Possible Husbands for Princess Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth II)

[CyrilVladisla]

In Royalty magazine, it was declared:

Rumors about who her future husband might be were soon circulating. Among the candidates were Charles Fitzroy, Earl of Euston; John Dalkeith, son of the Duke of Buccleuch and Charles Manners, Duke of Rutland.
​

If Princess Elizabeth had married Charles John Robert Manners, 10th Duke of Rutland, Manners-Windsor might be the surname used by the children of the Queen in official marriage registry entries.
​

 

[Tilia C.]

Hey, any chance the Queen will dump Philip now and pick up a younger guy, kinda like the Duchess of Alba????

Hey, if you say no, why not?

The poor Duke! Do you already have some other man in mind?

But unlike Elizabeth Taylor, the Duchess of Alba never dumped a husband. She was widowed twice. She's an old school catholic who found it hard to accecpt the divorces of some of her children.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

The poor Duke! Do you already have some other man in mind?

But unlike Elizabeth Taylor, the Duchess of Alba never dumped a husband. She was widowed twice. She's an old school catholic who found it hard to accecpt the divorces of some of her children.

I hear Russell Brand is still available.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Hey, any chance the Queen will dump Philip now and pick up a younger guy, kinda like the Duchess of Alba????

Hey, if you say no, why not?

Heu... you don't have your facts straight, I am afraid. The Duchess of Alba never "dumped" anyone.

In 1947 Doña Cayetana married Don Luis Martínez de Irujo y Artázcoz, son of the Duke of Sotomayor.

In 1972 Don Luis died, leaving Doña Cayetana widowed with six children.

In 1978 Doña Cayetana married with Jesús Aguirre y Ortiz de Zárate. No issue came from this marriage.

In 2001 Jesús Aguirre died, making Doña Cayetana widowed for the second time.

In 2011 Doña Cayetana married with her present spouse, Alfonso Diez Carabantes.

 

[Ish]

If Princess Elizabeth had married Charles John Robert Manners, 10th Duke of Rutland, Manners-Windsor might be the surname used by the children of the Queen in official marriage registry entries.
​

Or not. Had she married another man the whole situation regarding the surname/House Name might have gone down completely differently.

 

[Ish]

Heu... you don't have your facts straight, I am afraid. The Duchess of Alba never "dumped" anyone.

In 1947 Doña Cayetana married Don Luis Martínez de Irujo y Artázcoz, son of the Duke of Sotomayor.

In 1972 Don Luis died, leaving Doña Cayetana widowed with six children.

In 1978 Doña Cayetana married with Jesús Aguirre y Ortiz de Zárate. No issue came from this marriage.

In 2001 Jesús Aguirre died, making Doña Cayetana widowed for the second time.

In 2011 Doña Cayetana married with her present spouse, Alfonso Diez Carabantes.

So, what you're saying is that the Duchess of Alba is more of a black widow than a love 'em and leave 'em type, right?

 

[GracieGiraffe]

So, what you're saying is that the Duchess of Alba is more of a black widow than a love 'em and leave 'em type, right?

But a very Catholic one, apparently.

 

[Curryong]

Is Alfonzo Diez Carabantes in good health?

 

[Ish]

I don't know, but as he's in his early-to-mid-sixties and she's in her late eighties, I don't think it's expected that she'll be a widow again.

 

[Lee-Z]

Hey, any chance the Queen will dump Philip now and pick up a younger guy????

Hey, if you say no, why not?

Imo, they have a relationship that works really well for both of them, with mutual respect, humor, love and the same sense of duty.

The only thing that could happen to break them up is if P.Philip gives her an ultimatum: the corgies go or i go
But in that case i don't think she'd take up with a new guy

 

[Zach]

The general consensus amongst authors and journalists (and people who have replied to this post) is that Elizabeth was pretty smitten with Philip from a very early age.

It is really interesting to consider the alternatives though!
In 'the Private Life of Elizabeth II' I read that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were keen for Elizabeth to spend more time with eligible young British Aristocrats. Obviously at the time they hadn't succeeded to their titles, but I'll just use them as a reference.
There was the Duke of Grafton. The first Duke of Grafton was the illegitimate son of King Charles II, which sort of gave him a bit of royal blood (even though most British aristocrats can find some royalty in their family trees if you look back far enough).
There was also the Earl of Carnarvon. He was a lifelong friend and her racing manager. It's interesting to consider that his grandmother, Almina Herbert (nee Wombell), Countess of Carnarvon, was the illegitimate daughter of Alfred de Rothschild. I'm sure all of the conspiracy theories would have a collective heart-attack if a Rothschild descendent sat on the throne of England!
There was also Diana's father, the Earl Spencer.
This was just what was mentioned in the book - I have also read that the Dukes of Buccleuch and Rutland were candidates.

