her husband calls her Pidge, -- they met when they were in the Marines, and her last name is Pidgeon..

my mother is Vera to most of the world.. only very intimate family know her legal name.

Tancy,an other cousin, was Frances, but called Francy, which got corrupted into Tancy, when she was 4 and her younger sister 2, and now 75 years later, she is still Tancy.

Don't you have any relatives like mine?
My cousin has a given name of Elizabeth, but only her sister calls her that.

Most people call her annabell (i don't know why, but they do)

Never really thought about it before but my mother and her two older sisters all have the first name Mary but none of them use that name. Maybe it's an Irish thang?

...but my mother and her two older sisters all have the first name Mary but none of them use that name.

I can just hear the conversations around the house if they had used their first names....

"Mary stop teasing Mary and Mary, pick up your things before company comes. Mary, help your sister, Mary, with her homework. Mary, stop chasing the dog! Now you girls behave yourselves. Mary sit there, and Mary sit there, and Mary, you over there, no, not you, Mary, I want Mary there. Don't you girls ever listen?"

It boggles the mind!

george forman did it.. all of his kids, including his daughters are named george.

kids sort them selves out..

my mother's sister is Marie-- Mar ee which we kids heard as Mary.. so we called her aunt mary.. when i was grown, and discovered she was Ma ree, i asked her why she never corrected us.. she asked why should i? she didn't hear mary, she heard mar ee.

my mother and her two older sisters all have the first name Mary

My father had that problem. His mother had a brother Jacob; his father Keiva also had a brother Jacob, and his father's sister married a Jacob -- causing endless confusion with all three men being called "Uncle Jake".

my mother and her two older sisters all have the first name Mary

This poem seems particularly apt considering how many Davids we have among us!

TOO MANY DAVES - by Dr. Seuss

Did I ever tell you that Mrs. McCave
Had twenty-three sons and she named them all Dave?
Well, she did. And that wasn't a smart thing to do.
You see, when she wants one and calls out, "Yoo-Hoo!
Come into the house, Dave!" she doesn't get ONE.
All twenty-three Daves of hers come on the run!
This makes things quite difficult at the McCaves'
As you can imagine, with so many Daves.
And often she wishes that, when they were born,
She had named one of them Bodkin Van Horn
And one of them Hoos-Foos. And one of them Snimm.
And one of them Hot-Shot. And one Sunny Jim.
And one of them Shadrack. And one of them Blinkey.
And one of them Stuffy. And one of them Stinkey.
Another one Putt-Putt. Another one Moon Face.
Another one Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face.
And one of them Ziggy. And one Soggy Muff.
One Buffalo Bill. And one Biffalo Buff.
And one of them Sneepy. And one Weepy Weed.
And one Paris Garters. And one Harris Tweed.
And one of them Sir Michael Carmichael Zutt
And one of them Oliver Boliver Butt
And one of them Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate...
But she didn't do it. And now it's too late.

Helen thinks royal names get retired because someone has been spectactular. Akcherly, it seems that names get retired if the last holder was so despicable no one wants to use it again, like Richard and Henry (or less well known, Maude and Stephen). There hasn't been a Richard since Crookback, or a Henry since He of the Wives, and this in spite of the fact that Henry is tied with Edward for most popular so far. I think the presumption is that if Charles manages to outlive his mum, he will be Charles III. He's in the unenviable position of Eddie VII who was well into his 60's when Vickie finally pegged out, and he didn't reign very long.

I guess the days are gone when a Prince of Wales or a king of England can have a mistress more-or-less openly or long term. Goodness knows, there is plenty of precedent for it. Charles II had a number of them, all very well known, and he had a wife at the same time. Same with Edward VII, and that was in pretty modern times. At least Charles won't be adulterating, just fornicating. But I guess he will want to marry the wench (once the Old Girl is gone and can't nix it) and make an honest woman of her. Nelly Gwynne wouldn't have wanted any truck with that. Of course, Lizzy the Twooth may be good for another 20 years or so and much can happen.

William is now making a comeback through Charles' son and Prince Henry (Harry) will be the first Harry since Henry VIII to hold the title Duke of York (yes, Henry VIII was Duke of York as his elder brother held the Prince of Wales title until his early death.)

So, in that case (Harry as York) what happens to Prince Andrew and Sarah, the curent Duke and Duchess of York?
Hmmmm?

