The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f118/)
-   -   Possible Husbands for Princess Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth II) (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f118/possible-husbands-for-princess-elizabeth-queen-elizabeth-ii-31361.html)

CarolinaLandgrave 06-26-2011 09:34 AM

Possible Husbands for Princess Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth II)
 
Were there any other candidates for Princess Elizabeth's hand?

Thanks!

Mirabel 06-26-2011 09:39 AM

I don't think so; I read she met him when she was very young, and George VI had reservations because he didn't want his daughter to marry the first man she'd met.
He insisted they wait, but they were determined and got their way in the end.

I never heard that she ever thought about anyone else.

CarolinaLandgrave 06-26-2011 09:42 AM

Thanks!
That's what I have always read as well... but was just wondering if I had missed something along the way. I actually saw a show on PBS that said she and Prince Philip were actually engaged secretly for a while before they announced it to the public.

ashelen 06-26-2011 09:43 AM

was this married for love? or arranged?

IloveCP 06-26-2011 10:01 AM

Some people say that Elizabeth was in love but not Philip.However some say he grew to love her.

EmpressRouge 06-26-2011 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashelen (Post 1273538)
was this married for love? or arranged?

It was definitely a love match. Supposedly, Elizabeth fell in love with Philip when the royal family visited Dartmouth Naval College where Lord Mountbatten arranged for his nephew to escort the princess. It was likely they had met before but were too young to have made an significant impression.

While Elizabeth only had eyes for Philip, other aristocrats were mentioned as suitable candidates. The only one I know of was the William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington, son and heir of the 10th Duke of Devonshire. He would marry Kathleen Kennedy, a sister of President John F. Kennedy, in 1944 but tragically died in Belgium from sniper fire four months later. His younger brother Andrew inherited the title to become the 11th Duke of Devonshire.

CarolinaLandgrave 06-26-2011 10:14 AM

Wow! Thanks for the info EmpressRouge - I had no idea about Lord Hartington connected to Princess Elizabeth.

MissJanet 06-26-2011 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IloveCP (Post 1273540)
However some say he grew to love her.

I cannot imagine that a man like Prince Phillip would possibly be able to make a living as a consort if he wouldn't deeply love his wife and therefor accept his role like he did for so long now.

Kataryn 06-26-2011 11:09 AM

I read not long ago that Louis Mountbatten pushed Philip in Elizabeth's direction and that otherwise she might have married Lord Porchester (who is rumoured to be Andrew's father...).who was then the heir of the Earl Of Carnarvon and later became the 7th Earl.

olebabs 06-26-2011 12:07 PM

Is she not happy with the one she's got? I guess after 65 years one needs a change :-) Sorry but I laughed a bit at the title of this thread

CarolinaLandgrave 06-26-2011 01:18 PM

Thanks Roseroyal and Kataryn! I hadn't heard either of those, either!

roseroyal 06-26-2011 01:18 PM

I read in one of the Diana books( Diana Chronicles, Diana by Sarah Bradford, Diana the rise and fall of the house of Spencer by Anne Edwards, The Queen and Di by Ingrid Seward, etc), cannot remember which one, or it could have been Elizabeth Behind Closed Doors by Nicolas Davies or The Royal Marriages, by Lady Colin Campbell, that Diana's father the 8th Earl Spencer was considered by the King and Queen.

Nice Nofret 06-26-2011 01:35 PM

The King and the Queen weren't to enthusiastic about Prince Phillip as a son in law - so they gave Elisabeth the opportunity to meet the elegible young men of her generation, as Prince Phillip was out of the way for two years (or so) in the east s.w. . But apparently for Elisabeth only Philip would do ;)

free2rhyme 06-26-2011 04:13 PM

I think this topic is 64 years too late.................

Nice Nofret 06-26-2011 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by free2rhyme (Post 1273671)
I think this topic is 64 years too late.................


Quite so :biggrin:

CarolinaLandgrave 06-26-2011 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by free2rhyme (Post 1273671)
I think this topic is 64 years too late.................

That may be...... but it was something that I was curious about and there is not much printed on the subject.... so I assumed I could ask here and get some feedback. My bad.....

free2rhyme 06-26-2011 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaLandgrave (Post 1273682)
That may be...... but it was something that I was curious about and there is not much printed on the subject.... so I assumed I could ask here and get some feedback. My bad.....

You don't have to take it too seriously, we were just joking. There probably isn't much written on the subject because The Queen (Princess Elizabeth) never considered anyone else but Philip. She had her mind made up at the age of 13. That's not to say other people (including her parents) didn't have other ideas.............but in the end I think it's safe to say that The Queen made a good choice.

Daria_S 06-26-2011 04:43 PM

I think I read in Lacey's book that Elizabeth spent a lot of time socializing with the young guards, who were sons of nobles/aristocrats, and that her paternal grandmother, Queen Mary wished that her circle of acquaintances would improve. He also mentioned some names of young men (the guards) that were seen as potential and acceptable suitors.

CarolinaLandgrave 06-26-2011 05:32 PM

Thanks for all the info, y'all.

XeniaCasaraghi 07-29-2011 01:27 AM

I wonder what kind of person Elizabeth was to fall in love at 13 and to have actually made the right decision. Most people twice that age fall in love and end up getting it wrong.

