Royal Gossip
November 20, 2017, 10:48:09 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Queen & DoE Relationship  (Read 17545 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9578


« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2013, 04:21:09 pm »

Nothing surprises me with that family, so many sordid secrets coming out  -  for us thank God for the internet, for them tough luck, the lids are coming off.  Shame the internet was not around years ago, how history could have been rewirtten.  So many lives ruined for what  -  debauchery and alcohol, a very sad part of history.
Logged
CrystalEve
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 220



« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2013, 03:54:41 pm »

Nothing surprises me with that family, so many sordid secrets coming out  -  for us thank God for the internet, for them tough luck, the lids are coming off.  Shame the internet was not around years ago, how history could have been rewirtten.  So many lives ruined for what  -  debauchery and alcohol, a very sad part of history.

tehe Not forgetting the Royal heroin trafficking on a mammoth scale, apparently still a worldwide operation existing today!

Queen Vic apparently had a lucrative, thriving business going through the East India Company, which was established with the financial and military support of the Crown, the opium wars are still ongoing, nothing has changed really!
Logged
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9578


« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2013, 04:10:32 pm »

No, very sad, nothing seems to have changed for the good in that direction.
Logged
mysha
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1008


What should have been


« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2013, 05:07:30 pm »

If into the junk, then that ties in with business with Putin


Putin and Bizzy Lizzy are in the same club, same circle and same names, same story just different telling of it
Logged
Fly on the wall
Princess
*******
Online Online

Posts: 11774


Lady of Threads


« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2013, 12:05:17 am »

66 years and counting: Happy Anniversary to Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh


Now married for 66 years, The Queen first met her future husband Prince Philip when she was just 13 years old at the wedding of his cousin, Princess Marina of Greece. It was love at first sight for the young princess. She stayed keen to the dashing 18-year-old naval midshipman, corresponding with him during her teens. In 1946, King George VI agreed to the marriage under the condition that the then Princess Elizabeth wait until after the Royal family’s State visit to Africa when turned turned 21.

http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/thequeen/66-years-and-counting-happy-anniversary-to-her-majesty-and-the-duke-of-edinburgh-19905
Logged

NEVER *despise* correction,for those who correct you ,truly LOVE you .They are willing to displease you and possibly lose your friendship ,rather than see you destroyed. Those who *despise* you ,on the other hand ,will allow you to FAIL...because what do they care ?

Every praise is not good and every criticism is not evil..!
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6031



« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2013, 02:39:30 am »

the story bout the disabled cousins is awful - heartless really.

The bit about the QM, Bertie and Edward also has some credibility - Bertie asked the QM to marry him several times and she refused each time (til she finally said yes) when she did say yes - there are letters from her to Bertie assuring him she does really love him despite her indifference earlier - he apparently had doubts she loved him.  In these letters she even apologizes for he indifference to him earlier.  Supposedly she kept saying no because she had higher ambitions - hoping to catch Edward's eye.  But she eventually realized she was not getting Edward so married Bertie.  Bertie was referred to as the "backward brother" because he allegedly was mildly autistic hence his extreme shyness.  His stuttering was a function of the constant badgering he got from his father.

If it is true she wanted the heir not the spare it makes sense she resented Edward for his rejection of her.

As for why the abdication - wow to really know what happened there!  I wonder what the prime minster and others in the government knew of Edward?  He was already proving to be a troublesome King.  I suspect they were more than happy to be rid of him for the docile Bertie.  It really doesn't make sense that he would abdicate to marry her - she also clearly wanted him to be King.  Enormous pressure was put on him re: the abdication.  And of course - as proof that he wanted the kingship and also to make Wallis Queen - he promptly started collaborating with the Nazi's to have Bertie overthrown and have the Nazi's make him King.   No wonder the RF came to *despise* his guts.  It took many years for this to come out - he was banished to Bermuda to keep him out of further trouble when the plot was discovered.  But even in Bermuda he was still plotting and they eventually discretely put him under house arrest until the war's end.  It was the US that found out about his plotting - and they were of course very ticked off.  Midst of a war and the former King is plotting to turn the UK over to the Nazi's?  Hence Bermuda - off the coast of the US so they could keep an eye on him.  He was a traitor - a monstrous collaborator with the Nazi's and he should have been tried for his crimes and shot like any common traitor - but it was too scandalous so was covered up until the German archives were opened to historians and the story came out.

The whole image building of the two of them as tragic lovers - absolute crock.


And of course - as a young man Charles was sympathetic to Eddie and Wallis - actually spoke publically in their favor and tried to affect a reconciliation - guess he did not know about the treason business.
Logged
Countess of Holland
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2050


« Reply #66 on: October 15, 2014, 07:32:37 am »

HM didn't evne get her own husband in line; she let her husband blow through dozens of beds with dozens of different women and let him bully Charles as a child.

HM wasn't even in line herself. There are persistent rumors that Andrew is the result of a daillance between the Queen and her Master of the Stables. Forgot his name but Andrew is apparently a spitting image.
And Edward was the result of a rekindling of the marriage between the Queen and DoE.
Logged
Val
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5075


« Reply #67 on: October 15, 2014, 08:03:40 am »

^ Lord Portchester - now deceased I think but yes was the spitting image.
Logged
Countess of Holland
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2050


« Reply #68 on: October 15, 2014, 09:13:17 am »

Thanks! Indeed, Lord Porchester. Father-in-law of Jack Warren, the present Racing Manager of the Queen.

Lord Porchester was his courtesy title during the lifetime of his father. He was the 7th Earl of Carnarvon and owner of Highclere Castle (aka Downton Abbey).
The grandfather of 'Porchy' as the Queen named him, was the famous Earl Carnarvon who unearthed the tomb of King Tut.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3088


« Reply #69 on: October 15, 2014, 09:25:01 am »

Prince Andrew looks no more like Lord Porchester than I do! That's yet another of Lady Colin Campbell's lies. Prince Andrew resembles George V and has the Windsor teeth. The Queen is a deeply religious woman. Prince Philip's been the only one for her since she was fourteen years of age. She's the last person on earth that would be unfaithful to her husband. 
Logged
Countess of Holland
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2050


« Reply #70 on: October 15, 2014, 10:19:40 am »

This rumour has been going around since the 1980's, I heard it when I was staying in the UK in the summer of 1988 for a language course. I was in a guest-family and the father of the family was a younger son of a British peer. He was the one who told me about this rumor.

Lady Colin Campbell wasn't writing her books in those days, her first royal-related book was published in 1992 about Diana.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3088


« Reply #71 on: October 15, 2014, 11:54:21 am »

I didnt say Lady Colin began the lie, she just spread it by publishing it. The woman loves these rumours, the more outrageous the better, as a hook to sell books. There is no resemblance between Porchester (as he then was) and Andrew, and it was said that the rumour made Porchy absolutely incandescent. The Queen has a small circle of close friends and he was one of them.
Logged
Countess of Holland
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2050


« Reply #72 on: October 15, 2014, 12:24:22 pm »

And yet I heard the rumour before the books of Lady Colin Campbell (BTW I read that she divorced Lord Colin almost 40 years ago, seems odd she is stll using his name and courtesy prefix, has he ever protested against it?) and it was discussed out in the open among the peerage back then obviously.

As for the truthfulness of the rumor and the likeness between them; if you want to see a likeness, there will always be one. I myself don't see a real likeness other than the roundish shape of the head (in this regard Prince Nadrew doesn't resemble his siblings who have a more pointy head). Just like I don't see a likeness between Harry and Hewitt other than the red hair, that also runs in the Spencer-family.

ANyway, this is going OT...sorry Moderator!
Logged
Miss Hathaway
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1435



« Reply #73 on: October 15, 2014, 04:21:37 pm »

HM didn't evne get her own husband in line; she let her husband blow through dozens of beds with dozens of different women and let him bully Charles as a child.

HM wasn't even in line herself. There are persistent rumors that Andrew is the result of a daillance between the Queen and her Master of the Stables. Forgot his name but Andrew is apparently a spitting image.
And Edward was the result of a rekindling of the marriage between the Queen and DoE.


I refuse to believe that the Queen EVER dallied!!    Hi
Logged
Countess of Holland
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2050


« Reply #74 on: October 15, 2014, 05:13:28 pm »

No one is perfect, not even The Queen. And I can imagine that when confronted with the affairs of her husband, she must have been devastated, especially since she loved (and adored) Philip. She probably put him on a peddlestone (not strange since she was 14 when they met and 14-year old girls tend to do that). And all of a sudden her family-life was blown to smithereens when he cheated.

Looking for comfort with another man at that time...it could have happened. But not so much because she fell out of love with Philip but because she was devastated.

Anyway, we will never know for sure and it is one of the things I applaud and respect in the Queen and Duke: they realised that their marriage was more than a contract between two people but that it also represented the monarchy.
If only Charles and Diana had realised this we would not have to discuss Kate because she would, at the most, only been a short-time fling of William from way back when.
Logged
KGap
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 475


« Reply #75 on: November 25, 2014, 07:39:42 pm »

Despite it all 67 years of marriage is a massive achievement!
Logged
Fly on the wall
Princess
*******
Online Online

Posts: 11774


Lady of Threads


« Reply #76 on: December 12, 2016, 09:27:17 pm »

Prince Philip savages Phil: How king of daytime TV Schofield met his match when he was offered interview of a lifetime with the Duke of Edinburgh (who shared some unseen royal home videos)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4022926/How-king-daytime-TV-Phillip-Scholfield-met-match-offered-interview-lifetime-Duke-Edinburgh.html#ixzz4Sf4k6z5e
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Secrets to Queen and Prince Philip's happy marriage revealed in tell-all documentary
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/secrets-queen-prince-philips-happy-9440464
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 09:29:34 pm by Fly on the wall » Logged

NEVER *despise* correction,for those who correct you ,truly LOVE you .They are willing to displease you and possibly lose your friendship ,rather than see you destroyed. Those who *despise* you ,on the other hand ,will allow you to FAIL...because what do they care ?

Every praise is not good and every criticism is not evil..!
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14115



« Reply #77 on: December 12, 2016, 09:58:11 pm »

'Happy'...
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9578


« Reply #78 on: December 12, 2016, 10:34:14 pm »

^ Yes, I would question that, obviously airbrushing out all PP´s "misdemeanours", HM had a few of her own.  Not been an easy marriage over the years.  Maybe now they are in their 90´s, but for many a long year it was all a facade.
Logged
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3195


« Reply #79 on: December 13, 2016, 12:22:58 am »

Every marriage has its problems. It's just that HM and PP come from a time when people worked through their problems, and today people encourage each other to divorce.  dontknow

Look at Facebook feeds if you want a reminder of facades... people usually post good things and leave out the bad (not going to post if they had an argument). You think everything is fine and then suddenly they change their status to "separated" or "divorced".
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!