Royal Wedding Part 2

[DaisyD]

8 hours ago, AliceInFundyland said:

I picked up a tabloid today that said Kate was “fuming” because William had gone off to the Middle East and encountered the model Bar Rafaeli. Reports said she found the Prince “handsome and charming.” Apparently that’s what upset her. Nobody has described William as handsome or charming since they were in college. 

No clue what kernel of truth might be in that nonsense. Just thought it was funny.

Both people were in the same country at the same time?

[nokidsmom]

On 7/18/2018 at 3:16 PM, VelociRapture said:

There is something seriously emotionally unhealthy about the Markle family:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/now-her-sister-threatens-meghan-markle-with-the-prospect-of-her-dads-death?yptr=yahoo

Honestly at this point, I don’t blame her a bit if she chose to cut contact. No one should be obligated to keep contact with people that are unhealthy for them to be around. I can only imagine how bad they must be in private if this is how they act publicly. 

Not to mention that at this point, they (half siblings and dad) have proven to be untrustworthy and in the RF, being trusted to not blab things is of paramount importance.   Meghan has not married into a typical family situation.   She's not a private citizen, she's a member of the RF and it's not just being part of the family, it's upholding an institution, i.e. the monarchy.

But even if this were a typical family situation, what's going on is enormously unhealthy and she is right to cut contact.  No one is beholden to sick family dynamics no matter who they are.

[tabitha2]

Now , now she is a little stressed Out because  she is pregnant with Twin Girls who will both be named Diana, Camilla is a Drunk trying to ruin her life, She and Megan are feuding and she is going to be Queen any minute because the Queen  (who just hates Charles) is dying and Camilla is going to “Banished from the Kingdom”(yes, that’s what they actually said)  

 

 

[ViolaSebastian]

17 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Now , now she is a little stressed Out because  she is pregnant with Twin Girls who will both be named Diana, Camilla is a Drunk trying to ruin her life, She and Megan are feuding and she is going to be Queen any minute because the Queen  (who just hates Charles) is dying and Camilla is going to “Banished from the Kingdom”(yes, that’s what they actually said)  

 

 

Subversive opinion: I am all for a Queen Meghan.*

*Obligatory explanation that I would not want anything to happen to three lovely children and their father. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

On 6/27/2018 at 10:18 PM, louisa05 said:

Not all dukedom's are hereditary. 

Yes, they are. Life peerages are never dukedoms. Royal dukedoms are always hereditary. But there are oddly few dukes who are descended from the royal family (legitimately, anyway). The royal dukes seem to be less likely than the average man to father sons. I once looked at the various creations of the dukedom of York, and they always became king, only had daughters (or no legitimate child), or both.

[Seahorse Wrangler]

18 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Yes, they are. Life peerages are never dukedoms. Royal dukedoms are always hereditary. But there are oddly few dukes who are descended from the royal family (legitimately, anyway). The royal dukes seem to be less likely than the average man to father sons. I once looked at the various creations of the dukedom of York, and they always became king, only had daughters (or no legitimate child), or both.

Apart from HVIII, he had a legitimate son.  Died young after being king for  nearly 6 years. And a lot less famous than his two legitimate/illegitimate sisters.

[tabitha2]

It will be little Louis who is Duke of York in his fathers reign as it is traditionally given to second sons.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

1 hour ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

Apart from HVIII, he had a legitimate son.  Died young after being king for  nearly 6 years. And a lot less famous than his two legitimate/illegitimate sisters.

Yeah, but by then he was king, not duke of York.

59 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

It will be little Louis who is Duke of York in his fathers reign as it is traditionally given to second sons.

Only after Andrew dies. If Andrew is still alive when Louis marries, he might get a different dukedom. More likely they’ll make him an earl and then make him duke of York after Andrew dies.

[WiseGirl]

Not sure where to put this, but really the media has to stop giving this family airtime. https://pagesix.com/2018/07/24/meghan-markles-sister-admits-to-selling-her-out/amp/

 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

7 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

Not sure where to put this, but really the media has to stop giving this family airtime. https://pagesix.com/2018/07/24/meghan-markles-sister-admits-to-selling-her-out/amp/

 

That would be good, since they don't seem inclined to self-censor.

Quote

Samantha, who has been widely criticized for publicly blasting Meghan, claimed that she only did so because “private channels have been exhausted … so when that happens, you know, what can one do except reach out publicly?”

Gosh, I dunno... Maybe one could choose a third option and just stop talking about it? 

[mango_fandango]

The media always gives controversial people airtime/tabloid space, precisely because they know it sells. It’s dumb as fuck, I know. 

My brother was looking at Google News earlier... apparently the Queen has BANNED one of Meghan’s favourite dishes... OMG the DRAMAAAAA. It’s some pasta dish. Apparently the Queen doesn’t eat much high-carb stuff anyway. And I bet the Queen would be fine with the royals eating pasta etc dishes in their own homes, it’d just be when they were all together at times like Christmas etc. I just love the use of the word BANNED like she has some kind of high-tech detection system that emits a screeching alarm if someone does something even slightly wrong, no matter where they are. 

 

[DaisyD]

Considering some of the things that Margaret's first husband got up to, I highly doubt Meghan is required to refrain from pasta when the Queen isn't there. Next we'll see the sister commenting that her dad would let her eat it and she should just come home. 

[metheglyn]

On 7/20/2018 at 10:30 PM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Yes, they are. Life peerages are never dukedoms. Royal dukedoms are always hereditary. But there are oddly few dukes who are descended from the royal family (legitimately, anyway). The royal dukes seem to be less likely than the average man to father sons. I once looked at the various creations of the dukedom of York, and they always became king, only had daughters (or no legitimate child), or both.

I agree. All dukedoms are hereditary in the male line, but many royal dukedoms stop being royal dukedoms after a couple generations. For instance, the Dukedom of Gloucester will cease to be royal when the current duke's son inherits, as he is too far removed from the monarchy to be a prince in his own right. The same will happen when the current Duke of Kent's son inherits from his father. They will still be Dukes, but they will be "Your Grace" rather than "Your Royal Highness".

14 hours ago, mango_fandango said:

The media always gives controversial people airtime/tabloid space, precisely because they know it sells. It’s dumb as fuck, I know. 

My brother was looking at Google News earlier... apparently the Queen has BANNED one of Meghan’s favourite dishes... OMG the DRAMAAAAA. It’s some pasta dish. Apparently the Queen doesn’t eat much high-carb stuff anyway. And I bet the Queen would be fine with the royals eating pasta etc dishes in their own homes, it’d just be when they were all together at times like Christmas etc. I just love the use of the word BANNED like she has some kind of high-tech detection system that emits a screeching alarm if someone does something even slightly wrong, no matter where they are. 

 

My understanding is that the Queen herself has a fairly restricted diet to ensure that everything sits well with her since she has such a busy calendar, but beyond that only restricts other people's food options at events. That is, certain foods are never served at official events she hosts such as seafood (given the high potential for seafood to go off) or very smelly food such as garlic when talking to others. But in their private lives when they're not on tour, about to do official duties, etc.? I have significant doubts she cares as long as they don't sick.

[tabitha2]

She is not a controlling person. All I have ever read stated that The Queen  does not like confrontation  and tends to give in about private matters which is one reason  she lets Phillip handle family matters.Getting mad at  Kate eating Shrimp Scampi for lunch at home is the kind of petty silly shit she does not have the time to indulge in. But if Kate went to a tropical country and got food poisoning from badly kept shrimp cocktail it would be a disaster both personally and publicly and she won’t have it.   

[anjulibai]

You know, there have been a few cases where titles were bestowed with special remainder to female heirs. The Dukedom of Fife, for example, and the Earldom of Mountbatten of Burma. Though, even with that, it was only to specific female heirs and then to their male heirs. 

But still, it does show that titles can be given to include potential female succession. 

[metheglyn]

4 hours ago, anjulibai said:

You know, there have been a few cases where titles were bestowed with special remainder to female heirs. The Dukedom of Fife, for example, and the Earldom of Mountbatten of Burma. Though, even with that, it was only to specific female heirs and then to their male heirs. 

But still, it does show that titles can be given to include potential female succession. 

Very true, and I support the idea of letting the aristocratic titles descent through female succession, since it's ridiculous in this day and age for titles, lands, property, etc. to go to a male third cousin once removed (example) instead of a person's daughter.

Thus far, there have not, however, been any concessions made overall for the aristocracy and no special remainder rules given for Royal Dukedoms/Earldoms/etc. It would be interesting to see if that can actually happen, but I think it has to go through the House of Lords for an actual change to be approved rather than it being systematic.

And even in the case of the above examples of technically non-Royal titles, the title went women for a single generation and then to *their* lawful heirs male of the body rather than any daughters.

Even Queen Elizabeth had to have a special rule implemented for her own children to be royals rather than the children of a Duke (prior to her accession) since she herself is a child of the sovereign of the female line.

British Royal inheritance is convoluted. But at least women in the Royal Family aren't forced to give up their royal status simply due to marriage. The Japanese Imperial Family is definitely more problematic on that level. All their royal daughters who marry leave the family and become commoners!

