Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: British aristocrats  (Read 17661 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kimothy

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 25

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 97





Ignore
« Reply #30 on: August 19, 2016, 11:31:54 PM »


I like this guy.  He doesn't see the point of having a title and doesn't seem to like it when people address him as a titled person.  Thumb up

hang on...is this the smae Dukey whose son is Georgie borgie who was  ahrm ' serious ' about our Pimpy??? 

Wow...like wow!! Can Pimpy read...anyone know? Huh?

Love that library. AG, forget two days there...I'm movin' in

G Smiley

Yes, Geta. This is the same family who our pips was trying her damned hardest to gatecrash  Wink
[/quote]

I'm glad George was smart enough to not get suckered into the Middletons grasp!  Whistle
Logged
Celia

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 242

Offline Offline

Posts: 909





Ignore
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2016, 01:22:53 AM »

Tatler/Harpers & Queen did an article on the current duke back in the 90s when he was still his brother's heir.  The brother sounded like a real character --dated Naomi Campbell's mother! 
Logged
fogdancer

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 253

Offline Offline

Brazil Brazil

Posts: 1633


He dances! Be jealous Jagger




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2016, 12:13:09 AM »

Tatler/Harpers & Queen did an article on the current duke back in the 90s when he was still his brother's heir.  The brother sounded like a real character --dated Naomi Campbell's mother!  

I am aware that this is so off the topic of the board, but just saw it, interesting... though The Other Prince William ...  Thinking what might have been Shocked Sad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SMX5kUDOas
Logged



In the lack of the words, be fluent in diamonds.
pixiecat
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 4387

Offline Offline

Cuba Cuba

Posts: 26421


Pixiecat loves to Dish!




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2016, 02:10:50 AM »


I like this guy.  He doesn't see the point of having a title and doesn't seem to like it when people address him as a titled person.  Thumb up

hang on...is this the smae Dukey whose son is Georgie borgie who was  ahrm ' serious ' about our Pimpy??? 

Wow...like wow!! Can Pimpy read...anyone know? Huh?

Love that library. AG, forget two days there...I'm movin' in

G Smiley
[/quote]

I didn't know that.  I couldn't give two sh*ts about Horseface and his circle of boring idiots (and I assume that's who you're referencing?), so I had no idea.  What a shame. 
Logged

All hail the future King Nobstante!!
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Whorish Spanx
https://31.media.tumblr.c...ine_mzekcuA9Ln1snsa9a.jpg
LadyCate

Warned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 280

Offline Offline

Posts: 945





Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2016, 02:37:47 AM »

Thanks for posting the link to "The Other Prince William".  I think the film is typical of the sort of romantic myth making that is used to sell a story.  The premise seems to be if somehow he had been allowed to marry the girl of his heart he'd be alive today.  Which is nonsense - in fact -  no one was stopping him - the Queen told him to follow his heart.  If he had married her - she'd have probably died in the plane crash too.

The same thing with Margaret - I get so tired of the nonsense of poor Margaret giving up the great love of her life etc. - Margaret too could have  married Townsend - but she did not want to give up her HRH and her royal privileges.  And clearly that mattered more to her than Townsend.

It is of course sad he died and perhaps he would have been a better example to Charles than Mountbatten was.  But the whole film is a play on emotions and myths - since he was the only child and heir - perhaps racing in planes might not have been the best thing for him to be doing?

Logged
Jonathan

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 761

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2903


Life's hard being fabulous




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2016, 09:51:21 AM »

Prince William's younger brother Prince Richard is now Duke of Gloucester
Logged

Advice to my Brother on his wedding day

Never say

I know you do
I've had better
Did you say something
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 530

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1713





Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2016, 10:49:37 AM »

Thanks for posting the link to "The Other Prince William".  I think the film is typical of the sort of romantic myth making that is used to sell a story.  The premise seems to be if somehow he had been allowed to marry the girl of his heart he'd be alive today.  Which is nonsense - in fact -  no one was stopping him - the Queen told him to follow his heart.  If he had married her - she'd have probably died in the plane crash too.

The same thing with Margaret - I get so tired of the nonsense of poor Margaret giving up the great love of her life etc. - Margaret too could have  married Townsend - but she did not want to give up her HRH and her royal privileges.  And clearly that mattered more to her than Townsend.

It is of course sad he died and perhaps he would have been a better example to Charles than Mountbatten was.  But the whole film is a play on emotions and myths - since he was the only child and heir - perhaps racing in planes might not have been the best thing for him to be doing?



He was the much longed for child and elder son but not an only child. He had a younger brother - a steadier son who wanted to be an architect but, through the death of his older brother, had to give up that idea and become a working member of the BRF - a role he has fulfilled in an exemplary manner since the death of his older brother and father. Prince Richard was expecting a life like his cousin's - Prince Michael - but instead ended up with a life like Prince Edward of Kent - that of a royal duke and cousin of the monarch.

His wife, who had become a princess on her marriage and was known as HRH Princess Richard of Gloucester until she was  promoted to HRH The Duchess of Gloucester as a result of the death of Prince William and then Prince Henry.
Logged
Hester
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 1996

Offline Offline

Sudan Sudan

Posts: 11054





Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2016, 11:03:48 AM »



Part 4: Rothschild: Rags to riches. They aren't a part of the British aristocracy according to them, and that's much to do with them being fairly new to the scene(1800's) and because they are Jewish (their words). They have a very interesting and tragic family history and are very proud of their achievements. I see them as very bright entrepreneurs and I'm impressed in the way they handle the question of inheritance. In stead of the usual "first male heir" they pass it on to the person best suited for the job even if it mean bypassing ones children for a cousin or other family members! Quite refreshing and clever, like someone said; "they haven't got that English decent into weak-chinned aristocracy", ouch! Yikes I like how they are very realistic and don't kid themselves about how thing really are. That's probably part of why they are so successful IMO. This gets a very passing mention http://www.dailymail.co.u...ent-scheme-blew-face.html Nono in regards to who gets to inherit Waddesdon Manor. And there's lots of modern art in this documentary! Cool


I hope you enjoy the series as much as I did! Beer

The British Rothschilds would be poor cousins to the German branch of the family do you think?
Logged
fogdancer

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 253

Offline Offline

Brazil Brazil

Posts: 1633


He dances! Be jealous Jagger




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2016, 03:16:24 AM »

Thanks for posting the link to "The Other Prince William".  I think the film is typical of the sort of romantic myth making that is used to sell a story.  The premise seems to be if somehow he had been allowed to marry the girl of his heart he'd be alive today.  Which is nonsense - in fact -  no one was stopping him - the Queen told him to follow his heart.  If he had married her - she'd have probably died in the plane crash too.

The same thing with Margaret - I get so tired of the nonsense of poor Margaret giving up the great love of her life etc. - Margaret too could have  married Townsend - but she did not want to give up her HRH and her royal privileges.  And clearly that mattered more to her than Townsend.

It is of course sad he died and perhaps he would have been a better example to Charles than Mountbatten was.  But the whole film is a play on emotions and myths - since he was the only child and heir - perhaps racing in planes might not have been the best thing for him to be doing?



He was the much longed for child and elder son but not an only child. He had a younger brother - a steadier son who wanted to be an architect but, through the death of his older brother, had to give up that idea and become a working member of the BRF - a role he has fulfilled in an exemplary manner since the death of his older brother and father. Prince Richard was expecting a life like his cousin's - Prince Michael - but instead ended up with a life like Prince Edward of Kent - that of a royal duke and cousin of the monarch.

His wife, who had become a princess on her marriage and was known as HRH Princess Richard of Gloucester until she was  promoted to HRH The Duchess of Gloucester as a result of the death of Prince William and then Prince Henry.
Thumb up
Logged



In the lack of the words, be fluent in diamonds.
PruNordstrom

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 742

Offline Offline

Posts: 3097





Ignore
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2017, 03:53:32 AM »

Quote
Mr Christopher John Reith, who died 23 October, 2016, aged 88, was the son of Lord Reith, first Director General of the BBC, & he disclaimed this barony for life on his father's demise.

Christopher John Reith was born 27 May, 1928, son of then then John Reith by his wife the former Muriel Katharine Odhams. His father was created a Baron of the UK in 1940, and died 16 June, 1971.

Christopher Reith disclaimed the barony of Reith for life, 21 April, 1972. He married in 1969, {Penelope} Margaret Ann, elder dau of the late Henry Rowland Morris, of Beeston, Nottinghamshire, by whom he had issue, a son James, and a daughter, Julie. The son, born 2 June, 1971, succeeds as 3rd Baron Reith.

From: Peerage News, 9 Jan 2017

''Christopher Reith disclaimed the barony of Reith for life'' and ''The son, born 2 June, 1971, succeeds as 3rd Baron Reith'' shows that there was no holder of the title while Christopher was alive.

How is it that he was allowed to refuse the title and it remains in abeyance (for my lack of correct vocabulary for this situation) for his lifetime and then be converyed to the son? There was no 2nd Baron of Reith? What does it mean to the individual that a title was disclaimed? Is it political? Does it affect properties? Does it remove obligations to the  crown?

Can someone explain this situation and why it might happen? I can't find an explanation and so I ask here.

Thanks in advance.
Logged
PruNordstrom

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 742

Offline Offline

Posts: 3097





Ignore
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2017, 04:18:40 AM »

Quote
Hon Henry Richard Isaac Thynn (b 2016)
_. Viscountess Weymouth, wife of Viscount Weymouth, son and heir of the Marquess of Bath, had a son (by a surrogate mother) the Hon Henry Richard Isaac Thynn, born at Beverly Hills, California, USA, 30 Dec, 2016.

From: Peerage News, 9 jan 2017

--> I don't want to discuss anything to do with the grandchildren of the current queen and their children. Please don't go there. <--


I read the articles about this child, the difficulties of the mother during her first pregnancy and the reason they chose this method of having a second child.

I've read the phrase a child had to be 'of the body' of a wife in order to be an heir.