RE : Charles and Camilla ... didn't Edward and Wallis float that morgantic notion only to have it shot down? Isn't the morgantioc marriage one where She would enjoy the priviledges, but have no real stature, any children could not inherit, she Queen in name only?


Also re 2nd marriages ... I do believe Charles's Camilla has an ex-husband lurking in a closet somewhere?
But of course she is English AND the times are different !

To all our AWADers in the Commonwealth, my sincere sympathy for the loss of The Queen Mother. She was a great lady. I remember seeing newsreels when the King and Queen visited the Roosevelt family in 1936 I believe - ... and the uproar when it was learned they were served hot dogs and hamburgers at a "family" get together (The King reportedly liked the hot dogs - with mustard and relish)
I remember seeing newsreels and photos in LIFE magazine of the King and Queen during the London Blitz. Imagine, she will be part of the memories of anyone born in the 20th Century !
An era has ended and we are left poorer for the loss of her presence.

William is now making a comeback through Charles' son and Prince Henry (Harry) will be the first Harry since Henry VIII to hold the title Duke of York (yes, Henry VIII was Duke of York as his elder brother held the Prince of Wales title until his early death.)

So, in that case (Harry as York) what happens to Prince Andrew and Sarah, the curent Duke and Duchess of York?
Hmmmm?

Okay. The Prince of Wales is the title reserved for the male heir to the throne. This is Charles. The Duke of York has nothing to do with the succession line. It is a title afforded to the second of the monarch's sons. If there isn't a second son then the title remains vacant.

When Charles becomes King William doesn't automatically become Prince of Wales and Harry does not become Duke of York. Charles was only given this title when he turned 18 or so. Andrew became Duke of York shortly before his wedding in 1986. It was last used by George VI until 1936 when he became king - a gap of 50 years during which the title was vacant. Andrew will keep this title until he dies. It will then be up to Charles to decide when his two sons will be invested with their individual titles. William could become king without ever becoming Prince of Wales - if his grandmother and father were to die suddenly, but this is highly unlikely. It is also highly likely that, now he is of age, he will become Prince of Wales almost as soon as Charles becomes king.

I think EII should make him choose. The kingdom or Camilla. If he has to have Camilla, pass the kingdom to Di's boy. That would make me happy. (I really cannot stand that home-wrecker!)

I really cannot stand that home-wrecker!

Satin, I rather fancy that Camilla P-B isn't to blame for the idiotic mismatch between His Nibs and Di. Put that one down to pressure for him to marry and beget heirs.

Okay, I looked it up myself, in the 'Lectric Law Library: MORGANTIC MARRIAGE - During the middle ages, there was an intermediate estate between matrimony and concubinage, known by this name. It is defined to be a lawful and inseparable conjunction of a single man, of noble and illustrious birth, with a single woman of an inferior or plebeian station, upon this condition, that neither the wife nor children should partake of the title, arms, or dignity of the husband, nor succeed to his inheritance, but should have a certain allowance assigned to them by the morgantic contract. The marriage ceremony was regularly performed; the union: was for life and indissoluble; and the children were considered legitimate, though they could not inherit.
Sheesh--reckon there must have been, er, several, reasons that a law like this was developed!

on other interesting point of law (one that used to exist in England, i don't know if it still does)

but a man could have child with a woman (one he wasn't married to) and then marry her years later, and "legitimize" the children. John of Gaunt did this with his third wife, Katherine. He had a 20 year affair with her, and she bore him 4 children. he eventually married her. The affair started after his first wife died, but continued through most of his second marriage. it was ended, and after his second wife died, he finally married her.

when he finally married her, he had all of his children by her made legitimate. (even though some were already adults!) one son had entered the clergy, and as a bastard, was prohibbited from holding an office in the church (becoming a bishop or higher) legitimizing him furthered his career.

i don't know if this is still permitted, but it is an interesting case.

Leaving Camilla aside, I think the Family and the monarchy might get a great shot in the arm if Charles were to step aside and William were to become king when the job falls vacant. This business of an old guy becoming king is too boring. As I noted before, EII could go another 20 years. Even at that, Wills would still be relatively young.

I think morganatic marriages were a continental Europe thing rather than a British one. I can't remember one actually happening in Britain.

The Austrian Franz-Ferdinand and his wife who were killed at Sarajevo, thus sparking off the First World War had a morganatic marriage.

I have this idea that marriage of two people automatically legitimises any children they had before they got married.

Bingley

I can just hear the conversations around the house if they had used their first names....