Iluvbertie 07-29-2011 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1293768)
I wonder what kind of person Elizabeth was to fall in love at 13 and to have actually made the right decision. Most people twice that age fall in love and end up getting it wrong.


A very strong woman who knew her own mind.

She reminds me of my mother in that regard - Mum was 15 when she meet my father and she went home that evening and told her parents exactly that. They didn't marry for a number of years but she was right - she knew who she wanted and she loved no other man - ever.

MARG 07-29-2011 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1293768)
I wonder what kind of person Elizabeth was to fall in love at 13 and to have actually made the right decision. Most people twice that age fall in love and end up getting it wrong.

With her family's history she must have known she had to get it right from the time she was old enough to understand what marriage was. Whilst her uncle moved in society circles with international socialites, divorce was never a big thing within the Aristocracy (smitten David notwithstanding). There were "other alternatives".

Philip had to be equally smitten IMO, as with his family's history he had a good idea of what his future would look married to the heir to the throne as opposed to continuing his Royal Navy career, in theory at least, so I think they just hit the jackpot and as, they both came from relatively happy and loving families, they were predisposed to expect a "happy marriage".

65 years of hard work later we see still, a quietly loving couple who have survived, having never given in to the latest "touchy feely" belief that the only happy couples are those given to frequent PDA's to satisfy the a voracious public and media mawkish interest.

shari-aree 07-29-2011 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olebabs (Post 1273577)
Is she not happy with the one she's got? I guess after 65 years one needs a change :-) Sorry but I laughed a bit at the title of this thread

:previous::rofl:
Me too!
I thought "hang on a minute - what has happened that we haven't heard about!!!"

Alas, it is an interesting thought.
I heard HM was 13 or 14 when they met, and that was it for her;)

shari-aree 07-29-2011 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kataryn (Post 1273564)
I read not long ago that Louis Mountbatten pushed Philip in Elizabeth's direction and that otherwise she might have married Lord Porchester (who is rumoured to be Andrew's father...).who was then the heir of the Earl Of Carnarvon and later became the 7th Earl.

:previous:
Is that the Carnavon's of Highclere Castle AKA "Downton Abbey" on TV?

I've never heard of a Rumor about Andy ... As they have gotten older I think Andrew & Edward look more like their Mum, with Charles & Anne looking more like Dad ... IMO of course!

Lumutqueen 07-29-2011 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shari-aree (Post 1293848)
:previous:
Is that the Carnavon's of Highclere Castle AKA "Downton Abbey" on TV?

I'm sure that's just how the Earl wants his historical family seat described as, the setting for Downton Abbey.

Henry Herbert, 7th Earl of Carnavon.

Midwestern Mom 07-29-2011 08:18 AM

Well from what has been said over the years, they certainly had their personal trials and problems with each other. I think the difference is they made the commitment to stick it out and have done so.

Nowdays if you don't feel the 'love' the same as you did when you were first together or have problems getting along for awhile people run off to the divorce courts instead of making the commitment to work it out.


MM

shari-aree 07-31-2011 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1293863)
I'm sure that's just how the Earl wants his historical family seat described as, the setting for Downton Abbey.

Henry Herbert, 7th Earl of Carnavon.

:previous:
Very true - the long line behind the current head-of-the-house would probably be horrified:lol:
However, the current Family could only be pleased;) ... after all the TV Series is bringing in 6 times as many visitors, interest is peaked around the world - not just the UK,(without the show many of us wouldn't even know it existed!), and all of this adds up to enable the estate to continue.:smile:
If when I read/hear Carnavon I will always think of DA ... because I looked for information on the estate & have now added it to my list of "must see's".:smile:

LauraS3514 07-31-2011 02:58 PM

And I think of the 5th Earl, who funded the expedition that discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun, and his grandson, who was The Queen's racing manager. :smile:

shari-aree 08-01-2011 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 1295471)
And I think of the 5th Earl, who funded the expedition that discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun, and his grandson, who was The Queen's racing manager. :smile:

:previous::smile:
Yes - I read about that too!
Apparently He & His Dog died at the same time in different countries ... which was attributed to the King Tut curse!! - very spooky;)

fascinator 08-01-2011 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1293768)
I wonder what kind of person Elizabeth was to fall in love at 13 and to have actually made the right decision. Most people twice that age fall in love and end up getting it wrong.

I understand that she was quite taken with his looks, as Victoria had been when she met Albert.

Midwestern Mom 08-01-2011 07:28 AM

Well at least Elizabeth had the sense to marry a tall man!

MM

nascarlucy 08-02-2011 08:45 PM

Interesting blog. I guess Queen Elizabeth as a young woman made up her mind very early on about who she loved.

Grandduchess24 10-04-2011 12:28 PM

Were there even other candidates as husband for the future Queen because it was Phillip she first loved and married and has been with presently.

Russophile 02-02-2012 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi (Post 1366168)
And yes, I do believe she knew from a very early age what she was expected to do.

Funny you should mention that. I am just tucking into Sally Bedell Smith's book "Elizabeth, the Queen" And in her preface am struck by those very same words. Especially in regards to Prince Philip whom she knew, at 13 she was going to marry.

Kataryn 02-04-2012 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 1366343)
Funny you should mention that. I am just tucking into Sally Bedell Smith's book "Elizabeth, the Queen" And in her preface am struck by those very same words. Especially in regards to Prince Philip whom she knew, at 13 she was going to marry.

