Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

lokencrepis

Well-known member
But the Palaces and Castles are still there as tourist attractions whatever - Edinburgh Castle is heaving but the chances of stumbling across a Royal there are nil.

(Not that I think another bash at a Commonwealth is the way forward … and even when we tried it the first time primogeniture seemed to be wanted, so it was pretty much of a muchness. One head of state is pretty much the same as another expense-wise. The buildings and contents are historic and need to be preserved anyway, just that if people want to come and lay claim to being the next Royal Bride have a picture outside Buch House, they will whoever lives in it).
I dont think people are coming to see royalty, I think they understand that they're working and not on display all the time. I believe people come to the castles and palaces for the history, and to basically pretend that they are royal themselves. Or at least that is what I have heard and seen.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Another bash at the commonwealth? The commonwealth hasn't failed, it hasn't gone anywhere?

The US is a very different country to the UK where a concerning number of people have guns.



Quite. The Palace of Versailles generates loads of revenue.
What have our gun laws got anything to do with the efficacy or finances of the BRF? Seems like we've got ourselves a troll here lads. When one bring up the phrase 'strawman argument', on a site that isn't Twitter or Reddit.... one is rather suspicious of their intentions.

Yep, I reckon the Catholic Church has a lot more to answer for than the British RF. After all, kings and queens are pretty much meant to do what they want, whereas Catholicism cloaks it all (money building, child abuse, female abuse etc etc) under the claim that it is all "God's will".
I completely agree. To my knowledge, the BRF have to actually be transparent in a lot of their ongoings. The Vatican on the other hand... oh I'm sure there is a reason why we have the Queen as a figurehead, rather than someone who actually runs the country... something to do with democracy and fairness I think. /s
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3

thegirlscout

VIP Member

I wasn’t expecting this - I thought Harry was settled in America, though I don’t really follow Harry and Meghan?
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 3

BonBon27

VIP Member
That would only have happened thirty years ago before William was born. It would have to pass through Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie and Lillibet before getting to Andrew now.
I know. I was half joking at the craziness of it 🤣 Apparently sideways succession could be voted for by Parliament - I guess like when Edward abdicated and had no kids, or if the children were babies. But not needed now when William is ready and age appropriate. And especially with Andrew’s current situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Boring Monday

VIP Member
I love the Queen Mary Tiara.
if pressed I’d also give the Lotus Flower Tiara, the Gloucester Tiara and the Meander tiara headroom as well.
The tiara made for Lady Sarah Chatto when she married is rather lovely as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Blurp

VIP Member
They've really been pushing Charles and all things related to his ascension recently. I almost feel sorry for the Queen, in that you could almost forget it's HER time to celebrate, although I'm sure all this is being done with her approval.

I have to wonder, and I apologise if my speculatuon is crude, but it feels like they are very aware that the Queen's time is limited and this is her way of preparing the people and explicity approving what is to come.
I think that it's very much focused on her legacy and handing it on to the future. I expect Charles and William to be very much to the fore as her heritage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

FenellaTheWitch

VIP Member
Just been looking through the "Tiarapedia" on The Court Jeweller. Some really fabulous pieces, but we always seem to see the same ones. I would love to see this one brought back. Turquoise is underrated and it definitely suited Margaret's offbeat character. If it is still in the family following the auction of Margaret's jewels, it would look great with that black velvet McQueen dress that Kate wore a few years ago.

That's fabulous. I like that a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Blurp

VIP Member
Oh wow, why did she relinquish it?
Not sure, though perhaps it was to do with the rush of common feeling at the end of WW2, the fact that she married a younger son of an earl (like Princess Alexandra) and perhaps she felt her life would be easier without all the trappings of royalty. She was still considered a member of the royal family, was amongst the princesses at coronations, and so on though.

Interesting fact: her sister Margaret of Connaught married Crown Prince Gustav Adolf of Sweden to become Crown Princess Margareta. Sadly she died of sepsis aged only 38 in 1920, leaving five children and was eight months pregnant with her sixth. King Carl Gustav of Sweden, Queen Margrethe of Denmark (who shares her nickname of Daisy) and Queen Anne Marie of Greece are her grandchildren. Her widower married Louise Mountbatten, Prince Philip's aunt, in 1923 and she later became Queen Consort; sadly, they only had a stillborn daughter. Margaret’s daughter Ingrid took Margaret’s wedding veil to Denmark when she married Crown Prince Frederik and all her female descendants have worn it since, plus the current Crown Princess Mary. In addition, both Margaret and Patricia wore matching gold bangles and Margaret gave Ingrid one too for her fifth birthday; all of Ingrid's female descendants wear an identical gold bangle on their left wrist. Have a look next time you see pictures of Margrethe, Benedicte, Anne-Marie and the latter two's daughters. Princesses Isabella, Josephine and Athena, daughters of Margrethe's two sons, also have a bangle.

She chose to be styled as Lady Ramsay, to be equal with her husband, but in terms of precedence and rank at events was considered a princess. She was interesting; ahead of her time in many things.
She wasn't Lady Ramsay until much later when her husband was knighted, like Tim Lawrence. She was Lady Patricia.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 3

Spid

VIP Member
She wouldn't have settled unless it was a huge sum of money. And I take it to read that there's also a donation to her charity.

Good Old Mummy got her cheque book out......... just when Charles is out of action with Covid. Timing is all very convenient.
Charles would rather it get paid off than it going to court and being in the headlines again daily whilst the case was on
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

President_Butthead

Well-known member
I always thought if it’s just about money and bringing someone down, surely you’d get more from an ex president or even a big celebrity? In reality, what does Prince Andrew have? All the money and wealth is held by other members of his family, millions of even British people probably couldn’t have picked him from a line up 5 years ago, and he holds absolutely no power. The most powerful thing about him is he’s his mums favourite, but that doesn’t account for much when she’s 95 and the next two in line don’t like you.
Harsh, but true
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

RedFlag69

Member
Here's hoping her Majesty gets to send herself a 100th Birthday Card. Am sure the Andrew stuff is upsetting for her, but she will push on. Hope that Charles takes over the family biz soon & the Queen can finally chill out & enjoy her time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Stillwater

VIP Member
The side profile is such a throw back to Victoria. I assume they’re getting Kate Queenly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Fazpot

Member
The tiaras I like from the British collection are Queen Mary's Diamond Bandeau Tiara (I know most people are Meghan haters but I loved her tiara), Queen Mary's Fringe Tiara and the Strathmore Rose Tiara.

I think Princess Margaret could wear a tiara well.
View attachment 978013
Look how nonchalant she is here
That's a beautiful picture of her!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Falkor

VIP Member
Maybe he’s hoping a jury of his “peers” is exactly what it sounds like. Upper class, monarchists who wouldn’t dare think anything bad about the royal family. Obviously the reality of jury selection is very different but I’d assume he doesn’t know that.
But this is a trial in America we're talking about, isn't it? Or have I got that wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

DozyWebster

VIP Member
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 3