The Royal Family #6

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
I wonder what Phil thought of his father, has he ever spoken about him?

Apparently, after is father died in 1944 Phil went to Monaco to collect his father's possessions, amongst them his father's signet ring, which from then on he wore himself (and pics throughout his adult life show him wearing one along with a wedding ring underneath after marriage till he couldn't anymore a few years ago and had to take them off), took his dad's shaving brush, which he then also used himself and even his dad's clothes, which he had retailored to fit himself and it's not like he was so poor that he needed to use his father's things.

Shows some sort of attachment.

I guess you always love your parents and PP was a forgiving man. I often wondered how he could turn out to be such a funny and caring man despite his upbringing.
I think when TQ met him and fell in love with him it saved him somehow, he found a stable home in her.

A few years ago I thought that PP most likely considered TQ to be a catch that helped him to better his position, but this view has changed.
I now think that he also fell in love and gave up his nationality, church and title to be with her - and that he would have been confident to make his own path, pursue his own career and find happiness and would not have married her if he wouldn't have been in love.
Otherwise, how could he keep stepping back all these years? He chose her and she chose him. It's so sad that it is over.
 
Dismissing the claims against him because he hasn't been charged is dismissing what happened to her in my opinion. As the poster before me said he remained friends with a CONVICTED paedophile after he was charged and released which to me looks dodgy as duck.
Hello, royal lurker here. I comment on the gossip threads and am always interested on what people say about the royals.
Anyway, some friends we know had a mate who was arrested for having images of teens having sex on his pc. His wife and son left and he lost his job but his male mates stuck by him (wives refused to have him anywhere near them) - not because they thought he was innocent but because he had no one else.
My point here is who knows what the story is with PA and Epstein. I am in no way condoning what has gone on. They can question PA but as is already evident he’s not going to tell the truth!
 
I guess you always love your parents and PP was a forgiving man. I often wondered how he could turn out to be such a funny and caring man despite his upbringing.
I think when TQ met him and fell in love with him it saved him somehow, he found a stable home in her.

A few years ago I thought that PP most likely considered TQ to be a catch that helped him to better his position, but this view has changed.
I now think that he also fell in love and gave up his nationality, church and title to be with her - and that he would have been confident to make his own path, pursue his own career and find happiness and would not have married her if he wouldn't have been in love.
Otherwise, how could he keep stepping back all these years? He chose her and she chose him. It's so sad that it is over.
It occurred to me yesterday that it really didn't make sense why he had to give up all his titles and nationality. Previous male consorts didn't have to as far as I'm aware. Prince George of Denmark was married to Queen Anne and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Queen Victoria. Both of them remained princes. Both Greece and Denmark were allies to the UK in WW2. Surely he could have taken on British nationality without giving all that up? It would have taken an enormous series of catastrophes for him to be close to inheriting any of the three thrones (including UK) that he was in line to. Incidentally, he was more royal than his wife, having both parents born royal 😁.

What it has done is given Charles and his descendants far more European royal connections through blood than before. Even the Russian state tv noted that Philip was the descendant of a tsar. Charles commented on his Greek side when in Greece a couple of weeks ago. Add in all the other Balkan royal families plus a closer connection to Spain and Denmark - in addition, his aunt, Lady Louise Mountbatten, became Queen of Sweden and the current King's step-grandmother. He did a good bit to dilute the German royal blood 😉
 
It occurred to me yesterday that it really didn't make sense why he had to give up all his titles and nationality. Previous male consorts didn't have to as far as I'm aware. Prince George of Denmark was married to Queen Anne and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Queen Victoria. Both of them remained princes. Both Greece and Denmark were allies to the UK in WW2. Surely he could have taken on British nationality without giving all that up? It would have taken an enormous series of catastrophes for him to be close to inheriting any of the three thrones (including UK) that he was in line to. Incidentally, he was more royal than his wife, having both parents born royal 😁.

What it has done is given Charles and his descendants far more European royal connections through blood than before. Even the Russian state tv noted that Philip was the descendant of a tsar. Charles commented on his Greek side when in Greece a couple of weeks ago. Add in all the other Balkan royal families plus a closer connection to Spain and Denmark - in addition, his aunt, Lady Louise Mountbatten, became Queen of Sweden and the current King's step-grandmother. He did a good bit to dilute the German royal blood 😉
Good question, I wondered the same.
I do remember this was touched upon in docus I've seen, but it was usually almost a sidenote.

I would like to hear more if anyone knows for sure, but I think the crux was that his sisters were married to Nazis, very deep Nazi connections and history there (even though one of the couples betrayed Hitler in about 1944?), so I think that was really what was behind it.

Realistically Phil would've never made it to any throne even if he'd remained in line to all the ones he was eligible for, but I think there's been an agreement in place for a long while now that heirs can't marry heirs (so to speak) and one side has to renounce their claim (even a far fetched one?), so that two countries don't share one head of state. I think that bit was for this reason.

What I do remember is that the Winds and Establishment had headaches about Phil marrying in, they weren't in favour, because of his "poverty", Nazi connections and all that. They needed to spin it a bit to make it palatable for the public (or so they felt, seems the public has never changed really, they hated the over done mourning for George and they were in favour of divorcees marrying in (Wallis and Townsend), I think the Establishment cr*ps themselves in times more than necessary and shoots in the foot with their rigid rules), and one of the ways of making Phil palatable to the British public was by making him a citizen and him renouncing all his previous family connections, a fully ingrained Brit who is fully British and nothing else.
 
It occurred to me yesterday that it really didn't make sense why he had to give up all his titles and nationality. Previous male consorts didn't have to as far as I'm aware. Prince George of Denmark was married to Queen Anne and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Queen Victoria. Both of them remained princes. Both Greece and Denmark were allies to the UK in WW2. Surely he could have taken on British nationality without giving all that up? It would have taken an enormous series of catastrophes for him to be close to inheriting any of the three thrones (including UK) that he was in line to. Incidentally, he was more royal than his wife, having both parents born royal 😁.

What it has done is given Charles and his descendants far more European royal connections through blood than before. Even the Russian state tv noted that Philip was the descendant of a tsar. Charles commented on his Greek side when in Greece a couple of weeks ago. Add in all the other Balkan royal families plus a closer connection to Spain and Denmark - in addition, his aunt, Lady Louise Mountbatten, became Queen of Sweden and the current King's step-grandmother. He did a good bit to dilute the German royal blood 😉

I don't know lots of about the history of the royals, but bloody hell they got around. Any idea when the royal ancestors came to power after the Roman empire? I have heard there had been a lot of inbreeding. Is this true?
 
I don't know lots of about the history of the royals, but bloody hell they got around. Any idea when the royal ancestors came to power after the Roman empire? I have heard there had been a lot of inbreeding. Is this true?
It can be easy to trace them via their houses.

If you were to trace all the ancestors it would be a long mess, but ultimately when you go through the tree(s), you encounter almost every house in today's existence. Sometimes they say "house of X died out because of lack of descendants", but then you see that other branches have formed new houses (cadet houses/branches), so there are living descendants, just not from the last official heir (and females were often not counted in).

The easiest and quickest, really, is to go to whomever you're interested in and click on the family name ("house of"), which gives many pointers.

Ultimately, you could almost say that either a person or a house (even if the name changed over time) has been in power since frikkin forever.

And then don't forget that most if not all Europeans are either direct descendants of Charlemagne or relatives.

Eg the ancient house of Capet is technically dead, but they spawned the Bourbons (amongst others), whose members are in almost all the currently ruling houses of Europe. The house of Hanover is also linked to the Capetians, who came from the Robertians and the Carolingians ran concurrently and these families were spawns of the Roman Empire.
The Habsburgs, Romanovs, Savoys and and and and are all inter-related and can trace their ancestry to some previous, ancient "dead" house.
And that's just the main lines (heirs).
Commoners and royals share the same ancestry, main heir survives, the rest fends for themselves.
Heirs inherit, spares and illegitimate kids become the aristocracy, then that dillutes into the gentry and that dilutes into "common folk" (not all kids can be heirs and spares) and from all these you can pick a person each and then you can easily find a common ancestor (a ruler).

The Roman Empire ran also throughout this time until the fall in the 15th century.

Eg Charlemagne split his empire amongst his sons, which is what led to the split and fall of the empire, but what also helped then spawn more houses.

Sometimes you come across one of these ancient, now dead houses, but at the end it says "descendants are amongst others" and there's a list of virtually every ruling house in today's existence plus some ex-royals and now defunct houses mentioned (which still carry on with titles, daft gits), so that gives you quite an idea just how long they have ruled (since forever) and how many descendants there are (everyone's a descendant who breathes or ever breathed) and where they have and still do rule (everywhere is the answer).

The most recent common ancestor of almost every still going ruling house are Victoria (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but a Hanoverian spawn, which go back to the Bourbons which go back to the Capetians etc) and Christian of Denmark (Glucksburg, which is also Phil's ancestor and birth house till he took on "Mountbatten").

This is a very simplified, abridged version written by a dummy (me, in case that wasn't clear 😂).
 
