[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
No she wasn’t, her father was was an Earl.
[/QUOTE]
Until she got married, she had no titles in her own right, and was therefore a commoner. Her Ladyship was only a courtesy as the daughter of an Earl. Technically speaking, Prince William is a commoner - his Princeness being because of his father, rather than being his in his own right.
Wrong thread!
Heh, random, dude!
Oh poo. Rumbled before I could edit.
[QUOTE=Terminus Est]
Queen Elizabeth is 81 years old now. Her mother, the Queen Mum, lived to 102. Her great great grandmother, Queen Victoria, reigned for 63 years, longer than any other British monarch. I think Old Liz fully intends to outlive her son. Her successor would then be Prince William, thus sparing the British public the embarrassment of having a Queen Camilla.
[/QUOTE]
But if longevity is in the genes, why wouldn’t Prince Charles also live to be 100 and outlive the current Queen?
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Charlie successfully completed the British Army parachute course considered to be one of the hardest in the world AND then went on to do a water jump which got him a bollocking off of liz.
[/quote]
Don’t forget he once finished second in a handicap chase at Ludlow (on a horse called Allibar).
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Charlie successfully completed the British Army parachute course considered to be one of the hardest in the world AND then went on to do a water jump which got him a bollocking off of liz.
The fact is he didn’t have to do the course in the first place(haven’t seen many politicians lining up to do it). but did it voluntarily.
[/quote]
Gosh. Actually the reason I don’t think he’s fit to be King is that he committed adultery before, during and after his marriage.
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
He’s also scuba dived under the arctic ice cap and as a kid survived a lot of bullying under the already spartan regime of Gordonstoun school.
(If his parents had intervened as any other parents are allowed to there would have accusations of preferential treatment and as heir to the throne he was a particular target for bullies).
So hes not that dorky.
[/quote]
What this shows is that the Royal Family are pathetic. What sort of parents let their child get bullied because there would be ‘accusations of preferential treatment’? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
To address the question of the "embarassament "of a Queen Camilla by another poster ,the fact is she will make a much more dignified and sane Queen then the neurotic,compulsive liar and nymphomaniac that Diana was.
Also Camilla has never tried to kill her own unborn baby in a temper tantrum caused by not receiving enough attention.
[/quote]
Do you have cites for these accusations?
Camilla is of course also an adultress.
One reason that Diana is regarded with affection is that she supported charities dealing with AIDS and land mines.
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
It is rumoured that Charlie would be happier if he could turn down the throne if he could but the rumour that Liz. is going to pass him by in the succession by decree are stories put about by the Diana Loonies who are not too unhappy to do a little shit stirring at each and every opportunity.
[/quote]
Ah, we’re all loonies? :smack:
Perhaps you should consider why Elizabeth does stay on. She knows Charles wants the job.
There has of course been a Royal press campaign for decades that:
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
A believer in the constitutional monarchy myself ,I defend the right of any British who are dead set against it to voice their disapproval of it but what really pisses me off is when people from neighbouring republican countries make a point of settling in the U.K. uninvited and then start taking us to task for not getting rid of the monarchy (and bringing up their offspring in the same mind set)
[/QUOTE]
I don’t mind a Constitutional Monarchy. I think the Queen has done a fine job as Monarch.
However I think her family have been starved of affection (which is why they have such marital problems, for example).
I also think the Duke of Edinburgh is a racist idiot and the Duchess of Kent is a greedy opportunist.
Given that people have been immigrating here for thousands of years and that the Royal family includes Greek, Danish, German etc ancestry, I fail to see why any inhabitants can’t say what they like.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Assuming this is addressed to me (as I don’t see any Irish people in the thread), I’m a British citizen, born and bred.
[/QUOTE]
Actually it wasn’t was addressed to you (except the dork part)as I’ve always assumed you were a Brit.
It was addressed to people reading this thread who were guilty of the above,I have a good many Irish friends who are great people but hypocrites on this subject.
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Actually it wasn’t was addressed to you (except the dork part)as I’ve always assumed you were a Brit.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you. I appreciate a cove who can respect quality. 
[QUOTE=glee]
There has of course been a Royal press campaign for decades that:
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Camilla has been an issue for decades.
[QUOTE=glee]
the Duchess of Kent is a greedy opportunist.
[/QUOTE]
Woah! I hope you mean Princess Michael of Kent. The Duchess is someone else, and someone very different in character.
[QUOTE=Baffle]
Yes. Camilla has been an issue for decades.
[/QUOTE]
But will she be “Queen”? Elizabeth’s husband isn’t King - he’s a Prince, right?
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
But will she be “Queen”? Elizabeth’s husband isn’t King - he’s a Prince, right?
[/QUOTE]
Quite right. But that’s because “Queen” is an overworked word - it means both “Female ruler” and “King’s wife”. “King” never means “(ruling) Queen’s husband”. (You can say “Queen Consort” or “Queen Regnant” if you like.)
…And of course it also means “late King’s widow”, of which we’ve had a couple in the last century alone.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Hell, it wasn’t England, but in Spain, Alfonso XIII was King when he was born-his father died when his mother was still pregnant, and there was a regency until she gave birth. If Alfonso had been a girl, his sister would have become Queen.
(Alfonso being Juan Carlos’s grandfather)
So basically, William could be in diapers-he’d still be King. You know, “The King is dead-long live the King!”
