I wouldn’t necessarily say that. Perhaps he values his mother more than the throne?
Zev Steinhardt
I remember my European History professor in college telling a pun that was popular when Queen Victoria had been on the throne for quite awhile:
Q: How is the Queen like the weather?
A: Because she rains, and rains, and rains… and never gives the poor Sun a chance.
Yes, this is the same uniform, and it’s almost definitely not Royal Navy.
Facing colours for the RN have always been white, never red. Furthermore, you can clearly see the characteristic shoulder belt (with the leather case on the back and the red cordon) that is traditional for cavalry (but never worn by navy personnel).
The bicorn is no evidence either way, since it can be worn by members of any branch (except for the RAF).
It does appear to be recent, although I presume monarchs have always had that option. As far as I know the first was Queen Victoria, whose first Christian name was Alexandrina. This is a special case though as she was known as Victoria from her childhood. Apparently her parents hadn’t wanted to name her Alexandrina at all but George IV insisted that she be named for her godfather, Tsar Alexander I of Russia, and her parents obliged. The name however was rarely used by them or by Victoria herself. Except when Uncle was around presumably! 
As for the custom of a host of baptismal names it’s common to all the British aristocracy. I’d guess it arose because they wanted to give a nod in the naming to as many important family connections as possible.
Under the Hanoverians.
It was a specifically German custom and the use of middle names was until then very unusual in Britain in all ranks of society. There are earlier royal exceptions, but they tended to be because the royal in question was foreign (William III) or because the middle name was used in conjunction with the first name (Henriette Anne, the youngest daughter of Charles I). Or a combination of both those factors (Henrietta Maria). Otherwise, the Old Pretender (James Francis Edward) is a very rare example from before 1714.
[quote=“paperbackwriter, post:1, topic:502187”]
Cecil’s column on the Prince of Wales and other assorted members of the United Kingdom’s royal family has fallen a bit out of date since 1976, especially the last paragraph regarding Princess Anne. Just to provide a list of the changes for those not fortunate enough to be familiar with these issues:
[ul][li]Princess Anne was created Princess Royal in June, 1987[]She divorced Mark Phillips in April, 1992 and married Timothy Laurence in December, 1992. Like Phillips, Laurence was not granted any royal or noble title. He did, however, rise from the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy at the time of the wedding to Vice-Admiral.[]The list of those Anne would have to bump off to assume the position of heir apparent has grown considerably. Third in line at the time of her birth, she is now 10th behind not only her brothers (younger and older) but also their children.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
There are some who still feel that the direct living Stuart is actually the true monarch (Lives in the Canadian Maritimes, I believe)
In any case, any monarchy can be overthrown by war (civil or otherwise – see stuart above --) just doesn’t happen much these days, there not being very many monarchies.
The Head of the House of Stuart is Duke Franz of Bavaria, also Head of the House of Wittelsbach etc., he lives in Bavaria. His heir is his brother Max and the succession to Stuart is likely to pass to the latter’s daughter Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein aged 42.
There are other Stuart claims, all disputed. There is a contention that Dukes of Albany recognised into Victoria’s reign were direct Stuart descendents from a Bonnie Prince Charlie bastard legitimized retrospectively by the Pope. The Scottish throne has several claimants, none of whom actually want to claim it. The rules vary in any case. In England, the direct male line takes precedence even if it ends in a female. By the Salic Law if the direct male line ends in a daughter then indirect male relatives take precedence. By Scottish tradition, if your grandfather was a king, you are entitled but you might have to fight for it. By Norman tradition, in or out of wedlock is irrelevent; that is how William the Bastard became William II of Normandy and William I the Conqueror of England. Since all those traditions have held play over the British monarchy, there could be any number of claimants with better credentials than Her Germanic Majesty (through the female line of Electrix Sophie of Hanover) according to the laws they appeal to, English, Scottish or Norman.
Right, he was never crowned, never ruled, never reigned, and was declared illegitimate. The only reason he’s on the list is because the usurper (and very likely Edwards killer) , Henry VI thought it’d be another blot on RIII’s list, thereby making dudes ignore that Henry VI had almost no claim at all-other than a winning army.
You mean Henry VII. And having a winning army tends to legitimize most claims. And I wouldn’t say he had almost no claim at all. He was descended from Edward III through his mother, and if you ignore Edward, Duke of Warwick, he probably had the best claim to the throne when he became king.
And regarding the death of Edward V, I still say Richard done it.
Josephine Tey, among others, disagreed: Princes in the Tower - Wikipedia
I know. I read her book. I’d still say there’s an about equal chance they were killed by Richard III or the Duke of Buckingham, and almost no chance that Henry VII did it.
Just out of curiosity, what uniform is the Prince Consort wearing in that picture? He looks like the most royal one there.
Sober historians weep at that book. It’s not as bad as The Da Vinci Code, but it’s bad.
There are a lot of nasty lies told about Richard; there’s no question of that. But rumors were flying that he had had the boys killed even in his lifetime, and his only reaction was to stonewall. Bar the discovery of new evidence, that settles it for me.
Judging by the collar insignia, looks like the Grenadier Guards, of which he’s Colonel of the Regiment: http://changingtheguard.co.uk/images/montagegren.jpg
BTW, he’s not technically Prince Consort. The last such was Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband.
The Duke of Edinburgh does not have the title “Prince Consort”, but he is a prince consort.
(Similarly, while George VI was king, his wife Queen Elizabeth did not have the title “Queen Consort” but was a queen consort.)
The estimable Regallag capitalized it as if it were actually his title; it isn’t.
Thanks for the correction.
Another photo of Princess Anne in naval uniform, in 2005: http://www.life.com/image/55988289
And at the 2009 Iraq memorial service: http://madhattery.royalroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/2009-1009-britain-anne.jpg
