Spencer Relationships

[lashinka2002]

Does anyone have pics of Prince William & Earl Spencer that we can compare?
I saw a pic in Hello and the similarities were astounding - even the same down to posture. Please post if you have. Thanks!

[corazon]

About this one type of comparation you were speaking?

[Elspeth]

I don't see all that much of a resemblance. Earl Spencer is beginning to show his relationship to Winston Churchill, though!

[Nichola]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I don't see all that much of a resemblance. Earl Spencer is beginning to show his relationship to Winston Churchill, though!

I agree.

They do have 'some' resemblances, but I tend to think William is inheriting more and more of his father's manerisms these days. I tend to think Charles tends to sometimes look awkward (eg, he continuously has his hand in his pocket etc) and I've noticed William doing the same.

[lashinka2002]

Originally Posted by corazon

About this one type of comparation you were speaking?

Yes, thank you Corazon.
I see some similarities but not as many as I thought I would. I'm guessing that Earl probably looked much more like William when he was younger. Maybe someone has pics.

[Idriel]

Many years ago, I read an historic novel about some British Prince. I have hardly no recollection of this book but I remember it would include a Spencer. At the end of the book, a note by the author would specify that because of some treacherous (or so) action this Spencer character did, it was made certain that a Spencer would never sit on the throne of England.
The author would add that with William, that wow would be broken.
I really don't remember any further details so if anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about, please post information.
Thanks.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Idriel

Many years ago, I read an historic novel about some British Prince. I have hardly no recollection of this book but I remember it would include a Spencer. At the end of the book, a note by the author would specify that because of some treacherous (or so) action this Spencer character did, it was made certain that a Spencer would never sit on the throne of England.
The author would add that with William, that wow would be broken.
I really don't remember any further details so if anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about, please post information.
Thanks.

1) Erm... James II wasn't fond of the Earl of Sunderland... But I think that was an artistic licence on part of the author.
2) Prince William of Wales is not a Spencer. His family name is different. :)

[Ennyllorac]

Originally Posted by Mapple

2) Prince William of Wales is not a Spencer. His family name is different. :)

William is a Spencer. It may not be part of his name but he still is a Spencer. In some parts of the world he would use the Spencer as his second last name. His father's would be first followed by the his mother's.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Ennyllorac

William is a Spencer. It may not be part of his name but he still is a Spencer. In some parts of the world he would use the Spencer as his second last name. His father's would be first followed by the his mother's.

Nevertheless, he lives in another part of the world. He is not a Spencer unless King William V is going to amend the family name of the British royal family. :)

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Yes William is a Windsor, but he has Spencer blood from his mother. He is in the Spencer family geneology as well as the Windsor geneology. Enough said.

A half of the British aristocracy is in the Spencer family genealogy, I presume.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Mapple

2) Prince William of Wales is not a Spencer. His family name is different. :)

What I meant (and what the author ment too), is that William has Spencer blood, his mother is a Spencer. I did not refered to his familly name.
Thank you all for your answers :) .
Tiarapin, your proposition is the best so far but I'm not quite convinced yet...
Do you know if after the marriage was failed, the King made a public (or at least known) wish that a Spencer should never access the Throne? That's what the author clearly stated in the infamous book. Of course it was not passed as a law Mapple :) . It was just a wish (but isn't a royal wish a bit of a law? Hum...).
I'm sorry I don't give much details but that was a long time ago.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Idriel

Tiarapin, your proposition is the best so far but I'm not quite convinced yet...
Do you know if after the marriage was failed, the King made a public (or at least known) wish that a Spencer should never access the Throne? That's what the author clearly stated in the infamous book.

You have been reading an historical novel. While the basic facts are there, the author can take dramatic license and add his/her flavor to things to make the novel more interesting than just the basic facts Idriel.

As far as I know, King George II's reaction stayed mainly among his family and courtiers. He was not "amused" by what Frederick tried to do and was angry at the Duchess of Marlborough. At that time, commoners did not marry the Prince of Wales. Perhaps he said a Spencer could not marry into the family simply because they were commoners.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

...

As far as I know, King George II's reaction stayed mainly among his family and courtiers. He was not "amused" by what Frederick tried to do and was angry at the Duchess of Marlborough. At that time, commoners did not marry the Prince of Wales. Perhaps he said a Spencer could not marry into the family simply because they were commoners.

All in all there was no love lost between King George II and the Prince of Wales. Frederick married a German Princess, but the King didn't like her and banished them from the Court.

[Kat]

Originally Posted by Mapple

1) Erm... James II wasn't fond of the Earl of Sunderland... But I think that was an artistic licence on part of the author.
2) Prince William of Wales is not a Spencer. His family name is different. :)

Hello everyone! I'd just like to point out that just because Prince William and Prince Harry do not carry the Spencer name does not mean they're not Spencers! They do in fact belong to the Spencer Clan so therefore they are Spencers. Based on wikipedia's definition of a clan, the members must be able to prove some kind of relationship either to each other or to one common ancestor whether through biology, marriage, adoption or what ever else there may be.

The fact of them having / not having the legal right to use the Spencer name (I believe) has more to do with the last name that their mother used when she signed their birth certificates, than it does with anything else. From a legal perspective, if a child's parents each sign the birth certificate with different last names, when the child grows older they are allowed to choose which last name they prefer to use. They can also use both of them together. If you consider that and you figure that the only people who can claim to be a member of a particular clan are the people who carry the clan's last name, then you have to consider that, in the case I mentioned above, if one child chooses to use their mother's last name and their brother or sister chooses to use their father's last name, you would be including one and excluding the other.

At the end of the day, based on all the definitions I know of, William and Harry are both members of the Spencer family/clan, whether or not they like it, lol.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by Idriel

Many years ago, I read an historic novel about some British Prince. I have hardly no recollection of this book but I remember it would include a Spencer. At the end of the book, a note by the author would specify that because of some treacherous (or so) action this Spencer character did, it was made certain that a Spencer would never sit on the throne of England.
The author would add that with William, that wow would be broken.
I really don't remember any further details so if anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about, please post information.
Thanks.

I wonder if that included the previous Lady Diana Spencer.

[Mapple]

The Act of Settlement didn't exclude the Spencers, that's for sure.

[ysbel]

William is a Windsor or a Mountbatten Windsor whichever name they're using now.

[Duke of Thora]

Winston Churchill forced the current Queen to reinstate the name of House of Windsor in 1955 following unguarded comments made by Dickie Mountbatten in London circles in the 50's that the "Battenburgs" 'now ruled in England.' It is accepted that descendents of H.M. The Queen and HRH the Prince Phillip are surnamed Mountbatten-Windsor. The rest of the family, ie descendents of HRH The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and Prince Michael, being the only males in the grandson line from GEORGEV are simply surnamed WINDSOR, ie Lord Frederick Windsor. On the occasion of both of her weddings the Princess Royal used the name Mountbatten-Windsor to sign the wedding registry. I hope this clears this up.. because it is not a case of 'whatever name they are using now' As an Australian, you realise Elizabeth is very much Queen of Australia, and curiously by a constitutional quirk, Queen of Queensland as well, a title that cannot be alienated from her by any Act of the Australian parliament. Should we become a republic, she will still remain Queen of Queensland.(Coincidentally both states Victoria and Queensland were named by the old queen personally after herself much to the amusement of the then Prime Minister,Benjamin Disraeli)

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Idriel

Many years ago, I read an historic novel about some British Prince. I have hardly no recollection of this book but I remember it would include a Spencer. At the end of the book, a note by the author would specify that because of some treacherous (or so) action this Spencer character did, it was made certain that a Spencer would never sit on the throne of England.
The author would add that with William, that wow would be broken.
I really don't remember any further details so if anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about, please post information.
Thanks.

You may be referring to Frederick, Prince of Wales, son of George II and Caroline of Ansbach. There was a hate/hate relationship between Frederick and his parents and he wanted desperately to not have to rely on them for money and set up his own rival court.

In walks Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough who had a beautiful granddaughter in the first Lady Diana Spencer. The Duchess of Marlborough detested the royal family and saw her way to undermine it and yet get her granddaughter a crown if she offered Frederick a big enough dowry to marry Lady Diana. Frederick accepted but was found out by Prime Minister Walpole and stopped just in time.

Frederick went on to marry Augusta of Hesse-Cassel and is the father of King George III. Frederick died young, before his father. Lady Diana Spencer married Lord Russell and then became the Duchess of Rutland. She died young of a fatal illness.

The second Lady Diana Spencer married Charles, Prince of Wales. Ironic isn't it?

[Elspeth]

It certainly is. There was quite a lot of talk of that first Lady Diana during the time of Charles and Diana's courtship and engagement.