[/QUOTE]
Which leads to another question I’ve wondered about. Supposing the King (of Spain or the UK) dies, leaving a daughter and a pregnant wife. The daughter then accedes to the throne as Queen regnant. If the queen mother then gives birth to a son, does the Queen regnant get bumped, or what?
Presumably the question is less relevant in these days of amniocentesis and ultrasound, but then again, maybe it’s more. Did this question ever come up?
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Quite right. But that’s because “Queen” is an overworked word - it means both “Female ruler” and “King’s wife”. “King” never means “(ruling) Queen’s husband”. (You can say “Queen Consort” or “Queen Regnant” if you like.)
…And of course it also means “late King’s widow”, of which we’ve had a couple in the last century alone.
[/QUOTE]
England has had two Kings Consort, both on very unique circumstances, and it’s unlikely that either circumstance would ever come up again. (Great Britain only had the second instance.)
First, Felipe II of Spain, son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (and hence grandnephew of Catherine of Aragon) was married to his first cousin once removed, Mary I Tudor, daughter of the aforementioned Catherine and Henry VIII. As King of Spain, the Lowlands, the Hispanic realms beyond the sea in America, and God-and-historical-geographers know what else, he was a King in his own right. He greatly influenced what his wife did while on the throne, and after her death claimed the throne of England for himself under the “crown matrimonial” – a claim duly ignored by all and sundry outside his own realms. But he was King Philip, consort to Queen Mary, for 5+ years.
Then William III. This one gets tricky. If James II and his Catholic infant son are excluded from the throne – the results of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – then the three legitimate (Protestant) heirs are, in order, Princess Mary Stuart, elder daughter of James II; Princess Anne Stuart, younger daughter of James II; and William, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder van der Nederlands, son of Charles II and James II’s sister. But Mary is married to William, and he is the leader of the alliance against Louis XIV that England’s freedom depends on. Net result was that after negotiation, it was agreed that William and Mary would ascend the throne jointly, as co-monarchs, and that Anne would resign in William’s favor her right to succeed Mary – but only as regards him – so that either Mary or William will be unquestioned monarch if either outlives the other (as William in fact did) and Anne will be heir to the survivor (a child of the couple being unlikely). But while Mary was heiress of line, William became King in his own right as her consort and as next in line after her and her sister.
But yes, “Queen” may mean either “King’s wife” or “female monarch.” For a few months in 1952-53, England had three Queens: Mary, Queen Dowager since 1936, widow of George V; Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, widow of George VI; and Elizabeth II, granddaughter of Mary and daughter of Elizabeth, the reigning monarch.
[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
Which leads to another question I’ve wondered about. Supposing the King (of Spain or the UK) dies, leaving a daughter and a pregnant wife. The daughter then accedes to the throne as Queen regnant. If the queen mother then gives birth to a son, does the Queen regnant get bumped, or what?
Presumably the question is less relevant in these days of amniocentesis and ultrasound, but then again, maybe it’s more. Did this question ever come up?
[/QUOTE]
Matt, I’ve never been able to get firm confirmation – or debunking – of this rather apocryphal assertion, but upon the death of George VI, the present Queen was Heiress Presumptive, and duly acceded to the throne. But, rumour hath it, the late Queen Mother, at that point a woman in middle age, had not yet in 1952 passed through menopause, and, so it’s said, some element of the formal accession proclamations and such was postponed for a few days until Her Majesty the Queen Mother was determined not to be pregnant – since, of course, if she were bearing a son, he would become King of the U.K., Canada, Australia, etc. at birth.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Matt, I’ve never been able to get firm confirmation – or debunking – of this rather apocryphal assertion, but upon the death of George VI, the present Queen was Heiress Presumptive, and duly acceded to the throne. But, rumour hath it, the late Queen Mother, at that point a woman in middle age, had not yet in 1952 passed through menopause, and, so it’s said, some element of the formal accession proclamations and such was postponed for a few days until Her Majesty the Queen Mother was determined not to be pregnant – since, of course, if she were bearing a son, he would become King of the U.K., Canada, Australia, etc. at birth.
[/QUOTE]
George VI died the night 5th/6th February (the exact time is uncertain), but Queen Elizabeth’s proclamation of accession wasn’t read out in the UK until the 7th (although Canada managed their proclamation on the 6th). My guess for the slight delay is that Elizabeth became Queen while up a tree in Kenya, and they waited until she got back home.
[QUOTE=dtilque]
Or Camilla could convert.
[/QUOTE]
That probably wouldn’t matter. The law states that one cannot marry a Catholic, not that one cannot have a Catholic wife. Charles did not marry a Catholic regardless of whether Camilla subsequently converts.
[QUOTE=Struan]
… Elizabeth became Queen while up a tree in Kenya…
[/QUOTE]
That was a truly inspired bit of prose. Thank you.
[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
Which leads to another question I’ve wondered about. Supposing the King (of Spain or the UK) dies, leaving a daughter and a pregnant wife. The daughter then accedes to the throne as Queen regnant. If the queen mother then gives birth to a son, does the Queen regnant get bumped, or what?
Presumably the question is less relevant in these days of amniocentesis and ultrasound, but then again, maybe it’s more. Did this question ever come up?
[/QUOTE]
When Victoria was proclaimed Queen the proclamation said something along the lines of “barring any issue of His Majesty by Queen Adelaide”.