Royalty Thread #5 - Kate Now Officially A MILF

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by floskate, Jul 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jenny

    Jenny From the Bloc

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2001
    Messages:
    17,469
    My interpretation is that it's not a title, but rather who she is by marriage.

    Agree that when Charles becomes King then the Prince/Princess of Wales will supercede the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge titles. For George though, I wonder if he might at some point inherit the title of Duke of Cambridge - I think that's normally when the current title holder dies (Edward will become the Duke of Edinburgh when Philip dies), but given his position and that by the time William becomes king George will be an adult, perhaps it will be passed to him upon adulthood, or marriage.

    As a point of interest, I think most know that Camilla is currently the Princess of Wales but has chosen to use the title Duchess of Cornwall instead.

    I'm also very interested in what will happen to the Dukedom of York. The title is normally reserved for the second son/second in line to the throne, which he was for a time, but is no longer.
  2. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    4,868
    I think it's clear what happens to it - it's Prince Andrew's until he dies, and unless he marries again and has a son, it it will become extinct again afterward. Obviously neither of the York princesses can inherit it, and Prince Harry will get a different Dukedom, presumably upon his marriage (I read somewhere that he might become the Duke of Sussex).
  3. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,461
    When Charles becomes King, it's petty much a given William will be invested as Prince of Wales, which will be their 'ranking' title, so they'll be Prince and Princess of Wales. n.
  4. AxelAnnie

    AxelAnnie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,715
    I've seen that movie! So wonderful when they finally find each other again. Charles and Camila - YUK! Who needs a story about infidelity, betrayal and thumbing your nose at all that you are supposed to stand for when you become head of a country. (To say nothing of head of the Church of England). I am still hoping the UK will find a way to skip those two and move right on to Will & Kate.
    OliviaPug and (deleted member) like this.
  5. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,759
    Perhaps, though, it is time for a princess to be allowed to inherit the title. Just saying. Perhaps Charles or William will see fit to continue to make it a 21st Century monarchy by making that change.
  6. Jenny

    Jenny From the Bloc

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2001
    Messages:
    17,469
    Traditionally the Dukedom of York has not been inherited, but rather bestowed to the second son of the ruler, so I disagree that it would have passed to a son of Andrew. Therefore, since I'm sure no one wants to take it away from Andrew, once he dies, it should go to Harry once Charles is king, and then to William's second child once Harry passes and William is king, etc etc.

    For Harry, my sentimental choice is Duke of Suffolk. It's been granted just three times, then inherited and dying out. In its second creation, Henry VIII gave it to Charles Brandon, his childhood friend and closest confidant. I think it would be a fitting title for Harry :)


    Agree totally - I don't think there's ever been a duchess without a duke, but if the child would have been a duke if they were a boy, I'd love to see that child be a duchess if they are a girl.
  7. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    4,868
    Some peerages can be inherited by women; for instance, when Lord Mountbatten was assassinated, his eldest daughter succeeded to his title (and some secondary ones), becoming Countess Mountbatten of Burma in her own right - though only her male heirs (and those of her sister) can inherit in the next generation. These were the terms of the letters patent when the title was issued. There have also been peerages created specifically for women, though none in recent decades.

    However, it seems that the issue of succession is decided when a title is created, and not something that is changed retroactively - and I don't believe it's been done with royal peerages. Of course, if it can be done with the monarchy, I'm sure it can be done with a Dukedom - but my guess is that they'll have to remain princesses only... which is no great hardship :)

    I think I may have been mistaken and the rumored Dukedome for Harry was Suffolk. I'm not really sure and don't recall where I read it.

    There have been! there are several Duchesses in the "peerages created for women" list on Wikipedia, though none since the 19th century.

    ETA: note that two of these were mistresses of the last King Charles; being involved with or an illegitimate offspring of Charles II was an excellent way of getting a title back then ;)
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  8. Alixana

    Alixana recovering Oly-holic

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Probably because all the Dukes of York have either died without male heirs or inherited the throne.

