Dear Og, what have I done?
The entertaining diversion can continue in The Game Room here. Apologies to the OP for the hijack…
I, too, wish to apologize. What was supposed to have been a one off joke took on a life of it’s own.
Hehehe – she was actually one of Queen Victoria’s grandchildren. And her mother was a Russian Grand Duchess. Her grandson, Michael of Romania, is one of the last surviving monarchs of WWII.
Eugenie is a family name – Juan Carlos’s grandmother was Queen Ena of Spain. Her full name was Victoria Eugenie Julia Ena. SHE had been named after the Empress Eugenie of France.
And Princess Eugenie’s older sister, Princess Beatrice, is named for Queen Ena’s mother, Princess Beatrice of Battenberg. She was the youngest of Queen Victoria’s daughters.
:: trots over to the Game Room ::
I can only speak to nineteenth-century periodicals, but in Victorian newspapers that I’ve read, they usually referred to the future Edward VII simply by his title of “Prince of Wales.” I don’t recall ever coming across a reference in the popular press to “Prince Albert Edward,” although perhaps different newspapers followed different conventions.
The custom as I understand it, both historically and in ‘proper’ usage today, is that the current incumbent of a title is “the ___” with no name given: (HRH) The Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles; (HRH) the Duke of Edinburgh, not Prince Philip; the Duke of Norfolk, not Duke Marmaduke of Norfolk. Use of names would be previous holders of the title, e.g., “Prince Henry, George V’s son, was the first Duke of Gloucester, the father of the present Duke.”
This can lead to occasional strangeness, such as for 50+ years, “Queen Elizabeth” when not referencing Henry VIII’s daughter meant the monarch’s mother, who died a few years ago – the person the rest of us would have normally meant by “Queen Elizabeth” would be referred to exclusively as “the Queen.”
To complicate matters still further, titles change, so the same person gets called by different titles at different times.
Edward VII was not born the Prince of Wales. This title is conferred on the eldest son of the sovereign by investiture. As the first son of the reigning sovereign, he was the Duke of Cornwall from birth. He didn’t become the Prince of Wales until he was given the title which, in his case, occurred about a month later. The present Prince of Wales, by contrast, was ten years old before he acquired this title. Prior to this he was the Duke of Cornwall, and was referred to by that title at least some of the time in the media (rather than by “Prince Charles”, or “Prince Charles of Edinburgh”, his title before his mother ascended to the throne).
An extreme example of mutating titles is the case of Edward VIII. When he was born born in 1894, Queen Victoria was on the throne. The heir to the throne was Victoria’s son the Prince of Wales (who was to become Edward VII). Wales’ eldest son was the Duke of Clarence, and his second son (Clarence’s younger brother) was the Duke of York. York was the father of the son born in 1894, so the son was Prince Edward of York from birth. His title then mutated as follows:
-
In January 1901, Queen Victoria died. Wales ascended to the throne as King Edward VII. By this time Clarence was dead so York, as the new king’s eldest surviving son, automatically became Duke of Cornwall. He went by the title “Duke of Cornwall and York”, and his son became Prince Edward of Cornwall and York.
-
In November 1901, Edward VII invested Cornwall and York with the title of Prince of Wales. His son then became Prince Edward of Wales.
-
In May 1910, Edward VII died. Wales became King George V, and Prince Edward of Wales became the Duke of Cornwall.
-
In June 1910, Cornwall was in turn invested with the title Prince of Wales.
-
In January 1936, George V died, and the Wales became King Edward VIII.
-
In December 1936, he abdicated and became simply Prince Edward.
-
In March 1937 he was created the Duke of Windsor.
So there you go. He had eight different titles before his forty-fourth birthday.
I don’t know where this meme comes from. ‘Not popular’ and ‘Not popular with the Editor of The Daily Express’ are two different things. The last UGOV poll (2008) on whether the Succession should skip to his son was 43/35% in his favour.
The guy has spent his whole life in-waiting to be King. He isn’t abdicating.
And there is no pent-up Republican fervor waiting for Liz to kick it. We really don’t care that much - the RF is a picaresque irrelevance but nice to have around for the tourism. It’s good to have non-politicians as ceremonial Head of State.
And no political party even begins to care either. There are simple hundreds of more important matters than this quaint institution.
I had a quite eccentric history teacher as a freshman in high school, much of what he said was wildly inaccurate if not wholly untrue, but he had a very good reason for why the Royal Family will remain in “power” - they are the private holders of an incredible amount of property the income from which is currently turned over to the government in exchange for their far smaller Civil List payments. If they were to be removed from the throne, then either the government would face a significant drop in income or they would have to forcibly seize what would become private property. If the holder of the crown were to go rogue it would be a possibility, but as long as the government maintains its income from letting the House of Windsor be the authoritative, if unexpressed, source of power it sees no reason to discontinue the current arrangement.
If there were any significant republican movement in the country, the income from the royal family would not tilt the scales.
That’s the beauty of parliamentary supremacy - in a pinch, there can be expropriation without compensation, if Parliament makes its intention crystal clear in a statute. So, if the people decided to do without the monarchy, there could be a statute passed transferring most or all of the Crown property into the name of the Republic of the United Republics of Britain, or whatever the new name of the country was.
The net Crown Estate income (the “profit” returned to the Treasury) in financial year 2009/10 was £210.7 million. Total UK tax receipts are of the order of £500 billion per annum, so the Crown money is relatively insignificant.
Which newspapers are you talking about? In the UK, the Queen is always the Queen, and her Mum, when she was alive, was mostly the Queen Mother or very occasionally ‘Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.’
Queen Elizabeth on its own was never used to refer to the Queen Mother once her daughter became Queen. ‘Queen Mother’ is the official title for a widowed queen consort. There are several places named after her (such as a hospital, a university building, and an animal hospital) all using the title The Queen Mother, because that’s how she was known.
Our Queen Elizabeth is referred to exclusively as ‘The Queen’ because we only have one. Charles will also end up being referred to almost exclusively as ‘the King’ whatever name he chooses.
“Hmmm… It’s legally inpermissible, politically suicidal, and religiously immoral, so it’ll have to happen in Scotland.” 
How Henry?
I’m Henry the ninth I am. That could replace God Save the King as the official song.
Genius!
Oh, well played sir!
This is what LOL was invented for!
I, for one, welcome our new M->F transexual overlords!