Wordsmith Talk |
About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | |||
Register Log In Wordsmith.org Forums General Topics Information and announcements The last Victorian
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
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
stales
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
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
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.
And thanks for all the clarification, you-all. Dowager queen, I think I'd have understood.
OP
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.
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?
OP
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.
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.
OP
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?
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Moderated by Jackie
Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members Ineffable, ddrinnan, TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV
9,182 Registered Users
Who's Online Now 0 members (), 159 guests, and 0 robots.
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
Forum Rules · Mark All Read Contact Us · Forum Help · Wordsmith.org