[ViolaSebastian]

I love Chrissy Teigan so much. No idea why she's famous, but I love her. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

[tabitha2]

1 hour ago, metheglyn said:

 

British Royal inheritance is convoluted. But at least women in the Royal Family aren't forced to give up their royal status simply due to marriage. The Japanese Imperial Family is definitely more problematic on that level. All their royal daughters who marry leave the family and become commoners!

 

Right?  The 2000 yr old Japanese imperial at this moment are  one 11 year old boy away from extinction. There is absolutely no other legal heir because of the females leaving the imperial family after marriage. They can’t get males from a collateral branch because the aristocracy was abolished after WW2. They can’t use the Concubine system anymore for obvious reasons. All this plus the fact There have been 4 or 5 reigning empresses in their history even a daughter who inherited the throne from her mother makes  resistance in the government  is even more ridiculous and frustrating . 

[caitrona]

On 7/21/2018 at 5:22 PM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Yeah, but by then he was king, not duke of York.

Only after Andrew dies. If Andrew is still alive when Louis marries, he might get a different dukedom. More likely they’ll make him an earl and then make him duke of York after Andrew dies.

If they make Louis Duke of York, do Beatrice & Eugenie still get to be called Princesses of York?  

[luv2laugh]

I think her dad has a mental illness. He should be proud of Meghan and not be boorish. He’s doing everything he can to break every social Royal rule and is completely rude. He shouldn’t be speaking to the press and embarrassing her. He said creating the situation to be far worse. That being said, I hope that Meghan establishes some brief contact with him since it seems like he’s just cracking up emotionally. When he runs his mouth, yaking about like he is the victim, it unfortunately makes Meghan look cold for cutting him off. I don’t blame her for cutting him off but I think it would be better if she kept contact to a minimum. Her dad doesn’t understand that if he took a page from Doria’s book, he’d likely still be a part of Meghan’s life. I hope Meghan reaches out, stages an intervention, and lays out boundaries.

Samantha is definitely mentally ill. She’s green with envy and very jealous. She’s made an ass of herself with her interviews.

[acheronbeach]

This is what happens when a fame-hungry, money-hungry family ends up with one family member hitting the jackpot.  I think Meghan Markle is a really unpleasant person, but almost anyone can empathize with her having such traitorous family.  Her father's side of the family are users.  They don't care that they look like complete twats because it's not about Meghan at all - it's about them making money and getting into the papers.  They'll keep up this act until the money runs dry.  

Small blessings - Doria Ragland seems pretty classy.  There were rumours - thankfully they haven't seemed to pan out - that she was going to have a tell all interview with Oprah Winfrey about Meghan's struggles.  

[QuiverFullofBooks]

25 minutes ago, caitrona said:

If they make Louis Duke of York, do Beatrice & Eugenie still get to be called Princesses of York?  

Yes. Things can get confusing. But they can also choose to skip a traditional title if it’s still heavily associated with someone else (as with Camilla, Not The Princess of Wales). Queen Victoria’s second son was not duke of York, even though the title was vacant. Her uncle had been unpopular when he held the title, and also their second son was designated as Prince Albert’s heir in Coburg. It doesn’t always work out neatly. Obviously, Prince Harry isn’t going to be duke of York, even though he   will be the second son of a sovereign.

[metheglyn]

17 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Yes. Things can get confusing. But they can also choose to skip a traditional title if it’s still heavily associated with someone else (as with Camilla, Not The Princess of Wales). Queen Victoria’s second son was not duke of York, even though the title was vacant. Her uncle had been unpopular when he held the title, and also their second son was designated as Prince Albert’s heir in Coburg. It doesn’t always work out neatly. Obviously, Prince Harry isn’t going to be duke of York, even though he   will be the second son of a sovereign.

Technically, Eugenie won't be referred to as Princess Eugenie of York after her wedding in October anyway. British Princesses drop the territorial designation of their fathers after marriage to take on the style and title (or lack thereof) of their husbands, unless given one of their own, since the territorial designation "of York" is a courtesy title and not a substantive one for the children of Dukes etc. until/unless they inherit the title themselves. However, they usually remain titled as Princesses, since that is substantive title granted by birth and not a courtesy.

So if Eugenie's case follows convention, because her future husband does not currently have a title, she will technically become "Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" (silly as that sounds). It's one of the reasons why, historically, the untitled future husbands of Princesses were given titles.

