Queen Elizabeth funeral and looking forward

[CdnCarrie]

Princess Anne and Prince Edward chose not to use the titles for their children. MM announced on the Oprah interview that her children were denied these titles. This was untrue but fit her agenda. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds since The Queen has passed away.

Princess Anne had no title to give her children unless her husband was given a peerage which they as a couple declined.

Edward’s children would have been prince and Princess but he and his mother mutually decided to use Lord and Lady instead which they are entitled to due to his title of Earl of Wessex. James will inherit that.

Archie should be a Lord and will inherit the Duke title from his dad but his parents declined to use the Lord title. Now he is a Prince but let’s see what they do with that.

 

[AppleDumpling]

It wasn’t retroactive. It started with new births.

Thanks. Seems unfair to Anne, yet as I said, since there are now so many above her in Charles’ direct line, it’s extremely unlikely to be an issue.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Princess Anne had no title to give her children unless her husband was given a peerage which they as a couple declined.

Edward’s children would have been prince and Princess but he and his mother mutually decided to use Lord and Lady instead which they are entitled to due to his title of Earl of Wessex. James will inherit that.

Archie should be a Lord and will inherit the Duke title from his dad but his parents declined to use the Lord title. Now he is a Prince but let’s see what they do with that.

It has been often reported that honorary titles were offered to Princess Anne's children but she refused them. It fits her personality so I tend to believe it.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Thanks. Seems unfair to Anne, yet as I said, since there are now so many above her in Charles’ direct line, it’s extremely unlikely to be an issue.

Bring mum to an Olympian as well as being a former Olympian isn’t too shabby. They don’t seem like a family that is worried about it. She has made her mark on the world in her own way.
So many worried about Kate and Meghan not being at Balmoral. More important that Tim was there. Or Princess Alexandra.

 

[NotUrsula]

Was watching one of the TV specials last night and it was mentioned that Charles proposed to another woman before Diana. And not Camilla. Her name is Amanda and she is a distant relative, related to Lord Mountbatten. She turned down the proposal, because she did not want the royal life in the spotlight. Very interesting and something I had never heard before.

Amanda Knatchbull. 2d cousin twice removed, I believe. She is Louis Mountbatten's grandaughter, and that's why Charles proposed; he didn't really want to marry her, either; he was trying to honor his Uncle Dickie's fondest wish, and also to please his father, who was also in favor. Luckily, she had the sense to know that it wasn't a good idea, and turned him down. They had been close since childhood, and remain very fond of one another, but she lives a very low-key life.

Honestly, almost all of the drama that plagued the Royal Family from the 70s up through the mid-1980s can be traced to the influence of Louis "Uncle Dickie" Mountbatten, a Naval hero and cousin of the Queen's who also was the uncle (and former legal guardian) of Prince Philip. The whole family adored him, but for reasons of his own he was determined to be as influential as possible toward everyone in line for the throne. (He was college friends with George VI, & Edward VIII was best man at his wedding. He was a close advisor to the Queen in the early years. He was Princess Anne's godfather, and Prince Louis is named for him.) He pushed Philip to spend time with and marry Elizabeth (which happily, did obviously turn out well), but didn't stop there. He appointed himself an informal mentor to Prince Charles and meddled heavily in his life from the start. It was Mountbatten who told Charles back in 1970 that marrying Camilla would be impossible, and Mountbatten who started pressuring Charles to marry Amanda starting in 1972, when she was 16 years old.

PS: Yes, at the time of his birth, Mountbatten was part of 3 ruling families: those of the UK, Russia, and Germany, and was a German prince by birth. His two sisters married princes; one became the Queen Consort of Sweden, and the other was Prince Philip's mother, who married a younger son of the King of Greece. His father had spent a career rising to the top of the UK Navy, but was forced to give up his title (and his job) and change the family name during WW1, and they lost all of their family money when their properties in Russia and Germany were taken by the new governments after the war. The title was downgraded and exchanged for a British Marquessate, and his children all lost royal status. Louis was a teenager at the time, the youngest child, and never got over the perceived insult to his branch of the family.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Princess Anne had no title to give her children unless her husband was given a peerage which they as a couple declined.

Edward’s children would have been prince and Princess but he and his mother mutually decided to use Lord and Lady instead which they are entitled to due to his title of Earl of Wessex. James will inherit that.

Archie should be a Lord and will inherit the Duke title from his dad but his parents declined to use the Lord title. Now he is a Prince but let’s see what they do with that.

There is much talk that King Charles will bestow the titles of Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh to Edward and Sophie.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/king-charles-prince-edward-sophie-24970547

 

[CdnCarrie]

There is much talk that King Charles will bestow the titles of Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh to Edward and Sophie.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/king-charles-prince-edward-sophie-24970547

That has been rumored for years that Edward would inherit his dad’s dukedom.
That would be nice.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Amanda Knatchbull. 2d cousin twice removed, I believe. She is Louis Mountbatten's grandaughter, and that's why Charles proposed; he didn't really want to marry her, either; he was trying to honor his Uncle Dickie's fondest wish, and also to please his father, who was also in favor. Luckily, she had the sense to know that it wasn't a good idea, and turned him down. They had been close since childhood, and remain very fond of one another, but she lives a very low-key life.

