The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2161  
Old 08-06-2013, 11:49 AM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 721
I am surprise at how big this whole 'Princess' thing has became and the attention it getting because William put Princess down as a occupation, It really doesn't and didn't bother me.
__________________

__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #2162  
Old 08-06-2013, 11:59 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
I am surprise at how big this whole 'Princess' thing has became and the attention it getting because William put Princess down as a occupation, It really doesn't and didn't bother me.
It just goes to show the intense level of interest there is globally surrounding William, Kate and little George. The recent tidbit about William playing polo and being in "baby mode" and diapers even made CNN news here.
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #2163  
Old 08-06-2013, 12:38 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,396
Richard Palmer ‏@RoyalReporter 54m
After 3 days, Buckingham Palace has sent me a shamefully misleading statement claiming it has always known Kate was a princess.

May have been a misunderstanding in the press briefings or the media just got confused. Many of us already knew that Catherine is a Princess of the United Kingdom through marriage to a British born prince. I think the palace was just focused on the media getting her marriage title right, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #2164  
Old 08-06-2013, 12:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire View Post
Exactly. But people will call her Queen Kate, or even Queen Kate Middleton.
Please no!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2165  
Old 08-06-2013, 12:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
Please no!
You'll have to get used to Queen Camilla Parker Bowles first.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2166  
Old 08-06-2013, 05:09 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
I am surprise at how big this whole 'Princess' thing has became and the attention it getting because William put Princess down as a occupation, It really doesn't and didn't bother me.

It didn't bother those of us who always knew she was a princess but there are many out there, on other fora for instance, who really dislike Kate and were determined to believe that she was being snubbed by not being a princess and when anyone tried to explain it to them they refused to take any notice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2167  
Old 08-06-2013, 05:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 235
Hi BrazilianEmpire,

I love your sense of humour:
Queen Kate Middleton and Queen Camilla Parker Bowles indeed!!!!

I fear & shudder to think that you are right; since the press and media are mostly made up of fools, who need a teleprompter or script and can't even get that correct....

The dumbing of America and Europe too now goes on & on & on ........

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2168  
Old 08-06-2013, 06:01 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,762
Well, think of it this way, Queen Anne Boleyn and Queen Elizabeth Woodville are two famous examples of queen consorts who are best known by their maiden names, so Catherine wouldn't be the first to be known by hers if that would be the case. Eleanor of Aquitaine was always known by her moniker as well, despite marrying Henry I, aka Henry Plantagenet, of England.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #2169  
Old 08-06-2013, 06:27 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Prince Phillip is just Prince Phillip. He is seldom referred to as Prince Phillip Mountbatten. The last names will drop over time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2170  
Old 08-06-2013, 06:40 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
Prince Phillip is just Prince Phillip. He is seldom referred to as Prince Phillip Mountbatten. The last names will drop over time.
Prince Philip's last name is kind of a special case though. As a royal he doesn't have a last name, he only adopted Mountbatten as a surname in the brief period of time between when he stopped using his Greek titles and when he was given British titles.

Women are frequently - although not always - remembered in history by their maiden names. Hence why Queens are frequently remembered after their death by their maiden names. Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Aragon, etc.

It isn't a problem to remember them as such in history - it's a good way of distinguishing between them. There's a good number of Annes, Marys, Catherines, and so on who have been Queens, so in using maiden names for Consorts and numbering for Regnants it becomes easier to distinguish between them.

To refer to a living individual by her maiden name when she has indicated a desire to be known by her married name is a different thing altogether. Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall, depending on what she's doing (professional vs. personal), so it isn't inaccurate for the press to call her by both. Catherine, however, is not Catherine, or Kate, Middleton outside of the court case in France, so it's not really accurate of the press to continue to call her such. It would be one thing if they alternated between Catherine and Kate, it's another when they toss in the Middleton.

That said I do think (or hope) that it's only a matter of time before they start getting it right. Camilla is usually referred to without the Parker Bowles, Sophie is usually referred to without the Rhys-Jones, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2171  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:04 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Prince Philip's last name is kind of a special case though. As a royal he doesn't have a last name, he only adopted Mountbatten as a surname in the brief period of time between when he stopped using his Greek titles and when he was given British titles.

Women are frequently - although not always - remembered in history by their maiden names. Hence why Queens are frequently remembered after their death by their maiden names. Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Aragon, etc.

It isn't a problem to remember them as such in history - it's a good way of distinguishing between them. There's a good number of Annes, Marys, Catherines, and so on who have been Queens, so in using maiden names for Consorts and numbering for Regnants it becomes easier to distinguish between them.

To refer to a living individual by her maiden name when she has indicated a desire to be known by her married name is a different thing altogether. Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall, depending on what she's doing (professional vs. personal), so it isn't inaccurate for the press to call her by both. Catherine, however, is not Catherine, or Kate, Middleton outside of the court case in France, so it's not really accurate of the press to continue to call her such. It would be one thing if they alternated between Catherine and Kate, it's another when they toss in the Middleton.

That said I do think (or hope) that it's only a matter of time before they start getting it right. Camilla is usually referred to without the Parker Bowles, Sophie is usually referred to without the Rhys-Jones, etc.
Interesting - then why did he want the family name change to just Mountbatten (his name - famous quote about just being an amoeba - only man who can't give his name to his children) and then the change to Mountbatten-Windsor.?

EDIT: PS wrong thread I think but would appreciate answer, ty
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2172  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:35 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,762
Speaking off the top of my head, Philip's Uncle Louis Mountbatten had proposed the surname at the time of one of the christenings. Queen Mary or the QM didn't want a royal house based solely on the Mountbatten name stemming from the variation of the original German Battenburg name and so pressured to have Windsor linked. The Queen conceded to the change and as a result Philip was extremely angry over that; hence his amoeba remark. He was angry for quite awhile with the Queen, I had read.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #2173  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:38 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,317
So it is his surname - at least that's what I think.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2174  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:42 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post

Interesting - then why did he want the family name change to just Mountbatten (his name - famous quote about just being an amoeba - only man who can't give his name to his children) and then the change to Mountbatten-Windsor.?

EDIT: PS wrong thread I think but would appreciate answer, ty
I always find the amoeba comment rather ironic, given the origins of the name Mountbatten....

Mountbatten is the name that Philip's mother's English family adopted when they lost their German titles and adopted British names. The Battenbergs, headed by Philip's maternal grandfather Prince Louis of Battenberg, became the Mountbattens (with Prince Louis becoming the first Marquess of Milford Haven). This all happened after Philip's mother, Alice, married Andrew of Greece and Denmark, so she was never a Mountbatten.

When Philip became engaged to Princess Elizabeth he gave up his Greek titles (or stopped using them) and adopted an British surname, the name used by his mother's family. When Elizabeth became Queen it was debated that her children would belong to the House of Mountbatten, as per Philip's adopted surname, but it wasn't necessarily brought up by Philip himself.

It was, however, shot down by Queen Mary on the grounds that Philip didn't properly belong to the House of Mountbatten due to maternal descent, and Winston Churchill brought it up in Parliament where the government decided that the House would remain the House of Windsor. The amoeba comment can be seen as Philip's reaction to Parliament telling him that his children descendants wouldn't bear his name, a frustration with the situation (and the break from tradition; when Queen Victoria married her children didn't belong to her House). I always figured it was more of a comment made in anger as the result of an insult than a comment made to express his strong wish that his children be Mountbattens. That his children aren't "of Greece and Denmark" to me indicates that he doesn't necessarily feel the need for his children to bear titles and names he gives them.

The Mountbatten-Windsor happened in 1960 - after the death of Queen Mary and the retirement of Churchill. It doesn't apply to the House itself, just the surname of male-line, non-royal descendants, and I think it was just an attempt to show that at that point in time, post-Churchill, they were trying to find a bit of a middle ground.

It's significant (in my opinion) that the issue didn't come up while Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles or Anne (who were both styled "of Edinburgh" at birth), but did come up again after Andrew's birth. I wonder if some of the earlier position was taken because the idea of non-royal, male-line descendants was less likely with the first two children (more of Charles' descendants will be Royal than Andrew's, while none of Anne's will) than with the last two children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2175  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:47 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,762
I knew there was a better explanation; thanks, Ish!
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #2176  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:49 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Actually, the Louis Mountbatten bringing it up at a christening sounds pretty solid too. I'd read somewhere that part of the M-W had to do with him, but I couldn't remember what - likely he brought it up when Andrew was born and that (and the lack of a Queen Mary to oppose it) was what pushed the M-W into existence.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2177  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:52 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
To refer to a living individual by her maiden name when she has indicated a desire to be known by her married name is a different thing altogether. Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall, depending on what she's doing (professional vs. personal), so it isn't inaccurate for the press to call her by both. Catherine, however, is not Catherine, or Kate, Middleton outside of the court case in France, so it's not really accurate of the press to continue to call her such. It would be one thing if they alternated between Catherine and Kate, it's another when they toss in the Middleton.
A name is merely a method of identifying a person and distinguishing them from others. As you say, Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall. And Kate is Catherine Middleton for some purposes and Duchess of Cambridge for others. They are the same person no matter that they call themselves one name and others choose to call them by one of their alternatives.

Kate apparently elected to take on William's style and titles and surname when she married him, but for three decades she was Kate Middleton and she'll probably always be Kate Middleton to me, for that is a name that identifies her as an individual rather than merely as an extension of her husband. She may choose not to answer to that name, of course, and that's her prerogative.

I have never used my husband's surname and I won't answer to it and I set people straight if they refer to me that way and I change name tags if I'm given one which attributes his surname to me, but I bet there are people out there who refer to me as Roslyn (husband's surname), and nothing I do is going to stop them doing it and I am not going to lose sleep over it.

And what does it really matter? Kate will call herself the name by which she wants to be known, and others will call her what they want to call her, and as long as it's not an insulting name, what's the problem? There is a perfectly valid reason to identify her, informally - I'm not suggesting that one should address her as such in correspondence or if one met her in person - as Kate Middleton, just as there is a perfectly valid reason to identify Camilla as Camilla Parker Bowles.

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2178  
Old 08-06-2013, 07:59 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post

A name is merely a method of identifying a person and distinguishing them from others. As you say, Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall. And Kate is Catherine Middleton for some purposes and Duchess of Cambridge for others. They are the same person no matter that they call themselves one name and others choose to call them by one of their alternatives.

Kate apparently elected to take on William's style and titles and surname when she married him, but for three decades he was Kate Middleton and she'll probably always be Kate Middleton to me, for that is a name that identifies her as an individual rather than merely as an extension of her husband. She may choose not to answer to that name, of course, and that's her prerogative.

I have never used my husband's surname and I won't answer to it and I set people straight if they refer to me that way and I change name tags if I'm given one which attributes his surname to me, but I bet there are people out there who refer to me as Roslyn (husband's surname), and nothing I do is going to stop them doing it and I am not going to lose sleep over it.

And what does it really matter? Kate will call herself the name by which she wants to be known, and others will call her what they want to call her, and as long as it's not an insulting name, what's the problem? There is a perfectly valid reason to identify her as her Kate Middleton, just as there is a perfectly valid reason to identify Camilla as Camilla Parker Bowles.

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Personally, I think it all amounts to respect.

You chose to be known by your maiden name and not your husband's surname. To insist on calling you by your husband's surname is to disrespect you.

However, if I chose to be known by my (not yet existing) husband's surname and not by my maiden name then it's disrespectful to insist on calling me by my maiden name.

The same applies to Catherine. She has indicated that she wants to go by the titles and styles she received upon marriage. To call her Kate Middleton is disrespectful because it is contrary to what she has indicated she is to be called.

It's the same thing with nicknames. If your name is Xy and you prefer to be called X, then it's not respectful to call you Xy. However, if you prefer to be called Xy, then it's not respectful to call you X or Y.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2179  
Old 08-06-2013, 08:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,353
The Mountbatten thing came up when Elizabeth became Queen with Louis Mountbatten saying something alone the lines of 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' assuming that Elizabeth had taken her husband's surname at the time of her marriage - as is customary.

Queen Mary was opposed to that for two reasons - she didn't really Louis Mountbatten and it was her husband who had changed the House and family name to Windsor.

Philip adopted Mountbatten when he was naturalised which was months before the engagement so he had a name in the navy to use.

The change in 1960 was advised on the grounds that by not using the father's name it implied that the children were in fact illegitimate as only the children of unwed mothers take their mother's surname and so Mountbatten-Windsor came about - to ensure that in the future there was no question about the legitimacy of the children - doubt that there ever would have been but who knows with some people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2180  
Old 08-06-2013, 08:02 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I always find the amoeba comment rather ironic, given the origins of the name Mountbatten....

Mountbatten is the name that Philip's mother's English family adopted when they lost their German titles and adopted British names. The Battenbergs, headed by Philip's maternal grandfather Prince Louis of Battenberg, became the Mountbattens (with Prince Louis becoming the first Marquess of Milford Haven). This all happened after Philip's mother, Alice, married Andrew of Greece and Denmark, so she was never a Mountbatten.

When Philip became engaged to Princess Elizabeth he gave up his Greek titles (or stopped using them) and adopted an British surname, the name used by his mother's family. When Elizabeth became Queen it was debated that her children would belong to the House of Mountbatten, as per Philip's adopted surname, but it wasn't necessarily brought up by Philip himself.

It was, however, shot down by Queen Mary on the grounds that Philip didn't properly belong to the House of Mountbatten due to maternal descent, and Winston Churchill brought it up in Parliament where the government decided that the House would remain the House of Windsor. The amoeba comment can be seen as Philip's reaction to Parliament telling him that his children descendants wouldn't bear his name, a frustration with the situation (and the break from tradition; when Queen Victoria married her children didn't belong to her House). I always figured it was more of a comment made in anger as the result of an insult than a comment made to express his strong wish that his children be Mountbattens. That his children aren't "of Greece and Denmark" to me indicates that he doesn't necessarily feel the need for his children to bear titles and names he gives them.

The Mountbatten-Windsor happened in 1960 - after the death of Queen Mary and the retirement of Churchill. It doesn't apply to the House itself, just the surname of male-line, non-royal descendants, and I think it was just an attempt to show that at that point in time, post-Churchill, they were trying to find a bit of a middle ground.

It's significant (in my opinion) that the issue didn't come up while Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles or Anne (who were both styled "of Edinburgh" at birth), but did come up again after Andrew's birth. I wonder if some of the earlier position was taken because the idea of non-royal, male-line descendants was less likely with the first two children (more of Charles' descendants will be Royal than Andrew's, while none of Anne's will) than with the last two children.
Thank you. It is interesting that (then)Princess Anne signed her marriage certificate to Mark Phillips as Mountbatten-Windsor. No wonder there is sometimes confusion.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge style fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]