That's an interesting point. I just read an article which said that Elizabeth was 14 when she became heiress presumptive of her father. Before that she was just a minor princess because it was expected that her uncle Edward would get suitably married and have children of his own.

So I wonder if at 13 she had any idea that she was falling in love not only with a minor prince who would make a suitable husband for a princess somewhat removed from the line but with a future consort? And did the view on a potential relationship change when she realised she was to become queen one day? Maybe she had already recognized the enormous strength of character in Philip, so this added a whole new level of longing for his support in her difficult future situation.She surely was a girl of her time, not brought up to become queen and she saw her father struggle with his position and duties. She surely recognized the strength her mother offered her father and had seen the weakness of her uncle. So surely this had an influence in her very early conviction that Philip was the right man for her? As it turned out, she was right and if reports of close relatives are to believed, she could always count on Philip to be a source of strength and support. And surely even a queen wants to be cuddled and spolied at home by her husband when in private and in return letting him believe in his maleness?

NGalitzine 02-04-2012 10:36 AM

^^^
Elizabeth became heiress presumptive to the throne at the age of 10 (not 14) so when she met Philip at age 13 she had already known she would likely be a future queen for 3 years.

Iluvbertie 02-04-2012 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kataryn (Post 1366953)
...an article which said that Elizabeth was 14 when she became heiress presumptive.

Elizabeth was born in 1926. Edward became King and abdicated in 1936. Therefore Elizabeth became heiress presumptive in 1936 aged 10. As the eldest of two daughters with no son she therefore became heiress presumptive on the day of the abdication. She was never a 'minor princess' as from birth until January 1936 she was 3rd in line (the same position Harry is now) and throughout 1936 she was 2nd - the position William is now before moving into 1st position in December 1936.

As her parents ruled out any attempt to try for a son (Elizabeth the Queen Mother by that time was 36 and she had had trouble getting pregnant both times previously anyway - there have been reports that they actually needed to use artificial means to get her pregnant - because of her or him I don't know and she also had to have ceasarians for both deliveries) so from the age of 10 years and 8 months Elizabeth knew that there was an excellent chance that she would be Queen one day.

Falling in love at 13 with her cousin wasn't something she did with an eye for a future consort but simply because she fell in love with a young man - something that happens all the time. That Philip was the ideal consort material for a future Queen as he knew the ropes of royal life, having grown up with it - being related to monarchs, including the British (being a great-great-grandchild of Queen Victoria himself as is The Queen) and having a grandmother who lived in Kensington Palace - where he often stayed just made it a better match for Elizabeth. Philip's first cousin was also, by then, HRH The Duchess of Kent who was, by 1936, Elizabeth's Aunt Marina having married her father's younger brother.
.

Baroness of Books 02-04-2012 04:17 PM

It was always my understanding as well that the young Elizabeth first fell in love with the 18-year-old Philip when she was 13 on a visit with her family to Dartmouth College where he was a student. He apparently made quite an impression on her as he was showing them around. This is an interesting story from the DM along with a photo of their supposed first meeting at Dartmouth:

First meeting: The moment the Queen first set eyes on Prince Philip | Mail Online

Iluvbertie 02-04-2012 05:37 PM

I highly doubt that that was the first time they actually saw each other. They definitely both attended the Duke of Kent's wedding and both were frequent visitors to the Kents - whether they ever were there at the same time is of course not known.

I do believe it is the first time they noticed each other in anything other than a 'that's cousin Elizabeth, that's cousin Philip' type of way - like Diana and Charles - knew each other before becoming aware of each other romatically.

Lord Mountbatten was a good friend of the King's who had ambitions for his nephew so it is highly doubtful that he wouldn't have ensure that they were in the same place sometimes in the previous years and he was the one who ensured that Philip was the one who showed Elizabeth and Margaret around.

Baroness of Books 02-04-2012 06:43 PM

Oh, yes, Lord Mountbatten - the enterprising matchmaker!

Daria_S 02-04-2012 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baroness of Books (Post 1367040)
It was always my understanding as well that the young Elizabeth first fell in love with the 18-year-old Philip when she was 13 on a visit with her family to Dartmouth College where he was a student. He apparently made quite an impression on her as he was showing them around. This is an interesting story from the DM along with a photo of their supposed first meeting at Dartmouth:

First meeting: The moment the Queen first set eyes on Prince Philip | Mail Online

Interesting article. He didn't have an easy life before his marriage, and I think that alone taught him to rely on himself as well as how to be a good support system for someone else who may be in a difficult situation.

Kataryn 02-05-2012 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1367039)
Elizabeth was born in 1926. Edward became King and abdicated in 1936. Therefore Elizabeth became heiress presumptive in 1936 aged 10.

Thank you for the information.:flowers:
I got it wrong from that article: The Queen's Diamond Jubilee: Gloriana for our times - Telegraph

"Although ostensibly heir to the throne, it would have been taken for granted in the 1920s and Thirties that the future Duke of Windsor would have married someone suitable and produced heirs. It was only when she was 14 that the then Princess Elizabeth became heir-presumptive on the abdication of her uncle. "

So obviously not even the Telegraph is trustworthy when it comes to dates....:ermm:

democratnmonocole 04-07-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1367039)
Elizabeth was born in 1926. Edward became King and abdicated in 1936. Therefore Elizabeth became heiress presumptive in 1936 aged 10. As the eldest of two daughters with no son she therefore became heiress presumptive on the day of the abdication. She was never a 'minor princess' as from birth until January 1936 she was 3rd in line (the same position Harry is now) and throughout 1936 she was 2nd - the position William is now before moving into 1st position in December 1936...