Honestly, almost all of the drama that plagued the Royal Family from the 70s up through the mid-1980s can be traced to the influence of Louis "Uncle Dickie" Mountbatten, a Navel hero and cousin of the Queen's who also was the uncle (and former legal guardian) of Prince Philip. The whole family adored him, but for reasons of his own he was determined to be as influential as possible toward everyone in line for the throne. (He was college friends with George VI, & Edward VIII was best man at his wedding. He was a close advisor to the Queen in the early years. He was Princess Anne's godfather, and Prince Louis is named for him.) He pushed Philip to spend time with and marry Elizabeth (which happily, did obviously turn out well), but didn't stop there. He appointed himself an informal mentor to Prince Charles and meddled heavily in his life from the start. It was Mountbatten who told Charles back in 1970 that marrying Camilla would be impossible, and Mountbatten who started pressuring Charles to marry Amanda starting in 1972, when she was 16 years old.

Wasn't he also the brother to Princess Alice...Prince Phillip's mother?

 

[CdnCarrie]

Wasn't he also the brother to Princess Alice...Prince Phillip's mother?

Yes. He was Philip’s maternal uncle.
He and other family members were blown up by the IRA in 1979.

He was basically a dad to Philip. His daughter Lady Pamela Hicks has a good biography that’s worth a read. She and Philip were very close like siblings.

 

[Nora03]

Another good read is The Duchess. It’s about Camilla. It was a thread here on the Disboards. I really enjoyed it and learned a lot about her and the Royal Family. She sounds like a down to earth person and well suited for her current role. It’s too bad she and Charles weren’t allowed to marry years ago.

 

[dcassetta]

This has been changed fairly recently and Charlotte is now included in the line of succession, as well as the female grandchildren and other great-grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth. However, it seems like Anne (Charles’ sister, only daughter of the Queen) should have also been bumped up above her younger brothers (Andrew and Edward) and their children. Don’t know why, I’m sure someone knows. Anne, who’s called the Princess Royal, is supposedly the hardest working of all the RF. Not that it really matters at this point, because realistically, she’d never become queen.

Prior to the birth of Prince George, the UK practiced agnatic primogeniture. This places children in line for inheritance in the order of birth, but sons take precedence over daughters. So for the Queen’s children it was Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne. Anne was always in the line of succession, she just followed her brothers. Prior to the birth of Prince George, an act of Parliament changed succession from agnatic to absolute. This means the eldest child inherits no matter what their gender. This did not apply to any member of the family born before Prince George. Thus the current succession is William, George, Charlotte, Louis. If the law had not been changed Louis would have precedence over his older sister.

This link shows the line of succession for all of the immediate members of the royal family. If something were to happen to all of them, the succession then goes to the children of princess Margaret, the Queen’s sister. https://www.royal.uk/succession

Princess Anne and Prince Edward chose not to use the titles for their children

This was true for Anne and her first husband and was their choice. Edward's daughter is Lady Louise and has been since birth. His son James has a title of his own Viscount Severn.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Prior to the birth of Prince George, the UK practiced agnatic primogeniture. This places children in line for inheritance in the order of birth, but sons take precedence over daughters. So for the Queen’s children it was Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne. Anne was always in the line of succession, she just followed her brothers. Prior to the birth of Prince George, an act of Parliament changed succession from agnatic to absolute. This means the eldest child inherits no matter what their gender. This did not apply to any member of the family born before Prince George. Thus the current succession is William, George, Charlotte, Louis. If the law had not been changed Louis would have precedence over his older sister.

This link shows the line of succession for all of the immediate members of the royal family. If something were to happen to all of them, the succession then goes to the children of princess Margaret, the Queen’s sister. https://www.royal.uk/succession


This was true for Anne and her first husband and was their choice. Edward's daughter is Lady Louise and has been since birth. His son James has a title of his own Viscount Severn.

I should've been more specific. They chose not to use Prince or Princess. Their titles reflect those of an Earl's children

 

[FigmentSpark]

Prior to the birth of Prince George, the UK practiced agnatic primogeniture. This places children in line for inheritance in the order of birth, but sons take precedence over daughters. So for the Queen’s children it was Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne. Anne was always in the line of succession, she just followed her brothers. Prior to the birth of Prince George, an act of Parliament changed succession from agnatic to absolute. This means the eldest child inherits no matter what their gender. This did not apply to any member of the family born before Prince George. Thus the current succession is William, George, Charlotte, Louis. If the law had not been changed Louis would have precedence over his older sister.

