Royal Gossip
November 17, 2017, 05:24:10 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Royalty: Q&A  (Read 29618 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Snowpea
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2083


« Reply #140 on: September 21, 2013, 02:50:29 pm »

So what if they were, or certain members were Catholics? It's not a crime and who knows what anyone's private faith is anyways?. Do we ever really know?  easter-sly
Logged
Cenona
royal watcher

Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #141 on: May 12, 2014, 12:41:52 am »

I believe that Madeleine wouldn't become automatically a princess of GB if she married William, even if she's the daugther of a reigning monarch. She would need a letter pattent from the Queen creating the title for her... The same for another P HRH Princess of a deposed RF, I think...

You have the example of Prince Philip. He was a prince from a reigning RF and when he married HM he abdicated his greece and danish titles but he didn't became a Prince of GB, he was only HRH The Duke of Edimburg. He only became HRH Prince Philip (Prince of GB) when a letter pattent was published granting him the title.




Dang why PW and PM did not meet when they were single they could be a good looking  cousin couple
Logged
FrederickLouis
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 569



« Reply #142 on: December 30, 2016, 11:05:34 pm »

Tradition and heritage are very important for Royals. They tend to get their names from ancestors.   
 
Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward was born on January 8, 1864. He was the oldest son of the future King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra of Great Britain. Against the wishes of his parents, Queen Victoria chose the names Albert Victor, after her late husband Prince Albert and herself.
Logged

Really A Baron
FrederickLouis
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 569



« Reply #143 on: October 21, 2017, 01:34:21 am »

What is the age of consent for a young sovereign to rule without a regent?
Logged

Really A Baron
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2145



« Reply #144 on: October 21, 2017, 12:29:38 pm »

I'd say the age everyone becomes legally an adult in their respective country, 18 in Britain. Victoria was lucky, she had just turnt 18 when her uncle died, so she was straight away regnant and could rid herself of Conroy.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3085


« Reply #145 on: October 21, 2017, 01:09:57 pm »

Yes, however the age at which a person became eligible to ascend the throne was younger than the age of adulthood among the population at various times in history. For instance Victoria was 18 in 1837 when she became Queen (without a regent.) However, 21 was the age of legal adulthood for all her subjects at that time.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2145



« Reply #146 on: October 21, 2017, 01:23:54 pm »

^ Interesting! That I didn't know (or forgot quite possibly).
In history, there were also child emperors and pharaohs and the like...

Nowadays, I think that 18 would be the age, maybe they could shove it to 21, so the person in question could finish their schooling (maybe go to uni), get an education (whatever would be deemed appropriate) and mature some before dabbling in state affairs..
Logged
FrederickLouis
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 569



« Reply #147 on: October 22, 2017, 02:26:22 am »

On the evening of May 24, 1837, now that she was of age, Princess Victoria, for the first time in her life, travelled in a carriage only with an attendant to her birthday ball at St. James's Palace. The Duchess of Kent travelled in another carriage.
Logged

Really A Baron
Pages: 1 ... 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!