Sorting Out the Royal Protocol, One More Time

 

File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svgThose of you who don’t give a toss, please move on.  There’s plenty more, much of it substantially more important than this, to grind your teeth upon.

And yet.

I’m getting a bit fed up with what’s become the current crise du jour, because–in the presence of a five-mile long, well-mannered queue which proves that the Britain of my youth is–somewhere on earth (oh wait…that would be in Britain)–still in existence, but whose story doesn’t make the sort of news beloved of the Twitter mobs), what could be more important than this question:

Are Archie and Lilibet entitled to be called Prince and Princess?  Is King Charles mean enough to refuse permission for them to be called such?  Is the British monarchy so racist that it can’t acknowledge its quadroons (no offence intended; that’s the recognized term) as part of the family?  And what about Harry and Meghan?  Are they so greedy, so grasping, so determined to make money off their royal connections that they would insist on these titles for their children even in the face of opposition and history?

People:  Please take what my dear friend Glenda calls a “calm your a** down pill.”  And regroup.

Here are the actual facts:

The grandchildren of a reigning monarch are entitled to be recognized as “Prince” and “Princess.”  Archie and Lilibet are now entitled to be called such.

Pot-stirring flunkies such as Lady Colin Campbell, and GBNews’s Dan Wootton, throw out Prince Edward’s children (grandchildren of QEII) as examples to demonstrate that it’s not “automatic” that those grandchildren become Princes and Princesses.

But they’re wrong.

The only reason that Louise and James (Prince Edward’s two apparently delightful children) are not referred to as “Prince” and “Princess” is that their parents refused the use of the titles their children automatically inherited.  As did the parents of two other of the Queen’s grandchildren, Princess Anne and Mark Phillips.  Their children are referred to as Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips.

All four of these grandchildren of the late Queen had the option, on attaining their eighteenth birthday, of styling themselves as “Her/His Royal Highness, Princess/Prince So-and-So.”

(It should be noted that William’s and Kate’s children are referred to as “Prince” and “Princess” because direct line of inheritance, and that Prince Andrew’s and Sarah Ferguson’s children are referred to as Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie because Andrew and Fergie.  What else would you expect?  But that sorta makes my point, if you insist on comparing Andrew and Fergie with Anne and Mark and also with Edward and Sophie.  (I’d suggest you don’t.))  All eight of the late Queen’s grandchildren could have styled themselves “Prince” or “Princess.”  That four of them didn’t, was the decision of those children’s rather rational parents.

We’re still waiting on the decision of the youngest of the un “Princes,” James, Viscount Severn, who’s not eighteen yet, but Zara, Peter, and Louise seem to have dodged the bullet.  I tend to think James will too.

Now, that’s the protocol.  Here comes the subjective analysis:

Meghan’s a bully.  Harry is a wuss.  The two of them are manipulative narcissists.  They’ve set the stage, with the able assistance of “The Oprah” (h/t Rush) with the completely false narrative that the only reason that Archie and Lilibet aren’t already “Prince/Princessy” is racism by the royal family.  Actually, the tradition is that Harry (in his role as the “spare,” had children who were not in the direct line of succession, and that therefore his children (great-grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth) had no automatic right to call themselves Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess NutNut, or anything else.)**

I also seem to recall that Harry and Meghan–when Archie was born–announced that they’d like him to NOT receive a royal title.  Does anyone else remember that?

Therefore, for Harry and Meghan to suddenly announce that they’d like their children to be known as “Prince Archie” and “Princess Lilibet” (shudder) will resound with hypocrisy and needy self-delusion.  For those who haven’t completely lost the plot, at least.

As far as I know, Harry and Meghan haven’t yet made an issue of this.  They might.  But perhaps even they will have the decency to let this play out as it will and as it should.  And what “as it should” means is that Harry and Meghan, as the “spare” parents of the grandchildren of the current monarch are the only two whose children inherit by birthright, the option to be called “Prince” or “Princess.” And that–should they want to follow in the rather egalitarian instincts of Princess Anne (mother of Zara and Peter) or those of Prince Edward (father of Louise and James) they won’t choose to burden their children with likely meaningless and irrelevant titles. (This inheritance business has–since the monarchy abolished male precedence in the line of succession in 2011, shortly before William and Kate’s firstborn arrived–changed significantly. Fortunately (traditionalists might celebrate), George was a boy.)

Princess Charlotte, however (bless her), and subsequent to Parliamentary law, gummed up the works.  God save the Queen! (And Princess Charlotte.)

What that means is that Charlotte (who bears an uncanny physical resemblance to the late Queen, and who won my heart forever by her stance at the entrance to the chapel at St. James Palace, just before the christening of her younger brother, by stopping, turning around, holding up her hand and announcing to the slavering press corps, “You’re not coming,” became, per the 2011 law, the equal of her brothers in the line of succession.  Should George inherit and then, God forbid, be lost without issue, Charlotte and her issue will inherit.  Should both of them die, George without issue, and Charlotte with a son or daughter, that son or daughter will inherit.  I can’t tell you what a sea change this was, as compared to the laws of succession in my childhood.  And, for good or ill, how it pushed Harry down in the line of succession.

I express my gratitude for those who’ve queued because I couldn’t.  Two of the comments have really moved me.  The first was that of the old gentleman who cried, and who said, “My England is gone.  I am an extinct species.”  (No, darling.  You are not.)

The second was the rather lengthy comment of a Commonwealth citizen who expressed her gratitude for the Queen of the Commonwealth more eloquently than just about any others could.

If I discover either or both of those comments in a format in which I can post them, I will.

Meanwhile:

God Save the King!

**Here’s the list of Queen Elizabeth’s great-grandchildren, together with their titles: Savannah Phillips, Isla Phillips, Prince George, Mia Tindall, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis, Lena Tindall, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, August Brooksbank, Lucas Tindall, Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, Sienna Mapelli Mozzi.  Perhaps you can see the pattern here.  If so, show me the racism, please.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    She: Those of you who don’t give a t___…

    Watch your language, young lady!

    • #1
  2. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    God Save The King!  (We agree on something.)

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Thank you, She, this was helpful. 

    May God Save the King. 

    • #3
  4. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Before, they used to fight about such things on the battlefield. Now they do it in the media (of all sorts). I’m not sure which I prefer.

    • #4
  5. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    I fully expect Meghan and Harry’s kids to grow up as entitled brats, just like their mother.  William and Kate’s kids, on the other hand, will grow up as polite, friendly, happy royals, and deserve their titles when they are old enough.

    Royals are people, too.  Charles and Camilla will need all the luck they can get, and so will Britons.  Today’s world is not a happy place, and I hope they can manage not to make it any unhappier than it already is.

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    What fun! And I love the way you walked us through all of it. There won’t be a  test, will there? I did follow pretty well until you got to the George and Charlotte business near the end. Still, I came away tickled with Charlotte’s boldness with the press. Thanks for bringing us up to date with your wit and skill, She.

    • #6
  7. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    What fun! And I love the way you walked us through all of it. There won’t be a test, will there? I did follow pretty well until you got to the George and Charlotte business near the end. Still, I came away tickled with Charlotte’s boldness with the press. Thanks for bringing us up to date with your wit and skill, She.

    Oh, it was nothing, really!

    😁

    • #7
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    She: As far as I know, Harry and Meghan haven’t yet made an issue of this.  They might.

    • #8
  9. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    On a lighter note, have you read Rhys Bowen’s “Her Royal Spyness” series? It is set in the 1920s and 1930s. The central premise is the protagonist, Lady Victoria Georgiana Charlotte Eugenie, daughter to the Duke of Atholt and Rannoch is 64th in line for the throne, a distant cousin of King George VI. She gets sucked into doing delicate investigations by the then queen, Queen Mary. It is marvelous fun, and a treat for anyone interested in 20th century British royalty.

    • #9
  10. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Had to go looking for it,

     

     

     

     

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Charlotte (View Comment):
    Oh, it was nothing, really!

    You silly girl, you!

    • #11
  12. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    On a lighter note, have you read Rhys Bowen’s “Her Royal Spyness” series? It is set in the 1920s and 1930s. The central premise is the protagonist, Lady Victoria Georgiana Charlotte Eugenie, daughter to the Duke of Atholt and Rannoch is 64th in line for the throne, a distant cousin of King George VI. She gets sucked into doing delicate investigations by the then queen, Queen Mary. It is marvelous fun, and a treat for anyone interested in 20th century British royalty.

    I will check these out. Who doesn’t want to know more about British royalty? Oh right.

    • #12
  13. She Member
    She
    @She

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    On a lighter note, have you read Rhys Bowen’s “Her Royal Spyness” series? It is set in the 1920s and 1930s. The central premise is the protagonist, Lady Victoria Georgiana Charlotte Eugenie, daughter to the Duke of Atholt and Rannoch is 64th in line for the throne, a distant cousin of King George VI. She gets sucked into doing delicate investigations by the then queen, Queen Mary. It is marvelous fun, and a treat for anyone interested in 20th century British royalty.

    I will check these out. Who doesn’t want to know more about British royalty? Oh right.

    LOL.  I haven’t read them either, but I will take a look!

     

    • #13
  14. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    She (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    On a lighter note, have you read Rhys Bowen’s “Her Royal Spyness” series? It is set in the 1920s and 1930s. The central premise is the protagonist, Lady Victoria Georgiana Charlotte Eugenie, daughter to the Duke of Atholt and Rannoch is 64th in line for the throne, a distant cousin of King George VI. She gets sucked into doing delicate investigations by the then queen, Queen Mary. It is marvelous fun, and a treat for anyone interested in 20th century British royalty.

    I will check these out. Who doesn’t want to know more about British royalty? Oh right.

    LOL. I haven’t read them either, but I will take a look!

    They really are fun and a young Elizabeth makes appearances in the stories.

    • #14
  15. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    That’s all well and good, but does the UK government have an official protocol in place to authenticate a person that shows up to Buckingham Palace carrying an antique sword and claiming in an Old Anglo-Celtic dialect that they’re the rightful occupant?

    ;-)

    • #15
  16. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    I just couldn’t help adding this!

    • #16
  17. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Before, they used to fight about such things on the battlefield. Now they do it in the media (of all sorts). I’m not sure which I prefer.

    I’m currently in the middle of a rewatch of GoT and a rereading of the books. Kind of depressing, actually, because the violence is kind of unrelenting; there is never a story line that doesn’t involve swords and armor and violence, or threat of same to move that plot forward. Occasional breaks to drink a lot, maybe some raping. But always armored troops with swords just off-stage to trot out when needed. I’m surprised that anyone ever reaches the age of thirty in such an environment.

    But still I laugh as I regard this current crop of British royals. Daenerys wouldn’t need the Dothraki, or the Unsullied, or any ships, or any army. She could have defeated this bunch with herself to tell them how it was gonna be, Tyrion to distract the press, and Ser Jorah to glower menacingly at anyone who has an objection.

    What happened to the great British Empire?

    • #17
  18. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Before, they used to fight about such things on the battlefield. Now they do it in the media (of all sorts). I’m not sure which I prefer.

    I’m currently in the middle of a rewatch of GoT and a rereading of the books. Kind of depressing, actually, because the violence is kind of unrelenting; there is never a story line that doesn’t involve swords and armor and violence, or threat of same to move that plot forward. Occasional breaks to drink a lot, maybe some raping. But always armored troops with swords just off-stage to trot out when needed. I’m surprised that anyone ever reaches the age of thirty in such an environment.

    But still I laugh as I regard this current crop of British royals. Daenerys wouldn’t need the Dothraki, or the Unsullied, or any ships, or any army. She could have defeated this bunch with herself to tell them how it was gonna be, Tyrion to distract the press, and Ser Jorah to glower menacingly at anyone who has an objection.

    What happened to the great British Empire?

    If it was that easy to usurp the modern British throne somebody would have done it already, but it hasn’t been usurped since 1689.

    • #18
  19. She Member
    She
    @She

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):
    But still I laugh as I regard this current crop of British royals. Daenerys wouldn’t need the Dothraki, or the Unsullied, or any ships, or any army. She could have defeated this bunch with herself to tell them how it was gonna be, Tyrion to distract the press, and Ser Jorah to glower menacingly at anyone who has an objection.

    One may laugh and mock at will; however, if there’s one word that I don’t think can be applied to the current crop of royals it’s “coward.”  I don’t expect that most of you here have been following the proceedings of the last week as closely as I; had you been, you might have been surprised to see how accessible the new King and his Queen, Charles’s sibs, and William, Kate (and to a much lesser extent) Harry and Meghan have been.  They drive, march, and walk, directly among, and in close proximity to, their people to a much greater extent than do the  “leaders” of almost all the rest of the world.  Disaster could strike at any moment, should security (which is far less obvious and oppressive than that in the United States) fail.

    And still they do it.  Not just the men.

    Princess Anne is well known for speaking her mind, and when ordered in 1974  to “please come out” (so funny, quintessential British politeness in the midst of an assault) of her chauffeured vehicle by a nutter with two guns who shot her bodyguard (each member of the RF usually only has only one when they go out and about) three times, and her driver, a journalist, and a policeman once each, memorably retorted “Not Bloody. Likely,” and slammed the door. While a group of passers by tried to subdue the attacker, Anne slid over to the other side of the car, opened the door, and exited backwards in order to distract him.  As the attacker ran round the car to get to the Princess, he was punched in the face by one of Anne’s saviors, and then arrested by the police, who’d shown up in response to the shot officer’s SOS.

    In 1982, Michael Fagan scaled Buckingham Palaces 14′ perimeter wall, shimmied up a drainpipe, and found his way to the Queen’s bedroom and sat down on her bed.  The Queen pressed her private alarm, and engaged the young man in conversation until help arrived.

    For some inexplicable reason, Fagan (who’s now 74) was asked his reaction to the death of his late monarch. I guess, in the closing years of the first quarter of the twenty-first century, that’s what passes for news.

    • #19
  20. She Member
    She
    @She

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    If it was that easy to usurp the modern British throne somebody would have done it already, but it hasn’t been usurped since 1689.

    I think Team Markle is doing its best.  However, as usual, and demonstrating her always-impeccable sense of timing, I believe Elizabeth has single-handedly upped the ante, and probably won the day.

    Several people have quoted Lord Grey’s WWI remark that, “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.” 

    I’m on record as being  a cockeyed optimist, and I think things are approaching a tipping point.  All we have to do is hold fast.

    My favorite Vera Lynn song:

    It’s happened before.  May it happen again soon.

    • #20
  21. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Megan came along to explain to y’all just what you needed to change in order to have a kingdom befitting her, but you just wouldn’t listen.

    The temerity envelope has been pushed by a legendary extent.

    • #21
  22. Rightfromthestart Coolidge
    Rightfromthestart
    @Rightfromthestart

    Percival (View Comment):

    Megan came along to explain to y’all just what you needed to change in order to have a kingdom befitting her, but you just wouldn’t listen.

    The temerity envelope has been pushed by a legendary extent.

    I think she’s such an ignorant twit that she thought marrying Harry would put she herself in line for the throne and was shocked to find out otherwise because …. Raaaacism! 

    • #22
  23. She Member
    She
    @She

    This is quite promising: King Charles seeks to amend law on who can act as his official stand-in.  It’s a Telegraph article (therefore, as it relates to the royal family, probably pretty sound) which may be behind the paywall for some of you.  It’s to do with the concept of “counsellors of state,” those members of the RF who might be deputed to act as stand-ins should the King be incapacitated.  (US readers, think 25th Amendment.)

    There are, traditionally, four counsellors of state.  At the moment (I think) they are: Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice.  (It’s something to do with an equation related to one’s place in the line of succession, plus/and, having achieved one’s 21st birthday. So it can and will change over time as those in the line of succession age.

    Now that females are as important in the line of succession and the hierarchy of the RF (since the 2011 Act abolishing male primogeniture) has been irrevocably altered, Charles would like to include some form of retroactivity, and endow Camilla with counsellor of state privileges.  Others in the logical running would be the Earl of Wessex (Charles’s brother, Prince Edward) and the Princess Royal (Charles’s sister, Princess Anne.)

    Frankly, I think a list of counsellors of state that included Camilla, William,  Anne, and Edward would be a far better set of options from those currently in the running.

