The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #541  
Old 09-23-2016, 07:29 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
A couple of years ago might be an exaggeration, but Sophie shared a story in the spring that Louise didn't realize that her grandmother was the Queen (and that that was something special) until after she had started school. Sophie and Edward deliberately made the choice to keep their children out of the royal spotlight.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 09-23-2016, 07:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,520
I'd be really hard pressed to believe that George at three would understand and recognize his grandmother's role as Queen. He's basically seen her as Gan-Gan. With getting a little bit older and branching out into the world with school and school mates, it will become more self evident to him just what his Gan-Gan's role really is. A child is more apt to see a parent as "Daddy" rather than see that parent as a physicist or a accountant until he's older.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 09-23-2016, 07:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This, to me, is part of something every father is proud to see. Descendants carrying on his name which, IIRC, was a sore point for the DoE there for a while. Once Edward is created the Duke of Edinburgh, that title will also be passed down from Philip to his male descendants through Edward and James. So, to me, it makes sense that for now Edward is Earl of Wessex. These plans were drawn up at the time of the wedding I believe. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it will be Edward that carries on the work with the Duke of Edinburgh Award too.
Philip's title will go to Charles, when he dies. ANd I think ti would be better to let that happen and then let the title be free perhaps for Harry when he marries or reaches a maturity stage... However they seem to have settled it as it is.
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 09-23-2016, 08:17 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Philip's title will go to Charles, when he dies. ANd I think ti would be better to let that happen and then let the title be free perhaps for Harry when he marries or reaches a maturity stage... However they seem to have settled it as it is.

The decision of the Queen and the DoE is that when they are both gone and the title has been merged with the crown it will be recreated for Edward. This has been discussed at great length in the thread regarding the future of the title and was announced on Edward's marriage 17 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 09-23-2016, 08:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,200
Yes I know. Edward will be D of Edinburgh some day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
A couple of years ago might be an exaggeration, but Sophie shared a story in the spring that Louise didn't realize that her grandmother was the Queen (and that that was something special) until after she had started school. Sophie and Edward deliberately made the choice to keep their children out of the royal spotlight.
I find that hard to believe. Perhaps George at 2 or 3 doesn't know his great Grandmother is the queen but Louise?
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 09-24-2016, 01:09 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I find that hard to believe. Perhaps George at 2 or 3 doesn't know his great Grandmother is the queen but Louise?
No one is saying that Louise doesn't know now. What is being said by her mother - a woman who, unlike any of us, actually knows Louse - is that Louise didn't always know, and it wasn't until she was in school that she found out.
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 09-24-2016, 01:20 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,843
Found out or realised??

I suspect that Louise didn't put two and two together. To her The Queen is 'granny' and not the same person on the coins, stamps etc. When she went to school that started to become more obvious until such time as she fully comprehended that her beloved 'granny' was The Queen to everyone else and when they all sang the National Anthem they were singing to save her granny.

I remember reading that Edward VII didn't realise until he was about 11 or 12 that he was his mother's heir. He knew his mother was The Queen by then of course but that he was the heir took longer. Charles seems to have understood earlier.

Kids come to a realisation of the world about them at different ages.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 09-24-2016, 02:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
No one is saying that Louise doesn't know now. What is being said by her mother - a woman who, unlike any of us, actually knows Louse - is that Louise didn't always know, and it wasn't until she was in school that she found out.
I didn't say that Louise didn't know now.. but I find it hard to believe that she didn't know before she went to school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Found out or realised??

I
I remember reading that Edward VII didn't realise until he was about 11 or 12 that he was his mother's heir. He knew his mother was The Queen by then of course but that he was the heir took longer. Charles seems to have understood earlier.

Kids come to a realisation of the world about them at different ages.
The story was about Edward VII as I recall that he thought that Victoria, his elder sister was the heir... which wasn't entirely unfeasible, since his mother was queen regnant and Ed himself wasn't overly clever.
Anyway, these stories are usually spun, in terms of "showing us how innocent or unworldly the royal child is."
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 09-24-2016, 03:34 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
And I'm pretty sure of the exact opposite. Edward does fantastic work with his father and he almost deserves that title when his father passes. [...].
Prince Edward will never receive his father's title, as the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh. He is just the number six in the line for his father's peerages. The only possibility for him to become Duke of Edinburgh is by new creation. He will then become the first Duke of the new creation instead of being his father's heir.
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 09-24-2016, 04:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,843
Remotely slim chance of Edward inheriting his father's title does exist. IF Charles, William, George, Harry and Andrew were all to predecease Philip then Edward would inherit it. There is more chance of Harry admittedly but never isn't true as there is a very, very slim possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
The story was about Edward VII as I recall that he thought that Victoria, his elder sister was the heir... which wasn't entirely unfeasible, since his mother was queen regnant and Ed himself wasn't overly clever.
Anyway, these stories are usually spun, in terms of "showing us how innocent or unworldly the royal child is."
Why he believed that Vicky would inherit over him isn't the point. The point was that he didn't realise it until he was nearly a teenager and actually had to be told it by his tutor (who records the facts in his diaries and in a letter to a family member at the time - so not a piece of spin but a fact).

Edward was way more clever than he was given credit for by his father and teachers. Had he been in a modern school he would have been encouraged to study subjects, such as Modern History, in which he was interested rather than Ancient History for which he had no interest at all. Napoleon III was very impressed by his knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars whereas his father and tutor despaired of him because he couldn't understand the Persian Wars but didn't value his knowledge of more recent conflicts. This is just an example.
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 09-25-2016, 02:18 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,542
I've deleted some back and forth bickering about whether Edward VII knew he was the heir. That conversation is just going around in circles, so let's move on. And just a reminder, please remember to treat your fellow posters with respect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 09-25-2016, 02:32 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Remotely slim chance of Edward inheriting his father's title does exist. IF Charles, William, George, Harry and Andrew were all to predecease Philip then Edward would inherit it. There is more chance of Harry admittedly but never isn't true as there is a very, very slim possibility.



Why he believed that Vicky would inherit over him isn't the point. The point was that he didn't realise it until he was nearly a teenager and actually had to be told it by his tutor (who records the facts in his diaries and in a letter to a family member at the time - so not a piece of spin but a fact).

Edward was way more clever than he was given credit for by his father and teachers. Had he been in a modern school he would have been encouraged to study subjects, such as Modern History, in which he was interested rather than Ancient History for which he had no interest at all. Napoleon III was very impressed by his knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars whereas his father and tutor despaired of him because he couldn't understand the Persian Wars but didn't value his knowledge of more recent conflicts. This is just an example.

Modern historians seem to highlight Edward's personal influence on the creation of the entente cordiale with France, the rapprochement with Russia, and the consequent distancing between the UK and Germany. At the time, the King was hailed as a peacemaker, but, in retrospect, his foreign policy probably accelerated the path towards World War I, rather than preventing it. I am not sure how to judge his legacy then.
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 09-25-2016, 03:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,200
I have a horrible feeling that that war was inevitable..
Edward's intention was certainly to make peace.. NOt sure how much he really did other than oil the wheels of diplomacy and follow the Brit govt's policy..
But I dotn believe he was any Einstein.. So I'm surprised that historians are saying he had a real role in the various things like the Entente cordiale.
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 08-02-2020, 08:53 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Why aren't the current, respective Dukes of Kent and Gloucester styled as the '2nd'? They both inherited these titles from their fathers, for whom the dukedoms were (most recently) created. Does the style of using ordinal numbers only begin when a dukedom becomes non-royal? So, for example, when George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (not a prince) inherits the Dukedom of Kent from his father, will he be styled as the '3rd'?
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 08-02-2020, 09:02 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 28,316
The previous creation of the title duke of Kent went extinct in 1900 upon the title holders death.

It was recreated again in 1934 for HRH Prince George (1902–1942) and following his death in 1942 it inherited by his son Prince Edward.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 08-02-2020, 09:14 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Why aren't the current, respective dukes of Kent and Gloucester styled as the '2nd'? They both inherited these titles from their fathers, for whom the dukedoms were (most recently) created. Does the style of using ordinal numbers only begin when a dukedom becomes non-royal? So, for example, when George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (not a prince) inherits the dukedom of Kent from his father, will he be styled as the '3rd'?
I don't think ordinal numbers form part of the official style of any duke, royal or non-royal. They are used as needed to clarify which duke one is citing, when there has been more than one. I suppose it is not needed for the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as their fathers can be cited as "the late duke" or "the current duke's father".
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 08-02-2020, 09:31 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
The previous creation of the title duke of Kent went extinct in 1900 upon the title holders death.

It was recreated again in 1934 for HRH Prince George (1902–1942) and following his death in 1942 it inherited by his son Prince Edward.
Actually the last Duke of Kent before Prince Georg was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent the fahter of Queen Victoria who died in 1820. So there was no Duke of Kent between 1820 and 1934.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 08-02-2020, 09:53 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I don't think ordinal numbers form part of the official style of any duke, royal or non-royal. They are used as needed to clarify which duke one is citing, when there has been more than one. I suppose it is not needed for the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as their fathers can be cited as "the late duke" or "the current duke's father".
Thanks for your response.

The only example I can find of a duke descended from a royal duke being referred to using an ordinal number (officially styled or not) is in the case of Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. He inherited the position from his grandfather, Prince Arthur (the first Duke), a son of Queen Victoria. As a great-grandson of a monarch (post-1917), he was not a prince and therefore not a royal duke. Perhaps the number was applied because he was non-royal, and therefore like any regular duke, unlike in the cases of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester. You suggested that numbers are not needed where the current aforementioned dukes are concerned because there have only been two of each, but the same could be said of the example that I mentioned.

Worthy of note, Alastair Windsor died before having children, and so the title became extinct, meaning there was no 3rd Duke.
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 08-02-2020, 10:20 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Thanks for your response.

The only example I can find of a duke descended from a royal duke being referred to using an ordinal number (officially styled or not) is in the case of Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. [...] You suggested that numbers are not needed where the current aforementioned dukes are concerned because there have only been two of each, but the same could be said of the example that I mentioned.
Unofficially, I have certainly seen other royal dukes referred to in that matter. On this forum alone, one can find two people referring to the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as the 2nd:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2220126
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...html#post72649
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 08-02-2020, 10:27 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Unofficially, I have certainly seen other royal dukes referred to in that matter. On this forum alone, one can find two people referring to the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester as the 2nd:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2220126
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...html#post72649
So I suppose it really is just as casual as that. There really are no official rules where ordinal numbers are concerned. Okay, I suppose I'm satisfied with that answer. Thanks!

A quick question regarding capitalisation: Would it be correct to say 'the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester' or 'the dukes...'?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dukedom, royal dukes, 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
Royal Titles Zina Royal Family of Brunei 25 08-22-2018 10:23 AM
Moroccan Royal Names and Titles bjanka66 Royal Family of Morocco 62 07-25-2018 05:50 PM
Royal, Princely and Comital Titles MAfan Royal Families of Italy 31 08-08-2016 11:55 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british royal family british royals buckingham palace cht commonwealth countries countess of snowdon cover-up daisy duke of cambridge dutch dutch royals family life family tree games haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history imperial household interesting intro israel jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewelry kids movie king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers mailing maxima names nepal nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince charles prince charles of luxembourg princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen louise queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal events royal jewels royal marriage royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon spain speech spencer family startling new evidence taiwan thailand unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×