In regards to the whole "major royal" thing... from Ben Pimlott's biography "The Queen": "Why the Home Secretary needed to attend the birth of the child of a MINOR MEMBER of the Royal Family was a mystery..." (pg. 1) While she was only third-in-line until 1936 and Pimlott goes on to write that when she was first born, she had considerable attention, in due course she would have been supplanted (remember that the Princess Anne was second-in-line and very prominent in terms of media exposure until Diana entered the Family) Aside from royal tours of Northern Ireland in 1924, the Near East and India in 1925 and Australia and New Zealand in 1927, the Duke and Duchess of York rarely carried out major public duties and lived quietly in Piccadilly, Windsor and Birkhall. Most of the attention was focused on Edward as heir apparent. It was a MUCH different time. There was much more deference to the Royal Family and a heck of a lot more privacy. I've read in Bradford's biography of King George VI and Lacey's biography of the Queen, that the Yorks were rarely bothered too much by media attention because everyone believed Edward would settle down in due course and produce heirs.
.

ladongas 04-15-2013 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by democratnmonocole (Post 1537204)
...(remember that the Princess Anne was second-in-line and very prominent in terms of media exposure until Diana entered the Family).

Anne was second in line only until Prince Andrew was born, and she fell to fourth in line after Prince Edward's birth.
.

democratnmonocole 04-16-2013 06:15 AM

I meant from age 2 to 9, when thee Prince Andrew was born. But my statement is still valid because she was the third highest-ranking woman in the Kingdom after the Queen and the Queen Mother until the Princess of Wales came into the Family. The Princess Margaret took on less importance after her divorce and being pushed down the line of succession to fifth. I miswrote. Apologies for any confusion. :flowers:

Spheno 04-16-2013 06:46 AM

"The most important baby in the British Empire"

This is article from 1928:

Royal Musings: The most important baby in the British Empire
.

Pranter 04-16-2013 07:10 AM

I read in a book that the Queen Mother was leaning toward her marrying an Englishman (there were a few Dukes etc that would of been eligible).


LaRae

fandesacs2003 04-16-2013 07:17 AM

Very interesting article. Why in 1928, it was very unlikely that he will ever marry? Was he already with Wallis Simpson??

In 1928, the Prince of Wales was 34 years old, not a desperate age to wed? I do not understand how the article can opennly alledge that "seems unlikely" to ever marry.

Spheno 04-16-2013 09:57 AM

maybe it is because of his playboy lifestyle

fandesacs2003 04-16-2013 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno (Post 1540261)
maybe it is because of his playboy lifestyle

And so what? He would not be the first Prince playboy to make a convenience marriage and continue his "happy" life.

NGalitzine 04-16-2013 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003 (Post 1540289)
And so what? He would not be the first Prince playboy to make a convenience marriage and continue his "happy" life.

True, but he did seem to prefer to be involved with women who were already married and showed little to no interest in women who were single and available.
Mrs Simpson was not the first married woman with whom he carried on a long relationship. She was preceded by Freda Dudley Ward and Thelma, Viscountess Furness.

Queen Camilla 04-17-2013 04:05 PM

The Chicago Tribune deserves mention for rightly predicting 24 years ahead of time Queen Elizabeth II.

The English people were in the dark for so many years.

Iluvbertie 04-17-2013 06:20 PM

Even her birth details in the British papers referred to the possibility that she could become Queen so the above report was hardly suggesting something new when the British papers (I have the editorials from The Times and The Telegraph at the time of her birth somewhere in this house - my grandmother's family would send them to my grandmother every week, along with other stories from Britain and she kept many of them as did my mother) had been saying the same thing for 2 years by 1928.

It was rare for an heir to the throne to not be married by his mid-late 20s so that possibility was already in the minds of people as Edward reached and past 30.

padams2359 05-26-2013 03:12 PM

Well considering the fact the PE was childless, unmarried, and there were no viable prospects for a suitable wife at the time of QE2's birth, it was definately a possibility she would rule one day, with or without the accession of KGVI.

BritishRoyalist 09-01-2013 12:56 PM

I think HM the Queen knew she would marry Philip from the day she meant him. I think her heart was always set on him.

There no doubt that The Queen probably had a few requests for her hand in Marriage. I am sure for a lot of parents In Aristocracy classes like the thought of their son marrying the Future Queen. But The Queen always had her mind set on Philip.

Alison H 09-01-2013 01:31 PM

Everyone seems to agree that the Queen was only ever interested in Philip.

She was 13 when war broke out and 19 when the war ended, and it was a good year after that before all the men were demobbed, so the usual social events where she might have met other potential suitors just didn't happen, and it sounds as if she and Philip had an "understanding" before the end of the war anyway.

I think it's a lovely story, actually :-). They've been married for nearly 66 years, and "together" for around 70 years - not many couples can say that! Setting eyes on "the one" when you're 13 and being together when you're 87, he's 92 and you're great-grandparents is amazing :-).