"Mary stop teasing Mary and Mary, pick up your things before company comes. Mary, help your sister, Mary,
with her homework. Mary, stop chasing the dog! Now you girls behave yourselves. Mary sit there, and Mary sit
there, and Mary, you over there, no, not you, Mary, I want Mary there. Don't you girls ever listen?"

It boggles the mind!

Ah, it wasn't quite that bad! Their first names were Mary but that was never used on its own. Instead they formed their names by joining Mary with their second name. My eldest aunt was called Mary Ellen in her formative years but, when she studied in France, everybody started calling her Marlene. It stuck. Same story for the other aunt and the old dear.

Leaving Camilla aside, I think the Family and the monarchy might get a great shot in the arm if Charles were to
step aside and William were to become king when the job falls vacant. This business of an old guy becoming
king is too boring. As I noted before, EII could go another 20 years. Even at that, Wills would still be relatively
young.

Well, Charles is still only 53 and in quite good shape. Edward VII was a heavy smoker, drinker and womaniser so he was never going to live to a ripe old age. He also ruptured his appendix before his coronation and the whole thing had to be postponed. I'm sure that he never fully recovered from this and other health problems.

Liz 2 is 76 and looking sprightly but there have been murmurings about abdication and Charles would make quite a good king for twenty years or so. After all, there have been older popes and company directors than he!!! The present pope only took his chair when he was in his late 50s.

As for Wills, I think there are a lot of people who would be up in arms to see him king so young. He's brash, too aloof and far too inexperienced to hold such a high position. Maybe in five to ten years but not now.

She was an institution, and the world will seem a strange place to all the currently living generations without her.

For a life well-lived, thank you ma'am.

Their first names were Mary but that was never used on its own. Instead they formed their names by joining Mary with their second name.

I have some friends, Norm and Mary Jane, who had five daughters and no sons. They named them all Mary ______. With different middle names. Some are known by both together, some by their middle names only. It's Norm that I have the most fun with. One day, I decided he should suffer the same fate as the six ladies in his life. From that day forward, he has been known as Mary Norman!

Ah, Helen, you have to put John of Gaunt in his place and times. He was the uncle of a king, father of a king, the grandfather of another - Henry V at that - and a power equal to any statesman we have ever seen in his time. He was also the great-great-grandfather of Henry VII. He was known as M. d'Espagne for his failed Spanish military adventures and he could really do no wrong in England. Marrying Kat Swynforde and making the Beauforts legitimate led directly to Henry Tudor being able to overthrow Richard III and found the Tudor dynasty. Not bad for one guy, eh?

Morganatic marriage is not common these days, but Jackie's sources have led her slightly astray. It merely means that no rights of title or inheritance accue to the morganatic partner. It hasn't been used formally in Britain for many years, but it is still legally possible, I'm told.

>Morganatic marriage is not common these days

One would think that the major issue would be issue and without the benefits of modern science that would be unlikely. C & C's marriage would be unlikely to upset the royal lineage too much. An every day pre-nuptual agreement could sort out who gets the family silver. As Bill points out, time has moved on since Wallis Simpson, wasn't she a Catholic as well as divorced? [Thanks Bob, no she wasn't, I tried to look it up but I couldn't remember, it was also mooted that Camilla was a Catholic but she's not, thereby making a potential marriage infinitely easier].

I don't think that any of the family can be too proud of the relationships that they all had with Diana, whether or not her marriage to Charles was a good idea. Charles seems to be introducing Camilla to public life by stealth. His sister, Anne, went to Scotland to marry her second husband as there are different rules on second marriages to those in England. Charles still faces the problem of taking up his role as Head of the Church of England one day and the fact that, as far as I know, they still haven't relaxed the rules on allowing second marriages to take place in church. <A HREF="http://detnews.com/2000/religion/0001/26/01260172.htm" target="_new">http://detnews.com/2000/religion/0001/26/01260172.htm</A>

Jo, you'll be trying to kid me that the Church of England insists on everyone believing in God, next. The role of Head of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith, yadda, yadda, has been abused by so many monarchs since Henry the Headsman that for anyone to expect the monarch to be squeaky clean is really a bit much, doncha think?

No, Jo, Wallace Simpson was not Catholic. She was Episcopalian, the U.S. Anglican church, related to the C. of E. Her first marriage took place at Christ Episcopal Church, an old-line society church in downtown Baltimore.