U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2016, 10:04 PM
 
Location: U.S. Pacific Northwest
251 posts, read 155,517 times
Reputation: 591

Advertisements

The man her father needs most, historically. Or brother, if he is reigning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2016, 08:06 AM
 
1,819 posts, read 1,793,569 times
Reputation: 2773
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
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.
Re: use of "Princess" that is exactly what I said. It's what the people and most press have/are referring to them as even though it's inaccurate.

From all I've read, the Duke of Edinburgh is considered a Royal Dukedom as he is to be addressed as "His Royal Highness". Charles will inherit the title upon PP's death by default and if he is King at time, the title will merge with the crown. If he is not King, The Queen will be able to reissue the title. However, like you said, it will happen after the Queen has passed as well per the announcement made when Sophie and Edward were married back in 1999.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2016, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,315 posts, read 14,571,487 times
Reputation: 12228
Catherine actually could have chosen to use the title Princess, but only with her husband's name: Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. Few spouses chose this because it sounds silly and is kind of confusing, plus it's not their real name. The only one in Europe I know of to do this is Princess Michael of Kent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Michael_of_Kent - Michael is her husband's name, her own real name is Marie Christine von Reibnitz. Obviously, she was so desperate to be called a princess she was willing to abandon her own name. Fortunately, Catherine has more class than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2016, 02:25 PM
 
23,600 posts, read 16,234,419 times
Reputation: 17036
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
Catherine actually could have chosen to use the title Princess, but only with her husband's name: Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. Few spouses chose this because it sounds silly and is kind of confusing, plus it's not their real name. The only one in Europe I know of to do this is Princess Michael of Kent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Michael_of_Kent - Michael is her husband's name, her own real name is Marie Christine von Reibnitz. Obviously, she was so desperate to be called a princess she was willing to abandon her own name. Fortunately, Catherine has more class than that.


Yes, "Waity" has so much class she basically spent her entire time at university and a good amount afterwards waiting to catch Prince William.


You cannot compare Princess Michael of Kent to a young woman a few decades her junior; they come from totally different time periods. Women of a certain generation simply believe in taking their husband's names and whatever else that comes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2016, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,315 posts, read 14,571,487 times
Reputation: 12228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Yes, "Waity" has so much class she basically spent her entire time at university and a good amount afterwards waiting to catch Prince William.

You cannot compare Princess Michael of Kent to a young woman a few decades her junior; they come from totally different time periods. Women of a certain generation simply believe in taking their husband's names and whatever else that comes.
Wow, touched a nerve, did I? Among royalty/nobility it is NOT the norm for women to go by her husband's first name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2016, 06:12 PM
 
23,600 posts, read 16,234,419 times
Reputation: 17036
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
Wow, touched a nerve, did I? Among royalty/nobility it is NOT the norm for women to go by her husband's first name.


Since when?


If you are comparing post WWI world of royalty and nobility versus post WWII then perhaps. Otherwise, no, you are incorrect.




It isn't a matter of "taking" anything, but simply what is legal fact. Prince Michael of Kent has no other rank, title or style besides "HRH, Prince Michael of Kent", and two knighthoods. Under English common law upon marriage all titles and styles belonging to a husband legally devolve upon his wife. This is nothing intrinsically evil or low about the former Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz, Mrs Marie Troubridge now being known as Pss MofK.


If Prince M had another title such as duke things would be different. For just as with the Princess William is the Duchess of Cambridge .....


Do not think you will find more than a handful (if that many) of women who married into European royalty or nobility before WWI or WWII that retained their own names and or did not use that of their husbands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 01:39 AM
 
23,600 posts, read 16,234,419 times
Reputation: 17036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramercy View Post
Philip is actually, more royal than his wife. Both are great-great grandchildren of Queen Victoria. Both are descended from King Christian IX (he a great grandchild, she a great-great grandchild). What's more is that Philip is a Romanov, and he will finally be bringing the Romanov line into the House of Windsor.

Philip's mother and grandmother were each born in Windsor Castle, their births attended to by Queen Victoria.

House of Windsor (then Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) already had Romanov "blood".


In 1874 Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, daughter of Czar Alexander II married The Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Ulster, Earl of Kent, the fourth child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 04:29 AM
 
426 posts, read 307,604 times
Reputation: 184
I'm not a fervent reader of glossy magazines, but as I remember the king of Spain is married with a commoner. The recent wedding in England, I don't recall his name, a cousin of the king of Spain, married a beautiful commoner. The king or prince or whatever of Luxembourg, a commoner, Holland, a commoner, Norway or Sweden, I don't quite remember, a commoner, the famous metemary or whatever.

I am not talking about not reigning monarchies from republican countries that are not parlamentary democracies.

As to Trump I, I don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,315 posts, read 14,571,487 times
Reputation: 12228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Since when?
Since I've never heard of one going by something like "Princess Michael" before.... if you have many other examples, please share. Women take their husband's titles all the time, sure, but rarely in the case where it means using the feminine title with their husband's masculine name.

Quote:
If you are comparing post WWI world of royalty and nobility versus post WWII then perhaps. Otherwise, no, you are incorrect.

It isn't a matter of "taking" anything, but simply what is legal fact. Prince Michael of Kent has no other rank, title or style besides "HRH, Prince Michael of Kent", and two knighthoods. Under English common law upon marriage all titles and styles belonging to a husband legally devolve upon his wife. This is nothing intrinsically evil or low about the former Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz, Mrs Marie Troubridge now being known as Pss MofK.
Regardless, she doesn't have to go by that title, or officially take it. I can't think of one other European example where a woman has used the feminine title of Princess/Duchess/etc with her husband's name instead of her own. If you can find more than a dozen other examples, I will concede that it's more common than I thought but until you do I will maintain that it's not the norm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 02:09 PM
 
1,819 posts, read 1,793,569 times
Reputation: 2773
I think the British monarchy is a bit different on that one than most other European monarchies. Princess Michael was married into not born into the royal family so she can't be a "Princess" in her own right/name. The other monarchies seem to bestow the "Princess" in their own right to commoners or other nobility not born into the royal family but have married in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top