Charles and Camilla 2

[anjulibai]

16 hours ago, rosamundi said:

Men never take the male equivalent of their wife's title, but women take the female equivalent of their husband's title. So for a few years between her marriage and her accession to the throne, The Queen was Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

It's not so long ago that women became their husband's property at marriage, and all her worldly goods became his. When the worldly goods include a country and the associated trappings of power, there needs to be something to ensure the Queen technically still holds some power over her husband, so the husband never receives the title which would put him above her.

Actually, there are many cases where the husband get's the wife's title. Jure uxoris is what it's called - by right of wife. A few men became kings that way, sometimes controversially. It's just not been done all that much in the UK, generally for political reasons. 

[SoSoNosy]

The guy who married the Queen of Denmark complained for his entire life that he should have been made King.  He finally made it clear that he was NOT to be buried beside her when he died; she obliged and buried him elsewhere.  There was some dementia at the end, but he was already complaining when that started.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by SoSoNosy
spelling

[samurai_sarah]

On 5/9/2023 at 7:42 AM, rosamundi said:

Men never take the male equivalent of their wife's title, but women take the female equivalent of their husband's title. So for a few years between her marriage and her accession to the throne, The Queen was Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

It's not so long ago that women became their husband's property at marriage, and all her worldly goods became his. When the worldly goods include a country and the associated trappings of power, there needs to be something to ensure the Queen technically still holds some power over her husband, so the husband never receives the title which would put him above her.

Can't resist nit-picking. In the course of European history, some men have taken the equivalent of their wives' titles. Maria II of Portugal was queen in her own right, and her husband became king upon marriage. Maria II of England also inherited the throne in her own right, but insisted that her husband become her co-monarch, so William of Orange, became William III. There are a few rare other examples and I'm just nit-picking to point out that it's rare, but there is historical precedent.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

5 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

Can't resist nit-picking. In the course of European history, some men have taken the equivalent of their wives' titles. Maria II of Portugal was queen in her own right, and her husband became king upon marriage. Maria II of England also inherited the throne in her own right, but insisted that her husband become her co-monarch, so William of Orange, became William III. There are a few rare other examples and I'm just nit-picking to point out that it's rare, but there is historical precedent.

Mary and William were first cousins and I think he was next in line to the throne after her. (Imagine if a consort was also the heir!) Also, it was his army that overthrew her father/his uncle. He didn’t get to be co-monarch just because he was her husband. 

[Jackie3]

This confirms my statement about Prince George being bullied about his Coronation costume. If you can believe the Mirror, of course. 

Quote

A source reportedly claimed that George also "wasn't keen on wearing tights and becoming a subject of ribaldry at school".

Instead, the King agreed to his grandson's wishes and allowed the pages to wear trousers.

 

I had to laugh when people said that his classmates were too impressed with George's importance to bully him. Anyone who knows 9-year old boys realizes that very few are concerned about "making connections" with a future king. However, many of them are happy to mock anyone who is different. 

I'm glad Charles agreed, and I did think the pages' costumes were far less silly than I expected.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-george-persuaded-king-change-29938081

[tabitha2]

The Trollpacabra is on loose! Everyone  stay safe, sane   and strong and don’t give it power!  

[Loveday]

3 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

The Trollpacabra is on loose! Everyone  stay safe, sane   and strong and don’t give it power!  

I will now forever visualise it as a chupacabra. Very fitting! 🤣

[tabitha2]

Exactly. Some highly unpleasant mean lurkey thing that stinks and poops on every conversation that no one  wants  around. 
 

 

[Dandruff]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Exactly. Some highly unpleasant mean lurkey thing that stinks and poops on every conversation that no one  wants  around. 

Best, I believe, to quickly ID the pooper, move past the poop, and give it no more thought...even if it occasionally appears to be reasonable in order to engage.

[samurai_sarah]

On 5/10/2023 at 4:24 PM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Mary and William were first cousins and I think he was next in line to the throne after her. (Imagine if a consort was also the heir!) Also, it was his army that overthrew her father/his uncle. He didn’t get to be co-monarch just because he was her husband. 

Mary and William were cousins, but he had a claim to the throne via his mother, while she was the heir apparent to the reigning king, James II. So, William became co-monarch on his wife's coattails firstly and secondly only via his own claim.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

1 hour ago, samurai_sarah said:

Mary and William were cousins, but he had a claim to the throne via his mother, while she was the heir apparent to the reigning king, James II. So, William became co-monarch on his wife's coattails firstly and secondly only via his own claim.

Well, yes, but my point was that it was a very different situation than Philip of Spain becoming king of England purely because of his marriage.

[samurai_sarah]

8 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Well, yes, but my point was that it was a very different situation than Philip of Spain becoming king of England purely because of his marriage.

In my post, I was talking about Maria II of Portugal (queen regnant), who married a Portuguese prince, who became king consort of Portugal. And then Mary II of England and William of Orange.

Mary I of England and Phillip of Spain are a different matter altogether.

Edited May 14, 2023 by samurai_sarah

[FluffySnowball]

On 5/10/2023 at 4:03 AM, SoSoNosy said:

The guy who married the Queen of Denmark complained for his entire life that he should have been made King.  He finally made it clear that he was NOT to be buried beside her when he died; she obliged and buried him elsewhere.  There was some dementia at the end, but he was already complaining when that started.

 

That’s beside the point but he was such a weird and unpleasant guy I feel. Urgh…

[tabitha2]

Prince Henrik was extremely intelligent somewhat eccentric and strong willed and so is Queen Margrethe. They suited each other for the most part .
 