Has anything changed for the titled class to allow the Marquess to use a surrogate? Does this require approval of HM? Or is it simply a matter for the family? Or has this depended on how their individual family interprets whom an heir is and how it is connected to the father?  Do they file legal papers to affirm this type of arrangement for purposes of inheriting a title?
Logged
onar

Small Member
****

Reputation: 116

Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 514





Ignore
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2017, 05:21:09 AM »

Quote
Hon Henry Richard Isaac Thynn (b 2016)
_. Viscountess Weymouth, wife of Viscount Weymouth, son and heir of the Marquess of Bath, had a son (by a surrogate mother) the Hon Henry Richard Isaac Thynn, born at Beverly Hills, California, USA, 30 Dec, 2016.

From: Peerage News, 9 jan 2017

--> I don't want to discuss anything to do with the grandchildren of the current queen and their children. Please don't go there. <--


I read the articles about this child, the difficulties of the mother during her first pregnancy and the reason they chose this method of having a second child.

I've read the phrase a child had to be 'of the body' of a wife in order to be an heir.

Has anything changed for the titled class to allow the Marquess to use a surrogate? Does this require approval of HM? Or is it simply a matter for the family? Or has this depended on how their individual family interprets whom an heir is and how it is connected to the father?  Do they file legal papers to affirm this type of arrangement for purposes of inheriting a title?
I'm not at all an expert in british law, succession, aristocrats etc but by "of the body" I think they mean there was not an adoptation process but the child has biologically come from the parents. Probably, with the relatively new method of surrogation, the law/the custom has to be clarified.
Logged
rosella

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 487

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2270





Ignore
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2017, 05:57:12 AM »

As far as I know, and I'm certainly no legal expert, 'of the body' means born of the legally married husband and wife, that is the wife gave birth from her body and her husband was the father of the child. The Queen certainly wouldn't get involved, but if, God forbid, anything happened to the older boy, (brother to the baby), or as an adult he did not produce an heir, then, as the law now stands, the man born of a surrogate would have to mount a legal challenge in order to be recognised as the heir in line to his father's/brother's peerage. That is as the law now stands. Hopefully, by the time these two boys are grown the law regarding surrogacy and the peerage will be changed.
Logged
onar

Small Member
****

Reputation: 116

Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 514





Ignore
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2017, 06:29:09 PM »

thank you for the clarification, rosella!!!
Logged
Margaret

Large Member
******

Reputation: 431

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1273





Ignore
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2017, 01:27:02 AM »

Quote
Hon Henry Richard Isaac Thynn (b 2016)
_. Viscountess Weymouth, wife of Viscount Weymouth, son and heir of the Marquess of Bath, had a son (by a surrogate mother) the Hon Henry Richard Isaac Thynn, born at Beverly Hills, California, USA, 30 Dec, 2016.

From: Peerage News, 9 jan 2017

--> I don't want to discuss anything to do with the grandchildren of the current queen and their children. Please don't go there. <--


I read the articles about this child, the difficulties of the mother during her first pregnancy and the reason they chose this method of having a second child.

I've read the phrase a child had to be 'of the body' of a wife in order to be an heir.

Has anything changed for the titled class to allow the Marquess to use a surrogate? Does this require approval of HM? Or is it simply a matter for the family? Or has this depended on how their individual family interprets whom an heir is and how it is connected to the father?  Do they file legal papers to affirm this type of arrangement for purposes of inheriting a title?
I'm not at all an expert in british law, succession, aristocrats etc but by "of the body" I think they mean there was not an adoptation process but the child has biologically come from the parents. Probably, with the relatively new method of surrogation, the law/the custom has to be clarified.

"Heirs of the body", or "of his body" or "of her body", are simply words of limitation which determine the class of persons to whom a devise of inheritable property passes according to law.   The inheritance of a peerage is merely the inheritance of a form of property akin to real property.  In the case of most peerages, they pass to the 'heirs of his body", meaning the peerage passes to the legitimate, natural, heir of the man to whom the grant was originally made.  The body in question is the man's, not his wife's, but till very recently one would expect a man's legitimate children would be born from his wife's body.  The old laws were quite complex but have been modified by statute,  and also by the common law which enables judges to re-interpret  laws based on the circumstances before them in a particular case.  Judges are often called upon to apply to modern situations laws which were made in earlier centuries when the situation now presented would not have been contemplated, and as a result the law is expanded.  I am not an expert in this field of law, but I do not think that it would, or should,  take much of a stretch by a willing jurist, or parliament, to expand the definition of "of his body" to include a child born from the sperm of a man which had been united with an ovum from his wife in a laboratory and gestated in the body of a surrogate.  The relevant body is his, not the woman who incubated the child, and as long as the genetic material matched samples from him and his wife and a declaration was obtained as to parentage, which is a process that is is available in respect of surrogacies, and which I mentioned in a previous post on this subject, I do not see that it would take a great leap to see the law changed to catch up with this modern reality and ensure that the biological child of this married couple, which would, if born in the usual manner, would otherwise automatically be entitled to take it place in the line and inherit.   The issue definitely needs to be clarified, and I think it is straightforward.  All the elements are readily available and determinable and it should not tax a willing brain too much.  I will not, however, holding my breath.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: