The Royal Family #31

[Whatthehell2]

Just having a look through the pics from yesterday. Few things I noticed, Anne was missing but her husband was there. Hope she is ok, first Christmas without both parents is very tough. Also Edward is so like Prince Philip, I really hope he gets Duke of Edinburgh this year. Andrew I kinda understand he's family and his family are all there and they can't stop him going to mass, he's just so defiant Loved seeing all the kids!

 

[RoseintheSunshine]

Apparently Anne is unwell.

I loved Catherine’s hat and coat look. The olive green is divine

 

[Boblebob]

This made me

 

[Miss Begotten]

I wonder if he has been pre-recording Christmas speeches for some years. Just in case, because let’s face it HMTQ was old enough to suddenly drop dead for a couple of years now. Or at least planned out to be prepared? Or would they have shown her speech if she had died after recording?

I liked the speech and the way they produced it. St. George’s gave a beautiful background AND there were no pictures on desks to interpret for messages.

I’m absolutely not having a go at you, but didn’t you find something pretty distasteful about a man planning to spend £200 million of the taxpayers’ money on his coronation pontificating about the hardship of poverty?

 

[Jinx2019]

I am disgusted they let PA in on the walk and he was apparently shaking hands.

 

[Multi-21]

If it’s a public church service and not counted as an official engagement then they can’t stop Andrew joining them. I expected to see Fergie as well though if he was allowed to join

 

[maharini]

Apparently Anne is unwell.

I loved Catherine’s hat and coat look. The olive green is divine

*puts on tin hat*. She looks lovely, that colour and style suits her well and I really like the way she’s made her place in the family, the good things she’s doing, that she’s a great mum, but every time I see her I can’t help thinking she looks way too thin. She has a slight build naturally, but bending down to chat to children yesterday, the shape of her bones were visible through a winter coat. It’s been a difficult few years and I’d be concerned about anyone’s health who’d had all that stuff to go through. None of my business but I just think she’d look healthier with a little bit of meat on her bones. JMO, not body shaming, I know she’s fit and a busy mum and all that stuff. But after 40 you need to look after your bones.

 

[Em_gardener]

If it’s a public church service and not counted as an official engagement then they can’t stop Andrew joining them. I expected to see Fergie as well though if he was allowed to join

Why couldn't they stop Andrew joining them on the walk? Surely there's another way for him to get to the church. Beatrice and Eugenie were walking in front of Andrew - probably so he wouldn't be right there in the background of all the photos of William and his family. It hasn't got much attention at the moment because of the time of year but I wonder if there'll be more articles about it in a few days. It looks terrible - the king and the heir off to church on Christmas Day with an associate of Jeffrey Epstein trotting along behind them. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a story in a few days about William being furious behind the scenes or Charles not wanting to upset Beatrice and Eugenie or some other means of distancing themselves from it.

 

[monga]

That's exactly how it comes across. Big mistake from Charles. All the concessions that were made for Andrew up until now could be blamed on the Queen but this is all on Charles.

Charles will never gain the respect his mum had anytime he steps out of line he’ll be held accountable ,the public won’t be as forgiving as they were to the Queen she’ll have be a hard act to follow.

Why couldn't they stop Andrew joining them on the walk? Surely there's another way for him to get to the church. Beatrice and Eugenie were walking in front of Andrew - probably so he wouldn't be right there in the background of all the photos of William and his family. It hasn't got much attention at the moment because of the time of year but I wonder if there'll be more articles about it in a few days. It looks terrible - the king and the heir off to church on Christmas Day with an associate of Jeffrey Epstein trotting along behind them. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a story in a few days about William being furious behind the scenes or Charles not wanting to upset Beatrice and Eugenie or some other means of distancing themselves from it.

Apparently he used to attend a quiet service at 9am .

 

[Bride of Lupine]

If getting rid of Andrew means upsetting Beatrice and Eugenie, then so be it. They & their growing families are a bit much to include now anyway (esp if they’re bringing in non-royal stepchildren and the whole shebang). I get that when HMTQ was alive they were the monarch’s grandchildren, but now it’s out of their direct line, I think they should be out of the public eye. It should just be the king, queen consort & Waleses (and the Sussesex & children by way of proximity to the throne IF they hadn’t left). The others are just too far removed by now. Coincidentally, I don’t agree that the York girls should ever have been titled in the first place. ‘Ladies’ like Louise, at most, preferably nothing like Zara, but most definitely not Princesses. Yet another example of HMTQ’s weakness when it came to the son she should never have had.

 

[LoopyLou47]

If getting rid of Andrew means upsetting Beatrice and Eugenie, then so be it. They & their growing families are a bit much to include now anyway (esp if they’re bringing in non-royal stepchildren and the whole shebang). I get that when HMTQ was alive they were the monarch’s grandchildren, but now it’s out of their direct line, I think they should be out of the public eye. It should just be the king, queen consort & Waleses (and the Sussesex & children by way of proximity to the throne IF they hadn’t left). The others are just too far removed by now. Coincidentally, I don’t agree that the York girls should ever have been titled in the first place. ‘Ladies’ like Louise, at most, preferably nothing like Zara, but most definitely not Princesses. Yet another example of HMTQ’s weakness when it came to the son she should never have had.

