The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, but this was the issue that precipitated his "I'm nothing but a bloody amoeba!" tirade, wasn't it? It seems as though he cared although probably for personal reasons rather than ones of ambition like Mountbatten.
Until Prince Philip releases a biography, we don't really know if he even said it, or if he did, in what context. We do know from Vickers that Dickie Mountbatten was complaining about the status and title of Philip shortly after the ascension of Elizabeth II. Philip was unconcerned and appeared to be satisfied with the Queen's declaration of rank and precedence for him as Duke of Edinburgh, which was at all times beside the Sovereign.

Prince Philip has always preferred to be addressed as "The Duke" and has never particularly enamored of royal protocol and formalities.
__________________

  #562  
Old 10-17-2005, 07:04 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Until Prince Philip releases a biography, we don't really know if he even said it, or if he did, in what context. We do know from Vickers that Dickie Mountbatten was complaining about the status and title of Philip shortly after the ascension of Elizabeth II. Philip was unconcerned and appeared to be satisfied with the Queen's declaration of rank and precedence for him as Duke of Edinburgh, which was at all times beside the Sovereign.

Prince Philip has always preferred to be addressed as "The Duke" and has never particularly enamored of royal protocol and formalities.
I haven't been able to follow whether Charles will ever reign as much for watching the newest Glucksborg prince being born in Copenhagen. :)

But Prince Philip did say that he was not allowed to hand down to his children the one thing that every other father did as a natural course and that one thing was his name. Whatever context the statement was made in, the meaning is pretty clear.
__________________

  #563  
Old 10-17-2005, 07:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
But Prince Philip did say that he was not allowed to hand down to his children the one thing that every other father did as a natural course and that one thing was his name. Whatever context the statement was made in, the meaning is pretty clear.
Well, Philip's name was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, not Mountbatten. With the ascension of Charles III, the British royal house would become the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg!
  #564  
Old 10-17-2005, 07:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Charles isnt changing his family name. From what I hear him and his dad are not buddy buddy and I dont think he wants his fathers name as the name of Britians Royal Family. I like Windsor. I think it is the perfect name. I dont really understand your coincides though.
Regardless, when Charles comes to the throne, technically the House of Windsor would become the House of Mountbatten-Windsor. If Charles is so inclined, he could ask Parliament for its assent and change the name if the Prime Minister agrees.
  #565  
Old 10-17-2005, 11:13 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
I haven't been able to follow whether Charles will ever reign as much for watching the newest Glucksborg prince being born in Copenhagen. :)

But Prince Philip did say that he was not allowed to hand down to his children the one thing that every other father did as a natural course and that one thing was his name. Whatever context the statement was made in, the meaning is pretty clear.

What happened was that Earl Mountbatten was bragging around the time that Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, that the Royal House's name changed to Mountbatten. Queen Mary, who was still alive, heard of Mountbatten's boasts and became quite angry and summoned Winston Churchill, then Prime Minister, to her presence. She informed Mr. Churchill of the Earl's bold boasts and Churchill advised The Queen that a formal announcement should be made that the family's name remained Windsor. Philip was angry at being marginalized once again at a time when the courtiers were giving him a rough time and stated he was only a "bloody ameoba" used for breeding purposes.

In 1960, when The Queen was more secure in her role, amended that the family name be Mountbatten-Windsor by royal decree.

You would think the Duke would then have had more sympathy for Diana and Sarah after his experiences, but alas he didn't.
  #566  
Old 10-18-2005, 12:02 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Well, Philip's name was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, not Mountbatten. With the ascension of Charles III, the British royal house would become the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg!
That's a good point, branchg. However, I think the way Prince Philip's father and Greek relatives left him in the lurch after the 1921 exodus from Greece left a bad taste in his mouth for that side of the family.

The Battenbergs at least seemed to take care of their own a lot better. It doesn't nullify your point though, which is an excellent one.
  #567  
Old 10-18-2005, 12:07 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
What happened was that Earl Mountbatten was bragging around the time that Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, that the Royal House's name changed to Mountbatten. Queen Mary, who was still alive, heard of Mountbatten's boasts and became quite angry and summoned Winston Churchill, then Prime Minister, to her presence. She informed Mr. Churchill of the Earl's bold boasts and Churchill advised The Queen that a formal announcement should be made that the family's name remained Windsor.
I've heard this several times and if Queen Mary did say that, it was petty and spiteful. Prince Philip was not the Earl of Mountbatten; they didn't even get along. For Queen Mary to want to bring Philip down a notch to spite his uncle was just wrong. But that generation often made the sons pay for the sins of the fathers so to speak.
  #568  
Old 10-18-2005, 12:25 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
I've heard this several times and if Queen Mary did say that, it was petty and spiteful. Prince Philip was not the Earl of Mountbatten; they didn't even get along. For Queen Mary to want to bring Philip down a notch to spite his uncle was just wrong. But that generation often made the sons pay for the sins of the fathers so to speak.
Also, Earl Mountbatten's celebratory bragging was quite premature! Elizabeth II is a reigning monarch of the House of Windsor (or more accurately, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). When Charles ascends the throne, the royal house would technically become Mountbatten-Windsor under the new Sovereign.
  #569  
Old 10-18-2005, 01:53 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Also, Earl Mountbatten's celebratory bragging was quite premature! Elizabeth II is a reigning monarch of the House of Windsor (or more accurately, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). When Charles ascends the throne, the royal house would technically become Mountbatten-Windsor under the new Sovereign.
The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha name was relinqushed in 1917 when George V declared the Family be known as the House of Windsor. Also, Mountbatten was not premature. It did technically become the House of Mountbatten. Even though Elizabeth became Queen, she still took her husband's last name. If there was no way that the House could have changed names, Queen Mary would not have gotten into so much of an uproar. This is a lady who knew the most minute details of Royalty.
  #570  
Old 10-18-2005, 04:34 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
If there was no way that the House could have changed names, Queen Mary would not have gotten into so much of an uproar. This is a lady who knew the most minute details of Royalty.
I know we have discussed this subject before, but it is always interesting. Rather than being petty I think Queen Mary (warned by Prince Ernst August of Hanover) was doing what any Matriarch worth her salt would do: protecting her Dynasty, the House of Widsor, and seeing off the over-ambitious interloper. A little power play, where Lord Mountbatten met his match. A morganatic Hesse prince outmanoeuvred by a morganatic Württemberg princess. That must have been galling for the First Sea Lord and Commander of the Allied Forces in the Far East!
.
  #571  
Old 10-18-2005, 07:39 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
I know we have discussed this subject before, but it is always interesting. Rather than being petty I think Queen Mary (warned by Prince Ernst August of Hanover) was doing what any Matriarch worth her salt would do: protecting her Dynasty, the House of Widsor, and seeing off the over-ambitious interloper. A little power play, where Lord Mountbatten met his match. A morganatic Hesse prince outmanoeuvred by a morganatic Württemberg princess. That must have been galling for the First Sea Lord and Commander of the Allied Forces in the Far East!
.
Hmm, Warren, OK but she was protecting a 33 year old name of a dynasty that got pulled out of thin air for political reasons during World War I. It wasn't like she was protecting a treasure that had been held in the family for generations. The British Royal Family has excelled in reinventing itself as the politics of the day have demanded.

I'm sure that everything you say about Earl Mountbatten is true - he was proud, ambitious, grasping. But I still have a problem with making Mary making Philip and Elizabeth pay the price for the Earl's sins. I think the name debacle caused a great rift in their marriage and relationship at first which took the Queen a long time to heal. And whatever trauma Charles and Anne supposedly had during their childhood could only be exasperated by this rift with their parents.

It seems like a lot of damage to pull one braggart down a notch. Mary may have 'protected' her dynasty but I think she ruined her family in the process and that is hardly a free trade.
  #572  
Old 10-18-2005, 09:15 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
It seems like a lot of damage to pull one braggart down a notch. Mary may have 'protected' her dynasty but I think she ruined her family in the process and that is hardly a free trade.
It's true Queen Mary was outraged by the Earl Mountbatten's bragging, but so was the Queen Mother, who never cared for him. The truth is Churchill agreed the name must remain Windsor and advised the Queen accordingly.

Even if Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth hadn't been upset, I suspect Churchill would not have agreed to the House of Mountbatten. He detested Earl Mountbatten himself.
  #573  
Old 10-18-2005, 12:37 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Yes, I always thought the Queen Mother and Churchill had played more of a role in this than Queen Mary. By the time Elizabeth II was on the throne, Queen Mary was old, ill (she died not long after), and not very powerful any more, being two reigns away from the centre of power herself. On the other hand, the Queen Mother also apparently detested Mountbatten's ambitions, and biographies have stated that she and the King had reservations about Philip's courting of Princess Elizabeth at least partly because they were afraid he was being run by Mountbatten, who would become too influential if he were in the background, rather like Uncle Leopold or Baron Stockmar and Victoria.
  #574  
Old 10-18-2005, 04:36 PM
una una is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Well, Philip's name was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, not Mountbatten. With the ascension of Charles III, the British royal house would become the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg!
Or even the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!!
  #575  
Old 10-18-2005, 04:43 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Um, yes - very British, I must say...
  #576  
Old 10-18-2005, 04:48 PM
una una is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Philip was angry at being marginalized once again at a time when the courtiers were giving him a rough time and stated he was only a "bloody ameoba" used for breeding purposes.
This is quite a funny slip. Amoeba reproduce asexually, so if Philip had been used for breeding like a bloody amoeba, he would have passed 100% of his genes to the next King. Quite an honour really. I guess Philip hadn't joined the WWF yet.
  #577  
Old 10-18-2005, 05:24 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Minneapolis, United States
Posts: 21
I don't see why not. I think he will probably be quite old by that time, since his mother's family is long lived, and she has said she will not adbdicate. I should think that Charles will be nearly 70 by the time he ascends the throne. I don't see any point in passing him over for his son. I think Charles would make a better king than his son, who is very young. At one time, I thouoght that Harry might succeed his father, rather than his brother. Who knows? So much could happen between now and then.
  #578  
Old 10-18-2005, 05:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Um, yes - very British, I must say...
The Queen has barely a drop of English blood in her, nor does most of the family. They are primarily German, although the marriages of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Lady Diana Spencer means Stuart and Scottish blueblood have been reintroduced into the royal bloodline.

Diana was actually the most British aristocrat to marry an heir to the throne in over two centuries.
  #579  
Old 10-18-2005, 05:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
The Queen has barely a drop of English blood in her, nor does most of the family. They are primarily German, although the marriages of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Lady Diana Spencer means Stuart and Scottish blueblood have been reintroduced into the royal bloodline.

Diana was actually the most British aristocrat to marry an heir to the throne in over two centuries.
As Iain would be very quick to point out, British and English aren't the same thing. The Queen is half Scottish, and the royal family is descended directly from the Stuart kings without any help from the Queen Mother or Diana.
  #580  
Old 10-18-2005, 05:58 PM
Feberin's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Baltimore, United States
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mippy O
I don't see why not. I think he will probably be quite old by that time, since his mother's family is long lived, and she has said she will not adbdicate. I should think that Charles will be nearly 70 by the time he ascends the throne. I don't see any point in passing him over for his son. I think Charles would make a better king than his son, who is very young. At one time, I thouoght that Harry might succeed his father, rather than his brother. Who knows? So much could happen between now and then.
I agree that we really have no idea how the line of sucession will play out. However I think William will most likely be King at some point although he may be excited about becoming king he does seem to have a good idea about his role and I'm sure he will accept being king when the time comes. Also I doubt that he will die young because there are so many people working to keep him safe and healthy.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


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
Who Will Reign First / Next mktv2000 Royal Chit Chat 150 10-01-2013 02:28 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 5 Avalon The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 106 06-17-2009 09:02 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 4 Elspeth The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 286 02-07-2008 07:58 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 3 ysbel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 406 08-16-2007 08:53 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 2 Warren The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 425 05-14-2006 02:36 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september brunei royal family catherine middleton style christening of prince oscar coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary and womens rights princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania style royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises