What say DL?
The British tabloids are quacking that The Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York are going to remarry soon !!
|by Anonymous||reply 161||08/30/2013|
Good for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||08/25/2013|
They heard it here first.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||08/26/2013|
I say I don't even know who they really are, they're not important, this is not news, and no one should give a flying fuck about these ugly, inbred, tax money-wasting fiends.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||08/26/2013|
sort of like when Marie Osmond remarried her gay first husband.....
|by Anonymous||reply 4||08/26/2013|
Do it, it'll kill Phillip.
The only difference is she becomes HRH again and a princess again.
If Lilibet can let Ann have two different husbands, why can't Andrew have the same one twice?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||08/26/2013|
Off with their heads.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||08/26/2013|
If they get remarried, don't look for Sarah to get her HRH back.
I don't she would want it as she enjoys her freedom too much.
She should do what she wants, and not give a damn what the public thinks.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||08/26/2013|
Congratulation to the Dutchess of Whales.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||08/26/2013|
r7, she automatically becomes HRH the Princess Andrew.
Just like the Duchess of Windsor was HRH the Princess Edward. David only abdicated, he never renounced his birth title. He remained a royal prince.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||08/26/2013|
I don't believe Prince Andrew is stupid enough to remarry that train wreck. The woman is a mess.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||08/26/2013|
R9 not true
She can decline an HRH or not be given one at all. It is all up to the Queen.
Both of Anne's husbands declined an HRH. And Anne and Edward have decided NOT to have their children have an HRH
|by Anonymous||reply 11||08/26/2013|
Good for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||08/26/2013|
The Queen could issue a Letters Patent to specifically deny Sarah an HRH. It would be Sarah's right under normal circumstance to be an HRH but The Queen is the final authority on this (the 'fount of honours') and can do what she wants with titles and styles. I wouldn't be surprised if a LP is issued to style Sarah as the wife of a peer (Her Grace The Duchess of York)
|by Anonymous||reply 13||08/26/2013|
R13 The Queen will NEVER give Sarah an HRH
That is what got her into hot water in the first place.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||08/26/2013|
Congratulations. That's great for their two girls and for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||08/26/2013|
[quote]Just like the Duchess of Windsor was HRH the Princess Edward.
The Duchess if Windsor was never HRH.
[quote]Edward was created Duke of Windsor by his brother, George VI, prior to the marriage. However, letters patent, passed by the new king and unanimously supported by the Dominion governments, prevented Wallis, now the Duchess of Windsor, from sharing her husband's style of "Royal Highness". George VI's firm view that the Duchess should not be given a royal title was shared by Queen Mary and George's wife, Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother).
|by Anonymous||reply 16||08/26/2013|
It is all up to the Queen. Marriage doesn't automatically make anything!
|by Anonymous||reply 17||08/26/2013|
There haven't been two dumb vulgar greedy fat ugly royals on their scale since George IV and Lady Conyngham. But compared to George IV, the Duke of York is a barbarian.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||08/26/2013|
No one cares about the Royals anymore. Britain needs to move into the 21st century already.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||08/26/2013|
You obvious don't know much about Royal history. It's a tough job. No private life, 24-7 merciless scrutiny, few ways to pay your own way and few real friends. Who would want such a life? Charles has done really well, Andrew less and Edward has vanished into the shadows. Anne, like Charles, works like a dog.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||08/26/2013|
No way Elizabeth and Philip wouldn't welcome this!
Think is exactly what the royal family needs, a unique cloyingly sweet middle aged "reunited and it feels so good" lovefest to take everyone's mind away from the assassination of a princess by her in-laws.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||08/26/2013|
Marriage DOES mean something, there is no such thing as a morganatic marriage in The UK so a royal bride automatically becomes Princess Husband's Name or The Duchess of Whatever. Exceptions (like denying Wallis an HRH after marrying The Duke of Windsor) are exceptions. But like I said the sovereign is the Fount of Honours and can issue a Letters Patent to deny or create an HRH as he/she sees fit. If the remarriage happens I think Sarah will be a non-royal duchess, with the style of Her Grace. It's not that shabby, but it's not royal.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||08/26/2013|
Only losers with no life care about these people. The concept of "royalty" so archaic and antiquated.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||08/26/2013|
Diana's death was a suicide.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||08/26/2013|
Hang in there Sarah. You're back in the royal fold. It's just a matter of time before you're HRH once again. Charles can go bash his head against his Clarence House bedroom wall.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||08/26/2013|
William may give Sarah her title back - don't know about charles
|by Anonymous||reply 26||08/26/2013|
There's not a chance of this happening while Phil the Greek is alive... so, a summer wedding next year?
|by Anonymous||reply 27||08/26/2013|
Why does Philip have a say anyway? I know why he doesn't want a remarriage, but does he have any power to stop it?
Ultimately, it's Andrew and Sarah's decision, which I supposed--although I don't know--needs the blessing of the queen. But Philip doesn't have any authority unless he has influence over the queen.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||08/26/2013|
I think this might be a subtle way of hinting that Prince Philip is very near the end?
|by Anonymous||reply 29||08/26/2013|
Whoever is saying that HRH won't automatically come with marriage is incorrect. If Sarah re-marries Andrew she automatically becomes HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York again. It would take an action by QEII (Letters patent, see r13 and 22) to deny the HRH. The Duchess of Windsor had her HRH denied by a Letters patent.
The monarch doesn't give out or create a HRH status (except on very rare occasions - see Prince Philip), he/she can only deny them by Letters patent or in the case of Edward and his children modify how they are -styled-. Edward's two children are in fact legally HRH, they just don't use them.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||08/26/2013|
Duke And Duchess Of York, Prince Andrew And Sarah Ferguson, Rumoured To Be Back Together
A friend told the Sunday Telegraph: "Mark my words, they will remarry."
|by Anonymous||reply 31||08/26/2013|
R30 then explain Anne's two husbands who have never had HRH
|by Anonymous||reply 32||08/26/2013|
R32. I believe Anne's husbands declined royal titles--at least Mark Phillips, which is why his kids with Anne, Zara and Mark, actually have the surname of Phillips. Don't know about Anne's second husband; maybe he wasn't even offered a title.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||08/26/2013|
They will not remarry. Not unless both of his parents are dead at the time.
Sarah's antics, which include more than what has ever reached the media (and what has hit the media has been absolutely damning), have left her permanently persona non grata at court. After ostracizing Sarah officially for holidays (as she sits on the property while Andrew and the girls go off to celebrations) all these years, and denying her invitations to weddings and christenings (as recently as Charles' and Anne's children), they are not in a position to change their tune.
I also (obviously breaking a trust but I am tired of it) know that Andrew has continued to have "girlfriends" (if her swings with men it's not handled the same way), and has dropped them instantly at the slightest frown from his mother - he does not pick women with their decency, integrity, intelligence or discretion in mind. Obviously.
Elizabeth would forbid a remarriage, as is her legal right as sovereign. Andrew could remarry Sarah is he waived his position in the system, but he could not and would not give up the funding and perquisites that come his way. His influence has grown steadily and without the official quality of it he would be worthless to the international groups that use him and his services.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||08/26/2013|
If the whore cheater Charles can marry the whore rottweiler Camilla, then Andrew and Sarah should be allowed to be happy together even if it includes remarriage.
Life is too short. Get married again and enjoy your lives together.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||08/26/2013|
I always liked the fact that he , Andrew, never asked her to leave nor ddid he move out of the house they shared. Good for them, time heals all, hopefully the 2nd time around will be the right time.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||08/26/2013|
Yes but R30 said
[quote] Whoever is saying that HRH won't automatically come with marriage is incorrect. If Sarah re-marries Andrew she automatically becomes HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York again. It would take an action by QEII (Letters patent, see) to deny the HRH.
So what about Mark Phillips and Anne current hubby? Did the Queen send out letters of patent after they declined the HRH?
And what about Edwards children? Did the Queen send out Letters patent as well?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||08/26/2013|
[quote] If the whore cheater Charles can marry the whore rottweiler Camilla
That is different. The monarchy hated Diana and loved Camilla.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||08/26/2013|
Anne was permitted a remarriage because of the quality - in the family's minds - of her two choices. Mark (dull as he is) is still popular with them, and Tim is a good foil for her. Also, Anne, being independent in a way the two older boys never could be, in effect would have stared her parents down over her remarriage.
Mark was not offered an HRH. He was offered an earldom. He declined. Their children are untitled. And with the remarriage after a divorce, Tim would never receive a title. And Anne doesn't care. After all, as the sole Princess Royal, with no one else able to have the title as long as she lives, she is set herself and nothing else really matters to her.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||08/26/2013|
"I say I don't even know who they really are, they're not important, this is not news, and no one should give a flying fuck about these ugly, inbred, tax money-wasting fiends"
|by Anonymous||reply 40||08/26/2013|
R38. The monarchy may no have liked Diana because she upset the apple cart--and she was right about the crooked system. Camilla on the other hand carried on with her whorish ways when she should have backed away from a marriage that was not her own. Plus Camilla enabled the monarchy to lie and deceive.
So it's not different with Camilla; it's just an illicit double standard.
Sarah, welcome back. You're heads above Camilla.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||08/26/2013|
Obviously, you don't know Charles or Camilla.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||08/26/2013|
Diana would get a good laugh about this one. And she'd aprove of Sarah and Andrew getting back together and possibly remarrying. Above all, Diana belived in love.
Sarah and Diana were friends from way back, and despite the ebb and flow of their friendship throughout the years, those girls were kindred spirits; they had a bond. Bewides, Diana was the one responsible for introducing Sarah to Andrew. That's not something you forget.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||08/26/2013|
Yes, R3 seems to expect a biscuit and pat on the head for being boorish enough to proclaim her lack of interest in a thread by and for people who are interested. It's rather like a pensioner walking into a sex club and screeching that she doesn't care!
We do not care you do not care, you arse. Take your limited interests elsewhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||08/26/2013|
[quote]then explain Anne's two husbands who have never had HRH
The automatic HRH with marriage only works when a female marries a royal male. I should have clarified that apologies. For either of Anne's husbands to gain a HRH there would have had to have a Letters patent done by QEII.
As r39 and others here have stated, Mark Phillips was offered an earldom when he married Anne but they declined it.
As far as Edward's and Sophie's kids I'm not certain if a Letters patent was done or if they are just informally "styled" as Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. Someone else here can clarify. Either way they are still legally Princess and Prince of the UK and Northern Ireland, respectively (this is their legal rank) and also HRH. They just don't use it.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||08/26/2013|
Aside from faults or criticisms against Andrew and Sarah, they appear to have been very good parents. Their girls turned out well and have never caused any scandal.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||08/26/2013|
[quote]So it's not different with Camilla; it's just an illicit double standard.
Regardless they approve of Camilla, they don't of Sarah.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||08/26/2013|
Want to add, under the same principle/s Camilla is legally HRH Princess of Wales due to her marriage to Charles. She is publicly STYLED HRH the Duchess of Cornwall (also one of her titles from marriage, Charles is the Duke of Cornwall) to appease the British public who are wary of her using a title so associated with the late Diana.
By this same token she will legally and automatically become HM Queen Camilla when QEII dies and Charles becomes King. They have talked about -styling- her as HRH Princess Consort when this happens, again to appease the public. But make no mistake she will legally be HM and that will also be her rank; only her styling will be different.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||08/26/2013|
R45, letters patent were not required because the Letter Patent of 1917 remains in effect for children of the children of the sovereign, who at birth ought to be "HRH'd" and called Prince or Princess. However, the queen declared that these children would not be princes or princesses in the HRH style, and that Edward's son would be styled "Viscount Severn." The question of her intentions remain an active concern. Strictly legally, she declared a style that has vetoed the legal title, a bad precedent, but one that most authorities say she, as sovereign, may legally do.
R41 is ugly and incorrect. Camilla was a married and divorced mistress of the unmarried and then married Prince of Wales. While adultery still seems to provoke some people (whose business and interests are not involved), that is all Camilla did. That her conversations were recorded and released was horrible, but not scandal-causing in themselves. People may, in private, say what they want to each other. One assumes that people in this sort of relationship say intimate things.
Sarah Ferguson, on the other hand caused scandal by appearing topless outdoors in compromising positions with another man while she was still married, and being indiscreet enough to do it where she could be photographed. It is nearly, but not quite, the same as Charles' and Camilla's being recorded, but a case can be made that if you're out of doors with your clothes off having your toes nibbled, you cannot quite claim "it was private."
She also is a spendthrift and hoarder who had expected to be bailed out many times for her problems. But this is not our business, is it?
What she did do that touches the commonweal was claim undo and inappropriate influence over her ex-husband in a clandestine deal (in which she was scammed and entrapped) that would drop money into her purse. This was a not just indiscreet. It was dangerous to her ex-husband and to the nation's concerns. It was near-criminal. In fact, she was lucky not to be prosecuted.
If R41 thinks that Sarah is somehow "better" than Camilla, it simply reflects an active bias tantamount to lunacy.
And since Andrew is known to have arranged for - well, very young sex partners as a matter of course over a long period of time, the fact that he and Sarah are a good match still does not make Camilla anything except the "other woman" in a bad marriage between an unbalanced and charismatic histrionic and a spoiled, arrogant, emotionally inept heir to the throne.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||08/26/2013|
R49, I believe The Queen didn't have any motives regarding Edward's children. He thought he was going to continue his production company and that Sophie was going to continue with her PR firm. They wanted to be as normal as possible so that was the reason for Edward's request for his unusual title ( a royal earl?) , and his request for the children to be styled as children of peers. The goal is for him to assume his father's Edinburgh ducal title which will take a while; Philip will have to die but Charles will also have to succeed Queen Elizabeth because Philip's title will pass to his eldest son first. After Charles succeeds the Edinburgh title will merge with the Crown and then become eligible for a new creation to Edward with a Letters Patent.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||08/26/2013|
r19 - you're living in a fantasy world. When these people show up in public, the public showers them with devotion and adoration.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||08/26/2013|
[R22] What would it actually mean for Sarah to be denied the HRH? Is it just a matter of how she would be addressed, bowed to (and vice versa), and referred to in print? Any monetary stipend involved?
Ditto for Edward's children. And what are the legal implications of really being a HRH? And being styled otherwise?
[R49], your write:
[quote]That her conversations were recorded and released was horrible, but not scandal-causing in themselves
Am I correct in inferring that in your opinion it is scandalous when a woman commits adultery against her royal husband, but not when she commits adultery with someone else's royal husband? Or are you being very narrow in that the recordings are not scandalous while not issuing an opinion on her conduct?
|by Anonymous||reply 52||08/26/2013|
R49. Ramble on all you want. Camilla is a piece of shit whore.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||08/26/2013|
Thank you r50, well stated.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||08/26/2013|
Why do all of the royal threads, without fail, have highly detailed titling/inheritance arguments? It's too compulsive and unimportant. It's just a name. We know who the players are and should only care about the gossip.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||08/26/2013|
"However, the queen declared that these children would not be princes or princesses in the HRH style, and that Edward's son would be styled 'Viscount Severn.' The question of her intentions remain an active concern."
|by Anonymous||reply 56||08/26/2013|
Clearly, some of us here are r49. You can always post in one of the many more interesting and relevant thread here, say about NYC Adult Bookstore Glory Holes, Jim Caviezel dancing or Miley at the VMAs last night.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||08/26/2013|
I thought Andrew was the gay one?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||08/26/2013|
Nice day for a white wedding!!
|by Anonymous||reply 59||08/26/2013|
Edward is (allegedly) the gay one.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||08/28/2013|
If they really do remarry, it would be a disgrace to deny her the HRH. So she divorced her husband -- if she remarries him, all should be forgiven. They'd actually both be honoring their original vows by reuniting, which is very sweet and romantic.
Contrast that with a two-timing adulteress who broke up one marriage, ditched her own sham union and gets hitched to her longtime co-adulterer. If bloody Camilla deserved an HRH after a lifetime of deceit, denials and betrayals, than a remarried Duchess of York (who's guilty only of crass behavior of the sort that blood royals get away with constantly) certainly should receive that honor as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||08/28/2013|
[quote] ditched her own sham union
They had an open marriage, which was agreed to by both parties
[quote] Contrast that with a two-timing adulteress who broke up one marriage
Like Diana was completely innocent in the marriage.
All Camilla did was have an affair.
Fergie did things that were much much worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||08/28/2013|
Thank you, R61. Well-stated.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||08/28/2013|
R62. Camilla was complicit in breaking up The Princess of Wales' marriage from before the marriage even begun and throughout its duration. She should have backed off and gotten lost. Charles and Camilla are whores.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||08/28/2013|
Sarah, Duchess of York spokesman tells Britain's The Sun newspaper that Ferguson and the prince maintain a "strong relationship for their kids" but they are not romantically involved.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||08/28/2013|
[quote]They had an open marriage, which was agreed to by both parties
Oh PLEASE. You make it sound like she was allowed to get her snatch eaten by the gardener while her husband was on out-of-town business trips. It was a sham marriage and she was carrying on a full-blown LOVE affair with another married person, and one who most certainly was NOT in an open marriage. Maybe her husband agreed to that, and maybe he was ok having a spouse that loved another, but Diana never did and never was.
And everyone knows Diana didn't cheat until after she realized Charles was still in love with Camilla and had no intention of breaking up with her. "Diana cheated too" is the lamest excuse.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||08/28/2013|
R65. Well that's too bad if true. I want Sarah and Andrew to get back together.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||08/28/2013|
R66 you have obviously not familiar with her situation.
Andrew Parker-Bowles knew about the Charles fling. He not only knew about it, but the two men socialized with each other while she was fucking Charles.
Why should Andrew care? He had his own mistress on the side.
For the ENTIRE time they married they have had an open relationship where they were free to pursue affairs with other people.
So if Andrew Parker-Bowles didn't have a problem with it, and liked Charles, why should you care.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||08/28/2013|
A link to all of these British tabloids making the claim, OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 69||08/28/2013|
R68, you are a jackass. My point, which obviously flew right over your stupid little head, was this:
[quote]Maybe her husband agreed to that, and maybe he was ok having a spouse that loved another, but Diana never did and never was.
Camilla's (and Charles's) actions destroyed a family. Sarah can't be accused of anything close to that. If that home-wrecking slut Camilla can get an HRH, there's no way to justify Sarah being denied it upon remarriage to Andrew.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||08/28/2013|
[quote] Camilla's (and Charles's) actions destroyed a family.
Harry & William turned out okay and are friendly with Camilla.
It was Camilla who took her rightful place next to Charles at Wills wedding. And besides Kate's mom, Camilla will be the only grandmother People George will know.
The family seems pretty happy. It all turned out well, despite your dramatics.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||08/28/2013|
[quote]It all turned out well, despite your dramatics.
You are beyond insane, do you know that? You're completely mad. A woman had her heart broken, was tossed aside and wound up dead. Two sons grew up without a mother. And you know nothing -- NOTHING -- about how William and Harry really feel about their step-mother. You are a fool if you take the Palace's version of events at face value.
But then every post you've made in this thread shows what a fool you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||08/28/2013|
I'm amazed by how vociferous some of you people are about a bunch of people in another country you've never met who don't care if you exist.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||08/28/2013|
[quote] You're completely mad. A woman had her heart broken, was tossed aside and wound up dead.
But she had $30 million dollars to keep her warm at night.
[quote] Two sons grew up without a mother.
Due to a car crash. Are you going to blame Camilla for that too?
[quote] And you know nothing -- NOTHING -- about how William and Harry really feel about their step-mother.
But they love their father. If Camilla makes their father happy, then they are happy.
Again Camilla will be the only grandmother Prince George knows. And I know you can't stand that.
Camilla won the war. Deal with it!
|by Anonymous||reply 74||08/28/2013|
Sarah needs to secure her future. Remarry Andrew.
And Andrew should have a companion with whom to grow old. Come on you two crazy kids, get married.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||08/28/2013|
I completely agree with 73. No one but the people in a relationship know the truth. The public are bystanders. I don't know how or why people on here are so passionate about these relationships. Some of the posters here come across as unhinged. Quite scary Im fact.
Well said 73.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||08/28/2013|
R72 is truly unhinged
|by Anonymous||reply 77||08/28/2013|
R72 is completely mad.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||08/28/2013|
I couldn't agree more R78
|by Anonymous||reply 79||08/28/2013|
r74 - I am not so sure that Camilla won the war. She may have married the "widower Wales;" she will not survive her husband at court.
I do not believe either William and Harry like her -- they tolerate her, but that's it.
I found it very telling that William gave Kate his mother's engagement ring and that Kate wore a dress that recalled Diana's when presenting her child.
Moreover, we know William is closer to the Middletons than to his own father, referring to Kate's father as Dad. Camilla has not been a presence in George's life - the only grandparents that little guy will know are Michael and Carole.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||08/28/2013|
[quote] the only grandparents that little guy will know are Michael and Carole.
And Charles and Camilla of course. Wherever Charles goes, Camilla will be right there. Where she belongs.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||08/28/2013|
R69, I'm not sure how to send multiple links (I only see one place for a URL in the reply window) but if you Google 'Sarah Andrew Remarry' you will get multiple hits. All are basically regurgitating the same story from last week. If Sarah actually had her spokesperson issue a denial, then I guess the story was just wishful thinking on the part of 'shippers' who want the Yorks remarried.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||08/28/2013|
[quote]Andrew Parker-Bowles knew about the Charles fling. He not only knew about it, but the two men socialized with each other while she was fucking Charles.
Yes. Andrew Parker-Bowles was known as being something of a cad himself and stepped out of his marriage through its entirety pretty much. He was also reported to be rather impressed/proud that his wife had such an important connection to the future king. Almost as if it were his duty to give up his wife to the future king. She already had borne him two heirs determined to be his. Why should he care?
The upper classes and royals have a very different understanding of the purpose and function of marital relationships. It was/is about rank, inheritance, and the power it confers. It's a matter of privilege, mostly male privilege. Both Sarah and Diana's fathers were known to have mistresses. Their mothers were supposed to quietly put up with the status quo and if they were to have affairs of their own, they had to do it discreetly with someone of equal or higher rank. Higher rank made it more acceptable to a cuckold husband within that society. Diana's mother finally had enough of Johnny Spencer's shenanigans and found love of her own. But she couldn't have left with her children.
[quote]Camilla's (and Charles's) actions destroyed a family. Sarah can't be accused of anything close to that. If that home-wrecking slut Camilla can get an HRH, there's no way to justify Sarah being denied it upon remarriage to Andrew.
Camilla and Charles' actions were the centuries-honored practices of their ancestors. Can you really apply your morality to this situation given that you were not brought up in the British upper classes and don't have a familiarity of the standards of their culture? All of the players involved were brought up in it and had some tacit understanding of it.
The difference with Sarah and Diana is that they were of a generation of women who saw and understood that there are other ways of living and other moral codes and that women could finally be heard in addition to their previous sole function of looking pretty and producing heirs. Seriously, why put up with mistresses, long separations, indifference, and being regarded as brood mares? That's a good thing. Problem is that they were uneducated and had no skills to earn themselves the living to which they were accustomed. So they were sucked back into the culture that created them. And it eventually became intolerable.
Chalk it up to change, progress, shifting mores and what will you. The players were playing the roles they were brought up to fulfill. And they all brought their baggage.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||08/28/2013|
R83. Good assessment. And all the more reason to for Sarah to remarry Andrew. They like each other, and at this point, know each other very well. Let them be happy together legally.
And you're right, Sarah and Diana were of a different, more progressive generation and were not going to be sidelined and then ignored. They made the royal family more approachable and accessible. And despite any faults, they were basically good girls (not evil in the way that Charles and Camilla were).
And through Sarah and Diana's openness and being modern women, they paved the way for the royal family to their act together and not treat future generations like property.
William and Kate Middleton benefit from Sarah and Diana. Middleton is handled with respect. And no one would put up with Wiliam cheating. Not now, not anymore. Not the way Charles did.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||08/28/2013|
Sarah was born into the country gentry (think along the lines of a Jane Austen character) and was descended from nobility on both sides of her family. She mixed with the Windsors at an early age because her father was heavily involved with polo; Philip and Charles were mad for polo. So Sarah knew exactly what kind of life she was getting into because she always lived in close proximity to the players. If makes her fuck-ups seem especially stupid because she had to have known that people were not only watching her every move but also holding her to a higher standard than the daughter of a country squire.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||08/28/2013|
R83 you nailed
BTW R72 even Diana Grandmother (who was the Queen Mother's Lady in Waiting) was on Charles side.
She didn't feel Camilla destroyed a family. Far from it, she BLAMED Diana for all the problems.
She thought more highly of Charles and even Camilla than her own granddaughter Diana!
Even after Diana gave that tell-all interview, she invited Charles over for tea to comfort him for this Betrayal. And she made sure the press knew who's side she is on.
So if Diana's own Grandmother felt Camilla didn't destroy a marriage, what makes you think she did.
Diana's own Grandmother was there, you weren't.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||08/28/2013|
R50, please note that the intention to give Edward the Edinburgh dukedom already is settled, and that, and its role as a royal dukedom allows the queen to reassign it as she wishes upon Philip's death. Elizabeth plays as she wishes with such things, for all her traditionalism.
Also, R56, you dumb twat, it is a matter of concern to those people for whom it is a matter of concern. Such as the royals who are now in a position of not knowing how their offspring will stand, given the ambiguity of Elizabeth's declarations versus existing law. It is not a matter of concern to me, as I descend from a bastard who, though later legitimated, was not eligible to take a title in our family (of which there is a dukedom, a marquess and earldom for the eldest and his son and grandson), and therefore passed the status of (mere) gentlemen to his heirs. If "Mary" comes into it, it is because you are lost in the thread that apparently does not involve you in any way.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||08/28/2013|
I agree with everything you say, except this:
[quote]And despite any faults, they were basically good girls [italic](not evil in the way that Charles and Camilla were).[/italic]
Charles and Camilla were enacting the roles they were bred to play according to the implicit rules of their society and they fulfilled a centuries-long understanding about the privileges the Prince of Wales was entitled to. Yes, of course, they have faults, but assessing them as merely "evil" is rather simplistic. They set out to destroy?
By the same metric, one could say that Sarah cuckolding Andrew so publicly or Diana making 300 harassing telephone calls to the residence of her lover, the married with children art dealer Oliver Hoare, made them evil people, too. People got hurt by their actions, no?
Why do Diana and Sarah merely have faults while Charles and Camilla are constitutionally evil?
|by Anonymous||reply 88||08/28/2013|
[quote] even Diana Grandmother (who was the Queen Mother's Lady in Waiting) was on Charles side.
If the Baroness Fermoy said it, it must be true, right? This is Baroness Fermoy, her maternal grandmother you're speaking of? Well, she was a fine one. She's one of the women who helped perpetuate the old system of male privilege in the upper classes. She knew her daughter Raine put up with Johnny Spencer's numerous dalliances and how much it hurt her. When Raine left, she sided with her son-in-law. The Baroness had been one of the pretty broodmares who had no role other than to be pretty and occasionally charming at dinner parties. Of course, women in successive generations like her daughter and granddaughter who failed their roles were at fault for their marital dissolutions. Wonder why? Same reason she, as lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother, was obligated to take sides with the aristocracy.
It was crazy and impossible situation for all of the participants involved. Everyone behaved badly at one point and everyone bore some responsibility. The absolutist, moralistic takes on the situation are really silly. It's not an either or proposition.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||08/28/2013|
Raine was not Lady Fermoy's daughter, Diana's mother Frances was. Raine was John Spencer's 2nd wife and the daughter of Barbara Cartland.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||08/28/2013|
[quote] She knew her daughter Raine put up with Johnny Spencer's numerous dalliances and how much it hurt her.
You mean Frances Shand Kydd. That is Diana's mother. Raine was the step-mother. Her mother (Raine) was novelist Barbara Cartland
|by Anonymous||reply 91||08/28/2013|
Oh, shoot, yes. I was referring to the first wife. The name "Raine" sticks in my head. Diana understandably really disliked her. Barbara Cartland was devastated that she wasn't invited to the wedding, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 92||08/28/2013|
[quote]Why do Diana and Sarah merely have faults while Charles and Camilla are constitutionally evil?
Because Charles is an entitled douchebag who set out to destrpy his marriage. And Camilla cooperated rather than show any class and back off another woman's man.
Diana and Sarah fought against the old guard and double standard. They chose not to perpetuate a lying, unfair system.
No one would put up with Wiliam cheating even though that's the way things were done in the past. And as far as Diana and Sarah knowing what they were in for, please...you don't know much until it's actually happening to you--and you decide to stop it or change the status quo.
Regarding Diana's grandmother siding with Charles--she was an old, hypocritical fool. And she was wrong if that's how she behaved.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||08/28/2013|
Further sign of Diana's instability, she pushed Raine down a flight of stairs. While Raine was lying at the foot of the stairs, Diana stepping over her and acting like nothing was wrong.
And when Johnny Spencer died, she put all of Raine's clothes in GARBAGE BAGS and tossed them out in trash.
And you say Camilla is the evil one?
|by Anonymous||reply 94||08/28/2013|
[quote]And when Johnny Spencer died, she put all of Raine's clothes in GARBAGE BAGS and tossed them out in trash.
But Diana made her peace with Raine at the end of her life. They were actually friendly - Raine was prominently invited to Diana's funeral.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||08/28/2013|
R95 must of been her medication that kicked in.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||08/28/2013|
No I think she just grew up and realized the futility of all the anger. I think she said she saw how Raine had cared for her father at the end of his life (Earl Spencer was a really difficult man) and came to appreciate her somewhat.
You know she (Diana) was also much friendlier with Charles at the end as well. They were well on their way to becoming friendly co-parents. Who knows how things would have shaped up.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||08/28/2013|
Why do all these royal threads turn into a revisiting of the Charles and Diana marriage? And always repeating the same tired old story. This thread wad about Sarah and Andrew but the same old tired people pop up to rehash Diana my true story. Its rather pathetic and some of the posterd obviouly fo not have a life to care so so much and feel they know every detail. Every thread turns into the same pathetic ranting. Move on people you Cant change anything. Get counseliing
|by Anonymous||reply 98||08/28/2013|
I seriously doubt Andrew and Sarah are going to remarry soon.
And, if you want to blame anyone for the failure of Charles and Diana's marriage blame the Queen for not allowing Charles to marry the woman he loved and insisting he marry a mannequin instead.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||08/29/2013|
r99 She did the same thing to Margaret, remember?
|by Anonymous||reply 100||08/29/2013|
Yes, and Margaret did not lead a massively happy life after that and also got divorced from the approved spouse.
I think the Queen has learnt since then.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||08/29/2013|
Andrew Parker Bowles was even invited to Charles and Camilla wedding! And he attended!
|by Anonymous||reply 102||08/29/2013|
Good point, r98. Any thread on any member of the royal family inevitably turns into impassioned re-arguments of the Charles-Diana-Camilla thing, usually including a number of the same debates such as whether it was Charles or Diana who cheated on the other one first, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||08/29/2013|
r 99/101 Betty should learn all she can, but it would take another lifetime. I can't imagine the rage Margaret suppressed all her life, knowing she asked for so little, and got even less.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||08/29/2013|
All the bellyaching for Margaret is a little much. She could have married who she wanted, she just couldn't have kept all the trappings of royal life. She could have gotten married and gotten a job if she really wanted to. She probably could have stayed with her Uncle.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||08/29/2013|
[quote]please note that the intention to give Edward the Edinburgh dukedom already is settled
What a shame. "Sophie, Countess of Wessex" is a very satisfying combination of syllables. I wouldn't give it up if I were her, even to be a Duchess.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||08/29/2013|
It is not and has never been 'Sophie, Countess of Wessex.' It HRH The Countess of Wessex. In the future it will be HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh. It would only by 'Sophie, Countess/Duchess of___' if she were divorced from Edward. If she outlives him it will be HRH The Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||08/29/2013|
This last post (R107) reminds me of the questions I raised in R52.
What does it legally mean for a divorcee to be demoted from THE Duchess of York to Sarah, Duchess of York? Does her passport change from diplomatic to ordinary?
Many folks seem to have knowledge (and opinions) on these matters. Someone must know the facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||08/29/2013|
Only Royal Highnesses have diplomatic passports and I believe the intent is they only use them while representing The Sovereign on a state visit overseas, not while traveling privately.
And R107, you are incorrect about the styling issue. Sophie is also correctly referred to as "HRH Sophie, Countess of Wessex" although this form is rarely used.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||08/29/2013|
The bitchy one-upmanship of the title queens on this thread is vastly entertaining!
|by Anonymous||reply 110||08/29/2013|
r108 - not as expert as some but: once divorced she is no longer HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York. She is Sarah, Duchess of York. No longer royal or a member of the royal family, no longer addressed as "your royal highness" or curtseyed to (although the latter isn't done much with the royals beyond the monarch anymore).
Much like a divorced woman can still keep her ex's last name but not the legal status as his wife, a divorced royal Duchess can keep the "Duchess of X" title as a courtesy title only without the royal rank attached.
As far as money goes, a divorcee in the Royal Family would get a settlement much like any other wealthy divorcee, depending on pre-nuptial arrangements and other factors. I don't believe Sarah or Diana received stipends, certainly not from the Civil list. Sarah may informally receive money handouts from Andrew or her daughters but that's something else, arranged privately between them.
I don't know about the passport question.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||08/29/2013|
R87, Edward cannot become The Duke of Edinburgh after the death of his father. There are four male-line heirs currently in succession (Charles, William, George and Harry)all of whom would succeed to the throne as King.
That's why it was announced Edward would be given a Dukedom of Edinburgh after the death of his parents. Once Charles becomes/or is King, the Edinburgh title merges with the Crown and is available to be recreated for Edward. The Queen cannot grant it because there would be a new Duke.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||08/29/2013|
And since r52/r108 asked, I don't believe there are any legal implications to Edward's children being styled as they are. They still have the rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK and Northern Ireland regardless, they are just styled differently.
The entire re-styling issue I believe came about from QEII and her advisors who wanted to "downsize" the monarchy and Royal Family without actually legally changing ranks which would be difficult and require a lot of legal maneuvering and possibly Parliamentary intervention. The act of re-styling is a simple but perhaps not particularly effective way around this.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||08/29/2013|
Diana received a lump-sum settlement of $26 million, plus $750,000 annually for her staff, upon divorce from Charles. She also was permitted to retain her residence at Kensington Palace for life and all of her jewels.
Sarah received a lump-sum settlement of $1 million, plus $1.5 million to purchase a home for herself and her two daughters. The Queen also set-up a $3 million trust for Beatrice and Eugenie's education and support.
As we all know, this was not enough money to pay her debts and keep her in good style, so she later became a spokesperson for Weight Watchers and Wedgewood China, among other endorsements, to generate money. While she paid off her debts and made a very good living initially, over time she fell into debt again, requiring a bailout from her ex-husband (most likely coming from The Queen on his behalf).
|by Anonymous||reply 114||08/29/2013|
r112 is correct but could he/she give a brief explanation of why the Edinburgh royal dukedom can only be inherited by Edward after both parent pass away and Charles is King? Why QEII can't simply pass it onto Edward once Philip dies.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||08/29/2013|
R115, The Queen cannot alter the succession of a Peerage once created if there are living heirs of the body. Only Parliament can do that.
When Philip dies, Charles will inherit his father's peerages and add them to his existing titles if his mother still reigns. If Charles is already King, Philip's titles merge with the Crown upon his death because The Sovereign cannot hold a Peerage as the fount of honour. Charles would then re-create it for his brother.
R113, Louise and James are using the courtesy styles of children of an Earl with the agreement of The Queen. While they are entitled under the 1917 Letters Patent to royal rank at birth, the intent is Charles will issue new Letters Patent once he is King limiting HRH to the children of The Sovereign, the children of the heir to the throne, and the children of the eldest child of the heir.
The style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is entirely within the prerogative of The Sovereign's Will. Even though they hold royal rank and superior precedence, they are commoners unless created Peers of the Realm.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||08/29/2013|
"The Queen cannot alter the succession of a Peerage once created if there are living heirs of the body. Only Parliament can do that."
So does this mean if Andrew and Fergie had had a son, he would have become Duke of York upon Andrew's death, and the title would no longer be going to the son of a monarch?
|by Anonymous||reply 117||08/29/2013|
yes r117 if Andrew had a son he would become the Duke of York upon Andrew's death.
The only reason Charles would inherit the Edinburgh dukedom is because he's Philip's oldest son and therefore entitled to inherit it, not because he's QEII's eldest son. There's an agreement in place amongst everyone that once QEII dies and Charles becomes King the title goes back to the Crown, and Charles will then re-create the Edinburgh dukedom and grant it to Edward and his (for now, male) heirs.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||08/29/2013|
If Andrew has a son, that son will succeed his father as The Duke of York at his death. As it stands now, unless Andrew remarries and has a son, his titles will become extinct at his death since Beatrice and Eugenie, as females, cannot inherit them.
There is, however, another option if The Queen or a future Charles III chose to do so. A new creation of the Dukedom could be issued with a remainder to the female line. Queen Victoria did this with the Dukedom of Fife in 1900, by creating a second Dukedom in the Peerage of the UK with a remainder to her two granddaughters.
When The Duke died, his Peerages became extinct as he had no sons, but his eldest daughter became The Duchess of Fife in her own right with the second 1900 creation.
Now, I doubt this will happen with the York dukedom as it is traditionally given to the second son of The Sovereign, but it could.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||08/29/2013|
[quote][R113], Louise and James are using the courtesy styles of children of an Earl with the agreement of The Queen. While they are entitled under the 1917 Letters Patent to royal rank at birth, the intent is Charles will issue new Letters Patent once he is King limiting HRH to the children of The Sovereign, the children of the heir to the throne, and the children of the eldest child of the heir.
Just to clarify, the new LP by Charles will limit HRH to the monarch's children, children of the heir, and eldest child of the heir in legal rank and not just style, correct?
Meaning Harry's children will be not just "styled" Lord or Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, but that will be their legal rank going forward as well, correct?
[quote]The style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is entirely within the prerogative of The Sovereign's Will. Even though they hold royal rank and superior precedence, they are commoners unless created Peers of the Realm.
How are they commoners unless created Peers of the Realm? Is this like when Philip was made HRH Prince Philip of the UK and N. Ireland, he was made a "Peer of the Realm" - ? Are Charles, Andrew and Edward (all HRH and Princes of the UK and N. Ireland) all Peers of the Realms as well? Apologies for the confusion.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||08/29/2013|
The Edinburgh dukedom will merge with the Crown automatically when Charles, or if he does not survive Philip, William becomes King. All of their titles merge with the Crown upon becoming The Sovereign and become available to be re-created or inherited.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||08/29/2013|
So Harry's children will not be princes and princesses, despite being male-line grandchildren of a monarch?
|by Anonymous||reply 122||08/29/2013|
R120, in the UK, anyone who is not The Sovereign or a Peer (Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron) is considered to be a commoner. Prince/Princess is a courtesy style enjoyed by those who are in close succession to the throne at birth, or by wives through marriage and, in the case of Philip, when so created by The Sovereign.
The rank and precedence of Peers follows those in succession to the throne and officers of the State. So, a Royal Highness and Prince/Princess may enjoy superior rank and precedence as commoners by having a blood-tie to The Sovereign and being closer to the throne, even though they do not enjoy a title as a Peer.
We do not actually know what the future holds in terms of what Charles may or may not do. Right now, the 1917 Letters Patent of George V state the children of The Sovereign, the male-line grandchildren and the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales are HRH Prince/Princess at birth.
The Queen modified this criteria in December 2012, by issuing new Letters Patent stating all of the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales would enjoy the style and rank of HRH at birth, not just the eldest son.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||08/29/2013|
He can do better than that.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||08/29/2013|
[quote] As it stands now, unless Andrew remarries and has a son, his titles will become extinct at his death since Beatrice and Eugenie, as females, cannot inherit them.
This didn't change when the rules of succession were changed to the firstborn regardless of sex?
|by Anonymous||reply 125||08/29/2013|
As things stand today, Harry's children would be "Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor" at birth because his grandmother is The Sovereign and great-grandchildren in the male-line enjoy the style of children of a Duke.
Once Charles becomes King, Harry's children would automatically become HRH Prince/Princess as the male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign. Of course, like Edward did, Harry could ask his father if his children could remain Lord/Lady since they would probably never inherit the throne anyway.
Or, Charles may change the current criteria and limit royal rank to the grandchildren of The Sovereign who are children of the heir only.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||08/29/2013|
"in the UK, anyone who is not The Sovereign or a Peer (Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron) is considered to be a commoner. Prince/Princess is a courtesy style enjoyed by those who are in close succession to the throne at birth, or by wives through marriage and, in the case of Philip, when so created by The Sovereign."
So Prince Harry is a commoner? Weird!
|by Anonymous||reply 127||08/29/2013|
R30 I like Princess Anne and her no nonsense style. Her children seem to have turned out well. Any info on Princess Anne and her children?
|by Anonymous||reply 128||08/29/2013|
Yes, Harry is a commoner, but is royal as HRH. His brother is not a commoner because The Queen created him Duke of Cambridge on his wedding day, making him a Royal Duke.
The rules of succession to the throne were changed so that males no longer have precedence over females and a first-born female will now inherit the throne even if a male is later born.
But this change does not extend to Peerages because Parliament would have to modify all of the Letters Patent creating the hereditary male-only succession to all children regardless of sex. So far, this has not been proposed yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||08/29/2013|
Many thanks r123/126/129 for all the info.
[quote]But this change does not extend to Peerages because Parliament would have to modify all of the Letters Patent creating the hereditary male-only succession to all children regardless of sex. So far, this has not been proposed yet.
But is is being bandied about and discussed in the UK isn't it? Because of the laws/rules tying property, specifically "seats" or houses, to titles - some families with all daughters are seeing not only their father's title go to a distant unknown male relative but their family home as well. What is the likelihood of the laws being changed to gender blind (equal primogeniture) succession for UK peerages?
So Prince Harry is indeed a commoner, although a titled one. What is the likelihood that he, like Edward, will keep his children styled as "Lord/Lady" even after his father becomes King?
And will Charles limit royal rank and official "Royal Family" status to only William and his eldest as they currently do in Norway? A bit stringent imo.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||08/29/2013|
One thing that confused me is the talk that Charles would limit HRH to the children and male-line grandchildren of the sovereign only. Eventually he will die, and Harry would then lose his HRH? Because then Harry would be the son of THE sovereign, he'd be the son of A sovereign. So do you think Charles would be stripping the Kents, Gloucesters and Yorks of their HRH and styling them as children of peers?
|by Anonymous||reply 131||08/29/2013|
I meant to say Harry wouldn't be the son of THE sovereign.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||08/29/2013|
This thread is about Sarah and Andrew. Let's get back on track. Actually I like remembering Diana, but Charles and Camilla are disgusting whores.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||08/29/2013|
r131 not sure what Charles plans to do (does he even know?) but whatever action he takes about the royals going forward, prospectively, it will very likely NOT affect the existing older royals esp in terms of rank, title or style. He will not strip his nieces and cousins of their current ranks and titles which they've had all of their lives - despite what some say. I highly doubt he'll strip Beatrice & Eugenie of their HRH status/rank or style, and certainly not his elderly cousins (Gloucester and Kent).
Harry and his offspring and William's younger offspring and their families may be a different story however.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||08/29/2013|
r128 getting back to gossip: Zara Tindall is currently pregnant and expecting at the beginning of next year. Peter and his wife live in the UK near Anne with their two daughters. Not sure what he's doing professionally these days, he used to work in marketing for the RBS.
Is Mike Tindall still playing rugby professionally? He was booted off the national team I believe for some inappropriate behavior last year.
And - did Mark Phillips ever divorce Sandy his 2nd wife and marry or move in with his American equestrian mistress?
|by Anonymous||reply 135||08/29/2013|
I don't see how he would either. The Duke and Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester, and Princess Alexandra of Kent, have been serving the crown for their entire adult lives. Prince Michael and Princess Pushy, not so much.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||08/29/2013|
So true (about Michael and Marie-Christine) but he won't strip them of anything either. They've been around too long like the rest of them, it would cause huge upset and look very mean-spirited.
Michael and Pushy already had to give up their gorgeous country house to pay for the increased rent on their Kensington Palace digs a few yrs ago. The Queen finally raised their rent to align with market rates after pressure from advisors about giving out so many family handouts including rent subsidies.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||08/29/2013|
"Michael and Pushy already had to give up their gorgeous country house to pay for the increased rent on their Kensington Palace digs a few yrs ago. The Queen finally raised their rent to align with market rates after pressure from advisors about giving out so many family handouts including rent subsidies."
Ha - did the Queen also volunteer to pay market rate rent on Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, and Sandringham?
|by Anonymous||reply 138||08/29/2013|
Well she owns Balmoral and Sandringham outright so wouldn't pay rent. The other two palaces are a different story. I guess as monarch she has certain rights of use but doesn't pay rent.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||08/29/2013|
The royal palaces are owned by the Crown Estate, which is independent of The Sovereign with all the revenues accruing to the Treasury. The Queen does not pay for their upkeep because they belong to the State.
The royals who reside at Kensington Palace now have to pay market-competitive rents to the Crown Estate. The Queen pays this on behalf of her cousins because they are not wealthy and carry out many duties on her behalf.
Prince Michael of Kent does not, but received his apartment from The Queen as a wedding present. He pays for some of the cost now, but The Queen pays the rest. William and Harry pay for some of the cost out of their private money, with their father paying the balance.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||08/29/2013|
[quote]The royal palaces are owned by the Crown Estate
But not Balmoral and Sandringham. The Queen owns them outright.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||08/29/2013|
In the past and maybe even now, royals were not encouraged to have paying jobs. And I'm not defending them, but unless they're privately wealthy, how in the hell are they supposed to pay market rates for a palace apartment?
|by Anonymous||reply 142||08/29/2013|
Balmoral was purchased by Queen Victoria from her private money and has passed to each successive monarch as private property.
Sandringham was built by Edward VII as his estate when he was Prince of Wales and was left to his eldest son after his death. It has passed to each successive monarch as private property since 1936.
The Queen's father, George VI, had to buy back both estates from The Duke of Windsor after he abdicated the throne in 1936. George V had left the properties to his eldest son under his Will as his successor and they remained his personal property after the Abdication.
The King is believed to have placed both properties in a trust that prevents them from ever being outside the monarchy again, stating they can only be owned by The Sovereign and must automatically pass to the next Sovereign.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||08/29/2013|
Thanks R109, R111, and R113 for addressing my questions.
I remember a bit of news when Charles and Diana divorced that she was stripped of her HRH (her brother even mentioned it in his eulogy). As a non-Brit I thought, "So?". I suppose one has to be British (let alone noble) to understand the meaning of this.
R119, it's seems weird that historically the Yorks have not had male heirs in order for the title to keep going back to the crown so that it can be given to the second born again and again.
Thanks to all for all the info. So many strict rules! What of the days when a cousin would knock off the king and set himself up as king? Seemed almost a meritocracy (-; then.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||08/29/2013|
[quote]I remember a bit of news when Charles and Diana divorced that she was stripped of her HRH (her brother even mentioned it in his eulogy). As a non-Brit I thought, "So?". I suppose one has to be British (let alone noble) to understand the meaning of this.
I thought much the same, as in "what's the problem, they're divorced". But I guess some felt it was petty, given she was still the mother of the future king and would still have a very high public profile despite no longer being a Royal family member.
From what I understand it was Philip who was behind the stripping of Sarah and Diana of their HRH. It was at his behest, he was feeling bitter and territorial.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||08/29/2013|
So, does Andrew have /whispers /AIDS?
|by Anonymous||reply 146||08/29/2013|
HRH is a rank that Diana and Sarah acquired through marriage, not in their own right. Former wives of Peers automatically lost their rank, style and title upon divorce, so there was no reason to expect The Queen would follow a different precedent for former wives of Royal Peers.
Some accounts have stated The Queen intended to allow Diana to remain HRH after the divorce as the mother of a future King. Diana herself offered to relinquish it early on, preferring to concentrate her battle on the money. When she saw what happened to Sarah in her own divorce negotiations, she changed her mind about it.
The Queen then offered "HRH Princess Diana", but on condition Diana accepted a lesser lump-sum amount, with the rest payable over her lifetime, and the right of the Palace to continue to determine her public duties. Diana refused on both counts and the offer was withdrawn.
The Queen issued Letters Patent in August 1996 stating a former wife of a Prince of the UK was not entitled to the rank of HRH upon divorce. So, that definitively clarified the matter that a former wife loses this style when the marriage ends.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||08/29/2013|
Has Harry calmed down? I was hoping he'd fall off the wagon again and next time we'd actually get a cock shot or even a sex tape!
|by Anonymous||reply 148||08/29/2013|
So will Harry get a title? Dukedom? when he marries? Any guesses as to which one?
|by Anonymous||reply 149||08/29/2013|
R149. Harry is the Duke of Vegas.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||08/29/2013|
R149, the speculation is Harry will be created The Duke of Sussex when he marries, but time will tell.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||08/29/2013|
What is a higher rank, a duke or a prince...a duchess or a princess?
|by Anonymous||reply 152||08/29/2013|
The rank of HRH is higher than the ranks of the Peerage by virtue of the holder having higher precedence by blood-tie to The Sovereign. As such, they enjoy the style of a Prince or Princess, but do have titles unless created a Peer.
The highest rank and title would be a Royal Duke, which is why sons of The Sovereign are created hereditary Peers upon marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||08/29/2013|
R153. Huh? So...what is a higher rank, a duke or a prince...a duchess or a princess?
|by Anonymous||reply 154||08/29/2013|
R154, Prince is not a title, it is a style (a thing you are called).
A title is associated with a piece of land.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||08/30/2013|
r150 He's not the Duke of Earl?
|by Anonymous||reply 156||08/30/2013|
"The highest rank and title would be a Royal Duke, which is why sons of The Sovereign are created hereditary Peers upon marriage."
So does that mean when Fergie was married to Andrew, she outranked Princess Margaret and Princess Anne, because she was a Royal Duchess and they weren't? Were they supposed to curtsy to her?
|by Anonymous||reply 157||08/30/2013|
Wait, what was the deal with Kate technically having to curtsey to Bea and Eugenie?
|by Anonymous||reply 158||08/30/2013|
According to Tina Brown the Queen was NEVER going to let Diana keep her HRH
|by Anonymous||reply 159||08/30/2013|
r150, Diana was the Princess of Hearts, her son Harry is the Prince of Hards!
I would kneel before the Prince of Hards.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||08/30/2013|
A Princess of The Blood (ie, born a princess and with the right to call herself Princess So and So instead of Princess Husband Name) outranks a princess by marriage. This is why Kate curtesy to Bea and Eug. The Princess of Wales (Camilla) possibly outranks them though, not sure. But Kents, Gloucester, Wessex all have to curtsey to Bea, Eug, Anne, and Alexandra.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||08/30/2013|