QueenElizabeth2Fan 10-17-2013 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 1594577)
Everyone seems to agree that the Queen was only ever interested in Philip.

She was 13 when war broke out and 19 when the war ended, and it was a good year after that before all the men were demobbed, so the usual social events where she might have met other potential suitors just didn't happen, and it sounds as if she and Philip had an "understanding" before the end of the war anyway.

I think it's a lovely story, actually :-). They've been married for nearly 66 years, and "together" for around 70 years - not many couples can say that! Setting eyes on "the one" when you're 13 and being together when you're 87, he's 92 and you're great-grandparents is amazing :-).

I agree. How beautiful is that, especially when the great-grandmother is the Queen of the UK!

GracieGiraffe 10-17-2013 06:38 PM

Hey, any chance the Queen will dump Philip now and pick up a younger guy, kinda like the Duchess of Alba????

Hey, if you say no, why not? :tongue:

Lee27 10-20-2013 07:08 PM

It is a remarkable love story. At 13 Princess Elizabeth was still in the nursery, so her first meeting with Phillip may have really been the first time they were around each other.

Phillip was too distant a family member to have been invited to intimate Royal family events.

Osipi 10-21-2013 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee27 (Post 1610549)
It is a remarkable love story. At 13 Princess Elizabeth was still in the nursery, so her first meeting with Phillip may have really been the first time they were around each other.

Phillip was too distant a family member to have been invited to intimate Royal family events.

Its amazing when you think about it. To lay eyes on a person at the age of 13 and just kind of KNOW that person is the one you want to spend the rest of your life with. At 13, do any of us really know what the rest of our lives are supposed to be like?

Come to think of it, this story would make a great movie.

CyrilVladisla 08-27-2014 08:26 PM

In Royalty magazine, it was declared:

Rumors about who her future husband might be were soon circulating. Among the candidates were Charles Fitzroy, Earl of Euston; John Dalkeith, son of the Duke of Buccleuch and Charles Manners, Duke of Rutland.
If Princess Elizabeth had married Charles John Robert Manners, 10th Duke of Rutland, Manners-Windsor might be the surname used by the children of the Queen in official marriage registry entries.

Tilia C. 08-28-2014 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe (Post 1609843)
Hey, any chance the Queen will dump Philip now and pick up a younger guy, kinda like the Duchess of Alba????

Hey, if you say no, why not? :tongue:

:lol:The poor Duke! Do you already have some other man in mind?

But unlike Elizabeth Taylor, the Duchess of Alba never dumped a husband. She was widowed twice. She's an old school catholic who found it hard to accecpt the divorces of some of her children.

GracieGiraffe 08-28-2014 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tilia C. (Post 1697975)
:lol:The poor Duke! Do you already have some other man in mind?

But unlike Elizabeth Taylor, the Duchess of Alba never dumped a husband. She was widowed twice. She's an old school catholic who found it hard to accecpt the divorces of some of her children.

I hear Russell Brand is still available. :ermm:

Duc_et_Pair 08-28-2014 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe (Post 1609843)
Hey, any chance the Queen will dump Philip now and pick up a younger guy, kinda like the Duchess of Alba????

Hey, if you say no, why not? :tongue:

Heu... you don't have your facts straight, I am afraid. The Duchess of Alba never "dumped" anyone.

In 1947 Doņa Cayetana married Don Luis Martínez de Irujo y Artázcoz, son of the Duke of Sotomayor.

In 1972 Don Luis died, leaving Doņa Cayetana widowed with six children.

In 1978 Doņa Cayetana married with Jesús Aguirre y Ortiz de Zárate. No issue came from this marriage.

In 2001 Jesús Aguirre died, making Doņa Cayetana widowed for the second time.

In 2011 Doņa Cayetana married with her present spouse, Alfonso Diez Carabantes.

:flowers:

Ish 08-28-2014 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 1698136)
If Princess Elizabeth had married Charles John Robert Manners, 10th Duke of Rutland, Manners-Windsor might be the surname used by the children of the Queen in official marriage registry entries.


Or not. Had she married another man the whole situation regarding the surname/House Name might have gone down completely differently.

Ish 08-28-2014 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1698022)
Heu... you don't have your facts straight, I am afraid. The Duchess of Alba never "dumped" anyone.

In 1947 Doņa Cayetana married Don Luis Martínez de Irujo y Artázcoz, son of the Duke of Sotomayor.

In 1972 Don Luis died, leaving Doņa Cayetana widowed with six children.

In 1978 Doņa Cayetana married with Jesús Aguirre y Ortiz de Zárate. No issue came from this marriage.

In 2001 Jesús Aguirre died, making Doņa Cayetana widowed for the second time.

In 2011 Doņa Cayetana married with her present spouse, Alfonso Diez Carabantes.

:flowers:


So, what you're saying is that the Duchess of Alba is more of a black widow than a love 'em and leave 'em type, right?

GracieGiraffe 08-28-2014 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1698143)
So, what you're saying is that the Duchess of Alba is more of a black widow than a love 'em and leave 'em type, right?

But a very Catholic one, apparently.

Curryong 08-29-2014 08:27 PM

Is Alfonzo Diez Carabantes in good health?

Ish 08-29-2014 11:42 PM

I don't know, but as he's in his early-to-mid-sixties and she's in her late eighties, I don't think it's expected that she'll be a widow again.

Lee-Z 08-30-2014 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe (Post 1609843)
Hey, any chance the Queen will dump Philip now and pick up a younger guy????

Hey, if you say no, why not? :tongue:

Imo, they have a relationship that works really well for both of them, with mutual respect, humor, love and the same sense of duty.

The only thing that could happen to break them up is if P.Philip gives her an ultimatum: the corgies go or i go :lol:
But in that case i don't think she'd take up with a new guy :flowers:

Zach 10-20-2015 08:17 PM

The general consensus amongst authors and journalists (and people who have replied to this post) is that Elizabeth was pretty smitten with Philip from a very early age.

It is really interesting to consider the alternatives though!
In 'the Private Life of Elizabeth II' I read that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were keen for Elizabeth to spend more time with eligible young British Aristocrats. Obviously at the time they hadn't succeeded to their titles, but I'll just use them as a reference.
There was the Duke of Grafton. The first Duke of Grafton was the illegitimate son of King Charles II, which sort of gave him a bit of royal blood (even though most British aristocrats can find some royalty in their family trees if you look back far enough).
There was also the Earl of Carnarvon. He was a lifelong friend and her racing manager. It's interesting to consider that his grandmother, Almina Herbert (nee Wombell), Countess of Carnarvon, was the illegitimate daughter of Alfred de Rothschild. I'm sure all of the conspiracy theories would have a collective heart-attack if a Rothschild descendent sat on the throne of England!
There was also Diana's father, the Earl Spencer.
This was just what was mentioned in the book - I have also read that the Dukes of Buccleuch and Rutland were candidates.

I'm interested to know if there were any other *royal* candidates. After WW1, and especially after WW2 foreign royal marriages were considered to be a terrible idea. The groom would have had to have been Protestant, and non-German. This basically leaves the Scandanvian countries, the Netherlands and Greece.

It's also interesting to consider what would've happened to some lucky young English Lord if he married Princess Elizabeth. Would their descendants still use their title, would their property become part of the crown estate?

fearghas 10-21-2015 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach (Post 1831282)
The general consensus amongst authors and journalists (and people who have replied to this post) is that Elizabeth was pretty smitten with Philip from a very early age.

ItIt's also interesting to consider what would've happened to some lucky young English Lord if he married Princess Elizabeth. Would their descendants still use their title, would their property become part of the crown estate?

The use of titles intriuges me also. Lets say the Duke of Grafton. He would have been the Duke in his own right. Would the Queen have given him another title? If their first child had been a boy, lets say they called him Charles, then he would in time be the Duke of Grafton in his own right. Would the title have been subsumed to the crown for ever though. If his heir had been a woman, and Queen, would the title of Duke of Grafton then gone to his bother and thus back out of the Royal family?

Curryong 10-21-2015 02:17 AM

^ The trouble is, as far as the Scandi monarchies were concerned, there were hardly any candidates available. Prince Harald of Norway was eleven years younger than Elizabeth. In Denmark Prince Oluf, King Christian's nephew, made an unequal marriage in 1947. So did the youngest son of the King of Sweden, Carl Johan, who wed in 1946 in New York. Another son who was single was Prince Bertil who was born in 1912. He was already in love with his future wife.

I think it was the same with the Netherlands, no single Princes of a suitable age. I've never read of any being put forward. It looks as if it was Philip or a British aristocrat and I think Elizabeth's parents may have been secretly hoping for the latter.

Ish 10-21-2015 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 1831350)
The use of titles intriuges me also. Lets say the Duke of Grafton. He would have been the Duke in his own right. Would the Queen have given him another title? If their first child had been a boy, lets say they called him Charles, then he would in time be the Duke of Grafton in his own right. Would the title have been subsumed to the crown for ever though. If his heir had been a woman, and Queen, would the title of Duke of Grafton then gone to his bother and thus back out of the Royal family?


If, say, the Duke of Grafton had married the then Princess Elizabeth he may have been given his own Dukedom on his marriage (like the DoE), as at the time he wasn't the Duke, just his father's heir apparent and held no titles in his own right. He may have also then been created a HRH and a Prince, or he may not have - the DoE was styled as an HRH right away, but wasn't created a Prince in the UK until well into his marriage.

Had she married an Earl (or another peer lower than a Duke) it's likely he would have been created a Duke, like as what happened when Princess Louise, daughter of the future Edward VII, married the then Earl of Fife.

The title situation wouldn't be too dissimilar from the situation we have now; their eldest son would be in line to inherit both their titles, and upon doing so his father's titles would merge with the crown. It's possible that if a woman inherited the crown without the peerage being merged with the crown then the peerage would pass on to someone else - so, like now, if something happened to Charles, William, and George, causing Charlotte to be the Queen's heir apparent then the DoE title would go to Andrew and not merge with the crown at any point. It's also possible that if the Queen and her husband had more than one son, or if the heir apparent had more than one son, they could decide to have the Dukedom recreate for a younger son after it merges with the crown - which is what is planned with the DoE's title now; it's expected to be recreated for Edward after it merges with the crown.

As for properties... They would be inherited by any children of the Queen and her husband, but they would be private property (like Sandringham), not Crown property (like Buckingham Palace).

Skippyboo 10-21-2015 12:45 PM

You forgot Harry in your theoretical killing spree. If Charlotte is the heir. Philip's title would go to Harry before Andrew if it didn't already merge with the crown.

If the Duke of Grafton was the queen's husband, it the same scenario as Philip's title, eldest son would inherit on father's death and it merges with the crown when the Queen died. If there were no males born to Queen and Duke of Grafton, the dukedom would go to the next male in the line of the Duke's family a younger brother or if he only had sisters it would go up a level to the families of the duke's uncles etc until a male was found. If no males, it merges with the crown as an extinct title and can be reissued.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

suztav 10-21-2015 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1831531)
If, say, the Duke of Grafton had married the then Princess Elizabeth he may have been given his own Dukedom on his marriage (like the DoE), as at the time he wasn't the Duke, just his father's heir apparent and held no titles in his own right. He may have also then been created a HRH and a Prince, or he may not have - the DoE was styled as an HRH right away, but wasn't created a Prince in the UK until well into his marriage.

Had she married an Earl (or another peer lower than a Duke) it's likely he would have been created a Duke, like as what happened when Princess Louise, daughter of the future Edward VII, married the then Earl of Fife.

The title situation wouldn't be too dissimilar from the situation we have now; their eldest son would be in line to inherit both their titles, and upon doing so his father's titles would merge with the crown. It's possible that if a woman inherited the crown without the peerage being merged with the crown then the peerage would pass on to someone else - so, like now, if something happened to Charles, William, and George, causing Charlotte to be the Queen's heir apparent then the DoE title would go to Andrew and not merge with the crown at any point. It's also possible that if the Queen and her husband had more than one son, or if the heir apparent had more than one son, they could decide to have the Dukedom recreate for a younger son after it merges with the crown - which is what is planned with the DoE's title now; it's expected to be recreated for Edward after it merges with the crown.

As for properties... They would be inherited by any children of the Queen and her husband, but they would be private property (like Sandringham), not Crown property (like Buckingham Palace).


If I am not mistaken it has already been decided that Edward will inherit his father's title as the DOE.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Ish 10-21-2015 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippyboo (Post 1831571)
You forgot Harry in your theoretical killing spree. If Charlotte is the heir. Philip's title would go to Harry before Andrew if it didn't already merge with the crown.

If the Duke of Grafton was the queen's husband, it the same scenario as Philip's title, eldest son would inherit on father's death and it merges with the crown when the Queen died. If there were no males born to Queen and Duke of Grafton, the dukedom would go to the next male in the line of the Duke's family a younger brother or if he only had sisters it would go up a level to the families of the duke's uncles etc until a male was found. If no males, it merges with the crown as an extinct title and can be reissued.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community


I did forget Harry - apologies to him and thank you for the correction.

You are right; in the theoretical world where the Queen married the DoG, had they only had daughters, his titles would have passed on to whoever comes next in that line of succession - a younger brother or cousin, or what have you.

If there were no male-line male descendants it would have become extinct on his passing, but could theoretically be recreated for one of the couples' grandsons.

Ish 10-21-2015 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suztav (Post 1831593)
If I am not mistaken it has already been decided that Edward will inherit his father's title as the DOE.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app


It's a little more complicated than that.

You can't decide who inherits your peerage, the rules are established when it's created.

The heir apparent of the DoE is his eldest son (Charles), whose heir apparent is his eldest son (William), whose heir apparent is his son (George), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Harry), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Andrew), whose heir presumptive is his brother (Edward). In order for Edward to <I>inherit</I> the title, everyone between him and his father in that line would have to die.

What's more likely is that at some point in the future two things will happen: 1. The Queen will die and Charles will become King, and 2. The DoE will die and Charles will inherit his father's titles. When BOTH of these have happened, the title will be merged with the crown and then, and only then, it will be available for recreation. At that point, it is expected that Edward will be created the 1st Duke of Edinburgh in its 4th (I believe, I'm going from memory there) creation.

If something happens to disrupt that - if, somehow Charlotte becomes Queen and Harry becomes DoE, then the title won't be available for recreation.

suztav 10-21-2015 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1831635)
It's a little more complicated than that.

You can't decide who inherits your peerage, the rules are established when it's created.

The heir apparent of the DoE is his eldest son (Charles), whose heir apparent is his eldest son (William), whose heir apparent is his son (George), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Harry), whose heir presumptive is his uncle (Andrew), whose heir presumptive is his brother (Edward). In order for Edward to <I>inherit</I> the title, everyone between him and his father in that line would have to die.

What's more likely is that at some point in the future two things will happen: 1. The Queen will die and Charles will become King, and 2. The DoE will die and Charles will inherit his father's titles. When BOTH of these have happened, the title will be merged with the crown and then, and only then, it will be available for recreation. At that point, it is expected that Edward will be created the 1st Duke of Edinburgh in its 4th (I believe, I'm going from memory there) creation.

If something happens to disrupt that - if, somehow Charlotte becomes Queen and Harry becomes DoE, then the title won't be available for recreation.


This is not my personal opinion but something I read when Edward was given an Earldom upon his marriage and not a royal dukedom.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Skippyboo 10-21-2015 03:49 PM

Plus Charles, William and George all have to die before the Queen and Philip to keep the DoE title from merging with the crown so the chances are very slim for that doomsday scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Osipi 10-21-2015 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suztav (Post 1831645)
This is not my personal opinion but something I read when Edward was given an Earldom upon his marriage and not a royal dukedom.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

The stickler here is that it is The Queen's and the DoE's wishes that when the time comes, Edward will be created the Duke of Edinburgh. That will happen when Philip's title merges with the crown and it is then available for recreation. As its been expressed that this is the intent of the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title, I really don't see Charles or William not respecting them.

