Earl and Countess of Wessex: Visit to Gibraltar - June 11-13, 2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortionately for the Gibraltarians, I highly doubt that Prince Edward would be the next Governor. There has always been talk that members of the Royal Family would serve as Governors-General in the Commonwealth Realms/Colonies and the only examples I can think of are Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was GG of Australia from 1944-7 as symbolic reminder of Australia's loyalty to the Crown as it increasingly turned to America for its security needs; and the Duke of Windsor, who was Governor of the Bahamas for most of WWII to keep him out of trouble.
 
:previous:There was also the Marquess of Lorne, a son-in-law of Queen Victoria, who served as Governor-General of Canada. Later, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, also served as Governor General of Canada. And finally there was the Earl of Athlone who served as Governor-General of South Africa and later Governor-General of Canada.

But I suspect at the moment that the Queen needs Edward and Sophie to stay in the UK to support her. Plus they have young children in school, which makes it more complicated if they have to pick up and move.
 
:previous:Indeed. A move like the one bandied about would also be politically difficult in the 21st century unlike previously in history.
 
If Britain did what the Europeans do and allow wives who married in to use Princess own name they wouldn't do this but they like to use a person's name not just a title and so the maiden names continue to be used by the press.

You hit the nail on the head. If we had Princess Sophie, Princess Camilla and Princess Catherine I doubt very much we'd see so much use of their maiden names. The titles Countess and Duchess don't mean much to most Brits let alone those overseas.
 
You hit the nail on the head. If we had Princess Sophie, Princess Camilla and Princess Catherine I doubt very much we'd see so much use of their maiden names. The titles Countess and Duchess don't mean much to most Brits let alone those overseas.

I agree totally. Those who don't know as much about the Royal Fam as i do (i.e. my friends) can't get around the fact that they think a princess should come before a duchess (or a countess) and not the other way around. To most people, (besides the title Queen) a princess is next in line.

I wonder if - in the far future - WIlliam will change it so that does happen. I recall reading somewhere that he didn't mind if people call his wife Princess Catherine, and that both he and Kate would have preferred that rather than D and D of Cambridge (of course I don't know how true that is.
 
I agree totally. Those who don't know as much about the Royal Fam as i do (i.e. my friends) can't get around the fact that they think a princess should come before a duchess (or a countess) and not the other way around. To most people, (besides the title Queen) a princess is next in line.

I wonder if - in the far future - WIlliam will change it so that does happen. I recall reading somewhere that he didn't mind if people call his wife Princess Catherine, and that both he and Kate would have preferred that rather than D and D of Cambridge (of course I don't know how true that is.

I prefer the way the British Royal Family do it. Catherine, Camilla, Sophie (and the various European "princesses") are no more royal than you or I in my eyes. I really like Sophie and Camilla and admire the way in which they perform their duties but that doesn't change how I feel about the issue. Zara and Lady Sarah Chatto are more Royal than all three put together despite neither having royal titles.

I agree with the Queen that they should not be given precedence over those who have been born Royal such as Princesses Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandra.

I know it's going to be an unpopular point of view.
 
I like the BRF way but I disagree that Zara and Lady Sarah act more royal than Camilla, Sophie and Catherine. Of any out of the 3 Sophie should be made a Princess in her own right.
 
I like the BRF way but I disagree that Zara and Lady Sarah act more royal than Camilla, Sophie and Catherine. Of any out of the 3 Sophie should be made a Princess in her own right.

I didn't say they act more royal, merely that they are more royal. Both Lady Sarah and Zara come across as being completely down to earth.

I don't think any of the royal ladies, whether royal ladies by birth or marriage, (with the possible exception of Princess Michael) act with airs and graces. They all seem down to earth from what I see.
 
Well they obviously are more royal, they were born into royalty? So I don't understand the point.

Sophie, Camilla and Catherine all act far better than certainly Zara does, I'm not that interested in the Chatto's they just stay out of the limelight and lead normal lives as far as I know.
 
Catherine, Camilla, Sophie (and the various European "princesses") are no more royal than you or I in my eyes. I really like Sophie and Camilla and admire the way in which they perform their duties but that doesn't change how I feel about the issue. Zara and Lady Sarah Chatto are more Royal than all three put together despite neither having royal titles.

Yes, I see your point of view and don't necessarily disagree with it; but when a commoner marries a royal, she becomes Countess of This, Duchess of That, and loses her Christian name, and it only seems to revert back if she becomes a Queen. E.G. (looking far into the future) QUeen Catherine. And yet, the Queen Consort still wasn't born royal.
 
Well they obviously are more royal, they were born into royalty? So I don't understand the point.

Sophie, Camilla and Catherine all act far better than certainly Zara does, I'm not that interested in the Chatto's they just stay out of the limelight and lead normal lives as far as I know.

Sorry, I expressed myself badly.

My point was that to me there's something off for women who are not really royal to be afforded the styles and titles of royalty when women who are royal - Sarah and Zara, are not. Tim Lawrence, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, Angus Ogilvy did not become royal when they married.

I dislike the idea of a woman adopting the "rank" of her husband while men do not. I feel the same about a woman becoming a Countess or a Duchess if she marries an Earl or a Duke, it's not just about the royal family. I think women are better than that and don't need a man to give them status (and I stress I have nothing against men, I genuinely believe both genders are equal).

I can't explain it and there's no logic to it, it's just something I feel strongly about - that who you marry (whether you are a man or a woman) makes not a jot of difference to who you are.
 
Sophie is fit and her and Catherine are the glamorous woman in the BRF.
 

I don't know how Sophie finally learned about cut, color and pattern helping at accentuate the positive for a wearer - but I am so glad she learned it. So many people pick out clothes they like, rather than clothes that LIKE THEM.
My outfit today is a great example of the former - :lol:. But then, I am not a Countess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom