Congratulations to HRH The Duke of Cambridge
Not necessarily. If the future monarch decides to use the same crown, then no need to change the badges. This business of "King's" and "Queen's" crown is a bit of a misnomer, I understand. The monarch is crowned with the Imperial State Crown.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might be right (the school where I teach almost exclusively produces Guards officers) but they were certainly good enough for pretty much all royals and policitians to be seen in RAF uniform in ww2...
?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The hoi-polloi.
tmmorris (your #44),
On "Pilot's Brevet" (p.120 #2398), I say:
We were the "blue-eyed" boys then (didn't last).
Danny.
...they were certainly good enough for pretty much all royals and policitians to be seen in RAF uniform in ww2...
...At that stage of the War, the RAF enjoyed enormous prestige. Only eighteen months before, against all the odds, it had won the Battle of Britain and saved the country from invasion. "I do not say that the French cannot come", old Admiral St.Vincent had said a century and a half before, "I only say they cannot come by sea". To this we had added: "Or by air".
Moreover, we were the only Service fully on the offensive. Bomber Command was hitting back, night after night, far harder, but in exactly the same way, as the enemy had bombed (and were still bombing) us in the "Blitz". Nobody felt the slightest guilt about it at the time - that was a luxury we could allow ourselves post-war, long after the danger was past.
The other two Services simply could not compete in the glamour stakes.....
Moreover, we were the only Service fully on the offensive. Bomber Command was hitting back, night after night, far harder, but in exactly the same way, as the enemy had bombed (and were still bombing) us in the "Blitz". Nobody felt the slightest guilt about it at the time - that was a luxury we could allow ourselves post-war, long after the danger was past.
The other two Services simply could not compete in the glamour stakes.....
Danny.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there's any real need for an urgent rush to a new Royal Cipher just yet.
Just looking at the healthiness of HRH, I reckon she's good for another 15 years at least - and I seem to recall from many, many years ago, that some noted seer predicted that Charles will never become King.
If Elizabeth holds onto the Crown until her last breath - as she has often stated that she will do - and as the longevity of her mother has a large bearing on her longevity as well - then I wouldn't be in the least surprised, to see Elizabeth make it to at least the age her Mother reached.
Charles could well have pre-deceased Elizabeth by then, paving the way for William to step straight into the big golden seat.
I trust the Duke enjoys his new rank - which the majority of people fully understand has a large honorary content for most of the Royal Family, anyway.
There's nothing like a few insignia and some fancy gold braid to obtain genuflection from the plebs.
Just looking at the healthiness of HRH, I reckon she's good for another 15 years at least - and I seem to recall from many, many years ago, that some noted seer predicted that Charles will never become King.
If Elizabeth holds onto the Crown until her last breath - as she has often stated that she will do - and as the longevity of her mother has a large bearing on her longevity as well - then I wouldn't be in the least surprised, to see Elizabeth make it to at least the age her Mother reached.
Charles could well have pre-deceased Elizabeth by then, paving the way for William to step straight into the big golden seat.
I trust the Duke enjoys his new rank - which the majority of people fully understand has a large honorary content for most of the Royal Family, anyway.
There's nothing like a few insignia and some fancy gold braid to obtain genuflection from the plebs.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
He's only a squabbling bleeder so far!
OneTrack said
"Charles could well have pre-deceased Elizabeth by then, paving the way for William to step straight into the big golden seat."
Except, barring other deaths, that would leave Prince Andrew as her heir and successor. So, coronation in Admiral's uniform.
Regards
Batco
"Charles could well have pre-deceased Elizabeth by then, paving the way for William to step straight into the big golden seat."
Except, barring other deaths, that would leave Prince Andrew as her heir and successor. So, coronation in Admiral's uniform.
Regards
Batco
Nope, Air Miles Andy is actually 6th in line, with the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Henry ahead of him.
Beags
Happy to be corrected but my understanding is that if, as I quoted from a previous poster, Prince Charles predeceases his mother then at that point the line of succession changes. You have described the current line (ie Charles is still alive at time of QE2's death) I have pointed out what happens if....
Regards
Batco
Happy to be corrected but my understanding is that if, as I quoted from a previous poster, Prince Charles predeceases his mother then at that point the line of succession changes. You have described the current line (ie Charles is still alive at time of QE2's death) I have pointed out what happens if....
Regards
Batco
The succession doesn't work like that, BATCO. Although you have to go back a while for the example (at least in terms of the monarch; the principles apply (with minor variations) to hereditary peers as well) George II outlived his son Frederick by 9 years; upon Geo II's death, Frederick's son became George III. Going even further back, Richard II was another instance of a grandson succeeding. Were Charles to predecease HMQ, the Duke of Cambridge would become heir apparent.
Only if Charles were to become king and then abdicate might the question about his children's place in the line of succession arise, since he might, in theory - like Edward VIII - be called upon to renounce the right of his descendants to the throne. This would be highly unlikely, though, since in Edward's case, he was childless, but had 'form'... The concern was that Mrs Simpson would leave him, that he'd marry someone in due course and have a child with her, whereupon that child would have had a claim to the throne. The renunciation of descendants' rights to the throne solved that possible problem.
In Charles's case, the line of succession is clear, and it would be inconceivable that the instrument of abdication would make any renunciation of William or George's position in the line.
Only if Charles were to become king and then abdicate might the question about his children's place in the line of succession arise, since he might, in theory - like Edward VIII - be called upon to renounce the right of his descendants to the throne. This would be highly unlikely, though, since in Edward's case, he was childless, but had 'form'... The concern was that Mrs Simpson would leave him, that he'd marry someone in due course and have a child with her, whereupon that child would have had a claim to the throne. The renunciation of descendants' rights to the throne solved that possible problem.
In Charles's case, the line of succession is clear, and it would be inconceivable that the instrument of abdication would make any renunciation of William or George's position in the line.
Last edited by Archimedes; 4th Feb 2016 at 13:00.
Arch
Many thanks, I stand corrected.
Beags has it.
..... and all the best to all the Queen's heirs and successors.
Batco
Many thanks, I stand corrected.
Beags has it.
..... and all the best to all the Queen's heirs and successors.
Batco
Last edited by BATCO; 4th Feb 2016 at 08:42. Reason: orthographie
Gentleman Aviator
Take your pick:- Charles Philip Arthur George . .
Charles could well have pre-deceased Elizabeth by then
Nope, Air Miles Andy is actually 6th in line
.... given a suitable epidemic or similar, we have potential Queen Zara and Queen Mia waiting at # 16 & 17, we could have King Columbus or King Cassius a bit further down at # 41 & 42 or - probably my favourite name - Queen Zenouska bringing up the rear at #56. Not the complete and final rear of course, but that's the last of the - at present - living and eligible descendants of George V.
I once met a woman whose husband was something like 76th in line to the throne. She told me that they used to invent totally far-fetched scenarios where the other 75 either all popped off or were disposed of, something like a very extended version of Kind Hearts and Coronets. She was in fact a very nice lady and a good laugh, and I got the impression they were quite content with their comfortable lifestyle without all the attendant nausea that being near the top of the list entails.
HH I'd rather put up with the Hanovers (or the Saxe Coburg Gothas or the Windsors) than the Clintons, Bushes, Sarkozys, Hollandes, etc. I'm pretty sure the Australians will call time on the whole shooting match, and good luck to them, but there isn't a hope in hell that we will, which must be a constant source of annoyance to British republicans.
Re the name, I understand that monarchs do not have to chose from any of their given names when choosing a regnal name, so he could reign as King Marmaduke if he felt like it, but I reckon he'll go for George as well
HH I'd rather put up with the Hanovers (or the Saxe Coburg Gothas or the Windsors) than the Clintons, Bushes, Sarkozys, Hollandes, etc. I'm pretty sure the Australians will call time on the whole shooting match, and good luck to them, but there isn't a hope in hell that we will, which must be a constant source of annoyance to British republicans.
Re the name, I understand that monarchs do not have to chose from any of their given names when choosing a regnal name, so he could reign as King Marmaduke if he felt like it, but I reckon he'll go for George as well
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTV - I tend to agree that our Royals are more cost effective and a better deal than some presidents although of course in many countries (not France or the USA) the Pres. is a figure head not an active politician
But England is a funny place - we can go for years, even centuries, plodding along with strange traditions, laws, customs etc and then they change overnight - and 6 months later people can't even remember the old system
I doubt Republicans will do it - it's more likely someone royal doing something so idiotic that people suddenly decide on a change......
and the next incumbent looks like a possible I think..............
But England is a funny place - we can go for years, even centuries, plodding along with strange traditions, laws, customs etc and then they change overnight - and 6 months later people can't even remember the old system
I doubt Republicans will do it - it's more likely someone royal doing something so idiotic that people suddenly decide on a change......
and the next incumbent looks like a possible I think..............