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 ... 131 132 [133] 134   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Wessex Family  (Read 441637 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kristallinchen

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 258

Online Online

Austria Austria

Posts: 2186





Ignore
« Reply #1980 on: March 10, 2019, 11:30:26 PM »

Very interesting discussion altough at times I get a bit confused with the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales...

The BRF is to my knowledge the only royal family, who does this title upgrading (or downgrading for that matter).

Also just a hypothetical question as it may probably never happen, but can the RF run out of titles? And if so could the Queen create a new one like Duke of London or such? CG obviously did this for Adrienne.

But I suppose all titles in the UK must've some historical significance. It's a petty that so many of the ducal titles won't be used anymore like Connaught, Albany or Cumberland.

Funny enough Duke of London was IIRK proposed for Churchill.  And yes the BRF is an odd bunch especially when it comes to titles.

That's indeed funny.
Logged
Kristallinchen

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 258

Online Online

Austria Austria

Posts: 2186





Ignore
« Reply #1981 on: March 10, 2019, 11:34:04 PM »

Very interesting discussion altough at times I get a bit confused with the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales...

The BRF is to my knowledge the only royal family, who does this title upgrading (or downgrading for that matter).

Also just a hypothetical question as it may probably never happen, but can the RF run out of titles? And if so could the Queen create a new one like Duke of London or such? CG obviously did this for Adrienne.

But I suppose all titles in the UK must've some historical significance. It's a petty that so many of the ducal titles won't be used anymore like Connaught, Albany or Cumberland.

I think there are still people who can come forward and claim those titles (except for the Counnaught, but since it's located in Ireland that would open up a can of worms to recreate that title).  Like Ernest-Augustus of Hannover could be known Duke of Cumberland.  It's highly unlikely that they will be restored to the present descendants of the Dukes of Albany and Cumberland.

Yes I know about this. But AFAIK no one has ever come forward to claim these titles. If necessary and possible why not let the current holders sign some document of rejection?
Logged
Bunnyette

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 10

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 29





Ignore
« Reply #1982 on: March 11, 2019, 12:12:53 AM »

One thing is for certain when Charles takes over the top title the royal family is going to be greatly pared down. I think Andrew and Edward better prepare for that and make sure their children are equipped with education or a skill of some kind to pay their own way.

I think Edward has already prepared himself for this.

Edward more than Andrew!  While their marriage had a bumpy start (fake sheiks, filming the nephew etc...), they’ve proven themselves since and caused little trouble for HM.
Logged
Celia

Warned
Large Member
******

Reputation: 406

Offline Offline

Posts: 1510





Ignore
« Reply #1983 on: March 11, 2019, 12:28:10 AM »

The queen supposedly offered Churchill a dukedom --duke of London.  He turned it down because a) he didn't have the funds to support a ducal lifestyle (and growing up at Blenheim he'd know!) and b) his son wanted a Parliamentary career and didn't want to end up in the Lords.  Son turned out to be a bit of a loser, so he needn't have worried...

I think EA of Hannover made some moves at one point 20 years ago (?) to get his Cumberland title recognized again.  Didn't come to much, obviously. 
Logged
Hibou

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 813

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4486





Ignore
« Reply #1984 on: March 11, 2019, 01:15:57 AM »

One thing is for certain when Charles takes over the top title the royal family is going to be greatly pared down. I think Andrew and Edward better prepare for that and make sure their children are equipped with education or a skill of some kind to pay their own way.

I think Edward has already prepared himself for this.

Edward more than Andrew!  While their marriage had a bumpy start (fake sheiks, filming the nephew etc...), they’ve proven themselves since and caused little trouble for HM.

Edward absolutely knew he would be off the list as would his kids. I think Sophie has her feet on the ground and given them a good perspective. Andrew is the one that's the problem because I believe he and Fergie led the two girls to believe they were going to be full time royals working for the firm for life.
Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 749

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2127





Ignore
« Reply #1985 on: March 11, 2019, 01:26:09 AM »

I have heard from friends in the UK who I believe know the royals that Beatrice wasn't told until she had actually finished her degree that she wasn't going to be a full-time working royal. That she was told by everyone - The Queen, Charles etc that she would be like Princess Alexandra and only when she finished her degree was she told she was surplus to requirements. Eugenie made it clear to these same people that she wasn't interested in that lifestyle but Bea was. If true then it was cruel to leave it until Bea was in her early 20s to tell her that what she had been educated and raised for all her life to that point was, after all, not going to be her future.

The 'smaller royal family', as I understand it is not about stopping those who currently do royal duties from doing them but not replacing the older royals with new cousins but allowing natural attrition to make the family smaller. As the Kents retire they won't be replaced. The Gloucesters are the same age as Charles and Camilla and so won't be retired on 'age' grounds as that would raise the question about how old the monarch should be - should the monarch be monarch into their 80s or 90s???

The size of the working royal family now is 15 working royals aged from 34 to 92. It will be around a quarter of a century before the next generation really take up the idea of working full-time as royals by which time the number of working royals will probably be down to 7-8.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 482

Offline Offline

Posts: 1987





Ignore
« Reply #1986 on: March 11, 2019, 01:33:21 AM »

I have heard from friends in the UK who I believe know the royals that Beatrice wasn't told until she had actually finished her degree that she wasn't going to be a full-time working royal. That she was told by everyone - The Queen, Charles etc that she would be like Princess Alexandra and only when she finished her degree was she told she was surplus to requirements. Eugenie made it clear to these same people that she wasn't interested in that lifestyle but Bea was. If true then it was cruel to leave it until Bea was in her early 20s to tell her that what she had been educated and raised for all her life to that point was, after all, not going to be her future.

The 'smaller royal family', as I understand it is not about stopping those who currently do royal duties from doing them but not replacing the older royals with new cousins but allowing natural attrition to make the family smaller. As the Kents retire they won't be replaced. The Gloucesters are the same age as Charles and Camilla and so won't be retired on 'age' grounds as that would raise the question about how old the monarch should be - should the monarch be monarch into their 80s or 90s???

The size of the working royal family now is 15 working royals aged from 34 to 92. It will be around a quarter of a century before the next generation really take up the idea of working full-time as royals by which time the number of working royals will probably be down to 7-8.

Most countries get by with 2-6 "working royals"...the Sovereign, Consort, Heir Couple, and a couple extra.  I think Charles will take it down to 10...his children and his siblings...maybe the Gloucesters but they can retire without raising concerns as they are so remote.  If William does the same that will be 9/10.

I feel for Beatrice if they waited until after college to tell her but she graduated in 2011...nearly 8 years to get it together and carve her own path.  Andrew and Sarah are mainly at fault for the way they raised their kids.
Logged
tsarinya

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 35

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 139





Ignore
« Reply #1987 on: March 11, 2019, 01:48:56 AM »

I wonder - when people say the York girls were raised differently because they had a title va Zara and Peter, how is that so? Are there certain regulations and rules that the York girls had to adhere to that Z&P didn’t? Or is it more down to snobbery from Andrew & Fergie? ‘My daughter is HRH so obviously she’s more important than you’ etc.
Logged
Hibou

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 813

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4486





Ignore
« Reply #1988 on: March 11, 2019, 01:55:36 AM »

I have heard from friends in the UK who I believe know the royals that Beatrice wasn't told until she had actually finished her degree that she wasn't going to be a full-time working royal. That she was told by everyone - The Queen, Charles etc that she would be like Princess Alexandra and only when she finished her degree was she told she was surplus to requirements. Eugenie made it clear to these same people that she wasn't interested in that lifestyle but Bea was. If true then it was cruel to leave it until Bea was in her early 20s to tell her that what she had been educated and raised for all her life to that point was, after all, not going to be her future.

The 'smaller royal family', as I understand it is not about stopping those who currently do royal duties from doing them but not replacing the older royals with new cousins but allowing natural attrition to make the family smaller. As the Kents retire they won't be replaced. The Gloucesters are the same age as Charles and Camilla and so won't be retired on 'age' grounds as that would raise the question about how old the monarch should be - should the monarch be monarch into their 80s or 90s???

The size of the working royal family now is 15 working royals aged from 34 to 92. It will be around a quarter of a century before the next generation really take up the idea of working full-time as royals by which time the number of working royals will probably be down to 7-8.

Most countries get by with 2-6 "working royals"...the Sovereign, Consort, Heir Couple, and a couple extra.  I think Charles will take it down to 10...his children and his siblings...maybe the Gloucesters but they can retire without raising concerns as they are so remote.  If William does the same that will be 9/10.

I feel for Beatrice if they waited until after college to tell her but she graduated in 2011...nearly 8 years to get it together and carve her own path.  Andrew and Sarah are mainly at fault for the way they raised their kids.

I feel for Beatrice too. She seems like a genuinely nice girl but she was totally mislead her entire life. Andrew in particular stuck his head in the sand, and Sarah was all to happy to be his enabler. 
Logged
Lady Willoughby

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 906

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2578


Circa Regna Tonat




Ignore
« Reply #1989 on: March 11, 2019, 02:03:33 AM »

I have heard from friends in the UK who I believe know the royals that Beatrice wasn't told until she had actually finished her degree that she wasn't going to be a full-time working royal. That she was told by everyone - The Queen, Charles etc that she would be like Princess Alexandra and only when she finished her degree was she told she was surplus to requirements. Eugenie made it clear to these same people that she wasn't interested in that lifestyle but Bea was. If true then it was cruel to leave it until Bea was in her early 20s to tell her that what she had been educated and raised for all her life to that point was, after all, not going to be her future.

The 'smaller royal family', as I understand it is not about stopping those who currently do royal duties from doing them but not replacing the older royals with new cousins but allowing natural attrition to make the family smaller. As the Kents retire they won't be replaced. The Gloucesters are the same age as Charles and Camilla and so won't be retired on 'age' grounds as that would raise the question about how old the monarch should be - should the monarch be monarch into their 80s or 90s???

The size of the working royal family now is 15 working royals aged from 34 to 92. It will be around a quarter of a century before the next generation really take up the idea of working full-time as royals by which time the number of working royals will probably be down to 7-8.

If that is what happened than that is unfortunate, but the Queen is still in charge (firmly so if we were talking 8 years ago) and could easily have directed Bea into an active royal role that would have solidified Beas path in the family. That was 8 years ago and I still give HM another decade. That’s nearly 20 years for Bea to get stuck in there. I think the idea of Bea doing any royal work was all in her fathers head & he’s done irreparable harm to her by puffing himself and his family up. JMO
Logged

CyrilSebastian

Large Member
******

Reputation: 93

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1317





Ignore
« Reply #1990 on: March 13, 2019, 12:07:22 AM »

Will Prince Edward be 1st Earl of Forfar or 3rd Earl of Forfar?
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 482

Offline Offline

Posts: 1987





Ignore
« Reply #1991 on: March 13, 2019, 12:09:04 AM »

Will Prince Edward be 1st Earl of Forfar or 3rd Earl of Forfar?

I think it's first earl of the second creation. 
Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 749

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2127





Ignore
« Reply #1992 on: March 13, 2019, 12:33:31 AM »

Deleted - wrong thread
Logged
Duchess of Suffolk

Large Member
******

Reputation: 351

Offline Offline

Posts: 1563





Ignore
« Reply #1993 on: March 18, 2019, 12:37:56 AM »

March 10

The Queen has been pleased to grant The Earl of Wessex the additional title of Earl of Forfar.
Their Royal Highnesses will use the title The Earl and Countess of Forfar when in Scotland.






March 14

Earl of Wessex visited the Bradford Synagogue







March 14

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex attended a Northern Ballet performance of Victoria





March 15

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex visited the 'Pland Stainless' in Leeds today for it's centenary.





Logged

Lord G¡n

Small Member
****

Reputation: 104

Offline Offline

Posts: 678





Ignore
« Reply #1994 on: April 23, 2019, 11:26:17 PM »

Are 11-year-olds allowed to drive  cars in private estates? I think this happened last year too, but didn't make it to the front pages because of the affair in Mallorca.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk...age-a-9_1555966649397.jpg
Last year
https://pbs.twimg.com/car...rmat=jpg&name=600x314
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 131 132 [133] 134   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: