Lady Louise 3: October 2005 - March 2007

[waywellian]

Hi. I'm glad you liked the photo I posted of Lady Louise on the horse, though I have to admit it was my own comment that the horse was very big, it wasn't a Daily Mail exaggeration....so blame me for that! I just meant it with regard to the size of Lady Louise. Can't you tell I know zilch about horses?!

Claire, I did think that might be Sophie's father Christopher holding the reins but it wasn't mentioned in the Mail article but I agree with you, it definitely looked like him didn't it? It really was a lovely image, though, as it's so rare we see Lady Louise. Personally I think Sophie and Edward are two of the nicest royals around, they don't get anything like enough credit for what they do. I don't know if others agree?

Joanne
www.theroyalist.net

[Scott]

Originally Posted by branchg

I doubt William would become Duke of Edinburgh. If his father died while Philip was still alive, he is likely to become King first. He would then regrant the dukedom to Edward as planned.

Has it not been deemed that the next Duke of Edingburgh will be Prince Edward the Earl of Wessex? I thought that was announced on the day of his marriage to Sophie

Scott

[zeap]

As the Dukeom reverts to the eldest son, it would therefore be Prince Charles who became Duke of Edinburgh. It will therefore be up to him to decide whether or not his brother should inherit the dukeom.

[HMQueenElizabethII]

I have been looking for the Official Christening photo of Lady Louise in April 2004 alot but all of them were in really small version and quite hard to see, has anyone ever seen the picture on any website in a big version?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by zeap

As the Dukeom reverts to the eldest son, it would therefore be Prince Charles who became Duke of Edinburgh. It will therefore be up to him to decide whether or not his brother should inherit the dukeom.

Really? I was sure it had been announced (and settled) when he was made the Earl of Wessex that Edward was going to be the next Duke of Edinburgh. My mistake.

Scott

[bigheadshirmp]

Originally Posted by Scott

Really? I was sure it had been announced (and settled) when he was made the Earl of Wessex that Edward was going to be the next Duke of Edinburgh. My mistake.

Scott

actually....according to the royal family's website....the Earl of Wessex will become the Duke of Edinburgh after the death of his father, the Prince Philip

"BACKGROUND
The Earl of Wessex is the third son and youngest child of The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh. He was born on 10 March 1964 and christened Edward Antony Richard Louis at Buckingham Palace.

He was known as Prince Edward until his marriage, when he was created The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn; at the same time it was announced that His Royal Highness will eventually succeed to the title of The Duke of Edinburgh." (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page2717.asp)

[kelly9480]

It has been discussed numerous times on various boards that Edward cannot directly inherit the Edinburgh title. It goes to Philip's male male-line descendants in order, so Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew are all in line before Edward. When Philip dies, the title will go to the next in line (probably Charles), who will hold the title until he comes to the throne (when all the titles merge into the Crown). Then a new dukedom will be granted to Edward. Unless Parliament changes to Letters Patent of the current dukedom, the above scenario must play out before Edward gets the title. The royals haven't asked Parliament (the only body that can change LPs) to do anything, so it looks like that's what they're planning.

Don't take everything on the official site for the gospel truth. I've found some of their facts completely untrue, with them having long-dead monarchs waging wars and getting married, saying one thing one month and the exact opposite the next (about something that had happened in the past so there should be no mistakes about whether it happened).

[Scott]

Thank you bigheadshrimp and kelly9840 for both your answers. I guess I was actually both right and wrong:) Anyway thank you again for the explanations.

Royal protocol is certainly very confusing for a novice

Regards
Scott

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Scott

Royal protocol is certainly very confusing for a novice

And not just novices, Scott. The success of the Forums depends on questions being asked, those who know the answers sharing their knowledge, the finer details being sorted out, and member discussion along the way. Even then, some questions cannot be answered definitively. For some of us this is what makes the arcane detail of Royal protocols fascinating.

:) Warren

[Toledo]

Here is a question based in something I read recently. I don't know what article on Napoleon I was I reading that explained the noble titles he created in comparision to the previous ones or the ones used in the rest of Europe. But I read he wanted the title holders not just to have a physical place to be noble of but to generate their funds from it. Kind of what the the Duchy of Cornwall is to the Prince of Wales.

So my question is, these other British aristrocrats with titles that are from the middle ages, do they get some kind of influence in those territories? Do they generate an income from the place they are Dukes of Earls from or just get it from their current family holdings?

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Here is a question based in something I read recently. I don't know what article on Napoleon I was I reading that explained the noble titles he created in comparision to the previous ones or the ones used in the rest of Europe. But I read he wanted the title holders not just to have a physical place to be noble of but to generate their funds from it. Kind of what the the Duchy of Cornwall is to the Prince of Wales.

So my question is, these other British aristrocrats with titles that are from the middle ages, do they get some kind of influence in those territories? Do they generate an income from the place they are Dukes of Earls from or just get it from their current family holdings?

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, both part of the monarchy, are the only true territorial peerages still associated with income producing lands and businesses. Certainly, many of the British dukedoms in the peerage have an estate associated with it, while the Westminsters own huge parts of London.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by branchg

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, both part of the monarchy, are the only true territorial peerages still associated with income producing lands and businesses. Certainly, many of the British dukedoms in the peerage have an estate associated with it, while the Westminsters own huge parts of London.

Thanks, I did not know that. :)

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Warren

And not just novices, Scott. The success of the Forums depends on questions being asked, those who know the answers sharing their knowledge, the finer details being sorted out, and member discussion along the way. Even then, some questions cannot be answered definitively. For some of us this is what makes the arcane detail of Royal protocols fascinating.

:) Warren

Thank you Warren. I think I am going to need all the help I can get!!!:)

Regards
Scott

[Claire]

I am told that the new Hello! Magazine says that Lady Louise underwent her eye operation at 18 months. I hope it was successful. The photo of her on the horse was a more recent photo.

[Oppie]

She was on a postcard that some scanned from Balmoral and you can see that she does have an eye problem, but if they were trying to hid it I'm sure they wouldn't have put her on a post card. I think they are just trying to limit her exposure. Also how many people other then royal watchers keep discussing this ? (this is an honest question)

[corazon]

Originally Posted by Oppie

She was on a postcard that some scanned from Balmoral and you can see that she does have an eye problem, but if they were trying to hid it I'm sure they wouldn't have put her on a post card. I think they are just trying to limit her exposure. Also how many people other then royal watchers keep discussing this ? (this is an honest question)

you're right, louise was in the queen's speech 2004 too. Louise have a eye problem and we not see her many times like the anothers royal babys.
but she had a operation, right? when she was 18 months-old said HELLO!

[branchg]

It is within The Queen's gift as the Sovereign to issue new letters patent altering the succession of the Dukedom of Edinburgh to her youngest son at any time. She doesn't need Parliament's consent to alter the royal style or title of any member of her family because she is fount of honour.

Only an alteration to the style, title or succession of the Sovereign or their Consort requires Parliament and Crown Commonwealth consent.

[kelly9480]

She hasn't had "health" problems since she was born. She has/had an eye condition that led to developing a squint. It may or may not have been fixed by now, but that's the only medical problem that she's had.

Louise is never going to be in the spotlight much anyways. Her parents want her to be raised as far as possible away from the limelight so we aren't ever going to see much of her as a child. That continued absence from the public eye doesn't necessarily mean something's wrong with her, it's how her parents decided to raise their children when they married.

[Laviollette]

This is a rare photo of Lady Louise in November 2005. I've also seen photos of her with her parents in Italy recently. She has blonde hair and seems to be a normal toddler but the photos were far away. I will look for them which I believe were posted on TRF.
source: http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/143/2/


www.theroyalist.net

[Laviollette]

Sophie, Countess of Wessex with her daughter Lady Louise in Italy, August 2005 (photo: Cruise Pictures)