I don't know lots of about the history of the royals, but bloody hell they got around. Any idea when the royal ancestors came to power after the Roman empire? I have heard there had been a lot of inbreeding. Is this true?
It has only been in the last 100 years really that commoners have been acceptable marriage partners for royalty in most countries. The UK was a bit of an anomaly but even so William of Orange felt that he had more of a claim to the throne than his wife Mary Stuart as her mother Anne Hyde (and that of her sister Anne) was a commoner and not royal as both his parents were, hence the compromise of a joint reign. As it was, Anne Hyde died before her husband became James II so there wasn't a non-royal consort from Catherine Parr [Edit to add: or Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley north of the Border though he was royalish with his grandmother Margaret being both a sister of England's Henry VIII and a dowager Queen consort of Scots] until Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon if I remember correctly. There was a bit of a fuss when Victoria's daughter Louise didn't marry royalty, but politics and revolutions, together with religion, had started to thin the number of available royal matches. The Balkan kingdoms intermarried amongst themselves, as did the Germans and the Scandinavians to the extent that family trees are more of a thicket. The Russians, being Orthodox, were acceptable to both Protestant and Catholic royals, as were the Greeks and Balkan royals later.

Not marrying equally led to morganatic marriages where the spouse and children did not have the same status and could not inherit (as with Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Countess Sophie Chotek whose assassinations at Sarajevo set off WW1), unlike equal dynastic marriages. Until the present kings, both Norway and Sweden would not allow non-royal marriages; the Swedish government had to be reassured by the UK that Lady Louise Mountbatten was still considered royal before she could marry the Crown Prince. See also the story of the Welsh miner's daughter Lilian Davies and the Swedish Prince Bertil who couldn't get married until the 1970s despite living together since WW2.

Most of them managed to keep from serious levels of inbreeding but the Hapsburgs were notorious for almost Egyptian levels of inbreeding, killing off the Spanish line.
 
Last edited:
occurred to me yesterday that it really didn't make sense why he had to give up all his titles and nationality. Previous male consorts didn't have to as far as I'm aware. Prince George of Denmark was married to Queen Anne and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Queen Victoria. Both of them remained princes
I wonder if it was something to do with the Greek Royal Family. They were deposed but brought back before being deposed again, so it may have been about succession to the Throne.

This scam artist above doesn't deserve any views, clicks or promotions. There's tonnes of threads on her here and it's best to not click on this scammer's videos. She's full of shyte and contradicts herself constantly.



Edit: Can't comment on the content of this video, as I absolutely refuse to give her a single click, but it's most definitely likely bs.
I couldn't be bothered to watch 26 minutes of rambling on so I couldn't tell you anything either. Glad I didnt bother now!
 
Last edited:
Prince Andrew is free to grief and talk about his father BUT I find it wrong to give him any slot on tv or in a magazine or newspapers. And I am appalled he didn’t get a muzzle from BP.
We will never find out how guilty he really is and if it’s actually criminal behaviour regarding the law or „just“ morally despicable. Even if he is questioned, there probably wouldn’t be much more coming out. I think he should have cooperated but I don’t think anything will come from it now. The least he could do is disappear and never let us hear his voice again and spare us his face as much as possible. If he wants to talk about his father he should talk in private as much as people want to listen.
 
Prince Andrew is free to grief and talk about his father BUT I find it wrong to give him any slot on tv or in a magazine or newspapers. And I am appalled he didn’t get a muzzle from BP.
We will never find out how guilty he really is and if it’s actually criminal behaviour regarding the law or „just“ morally despicable. Even if he is questioned, there probably wouldn’t be much more coming out. I think he should have cooperated but I don’t think anything will come from it now. The least he could do is disappear and never let us hear his voice again and spare us his face as much as possible. If he wants to talk about his father he should talk in private as much as people want to listen.
His siblings gave very personal tributes but that 'The Nations grandfather' business sounded like he was trying to act as mouthpiece for the family and rehabilitate his reputation.
 
His siblings gave very personal tributes but that 'The Nations grandfather' business sounded like he was trying to act as mouthpiece for the family and rehabilitate his reputation.

He wasn’t my grandfather, how dare he choose to speak for me or anyone else for that matter. As I’ve already said in another thread, Andrew doesn’t care. I don’t believe that he thinks he’s done anything wrong and has a right to be in the public eye. God is he in for a rude awakening when Charles ascends to the throne!
 
I think the tide will turn for Andrew after the Queen dies, I couldn't see Charles allowing him to speak in public, he'll be told to stay out of the public eye and zip it. I agree with the poster who said he doesn't see his wrongs. I think that boils down to arrogance and entitlement.
 
I think the tide will turn for Andrew after the Queen dies, I couldn't see Charles allowing him to speak in public, he'll be told to stay out of the public eye and zip it. I agree with the poster who said he doesn't see his wrongs. I think that boils down to arrogance and entitlement.
Agree. He is being protected by his mother, but Charles wants to cut the Monarchy down to size, so he'll have to live out his days in private. You could see the arrogance dripping off him in his notorious interview. He thought he could spout obvious nonsense and get away with it because he thought the plebs were stupid forelock tuggers.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top