There is a whole thread discussing this at https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...tle-24343.html and from there a link to further discussions.

vkrish 10-21-2015 04:00 PM

I feel those british aristocrats would have felt far more entitled and indulged. May be he would have turned out to be another prince henrik of denmark.

Prince Philip has always accepted and demonstrated that he is very fortunate to get into this, and did all he could for the firm. He is so grateful, save for the 'amoeba' rant, but even tat was 'someone heard someone saying', nothing in front of press or public..


And about how it happend, we do not know exactly what happend. Anything was possible.
It is very easy to sell romance and love.. Especially in those days.. And today the collective goodwill they have accumulated for 70 years makes us believe that.that a 13yo can decide her life partner, hang on to that for 8 more years, and coax her parents and their court into agreement.
Just giving another perpective. Maybe just some feelers that king and queen wanted a british match, but still had to giv in to true luv, assuaged those who disliked an alliance so much linked to nazis.thus al r happy..

vkrish 10-21-2015 04:35 PM

the basis for my above reasoning this way is
1. As earlier pointed out, there were no suitable protestant reigning princes..
2. There is no precedent of getting a male consort from british aristocracy,they come with baggage and political connections. So rather than risk, the time-tested method of getting an obedient foreign prince is always a safe option..
3. Mountbatten was pushing pushing we know, but maybe no one could find a good reason to say NO..
4. Of course she could have fallen for him, any girl would, but thats not the first thing you see while selecting the consort of the empire..(they still pretend its the empire, name changed, dont they)

And since the public had enough reasons to dislike him (just dislike, nothing more), the love card was played..they 'gave in'..

But whatever way or however it happend, he is the best husband she could have.. And i guess that is one of the very few points on which we ll have unanimous opinion..
God i am gonna be a great fiction/conspiracy writer..l

vkrish 10-21-2015 04:41 PM

PS: If anyone replies to the above posts, please dont quote the whole post, it will take up so much spce, just quote the relevant lines..
Once again, i have just put another perspective thats all.
I am a huge fan of the couple but cant put up with too much glorifying and romanticising..
Thank you..

padams2359 10-21-2015 06:31 PM

Prince Philip has always accepted and demonstrated that he is very fortunate to get into this, and did all he could for the firm. He is so grateful, save for the 'amoeba' rant, but even tat was 'someone heard someone saying', nothing in front of press or public..


I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but I think he said this in an interview many years ago.

vkrish 10-21-2015 06:48 PM

Even i thought so thats why i searched a lot of articles. Everywhere it is "complained to friends/moaned/cried out.." nowhere was a mention of an interview, leave alone the publication/interviewer..

Osipi 10-21-2015 07:06 PM

The DoE may have felt a bit out of place starting off and rightly had some mixed feelings about stuff but in the long run, there were compromises. A valid complaint was "I'm the only male that can't pass his name down to his children" type of comment was solved by the decree that all descendants that would in need of a surname would use Mountbatten-Windsor but the actual family would still remain the House of Windsor. Its often been said that although Elizabeth is the reigning monarch, Philip most definitely is the head of the household.

Instead of sitting and moping, the Duke created quite a role for himself and has accomplished quite a bit in his own right over his lifetime as well as being supportive of his wife, The Queen.

padams2359 10-22-2015 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1831707)
Even i thought so thats why i searched a lot of articles. Everywhere it is "complained to friends/moaned/cried out.." nowhere was a mention of an interview, leave alone the publication/interviewer..


I don't know why, but I think it was on YouTube n the same interview when they were talking about finances and how (sarcastically) he would have to give up polo and rent rooms in the palace, or something else as ridiculous.

CyrilVladisla 08-26-2016 09:36 PM

Henry Herbert, Lord Porchester first met Princess Elizabeth in 1944, when she was seventeen and he was twenty. Henry and Elizabeth shared a love of racing and breeding horses.

Curryong 08-26-2016 11:08 PM

I think the Queen and Lord Porchester would have been perfectly happy together, with lots and lots to talk about over the breakfast table. The Queen Mother, equally enthralled by horse racing, would have been thrilled. However, I don't think there was anyone else for the Queen but Prince Philip since that first meeting when she was a child.

Osipi 08-26-2016 11:17 PM

Even though Elizabeth had eyes for Philip only, she very much loved and appreciated the warm friendship she had with "Porchey" and he eventually became her racing manager. Their friendship endured over decades.

HM, The Queen rarely attends funerals but when her beloved friend passed away, she did attend his funeral.

Dee Anna 09-11-2016 04:57 AM

While Philip did know exactly what he was getting into (no stranger to royal life himself) they were still both in their twenties (abiet Elizabeth much youner twenties) when they married.
So, yes, Philip did stray off the radar in that first decade or so, but has proved his worth ever since. I think Elizabeth would be lost without him, but would also carry on, given her regimental strength of will.

Denville 09-11-2016 05:33 AM

I'm sure she would indeed be lost without him, they've been married now for almost 70 years. but I think she'd regard it as a duty to keep on going and not give up because she had lost her husband, and continue with her work etc.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises