Royal style and gossip: From foundation to Foundations...

[QueenOfTheAndals]

I've lost count of how many threads we've had! Previous thread.

Let's keep the gossip lighthearted and, as always, stick to critiquing the clothes rather than being overly critical about the women wearing them.

I’ve told the tale before of Princess Anne rocking up at our stand at Badminton Horse Trials, shopping bags in hand! I’d imagine a few double takes were done that day

Actually, Badminton Horse Trials is one place I would expect to see Princess Anne!

I wonder if Prince George will notice his photo all over the papers today?

Nah he’s in Mustique isn’t he? Good timing really if they are trying to hide the fact he’s going to be king from him!
Still can’t work out how they are explaining trooping of the colour though 😂

Normally he looks shy doesnt he, he must suspect something Big

I think shy is probably the most normal reaction to popping out on Granny’s balcony and discovering thousands of people cheering at you!

Nah he’s in Mustique isn’t he?

All speculation is he is spending the day in Norfolk I'm not sure if the press know that or it's guess work. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think things like trooping of the colour would just be explained matter of factly. 'This is what we do go granny's birthday' it's all he has ever known I'm sure more questions are asked each year but maybe that's who you gradually introduce the idea at the speed he is ready for?

you are right AppleKate, most 6 year olds would react that way to the thousands of photographers/crowds of people

He probably thinks everyone celebrates their Granny's birthday in the same way!!

I think the RF’s power comes from Access to anyone they want. Eg, David Attenborough for conservation. Then if they have another interest eg Art, or Homelessness, they can call on the experts / most influential people in their field to come on board their projects.

I think this is exactly right. If Tom Bower's book is anything to go by, the PoW makes full use of his facility and doesn't expect to pay for anyone's time or expertise.

There's another thread going atm which is asking what makes people "common". Apparently kids in supporter football strips is one of many many things that make people common.... Poor little George, future mapped out, life in a gilded cage and common to boot .

Call me cynical, but why do I feel that if H&M had released a photo of Archie in an England shirt on his birthday then they'd have been accused of a PR move to try and get the "common people" on side?

When did this happen looks like the same outfits as the polo a few weeks ago?

Cambridge kids

Queen if you think they would get backlash for posting Archie in and England shirt imagine the outrage when he wears a basketball kit!! I do take your point though! Personally for me it's the fact it's age appropriate and seems normal for a 6year old to be in a foot ball shirt! So 1 year old Archie would seem odd to be six year old Archie fair play (although I'm not sure how the Sussex's will do birthdays) but deep down I know it's silly really to think there is such a thing as a normal photo both households are always thinking of the PR angle it's ingrained in them all! That's not a criticism just a fact in my opinion.

Well given the 3 Lionesses; I don’t think the football shirt is such a shock. I didn’t think it was a move to get the “common people on side”
William is football mad; why wouldn’t George be?

Didn’t realise quite how many photographers were there when George was born. Kate, William and the baby look quite vulnerable next to all those people.

That's a crazy angle!! That must of been intense!!

No wonder Harry wants to control the media, that is crazy.

I don't think it was either @Curly, mine was more a comment about how the press like to spin things!

When I had a google it turned out he was really peeved that for 50 years he was Prince Consort rather than King (although, apparently, didn’t blame his wife for this). It does seem a bit daft in this day and age.

This is something of a hobby horse of mine.

What it comes down to is that the legalities of something, might not reflect the way something is perceived according to the language we use. In this case, in the context of gender.

So, a woman married to a male sovereign (king) can be queen because our communal understanding of language is that queen is always inferior to king.

However, a man married to a female sovereign (queen) can't be king because even if officially, legally etc the queen is superior, our language means that king will always be perceived as coming first/being more senior. We don't refer to the "Queen and King" for example. So, theoretically, Philip of course could have been King Consort, but I think everyone would have seen that as confusing because the default assumption would always be that King is the more important one and therefore it would have been considered something to avoid.

Now, the big question is whether the language can and will change. At a simpler level we are slowly seeing shifts in perceived genders in language. For example, if I tell DC they are seeing a doctor, they don't assume that doctor is male (in fact, they generally assume it's a woman as their GP is a woman, the only doctor friends we have are female and we have cheated somewhat by referring to all medical personnel as "doctors" including those who are more likely to be women such as nurses, health visitors, occupational therapists etc...) [Much to my frustration, I, on the other hand, DO still assume it's a man and have to consciously think about the pronoun I use.]

If for some reason Charlotte was to ascend the throne in say 40 years, it would be interesting to see if language and the implications/connotations that go with it will have moved on by then so that her husband (assuming she has one) can be referred to as King without there ALSO being an automatic assumption therefore that he is the more "important/senior" sovereign.

There is some precedent for the husband of a queen regnant to be given the title of king. Philip of Spain, the husband of Mary I of England was named co-ruler when they married and called King of England. He spent most of his time in Spain, though, and never really functioned as a ruler in England. And his title did not survive Mary, who was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth.

Henry, Lord Darnley, the husband of Mary Queen of Scots, was made King Consort of Scotland.

Philip of Spain and William of Orange were co-rulers, but William's title survived his wife's death, unlike Philip's case. Mary II had a superior claim to the throne as the daughter of James II and VII (William was the son of James’s sister), and William's secondary position in the succession was recognized in the settlement which provided that if Mary died first and William remarried, any potential children with a second wife would be after Queen Mary’s sister, Anne, in the succession, thus making her, after Mary's death, the only female Heir Apparent in British history.

The notion that King is a higher title than Queen is a historical holdover. In many European countries where the Salic law prevailed, only men could inherit the throne and so queens in their own right were very rare. And even in countries that allowed women to reign, men took precedence in the succession until very recently (and still do in some).

It's certainly possible with more egalitarian rules about succession, the notion that King is a higher title can change and male consorts can be called King. With more queens regnant on the horizon all over Europe (Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain) and a move to have more equality between the sexes in these matters, we might see the King Consort title revived for the husbands of Queens.

Thanks for that @SenecaFalls - that’s an excellent post.

SenecaFalls
Was Marys husband William of Orange gay ?
How was he allowed to rule as her equal if she was the legitimate ruler?

I suppose the alternative is for the language to change from King/Queen to Monarch/Consort or similar.

I believe the jury is still out as to whether he was gay. Or if Mary had lesbian tendencies.

Thanks Seneca. A more royal focused discussion of the matter! The issue of gendered language more generally is one I am particularly interested in. And certainly, the thing about Philip of Spain is that he could be king because he was granted co-ruler status. I don't remember the details but god forbid a woman with a husband could be more in control than him in theory! .

I'm definitely in favour of King Consort down the line. I think it will require more shifts in thinking though, but I think it would be interesting to see real "power" [as per earlier discussion, royal "power" these days is not quite the same] held by a woman with a man with a higher title (traditionally) being seen as second place.

If a future King was gay; I think it would be easier to introduce the idea of a King consort. Although I think it would be a Prince consort. And then wouldcall,the children be biologically the monarch’s or would they mix them up.