Skip to comments.Hear Ye! Hear Ye! The Duchess of X !
Posted on 11/20/2010 7:59:59 AM PST by Thurifer the Censer
One question is how this soon-to-be newest member of the Royal Family will be styled. The simplest form would be 'HRH Catherine of Wales'. She would NOT be 'Princess Catherine' (no matter how much you see this term in the papers) Prince William has a courtesy title, in other words, he has no title of his own, he is a Prince merely by virtue of being the grandson of the Monarch.(William's father Charles had his own title 'Prince of Wales' when he wed and thus his wife became Princess) Because of this the closest that Kate could get to the title 'Princess' would be 'HRH Princess William'.....I think we can safely say that one is off the table.
(Excerpt) Read more at candlechantchalice.blogspot.com ...
They can solve this title thing by just passing over Charles for king and giving it to William, THUS Kate will be a Princess or Queen.
Charles is just too weird. I think his mum will outlive him anyway.
Although I wouldn’t wish an early death on anyone. I think skipping a generation would be best.
Folks, we fought two bloody wars to get out from under the heel of the British monarchy. First of all they have very little English blood in their veins. They are all at least half German/Austrian. They are a bunch of Global Elitist Eugenisists. Prince Philip (a total wingnut) who is the husband of Queen Elizabeth has publicly stated that when he dies he hopes he comes back as a virus that will kill off half the world’s population. They are all a bunch of rich, spoiled useless parasites living off the backs of the British people.
Kate Middleton is a complete non royal who’s mother was an airline Stew and I guess her dad is in business. She isn’t royal and isn’t ever going to be so who cares what title they will bestow on her?
Since you seem to love the royalty so much you will really enjoy Obama’s police state. That is the same thing you get under a monarchy. America get a grip.
OK I’m done here. Go back to enjoying your anticipation of the Royal Wedding.
After those two bloody wars we became quite good friends. I have interest in their royalty for the same reason as I still like my cousin’s ex-wife’s parents (My cuz is an idiot, his ex is a witch with a capital B, but her folks are great).
Two wars, eh? And how many have we fought side-by-side? I did a quick count and came up with six. I probably forgot a couple.
Maybe some music will improve your mood.
The custom when royal men marry is to receive a title concurrently. Prince Andrew became the Duke of York, Prince Edward the Earl of Wessex. He will be the Duke of Someplace and she will be the Duchess. They have rules.
“First of all they have very little English blood in their veins.”
Not so for Elizabeth, and certainly not so for William.
Elizabeth is the daughter of Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon who was close to 100 percent Scot/English.
As for the Royal Line, For George VI, it’s about half english/half german, some French, some Dutch, Some Norwegian some Spanish, some Italian. So that would make Elizabeth II, about 3/4 English.
Charles, is not as English as his mother, (the Prince of Edinburgh), is about half Greek and half German. That would make Charles about 40 percent English.
William, With Lady Diana being about 100 percent English, would make William around 80 percent English, as is Catherine.
You seemed to have confused constitutional Monarchy with dictatorship. Modern monarchs neither have nor need executive power. The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, she is beholden by virtue of her birth to no one but God, unlike politicians and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing.
It also prevents (as so often happens in America) political disagreements with current policy becoming veiwed as un-patriotic. In a Constitutional Monarchy one can damn the government and still cheer the crown.
You should also bear carefully in mind the constitutional safeguards inherent in the monarchy: While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law,
no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army. The Queens only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else.
This is more than mere theory. King Juan Carlos single-handedly saved democracy in Spain by taking personal command of the Armed Forces and crushing a military coup.
Nor is this the only example. Winston Churchill was convinced that WWII would never have come unless, under American
and modernising pressure, we had not driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making
these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones.
Another example is Russia under Nicholas II, with all the survivals of feudalism, had opposition political parties, independent trade unions and newspapers, a rather radical parliament and a modern legal system. Its agriculture was on the level of the USA,
with industry rapidly approaching the West European level. In the USSR there was total tyranny, no political liberties and practically no human rights. Its economy was not viable;
agriculture was destroyed. The terror against the population reached a scope unprecedented in history.
Also you make mention of the fact that Catherine Middleton is a commoner, true, but then you go on to state that she will never be royal, untrue. Royalty is not conferred by birth but by the act of being annointed by God in the person of a priest during the coronation ceremony. It is this act and no other which makes a person, no matter what their birth, into a king or queen. David was a shepherd before Samuel annointed him, afterwards he was a king, crowned or no.
I hope this has cleared up some misconceptions.
God Save the Queen!