A Wife for Prince Andrew, Duke of York

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by fergalicious

Lumutqueen, you sound like you know Their Highnesses pretty well, which I doubt. Am I right? These forums can be really hurtful sometimes, so I suggest you study your sources better next time. This is a friendly advice.

Actually, we could say the same of you. You seem to know them very well by your previous comment on here.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

No, although I think that would be preferable. NOT to suggest that I am cursing his prior wife into her grave, but having her continue the dog-in-the-manger routine is so tiresome.

How about "his prior wife has been relocated and is under adult supervision?"

Actually you were making up a list of what would be needed.. in a wife for Andrew and I just presumed you meant Andrew too. For Andrew to marry again as a royal with his mother's permission, he'd have to be a widower.

Originally Posted by fergalicious

Lumutqueen, you sound like you know Their Highnesses pretty well, which I doubt. Am I right? These forums can be really hurtful sometimes, so I suggest you study your sources better next time. This is a friendly advice.

Actually she's taught me lot and I follow her posts whenever I can.

The Duchess of York is a title and means that she is married to the Duke of York. Sarah, Duchess of York is a courtesy style. Mostly denoting that she is a former wife of the Duke of York.

Just as Diana, Princess of Wales is a courtesy style of a divorced wife of the Prince of Wales. It may even surprise you to know that actually Camilla is The Princess of Wales because she is married to The Prince of Wales. She has chosen to be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall of her own choice. Wherever you hear of someone saying Princess Diana, that's a title she has never had in her lifetime. You've heard I think of Princess Michael of Kent? She married Prince Michael but when she married him, she took his titles and styles. She is not a Princess in her own right but is Princess Michael. While Diana was married to the PoW, she was HRH The Princess of Wales but never Princess Diana. Sarah when married to Andrew was HRH The Duchess of York and I believe also was entitled to be called The Princess Andrew. It does get confusing and its with this kind of thing that many on these forums know about and have taught me... and I appreciate it. There's a world of differences between titles and styles and I'm still trying to wrap them around the few remaining brain cells I have.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Andrew would have to be a widower?

Not really.

Anne has remarried and her ex-husband still lives at Gatcombe.

Charles mightn't have a living ex any more but Camilla does so that idea also doesn't work and they were involved in the break-up of both their previous marriages, which is why the Church of England wouldn't let them have a church wedding.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Not really.

Anne has remarried and her ex-husband still lives at Gatcombe.

Charles mightn't have a living ex any more but Camilla does so that idea also doesn't work and they were involved in the break-up of both their previous marriages, which is why the Church of England wouldn't let them have a church wedding.

There is a reason why I believe that Andrew would have to be a widower to marry again with his mother's permission.

Anne remarried in the church of Scotland as a divorcee is common knowledge. Its also common knowledge that if she had a child from the second marriage,any issue of the female line, the succession to the throne is not an issue.

Its true Charles and Camille married civilly and the marriage was blessed by the CoE with the Queen in attendance. But there again you have to look at the ages of the two that married. I believe it was Charles at 57 and Camilla at 58? Once again, although remotely possible, the chances of a male child being born to this couple and in line for the throne would be a bookie's dream. If I do recall correctly, Camilla did have a hysterectomy around that time period also.. so scratch all bets.

With Andrew its totally different. Although he is divorced and his first wife is very much alive and as we all know... still in his life, the chances for the Queen to give permission for him to marry again I believe would be very slim. Why? What's the difference between Anne, Charles and Andrew? A big one. He could marry lets say for a lack of an example.. Paris Hilton. And they could and might produce a son. That son would be in line for the throne. <My grandfather was 57 when my father was born and near 60 when my uncle was born>... talk about randy old goats!

Andrew's son then by his second marriage would go ahead in the line for the throne over the girls he had by his first wife. As I don't believe the CoE will marry a royal divorced man to anyone (jump in here and correct me.. I don't know the CoE at all) , wouldn't that put the son by the second wife in a position where it would be questioned?

I know I ramble but this is why I suggested that Andrew would never get his mother's permission to marry again unless he was a widower.

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by fergalicious

Lumutqueen, you sound like you know Their Highnesses pretty well, which I doubt. Am I right? These forums can be really hurtful sometimes, so I suggest you study your sources better next time. This is a friendly advice.

The topic is "A Wife for Prince Andrew" and we are discussing alternatives to his prior and much disgraced wife. There are no "accusations" against the ex-wife here. Perhaps you have your threads confused.

Now, back to Andrew.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Osipi

There is a reason why I believe that Andrew would have to be a widower to marry again with his mother's permission.

Anne remarried in the church of Scotland as a divorcee is common knowledge. Its also common knowledge that if she had a child from the second marriage,any issue of the female line, the succession to the throne is not an issue.

Its true Charles and Camille married civilly and the marriage was blessed by the CoE with the Queen in attendance. But there again you have to look at the ages of the two that married. I believe it was Charles at 57 and Camilla at 58? Once again, although remotely possible, the chances of a male child being born to this couple and in line for the throne would be a bookie's dream. If I do recall correctly, Camilla did have a hysterectomy around that time period also.. so scratch all bets.

With Andrew its totally different. Although he is divorced and his first wife is very much alive and as we all know... still in his life, the chances for the Queen to give permission for him to marry again I believe would be very slim. Why? What's the difference between Anne, Charles and Andrew? A big one. He could marry lets say for a lack of an example.. Paris Hilton. And they could and might produce a son. That son would be in line for the throne. <My grandfather was 57 when my father was born and near 60 when my uncle was born>... talk about randy old goats!

Andrew's son then by his second marriage would go ahead in the line for the throne over the girls he had by his first wife. As I don't believe the CoE will marry a royal divorced man to anyone (jump in here and correct me.. I don't know the CoE at all) , wouldn't that put the son by the second wife in a position where it would be questioned?

I know I ramble but this is why I suggested that Andrew would never get his mother's permission to marry again unless he was a widower.

I don't see any problem with a son from a second marriage jumping ahead of the daughers from the first so long as the marriage was legal.

The CofE would have no problem with Andrew remarrying in a church in England unless the wife was somehow involved in the breakdown of the first marriage, which was why they wouldn't approve a church wedding for Charles and Camilla as their relationship contributed to the breakdowns of their two previous marriages. The same with Anne. She was involved with Tim during the ending of her marriage to Mark. In addition for Anne the church's stance was much stronger in the 1990s than it is now as it softened its stance on marrying of divorcees in the early 2000s saying that marriage for a divorced person was fine so long as the parties weren't seen as having contributed to the breakdown of the earlier marriage although that is also left up to the individual minister.

Any child of Andrew's legitimately born, whether male or female, would be in line to the throne with no problems at all. The fact that his first wife is still alive has no bearing on that at all. Succession to the throne is automatic so long as the child is born to a legitimately married couple.

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by Osipi

There is a reason why I believe that Andrew would have to be a widower to marry again with his mother's permission.

... why I suggested that Andrew would never get his mother's permission to marry again unless he was a widower.

With the Duchess of Cornwall having a living husband & The Princess Royal having a living husband, and both of those marriages having had the Queen's approbation, there is nothing in my opinion that bars Andrew from seeking out a second wife.

Preferably one who is additive and not dilutive, as we say in our business.

[ada]

Thank you everyone for putting some new life back into this thread. Prince Albert of Monaco has recently become engaged to a charming lady, which increases my hope that there could be someone special out there for Prince Andrew. Of course it would have to be someone that met our criteria and many thanks NotAPretender for your contributions.

[KittyAtlanta]

"I would especially enjoy seeing him marry someone not necessarily of 100% white heritage."

Anyone in mind???

[Russophile]

Hang on! Bertie and Osipi, did not the Queen change the line of succession after she made Anne Princess Royal so women would inherit directly and not after there was male issue?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Kitty Atlanta, TONS darling, though I don't know if some would be considered "suitable" by the BRF. Halle Berry comes to mind as she is such a gorgeous creature!
Sade, she might be too old.
The Indian gal who plays Divia on Royal Pains is a stunner.
These women are all strong, gorgeous and Russo is soooo envious of their beautiful skin!

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Hang on! Bertie and Osipi, did not the Queen change the line of succession after she made Anne Princess Royal so women would inherit directly and not after there was male issue?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure if I understand what your saying, but do you mean that The Queen changed the line of succesion so that if someone had two daughters and then had a son, the daughters would stay further up in the line of succesion?

Because that's not the case, example would be Lady Louise Windsor, is 9th in line to the throne, after her younger brother James, Viscount Severn.

Changing it in the way I think your talking about, would mean have equal primogenture for the line of succesion, which the UK does not have.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I'm not sure if I understand what your saying, but do you mean that The Queen changed the line of succesion so that if someone had two daughters and then had a son, the daughters would stay further up in the line of succesion?

Because that's not the case, example would be Lady Louise Windsor, is 9th in line to the throne, after her younger brother James, Viscount Severn.

Changing it in the way I think your talking about, would mean have equal primogenture for the line of succesion, which the UK does not have.

Yes, that is what I am saying. I had read something to that effect after HM make PA PR however! Russo does not know if HM went through with it which is why correcting Russo is in order. HA!

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Yes, that is what I am saying. I had read something to that effect after HM make PA PR however! Russo does not know if HM went through with it which is why correcting Russo is in order. HA!

Well if she did go through with it, which she didn't, that change would be making the line of succesion equal, which hasn't happened yet.
Males still come before females.

[Iluvbertie]

If she had changed it then Anne would be 4th after Charles, William and Harry but she is 10th after her three brothers and their children and like Lumutqueen has said Louise was pushed down the order when James was born and that was long after Anne was created Princess Royal.

Equal inheritance has been discussed but it hasn't happened and it wouldn't be up to the Queen anyway but Parliament would have to pass legislation to change the inheritance laws and the Queen and Parliament are reluctant to have debates on any major issues involving the royals such as this aspect of the inheritance laws and the Act of Settlement issue as well.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

If she had changed it then Anne would be 4th after Charles, William and Harry but she is 10th after her three brothers and their children and like Lumutqueen has said Louise was pushed down the order when James was born and that was long after Anne was created Princess Royal.

Equal inheritance has been discussed but it hasn't happened and it wouldn't be up to the Queen anyway but Parliament would have to pass legislation to change the inheritance laws and the Queen and Parliament are reluctant to have debates on any major issues involving the royals such as this aspect of the inheritance laws and the Act of Settlement issue as well.

That is what I was wondering. Thanks Bertie!

[KittyAtlanta]

@Irish Eyes "One problem that I do see arising in the future will be at the girls' weddings. Obviously Sarah and Andrew will be front row centre but where, in relation to Sarah, will the Queen and DoE be seated? "

Well, let's see...most likely, they will be seated where they are seated at every other royal wedding.

I'd like to see Sarah and Andrew re-wed. However, I think they have a better chance at happiness if they do not. They are two of my favorites and I want them to be happy --- married or not.

But, then again, there is sooooo much hissing going on about Sarah that it just might make Andrew angry enough to propose again!

[KittyAtlanta]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Hang on! Bertie and Osipi, did not the Queen change the line of succession after she made Anne Princess Royal so women would inherit directly and not after there was male issue?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Kitty Atlanta, TONS darling, though I don't know if some would be considered "suitable" by the BRF. Halle Berry comes to mind as she is such a gorgeous creature!
Sade, she might be too old.
The Indian gal who plays Divia on Royal Pains is a stunner.
These women are all strong, gorgeous and Russo is soooo envious of their beautiful skin!

You are sooooo right, Russophile. I too envy their exotic looks. Halle Berry is a bit too old too (for a son) and has been married too many times. Sade is not too old, I think she's around 50 give or take a year or two (prob. no heir). I had an Indian boyfriend long ago, Chandrakant. He was the most beautiful man I ever hugged!!!

[Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

@Irish Eyes "One problem that I do see arising in the future will be at the girls' weddings. Obviously Sarah and Andrew will be front row centre but where, in relation to Sarah, will the Queen and DoE be seated? "

Well, let's see...most likely, they will be seated where they are seated at every other royal wedding.

I'd like to see Sarah and Andrew re-wed. However, I think they have a better chance at happiness if they do not. They are two of my favorites and I want them to be happy --- married or not.

But, then again, there is sooooo much hissing going on about Sarah that it just might make Andrew angry enough to propose again!

Oh you do like a bit of mischief, Prince Philip won't sleep a wink if he is reading this. But I agree, Andrew might have been angry with Sarah at first, but since then I imagine he's is a bit protective of her.
Angry enough to propose again, time will tell but they have the best of both worlds at the moment.

[Zonk]

Halle Berry has only been married twice which is the same amount times that Charles and Anne have been married. Of course, they are still married to their second spouses but still.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Halle Berry has only been married twice which is the same amount times that Charles and Anne have been married. Of course, they are still married to their second spouses but still.

Halle is now separated from him. And they have that gorgeous child too.

@ Irish Eyes, I would imagine Andrew is protective in that she--Sarah has been through the ringer. Sort of like a dog who's been kicked too many times. I am no fan of Sarah's however! There comes a time when you just feel so sorry for the gal you have to help. I just hope she stays out of trouble!