One thing that has made me respect Charles increasingly as the years have passed is the way he successfully navigated the boys' lives after Diana's death. He didn't make them give up all connection with their mother or the causes she was associated with. (Contrast this with the otherwise wise and delightful Theodore Roosevelt, who wouldn't hear of his dead wife's name spoken ever again. Unfortunately, she was the mother of his oldest daughter, Alice. Wonder how that made Alice feel amid second wife Edith Carow's five children?) Charles managed somehow to give his sons a protected childhood but also to give them opportunities to go out into the wider world. He also managed to continue a relationship with Camilla in a way that made the boys comfortable. I hope the sons do like Camilla. I'd like to think that everyone in that family has found a path to peace and happiness.
What the queen thinks and thought about Diana should be her own business. I liked Diana for herself, but as I said earlier, she was probably not easy to live with. The truth is that she didn't belong in that family: it was a terrible fit. This despite the fact that she came from the aristocracy and was presumably as familiar with the royal world as anyone could get, so she had a bit of a head start in terms of adjustment. We can't know all the details, but it seems as if there was enough blame to go around. Charles married her without giving up his true love. Diana was starving for attention and behaved badly at various times throughout the marriage. Charles probably closed her out of his affections in every way imaginable. Diana gave that interview.
And then once she was outside the royal bubble and couldn't be protected or guided, she started dating unsuitable men and generally roaming around Europe like cafe society. I'm not all that sure she would have found her way to a satisfying life had she survived and aged. Though if she had, she'd have been quite a force for good in the world. As it is, she lives through her sons, but they shouldn't be compelled to feed the public's need for some Diana connection every time they're interviewed.
EZETTIE LATUASV IVAKMHA
Ah, I had never seen those tins before. Sounds plausible, expecially considering the jokes you mention.
Originally Posted by dorispulaski
The problem with the theory about the tobacco itself is that smoking only really became taboo in the last 20 years or so. Plus, I've seen quite a few photos of Edward VIII smoking (e.g. a cigar when he was young and a pipe when he was old )
Thanks for the compliment, Olympia! But, there is no need - I was just guessing based on previous Royal names and my own preferences!
Originally Posted by Olympia
You know, whenever we do get a King on the throne, I for one am going to have to think before I speak. Because, even though he died 33 years before I was born (in fact, a couple of weeks after my Dad was born!), I would still tend to refer to George VI as "the King"!!! Like, when I see a picture of him, I always say "Ah, there's the King!" Mind you, that is probably because I can never remember whether there have been 6 Georges or 7!!!
When it comes to Diana, I agree with Toni:
Some people in this thread have been suggesting that Diana references will be left to Harry's children. This sounds like a good tactic that might keep everybody quiet. I can't see it as being anything as blatent as skateluvr's suggestion, though!
Originally Posted by Tonichelle
Instead, I could see them using names that have been used in both the Royal and Spencer families as middle names. So, we could have:
Charles - after Diana's brother, the 9th Earl Spencer
Albert - after Diana's Granda, the 7th Earl Spencer
Hopefully using names in common like these would keep both the Diana supporters and the Royal Family supporters happy.
A thing about Prince Philip you might be interested in. You may have noticed that Philip doesn't look like an ethnic Greek. That is because the Greek Royal family that he belongs to is actually Danish!
Originally Posted by heyang
You see, when the Greek Monarchy was established in 1832, Otto, a son of the King of Bavaria (yes, more Germans!), was put on the throne. But, he was deposed in 1862. He was replaced by a member of the Danish Royal Family, who was crowned George I. And it was this Danish family that ruled Greece until the Monarchy was abolished in 1973.
Prince Philip is the grandson of George I.
Also, it should be noted that going into WW1, nearly all the monarchs of Europe were direct descendants of Queen Victoria!!! (Largely due to her and Prince Albert having so many children, which were then married off to the other Royal Houses of Europe).
I'd make some joke about how the British aristocracy uses the same names over and over again, but British nobles also come up with some of the most extravagant names for both boys and girls sometimes, such as Torquil (I think Lord Laurence Olivier's son, though Olivier was only a life peer and was also, of course, in the arts) or Sacheverell (Sitwell, Edith's brother, a baronet). The Royal family is probably the most conservative of all when it comes to names, except for Anne's kids, who have no titles and who can therefore give their kids names like Savannah. I think the Windsors don't want to rock the boat, so they use only names connected with kings and queens, and only the good ones at that. The name John is a lovely name, both traditionally English and Biblical, but there's no way anyone in line to be King will ever be named after one of the worst monarchs in British history. It's probably very tricky for them to make these choices, because these are public choices instead of the private ones available to most families, and maybe they compensate by having special secret nicknames used only within the family.
Wicked Yankee Girl