    Most recently, in Elizabeth’s reign, Charles and William showed up to open Parliament in 2021. (The Constitution (yes, there is one) requires that two counsellors of state be on hand for the event, if the monarch can’t do it on his or her own).

    I’m in favor of changing the law, as it relates to counsellors of State, if it means that the monarch can–with the consent of Parliament–pick his or her own.

    What say you?

    • #23
  24. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    I have a visceral rejection of anything Camilla, that housebreaking hussy.  Charles should have manned up and stayed faithful to Diana.

    I’d toss Charles under the bus, too.

    • #24
  25. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    On a lighter note, have you read Rhys Bowen’s “Her Royal Spyness” series? It is set in the 1920s and 1930s. The central premise is the protagonist, Lady Victoria Georgiana Charlotte Eugenie, daughter to the Duke of Atholt and Rannoch is 64th in line for the throne, a distant cousin of King George VI. She gets sucked into doing delicate investigations by the then queen, Queen Mary. It is marvelous fun, and a treat for anyone interested in 20th century British royalty.

    I’ve just added your suggestion to my library reading list, to be started as I continue through Jacqueline Winspear’s Maise Dobbs detective/spy series.

    • #25
  26. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    She (View Comment):

    This is quite promising: King Charles seeks to amend law on who can act as his official stand-in. It’s a Telegraph article (therefore, as it relates to the royal family, probably pretty sound) which may be behind the paywall for some of you. It’s to do with the concept of “counsellors of state,” those members of the RF who might be deputed to act as stand-ins should the King be incapacitated. (US readers, think 25th Amendment.)

    There are, traditionally, four counsellors of state. At the moment (I think) they are: Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice. (It’s something to do with an equation related to one’s place in the line of succession, plus/and, having achieved one’s 21st birthday. So it can and will change over time as those in the line of succession age.

    Now that females are as important in the line of succession and the hierarchy of the RF (since the 2011 Act abolishing male primogeniture) has been irrevocably altered, Charles would like to include some form of retroactivity, and endow Camilla with counsellor of state privileges. Others in the logical running would be the Earl of Wessex (Charles’s brother, Prince Edward) and the Princess Royal (Charles’s sister, Princess Anne.)

    Frankly, I think a list of counsellors of state that included Camilla, William, Anne, and Edward would be a far better set of options from those currently in the running.

    Most recently, in Elizabeth’s reign, Charles and William showed up to open Parliament in 2021. (The Constitution (yes, there is one) requires that two counsellors of state be on hand for the event, if the monarch can’t do it on his or her own).

    I’m in favor of changing the law, as it relates to counsellors of State, if it means that the monarch can–with the consent of Parliament–pick his or her own.

    What say you?

    I like it

    • #26
  27. She Member
    She
    @She

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    I have a visceral rejection of anything Camilla, that housebreaking hussy.  Charles should have manned up and stayed faithful to Diana.

    Yes, there is that.  I can’t find it in myself to blame Camilla more than Charles though, and Diana herself veered off the reservation more than once.  The original sin, I think, was Charles marrying Diana in the first place.  Whatever were they thinking, marrying him off, in his early thirties to a nineteen-year old, starry-eyed, girl, hardly more than a child, from a completely different world?  Can you say, “Doomed from the outset?”  While Diana later admitted to having cold feet before the big day, Charles, with his asinine response to the reporter’s idiotic “are you in love?” question (“whatever love means”), was flashing his own signals from the get-go.

    He should have married Camilla somewhere in the early 1970s.  That he didn’t, that she was considered too “experienced,” having already had a couple of boyfriends, and that her background wasn’t considered “posh” enough to admit her into the royal family is an indicator that the royal family was still being run by the Queen Mother and Louis Mountbatten.  When Charles went off on a tour with the Navy in the early 70s, Camilla reconnected with one of those former boyfriends and married him instead.

    A pox on all three of them, none of whom–for many years–displayed much dignity or decorum in their personal lives.

    Yet, here were are.  Camilla has led a decent and upright life for a couple of decades, has quietly got on with the job, has taken up a number of charities in her own right and is, by all reports, doing good work, and perhaps she has served her sentence and should be forgiven at least some of her past indiscretions.

