The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f114/)
-   -   Edward and Sophie: Advice, Issues, Role and Questions (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f114/edward-and-sophie-advice-issues-role-and-questions-15351.html)

Claire 12-29-2007 09:13 AM

Edward and Sophie: Advice, Issues, Role and Questions
 
If you could give advice to Edward and Sophie, place it here?

I would really to know if they green pliat suit is Edward's official 'visit my wife when she is in Frimley Park having a baby' wear? Did anyone else notice that he wore the same suit when they brought Louise home, when James was born and when they brought James home.:eek:

Edward really needs to change his Duke of Edinburgh and International Awards speech. Really - the staff and I'm speaking from exprience here can now recit the speech, incuding the jokes. "You can now walk a little taller."

sydney00 12-29-2007 09:55 AM

Quote:

I would really to know if they green pliat suit is Edward's official 'visit my wife when she is in Frimley Park having a baby' wear? Did anyone else notice that he wore the same suit when they brought Louise home, when James was born and when they brought James home.
yes, i thought the same ;) and he also used the words "cute and cuddly" refering to louise. and i thought he just avoids to show any real emotions. i think thats what i d advise to him. he could be a little less distanced, but thats probably how he was educated ;) sophie is a lot better in that

CATS 12-29-2007 05:28 PM

"You can now walk a little taller" is not intended as joke, is basicly means that you should proud of your hard work and achievements.

bluestocking 12-29-2007 08:19 PM

Keep loving and protecting your wife and children. Keep Louise and James the hell away from the paparazzi. Send them to as normal a school as you can, while still keeping them safe, and try to make sure that their friends are nice, normal, middle-class kids from solid, loving and intact families that like you and them for who they are as people, not for the riches and society contacts they can provide. Keep developing your career and your interests, no matter what the gossips say, and let Sophie do the same. If you have to do royal chores, put your talents as a film maker to best use by publicizing the causes that interest you. Ignore nitpicks about the language you use in speeches or the clothes you wear. You are a prince, not Brad Pitt, so who gives a damn? As a royal watcher, I'd love to see some nice, formal pictures of your two children, close-up, but as a human being I recognize that it would be horrible to put such little people on display. Listen to your instincts as a father and husband and you'll never go wrong.

Claire 12-30-2007 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CATS (Post 710008)
"You can now walk a little taller" is not intended as joke, is basicly means that you should proud of your hard work and achievements.

No that is what I call that perticular speech. The 'walk a little taller" speech. It isn't one of the jokes. This year alone he has said that speech at lease a dozen times. You must remember that kids that complete their other awards come back to do gold and also hear the same speech.

Claire 03-24-2008 06:41 AM

When is enough, enough?
 
Okay, we are all thinking it. So lets have an all out discussion. Lady Louise is almost five and attending regular school, yet we have never seen her at any family functions - balcony or Sunday services. James is over 14 weeks old and we have only seen him leave hospital.
I'm I the only one who thinks that Edward and Sophie might be paraniod in their attempts to shield their children? I'm beginning to think that they going to cover them in black shrouds like Micheal Jackson next.
I completely understand their need for privacy and in Louise's case, sensitivity regarding her condition, but they also need to understand that the sooner the kids come to terms with who they are the better they will be in coping with the status.

fandesacs2003 03-24-2008 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 745490)
in Louise's case, sensitivity regarding her condition, .

Hello
I do not understand what happened with Louise??? What do yo mean with "her condition".

Thanks

Australian 03-24-2008 08:05 AM

Lady Louise has an eye condition but I heard something about her being able to get corrective surgery when she is older.

greek101 03-24-2008 08:38 AM

I heard she had already had the operation

jcbcode99 03-24-2008 10:23 AM

While I do agree that it would be nice to see Lady Louise and Baby James--the last photo of Louise was looking through a window (beautiful child), I do think that Edward and Sophie are doing what they feel is best. Perhaps there is more to it than we know?

PrinceOfCanada 03-24-2008 11:33 AM

As parents, they have the right to protect their children. While it's impossible for them to have a normal life, why not let them grow up as long as possible without the ever-present telephoto lens?

Bella 03-24-2008 12:05 PM

As I've said before, I think the fact that these two royal children are not seen often enough only brings added - and perhaps unwanted - attention and speculation. I'm not saying the Wessexes should start parading Louise and James out before the paps, but some nice family photos (perhaps taken by Uncle Andrew) in a private setting of the parents' chosing would not bring any harm or intrusion to the children's lives. Even HM had family portraits and specially staged photographs of her young children. I think Edward & Sophie are only creating this mystery around their children and that, IMO, will be more harmful to them in the long run than releasing photos of their children every year or so.

Rebafan81 03-24-2008 12:30 PM

Bella, I tend to agree with you. They make more of it then I think they need too. I understand protecting your children, but they seem really paranoid and I think it will be a problem for the children as they grow. Whether they want to accept it or not, these children are royal and grandchildren of EQII and no matter how hard they try, that fact will never change. I think Lady Louise is old enough to be around the other children when a special occasion occurs. Both of Princes Margret's children have young children and you see them during special occasions. I think they are causing more mystery by keeping them away, then by allowing a more controlled photo session to be released to the public.

KingCharles 03-24-2008 12:46 PM

I think you have to appreciate the position they are in as well as wanting the children to realise who they are also. Parents can shield their children from exposure to the media and to possible 'bad' people, as they see fit. I think that the comment about Michael Jackson is rather insensitive. He is one of the most famous people in the world and he has a right to want to protect his children whether or not you would adopt the same methods. The same applies to the royal couple and their children. I think that until you have children that are in the same position you have to be more sensitive to the dangers of celebrity status.

acdc1 03-24-2008 01:19 PM

I don't think that there's any need for the kids to be "in the public eye". They are just young children, and it's their parents right to choose how much they are or aren't seen. Maybe a couple of private, casual pictures would be nice, or perhaps being seen at a function, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

Claire 03-24-2008 02:21 PM

There might be more at work here than we know, which is the first problem.
I just know that soon James is going to be christening. If a photo is not realised to the press, there is going to be a number of questions, and if Louise is not in the pic there is going to be more. Edward and Sophie need to lead the press in the way they treat the publicity around their children. They need to set the precedent now while the press are still been sympathetic to them, because when the mood of the press changes they need to be on top of things.
Otherwise saying feed the beast with some nice family pics taken with permission, or the tabloids will find their own.

Kezza 03-24-2008 07:05 PM

I personally don't think the press will be to bothered with their children, more so when Prince William and Prince Harry get married and have children of their own. More so with Prince William's children.

I think Prince Edward and Sophie are just trying to give their children as much of a normal upbringing as they possibly could have.

iowabelle 03-25-2008 03:46 PM

But even regular parents arrange photosessions for their children, even if it is just at Sears. You'd think it would be less traumatic to have the selected photographer come to your place than trooping down to Sears (not that Edward and Sophie would go to Sears!). It's not as if they have to invite the hordes. Heck, they could even have Uncle Andrew or Snowdon take the photographs.

royaltywatcher 03-25-2008 03:58 PM

Edward and Sophie gave a major clue as to their approach to children when they refused royal titles for them.

I think they are just fanning interest in the children when they refuse to show them; indeed, you could almost say they are hiding them. They are still the grandchildren of the Queen, a better approach would be to release or allow limited pictures of the children taken under contolled circumstances. Then the interest will be less, especially when the next generation of children starts arriving.

sydney00 03-25-2008 07:44 PM

i m also still wondering, if there is more than we were told about james.. but that is probably the kind of thinking of it, if you just don t know anything, like you said before.
but when he was born and they quit the hospital they didn t seem to be willing to hide him too much like they did with louise as she already had a difficult start. but remember the video- they seemed to want to show him at least a little.
and, of course they want to protect them to be able to live quite normal-but, just tell me what you think- in my opinion sophie didn t ever worry too much about appearing in the press herself, edward maybe but he obiously realized that it belongs to his doings. so i just can t think of a reason why they honestly don t show them at least a little!
there were even some baby pics with louise, i think taken by andrew (when the queen wear green, i think/sophie black without jewels). so why not doing so with james? so, yes, i think that is not really the right way. on the other hand they don t have to fear the press, i guess, as they are never really interested in their doings.

iowabelle 03-26-2008 03:34 PM

Really, how much interest would there be in these children? I can't think that much -- it's not like these are William's or Harry's children. I'm pretty sure there's been much more coverage of the Linleys or even the Taylors!

morhange 03-26-2008 09:54 PM

We've even seen little Margarita Armstrong-Jones in public events, and she and Louise are the same age.

Skydragon 03-27-2008 05:58 AM

The suggestion that there may be something 'wrong' with these children is horrible, IMO!! :bang:

They and family members probably have 100's of pictures of their children - why should they publish them - they are not public property!:whistling:

Jo of Palatine 03-27-2008 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 746676)
The suggestion that there may be something 'wrong' with these children is horrible, IMO!! :bang:

They and family members probably have 100's of pictures of their children - why should they publish them - they are not public property!:whistling:

Plus they don't hide Louise - she could be seen on the window of BP watching her grandmother pass by at the opening of parliament, was it?

Polly 03-27-2008 08:43 AM

I think that it's normal given their announced intentions and practices, and quite commendable of Wessex and his Countess to shield their young offspring from the public gaze, if indeed, that's what they're doing. Undoubtedly, Her Majesty approves (she permits Louise to be styled Lady Louise and not HRH Princess Louise) as do I. It seems like excellent parenting, to me.

If there were, indeed, anything 'wrong' with the baby, there'd be no need to either hide it or flaunt it. Both Lady Louise and Princess Eugenie have had surgery and the public seemed to accept both operations with typical British fortitude, equanimity and without apparent alarm!

Claire 03-27-2008 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morhange (Post 746582)
We've even seen little Margarita Armstrong-Jones in public events, and she and Louise are the same age.

I think Margarita was born in 2002 the same year Princess Maragret died, Louise in 2003.

lucien 03-27-2008 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 745490)
Okay, we are all thinking it. So lets have an all out discussion. Lady Louise is almost five and attending regular school, yet we have never seen her at any family functions - balcony or Sunday services. James is over 14 weeks old and we have only seen him leave hospital.
I'm I the only one who thinks that Edward and Sophie might be paraniod in their attempts to shield their children? I'm beginning to think that they going to cover them in black shrouds like Micheal Jackson next.
I completely understand their need for privacy and in Louise's case, sensitivity regarding her condition, but they also need to understand that the sooner the kids come to terms with who they are the better they will be in coping with the status.

That is for the parents to decide,and them only.

I wasn't thinking what you were thinking .At all.It's not our business.

People tend to think too much that anyone with a name to fame,or in this case the Royal equivelent,should have their pictures published every other week/day.Utter nonsens,and to call the parents paranoid?How dare you.Exactly.It is most insulting to call them paranoid.When enough is enough indeed.

Paranoid.

Oh,hello Elspeth,no I'm not insulted personally so get out from under that chair again love.Tea anyone?

norwegianne 03-27-2008 04:08 PM

I think that when you have royal children who you know will be in the spotlight one day - Ingrid Alexandra, Christian, Elisabeth, Catherina-Amalia, Leonor, etc. it might be much better to raise them to slowly get used to the spotlight, by various photo-sessions, bring them to arrangements which are suited to their age, and so on… Being royal/the monarch is a learning process, in which the media is involved, as well as I imagine the country feels that they "know" their monarch if they have watched them grow up...

But for children like Louise and James, whose parents want them to have a relatively normal life and the option to choose for themselves, and are further down in the line of succession… I don't think it is a necessity for us to see them. In our time when celebrities tend to sell the rights of photographs of their babies to the highest bidder - I find it refreshing when someone wants their children to grow up out of the spotlight when there isn't a need for them to do it.

I see it as a sign of success for Sophie and Edward's strategy that there aren't more pictures of Louise out there.

Elspeth 03-27-2008 04:27 PM

Blimey, Lucien, why don't you tell us how you really feel? :eek: :hiding:

She dares because this is a forum where people are encouraged to express opinions - hopefully without insulting other members in the process.

pinkie40 03-27-2008 07:36 PM

I assume Prince Edward and his wife Sophie are extremely sensible and educated people so I support whatever decision they make regarding their children! Goodness knows, just getting them in this world has been an ordeal for the couple.

Children are different at various events...While one child may be able to handle with ease a family event another child may find it totally impossible to be able to withstand an event lasting over 5 minutes....And granted it is imperative that children in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen of England (even though she is a devoted and loving granny) behaving properly is a must even for a small mite.

The eye condition little Louise has must be distressing for her parents. Little Dannielyn Marshall Birkhead has it (all of you Americans know her as the daughter of the late Anna Nicole Smith) and for some uneducated people, they equate the eye condition (often totally genetic) as a "curse" of her late mother's drug use while this girl was in utero.

Perhaps the royal parents don't want people staring and making incorrect assumption at the expense of their daughter....I wouldn't..

Let them retain their privacy..a true luxury these days.

