The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 2: May 2004-October 2005 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/lady-louise-mountbatten-windsor-news-and-pictures-2-may-2004-october-2005-a-2440.html)

Elspeth 08-19-2005 12:35 AM

I'm not sure they even knew about the defect when her name was announced.

branchg 08-19-2005 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle
Maybe it would be a sign of the forward-thinking of the House of Windsor! (Wouldn't that be unique?) And a sign that the monarchy is in tune with the people, instead of the aristocrats. (I know, now I'm sounding like I'm a French revolutionary.)

I agree. And, after all, Peter and Zara Philips hold no titles or royal dignities and they seem to be doing just fine without it.

zeap 08-19-2005 01:55 AM

Quote:

I agree. And, after all, Peter and Zara Philips hold no titles or royal dignities and they seem to be doing just fine without it.
Oh really? Zara Phillips might not have a royal title, but she gets more press than William at times- and enjoys it!

However you are right about Peter... He seems to be doing fine without it, so the situation is two-fold I guess..

kelly9480 08-19-2005 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
Quote:

Under prima genitor rules it is Prince Michaelís older brother, The Duke of Kent, who carries out official duties which are included in the Court Circular. Prince Michaelís sister, Princess Alexandra, was asked by the Queen to undertake such duties because of a lack of female members of the family during the 1960s.


Oh, blimey, that's stretching it a bit. The Queen, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, the Duchess of Gloucester (Princess Alice, not the present one), the Duchess of Kent, and Princess Marina were all active in the 1960s. I wonder what the real reason was.

What else was there for a royal princess to do in those days? Work wasn't an option, so that left marriage, motherhood, and duties -- exactly what Alexandra did.

iowabelle 08-19-2005 01:43 PM

Quote:

I think this an unlikely reason as it implies that only perfect physical specimens will be allowed the Royal dignity; ie even a minor (and perhaps temporary) physical imperfection is enough to disqualify a child from their legal birthright. I don't think the Windsors are that harsh!
.
I agree. We all hope that Louise's eye condition can be fixed. If not, Louise won't be the first royal with a visible physical issue (consider Princess Christina of the Netherlands). I don't think that people would be cruel to her either on account of it.

My personal belief is that, given Edward's difficulty being taken seriously since he has an HRH and the accusations that he has used it for personal gain, Edward and Sophie might have decided to spare their children the burden of an HRH so that they can have more personal freedom.

Frothy 08-19-2005 01:54 PM

It's not to do with being "deprived of" or "not allowed" the Royal dignity. It may have been a decision Sophie and Edward took to protect Louise from the extra scrutiny that comes with an HRH.

The Queen is not about depriving people of titles. She apparently offered Anne to create her children Prince/ss under new letters patent, but Anne declined. She offered Diana an HRH in her own right. She permitted the dowager duchess of Gloucester to style herself 'Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester' as though Alice were a princess of the blood!

Many RF members prefer the privacy for themselves or their children of no titles; Anne and Edward seem to be two of those.

Elspeth 08-19-2005 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly9480
What else was there for a royal princess to do in those days? Work wasn't an option, so that left marriage, motherhood, and duties -- exactly what Alexandra did.

Princess Alexandra was in the same position that many other women were in who didn't have the option of royal duties. At the time she married, it wasn't usual for women to have careers; marriage and motherhood were the norm, and she could presumably have devoted herself to her family and to local charity work like other upper-class ladies. Before her marriage she was involved in private charity work and part-time nursing, IIRC.

I'm just saying that this business about there not being enough other royal ladies sounds like an excuse. There were quite enough other royal ladies to be going on with.

Elspeth 08-19-2005 01:59 PM

Well, it'll be interesting to see if Lady Louise does decide to start using her title at some point. Or if she starts being known as HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh if her father is granted the Edinburgh title in the future.

Frothy 08-19-2005 01:59 PM

Iowa

Quote:

And a sign that the monarchy is in tune with the people, instead of the aristocrats. (I know, now I'm sounding like I'm a French revolutionary.)
LOL! But I don't think you understand the British mind. The British are not Americans - we like titles; we like that we have a monarchy and an aristocracy. We like that Paul McCartney gets knighted. We follow the Honours list twice a year with great interest, it's front-page stuff.

The people like having an aristocracy and they like titles. Anne's children only don't have them because titles and arms pass through (usually) men. There's something I'd like to see changed.

Frothy 08-19-2005 02:03 PM

Quote:

HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh

A gorgeous title and it is good if the RF has some uniquely Scots titles.

branchg 08-19-2005 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle
My personal belief is that, given Edward's difficulty being taken seriously since he has an HRH and the accusations that he has used it for personal gain, Edward and Sophie might have decided to spare their children the burden of an HRH so that they can have more personal freedom.

I believe I read somewhere this was the intent in styling Louise as a daughter of an Earl, rather than a princess of the UK. Although, in my opinion, since everyone knows she is royal, I fail to see how it will make much of a difference in terms of publicity or "burden". Being royal IS a burden by its very definition, due to the duty involved.

contessa 08-19-2005 06:12 PM

I agree. We all hope that Louise's eye condition can be fixed. If not, Louise won't be the first royal with a visible physical issue (consider Princess Christina of the Netherlands). I don't think that people would be cruel to her either on account of it.


As an American, who is/was Princess Christiana of the Netherlands?

Elspeth 08-19-2005 06:17 PM

Princess Christina is the youngest sister of Queen Beatrix. She was born blind because her mother contracted rubella during a royal visit while pregnant.

There's a very short thread about her in the Dutch forum:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...read.php?t=440

and you can see her in photos of events where the whole family attends, such as weddings and funerals. She married a Catholic and they divorced some years later; she isn't in the line of succession to the throne, as far as I know.

contessa 08-19-2005 06:20 PM

Thank you so much for answering my question. I think The Royal Forums is very helpful and also very educational. I have learned so much about royalty around the world and find it very interesting.

Claire 08-20-2005 04:53 AM

I don't think the eye problem, if Louise has it- will in any way be visible enought to create problems of unaccepability. Many people are blind in one eye or have glass eyes and live normal lives. Look at Demi Moore whose left eye is a glass eye. Or Krisa Kyck, (I think I spelt that wrong - actress in Smallville, Earthsea and Snow White). She has a slight squint and no- one minds. Somethings people surprise even me.

ElisaR 08-20-2005 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire
I don't think the eye problem, if Louise has it- will in any way be visible enought to create problems of unaccepability. Many people are blind in one eye or have glass eyes and live normal lives. Look at Demi Moore whose left eye is a glass eye. Or Krisa Kyck, (I think I spelt that wrong - actress in Smallville, Earthsea and Snow White). She has a slight squint and no- one minds. Somethings people surprise even me.

What? I didn't know.

About Louise, if her eye is a problem, it will be her own problem, but I don't think it will be a social problem.

Lucidu 08-20-2005 01:31 PM

pics of holidays

https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...ine/louise.jpg

ElisaR 08-20-2005 02:20 PM

Pregnant or not, Sophie doesn't look always the same. Here she's quite different from the picture from the last garden party. Especially her legs, which look... er... less thin.

Princess BellyFlop 08-20-2005 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElisaR
Pregnant or not, Sophie doesn't look always the same. Here she's quite different from the picture from the last garden party. Especially her legs, which look... er... less thin.

That could be because of the flip-flops (her flat sandals). High heels tend to make the legs look longer. Flip-flops don't, they just make it easier to walk in the sand.

corazon 10-10-2005 11:26 PM

1 Attachment(s)
hi people!!!! A card for the louise's birthday!;) I want see to the little princess for this birthday!!!!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises