Artemisia
Heir Presumptive, Royal Blogger
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 5,436
- City
- Yerevan
- Country
- Armenia
Camilla (and Diana before her) has a pretty much identical one so I doubt she has lost any sleep over the particular piece.
Do anyone know what ever happened to The Duke of Windsor's 1911 coronet that he was inevested Prince of Wales in?
I was reading The Queen's 1996 Letters Patent regarding divorce wives of Princes of the UK. I noticed the Duke of Windsor was mentioned in the patent. It read:
"And Whereas His late Majesty King George VI by his Letters Patent dated the 27th day of May in the 1st year of his Reign did declare that despite his exclusion from the succession the Duke of Windsor should continue to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness but that his wife and children if any and the children of his sons should not be so entitled"
I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.
Can someone explain, please?
The 1917 LPs didn't consider the children of a king who abdicated and so to ensure that there was no way that any male-line grandchildren of Edward's could claim the HRH Prince/Princess styling the 1936 LPs excluded them from that entitlement, along with Wallis's entitlement to HRH.
I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.
Can someone explain, please?
And admirable trait.Wasn't it LPs of 1937? From what I've read, George VI issued the LP in May which was very close to the wedding date of David and Wallis in June 1937.
Ahhhh someone taught me to be a stickler for the facts.
Wasn't it LPs of 1937? From what I've read, George VI issued the LP in May which was very close to the wedding date of David and Wallis in June 1937.
Ahhhh someone taught me to be a stickler for the facts.
I was reading The Queen's 1996 Letters Patent regarding divorce wives of Princes of the UK. I noticed the Duke of Windsor was mentioned in the patent. It read:
"And Whereas His late Majesty King George VI by his Letters Patent dated the 27th day of May in the 1st year of his Reign did declare that despite his exclusion from the succession the Duke of Windsor should continue to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness but that his wife and children if any and the children of his sons should not be so entitled"
I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.
Can someone explain, please?
Elizabeth, the daughter of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor.
Don't know if this was ever posted, but this website is claiming that Edward & Wallis has a child in 1934.
The pictures comparing the royal family to the woman & her children are interesting.
Anyone heard anything else about this story?
Even forgetting the ridiculousness of the entire story, what I don't understand is, why would the existence of the child even be kept secret? Born out of wedlock she would have had no succession rights even if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated. And following the abdication, why would they not acknowledge their own child? It's not as if illegitimate children were anything new for the British Royal Family.
Even forgetting the ridiculousness of the entire story, what I don't understand is, why would the existence of the child even be kept secret? Born out of wedlock she would have had no succession rights even if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated. And following the abdication, why would they not acknowledge their own child? It's not as if illegitimate children were anything new for the British Royal Family.
In the old days members of the royal family were messing around a lot. It's very possible there were babies produced due to all of that. Edward VII messed around a lot in his hay day. I'm sure there he fathered some children along the way.
Who knows, maybe the Windsor's had a baby. I do think Wallis would've kept her baby though.
Even forgetting the ridiculousness of the entire story, what I don't understand is, why would the existence of the child even be kept secret? Born out of wedlock she would have had no succession rights even if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated. And following the abdication, why would they not acknowledge their own child? It's not as if illegitimate children were anything new for the British Royal Family.
That's true but I obviously meant out-of-wedlock for Edward since at the time he wasn't married to Wallis or anyone else.Of course any child that Wallis had in 1934 wouldn't have been born 'out of wedlock' as she was still married and living with Ernest at the time and so it would have been normal for any such child to be accepted as Ernest's.
Well, supposedly he contracted mumps as a teenager while at the Naval Academy; relatively harmless as a child, but devastating during or after puberty as it causes sterility. Of course, Wallis herself reportedly said that neither one of them was "heir-conditioned" so she may have been sterile as well: she had no children with her first two husbands either.It's been alleged that David was sterile owing to the fact that despite his playboy lifestyle he never had any children. I always just figured that in the Victorian and post-Victoria Eras acknowledging illegitimate children fell out of practice and instead attempts were made to cover them up. I think of one acknowledged Royal Bastard since Victoria - her uncles all had a few (or more), and mistresses have continued, but no bastards.