Did English/British kings ever have a Maitresse-en-titre, or was that just a French thing?
IOW, give his opinions freely to his ministers during their regular doing-the-boxes meetings, but never discuss them publicly? Which I presume is what Elizabeth does and does not do?
He’ll never have the glamor she did when she came to the throne – he ran through his glamor as a bachelor PoW – and he won’t reign as long. I happen to think some of his ideas do make a lot of sense and, as an adviser to his government, he might accomplish some things of value which – for reasons discussed above – will not be much known publicly. That’s their fate, I guess.
I don’t know how freely she gives her opinion, or on what topics, but I’ve read several comments from previous Prime Ministers saying her advice was valuable. I don’t have a cite for it, but I remember Blair being surprised how useful it was, as he’d assumed the meetings were something of a formality.
It’s an interesting inversion, really, the monarch as potentially forgotten adviser! I imagine his fate will be similar to Edward VII, a short reign after an extremely long one, with little to be remembered, good or bad. Time will tell, though, and it’s not impossible he could reign for many years, if the longevity of his parents is anything to go by.
He had way too many of them. 
They didn’t call him “Edward the Caresser” for nothing.
I meant a French-style quasi-official Royal-Mistress-in-Chief who actually accompanies the king at palace functions, like Madame Pompadour or Madame du Barry. Might even play that role, I suppose, when the Queen is not only alive but in the room; all very French.* Have any English kings had those? I recall in Restoration that Charles II seemed to have at least one mistress of that status (and a second one he wanted to hide from the first one, which drove the plot).
And there was another English king notable in that regard, but that was many long years ago.
- I recall a Second Empire anecdote where one nobleman was publicly and drunkenly cursing his wife, and another stepped up and challenged him to a duel, saying, “You have insulted my mistress!”
I had a more serious point in mind, but your version is better, so I’ll pretend that that’s what I meant! :p:D
Queen Alexandra was tolerant, but not THAT tolerant!
What does it actually mean, to be “peer” or “commoner” in the UK, today? So far as I know, peers have only one privilege left: To attend the Coronation in their robes and coronets. Otherwise . . . the House of Lords isn’t really theirs any more . . . all other privileges of peerage have been abolished by acts of Parliament over the years . . . Is it only a matter of being able to use the name “Lord X” and display a full coat-of-arms with supporters and coronet?
Social-implications-of-heraldry question: According to the Wiki page on the Duchess of Cambridge, her father, Michael Middleton, was granted a coat of arms in April 2011. Was that just a nice gesture to the family, or was it considered necessary to gentle their condition, as it were? Or, was it just so Kate would have something from her side of the family to put on her own arms?
How does a non-armigerous Briton qualify for a new coat of arms, anyway, ordinarily? Do you have to be knighted or something?
Presumably a peer still ranks higher than a commoner in formal lists of precedence, for whatever that’s worth! 
Not in theory. You certainly need to have money, though, because it’s an expensive process.
Here’s what the College of Arms have to say about it. (Note that Scotland also has its own heraldry.)
IIRC, the Table of Precedence is all about who gets to enter a room first, or sit nearest the head of the table. Does it mean anything else?
Not in theory. You certainly need to have money, though, because it’s an expensive process.
Here’s what the College of Arms have to say about it. (Note that Scotland also has its own heraldry.)
Sounds like applying for a grant of arms is an interesting experience. (Wonder if they have a Hell Week?) Yeah, expensive, the site says a personal grant of arms costs 4,400 pounds. No mention of any application fee. I wonder if you would want to hire a lawyer before submitting a petition? Are there lawyers who specialize in helping people get honours?
Not that I’m aware of!
I’d imagine that the quoted cost includes a non-refundable deposit to be paid at the beginning of the process. The fees are used for running the College of Arms, which can’t be cheap.
Gentlemen don’t use lawyers! 
Do you mean “honours” in the sense of a person being awarded (say) an MBE? If so, those are awarded on the basis of a third-party nomination.
No doubt, the menagerie must require a lot of upkeep.
Actually, I was thinking of Splitting Heirs, where Tommy Patel (Eric Idle) finds out he is the cradle-swapped son of the late Duke of Bournemouth, and the first thing he does is consult a lawyer (John Cleese) about getting the title. (Not clear whether this lawyer is a specialist in such claims, which must be extremely rare in any case.) But, that’s like, a title as hereditary property to which someone has a legal right. As would be a hereditary coat of arms (though I suspect, there, the College of Heralds might resolve any and all disputes in-house and leave the courts out of it). But I suppose any new honour granted at the government’s/College’s/Crown’s discretion would not require involvement of a lawyer.
Here is a BBC news article about obtaining a coat of arms, written shortly after the Middleton family got theirs.
Heh!
Attempting to claim a peerage can and has involved lawyers. And lots of money. In extreme cases it’s even been necessary for an Act of Parliament to sort out the resultant mess.
As for heraldry disputes: There used to be a Court of Chivalry, which was revived after several centuries in a famous case in the 1950s concerning the use of the City of Manchester’s coat of arms by a local theatre. Naturally enough the first part of the trial involved deciding whether there could even be a trial.
I believe that it’s considered improbable, or even legally impossible, for the Court of Chivalry to be revived again. In theory there still exists a separate law of arms, but any justiciable dispute would presumably be dealt with by the regular court system today.
On a tangential note, heraldry in Irish law has an even bigger problem for the end-user: it’s not clear whether grants made until very recently even have any legal validity!