I agree. HMTQ should have sorted this out long ago and not hiven the York girls titles. Instead she added to them by allowing George, Charlotte etc have titles, leading to Harry's resentment. They could have had titles afterwards. They didn't need one from birthShe should have been the one to cut down the Royal Family, not leave it to Charles.

 

[Scarlett O' Hara]

I agree. HMTQ should have sorted this out long ago and not hiven the York girls titles. Instead she added to them by allowing George, Charlotte etc have titles, leading to Harry's resentment. They could have had titles afterwards. They didn't need one from birthShe should have been the one to cut down the Royal Family, not leave it to Charles.

Beatrice,Eugenie and Price Williams children are all entitled to the titles they hold. Especially William and Catherines children that are heirs to the throne. What is your point?

 

[Lammington]

I agree. HMTQ should have sorted this out long ago and not hiven the York girls titles. Instead she added to them by allowing George, Charlotte etc have titles, leading to Harry's resentment. They could have had titles afterwards. They didn't need one from birthShe should have been the one to cut down the Royal Family, not leave it to Charles.

There was no lenience, and no change of rules to lead to resentment.

The rules were set in 1917, and from that point all grandchildren of the monarch (born to a male) had a right to be styled prince/princess. The children of any grandchild of the monarch other than the heir to the throne did not have that right. So Andrew's children were born with that right, while Harry's children were not, and only gained the right on the death of the Queen.

 

[Em_gardener]

If getting rid of Andrew means upsetting Beatrice and Eugenie, then so be it. They & their growing families are a bit much to include now anyway (esp if they’re bringing in non-royal stepchildren and the whole shebang). I get that when HMTQ was alive they were the monarch’s grandchildren, but now it’s out of their direct line, I think they should be out of the public eye. It should just be the king, queen consort & Waleses (and the Sussesex & children by way of proximity to the throne IF they hadn’t left). The others are just too far removed by now. Coincidentally, I don’t agree that the York girls should ever have been titled in the first place. ‘Ladies’ like Louise, at most, preferably nothing like Zara, but most definitely not Princesses. Yet another example of HMTQ’s weakness when it came to the son she should never have had.

I don't see anything wrong with Beatrice and Eugenie and their families walking to church on Christmas Day with the rest of the RF. I don't think they should be working royals but the walk to church is no big deal especially if they're all having dinner together later.
Beatrice and Eugenie are their generation's Archie and Lili and I don't think any of them should have titles. I don't think it's good for them either - if they want to live privately and quietly it would be easier without a title.

 

[Scarlett O' Hara]

I don't see anything wrong with Beatrice and Eugenie and their families walking to church on Christmas Day with the rest of the RF. I don't think they should be working royals but the walk to church is no big deal especially if they're all having dinner together later.
Beatrice and Eugenie are their generation's Archie and Lili and I don't think any of them should have titles. I don't think it's good for them either - if they want to live privately and quietly it would be easier without a title.

With parents like H&M that's unlikely

 

[Baby Giraffe]

There was no lenience, and no change of rules to lead to resentment.

The rules were set in 1917, and from that point all grandchildren of the monarch (born to a male) had a right to be styled prince/princess. The children of any grandchild of the monarch other than the heir to the throne did not have that right. So Andrew's children were born with that right, while Harry's children were not, and only gained the right on the death of the Queen.

As I remember Anne went against tradition by asking that her children were not prince / princess

 

[Lammington]

As I remember Anne went against tradition by asking that her children were not prince / princess

Amusingly, Anne's children being offered titles is the instance in which it can be said favour was shown - the letters patent of 1917 would not have allowed for prince/princess titles, but they were offered an HRH by the Queen. The offer was declined, hence no titles.

While the more recent royal history isn't as much fun (in my opinion) as that of a few centuries back, it has its fun quirks.

 

[Scarlett O' Hara]

Amusingly, Anne's children being offered titles is the instance in which it can be said favour was shown - the letters patent of 1917 would not have allowed for prince/princess titles, but they were offered an HRH by the Queen. The offer was declined, hence no titles.

While the more recent royal history isn't as much fun (in my opinion) as that of a few centuries back, it has its fun quirks.

Why did Andrews girls have Princess titles then?

 

[Boring Monday]

As I remember Anne went against tradition by asking that her children were not prince / princess

Anne’s children - as those of daughter of the monarch were never going to be Prince/ess. That is a right only for the children of sons. Anne’s children … even though she is a royal princess by birth … would take their titles only from their father. Anne and Mark refused a title for Mark on their marriage and so their children were styled as Master/Miss.

Going back a generation, Princess Alexandra is Princess by dint of being the granddaughter of George V though her paternal line (George and Mary’s 4th son. When she married Angus Oglivy, they turned down an earldom. Their children are also untitled)

Why did Andrews girls have Princess titles then?

Because their Father is the son of the monarch.
James and Louise are just as able to style themselves Prince/ess just that Edward and Sophie made the decision to take them as children of an Earl. The titles are there should they decide to use them at any point.

 

[Lammington]

Why did Andrews girls have Princess titles then?

Because they were born grandchildren of the monarch, to a son of the monarch.

The rules were set in 1917, and from that point all grandchildren of the monarch (born to a male) had a right to be styled prince/princess. The children of any grandchild of the monarch other than the heir to the throne did not have that right. So Andrew's children were born with that right, while Harry's children were not, and only gained the right on the death of the Queen.