Originally posted by mercia
View Post
-
I think the "problem" remains -
What price George Phliip Charles Windsor ?Comment
-
-
George has been the favourite at the bookies from the beginning (and a very nice name it is too) but I think James has to be there and, if anyone asked me - which they won't - I'd also go for Louis or Alexander.Originally posted by Barbirollians View Post
(I saw a documentary a few weeks ago in which it was stated that Charles wanted William to be called Arthur and Harry to be Albert ...... luckily Diana put her foot down)Comment
-
Is James likely ? The two kings of that name hardly covered the throne in glory.Comment
-
I'd agree about James II ["Dismal Jimmy"] but James I surely was a much better monarch, if you like that sort of thing. Then again he was Scottish....Originally posted by Barbirollians View Post
James II did give us the "romantic" Bonnie Prince though, a bit more charismatic than the current one......Comment
-
I wish they'd had a girl so we could see (eventually) the change in the laws of succession. Unless something dramatic happens, there now won't be another queen for a very, very long time.
I wonder if they will break with tradition at all in their choice of names. Apparently the Queen's two great-grqnddaughters are called Isla and Savannah! Like many people I'm expecting they'll call him George, but maybe they'll surprise us.Comment
-
I would certainly agree, but there have been seven kings of that name.Originally posted by Barbirollians View Post
Edit for two afterthoughts:
Good point about James VI and I, Anna. Pity James V was such a devious individual.
There have already been two Charles, neither of whom was much to write home about.Comment
-
The regrettable but ineluctable truth is that the mother is a commoner, and the way has thus now been opened to a new war of succession at some point in the future, a war for which the wise heads in the Nation should prepare themselves.Originally posted by Mary Chambers View PostComment
-
A wise warning. And all because we wish to mix monarchy and democracy.Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostComment
-
What's one of them, then? - and why in any case is it "regrettable" and for whom?Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
The only such "war" that I can imagine being fought might be over whether anyone of a bunch of unwilling people could be forced to take the gig. It is far from easy to perceive much of a future for the British monarchy once its present incumbent dies or becomes incapable (which may even happen, who knows?); the present British monarch may find herself obliged to preside over (but be able to do nothing to prevent) the fragmentation of the presently constituted UK to the point at which there'll be even less pink on the map than there is now and, in any case, other European monarchical examples surely provide increasing discouragement of the "monarch for life" concept that currently pervades the British institution.Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
Who are they, then?Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostComment
-
Who's "we" in this context? It was, after all, hardly yesterday that Churchill made his now famous comment about democracy and I'm unaware tht this caused any rumblings of discontent or dissatisfaction within the monarchy or indeed elswhere at the time - and there was a real war going on then!Originally posted by Beef Oven View Post
S G's use of the trm "commoner" - whatever (if anything) it is supposed to mean in this or indeed any other context - seems to me to be little more than a mere distraction of questionable purpose.Comment
-
Mr Grew, people may recognise what follows from previous threads, but Queen Victoria's father may well have been a commoner (quite possibly Sir John Conroy, her mother's secretary). It is beyond the bounds of genetic possibility that he was who he was supposed to be, namely Edward Duke of Kent, youngest of the three surviving unmarried ducal sons of George lll. There was an unseemly race among these to produce an heir to succeed William lV. Edward, who was probably sterile, married Victoire, Princess of Leiningen [is that better than being a commoner?], Victoria's mother, who then took a lover to ensure the succession. The abrupt disappearance of one (dominant) gene from the royal family (Porphyria) and the equally sudden arrival of another (haemophilia), both add to the unlikelihood of Edward's being the father, on top of his having lived in a childless union with a French lady for 27 years beforehand. That in itself is not conclusive, it could have been the French lady who was sterile. This subject is discussed at greater length in AN Wilson's The Victorians.Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
The possibility that Victoria is not descended from the Hanoverians is of course so potentially embarrassing as to be beyond consideration, but the point of mentioning it is to point out that this succession business is a confidence trick, as is the royalty/commoner bit. As long as everyone believes it, it's OK. There isn't actually a gene for common-ness.Comment
-
As was Elizabeth of Glamis, the new baby's great-great grandmother.Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostComment
Comment