A Royal Engagement

[Edward]

There were political reason's for the abdication, but the Nazi sympathies aren't quite as pronounced as many point - he certainly met and to a certain extent admired Hitler, but the full horror's of the regime were far off, and many other politicians of the era felt rather the same as he at the time. It was more due to the fact he was a pretty rubbish King - too willing to voice his political views (a big no no) and a general immaturity regarding the responsibilities of the role. In all honesty, though, the real reason was due marrying a divorcee. You have to remember this was the 1930's, not the 21st Century, and times have certainly changed, and Royal protocol has changed with it.

It certainly was a very different time in that the country did see it as a scandal, whereas now (not least due to much more media-driven awareness of the Royals and what they do) it wouldn't be an issue the same. Any opposition to Charles becoming King as a divorcee as well as having married one seems more rooted in Diana's ongoing popularity than moral objection to his marital status. Still, I've seen quite a lot of stuff in recent years that leans towards Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies being at least as significant factor behind the scenes,albeit not the one they chose to run with publicly. I suppose had they tried to out him as a Nazi sympathiser back then it would have been seen as tantamount to treason. [huh]

The Royal family may seem to be stuck in the past, but really it's closer to a link to the past. If a problem arises, they change; if the newly engaged couple were to have a daughter as the firstborn, then the rule on male ascension would likely change - there's just no point in changing the rules until it becomes an issue, which I feel is a fairly sensible and pragmatic approach.

I agree about the inevitability of change if the institution wants to maintain itself. The inevitable hoopla over the looming wedding will certainly focus much more public attention on the monarchy again, both for and against.

 

[AmateisGal]

i'm 17th cousin to the queen, so i'm just waiting for the checks to come pouring in lol

lol!!!

 

[Gingerella72]

You are quite correct however, in the a man who is married to the Queen is not called a King, though a woman married to a King is a Queen. The reason is that a King is a higher rank, as it were, then a Queen. As no-one can be a higher rank then the monarch, the husband becomes a Prince.

Thank you for explaining that, it always confused me! :eusa_clap

 

[Tomasso]

Kate Middleton to be given counselling to avoid depression that may be caused by being the future King's wife

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...void-depression-Kings-wife.html#ixzz162O1NXy7

 

[dhermann1]

Interesting paradox: Tho women didn't get the vote in Britain till 1928 (all women over 21), a woman has been able to be monarch there since at least the 16th century.

 

[Dewhurst]

I'll be perfectly honest: Royal Weddings continue to mystify me. I am incapable (wholly) of seeing the appeal to the popular mind.

Now, I have to go eat my Batman cereal so...

 

[Tomasso]

I'll be perfectly honest: Royal Weddings continue to mystify me. I am incapable (wholly) of seeing the appeal to the popular mind.

Then you're not into pomp and circumstance. Personally, I kinda like these events as they are rare to see these days. But then I also take notice of presidential inaugurations, state funerals, papal investitures, etc.....

 

[LordBest]

Then you're not into pomp and circumstance. Personally, I kinda like these events as they are rare to see these days. But then I also take notice of presidential inaugurations, state funerals, papal investitures, etc.....

Ditto, though I must admit to finding most presidential inaugurations incredibly dull in comparison to the Royal equivalent. Compared to the British Royal equivalent rather, none of the other Monarchies have the full medieval coronation anymore. Not even the Papacy.
The weddings aren't in this league of course, but still nice to watch.

God Save the Queen (and family).

 

[LittleMissPussyCat]

Well the dates has now been announced Friday 29th April at Westminster Abbey.

If nothing else a wedding is an excuse for a new hat.

 

[Edward]

They've also announced that it's going to be a Pubic Holiday. I really hope that's not our post-term revision week this year, or I might have to reschedule my classes if the College officially closes for the day. Bah.

 

[Foofoogal]

The reason is that a King is a higher rank, as it were, then a Queen.

Even in a card game.

I think she is lovely and once again little girls all around the world will want to be a Princess or a Queen when they grow up.
and men wonder why we love shoes and hats so much....Nothing new under the sun.

After going to Scotland I am pretty sure I have Royal blood also but all our money got stolen.

 

[rue]

After going to Scotland I am pretty sure I have Royal blood also but all our money got stolen.

Exactly! We should hire a lawyer to get our cut lol

 

[PADDY]

In the midst of so much 'doom and gloom' around the globe, isn't it 'refreshing' to have something like 'this' to *smile* about
Life is always full of risks, whatever we choose to do, and HRH Prince William and Catherine Middleton are no different to the rest of us in that respect. But I really, really wish them ALL THE BEST in life and look forward to 'the day' next year.
Anyway, it's an excuse to go out and buy a 'new hat' for the wedding, so keep your eye's peeled (that's all I'm saying).

Paddy (Middleton).

 

[dhermann1]

Foofoo, have you figured out how many people you'll have to bump off to reach the throne?

 

[Harp]

They've also announced that it's going to be a Pubic Holiday. I really hope that's not our post-term revision week this year, or I might have to reschedule my classes if the College officially closes for the day. Bah.

Toss in a lecture on the Marriage Act of 1753 (and royal legal exemption) Edwardneezer. :sleep: