The Cambridges...was "Wedding Related"

Noticed a few of you fellows getting a bit bored with the wedding thread....well, it was in April!!

Here in Canada we were recently treated to Will & Kate's first royal tour and, from all accounts, it was a great success, even in Quebec (with a few exceptions) which is not noted for it's pro-monarchist stance. I didn't see them when they were in Calgary. I mean, "their people" tried to set up some time, but I was busy.....I did have them do a fly-over on their return from Skoki Lodge up in the mountains; 3 low flying military helicopters buzzed over where I live heading southwest and I was pretty sure the middle one was theirs. No...I didn't wave!!

A question, which I am sure someone here can answer. I will preface it by saying I come from a long line of monarchists/royalists, especially my mom!, and so have always had a certain fascination with it all and the history and such even though I am not a 100% sure how I feel about it as an institution (mildly in favour, I think).

Okay....the question: I know the 'family name' or 'dynastic name' if you will is now Windsor (formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until WWI), so if the Queen and Phillip were suddenly transformed into private citizens, she'd be Mrs. Elizabeth Windsor, although Phillip's surname is Mountbatten (formerly Battenburg) so perhaps it'd be Mrs. Windsor-Mountbatten but, given she is the monarch, they're all Windsors. This much I understand.

However, Charles -- as Prince of Wales -- has taken on the surname of Wales and Harry and Will are Wales'. That always threw me....I mean, "Prince of Wales" is a title and, while I sort of understood Charles and Diana, and later Camilla, might be known as "The Wales'" I didn't quite get how any offspring ended up with it as a surname. Surely, Charles is Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales, and not "Mr. Wales"?

Same with Andrew when he became the Duke of York....I totally get his being styled as "HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York" but here too, if I'm not mistaken, the girls are "Yorks"....Beatrice York and Eugenie York.

Which brings us to Will and Kate.....he, of course, is HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and she isn't an HRH (yet!) and simply is Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge, yet he is Captain (I forget his rank) Wales, retaining the surname adopted by his father upon becoming Prince of Wales. In his turn, William may well eventually be styled as 'HRH Prince William of Wales, Duke of Cambridge' and Kate will probably then become 'HRH Princess Katherine of Wales, Duchess of Cambridge'. All a bit confusing, wot?

The question, Stephen, get to the bloody question!!!......

Oh yes...

Well, after all that, the question is fairly simple: Why? Why doesn't the Royal Family, and the succeeding generations, despite the acquistion of various titles, simply maintain the family name of Windsor or even, on a private level, Windsor-Mountbatten? I do understand "Windsor" is not so much a "family name" or surname as it is dynastic, as in The House of Windsor, but really it's little different from the private surname of past monarchs such as Plantagenet or Tudor or Stuart....

It has to make for one helluva complicated family tree!

I had thought Wales was the name used while in the military, i had thought in order to ofer some degree of anonymity

here is another thought Steve, dont know if its been done on this site before. Everyone is talking up William as the future King, but if Charles were to meet a sudden end, before he asends the throne, then to whom will the title fall ? Andrew ? as the eldest son of the queen ?

In that case the title goes to William as he is second in line.



THE LINE OF SUCCESSION

SOVEREIGN
1. The Prince of Wales
2. The Duke of Cambridge
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. Viscount Severn
9. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
10. The Princess Royal
11. Mr. Peter Phillips
12.Miss Savannah Phillips
13. Miss Zara Phillips
14. Viscount Linley
15. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
16. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
17. The Lady Sarah Chatto
18. Master Samuel Chatto
19. Master Arthur Chatto
20. The Duke of Gloucester
21. Earl of Ulster
22. Lord Culloden
23. The Lady Cosima Windsor
24. The Lady Davina Lewis
25. Miss Senna Lewis
26. The Lady Rose Gilman
27. Miss Lyla Gilman
28. The Duke of Kent
29. The Lady Amelia Windsor
30. The Lady Helen Taylor
31. Master Columbus Taylor
32. Master Cassius Taylor
33. Miss Eloise Taylor
34. Miss Estella Taylor
35. The Hon. Albert Windsor
36. The Hon. Leopold Windsor
37. The Lord Frederick Windsor
38. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
39. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy

There must be some mistake. I can't see my name on there at all?

they are making most of the army redunant , to save money, surely they could make some of the royal redunant as well and save more, from the civil ( hangers on ) list.

Quote :

There must be some mistake. I can't see my name on there at all?

Teabag..... I didn`t print the whole list.You are there at 17,987,942.At least i think it`s you.
A Mr typhoo???

Jam 'em all in to a 32-seater coach, drop it over a cliff, one survivor.

May I present, . . number 32 on the list,. . King Cassius the first !

Does it for me Tommy !

brum wrote:

Jam 'em all in to a 32-seater coach, drop it over a cliff, one survivor.

May I present, . . number 32 on the list,. . King Cassius the first !

Does it for me Tommy !

Of course. Never noticed I was there after all. Ruined my nickname when he changed it to Ali.

steve jones wrote:

I had thought Wales was the name used while in the military, i had thought in order to ofer some degree of anonymity

Oh, yeah....and how did that work out for him and Harry??

steve jones wrote:

here is another thought Steve, dont know if its been done on this site before. Everyone is talking up William as the future King, but if Charles were to meet a sudden end, before he asends the throne, then to whom will the title fall ? Andrew ? as the eldest son of the queen ?

This has been answered with the rather extensive list....but the short answer is...no. ehehehe

As I understand it, the Line of Succession goes from monarch to eldest child. If the eldest child happens to be a daughter and no other children come along, she's in! If not, as is the case with Anne, Princess Royal, she gets bumped down the line with each male child and her offspring get bumped even further with each child, male or female, born to the sons of the existing monarch and if those children are female first then along comes a male, that daughter gets bumped...but not as far down as poor ol' Anne! I see she is now #10!! Must piss her off royally. Ha Ha Ha....piss her off royally! I made a funny!!! Anne's kids, Vicount Linley etc, don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever being on the throne draped in ermine and wearing that bejeweled crown.

Now....as it stands, yes, Charles is next up at bat. He'll be an ancient old sod by then. Older than Edward was when Queen Victoria died. Being Prince of Wales is bit of wait-and-see proposition, hanging around until Mommy kicks off and, given their genes and a tendency to longevity (Queen Mum was, what, 101 when she died?), Lizzie could be around for another 20 years!! We all know she will never abdicate...not after that debacle with Edward VIII aka Duke of Windsor and that tramp he hooked up with!! There is a possibility Charles may become Regent if Elizabeth is still alive but unable to continue in her role as monarch...if she was to be found to have Alzheimer's for instance at some later date (no sign of it...not so sure about Phillip!!), but King? Not for a lot of years yet!!

I know there's been some discussion about 'skipping over' Charles and going directly to William following ER II's death but it won't happen, not unless Charles abdicates in favour of William and I don't see that happening either. There is no way William can become King over his father. It'd be a major constitutional crisis for one thing, plus Charles has waited too long to ascend the throne and, dammit, he's going to have it!

Charles is getting a bit long in the tooth and, if Lizzie carries on for another 20 years -- which she could -- he's going to be pushing 70 himself before he gets there...almost as old as the Old Girl is herself now! Lovely prospect.....So, conceivably, William could be king before he was 55, still relatively young.

And people wonder why I find all this so fascinating.....!!

[quote="Stephen Lock
And people wonder why I find all this so fascinating.....!!

[/quote]

The fact of the matter is Stephen.

The average Brit couldn't give a toss about all this stuff.

We llike the Queen.

We like Phil 'cause he's a crusty old bugger who doesn't care WHO he offends.

We like Anne 'cause she's a crusty old bugger who doesn't care WHO she offends.

The latest Royal Clothes Horse has a sister who has a nice bum.

Beyond them - bring out Madam Guillotine !

A 1000 years of tradition and history....phhhtt!!

My Dear Old Mum would be turning in her grave!

Quote :

The latest Royal Clothes Horse has a sister who has a nice bum.

Glad you didn`t forget Pippa B(r)um

Except, of course, she's not 'a royal'.....whether she gets a title or not....I don't see it. Not unless she ends up marrying some lord or something and, of course, she now has access to eligible Peers of the Realm through sis....I think she should make a play for Harry, myself. She's got it all over the current bimbo skank he's taken up with!!! Daisy or whatever her name is.... mind you, "Princess Pippa" isn't much better of a moniker, is it?

But Stephen!!! " Philippa Charlotte " be it Princess,Lady or just plain Mrs. has a very good ring to it...and of course she has the bum

Stephen Lock wrote:

Which brings us to Will and Kate.....he, of course, is HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and she isn't an HRH (yet!) and simply is Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge, yet he is Captain (I forget his rank) Wales, retaining the surname adopted by his father upon becoming Prince of Wales. In his turn, William may well eventually be styled as 'HRH Prince William of Wales, Duke of Cambridge' and Kate will probably then become 'HRH Princess Katherine of Wales, Duchess of Cambridge'. All a bit confusing, wot?

Even more confusing than that. Didn't the papers get it wrong by referring to Princess Diana of Wales. Surely her title was Princess Charles of Wales, as in Princess Michael of Kent?

mjm.The title was Diana Princess of Wales.Apparently there is a difference.

mjm34 wrote:

Stephen Lock wrote:

Which brings us to Will and Kate.....he, of course, is HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and she isn't an HRH (yet!) and simply is Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge, yet he is Captain (I forget his rank) Wales, retaining the surname adopted by his father upon becoming Prince of Wales. In his turn, William may well eventually be styled as 'HRH Prince William of Wales, Duke of Cambridge' and Kate will probably then become 'HRH Princess Katherine of Wales, Duchess of Cambridge'. All a bit confusing, wot?

Even more confusing than that. Didn't the papers get it wrong by referring to Princess Diana of Wales. Surely her title was Princess Charles of Wales, as in Princess Michael of Kent?

Oh, for the love of......you're right, I think. The only thing I can think of, apart from "getting it wrong" (media? wrong?? No....can't be!!!) is that, as the consort, at the time, of the Prince of Wales -- which in European royal families would be akin to Crown Prince with the wife being Crown Princess -- she outranked the Kents and so would be styled as Princess Diana of Wales. Upon the removal of her HRH, which I think was a low blow, she became merely "Diana, Princess of Wales" although having divorced the Prince of Wales, I was surprised she was permitted to retain the title and didn't get bumped back to plain old Lady Diana Spencer, or even Lady Diana Spencer-Wales (Wales-Spencer?) but I suspect retaining the Princess of Wales title, even without the HRH, was tied in with being the mother of the future King of England et al. Protocols are a bit dodgy, which is probably why the Royal Household has a Minister of Protocol or whatever he's called to keep it all straight....

It's rather like, following their divorce, Fergie continues to be styled as "Sarah, Duchess of York". Now, if Andrew were to remarry I'm not sure what happens....does Sarah then lose her title of Duchess of York because the new wife, being the wife of the Duke of York, would naturally enough be his Duchess? Yikes.....of course, Andrew is not "just" the Duke of York, he does have a couple of other duchies going on, an Earldom or two, etc., but they go by the highest rank so he would retain "Duke of York" with, maybe, any new wife adopting one of the other duchy titles and then be the Duchess of Whateverthehellitis to his Duke of York, but that's a tad confusing....hell...it's all confusing!!

Owwww....my head hurts

Hark ! !

Is that a tumbril I hear approaching ?

Quote :

Owwww....my head hurts

Not as much as mine.......

brum wrote:

Hark ! !

Is that a tumbril I hear approaching ?

Is that the same thing as The Pro-Republican Bandwagon?

I just want Charlie to be King..come on Queeny, about time you retired and went on the pension.

He will be....eventually....might need to get down the main aisle of Westminster using a walker, but he'll get there......