To find the royal family fascinating part 2

[MagicKingdomDizzy]

Hello everyone, here's thread 2.

I'd be very grateful if someone could do a clicky link to the last one. Still can't figure it out.

Thanks!

Lady Diana

www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/g22549179/princess-diana-life-facts/?slide=27

Her title was revoked after her divorce.

After divorcing Prince Charles in 1996, Diana's title of "her royal highness" was removed from her name. But Queen Elizabeth II was not the one insisting—Charles was. According to the terms of their divorce, "she is to give up her right to be Queen of England and to be called 'Her Royal Highness,'" according to the New York Times. The newspaper also reported, "Queen Elizabeth II was reported to have been ready to allow Diana to retain the honorific, but Prince Charles was said to be adamant that she give it up."

The DM “happy birthday Princess Charlotte” comments are a bit sickly sweet! www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6981535/Charlotte-shows-confident-playful-nature-plays-outdoors-mark-fourth-birthday.html

“Kate and William maintain their privacy but they also appreciate we love to see photos of the little princes and princess as they grow. Thank you for sharing them with us. Wishing lovely little Princess Charlotte a very Happy 4th Birthday.”

Why????? It’s not like Kate and William are going to be reading their comments.

I’m sure she’s a perfectly nice little girl and she’s cute like many other four year olds. I don’t get the sycophantic fawning over a child.

I’m getting bored with the #sussexstandby

Is the baby born? We just want to know, yes its here, boy/ girl.
Photos in due course.
I think they’re enjoying the speculation now, hiding behind “privacy”.
“Ooh we hid a big secret for a whole week, and sent Harry out on decoy missions”.

Or it’s just you know. Overdue.

My dc1 was 2 weeks overdue and it was HELL.

Well why don’t they just say “ we’re still waiting.
They can email a couple of the Royal reporters.

Yes I thought she was 40 +1 a couple of days ago. My DC's were both 7 days overdue. I was nearly tearing my hair out by the end with everyone going 'Any news?' When my mum rang for the 500th time, I told her I'd had him, but just forgot to tell her in all the excitement. She nearly had a coronary but didnt ring again

noodle

@noodlenosefraggle

I told her I'd had him, but just forgot to tell her in all the excitement. She nearly had a coronary but didnt ring again

From the opposite end of the spectrum...
I started maternity leave on a Friday, 2 weeks before 2nd child was born. On the Monday I was planning to do a big supermarket shop to stock up in readiness for at least the next week or so.
However, woke up with suspicious crampy pains on that morning so ran a bath and sat in it thinking, "Hmm... Is this it?". A colleague sweetly telephoned to wish me luck as she hadn't seen me for a week or so before I stopped work and, jokingly, said, "Haven't you had that baby yet?". I replied with, " I think I'm in labour now!".
Took a couple of minutes to convince her that I wasn't being sarcastic!

I'm pretty sure that if they emailed reporters to say they were still waiting they'd be accused of attention seeking.

Someone will have a gripe whatever they do.

ByeClaire I’ll go and find that thread.

I can't remember which King it was but someone a couple of hundred years ago was apparently very in love with his wife the queen and didn't want to have a mistress.

George III, definitely. He was a pretty devoted husband, as was Charles I 130 years earlier.

Not sure which other kings were 100% faithful to their wives.... William IV, possibly? George V---not sure about him....?

George VI surely didn't have a mistress?

There are suggestions that he did. Evelyn Laye, I believe.

They're all at it, and have been since forever. The republic can't come quick enough!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_and_British_royal_mistress

Edward III appears to have been devoted to his wife, Philippa of Hainault, who bore him 12 children. However, late in their marriage the aged King met Alice Perrers, a young lady-in-waiting to the Queen. [6] Some sources have it that she became his mistress in 1363, six years before his wife's death; others date their relationship to the time when the Queen was terminally ill.[7] The affair was not made public until after the Queen's death, when the King lavished gifts and honours on her.[

George III

"George III followed the more chaste examples of his father Frederick, Prince of Wales and grandfather George II. He took no serious mistress during his reign. This comparative virtue was favored by the increasingly chaste moral standards of the time. However he was later rumoured to have secretly married Hannah Lightfoot prior to his public wedding to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_and_British_royal_mistress

George VI surely didn't have a mistress?

This appears to have been the case, although he was messing around with a married woman before he married:-

"An infatuation with the already-married Australian socialite Sheila, Lady Loughborough, came to an end in April 1920 when the King, with the promise of the dukedom of York, persuaded Albert to stop seeing her."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_VI

I find the thought of (Charles) being King worrying and rather distasteful

You're not alone, and while it's true about his father's age, the longevity of the Windsor men hasn't been great on the whole. Take into account Charles's purple complexion and massively swollen hands and I'm not sure that the Queen outliving him would be impossible

Don't get me wrong, this is a man's life we're talking about and I wouldn't actively wish that on him - but there seems no denying it would be a lot of problems avoided

I'm actually quite pleased Charles has written his letters & got involved & questioned things ... Any decent organisation should be as transparent & honest as possible

Bearing in mind Charles's record of demanding secrecy when it suits, isn't that a bit ironic?

@Puzzledandpissedoff 'What do you think the swollen hands and red face is a sign of? I agree people do put an awful lot of weight on the longevity of the QM, PP and the Queen herself but the rest of the family weren't quite so sturdy. Not everything is genetic,

Over on the other Royal thread, there is news that something is afoot at Frogmore from a local.....

Loving the mistresses knowledge! Trouble is almost everyone who has ever been in power ever has been either the same or usually worse...

What do you think the swollen hands and red face is a sign of?

I honestly wouldn't know - any such medical information would be rightly private

What I was getting at is that he really doesn't look all that healthy to me

I saw in the papers that the excitement is building. There’s claims a spokesperson said Harry is pleased he can go to Netherlands next week after not announcing earlier in case he couldn’t go due to the birth. The implication being the baby was born before the announcement.

Statistically, life expectancy of men is shorter than women.

@Puzzledandpissedoff sorry I thought you were implying they were known symptoms of something!