It's not easy being royal

hollydolly said:
..and then the wiley old QM, managed to get ''Queen'' in her title as an Ex Consort .. after King George died .. she demanded to be known as Elizabeth the Queen Mother :D
Click to expand...
I seem to remember that Mary, the widow of George V, continued to be known as Queen Mary. Am I wrong about that?

Edit - I looked it up and found this.

Her Majesty Queen Mary

main-qimg-ce59d270ae9fc6a8304236912050e3f4-lq

When her husband died, Mary ceased the use of ‘The Queen’, with that title now owed to the wife of the next King.

She retained the title bearing her given name however as ’Queen Mary’, since the next Queen was not a Mary and it didn’t cause any confusion or disrespect for her to continue using it.

She was known formally by that title for the rest of her life.

main-qimg-6d1213a277a2ebd0d03cc1ed7ab49181-lq

Likewise Queen Caroline, Queen Charlotte, Queen Adelaide, and Queen Alexandra before her, and Queen Elizabeth after her have also retained their Queenly titles.

In the latter case, the next Queen after Elizabeth was also an Elizabeth, so they added a description to the end of the widowed Queen’s title as ‘Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother’ so that we could tell the difference when reading the newspapers.

’The Queen Mother’ is otherwise never used as a title in the United Kingdom, and certainly not ‘Queen Step-Mother’ or ‘Queen Grandmother’.

They're all just simply Her Majesty Queen [Given Name].
 

Last edited:
Warrigal said:
I seem to remember that Mary, the widow of George V, continued to be known as Queen Mary. Am I wrong about that?
Click to expand...
I dunno it was before my time... I made a mistake, I should have said she demanded her title to have the word Queen Twice... Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother ...read Lady Colin Campbells Book... it's all there
 
Not before my time though. I remember the announcement of George VI and the period of mourning that followed. I remember too that there were three queens in his funeral cortege.
 

Decades ago, when he was young Prince Charles, his schedule was online. I looked it up. I expected it would be meeting ambassadors, and other officials, whatever Royal duties are. It was things like dedicating a new Xray machine, cutting the ribbon on a repaved highway, opening a school of dance, etc. To be honest, I wouldn't be looking forward to dedicating another Xray machine. It isn't all pomp, and gold carriages.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s time Harry stopped whining, complaining and blaming and got down to business of making a life for himself and his family. I’m totally without interest or sympathy for any expose he and Meg might publish. He is getting very boring. If he also wants to continue participating in some phases of Royal life, I think King Charles III should decide what terms would be acceptable to him and the rest of the family.
Talk about wanting to “have your cake and eat it too!” ….classic example.
 
dseag2 said:
Why are we discussing Prince Harry? Maybe I don't agree with the comments Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have made about the Royals, but let's talk about Prince Andrew. Why has he been front and center at the ceremonies? At least Prince Harry isn't a pedophile who has impacted the lives of young women.
Click to expand...
Andrew has never been convicted of being a pedophile, except in the court of public opinion. Nothing he was accused of, was ever brought into a court of law and proven. He got a raw deal on this one, as he was ordered by his mother to pay up and get rid of all this for her Jubilee year.
 
Lewkat said:
Andrew has never been convicted of being a pedophile, except in the court of public opinion. Nothing he was accused of, was ever brought into a court of law and proven. He got a raw deal on this one, as he was ordered by his mother to pay up and get rid of all this for her Jubilee year.
Click to expand...
I've got to say.. I have no feelings of loyalty to Prince Andrew in any way , not before or since his accuser, I've always thought he's the least likeable of the RF ... and I believe his accuser that they had intimate relations .. however, he was not a paedophile in my eyes.. She was almost 18 years old and a prostitute .. I don't think he knew she was under age in the USA.. ( in the UK she wouldn't have been under age at all )

..so to call him a Paedophile is IMO not accurate
 
Lewkat said:
Andrew has never been convicted of being a pedophile, except in the court of public opinion. Nothing he was accused of, was ever brought into a court of law and proven. He got a raw deal on this one, as he was ordered by his mother to pay up and get rid of all this for her Jubilee year.
Click to expand...
Okay, my apologies for calling Prince Andrew a pedophile, but everyone seems to be dumping on Prince Harry, who has lots more character and integrity IMO than Prince Andrew.
 
dseag2 said:
Okay, my apologies for calling Prince Andrew a pedophile, but everyone seems to be dumping on Prince Harry, who has lots more character and integrity IMO than Prince Andrew.
Click to expand...
maybe.. but he has very little common sense.. or else he wouldn't be holding onto the skirts of the Mass manipulator.. That makes him completely untrustworthy
 
Last edited:
I think "being royal" is kind of a British thing. Admittedly, I visited the UK only once, but it was quite apparent that everybody had their place. And people had "their betters"- a royal being a "better". A royal was somehow above the "bloke in the street", he had some unknown quality-'"being royal".
 
hollydolly said:
I've got to say.. I have no feelings of loyalty to Prince Andrew in any way , not before or since his accuser, I've always thought he's the least likeable of the RF ... and I believe his accuser that they had intimate relations .. however, he was not a paedophile in my eyes.. She was almost 18 years old and a prostitute .. I don't think he knew she was under age in the USA.. ( in the UK she wouldn't have been under age at all )

..so to call him a Paedophile is IMO not accurate
Click to expand...

Agreed. He's an arrogant, unlikable person but the age of consent is 16 in the UK, 17 in New York and 18 in Florida; those are the three places Giuffre states they had intercourse, so their encounters were legal except in Florida.

Besides, pedophilia refers to prepubescence children.

Again, don't like him at all, but in the majority of US states in which the age of consent is 16, he would've been within the law.

Edit: New York law changed to 18 in 2021.
 
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
I think "being royal" is kind of a British thing. Admittedly, I visited the UK only once, but it was quite apparent that everybody had their place. And people had "their betters"- a royal being a "better". A royal was somehow above the "bloke in the street", he had some unknown quality-'"being royal".
Click to expand...
Is it any different than the super rich in any country?
 
Interesting. I read an article today that the next several generations of monarchs will be male. Charles, William, William's son, will rule most likely well into the next century.
 
J-Kat said:
Interesting. I read an article today that the next several generations of monarchs will be male. Charles, William, William's son, will rule most likely well into the next century.
Click to expand...
yes of course. The line is Charles, then William then George... of course Charles won't reign for long, and even if he only reigns for 10 years , William will be 50 when he takes the throne and again a much shorter reign than the Queen before his son George who will be around middle age before he take the throne.. so there may never be a Monarch of Great Britain and the Commonwealth who will ever reign as long as the Queen and her place in History as the longest running Monarch will be safe
 
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
I think "being royal" is kind of a British thing. Admittedly, I visited the UK only once, but it was quite apparent that everybody had their place. And people had "their betters"- a royal being a "better". A royal was somehow above the "bloke in the street", he had some unknown quality-'"being royal".
Click to expand...
hahah..one visit, and it was obvious to you we all knew our place.. were we all touching our forelocks and bowing and curtseying ?... do leave off...
 
Last edited:
I watched some footage last night of Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward standing vigil around their mother's casket in Westminster Hall. They had to stand perfectly still while members of the public were filing past, looking at them as they passed by. It must have taken a lot of training and experience for them to remain motionless for so long as if they were made of stone.

I also noted that there were other royals standing in the gallery overlooking the scene below. Members of the public would all have been on their feet for an imaginable number of hours and the family was also standing silently for what must have been an intolerable time for public silent grieving.

I have never seen such a scene in my country and I take my hat off to the style and grace of the British people. The love for the late Queen was tangible from everyone who was in that hall.

Long live King Charles and may God bless his family.
 
I agree with you about Harry. I've read people's posts saying he is selfish or feels privileged. How is he selfish?! He served his country in the military and was the first royal to serve in a war torn country (Afghanistan) He in fact agreed that he should be allowed to serve on the front lines, just like other soldiers or else why even be there. He and Megan are committed to doing charitable work with veterans and those with mental health issues, as well as other charities. He founded the Invictus Games to give wounded service men and women a chance to compete in sports, with the intention of helping both their physical and psychological well being. Viewing this video highlights that he chose to protect his wife from further vitriol, which is what a husband is supposed to do. Isn't there a saying that you forsake all others for your wife? I might see it differently if he was in line to become king but he is not, nor will he ever be. Why should he be faced with a lifetime of entrapment doing "royal" things just for show?

He made a difficult decision but it was his to make along with his wife. Not the decision of the royals, the media and certainly not the haters. I'm glad he brought up racism in the video because that definitely played a part. Much of the hatred toward Megan is blatantly racist, like the inference that she's ghetto. Ironically, many don't know that Megan is a descendant of a royal herself. Because Harry's family are royals, doesn't mean that what they do or don't do should be swept under the rug. I think much of it has been. He made a great point about his father not trying do what he could to make life better for his sons; just expecting them to have to endure what he endured. Harry is about protecting his family and giving them the best life he can. I think he is a helluva good man. Like you Warrigal, I wish them nothing but the best.
 
@hollydolly Something I read last week on one of the British papers said that if William did not become king, that Harry would be the next king.

So, if for whatever reason William will not or can not ascend to the throne, are we to understand that George will be skipped over?

I thought you might know the answer, as I think a Queen Consort Rachel (Meghan's given first name) would be a difficult thing to accept in the court of public opinion.

Any idea if this skipping over George could be a real scenario?

hollydolly said:
yes of course. The line is Charles, then William then George... of course Charles won't reign for long, and even if he only reigns for 10 years , William will be 50 when he takes the throne and again a much shorter reign than the Queen before his son George who will be around middle age before he take the throne.. so there may never be a Monarch of Great Britain and the Commonwealth who will ever reign as long as the Queen and her place in History as the longest running Monarch will be safe
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top