Claire 05-01-2008 08:24 AM

A chest full of possiblities
 
I brought a chest full of royalty magazines - Majesty and Royalty, a whole lot of royalty books and newspaper clippings and special editions at a church sale yesterday. I have been going through it reading the articles, laughing at how odd the royals looked then and saddened by how full of praise and possiblities everything seemed.
Here is a few things I read about Edward which I didn't know before.
Edward was a keen wildlife photographer. He even learnt to develop them himself in a dark room. Together with Lady Sarah he would walk around the estates for hours taken pics. He even mounted and displayed several of the pics for a family dinner exhibition.
Edward played hockey, football, rugby, cricket and was in the choir and dramatic society at school. When asked about Edward widely increasing after school facities, the Duke of Edinburgh noted its because he couldn't make choices.
Edward learnt to fly as a cadet at Gordonstoun. He was only 17 at the time and according to his instructor took to the sky like a bird. The Duke of Edinburgh was very impressed and as a gift gave Edward, George VIII's wings. Less than a few months later Edward was ordered to give up flying, the Queen noted it was too expensive and she was convinced that he would die in an airplane accident.
Prince Edward once impressed his mother and Aunt Margaret by completing a Times Crossword that had puzzled them. The Queen Mother was unimpressed noting that he was not the crown prince and it was his job to act stupid.
Edward always wore his brothers' hand me downs until the age of 25 when he no longer fitted into any of their stuff. Some times Edward would not wait for the other royal to be finished with it. One pics shows Edward wearing Prince Andrew's shirt only a few days after Andrew had worn it.

Kezza 05-01-2008 05:50 PM

Some interesting facts about Prince Edward.

I like the crossword bit, if the queen mother said that, then no wonder Prince Charles has turned out the way he has.:whistling:

It sounds like his parents took a great deal of interest in their youngest child.

Claire 05-02-2008 04:15 AM

I have been told by the reason Louise is not seen and that James will not be seen is Edward.
Edward apparently is very worried about his children been harmed by the press. Sophie and the Queen are concerned about it but are apparently playing it by ear hoping no doubt that he will calm down when the children grow up.
Palace couriers have requested that Louise be taken out on to the balacony and attend church with the royals, but Edward refuses to use his children as PR tools and has point blank refused.

Kezza 05-02-2008 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 761053)
I have been told by the reason Louise is not seen and that James will not be seen is Edward.
Edward apparently is very worried about his children been harmed by the press. Sophie and the Queen are concerned about it but are apparently playing it by ear hoping no doubt that he will calm down when the children grow up.
Palace couriers have requested that Louise be taken out on to the balacony and attend church with the royals, but Edward refuses to use his children as PR tools and has point blank refused.

I don't blame him, given the way the press has savaged him in the past. Also just look at the daily mail lately Princess Beatrice has been labelled as being fat, just because she has big thighs.

I also don't blame him for not wanting his kids to be used as PR tools either, given the way I feel Prince Charles's boys are used as sometimes. Even by their own father IMO.

Nothing wrong with being a protective Father.

Skydragon 05-02-2008 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 761053)
I have been told by the reason Louise is not seen and that James will not be seen is Edward.
Edward apparently is very worried about his children been harmed by the press. Sophie and the Queen are concerned about it but are apparently playing it by ear hoping no doubt that he will calm down when the children grow up.
Palace couriers have requested that Louise be taken out on to the balacony and attend church with the royals, but Edward refuses to use his children as PR tools and has point blank refused.

All this is of course speculation, unless you have a link.

Why should they 'produce' their children, they will be in the media soon enough, meanwhile let them be ordinary unrecognized children.

Edward will be well aware that the media do not take much notice of the parents. :whistling:

Mermaid1962 05-02-2008 12:33 PM

I think that Edward is wise in this area. No doubt he remembers the public appearances he made and the effect that they had on him to be trotted out for public viewing. For a person as private as Edward seems to be, this must have been difficult for him. In theatrical performances, he was on display but on his own terms.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 761053)
I have been told by the reason Louise is not seen and that James will not be seen is Edward.
Edward apparently is very worried about his children been harmed by the press. Sophie and the Queen are concerned about it but are apparently playing it by ear hoping no doubt that he will calm down when the children grow up.
Palace couriers have requested that Louise be taken out on to the balacony and attend church with the royals, but Edward refuses to use his children as PR tools and has point blank refused.


erica_potvin 05-02-2008 01:05 PM

Prince Edward and Sophie should realize that their children are royal no matter what. Look at the rest of the family, they seem to have their childern out and about. Not to upset anyone but I don't think that they should be made special. Those children need to learn and understand that they have a Queen for a grandmother and maybe they would like to support the queen and have fun with all of the rest of the childern that come out.

Warren 05-03-2008 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erica_potvin (Post 761189)
Those children need to learn and understand that they have a Queen for a grandmother...

I'm sure the children will be able to "learn and understand they have a Queen for a grandmother" even without their photographs regularly appearing in magazines.

Kezza 05-03-2008 09:04 PM

I agree with you Warren, the children will more than likely know who their grandmother is and was.

Claire 05-18-2008 04:24 AM

The Beginning of the end?
 
Last week the Telegraph wrote an article called the Future of the Monarchy.
Is this the future of the Royal Family? - Telegraph
Although it starts as a finacing issue, it leads in the fact the younger royals are now taking over from their elder uncles and aunts in the popularity stakes.
I am beginning to worry about Edward and Sophie's future in the royal family. And am now beginning to wonder if it involves been in the family at all? Not one news agency wondered if Edward and Sophie were there, asked why they weren't on the steps? They were simply forgotten. They shouldn't be concerned as neither was the absence of Princess Alexander and some others.

Edward and Sophie appear to be taken side lines whenever they can. Sophie appears to have became a royal housewife. Something she must be doing with the Queen's consent. Edward has made it well know that he wishes the younger royals to take on the Duke of Edinburgh Award.
When the emergence of William, Harry and Beatrice on the engagements calender, you must wonder if Edward and Sophie believe that their support and work will no longer be required, after all it was never really applauded anyway.
Do you argree with the article? Are the efforts of Edward and Sophie and the other minor royals whom don't even merit a mention in the article - pointless to the monarchy and Britian. Should their charities apply at Kate Middleton's door now?

rmay286 05-18-2008 02:30 PM

I think one could ask quite easily whether anything any members of the royal family do is necessary? Does Britain need a monarchy?

But since it's probably going to still have one for a while, I don't think it's surprising that the younger royals are now attracting more attention than the older ones. In the 1980s all eyes were on Charles and Diana and Sarah and Andrew because they were the younger royals, in their twenties and thirties. Now their children are the same age. I think it makes sense.

As for Edward and Sophie, I think they're probably content to be seen as the boring older generation and forgotten about. They definitely don't seem to want public attention, and in fact they tried hard for a while to pursue non-royal careers. I think they'd be quite happy to disappear into relative oblivion.

TLLK 05-18-2008 05:20 PM

I agree. I believe that the Wessexes will continue with their royal duties, but remain out of the public view as much as possible. Once Charles becomes King, I believe that they will scale back even more.

Bijoux Roy 05-24-2008 02:25 PM

I think it's up to the parents whether their children are seen in public or not. Personally I don't mind if I don't see either child. I believe it's best for the children.

My issue is with Sophie and Edward themselves. I believe that both of them have used their royal connections for business gains. Sophie attempted to use them with her PR firm and failed miserably. She didn't mind being, "almost" royal when she lived with Edward as his girlfriend for 7 or so years at BP.

Edward's company was caught taking pictures of William at Eton after Diana's death, when the Palace asked the Press to please back off. Evidently it didn't mean his??

They've been the worst offenders (and people knock Sarah, Dutchess of York!)

I used to have tremendous respect for Edward, unfortunately it diminished as years went on, and then he married Sophie, who to me is no better than any other person who married into the family and divorced.

Hopefully he'll stay wise and continue to shield his children, the most certainly deserve that much.

Mermaid1962 05-24-2008 05:48 PM

It was at St. Andrews and not at Eton when Edward filmed, but William was not filmed personally. The footage was of the town.

I like Edward and Sophie very much, because after making some serious errors in judgement about business ventures they've shown themselves to be effective working members of the Royal Family. They cherish their personal and family lives, and I admire that. They've been married for nine years now, and there's never been any serious hint that their marriage is troubled. Given the environment that they live in, that's quite significant.

Kezza 05-24-2008 06:45 PM

Sophie worst than the Duchess of York??? I don't think so IMO. When it comes to trading in royal connections for business.

Like Mermaid1962 said they made some mistakes in 2001, but they both learnt from it quickly. They both work hard as members of the Royal Family. Where their marraige is at is happy one, and success story when you consider the divorces of Pr Edward's older siblings.

I agree with what you Bijoux Boy when it comes to the issue of whether they want their children photographed in public or not. Thats up to them... I don't feel comfortable personally when children are thrust into the spotlight, it leaves them open to all sorts of stuff being written in the press.

pinkie40 06-08-2008 11:58 PM

I hope Edward finds some way to channel some of his enormous creativity and talent for making royal history vibrant. I so miss his fabulous documentaries.

He would be the best person to write and produce/direct a series on the royal history of England for Children.

I'm not so sure what would be the best avenue for Sophie other than tending to the daily needs of very young children which is the biggest job on the planet for every good mother.

agogo 07-16-2010 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK (Post 767712)
I agree. I believe that the Wessexes will continue with their royal duties, but remain out of the public view as much as possible. Once Charles becomes King, I believe that they will scale back even more.

Maybe, maybe not. I believe that Prince Charles will welcome help with the family duties. State dinners must be a tedious bore. QE II always had cousins and family atteding.

Lumutqueen 07-16-2010 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agogo (Post 1111981)
Maybe, maybe not. I believe that Prince Charles will welcome help with the family duties. State dinners must be a tedious bore. QE II always had cousins and family atteding.

At State Occasions maybe, but that will be it.
When Charles becomes King, Edward and Sophie will scale down their duties substantially.

muriel 07-16-2010 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1112099)
At State Occasions maybe, but that will be it.
When Charles becomes King, Edward and Sophie will scale down their duties substantially.

I do not think that Edward and Sophie will materially reduce the number of engagements they carry out once Charles is King. They are quite low profile at the moment, but effective at what they do. I think Charles will keep them on. Its the York girls that are likely to have very limited or nio public role, IMO.

Fürstin Taxis 07-16-2010 04:27 PM

I heard that some English magazines criticized that the Queen gave them the titel Earl and Countess of Wessex. This title was 1000 years not used.
The "Sunday Mirror" wrote: It´s a shame. Because it´s unmodern. Aha.

Lumutqueen 07-17-2010 06:26 AM

Royal titles are not meant to be Modern, so whoever criticised them knows nothing about royal titles.
And it was just less then a 1000.

Hissy 01-04-2011 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fürstin Taxis (Post 1112623)
I heard that some English magazines criticized that the Queen gave them the titel Earl and Countess of Wessex. This title was 1000 years not used.
The "Sunday Mirror" wrote: It´s a shame. Because it´s unmodern. Aha.

When the title for Prince Edward was released I remember that one of the titles that was also mentioned was Duke of Clarence. Of course there are some negative associations with that title! So Wessex is definitely better. Yet I too was a bit disappointed because I thought he would be titled a Duke, like his brother Andrew. I wonder if Prince Edward had much say as to choice. Any insight on that?

As for being "unmodern", that is a strange thing for the Mirror to write. After all even being titled a prince seems very old fashioned....

Mermaid1962 01-04-2011 05:47 PM

Prince Edward has gradually been taking over the work of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme, and the understanding has been that he will receive that title after Prince Philip dies. The title will revert to the Crown, but then it will be re-issued (recreated?) to Prince Edward rather than it being directed inherited. This was announced at the time that Prince Edward became the Earl of Wessex, which apparently was his choice of title.:flowers:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hissy (Post 1184901)
I wonder if Prince Edward had much say as to choice. Any insight on that?


NoorMeansLight 01-04-2011 05:56 PM

It was Edward's choice, as far as I know. He liked the way it sounded (Earl of Wessex) and asked HM to be given this particular title.

Royal Fan 01-05-2011 02:15 PM

is their a formal ceromony like when she grants a Knighthood??

Lumutqueen 01-05-2011 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan (Post 1185737)
is their a formal ceromony like when she grants a Knighthood??

You mean when Edward became an Earl?
No I don't think there is, just papers to sign and letter heads to change. Nothing like when Charles became POW.

Edward chose to be an Earl..

Iluvbertie 01-05-2011 02:48 PM

There used to be a formal ceremony when the new title holder took their seat in the House of Lords. Philip, Charles and Andrew all went through that but Edward never did. This applied to all new title holders.

My great-aunt had a great time watching her cousin take his seat in the House of Lords in the 1930s and told us about it a number of times after that. Her son was the representative of the Australian branch of the family invited when the next member of the family took his seat. Unfortunately he was an only son of an only son and had only daughters so the title is now extinct.

Royal Fan 01-05-2011 03:04 PM

if i may ask what was the title

Iluvbertie 01-06-2011 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan (Post 1185785)
if i may ask what was the title


Viscount Leverhulme.

The 1st Viscount and his brother founded Sunlight soap and built the village of Sunlight for their workers.

IloveCP 06-10-2011 01:55 PM

I would say keep doing what your doing and keep your problems out of the public because in your postion it is very difficult.

roseroyal 07-20-2011 10:22 PM

What was Sophie's background before she was married? Was she a commoner?

IloveCP 07-20-2011 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roseroyal (Post 1289580)
What was Sophie's background before she was married? Was she a commoner?


Yes she was.She worked in public relations until 2002.She first met Edward in 1993.

roseroyal 07-20-2011 10:43 PM

I thought so. Several British newspapers said that Kate was the 1st commoner to marry into the BRF since before Diana.
I knew that was not right. Now I am wondering if I misread, and what they really said was that Kate is the first commoner to marry a future King in X years, because that is true.
Anyway, thanks for the info!

Iluvbertie 07-20-2011 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roseroyal (Post 1289586)
I thought so. Several British newspapers said that Kate was the 1st commoner to marry into the BRF since before Diana.
I knew that was not right. Now I am wondering if I misread, and what they really said was that Kate is the first commoner to marry a future King in X years, because that is true.
Anyway, thanks for the info!



Kate is the first commoner to marry a future British King in 6 years - as the next Queen was a commoner when she married the future King in 2005.

IloveCP 12-17-2011 10:17 PM

I don't know where else to put this but People magazine did an interesting article about how Edward quit the marines in 1987.

Edward Goes His Own Way - The British Royals, Prince Edward, Prince Philip : People.com

Mermaid1962 12-17-2011 11:02 PM

:previous: This brings so much back to memory. There are still people who bring up Edward's leaving the Marines in order to criticize him. The irony is that this sensitive, artistic young prince enrolled in what's supposed to be the toughest and most demanding of HM's Forces; and apparently he was coping with it just fine. Perhaps his trying to run his own company was an attempt to create his own job for himself, given that it would be difficult for him to work for someone else. As it is, I think that things have worked out spectacularly well for him. He married a loyal woman and has two charming children.

Daria_S 12-17-2011 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1347699)
:previous: This brings so much back to memory. There are still people who bring up Edward's leaving the Marines in order to criticize him. The irony is that this sensitive, artistic young prince enrolled in what's supposed to be the toughest and most demanding of HM's Forces; and apparently he was coping with it just fine. Perhaps his trying to run his own company was an attempt to create his own job for himself, given that it would be difficult for him to work for someone else. As it is, I think that things have worked out spectacularly well for him. He married a loyal woman and has two charming children.

I think that it takes a very strong and self-aware person to back out of something once realizing that he/she wanted something different. Edward wasn't afraid to be himself, and by leaving the forces he just showed the world that he knew himself and what he wanted out of life. It did indeed work out in his favor; he's happily settled with his wife and family, doing what he can for his country.

MagMil 12-17-2011 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daria_S (Post 1347703)
I think that it takes a very strong and self-aware person to back out of something once realizing that he/she wanted something different. Edward wasn't afraid to be himself, and by leaving the forces he just showed the world that he knew himself and what he wanted out of life. It did indeed work out in his favor; he's happily settled with his wife and family, doing what he can for his country.

:previous:
Very well said Daria :flowers:
I agree totally with you :smile:.He know what he want about himself and he is happy with that choice :smile:

annaelfka 01-06-2013 05:27 PM

Hi, can someone explain me why Countess Wessex doesn't have a Royal Monogram? At least I cannot find it online. Wikipedia shows monograms of each and every royal member of family, but not of Countess Wessex and Prince Edward as well...
Also I know they (Edward + Sophie) use dual monogram, she even has a pendant with it, but again, cannot find it online.
Thank you.

royal-blue 06-10-2013 07:03 PM

The Wessexes as "low key royals"
 
The Earl and Countess of Wessex are often described as low key royals, compared to the rest of Edward's generation.

Is this deliberate ie in reaction to their earlier (or should that be Earlier?)scandals (Ardent and Sophiegate) or perhaps they were told to keep a low profile by the Queen or Prince Charles, or are they naturally low profile people, like the Gloucesters for example?

NGalitzine 06-10-2013 07:30 PM

The monarchs younger children get less attention than the monarchs elder children and now her grown grandchildren are in the spotlight. It happens in every generation. Edward and Sophie continue to work hard undertaking engagements on behalf of the monarch, especially Edward in relationship to the DofE Awards, and represent her at continental social events. Even Anne and Andrew receive less public attention than they used to though both continue to carry out hundreds of engagements each year.
Media attention is naturally on the monarch, her consort, her heir and his wife and now on William, Catherine and Harry who represent the future of the monarchy.

AdmirerUS 06-10-2013 07:44 PM

I think a lot has to do with "What is the goal?" for Sophie and Edward and family. I do believe that the two of them have had that coversation and plotted a course that will make them happy, while serving country.

I think we tend to be less sanguine about the state of affairs - but what if what we want for them is not what they want? :ermm: And we have no way to know.

Marty91charmed 09-14-2013 08:43 AM

I have a question: Why don't Sophie and Edward usually bring their son with them to events etc? I mean, I often see Louise but never James. Is it because he's too young?

Molly2101 09-14-2013 09:08 AM

Yes, I believe it is because is still young, as he is only 5 years old. He attended some Diamond Jubilee/Coronation events (the boat pageant and the Festival in July) and then he attended Trooping the Colour for the first time this year. Louise only began attending Trooping the Colour when she was 5 and I think Edward and Sophie do not want their children to be in the spotlight. They are very much hidden in comparison to the Queen's other grandchildren. We saw her other 6 grandchildren a lot as young children, whereas Edward and Sophie do not want that for their children. I think in the long run it will benefit them greatly.

We may see James at Christmas this year but not likely. He attended Ascot in December last year with his parents, and he is also at The Windsor Horse Show but regarding public events, I don't think we'll really see James until he's older. It may also be to do with the fact that he wont sit still during services as he is only 5. The times we have seen him he does come across as a bit of a livewire, and Sophie herself said something similar when she was asked about James travelling in the carriage at Trooping the Colour.

Zonk 09-15-2013 11:47 AM

I think it was a brave and wise choice.

Edward recognizes that his children have a minimal chance to succeed to the throne. Nor will they really have to work for the BRF in an official capacity. He has seen the positive and negative of having his nieces and nephews having or not having titles. Anne's kids because their father didn't have a title are just doing just fine. And Andrews's daughter who have a titles are doing fine but receive a lot of negative press. Now that could be because of who their parents are (Anne/Mark vs Sarah/Andrew), the fact that they are older (Beatrice/Eugenie/Zara/Peter are much older than Louise and James), they party too much, security costs, etc. These issues be an entirely new thread. But having the potential to just fade into the crowd might be benefit to Louise and James.

Be that as it may, I think Edward and Sophie are looking at the future of James and Louise and decided that a low key member of the BRF is the best for them. Of course we don't know what the future will bring...both Louise and James are cute kids who can grow up to be cute young adults, and we know how the British press loves that.

I can see the headlines now....Lovely Louise, niece of King Charles III attends Ascot!

So it might all be for naught but right now...they are thinking of their children IMO.

Molly2101 09-15-2013 11:48 AM

It is not really anything to do with "getting" him. Imagine the uproar if Edward, the Queen's YOUNGEST son (who the public think is lazy, wasn't cut out for Navy life and bit of a waste), was made a Duke twice. That would not have gone down well. He knew that being made an Earl wasn't a bad thing as he knew he would be a Duke. The Earl of Wessex title is one of the oldest in the BRF, so it was nice to see it come back. I don't believe the farce about him choosing it because he and Sophie watched "Shakespeare In Love". I think that is just a someone romanticising something.

Their kids are not less normal per se, but they are definitely less well known that their older cousins. That may be primarily to do with Edward not being as well known as his older siblings, whose main fame (for Charles and Andrew really) derives from their failed marriages and very public separations. Not making them an HRH was a forward thinking move on their (or Charles) behalf as two less HRH's in the BRF is a good thing. The current argument with Beatrice and Eugenie finding their place in the world without abusing their HRH status is very prominent. Louise and James will never have to be part of that argument as they will never be HRH's, thus they will find their own way in life.

I think Edward and Sophie's main reason behind not using HRH styles is because they want their children to be private citizens; they want them to have normal, or as normal a childhood as possible. They will of course be very aware of who their relatives are and that their friends don't nip up to a castle for their summer break, but they are definitely less seen in the public than their cousins. Even Peter and Zara were photographed much more than Louise and James.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 1599555)
I think it was a brave and wise choice.

Edward recognizes that his children have a minimal chance to succeed to the throne. Nor will they really have to work for the BRF in an official capacity. He has seen the positive and negative of having his nieces and nephews having or not having titles. Anne's kids because their father didn't have a title are just doing ust fine. And Andrews's daughter who have a titles are doing fine but receive a lot of negative press. Now that could be because of who their parents are (Anne/Mark vs Sarah/Andrew), the fact that they are older (Beatrice/Eugenie/Zara/Peter are much older than Louise and James), etc. Those two facts could separate an entirely new thread. But having the potential to just fade into the crowd might be benefit to Louise and James.

Be that as it may, I think Edward and Sophie are looking at the future of James and Louise and decided that a low key member of the BRF is the best for them. Of course we don't know what the future will bring...both Louise and James are cute kids who can grow up to be cute young adults, and we know how the British press loves that.

I can see the headlines now....Lovely Louise, niece of King Charles III attends Ascot!

So it might all be for naught but right now...they are thinking of their children IMO.

I agree that at the moment it is quite irrelevant as they are both young, school age children. It will only be different as they grow up and find their way in life. As you say, we will still see them in the papers as they grow up as they will always be related to the monarch. They will be the monarch's niece attending Ascot, the monarch's cousin attending a family funeral with his wife and children etc.

NGalitzine 09-15-2013 12:53 PM

I think styling them as them as the children of a peer does give them a better shot at a more normal and private life out of the spotlight. By the time they are adults they will be on the perifery of the royal family, faces on the edge of the photographs and people will ask how they are related to Charles III or William V. Good for them that they will largely avoid the attention, jealousy and criticism that an HRH brings. It is most unlikely they will ever be needed for royal duties anyway.
(So "bebe" how was the lobster season off Cape Breton this year, lol)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises