|
||||||||
Prince Andrew Demands New Titles... |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
As a royalist I would have to say they are two useless, ugly lumps, , spending their lives taking endless holidays - they take after their horrible parents. Who would want to marry them? Seriously? I hope Charles tells them to eff off
And nothing wrong with their looks anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 100
|
I feel suitably chastened Richard46. Their looks are irrelevant but not helped by their ghastly sense of dress.
Their father contributes nothing to the reputation of the Royal Family and I don't think it's too much to ask these two girls to find gainful employment although it's difficult I guess to find jobs that would fit in with the multiple holidays they currently enjoy each year. Currently 7th and 8th in line to the throne and likely to slip down further due to more children from William and Kate and maybe Harry, is it too much to expect them to support themselves? You don't hear Princess Anne bleating - IMO she did the right thing with her children. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 790
|
Quote:
"Prince Andrew denies rift with Prince Charles over Royal titles "
http://news.sky.com/story/prince-and...arles-10689698 I guess Mummy and Phillip have stamped their feet |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,483
|
I hope we don't end up paying for those two pigs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
|
Quote:
As a non Royalist I think that is a bit harsh; these people are just who they are by accident of birth there is no reason to expect them to be any more talented or virtuous or attractive than anyone else. I would not rate them as prospective Heads of State but with monarchy you get whatever is next in line. If you are a royalist that is the deal.
And nothing wrong with their looks anyway. Calling her children and grand children, pigs , ugly , and other tedious names advances noones cause. It upsets the Royalists and and oddly does nothing at all for the supposedly intellectual left wing republicans. At the moment I'd settle for the stus quo as the world is enough of a flux. Oddly I suspect Charles has his finger on the pulse of public opinion and I believe if monarchy continues it will be along different lines. Tho he is an oddball . |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
I don't like to make unkind remarks about the various members of the Royal Family. As has been said already, they did not choose their roles in life and speaking for myself, I cannot imagine anything worse than the endless public scrutiny to which they are all subjected.
The fact is that it is not easy to be a member of this family. Of all the Queen's children, only Charles had a clearly defined future role but despite it being the second half of the 20th century, Anne, Andrew and Edward all grew up in a somewhat rarefied atmosphere where they were educated first by governesses and then in very exclusive schools where most of the people they mixed with were also titled and privileged individuals. None of them were brought up with the prospect of having to work for a living because up till then no prominent member of the Royal Family had ever been expected to do so. None of them were prepared for it and there was no precedent for it, so it just didn't happen. The problems arise with the arrival of the next generation. Anne, Andrew and Edward all married non-aristocrats and when this happens, it becomes difficult and sometimes untenable for people who marry into the Royal family to combine paid employment with family responsibilities of a kind which do not affect the rest of us. They can easily be duped or misled in their business role, due to their Royal connection - or make misjudgments of protocol - as Sophie, the Countess of Wessex discovered. Mark Phillips and Princess Anne actually did a very wise thing in his refusal to take a title when they married. This mean that their children did not have them either. It's different for Andrew and Edward though, as their children do have titles. Andrew's girls DO have jobs and it's unfair to suggest that they don't. They are both Royal princesses however and it is understandable that they wish to fulfil an appropriate role in supporting the Queen. The Royal Family will end up looking much smaller and compact but I don't think it will really take on that appearance fully until William is King. Charles will probably just try to keep things manageable during the coming years when the older generation (i.e his own) begin to die off. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
|
Quote:
I don't like to make unkind remarks about the various members of the Royal Family. As has been said already, they did not choose their roles in life and speaking for myself, I cannot imagine anything worse than the endless public scrutiny to which they are all subjected.
The fact is that it is not easy to be a member of this family. Of all the Queen's children, only Charles had a clearly defined future role but despite it being the second half of the 20th century, Anne, Andrew and Edward all grew up in a somewhat rarefied atmosphere where they were educated first by governesses and then in very exclusive schools where most of the people they mixed with were also titled and privileged individuals. None of them were brought up with the prospect of having to work for a living because up till then no prominent member of the Royal Family had ever been expected to do so. None of them were prepared for it and there was no precedent for it, so it just didn't happen. The problems arise with the arrival of the next generation. Anne, Andrew and Edward all married non-aristocrats and when this happens, it becomes difficult and sometimes untenable for people who marry into the Royal family to combine paid employment with family responsibilities of a kind which do not affect the rest of us. They can easily be duped or misled in their business role, due to their Royal connection - or make misjudgments of protocol - as Sophie, the Countess of Wessex discovered. Mark Phillips and Princess Anne actually did a very wise thing in his refusal to take a title when they married. This mean that their children did not have them either. It's different for Andrew and Edward though, as their children do have titles. Andrew's girls DO have jobs and it's unfair to suggest that they don't. They are both Royal princesses however and it is understandable that they wish to fulfil an appropriate role in supporting the Queen. The Royal Family will end up looking much smaller and compact but I don't think it will really take on that appearance fully until William is King. Charles will probably just try to keep things manageable during the coming years when the older generation (i.e his own) begin to die off. You are or appear to be describing a lifestyle from a bygone age. That's gone and good riddance. This isn't a Georgette Hyer novel, modern aristocracy moves inexorably forward, soon to be gone. |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the many thousands of people who are privately educated don't work/ need to work ? I'm quite sure that the majority of people in private education need to get out there and find jobs and work.
You are or appear to be describing a lifestyle from a bygone age. That's gone and good riddance. This isn't a Georgette Hyer novel, modern aristocracy moves inexorably forward, soon to be gone. I also referred to the fact that they were educated at a time and in environments with other privileged and aristocratic families where seeking paid employment was not inevitable. Lots of these young people simply inherited their wealth along with a title and went from school - Via Oxford or Cambridge - to learning how to run the family estate. I did not suggest for one moment that private education automatically equates to not having to work in paid employment but for some privileged young people, that was the case until relatively recently. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
|
Quote:
I think, if you go back and read what I actually said, I was referring to the situation that Anne, Andrew and Edward were in when they were growing up. It was to highlight the fact that Anne, Andrew and Edward were not being educated amongst state school pupils who would ALL be expected to enter paid employment. I said that THEY were brought up in the expectation that they would not have to work in paid employment because they were prominent members of the Royal Family who were 2nd, 3rd and 4th in line to the throne.
I also referred to the fact that they were educated at a time and in environments with other privileged and aristocratic families where seeking paid employment was not inevitable. Lots of these young people simply inherited their wealth along with a title and went from school - Via Oxford or Cambridge - to learning how to run the family estate. I did not suggest for one moment that private education automatically equates to not having to work in paid employment but for some privileged young people, that was the case until relatively recently. Privilege is a fact of life but education has more or less rejected the royals and for that I'm pleased. The landed gentry have gained their degrees from rather second rate establishments. A sort of quid pro quo 😂 But that applies to many . |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 790
|
Quote:
Mark Phillips and Princess Anne actually did a very wise thing in his refusal to take a title when they married. This mean that their children did not have them either.
The wives of Prince,s are given a title by marrying them, though this is taken away after divorce as with Fergie & Diana. Beatrice and Eugenie,s children will be expected to take their father,s name. Edwards children haven't got Prince & Princess titles, but Lady & Viscount. Maybe Andrew,s girls were given Princess titles because he was 2nd in line to the throne at that time? |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,537
|
Quote:
Prince Andrew has ask the Queen and Prince Charles if his two daughters can have higher statuses and be paid for, from the public purse.
He thinks his daughters should be treated the same as Prince William and Harry. Andrew has ask Charles if his daughters husbands can become an Earl, as he fears his grandchildren will be commoners. He has complained that Eugenie & Beatrice should have apartments in Kensington Palace where William and Harry have apartments, rather than smaller apartments where they live in St James Palace. Should Andrews daughter,s be given the same accommodation as William & Harry? Should they and their future families, be paid for from the public purse? Andrew is the only Royal to demand his children have higher statuses, as he fears that without them, they wont be considered aristocratic & be mere commoners. Anne and Edward haven't made such demands. Charles thinks only Harry, William and Kate should be paid for by the public and have the most public roles. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 790
|
Quote:
I hope we don't end up paying for those two
They will have a driver and protection |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 'Dales
Posts: 9,628
|
Maybe they want to be Princess Michael of Kent. I understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
I think you will find that Anne had to take on her husbands title/name.
The wives of Prince,s are given a title by marrying them, though this is taken away after divorce as with Fergie & Diana. Beatrice and Eugenie,s children will be expected to take their father,s name. Edwards children haven't got Prince & Princess titles, but Lady & Viscount. Maybe Andrew,s girls were given Princess titles because he was 2nd in line to the throne at that time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,777
|
Quote:
You may find they are already paid for.
They will have a driver and protection |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,777
|
Quote:
It is worth remembering that for 22 years this Andrew chap and his progeny where just one death away from being next in line*. I doubt the Monarchy would have survived that.
*According to my quick calculations but I am happy to be corrected. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
I think you will find that Anne had to take on her husbands title/name.
The wives of Prince,s are given a title by marrying them, though this is taken away after divorce as with Fergie & Diana. Beatrice and Eugenie,s children will be expected to take their father,s name. Edwards children haven't got Prince & Princess titles, but Lady & Viscount. Maybe Andrew,s girls were given Princess titles because he was 2nd in line to the throne at that time? The Princess of Wales, had her title changed to "Diana, Princess of Wales". It was her style of "Her Royal Highness" which was removed - not her title. The same applied to Sarah, who remains Duchess of York but no longer is entitled to be styled as "Her Royal Highness". Andrew's daughters are royal princesses and have been "HRH" since birth because they are from the male line and take their rank from him. You are mistaken though to think that it is because he was second in line. By the time Beatrice was born in 1988, Andrew was 4th in line after Charles, William and Harry. Edward and Sophie's children have the rank of prince and princess - but their titles, as you say, are that of Lady and Viscount and they do not have the styles of "HRH" because their parents requested that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 22,335
|
Quote:
It's actually traditional for untitled men who marry into the royal family to become Earls. However, the last two men who did so (Princess Anne's husbands) refused it.
I can see, how in Anne's case, as daughter of the monarch, giving her husband a title would be deemed appropriate - but do grandchildren/nieces/cousins fall under the same 'precendence' level if not in direct line to the throne? Margaret's children weren't prince/princess and their spouses weren't given titles. Her son inherited his father's title but beyond that they have no official royal titles afaik? |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
I'm not a royal family hater. I believe that a scaled down royal family is a bonus to our country in terms of heritage and tourism. That said I struggle with Prince Andrew because I think he epitomises all the that is wrong in our royal family - privileged, pompous, arrogant, thick, lazy and self important. Somebody who thinks is owed more than the minescule value of his own personal abilities. Without his royal connections he would be nothing.
Being the "spare" is never easy, as you still don't have complete freedom to choose your own destiny and often by the time you do have more leeway i.e. when there are now others ahead in the line of succession, a lot of opportunities are no longer viable. Unfortunately now, if Andrew tries to carve out a niche for himself, he is accused of all manner of things, such as not knowing anything about the subject and only getting the role on account of who he is.... or else he is accused of risking the reputation of the Royal Family by being associated with things which are unsuitable - or in some cases which bring him into contact with people who turn out to be dodgy or disreputable. Whatever Andrew does, you can be sure a negative spin will be placed on it somehow or other. I feel a bit sorry for him because it doesn't seem possible for him to be able to do anything without coming under fire for it from somewhere. Edward is much the same. Like I said before, none of them chose to be who they are - they just ARE. Personally I see the loss of personal freedom and privacy and the constraints of royal protocol to be such high prices to pay, for which no amount of wealth, status and perceived privilege could ever compensate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
I guess it depends on the relationship the person you are marrying has to the monarch?
I can see, how in Anne's case, as daughter of the monarch, giving her husband a title would be deemed appropriate - but do grandchildren/nieces/cousins fall under the same 'precendence' level if not in direct line to the throne? Margaret's children weren't prince/princess and their spouses weren't given titles. Her son inherited his father's title but beyond that they have no official royal titles afaik? |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
|
Quote:
Like I said before, none of them chose to be who they are - they just ARE. Personally I see the loss of personal freedom and privacy and the constraints of royal protocol to be such high prices to pay, for which no amount of wealth, status and perceived privilege could ever compensate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
I agree, and that's another good reason for abolishing the Monarchy. It would be in their own interests not to have all this duty and responsibility placed on them!
If the Monarchy were abolished upon the death of the Queen, does anyone imagine that the rest of the Royal Family would be able to simply become private citizens and not still be subjected to endless scrutiny - but with an additional and liberal dollop of "Oh how the mighty have fallen" being bandied around in the tabloids and elsewhere? It would never happen. They would still all be plagued by endless bitching and carping. I think a more "slimmed down" version of the Royal Family makes sense but it won't happen overnight. When the older generation of Royals have all gradually passed on, there will be a more compact Royal Family and I think a greater desire among the younger generation of Royals to live more conventional lives on a day to day basis. Personal privacy is something to be treasured and I think the younger Royals probably all wish to have that, instead of their lives being constantly scrutinised and documented through a lens. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,623
|
He doesn't appear to have any issues with 'commoners' when it comes to footing the bill. Just doesn't want his grandchildren to be 'commoners'.
Fair enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
He doesn't appear to have any issues with 'commoners' when it comes to footing the bill. Just doesn't want his grandchildren to be 'commoners'.
Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,941
|
Quote:
As a royalist I would have to say they are two useless, ugly lumps, , spending their lives taking endless holidays - they take after their horrible parents. Who would want to marry them? Seriously? I hope Charles tells them to eff off
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:49.