I'm interested to know if there were any other *royal* candidates. After WW1, and especially after WW2 foreign royal marriages were considered to be a terrible idea. The groom would have had to have been Protestant, and non-German. This basically leaves the Scandanvian countries, the Netherlands and Greece.

It's also interesting to consider what would've happened to some lucky young English Lord if he married Princess Elizabeth. Would their descendants still use their title, would their property become part of the crown estate?

 

[fearghas]

The general consensus amongst authors and journalists (and people who have replied to this post) is that Elizabeth was pretty smitten with Philip from a very early age.

ItIt's also interesting to consider what would've happened to some lucky young English Lord if he married Princess Elizabeth. Would their descendants still use their title, would their property become part of the crown estate?

The use of titles intriuges me also. Lets say the Duke of Grafton. He would have been the Duke in his own right. Would the Queen have given him another title? If their first child had been a boy, lets say they called him Charles, then he would in time be the Duke of Grafton in his own right. Would the title have been subsumed to the crown for ever though. If his heir had been a woman, and Queen, would the title of Duke of Grafton then gone to his bother and thus back out of the Royal family?

 

[Curryong]

^ The trouble is, as far as the Scandi monarchies were concerned, there were hardly any candidates available. Prince Harald of Norway was eleven years younger than Elizabeth. In Denmark Prince Oluf, King Christian's nephew, made an unequal marriage in 1947. So did the youngest son of the King of Sweden, Carl Johan, who wed in 1946 in New York. Another son who was single was Prince Bertil who was born in 1912. He was already in love with his future wife.

I think it was the same with the Netherlands, no single Princes of a suitable age. I've never read of any being put forward. It looks as if it was Philip or a British aristocrat and I think Elizabeth's parents may have been secretly hoping for the latter.

 

[Ish]

The use of titles intriuges me also. Lets say the Duke of Grafton. He would have been the Duke in his own right. Would the Queen have given him another title? If their first child had been a boy, lets say they called him Charles, then he would in time be the Duke of Grafton in his own right. Would the title have been subsumed to the crown for ever though. If his heir had been a woman, and Queen, would the title of Duke of Grafton then gone to his bother and thus back out of the Royal family?

If, say, the Duke of Grafton had married the then Princess Elizabeth he may have been given his own Dukedom on his marriage (like the DoE), as at the time he wasn't the Duke, just his father's heir apparent and held no titles in his own right. He may have also then been created a HRH and a Prince, or he may not have - the DoE was styled as an HRH right away, but wasn't created a Prince in the UK until well into his marriage.

Had she married an Earl (or another peer lower than a Duke) it's likely he would have been created a Duke, like as what happened when Princess Louise, daughter of the future Edward VII, married the then Earl of Fife.

The title situation wouldn't be too dissimilar from the situation we have now; their eldest son would be in line to inherit both their titles, and upon doing so his father's titles would merge with the crown. It's possible that if a woman inherited the crown without the peerage being merged with the crown then the peerage would pass on to someone else - so, like now, if something happened to Charles, William, and George, causing Charlotte to be the Queen's heir apparent then the DoE title would go to Andrew and not merge with the crown at any point. It's also possible that if the Queen and her husband had more than one son, or if the heir apparent had more than one son, they could decide to have the Dukedom recreate for a younger son after it merges with the crown - which is what is planned with the DoE's title now; it's expected to be recreated for Edward after it merges with the crown.

As for properties... They would be inherited by any children of the Queen and her husband, but they would be private property (like Sandringham), not Crown property (like Buckingham Palace).

 

[Skippyboo]

You forgot Harry in your theoretical killing spree. If Charlotte is the heir. Philip's title would go to Harry before Andrew if it didn't already merge with the crown.

If the Duke of Grafton was the queen's husband, it the same scenario as Philip's title, eldest son would inherit on father's death and it merges with the crown when the Queen died. If there were no males born to Queen and Duke of Grafton, the dukedom would go to the next male in the line of the Duke's family a younger brother or if he only had sisters it would go up a level to the families of the duke's uncles etc until a male was found. If no males, it merges with the crown as an extinct title and can be reissued.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[suztav]

If, say, the Duke of Grafton had married the then Princess Elizabeth he may have been given his own Dukedom on his marriage (like the DoE), as at the time he wasn't the Duke, just his father's heir apparent and held no titles in his own right. He may have also then been created a HRH and a Prince, or he may not have - the DoE was styled as an HRH right away, but wasn't created a Prince in the UK until well into his marriage.

Had she married an Earl (or another peer lower than a Duke) it's likely he would have been created a Duke, like as what happened when Princess Louise, daughter of the future Edward VII, married the then Earl of Fife.

The title situation wouldn't be too dissimilar from the situation we have now; their eldest son would be in line to inherit both their titles, and upon doing so his father's titles would merge with the crown. It's possible that if a woman inherited the crown without the peerage being merged with the crown then the peerage would pass on to someone else - so, like now, if something happened to Charles, William, and George, causing Charlotte to be the Queen's heir apparent then the DoE title would go to Andrew and not merge with the crown at any point. It's also possible that if the Queen and her husband had more than one son, or if the heir apparent had more than one son, they could decide to have the Dukedom recreate for a younger son after it merges with the crown - which is what is planned with the DoE's title now; it's expected to be recreated for Edward after it merges with the crown.

As for properties... They would be inherited by any children of the Queen and her husband, but they would be private property (like Sandringham), not Crown property (like Buckingham Palace).

If I am not mistaken it has already been decided that Edward will inherit his father's title as the DOE.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Ish]

You forgot Harry in your theoretical killing spree. If Charlotte is the heir. Philip's title would go to Harry before Andrew if it didn't already merge with the crown.

If the Duke of Grafton was the queen's husband, it the same scenario as Philip's title, eldest son would inherit on father's death and it merges with the crown when the Queen died. If there were no males born to Queen and Duke of Grafton, the dukedom would go to the next male in the line of the Duke's family a younger brother or if he only had sisters it would go up a level to the families of the duke's uncles etc until a male was found. If no males, it merges with the crown as an extinct title and can be reissued.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I did forget Harry - apologies to him and thank you for the correction.

You are right; in the theoretical world where the Queen married the DoG, had they only had daughters, his titles would have passed on to whoever comes next in that line of succession - a younger brother or cousin, or what have you.

If there were no male-line male descendants it would have become extinct on his passing, but could theoretically be recreated for one of the couples' grandsons.

 

[Ish]

If I am not mistaken it has already been decided that Edward will inherit his father's title as the DOE.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

It's a little more complicated than that.

You can't decide who inherits your peerage, the rules are established when it's created.

The heir apparent of the DoE is his eldest son (Charles), whose heir apparent is his eldest son (William), whose heir apparent is his son (George), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Harry), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Andrew), whose heir presumptive is his brother (Edward). In order for Edward to <I>inherit</I> the title, everyone between him and his father in that line would have to die.

What's more likely is that at some point in the future two things will happen: 1. The Queen will die and Charles will become King, and 2. The DoE will die and Charles will inherit his father's titles. When BOTH of these have happened, the title will be merged with the crown and then, and only then, it will be available for recreation. At that point, it is expected that Edward will be created the 1st Duke of Edinburgh in its 4th (I believe, I'm going from memory there) creation.

If something happens to disrupt that - if, somehow Charlotte becomes Queen and Harry becomes DoE, then the title won't be available for recreation.

 

[suztav]

It's a little more complicated than that.

You can't decide who inherits your peerage, the rules are established when it's created.

The heir apparent of the DoE is his eldest son (Charles), whose heir apparent is his eldest son (William), whose heir apparent is his son (George), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Harry), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Andrew), whose heir presumptive is his brother (Edward). In order for Edward to <I>inherit</I> the title, everyone between him and his father in that line would have to die.

What's more likely is that at some point in the future two things will happen: 1. The Queen will die and Charles will become King, and 2. The DoE will die and Charles will inherit his father's titles. When BOTH of these have happened, the title will be merged with the crown and then, and only then, it will be available for recreation. At that point, it is expected that Edward will be created the 1st Duke of Edinburgh in its 4th (I believe, I'm going from memory there) creation.

If something happens to disrupt that - if, somehow Charlotte becomes Queen and Harry becomes DoE, then the title won't be available for recreation.

This is not my personal opinion but something I read when Edward was given an Earldom upon his marriage and not a royal dukedom.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Skippyboo]

Plus Charles, William and George all have to die before the Queen and Philip to keep the DoE title from merging with the crown so the chances are very slim for that doomsday scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

This is not my personal opinion but something I read when Edward was given an Earldom upon his marriage and not a royal dukedom.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

The stickler here is that it is The Queen's and the DoE's wishes that when the time comes, Edward will be created the Duke of Edinburgh. That will happen when Philip's title merges with the crown and it is then available for recreation. As its been expressed that this is the intent of the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title, I really don't see Charles or William not respecting them.

There is a whole thread discussing this at http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html and from there a link to further discussions.

 

[vkrish]

I feel those british aristocrats would have felt far more entitled and indulged. May be he would have turned out to be another prince henrik of denmark.

Prince Philip has always accepted and demonstrated that he is very fortunate to get into this, and did all he could for the firm. He is so grateful, save for the 'amoeba' rant, but even tat was 'someone heard someone saying', nothing in front of press or public..


And about how it happend, we do not know exactly what happend. Anything was possible.
It is very easy to sell romance and love.. Especially in those days.. And today the collective goodwill they have accumulated for 70 years makes us believe that.that a 13yo can decide her life partner, hang on to that for 8 more years, and coax her parents and their court into agreement.
Just giving another perpective. Maybe just some feelers that king and queen wanted a british match, but still had to giv in to true luv, assuaged those who disliked an alliance so much linked to nazis.thus al r happy..

 

[vkrish]

the basis for my above reasoning this way is
1. As earlier pointed out, there were no suitable protestant reigning princes..
2. There is no precedent of getting a male consort from british aristocracy,they come with baggage and political connections. So rather than risk, the time-tested method of getting an obedient foreign prince is always a safe option..
3. Mountbatten was pushing pushing we know, but maybe no one could find a good reason to say NO..
4. Of course she could have fallen for him, any girl would, but thats not the first thing you see while selecting the consort of the empire..(they still pretend its the empire, name changed, dont they)

And since the public had enough reasons to dislike him (just dislike, nothing more), the love card was played..they 'gave in'..

But whatever way or however it happend, he is the best husband she could have.. And i guess that is one of the very few points on which we ll have unanimous opinion..
God i am gonna be a great fiction/conspiracy writer..l

 

[vkrish]

PS: If anyone replies to the above posts, please dont quote the whole post, it will take up so much spce, just quote the relevant lines..
Once again, i have just put another perspective thats all.
I am a huge fan of the couple but cant put up with too much glorifying and romanticising..
Thank you..

 

[padams2359]

Prince Philip has always accepted and demonstrated that he is very fortunate to get into this, and did all he could for the firm. He is so grateful, save for the 'amoeba' rant, but even tat was 'someone heard someone saying', nothing in front of press or public..


I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but I think he said this in an interview many years ago.

 

[vkrish]

Even i thought so thats why i searched a lot of articles. Everywhere it is "complained to friends/moaned/cried out.." nowhere was a mention of an interview, leave alone the publication/interviewer..

 

[Osipi]

The DoE may have felt a bit out of place starting off and rightly had some mixed feelings about stuff but in the long run, there were compromises. A valid complaint was "I'm the only male that can't pass his name down to his children" type of comment was solved by the decree that all descendants that would in need of a surname would use Mountbatten-Windsor but the actual family would still remain the House of Windsor. Its often been said that although Elizabeth is the reigning monarch, Philip most definitely is the head of the household.

Instead of sitting and moping, the Duke created quite a role for himself and has accomplished quite a bit in his own right over his lifetime as well as being supportive of his wife, The Queen.

 

[padams2359]

Even i thought so thats why i searched a lot of articles. Everywhere it is "complained to friends/moaned/cried out.." nowhere was a mention of an interview, leave alone the publication/interviewer..

I don't know why, but I think it was on YouTube n the same interview when they were talking about finances and how (sarcastically) he would have to give up polo and rent rooms in the palace, or something else as ridiculous.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Henry Herbert, Lord Porchester first met Princess Elizabeth in 1944, when she was seventeen and he was twenty. Henry and Elizabeth shared a love of racing and breeding horses.

 

[Curryong]

I think the Queen and Lord Porchester would have been perfectly happy together, with lots and lots to talk about over the breakfast table. The Queen Mother, equally enthralled by horse racing, would have been thrilled. However, I don't think there was anyone else for the Queen but Prince Philip since that first meeting when she was a child.