However, the last time that happened was when Princess Margaret married Antony Armstrong-Jones. Margaret was born "Princess Margaret of York," then when her father became king she became "The Princess Margaret" (as is customary for children of the monarch with no substantive titles of their own). Then, prior to the wedding Antony was created Earl Snowdon, so upon marriage Margaret's title changed from "The Princess Margaret" to "The Princess Margaret, Countess Snowdon" and their children were given the customary courtesy titles of children of aristocracy (Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah).

In contrast, when Princess Anne married Mark Phillips, they declined a title for him, so her title/style changed from "The Princess Anne" to "The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips". Phillip's lack of title is why their children are simply Mr. Peter Phillips and Miss Zara Phillips (now Mrs. Michael Tindal). Anne's current marriage to Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence would normally make her "The Princess Anne, Lady Laurence", a title she is entitled to but does not use. This is because during her marriage to Mark Phillips Anne was created "The Princess Royal" (a title commonly given to the eldest daughter of the sovereign if the previous Princess Royal is no longer living), so that is her current title as it is a substantive title she holds in her own right.

[Briefly]

3 hours ago, metheglyn said:

Technically, Eugenie won't be referred to as Princess Eugenie of York after her wedding in October anyway. British Princesses drop the territorial designation of their fathers after marriage to take on the style and title (or lack thereof) of their husbands, unless given one of their own, since the territorial designation "of York" is a courtesy title and not a substantive one for the children of Dukes etc. until/unless they inherit the title themselves. However, they usually remain titled as Princesses, since that is substantive title granted by birth and not a courtesy.

So if Eugenie's case follows convention, because her future husband does not currently have a title, she will technically become "Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" (silly as that sounds). It's one of the reasons why, historically, the untitled future husbands of Princesses were given titles.

However, the last time that happened was when Princess Margaret married Antony Armstrong-Jones. Margaret was born "Princess Margaret of York," then when her father became king she became "The Princess Margaret" (as is customary for children of the monarch with no substantive titles of their own). Then, prior to the wedding Antony was created Earl Snowdon, so upon marriage Margaret's title changed from "The Princess Margaret" to "The Princess Margaret, Countess Snowdon" and their children were given the customary courtesy titles of children of aristocracy (Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah).

In contrast, when Princess Anne married Mark Phillips, they declined a title for him, so her title/style changed from "The Princess Anne" to "The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips". Phillip's lack of title is why their children are simply Mr. Peter Phillips and Miss Zara Phillips (now Mrs. Michael Tindal). Anne's current marriage to Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence would normally make her "The Princess Anne, Lady Laurence", a title she is entitled to but does not use. This is because during her marriage to Mark Phillips Anne was created "The Princess Royal" (a title commonly given to the eldest daughter of the sovereign if the previous Princess Royal is no longer living), so that is her current title as it is a substantive title she holds in her own right.

I read something last week and can't find it again, but her title will be "Mrs. (his name), Princess of York after the marriage.  It might be Mrs. (Her name) but she will still have the Princess of York title.

21 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

I think her dad has a mental illness. He should be proud of Meghan and not be boorish. He’s doing everything he can to break every social Royal rule and is completely rude. He shouldn’t be speaking to the press and embarrassing her. He said creating the situation to be far worse. That being said, I hope that Meghan establishes some brief contact with him since it seems like he’s just cracking up emotionally. When he runs his mouth, yaking about like he is the victim, it unfortunately makes Meghan look cold for cutting him off. I don’t blame her for cutting him off but I think it would be better if she kept contact to a minimum. Her dad doesn’t understand that if he took a page from Doria’s book, he’d likely still be a part of Meghan’s life. I hope Meghan reaches out, stages an intervention, and lays out boundaries.

Samantha is definitely mentally ill. She’s green with envy and very jealous. She’s made an ass of herself with her interviews.

He may well be a narcissist.  I would not be a bit surprised.  At the very least, he is extremely selfish and self-centered.  Her sister is a real piece of work, and very much like the father.

[metheglyn]

4 hours ago, Briefly said:

I read something last week and can't find it again, but her title will be "Mrs. (his name), Princess of York after the marriage.  It might be Mrs. (Her name) but she will still have the Princess of York title.

He may well be a narcissist.  I would not be a bit surprised.  At the very least, he is extremely selfish and self-centered.  Her sister is a real piece of work, and very much like the father.

Interesting. Whatever you were reading is in direct contradiction of any past precedent in the British Royal Family, so there's a really good chance it was incorrect speculation. All of the articles I've found agree that she'll be "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank". 

For another recent example we have the Queen's first cousin - "Princess Alexandra of Kent", who became "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy", then "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" when her husband was knighted.