    I guess I actually do have less tolerance for Charles’s behavior, because of his passivity in marrying Diana in 1981 when she was clearly wrong in so many ways.  High-strung from the start, she was never a good fit. (I say that as someone from a family of great supporters of the former Princess of Wales.  But that didn’t blind us to the fact that she was not terribly stable and that she regularly made bad decisions in her personal life.)

    Harry’s fond of yammering on about how his mother was driven to her death being chased by the paparazzi.  Yes, they relentlessly pursued her.  But–had she worn a seatbelt, and had she not got into a car with a very drunk driver–she might have survived even that.  More insidious, I think, was the journalistic plot by the BBC (and then the cover-up of it) to prey on her mental fragility with lies and conspiracy theories, leading her to do herself in with that disastrous Martin Bashir interview.  Hardly Charles’s fault.  I can’t imagine the damage that did inside the royal family.  Well, maybe I can.

    Looking on the bright side, though, and recognizing that the late Queen, at least, was capable of cutting her losses and learning from her mistakes, if we hadn’t had the Camilla screw-up way back when, we might never have had Kate Middleton today.  Although the dangers of letting young princes go too far afield to pick their spouses is clear from the Harry and Meghan debacle.  But at least–in spite of Ms. Markle’s incessant whining–it’s clear they have no one to blame but themselves for the mess they’ve made.

    I’d toss Charles under the bus, too.

    I don’t forget that Britain  and the monarchy have, over the past 1000 years, survived far more depraved kings than Charles III.  And I expect they will survive him as well.

    • #27
  28. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    She (View Comment):

    A pox on all three of them, none of whom–for many years–displayed much dignity or decorum in their personal lives.

    Indeed.  My comment was not meant to excuse Diana’s own failings.

    Yet, here were are.  Camilla has led a decent and upright life for a couple of decades, has quietly got on with the job, has taken up a number of charities in her own right and is, by all reports, doing good work, and perhaps she has served her sentence and should be forgiven at least some of her past indiscretions.

    Meh.  It is probably just as well that it isn’t my country and wouldn’t ever be my call.

    She (View Comment):
    I don’t forget that Britain  and the monarchy have, over the past 1000 years, survived far more depraved kings than Charles III.  And I expect they will survive him as well.

    Doesn’t reduce the suck in the moment.

    • #28
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I am willing to have some grace for the all too human failings to the Royal Family. If I can offer that Grace to one Donald J. Trump, Charles III can get some too. 

    I wish he would not always look so darn, grumpy. His mother had a lovely smile. 

    • #29
  30. She Member
    She
    @She

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am willing to have some grace for the all too human failings to the Royal Family. If I can offer that Grace to one Donald J. Trump, Charles III can get some too.

    I wish he would not always look so darn, grumpy. His mother had a lovely smile.

    I think he has too much of his father in him.  Philip was the grumpy, impatient one.  Rude, politically incorrect but funny as hell, sometimes, though:

    “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?” Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.

    On the subject of his horse-loving only daughter and her possibilities for romance: “If it doesn’t fart or eat hay, she isn’t interested.”

    “People think there’s a rigid class system here, but dukes have been known to marry chorus girls. Some have even married Americans.”

    “Dontopedalogy is the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it, which I’ve practised for many years.”

    “I don’t care what kind it is, just get me a beer.”

    “As so often happens, I discover that it would have been better to keep my mouth shut.”

    I think it’s a defect in Charles that he doesn’t seem to have inherited either his mother’s rather fey wit, or his father’s more acerbic kind. IMHO, that kept both of them grounded, and–as much as was possible in their circumstances–from taking themselves too seriously.

    Regarding HM’s smile–yes, everyone who’s ever met her says it lit up the room.  I was listening to a “royal expert” (who actually seemed to know something, versus the one earlier who was talking about the “Orb and Specter” as the  earthy symbols of monarchical power. 😱👻😱👻😱 (pace Banquo’s ghost)

    He remarked that Elizabeth had a number of set responses to expectable questions (phrases like “that’s nice,” and “how kind” (not to mention, “tea?”) which form the mouth into a smile when they’re uttered.  It’s on full display here:

    Smart lady. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.