The Royals!

Films, TV shows, and books of the 'modern' era
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: The Royals!

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Today's paper is saying that the first few weeks of the baby's life will be spent with the Middletons due to asbestos being found at the Kensington Palace apartment that is being prepared for the Cambridges.

I love Alexandra for a name, it was on my list for a girl but Chris wasn't overkeen and it was partly because Alexandra the royal in recent history that I'm fondest of, she can't have had an easy life being married to Edward VII who although charming seemed to have behaved a bit like an alley cat and having Victoria as a mother in law would have required tact. She seems to have been a woman of immense dignity and warmth as well as beauty and regal bearing. It'd be lovely to have another Alexandra, I'd go for Eleanor too, she was another Queen with an illustrious pedigree.

After all our discussions it's bound to be a boy.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Vecchiolarry
Posts: 1392
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 10:15 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: The Royals!

Post by Vecchiolarry »

Hi Alison,

Ha, ha - yes, after all our input into what to call this girl - it's bound to be a boy!!!

So, I still go with Geoffrey.. It's a name that hasn't been used in centuries; and I'm for naming a royal child something different. Not the 'same old, same old'.....

Larry
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10068
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: The Royals!

Post by Rita Hayworth »

I like the name of Geoffrey! :)
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: The Royals!

Post by JackFavell »

Geoffrey's very nice.

I've been reading up on the kings and queens of England...gosh it seems like there's a heck of a lot of Ethelstans and Ethelweards for boys and Edgiva's for girls. :D
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: The Royals!

Post by charliechaplinfan »

There's been too many Henry's and Edward's, George might be more likely, afterall the Queen's father was very well loved. Geoffrey is a royal name, I wonder how that one would go down? I like it.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: The Royals!

Post by JackFavell »

Forgive me for being ignorant, but would Norman names be considered un-English? There are some pretty names from Norman times -Eleanor, Alice, Joan and even Blanche (no I can't imagine that one either) are all from that time period.
Vecchiolarry
Posts: 1392
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 10:15 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: The Royals!

Post by Vecchiolarry »

Hi,

Blanche would be a great name, as it hasn't been used for a long time. Blanche was a French queen, who was the granddaughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II of England. She is revered as being someone who went out and helped the peasants and poor and financed several hospitals across France. She is known as "Good Queen Blanche"....
She was the mother of Saint Louis (Louis IX)....

Joan was a daughter of Eleanor & Henry and supported her brother, Richard the Lion-Hearted....

I see no reason these names could not be used.

BTW, Happy Birthday to Queen Elizabeth II today - she is 87....

Larry
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: The Royals!

Post by JackFavell »

How nice! Happy Birthday to the Queen!
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10068
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: The Royals!

Post by Rita Hayworth »

Happy Birthday Queen Elizabeth II.
87 years old!
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: The Royals!

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Long may she reign over us, when I was watching Mrs Thatcher's funeral (I'm always going to tear up at events like this) I realised more than ever how I'll bawl when Queen Elizabeth goes. She really is mother of the nation and most of us will know no other.

Blanche was also the first wife of John of Gaunt and the mother of Henry IV. Eleanor has so much to recommend it. I can't see why Norman names wouldn't be acceptable, we tend to date our monarchy from 1066, it might be good to go back to the beginning. I love Blanche by the way, it sounds such a pure name.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
feaito

Re: The Royals!

Post by feaito »

Fascinating, well done and researched, enlightening and intriguing. Poor Lady Flora Hastings, I felt so sorry for her.

I hope you'll enjoy it, especially Alison who lives in England.

[youtube][/youtube]
User avatar
knitwit45
Posts: 4689
Joined: May 4th, 2007, 9:33 pm
Location: Gardner, KS

Re: The Royals!

Post by knitwit45 »

I just watched this. Fascinating! I hope Alison weighs in on this.
"Life is not the way it's supposed to be.. It's the way it is..
The way we cope with it, is what makes the difference." ~ Virginia Satir
""Most people pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it." ~ Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
moira finnie
Administrator
Posts: 8024
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Royals!

Post by moira finnie »

Thanks, Fernando. I love King Michael I, one of the last of the Plantagenets. Long may he reign as king of his family down under, with a beer in hand, a stick for a scepter, and a grandbaby on his hip.

I honestly thought that at least half of all the royals were likely to be illegitimate somewhere along the way.
Avatar: Frank McHugh (1898-1981)

The Skeins
TCM Movie Morlocks
Vecchiolarry
Posts: 1392
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 10:15 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: The Royals!

Post by Vecchiolarry »

Hi,

Very interesting documentary and research into the Plantagenates....
It all does hinge on the birth of Edward IV however; and whether he was legitimate or not, his father did recognize him as his son and he was brought up in the York family as a prince.
Also, he gained the throne through conquest - defeating Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou, and their son at the Battle of Tucksberry. And so, he was the rightful King of England; just as Henry VII was King after defeating Edward's brother, Richard III at Bosworth Field in 1485.

Both Edward IV and Henry VII are recognized as Kings in their own right (of conquest) - not the Duke of Clarence's offspring!!!

Also, today Parliament declares who is the monarch, not unproven history suppositions...
The Act of Settlement and the Act of Succession in Britain determines that Protestant descendands of the Electress Sophia of Hanover are the only elegible persons considered for that job!!!
Not the Hastings family....

Long live The Queen...

Larry
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: The Royals!

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I promise you to watch that documentary tomorrow, it's just my cup of tea. Although there are various shoots off the royal tree that have claims on the throne I can't help that thinking that history has dealt us a good hand with our last few monarchs.

I'll watch then see if my mind is changed.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Post Reply