If I were Fergie...

[CapitalAtRisk]

... I would change my name to Sarah York, by deedpoll. There's absolutely nothing stopping her!

I don't know if Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor are "protected" names in some way, but York sure isn't.

And what? They are no more German now than I am (and I have no German heritage!)

are you trying to say that people born and raised in the UK aren’t British whoever their ancestors were?

How do you know?

I know Presbyterians definitely use it. Not sure which other denominations.

You don’t commit adultery when you a single surely? That would only have been her?

If they been say actors, like say Taylor and Burton, everyone would be be going on about their great love story and how they were destined to be together!

Alexandra was not a daughter of a monarch. Her brothers’ children are not princes or princesses either. Her first born was already 14th in the line of succession at birth. It would be extremely strange and unusual for the queen to make Alexandra’s children princes and princesses. The equivalent of the offer being made by William to make Beatrice, Eugenie, James or Louise’s children princes and princesses.

Just to be clear (I've not had a chance to search today as I've been busy but I'm sure it's on the tv programme about her) - I did not say the Queen offered to make Alexandra's children prince and princesses. Just that she offered them titles. It wasn't clarified what titles she offered. Princess Alexandra said that Angus Ogilvy was offered a title on their marriage and it was commented that that would have given their children titles, she said that he didn't want one and that they also turned down titles for their children when James was born.

My assumption was that it would have been Lord and lady like their cousins or Princess Margaret's children.

The monarch can still bestow titles ad hoc. In fact that's exactly what happened with the LPs that gave princely titles to Charles and Anne before Elizabeth became Queen. And that is what would have happened if @ARichtGoodDram's assertion is true that the late Queen offered to give noble titles to the children of Princess Alexandra directly.

The point I was making is that it is within the monarch's prerogative to give titles to people who would otherwise not have them from their father, whether that be Prince/Princess or Lord Lady.

The monarch can still bestow titles ad hoc. In fact that's exactly what happened with the LPs that gave princely titles to Charles and Anne before Elizabeth became Queen.

It's also what happened with the LP's to give all of William's (then future) children HRH Prince/princess titles at birth rather than just the eldest son and the rest getting it when their grandfather became king.

Yes, that's another good example.

*And what? They are no more German now than I am (and I have no German heritage!)

are you trying to say that people born and raised in the UK aren’t British whoever their ancestors were?*

Of course not! It was to explain why they changed the name in 1917, when we were at war with Germany. (And they weren't actually German then either IMO.)

To make a baby a Lord or Lady their father must be titled or they must be given a peerage. The second in line to the throne wasn’t given a peerage until his wedding day. The Queen wasn’t going to be giving babies peerages.

She offered to give their father a peerage. That was what was refused.

Yes, and my point is that the Queen didn’t make this offer to Alexandra or Anne’s children.

I don't think she did either. But she could have. She could have issued LPs saying that Alexandra's children could be styled Lord and Lady without granting their father a peerage. That would have put her children on equal footing (as far as titles are concerned) with her brother Prince Michael.

I always thought she should have reverted to being Sarah Ferguson when she and Andrew were divorced. I think the less of her due to that.
Frankly, I think she is/was a grifter and the titles really mattered to her.
That said, I think her divorce settlement was rather low, and she obviously nassively overspent (borrowing from Epstein, no less).
At the time, she clearly had a sense of entitlement.
That said, I think in more recent years she has tried to rehabiltate herself (Epstein excepted)
To another poster, technically she could previously remain Duchess of York as divorced, but it was unwise.

I don't think she has tried to rehabilitate herself, I actually think she has got worse and worse.

Her divorce settlement was far more than she let on. And she took millions from Epstein over 15 years apparently.
She has never been able to manage money

She has never tried to rehabilitate herself. She has just grifted even more. She has made money from writing books etc but it’s still never enough.

And she’s still acted foolishly in public same as she ever did since she and Andrew got together. She’s juvenile and embarrassing. Always was, always will be!

By rehabilitate, do you mean hang around them until Phil died and then go all in to get back in with them after he ( despite his own son being what he is) banned her from the family.

I agree. I think KC is sicker than the public are being told ('tidying up' of difficulties re PA, Harry's recent visit, & now visiting the Pope) Personally, I'd be quite happy for the Monarchy to stop at this point. PW doesn’t appear to have the late QE sense of duty, his wife has been ill, his kids are still too young. Let's let poor George off his current destiny of 'divine right to rule'. That world has gone. The Windsors should too.

It is particularly revolting that Sarah Ferguson thought it ok to 'go along & celebrate' - with B& E no less - the release of Epstein from prison. Even if they'd somehow convinced themselves he was innocent & the 'Epstein girls' were just 'good time girls'. It's well known that families of abusers can have difficulty accepting the facts. But, still, it reeks. In the RF, some are obvious grifters but they all damaged in one way or another.

I also think the Pope visit is really important to Charles, and not just in a general bridge building sense.

I'm not saying he wants to go full on Catholic, but he's got cancer, he may last a few more years or he may not, and it feels it's important on a personal level.

I also wonder if William's forever home move is getting ahead of the curve, so that when his dad dies he and his family don't have that to think about immediately.

The request for the focus on the Vatican visit wouldnhave been needed if it had been the King who'd made a statement last Friday, not Andrew. That was a poor decision.

And also I think if KCIII had said there would be a process to actually strip him of the York title, then it would have died down by now.

But poor decisions mean it's escalated instead.

Interesting. A PP said that Charles looked poorly when arriving in Italy. Apart from less hair, I thought he looked okay healthwise and no weight loss to speak of.
I am trying not to compare with those I have seen through cancer

I think Charles is a religious and spiritual person maybe this is something he wanted to do. And yes I agree if Charles had made the statement I feel it would have died down a little bit more ready for this visit.
I have no idea why he agreed to Andrew doing it

I've seen a photo of him, the Pope, and the Queen, and Charles looks like a man living with a serious illness.

I don't think he looks the picture of health at all.

Apparently the Wales' new forever home is intended to be where they live for decades, even when William's King. Definitely think it's a preemptive move because of his dad's health.

I don’t think his complexion is as ruddy as it was but he doesn’t seem to have lost weight and he was fine coming down the steps of the plane - better than me in fact and I am a good few years younger!