New Found Interest in the British Royal Family

[tspadgett873]

Hello, and thank you for welcoming me to the forum. Honestly I had not had any real interest in the BRF with the exception of the beloved Princess Diana, whom I still shed tears to this day at the thought of her loss.

What has sparked my interest in the BRF was a movie that I have recently watched called The Imposter, starring Matthew Rhys. The movie itself did not have anything to do with the BRF directly, but dealt with issues such as fate, and destiny, and wether or not one can be born into a role or assume the role and if that role is destined to be. The setting for the movie was the time right before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

As the movie so beautifully illustrated, although sometimes even if we are not born into a role, fate will inevitably step in and make the decision for us to assume that role. And thus began my new obsession with the BRF.

Queen Elizabeth was never meant to be Queen, and her father was never meant to be king, and his father George V was never meant to king as he was the second born son of King Edward VII. But it seems as if fate stepped in on several occasions and completely changed the line of royal ascension. With the death of Prince Albert Victor, first born male heir of Edward VII, his brother George ascended to the throne. And with the abdication of Edward VIII, his brother "Bertie" ascended to the throne as King George VI, the father of the reigning sovereign Elizabeth the II. And with her ascension she has had one of the longest and most successful reigns in British history, 2nd only to that of her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria.

I find it absolutely fascinating to think how a series of "accidents" made it possible that Queen Elizabeth is now the sovereign. She is exceptionally suited for the role, in my humble opinion. But in theory she was never meant to have the role.

Thinking about how fate has played such a crucial role in shaping the BRF is what brought me to your forum.

I look foward to engaging in many discussions.

Tamara

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Hello, and thank you for welcoming me to the forum. Honestly I had not had any real interest in the BRF with the exception of the beloved Princess Diana, whom I still shed tears to this day at the thought of her loss.

What has sparked my interest in the BRF was a movie that I have recently watched called The Imposter, starring Matthew Rhys. The movie itself did not have anything to do with the BRF directly, but dealt with issues such as fate, and destiny, and wether or not one can be born into a role or assume the role and if that role is destined to be. The setting for the movie was the time right before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

As the movie so beautifully illustrated, although sometimes even if we are not born into a role, fate will inevitably step in and make the decision for us to assume that role. And thus began my new obsession with the BRF.

Queen Elizabeth was never meant to be Queen, and her father was never meant to be king, and his father George V was never meant to king as he was the second born son of King Edward VII. But it seems as if fate stepped in on several occasions and completely changed the line of royal ascension. With the death of Prince Albert Victor, first born male heir of Edward VII, his brother George ascended to the throne. And with the abdication of Edward VIII, his brother "Bertie" ascended to the throne as King George VI, the father of the reigning sovereign Elizabeth the II. And with her ascension she has had one of the longest and most successful reigns in British history, 2nd only to that of her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria.

I find it absolutely fascinating to think how a series of "accidents" made it possible that Queen Elizabeth is now the sovereign. She is exceptionally suited for the role, in my humble opinion. But in theory she was never meant to have the role.

Thinking about how fate has played such a crucial role in shaping the BRF is what brought me to your forum.

I look foward to engaging in many discussions.

Tamara

Welcome to the Board, I Hope You Enjoy your time here.

Just one Thing...

One Word caught my attention and that is the Word 'Accident'. While it true Queen Elizabeth was not expected to Become Queen at Birth (Third in line when she was born in 1926) I wouldn't call it accidents, Also only one thing/Event happened and that was the abdication of her Uncle in 1936 when her father came to the throne and she became Heir Presumptive.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Welcome to the Board, I Hope You Enjoy your time here.

Just one Thing...

One Word caught my attention and that is the Word 'Accident'. While it true Queen Elizabeth was not expected to Become Queen at Birth (Third in line when she was born in 1926) I wouldn't call it accidents, Also only one thing/Event happened and that was the abdication of her Uncle in 1936 when her father came to the throne and she became Heir Presumptive.

The defintion of an accident

"An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury"

I would say the abdication of her Uncle was an accident as it was never intended to occur and happened unexpectedly.

Edward could have gotten married to some lovely Lady from the country, had 9 children and Elizabeth, her mother, father and Margaret would have lived a lovely quiet life as The York Family. However Edward never found the "right" lady, never had 9 kids and chose to marry a divorcee and abdicate.

 

[NGalitzine]

I would argue that while the abdication was unexpected it was an intentional act by Edward VIII not an accident. He could have not married and not abdicated but since he did want to marry it was his intention to abdicate in order to marry whom he wished.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I would argue that while the abdication was unexpected it was an intentional act by Edward VIII not an accident. He could have not married and not abdicated but since he did want to marry it was his intention to abdicate in order to marry whom he wished.

I agree in that sense, however IMO it was never his intention to fall in love with a divorcee and give up the throne he had been brought up to sit on. I imagine Edward would have loved being King. When given a choice, abdication or love, yes he intentionally chose to abdicate.

 

[tspadgett873]

Succession of the BRF

I agree in that sense, however IMO it was never his intention to fall in love with a divorcee and give up the throne he had been brought up to sit on. I imagine Edward would have loved being King. When given a choice, abdication or love, yes he intentionally chose to abdicate.

Thank you so much for your replies ladies, to my very first post to this wonderful forum.

I actually see where both of you are coming from. But Lumutqueen understood exactly what I meant by the word "accident". And yes I do consider the abdication of King Edward VIII to be an "accident" for although he intentionally and willfully abdicated the throne, no one would have expected this to happen. And in fact, if I am not mistaken, nothing like this had ever happened in the history of the monarchy and as such there was no precedent. And as Lumutqueen so expertly put it if things had went as "planned" Edward would have married a suitable girl had loads of issues that would be in the line of succession ahead of the Yorks.

Another scenario that could have happened would be that the church would have granted a waiver to the King allowing him to marry Wallis and still allow him to retain his position as King as was done with the Prince Charles/Camilla scenario, as he was allowed to marry a divorcee and yet still remain first in line to the throne. Although I do admit this scenario was much less likely in those days.

And my understanding is that Edward fought for the right to marry Wallis and still keep his position. Had things gone his way, the Yorks never would have ascended to the throne.

So yes I very much consider it to be an "accident" an accident of fate if you will, but an accident none the less.

 

[NGalitzine]

things certainly went as George V expected "that boy will ruin himself with a year"

 

[Ish]

things certainly went as George V expected "that boy will ruin himself with a year"

So true. Didn't he also at one point say how he hoped nothing was kept between Lilibet and the throne?

I wouldn't say that HM inheriting was ever an accident. It may not have been a direct root, and George VI may not have been expected to inherit himself, but it was certainly anticipated that Elizabeth would one day be Queen. George V knew that his eldest son wouldn't make a good monarch, and Edward VIII never showed any inclination to marry and have (legitimate) children - he was known for carrying on with married women, Wallis just being the last one he did so with.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

So true. Didn't he also at one point say how he hoped nothing was kept between Lilibet and the throne?

I wouldn't say that HM inheriting was ever an accident. It may not have been a direct root, and George VI may not have been expected to inherit himself, but it was certainly anticipated that Elizabeth would one day be Queen. George V knew that his eldest son wouldn't make a good monarch, and Edward VIII never showed any inclination to marry and have (legitimate) children - he was known for carrying on with married women, Wallis just being the last one he did so with.

I think it came down to one word... Fate (Like Victoria). You can't predict the Future, Queen Elizabeth was meant to be Queen and that was her Destiny. But No one knew it at the time but God.

But you are right, George V did say that he hoped nothing would come between libet, His son and the throne. He preferred his second son (George vi) over His oldest Edward VIII for king. He could only hope something would happen after he died... Which something did.

 

[tspadgett873]

So true. Didn't he also at one point say how he hoped nothing was kept between Lilibet and the throne?

I wouldn't say that HM inheriting was ever an accident. It may not have been a direct root, and George VI may not have been expected to inherit himself, but it was certainly anticipated that Elizabeth would one day be Queen. George V knew that his eldest son wouldn't make a good monarch, and Edward VIII never showed any inclination to marry and have (legitimate) children - he was known for carrying on with married women, Wallis just being the last one he did so with.

Yes, although I do believe it is true that King George V did not think his son at all suitable to ascend to the throne, I do not believe there was any "expectation" that she would one day be Queen although it was very true that it was his great wish that HM would inherit the throne.

Here is the quote I found: In 1935, George said of his son Edward: "After I am dead, the boy will ruin himself within 12 months", and of Albert and Lilibet: "I pray to God my eldest son will never marry and have children, and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne."

I believe that although it was his greatest wish for his "Lilibet" to ascend the throne and that he "prayed" for that to happen, I also take from that quote that he fully expected Edward to ascend to the throne and possibly have children.

And he took no action in removing his eldest son from the line of succession while he was alive. Although I am not sure he would have been able to do that even if he wanted to, without going through a whole lot of trouble.

What I find so interesting about this whole thing is that you have 2 generations of British royals where 2nd born sons ascended the throne although they were not "expected" to ever assume that role.

And for the first time in the history the BRF, the BRF is doing away with its male only primogenture, which means that the Duchess of Cambridge's baby will be in direct line to inherit the throne whether it be a boy or girl. I am so very excited by this!!...And am secretly hoping for a girl just so I can see this new rule put into practice.

Oh and another tidbit that I also find very interesting is that Queen Mary was first engaged to Albert Victor, before being married to George V. So it seems at any rate she would have been Queen.

 

[tspadgett873]

I think it came down to one word... Fate (Like Victoria). You can't predict the Future, Queen Elizabeth was meant to be Queen and that was her Destiny. But No one knew it at the time but God.

But you are right, George V did say that he hoped nothing would come between libet, His son and the throne. He preferred his second son (George vi) over His oldest Edward VIII for king. He could only hope something would happen after he died... Which something did.

as he was bound by the British government

Exactly British Royalist!!!...I completely agree. I also believe it was her DESTINY for HM to be the Queen and reign over the monarchy as she has done so well for these past 61 years. And it appears to me that fate intervened in a number of ways to make this happen. (The exclamation points are from being in total agreement with you..LOL)

 

[NGalitzine]

And he took no action in removing his eldest son from the line of succession while he was alive. Although I am not sure he would have been able to do that even if he wanted to, without going through a whole lot of trouble.

.

GV could do nothing on his own to remove Edward from the succession. Only Parliament could remove someone from the succession. Even the abdication required parliamentary legislation.

 

[Daria_S]

I hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Yes, although I do believe it is true that King George V did not think his son at all suitable to ascend to the throne, I do not believe there was any "expectation" that she would one day be Queen although it was very true that it was his great wish that HM would inherit the throne.

Here is the quote I found: In 1935, George said of his son Edward: "After I am dead, the boy will ruin himself within 12 months", and of Albert and Lilibet: "I pray to God my eldest son will never marry and have children, and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne."

I believe that although it was his greatest wish for his "Lilibet" to ascend the throne and that he "prayed" for that to happen, I also take from that quote that he fully expected Edward to ascend to the throne and possibly have children.

And he took no action in removing his eldest son from the line of succession while he was alive. Although I am not sure he would have been able to do that even if he wanted to, without going through a whole lot of trouble.

What I find so interesting about this whole thing is that you have 2 generations of British royals where 2nd born sons ascended the throne although they were not "expected" to ever assume that role.

And for the first time in the history the BRF, the BRF is doing away with its male only primogenture, which means that the Duchess of Cambridge's baby will be in direct line to inherit the throne whether it be a boy or girl. I am so very excited by this!!...And am secretly hoping for a girl just so I can see this new rule put into practice.

Oh and another tidbit that I also find very interesting is that Queen Mary was first engaged to Albert Victor, before being married to George V. So it seems at any rate she would have been Queen.

George V didn't have any control over who succeeded him. He may have wished his second son become King and not Edward but he couldn't do anything about it as he couldn't pick his successor. He could only hope something would happen after his Death allowing his second son to become king which something did. Look what happened when Edward VI tried to name his successor (Lady Jane) in his will in order to prevent Mary and Elizabeth from the throne. It doesn't work that way.

Actually they haven't passed the law yet so it not official, It still like it has been for the last 1000 years. so if Kate were to have twins and a girl comes out first then a boy is delivered next the Brother/Boy would still jump ahead if his sisters.

 

[tspadgett873]

George V didn't have any control over who succeeded him. He may have wished his second son become King and not Edward but he couldn't do anything about it as he couldn't pick his successor. He could only hope something would happen after his Death allowing his second son to become king which something did. Look what happened when Edward VI tried to name his successor (Lady Jane) in his will in order to prevent Mary and Elizabeth from the throne. It doesn't work that way.

Actually they haven't passed the law yet so it not official, It still like it has been for the last 1000 years. so if Kate were to have twins and a girl comes out first then a boy is delivered next the Brother/Boy would still jump ahead if his sisters.

My mistake, I thought the law had actually been passed the media is certainly talking about it like it is a forgone fact. But you can't always trust the media.

 

[Ish]

And he took no action in removing his eldest son from the line of succession while he was alive. Although I am not sure he would have been able to do that even if he wanted to, without going through a whole lot of trouble.

What I find so interesting about this whole thing is that you have 2 generations of British royals where 2nd born sons ascended the throne although they were not "expected" to ever assume that role.

That's because there was no action that he could take to remove David from the line of succession. The rules regarding succession are pretty clear, all those descended from Sophie of Hanover who are born legitimately, are not Catholics themselves, and do not marry a Catholic can inherit. David met all of these qualifications, so George couldn't do anything to remove him from the line of succession. In fact, not since I think Henry II has an heir been displaced without a usurpation. Henry VIII tried to make it so that he could dictate who his successors were, but once his children had each died the crown followed primogeniture and not Henry's will.

As to the two generations of second sons inheriting, there's actually a long list of second sons who have inherited. Most of the various "I" in English history were sons who weren't expected to inherit - I believe Edward I was the only I born as heir.

And for the first time in the history the BRF, the BRF is doing away with its male only primogenture, which means that the Duchess of Cambridge's baby will be in direct line to inherit the throne whether it be a boy or girl. I am so very excited by this!!...And am secretly hoping for a girl just so I can see this new rule put into practice.

Britain didn't have male only primogeniture, they had male preference primogeniture. Male only, commonly called agnostic primogeniture or Salic law, means that only men can inherit and only through male lines. Male preference primogeniture allows women to inherit after their brothers (and any of their bothers' heirs) have died, while semi-Salic law allows for female inheritance after all male lines have been extinguished. There's also one that allows for male inheritance through female descent, but I can't remember what it's called.

England has followed male preference primogeniture since the accession of Mary I. Previously they had allowed for male inheritance through female lines (Henry VII, Henry II, and Stephen being notable examples), but had been iffy about female inheritance (as seen by Matilda). Scotland had at least theoretically allowed female inheritance since Margaret of Norway.

Oh and another tidbit that I also find very interesting is that Queen Mary was first engaged to Albert Victor, before being married to George V. So it seems at any rate she would have been Queen.

This wasn't an entirely unheard of practice. The basic idea is that if you go through the effort to find a suitable bride for your heir, then your heir goes and dies on you, why not just pass the bride on to the new heir? She likely isn't any less suitable (love didn't factor into it). This is also how Henry VIII married his first wife.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Thank you so much for your replies ladies, to my very first post to this wonderful forum.

I actually see where both of you are coming from. But Lumutqueen understood exactly what I meant by the word "accident". ..So yes I very much consider it to be an "accident" an accident of fate if you will, but an accident none the less.

Ah tspadgett873, welcome to the wonderful Royal Forum. You have already gotten a taste of the range of our opinions. I will give you one more.

Bertie certainly had HIS opinions and acted on them. He expected others to follow his lead. I have yet to hear about one of his major opinions that proved to be sound/correct/helpful to the evolution of the United Kingdom.

Bertie did not accidentally hold his opinions; he willfully held them. One can love another and still understand why you cannot be with them. I learned that lesson very early in my life and Bertie could have as well. It just takes discipline to make a sound, unselfish choice. Good choices are no accident. Elizabeth II's life has been full of good, unselfish, willful choices.

Anyway - welcome aboard. There is a lot to learn here and a lot of strong opinions. We can all learn from one another.

 

[Ish]

Actually they haven't passed the law yet so it not official, It still like it has been for the last 1000 years. so if Kate were to have twins and a girl comes out first then a boy is delivered next the Brother/Boy would still jump ahead if his sisters.

My mistake, I thought the law had actually been passed the media is certainly talking about it like it is a forgone fact. But you can't always trust the media.

I believe the law has been passed in Britain. The problem is that the law has to be passed in each one of HM's realms before it comes into affect, and it's not passed in all of them yet.

The law is being made to be retroactive to a certain date so if the Cambridge Baby is a girl followed later on by a boy then Baby Girl Cambridge will still likely inherit before Baby Boy Cambridge - in order for Baby Boy to inherit then before the legislature gets passed both children would have to be born and Charles, William, and HM would have to die.

 

[Ish]

Ah tspadgett873, welcome to the wonderful Royal Forum. You have already gotten a taste of the range of our opinions. I will give you one more.

Bertie certainly had HIS opinions and acted on them. He expected others to follow his lead. I have yet to hear about one of his major opinions that proved to be sound/correct/helpful to the evolution of the United Kingdom.

Bertie did not accidentally hold his opinions; he willfully held them. One can love another and still understand why you cannot be with them. I learned that lesson very early in my life and Bertie could have as well. It just takes discipline to make a sound, unselfish choice. Good choices are no accident. Elizabeth II's life has been full of good, unselfish, willful choices.

Anyway - welcome aboard. There is a lot to learn here and a lot of strong opinions. We can all learn from one another.

Admirer, while I agree with your sentiment here, I will point out one error. In this generation Bertie was the second son, Prince Albert, Duke of York (later George VI), while David was the first, Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII).

The Bertie who would become a King Edward was their grandfather, Edward VII, formerly Albert Edward, Prince of Wales.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Admirer, while I agree with your sentiment here, I will point out one error. In this generation Bertie was the second son, Prince Albert, Duke of York (later George VI), while David was the first, Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII).

The Bertie who would become a King Edward was their grandfather, Edward VII, formerly Albert Edward, Prince of Wales.

Thanks for the correction. Sometimes I let the horse run out of the barn. We had this awful made for TV movie over here where Wallis calls him Bertie and that just sticks in my head. My bad.

 

[Ish]

Thanks for the correction. Sometimes I let the horse run out of the barn. We had this awful made for TV movie over here where Wallis calls him Bertie and that just sticks in my head. My bad.

Haha, perhaps (in the film at least) David and Wallis would sometimes role play that they were the Yorks.

 

[tspadgett873]

That's because there was no action that he could take to remove David from the line of succession. The rules regarding succession are pretty clear, all those descended from Sophie of Hanover who are born legitimately, are not Catholics themselves, and do not marry a Catholic can inherit. David met all of these qualifications, so George couldn't do anything to remove him from the line of succession. In fact, not since I think Henry II has an heir been displaced without a usurpation. Henry VIII tried to make it so that he could dictate who his successors were, but once his children had each died the crown followed primogeniture and not Henry's will.

As to the two generations of second sons inheriting, there's actually a long list of second sons who have inherited. Most of the various "I" in English history were sons who weren't expected to inherit - I believe Edward I was the only I born as heir.



Britain didn't have male only primogeniture, they had male preference primogeniture. Male only, commonly called agnostic primogeniture or Salic law, means that only men can inherit and only through male lines. Male preference primogeniture allows women to inherit after their brothers (and any of their bothers' heirs) have died, while semi-Salic law allows for female inheritance after all male lines have been extinguished. There's also one that allows for male inheritance through female descent, but I can't remember what it's called.

England has followed male preference primogeniture since the accession of Mary I. Previously they had allowed for male inheritance through female lines (Henry VII, Henry II, and Stephen being notable examples), but had been iffy about female inheritance (as seen by Matilda). Scotland had at least theoretically allowed female inheritance since Margaret of Norway.



This wasn't an entirely unheard of practice. The basic idea is that if you go through the effort to find a suitable bride for your heir, then your heir goes and dies on you, why not just pass the bride on to the new heir? She likely isn't any less suitable (love didn't factor into it). This is also how Henry VIII married his first wife.

My statement about the 2nd born sons inheriting was not meant to imply that this was the only case of this happening in history of the BRF, but what I found particularly interesting is that this happened in the the 2 generations that directly preceded HM. Like you, I believe it was Elizabeth's destiny to be Queen. I just think about about how fate played this role not only with her father but her grandfather as well. Like I said I find it all absolutely fascinating.

Well about Queen Mary, I thought that George had courted, sought, and actually obtained permission to marry at least 2 other women before he "settled" upon Mary? I would appreciate any clarification on this bit of history that you or anyone else can offer on this point.

But again, my statement was not to imply that this was a shocking practice or that this was some sort of precedent. As with all other things to do with BRF I just find it incredibly interesting as it is my opinion that Mary was "fated" to be Queen and the grandmother of HM Queen Elizabeth.

And as I am just now starting my research into the BRF and its history, I welcome any and all information as this greatly satisfies my curiosity.

 

[tspadgett873]

I hope you enjoy your stay.

Yes I am very much enjoying it as I am being "schooled" on the history of the BRF as I embark upon my own research.

Although I must admit that there may be some confusion that will come from time to time as to some of the facts. For example, the new law doing away with the male preference primogeniture. As 2 different posters have said 2 different things. (One said it was a law that has been passed and just needs approval from the other CW members. The other said that the law has not been passed) But alas, this just means that I need to do my research and learn facts for myself. Which I am more than happy to do.

 

[NGalitzine]

The law has been passed in the UK and Canada but not proclaimed. The deal was that the law would not come into effect until all the other realms had done what was necessary in their countries to pass the legislation. Basically the idea was it becomes law in all the realms at the same time and is retroactive to the date of the agreement at the last CHOGC.

 

[Ish]

My statement about the 2nd born sons inheriting was not meant to imply that this was the only case of this happening in history of the BRF, but what I found particularly interesting is that this happened in the the 2 generations that directly preceded HM. Like you, I believe it was Elizabeth's destiny to be Queen. I just think about about how fate played this role not only with her father but her grandfather as well. Like I said I find it all absolutely fascinating.

Well about Queen Mary, I thought that George had courted, sought, and actually obtained permission to marry at least 2 other women before he "settled" upon Mary? I would appreciate any clarification on this bit of history that you or anyone else can offer on this point.

But again, my statement was not to imply that this was a shocking practice or that this was some sort of precedent. As with all other things to do with BRF I just find it incredibly interesting as it is my opinion that Mary was "fated" to be Queen and the grandmother of HM Queen Elizabeth.

And as I am just now starting my research into the BRF and its history, I welcome any and all information as this greatly satisfies my curiosity.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought it was a one of occurrence, I merely meant to say that it's happened a lot - I agree with you in thinking that Elizabeth's destiny was to become Queen. To add to that line of thinking, there's also the case of Queen Victoria, the grandmother of the first of our Windsor second sons. Not only was Victoria a woman, and thus not expected to inherit, but she was the daughter of the fourth son of the king. In order for her to inherit, 3 of her uncles, 1 cousin, and her father all had to die, and the first marriage of one of her uncles (William IV) had to be declared void, making his 10 children illegitimate.

With Mary, several women preceded her as prospective spouses for Albert Victor. These include Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, Helene of Orleans, Margaret of Prussia, and Sybil St Claire Erskine. Various issues happened with the others, including I believe one rejection, while Mary was deemed most appropriate by Queen Victoria. George hadn't pursued any brides and was actually awkward around women - in the early stages of their relationship George couldn't really even express his feelings to Mary unless it was in the form of letters. The initial relationship was probably pushed on them by their family - Victoria was invested in Mary marrying her grandson, while Mary's family was able to benefit from her marrying the heir as well.

 

[tspadgett873]

Ah tspadgett873, welcome to the wonderful Royal Forum. You have already gotten a taste of the range of our opinions. I will give you one more.

Bertie certainly had HIS opinions and acted on them. He expected others to follow his lead. I have yet to hear about one of his major opinions that proved to be sound/correct/helpful to the evolution of the United Kingdom.

Bertie did not accidentally hold his opinions; he willfully held them. One can love another and still understand why you cannot be with them. I learned that lesson very early in my life and Bertie could have as well. It just takes discipline to make a sound, unselfish choice. Good choices are no accident. Elizabeth II's life has been full of good, unselfish, willful choices.

Anyway - welcome aboard. There is a lot to learn here and a lot of strong opinions. We can all learn from one another.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Please clarify about Bertie and his opinions. Do you mean Bertie (George VI) or Edward VIII. Because in your statement "One can love another and still understand why you cannot be with them. I learned that lesson very early in my life and Bertie could have as well. It just takes discipline to make a sound, unselfish choice" it sounds to me as if you are referring to Edward VIII and his decision to abdicate vs retaining his position and not marrying Wallis. I am just want to make sure I understand.

 

[Ish]

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Please clarify about Bertie and his opinions. Do you mean Bertie (George VI) or Edward VIII. Because in your statement "One can love another and still understand why you cannot be with them. I learned that lesson very early in my life and Bertie could have as well. It just takes discipline to make a sound, unselfish choice" it sounds to me as if you are referring to Edward VIII and his decision to abdicate vs retaining his position and not marrying Wallis. I am just want to make sure I understand.

Admirer meant David (Edward VIII) but wrote Bertie.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The new Succession rules, once the Law is passed in all the Commonwealth Realms, will apply to the British Dynasts born from October 28, 2011 onwards.

 

[tspadgett873]

I didn't mean to imply that you thought it was a one of occurrence, I merely meant to say that it's happened a lot - I agree with you in thinking that Elizabeth's destiny was to become Queen. To add to that line of thinking, there's also the case of Queen Victoria, the grandmother of the first of our Windsor second sons. Not only was Victoria a woman, and thus not expected to inherit, but she was the daughter of the fourth son of the king. In order for her to inherit, 3 of her uncles, 1 cousin, and her father all had to die, and the first marriage of one of her uncles (William IV) had to be declared void, making his 10 children illegitimate.

With Mary, several women preceded her as prospective spouses for Albert Victor. These include Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, Helene of Orleans, Margaret of Prussia, and Sybil St Claire Erskine. Various issues happened with the others, including I believe one rejection, while Mary was deemed most appropriate by Queen Victoria. George hadn't pursued any brides and was actually awkward around women - in the early stages of their relationship George couldn't really even express his feelings to Mary unless it was in the form of letters. The initial relationship was probably pushed on them by their family - Victoria was invested in Mary marrying her grandson, while Mary's family was able to benefit from her marrying the heir as well.

Oh yes I completely agree with you about Queen Victoria and her unlikely road to becoming Queen again something IMO that was abosultey meant to be. I have just started the research on this, and I am not ashamed to admit that I found it a bit confusing at first. As to how all of the other avenues were "exhausted" allowing her to ascend to the throne. It was the "elector" of Hanover role, that first through for a bit of a loop. Because William IV had 2 successors, one for Hanover and one for the Kingdom of GB as Victoria could not inherit Hanover because of the Salic law.

 

[Ish]

Oh yes I completely agree with you about Queen Victoria and her unlikely road to becoming Queen again something IMO that was abosultey meant to be. I have just started the research on this, and I am not ashamed to admit that I found it a bit confusing at first. As to how all of the other avenues were "exhausted" allowing her to ascend to the throne. It was the "elector" of Hanover role, that first through for a bit of a loop. Because William IV had 2 successors, one for Hanover and one for the Kingdom of GB as Victoria could not inherit Hanover because of the Salic law.

Inheritance is a tricky thing. Wait until you start going further back and get to George I or the War of the Roses.

Regarding Victoria, what happened was kind of simple, just rather unlikely. George III had a whole herd of children but didn't really try to marry any of them off. His first five sons were 1. George, Prince of Wales, 2. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, 3. Prince William, Duke of Clarence, 4. Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, and 5. Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. George married and had a daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales, but she died during the reign of her grandfather. Her death sparked a race to birth an heir amongst the other brothers, who each quickly married and tried to have legitimate sons.

Both Prince Edward and Prince Ernest Augustus succeeded in having children, but their elder brothers weren't as successful. In 1920, Prince Edward died then shortly after his father died, passing the throne on to the former Prince of Wales, now George III. George never had any more children, and during his reign the second son, Prince Frederick died, so when George died the throne went to the third son, William. William actually had a slew of children, but they were all from a marriage that hadn't been conducted with the permission of his father, so they were all illegitimate. With his wife, Adelaide, he had no surviving children, so when he died his British titles went to Victoria, who was the only child of the fourth son, while his German titles went to the fifth son because of Salic law.