    On a different note, there are portraits or pics of all the Dukes of York on Wiki .. thank goodness for the invention of photography because portraits really don't do people justice. :)
  9. Lorac

    Lorac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Actually I disagree with you as pertaining Andrew's title of the Duke of York not being passed onto a son if he had one - I believe it would have been passed on as he is the current Duke and I'm pretty sure the title is given to be used by Andrew and any male heir. Yes it has traditionally been handed out to the 2nd son of the monarch but the reason it has rarely been passed on to subsequent sons is because since 1461 the ten holders of the title have either died without male heirs or became King themselves meaning the title reverted back to the crown on each occasion. Prior to that the Dukedom was passed down to surviving sons but had already died out several times due to death or the son becoming King themselves thus the title reverted back to the crown to be bestowed where the current monarch saw fit - usually to the 2nd son of the current monarch.

    As Andrew himself has not got (currently) a male heir then once again the title will revert to the crown upon his death. If by chance he remarries and does father a son then that son would inherit the title of the Duke of York.

    As to Harry it will be interesting as to which Royal Dukedom the Queen or his father (or if by chance Charles is on the throne at that point) bestows upon him. I like the idea of Suffolk but it has never been a Royal dukedom - whereas Sussex has which is why it is a favourite for Harry at some point.
  10. centerstage01

    centerstage01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,013
    No, George will not get the Dukedom of Cambridge. The title is William's until he becomes king, then the Dukedom of Cambridge will revert back to the crown. Considering the longevity of the Windsors it may not be used again until George's son or daughter bestows the title on their son or grandson.
  11. aftershocks

    aftershocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,502
    Well phrased perspective. I'm fairly neutral and I have no argument for or against really. It's the stuff of soap opera and/ or BBC miniseries (if a well-written and not trashy script was created). Some of the stuff that happened in that love-hate triangle (Diana: "There's three of us in this marriage...") is so :eek: and incredible, it could never be made up. :p


    Not a bad idea, but I doubt it will happen. Again though, Charles will be very unlikely to have a long reign if he manages to outlive his mother and at long last becomes King.
  12. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,678
    And it's probably even worse than what the public knows! :yikes:
  13. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    4,868
    Oh, it's hardly unique - there are plenty of such ancestors in the family trees of royals and peers, many of whom are descendants of Charles II and his various illegitimate offspring; I don't know how many people were in his marriage, but certainly more than three :lol:. Going further into the past, Henry VII's claim to the throne was through his mother Margaret Beaufort, whose grandfather was one of four children born to the Duke of Lancaster and his long-time mistress Katherine Swynford. They finally married late in life and their children were legitimated retroactively. So, the Tudors and all subsequent British monarchs are descended from an adulterous relationship, or more accurately, in many cases, from multiple adulterous relationships. Can you imagine all that going down with today's media?

    Charles and Camilla couldn't have been married without the Queen's permission. Too bad they didn't/couldn't do it when they were younger, but since they are married now and she is clearly accepted by the rest of the family, I see no problem.
  14. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,397
    If at the time Charles didn't have to marry someone perceived as purer than pure, which pretty much meant an embryo, they all might have been happier a long time ago, albeit without these children.
  15. dardar1126

    dardar1126 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,245
    Twitter:

  16. centerstage01

    centerstage01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,013
    The baby polo mallet is very cute but it had better be kept on a high shelf or little George is going to smash anything in his reach with that thing. :lol:
  17. Reuven

    Reuven Official FSU Alte Kacher

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Ahyes, what's the line? "To a boy with a new hammer, everything looks like a nail."
    mag and (deleted member) like this.
  18. Latte

    Latte Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,137
    I believe Diana was a decended from one of Charles the second mistresses.
  19. taf2002

    taf2002 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    13,824
    I agree but I find it doubtful that they can be skipped. I am a lot older than many of you so I can remember a lot of past Charles history. When he was younger, I always thought he was an embarrassment to the Queen & completely unfit to be head of any state. I've often wondered if the Queen would have already stepped down if Edward was the oldest. And his "love story" was never romantic to me. I hate adultery; it causes so much misery. Diana was a much too young girl with stars in her eyes but she would have had to be deaf dumb & blind in order NOT to know what he was. He had dated her older sister for awhile as well - I always wondered if her sister tried to talk her out of marrying him.

    But my opinion of Camilla has nothing to do with Diana. At first I just thought Diana was a silly little fool with no taste. Then when she got more mature & her fashion sense improved & she got more poise, she seemed to be living up to her role that she took on of her own free will, but later after she too committed adultery, eventually got divorced, & then appeared to go wild, she didn't seem all that admirable to me. William & Kate seem to be the model for what I visualize what young royals should be. As for Camilla, the thought of her being Queen is ludicrous to me. I would probably feel differently if she had ever in her life stood up straight. I hate slouching. :lol:
    AxelAnnie and (deleted member) like this.
  20. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,461
    Given how the Spencers kept throwing both their daughters at the Prince of Wales without caring which one stuck , I doubt it.

    And at this rate William might be the next king just because men in that family just aren't as long-lived as the women, though Philip seems to have added some longevity genes. I don't have any problems with Camilla, possibly just because I can see getting along with someone like her while I'd have gotten fed up with Diana (I don't do fashion, celebs, neurotic personalities, etc.) Kate just seems much more sensible and down to Earth and clearly William got the best aspects of both sides.
  21. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,397
    Many women who are a lot older and more experienced are deaf, dumb, and blind wrt the men they are with, and they don't need crowns or castles to be part of the picture to be that blind. Look at Katie Holmes, who told her high school friends that she was going to marry Tom Cruise someday, and she was older and in a position not only to hear the rumors about him and about the Scientology apparatus, but to observe him first hand, and look how well that turned out for her.

    On the contrary, or, as the story goes, she got a whiff about him and Camilla before the wedding and went to her sister wondering if she should cancel, and her sister allegedly replied, "But Diana, the tea towels have already been printed," and she called the calling-off off.
  22. morqet

    morqet Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    944
    Camilla has taken on her royal duties very well in the face of some horrible attitudes from some sections of the press, and I really admire her charity work, particularly the work she's done in recent years in advocating for rape crisis centres and women's shelters. When the time comes, I think she will help Charles to do a solid job as monarch & I don't think there is any reason to skip over them, especially considering that William & Kate aren't "full time" royals yet .
  23. screech

    screech Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,865
    When I hear all the stuff making Diana into a saint, I think of a line from the movie The Queen. It was something like the Charles character saying that the Diana the people knew wasn't the Diana the royal family knew. She definitely played to her crowd well. I have no illusions that her personal personality was the same as her public personality.

    That said, her married life was definitely not easy at all, and I completely sympathize with her frustrations, which is likely what led to her eventual adultery as well.
  24. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,759
    She very possibly had a personality disorder. Even some public things indicate that. I doubt she made life easy for anyone around her. I'm sure her sons miss their mother, but I doubt that they have canonized her in the manner so many in the public have.
  25. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    6,995
    The Palace confirms it.

    http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/cambridges/duchess-of-cambridge-is-princess-william-13815


    Okay, I know it is just a made up fluff piece and newspapers are desperate to print anything these days, but it drives me nuts when headlines talk about a woman "giving their husband the girl (or boy) they have always wanted.) The only person who is going to give William a girl is William. This is 2013, we do have a basic understanding of how these things work, right?


    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/e...-cambridge-wants-perfect-family-29477175.html
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
  26. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    4,868
    Well, I don't think William can have a girl without Kate's involvement (or at least, a woman's involvement) ;)
  27. Jenny

    Jenny From the Bloc

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2001
    Messages:
    17,469
    A couple of my FB friends regularly post links to FB pages that pretend to be fan sites for Harry, William and Kate but in fact seem to exist entirely to promote Diana - and they have hundreds of thousands of followers posting sentimental things such as "Like if you remember Diana" the week George was born.

    I followed Diana from the beginning until her death and sympathized with what she went through, but for heaven's sake let's move on! It's one thing to remember someone, but those pages are verging on morbid. If William and Harry can accept Camilla, and the British people can accept Camilla (which they seem to for the most part), and the Queen can accept Camilla, then that's good enough for me.