This link shows the line of succession for all of the immediate members of the royal family. If something were to happen to all of them, the succession then goes to the children of princess Margaret, the Queen’s sister. https://www.royal.uk/succession


This was true for Anne and her first husband and was their choice. Edward's daughter is Lady Louise and has been since birth. His son James has a title of his own Viscount Severn.

One of the reasons it took so long (up in to this century) to change the line of succession to place girls according to order of birth rather than gender first was because it wasn't just the UK parliament that had to change it. The change had to be made in all the parliaments where the British monarch reigns. So Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc... all had to put forth the same piece of legislation and have it pass.

 

[SirDuff]

All sons and daughters of the monarch are born prince and princess.

I believe the grandchildren from daughters of the monarch (Princess Anne’s children for example) are not. Instead the Queen offered Mark Phillips a peerage so they would be be lady /lord (similar to Princess Margaret) and it was declined. This may have changed with the new succession rules.

I think an exception to the grandchildren rule was made to give William‘s children the title early as great grandchildren of the reigning monarch rather grandchildren.


As of this week Harry’s 2 children are now able to be called Prince and Princess as grandchildren of the monarch.

Ah, I misunderstood your first post. When you said “granddaughter of a son of a reigning monarch”, I read that as the son’s granddaughter rather than (as I now understand you to mean), the granddaughter of the monarch, begotten by a son.

In other words, (from when the Queen was alive), I was thinking Princess Charlotte (Charles‘ granddaughter and the Queen’s great-granddaughter) but you meant Princess Beatrice (Andrew’s daughter and the Queen’s granddaughter).

So, it seemed like you were skipping over an entire generation.

This has been changed fairly recently and Charlotte is now included in the line of succession, as well as the female grandchildren and other great-grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth. However, it seems like Anne (Charles’ sister, only daughter of the Queen) should have also been bumped up above her younger brothers (Andrew and Edward) and their children. Don’t know why, I’m sure someone knows. Anne, who’s called the Princess Royal, is supposedly the hardest working of all the RF. Not that it really matters at this point, because realistically, she’d never become queen.

I didn’t mean “skipping” in that sense, I meant in the use of the title Princess (see above). The reason that Anne isn‘t in the line of succession is that it isn’t retroactive - can you imagine how complicated that would be? And how many lives would be upended?

The only retroactive rule change I know of was in Sweden (I think) but in that case the two mainly affected were both small children (the Princess was born before the Prince, so was initially passed over but then the rule was changed). It may not have been fully retroactive, to be fair (maybe they only went back 3-4 years or whatever was needed for the Prince and Princess).

 

[Karin1984]

i really don't see why so many people care. Seems line there was a war a few years ago to be free of them.
There are SO many countries with monarchies, and nobody cares about them. Why is the UK different?

A. Because you can be political free of a country, that doesn't mean cultural free.
As the UK was a superpower in the US formative years, with lots of the rich people who build the US were from or had strong ties with the UK, they kept customs of the UK and looked at the UK to how to behave socially. The UK mattered.
When people from the US go to Europe what is the one place they all go to: London.

B. Language, as these royals speak the sams language, it is much easier to find out what they are up to than the other royals in the world.

C. They are very good at drama.
My royal family is incredibly boring. Even in my language there is only a handful of tv drama's about their lives. And they are dull as well.
From Henry 8th, Charles II, Elisabeth I, there are so many good stories that make for excellent dramatization. People want to see these stories over and over again. That increases the interest in the current royal family. Who do a good job at drama themselves.

D. Because the press is really on it. So you are seeing it everywhere.

E. I think you will find plenty of people in this thread who are from or living in the UK, Canada and Europe. Less US than in other threads.

 

[Karin1984]

Ok Disers! Who is this hot Scottish guy? He seems important as I spotted him again at the Privy council. He was wearing a kilt today too ( one with all the medals)

You were not the only one whose heart was aflutter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...equerry-new-King-sending-hearts-aflutter.html

Major Jonathan Thompson of the 5th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland, known to friends as 'Johnny'.

 

[mousefan73]

You were not the only one whose heart was aflutter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...equerry-new-King-sending-hearts-aflutter.html

Major Jonathan Thompson of the 5th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland, known to friends as 'Johnny'.

I was just gonna post this!! Lol. Crazy isn’t it. I must have a good eye lol!

 

[mousefan73]

He’s even been GIFd
https://tenor.com/es/ver/jonathan-t...pson-jonny-thompson-major-johnny-gif-26128064

 

[mousefan73]

And some more good gossip on him
https://www.quora.com/Who-sat-behin...or-the-Platinum-Jubilee-of-Queen-Elizabeth-II

 

[Karin1984]

And some more good gossip on him
https://www.quora.com/Who-sat-behin...or-the-Platinum-Jubilee-of-Queen-Elizabeth-II

The article from this morning said that he sat behind Harry and Meghan to overhear what they were talking about.