 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

12 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Well, yes, but my point was that it was a very different situation than Philip of Spain becoming king of England purely because of his marriage.

He didn't. There was some discussion about the Crown Matrimonial but the English lords  refused to allow it. In the same way that Henry, Lord Darnley was refused the Crown Matrimonial of Scotland.

The men in power didn't want to cede authority to an outsider.  

[samurai_sarah]

2 hours ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

He didn't. There was some discussion about the Crown Matrimonial but the English lords  refused to allow it. In the same way that Henry, Lord Darnley was refused the Crown Matrimonial of Scotland.

The men in power didn't want to cede authority to an outsider.  

That! And that's what makes cases like Maria II of Portugal interesting. I confused her with Maria I of Portugal in a previous post. Both Maria I (1777- 1816) and Maria II of Portugal (1819- 1853) were queens in their own right and became queen regnant. Maria I of Portugal was the one who married a Portuguese prince (her paternal uncle), Maria II married a German prince. Both husbands were king-consorts, whose powers derived from their wives. Both ceased to be king, when their wives' reigns ended.

England and Scotland were different, as you pointed out. Mary I of England (1662- 1694) was the only queen regnant, whose husband was declared king and her co-monarch, partly on her insistence. That briefly united parts of today's Netherlands with the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland in a personal union that ended when William III died.

[samurai_sarah]

Correction: Mary II (1662 - 1694) of England, not Mary I. Oops.

[Mama Mia]

11 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

That! And that's what makes cases like Maria II of Portugal interesting. I confused her with Maria I of Portugal in a previous post. Both Maria I (1777- 1816) and Maria II of Portugal (1819- 1853) were queens in their own right and became queen regnant. Maria I of Portugal was the one who married a Portuguese prince (her paternal uncle), Maria II married a German prince. Both husbands were king-consorts, whose powers derived from their wives. Both ceased to be king, when their wives' reigns ended.

England and Scotland were different, as you pointed out. Mary I of England (1662- 1694) was the only queen regnant, whose husband was declared king and her co-monarch, partly on her insistence. That briefly united parts of today's Netherlands with the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland in a personal union that ended when William III died.

I think in general women in Spain and Portugal had more rights, and held onto those rights and any property upon Marriage.  Where English law gave women fewer rights, and gave everything to the husband upon marriage. I’m not sure of details or timelines - but this was definitely a major issue for women following the Mexican -American war in the 1840’s. Women, including married women, who owned land and had other rights based on Mexican ( previously Spanish ) law, lost those rights when the US won the war. 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Mama Mia

[Jackie3]

On 5/14/2023 at 1:09 PM, tabitha2 said:

Prince Henrik was extremely intelligent somewhat eccentric and strong willed and so is Queen Margrethe. They suited each other for the most part .
 

 

He refused to be buried next to her. That sounds like a long, embittered relationship, one so angry that he carried it to the grave.

[noseybutt]

Dropping this here because, dang, these people are cold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/royal-family-refuses-return-remains-ethiopian-prince-alemayehu-britain-rcna85721

[keen23]

40 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

Dropping this here because, dang, these people are cold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/royal-family-refuses-return-remains-ethiopian-prince-alemayehu-britain-rcna85721

Sets a bad precedent. Next thing you know India will want it's diamonds back. Oh, wait...

[noseybutt]

3 minutes ago, keen23 said:

Sets a bad precedent. Next thing you know India will want it's diamonds back. Oh, wait...

The nerve!

[viii]

2 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Dropping this here because, dang, these people are cold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/royal-family-refuses-return-remains-ethiopian-prince-alemayehu-britain-rcna85721

I don't care if you have to disturb a few remains. Right your wrongs! 

[Jackie3]

6 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Dropping this here because, dang, these people are cold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/royal-family-refuses-return-remains-ethiopian-prince-alemayehu-britain-rcna85721

They kidnapped a 6 year old boy--a child around Prince Louis' age--while looting his country. Then, when the child died 10 years later, they wouldn't return his remains? 

And they still won't return them because it will disturb other remains? What did they do, dump him in a mass grave? Anyway, who cares if the other remains are disturbed, they're dead! They won't mind! 

John Oliver made a good analogy which spoke to me. What if a foreign country invaded the USA and stole the Liberty Bell? Many years later, they refused to return it because they felt curators in the US "lacked the knowledge to care for it properly." That's the excuse the Brits give for not returning a lot of their stolen loot. The stupids in the country they looted lack the knowledge to care for the loot, so the Brits have to keep it. It's for their own good!

However, I don't think that's why they are hanging onto India's diamonds. 

I'm having a hard time understanding royalists.

[rosamundi]

On 5/24/2023 at 10:42 PM, viii said:

I don't care if you have to disturb a few remains. Right your wrongs! 

Yes, if the other coffins are in such bad shape that you're worried about moving or disturbing them, take the opportunity to do some sorting out. Replace any damaged coffins, inspect the vault and do any necessary repair work, perhaps remove some bodies to the burial ground at Frogmore. None of this is insurmountable, it's an absurd excuse.

If the coffins are fine, then it will just be a case of temporarily moving them from their shelves, removing the one that this child is in, and putting the others back. The occupants won't mind, they're dead. it may take time and care, because as I understand it, a lot of the coffins are lined with lead, but again, this is not an insurmountable problem.

Edited May 26, 2023 by rosamundi