    We've had discussions on these threads in the past on whether it's appropriate for media (or us for that matter) to call her Princess Kate or a Princess at all, and I recall some discussion about her technically being a Princess in Scotland, so it's good to have all that sorted once and for all. She and the palace have made it clear that she is to be known as the Duchess of Cambridge, but at least now when people and the media affectionately refer to her as a princess we know it's technically correct. And if they call her Princess Kate instead of Princess William, I don't think that's a big deal - it's not formally correct of course, but I think for the most part the term would be used with the best of intentions, same as Princess Diana or even Princess Di were used so often when she was alive, although neither was correct.
  28. LilJen

    LilJen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    9,265
    Well. . . the woman does play a bit of a role. It's chemistry! No, seriously. A woman's reproductive tract can be more or less receptive to X or Y sperm, and slight changes in the chemistry can make it more or less likely that an X or Y sperm will unite with an egg. This is probably the reason for families like mine (four girls, no boys)--that chemical balance between the parents simply favors X or Y sperm.
  29. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Messages:
    11,055
    Well it's not like any of them consciously made the decision, biologically speaking or not. :p
  30. LilJen

    LilJen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    9,265
  31. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,469
    I have a clear and enduring memory of my grandmother getting really annoyed and explaining to me that Diana wasn't a princess in her own right, but Princess Charles. I was about 11. I skipped off to school and told all my classmates, who :lynch: weren't happy and told me I was stupid.

    I was right :EVILLE:
    AxelAnnie and (deleted member) like this.
  32. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    4,868
    Actually, she was HRH the Princess of Wales - and after the divorce she became Diana, Princess of Wales, the title used on the royal family website. While technically Princess Charles may also be correct, he was already the Prince of Wales when they married, so it never would have been used.
  33. taf2002

    taf2002 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    13,824
    The Spencers were far from the only family doing so. It seemed that every girl with a lineage was thrown at him from the time he was "barely out of short pants", as the saying goes.

    It doesn't take a lot for an ultra-rich person to do charity work. She is more admirable than someone like Paris Hilton who leads a pretty shallow life but it's not like she does a grueling job all day & then gives up part of her evening in order to help others. I used to think the same of Diana. I believed she honestly felt for disadvantaged children (so do I & millions of others) but it didn't make her a saint.
  34. Alixana

    Alixana recovering Oly-holic

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    I do meet and greets with the public as part of my job and believe me, it can be grueling. However, I get what you're saying. When I come home, there are no servants .. just 5 year old twins who are even more grueling! :lol:
  35. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,397
    For over a decade, I did the 60+ hour-a-week jobs with extensive travel, and I would find it far more grueling being on my feet in heels and dress-up clothes in public making small talk, remembering new people's names, and being perpetually gracious and the Royal version of PC almost every 'freaking day and night, since the most active ones do day events and plenty at night, although they tend to get to sit down then.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  36. taf2002

    taf2002 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    13,824
    I have a feeling you got paid a heck of a lot less for doing that than the royal family does for their meet-n-greets & public appearances.
  37. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11,079
    Can member of the royal family refuse to participate? At least the ones who married in knew what they were getting into, but the ones who were born into it- for some people, I cannot think of anything more stress inducing than having to meet-and-greet and make casual chit-chat.

    Some days I think I'd rather do construction work than talk to strangers in person (give me a phone, I can talk to anyone...)
  38. Jenny

    Jenny From the Bloc

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2001
    Messages:
    17,469
    :respec:

    And imagine if your every move was photographed and recorded, and subject to criticism down to the smallest detail, and you had an army of people out there who would never forgive or accept you no matter what you did.

    The pay might be higher, the houses might be bigger and the titles might be fancier, but that doesn't mean it's not real work.
  39. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    19,397
    I might have made less money per year, but I would have made a lot less as a royal, because I would have been fired after day one. I can't think of a legal family business for which I would have been less suited, and the ones in the epicenter have fewer choices about punting, even if it takes years for them to come around.

    And, if I got the same stipend regardless of whether I did the job, it would take a great sense of responsibility to actually do it. If I didn't, then I'd argue that what they do has greater market value than what I did :p
  40. taf2002

    taf2002 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    13,824
    Charles didn't do the job (or only half-assed did it) for years & he didn't get fired.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.