Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prince Phillip is absolutely of royal blood, for starters, he is a descendant of Queen Victoria (making him Elizabeth's 3rd cousin), among several other monarchs of Europe. And his marriage to Elizabeth was not scandalous whatsoever, I don't know where you got that idea. There might have been some concern over his Greek title and obligations to Greece over Britain, but in truth Phillip's family was exiled from Greece when he was an infant so his title was only titular to begin with, and in any case he renounced it to marry Elizabeth, so it was a non-issue. His royal pedigree actually made his an ideal candidate and when he asked for her hand in marriage, there was no opposition, Elizabeth's father readily gave his permission.
I guess you know I have to defend myself. This thread is a getting to be a pissing match.
I said that at one time it WAS scandalous to marry a commoner. I did not say Phillip was not of royal blood. The Royal Family weren't sure about Liz marrying him but they finally accepted it.
I did not say the marriage of Queen E 2 to Prince Phillip was scandalous nor did I imply it.
As a Canadian whose Queen is Elizabeth, I think I would know better than someone from a country that rejected her fiercely a couple hundred years ago.
History of the monarchy goes back several centuries not a couple 100 years.
I guess you know I have to defend myself. This thread is a getting to be a pissing match.
I said that at one time it WAS scandalous to marry a commoner. I did not say Phillip was not of royal blood. The Royal Family weren't sure about Liz marrying him but they finally accepted it.
I did not say the marriage of Queen E 2 to Prince Phillip was scandalous nor did I imply it.
You never specified "at one time" - you just said "was" in a sentence immediately following a comment about Phillip and Elizabeth. It was a very misleading sentence. Maybe you should chose your words better or put a paragraph break between two unrelated sentences. It's hardly surprising you were misunderstood, since I see I was not the only one.
Quote:
As a Canadian whose Queen is Elizabeth, I think I would know better than someone from a country that rejected her fiercely a couple hundred years ago.
I lived in England for 8 years and my husband is British. Regardless, nationality has nothing to do with education on certain matters - I know more about the British monarchy than most native British people. My husband readily admits I know more than he does.
Quote:
History of the monarchy goes back several centuries not a couple 100 years.
Don't you have glossy magazines in your country?
Candidates, princes - reigning princes - do marry commoners, because the people want them to marry commoners.
And the list of princesses available are rather homely and marrying them do not mean much since we have PARLAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES.
Where do you find that various citizens of remaining European countries that have royalty *want* marriages with commoners much less demand?
Nor is the list of eligible princesses at any time static enough for you to say they *all* are homely.
When it comes to GB at least due to restrictions against marrying Catholics *and* having cut themselves off from Germany the pool of eligible royal females at anytime is rather slim. The only Protestant countries left would be Sweden, Denmark, Norway IIRC.
By far the largest push for marriages between royals and commoners (which by the way includes children of noble families), was WWI and the aftermath.
Between the abdication then murder of Nicholas II ending the Russian monarchy, and the wholesale removal of various German monarchs and royal princes the pickings were pretty slim for any prince or princess seeking to marry "one of their own". Princesses in particular who formerly would have sought to marry a heir or at least royal prince from a reining house found the landscape much changed. There were various princes and princesses from deposed houses scattered around Europe, the United States and Canada but they were usually in now reduced circumstances and certainly were not what they once were or should have been.
The title Duke of Edinburgh is a royal dukedom, meaning it belongs to a member of the royal family. It was created specifically for Prince Philip and second only to Duke of Lancaster, held by the Queen.
She did that in 1957. Several years after she became Queen.
I didn't say "when" but that HM elevated her husband upon coming to the throne. Point being unless she was monarch the gift/honor would not have been within her power to grant.
The title Duke of Edinburgh is a royal dukedom, meaning it belongs to a member of the royal family. It was created specifically for Prince Philip and second only to Duke of Lancaster, held by the Queen.
There are no such things as "royal dukedoms" in GB. Rather there are dukedoms that have historically been associated with members of the royal family. That is because the holder is royal so is the dukedom, not the other way around.
Exceptions to this are the duchies of Lancaster, Cornwall and Rothesay. By law the first is held by the monarch and the latter two the Prince of Wales. Again this does not make them "royal" dukedoms per se, just that they cannot be given to just anyone if the current line goes extinct.
In previous times when monarchs had large families and all male sons and even grandsons got dukedoms the list was often quite long. Longer life expectancies, smaller families and other circumstances (including pressures to shrink the size of RF and or peerage) have meant few royal dukes have been created in recent memory.
Prince Andrew got York, but Edward will have to wait both his parents are in their graves before he will be created DofE, and even then only if "king Charles" or "king William" lives up to the agreement.
Only two other dukedoms offered recently were that of London to Winston Churchill upon his retirement, which he declined, and that of Cambridge to Prince William.
That Prince William should get a dukedom outright while his uncle Prince Edward must wait is no mystery. Prince William is second in line to the throne. It also raises Kate Middleton to a duchess instead of "Princess William".
There are no such things as "royal dukedoms" in GB. Rather there are dukedoms that have historically been associated with members of the royal family. That is because the holder is royal so is the dukedom, not the other way around.
Exceptions to this are the duchies of Lancaster, Cornwall and Rothesay. By law the first is held by the monarch and the latter two the Prince of Wales. Again this does not make them "royal" dukedoms per se, just that they cannot be given to just anyone if the current line goes extinct.
In previous times when monarchs had large families and all male sons and even grandsons got dukedoms the list was often quite long. Longer life expectancies, smaller families and other circumstances (including pressures to shrink the size of RF and or peerage) have meant few royal dukes have been created in recent memory.
Prince Andrew got York, but Edward will have to wait both his parents are in their graves before he will be created DofE, and even then only if "king Charles" or "king William" lives up to the agreement.
Only two other dukedoms offered recently were that of London to Winston Churchill upon his retirement, which he declined, and that of Cambridge to Prince William.
That Prince William should get a dukedom outright while his uncle Prince Edward must wait is no mystery. Prince William is second in line to the throne. It also raises Kate Middleton to a duchess instead of "Princess William".
Thank you for further explanation on what I posted for those who might not know.
Yes, there are other "lesser" Dukedoms but the tile of Duke of Edinburgh is considered a royal because he's a member of the royal fami
From what I've read, the Earl of Essex is expected to be given the Duke of Edinburgh when PP passes. Of course, that will be at the discretion of the reigning monarch, whether it's QEII, Charles or William. I'd be surprised if he weren't.
William was given a Dukedom upon his marriage as is tradition.
Catherine is styled "Princess Catherine " for the same reason Diana was called "princess", it's what the people ans press are calling her despite it being technically inaccurate.
Thank you for further explanation on what I posted for those who might not know.
Yes, there are other "lesser" Dukedoms but the tile of Duke of Edinburgh is considered a royal because he's a member of the royal fami
From what I've read, the Earl of Essex is expected to be given the Duke of Edinburgh when PP passes. Of course, that will be at the discretion of the reigning monarch, whether it's QEII, Charles or William. I'd be surprised if he weren't.
William was given a Dukedom upon his marriage as is tradition.
Catherine is styled "Princess Catherine " for the same reason Diana was called "princess", it's what the people ans press are calling her despite it being technically inaccurate.
IIRC the "agreement" for the Earl of Wessex to get the DofE occurs *after* Prince Charles becomes king. That means both HM and PP are dead.
Again Prince Edward married long before his nephew and didn't get a dukedom like Andrew. However IIRC the Count and Countess are fine with this and didn't want one at that time anyway.
Duke of E is not "royal" just because it was given to HM's consort. In fact the DofE has a very interesting history and only been used four times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Edinburgh
Before her marriage Lady Diana Spencer was just that. Aftewards she was The Princess of Wales. After her divorce it was "Diana, Princess of Wales.
There is *NO* such thing now nor ever was a "Princess Diana" nor "Princess Kate" for that matter. Neither girl was the daughter or grand daughter of a British monarch, nor are they daughters of foreign kings, emperors, or princes. They were or are commoners though KM is a bit more so than Diana who was at least the daughter of a peer.
The whole "Princess Diana" thing is a media creation borne out of ill informed and uneducated persons on the use of titles and styles. As the cult of Diana grew so did the usage of a title she had no rights.
Only princesses in their own right who married into the RF have any rights to be called so afterwards. Princess May of Teck, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, or if you will Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Go to the official RF website and you'll not find one mention of "Princess Diana", but usage of her correct titles and styles. OTOH even once illustrious newspapers like the NYT constantly refer to "Princess Diana". Few bother correcting any longer as it seems useless at best, and at worst they will call you out on "hating" the woman.
Here is another interesting tidbit; the Duchess of Cambridge was informed that in private with the RF she must curtsey to the York princesses. IIRC this is not in effect when Kate Middleton is with Prince William. Beatrice and Eugenie are daughters of a prince and granddaughters of the monarch. Kate Middleton OTOH has no other rank than what she got as the result of her marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
