Tuesday, November 16, 2010
THE ONLY WEDDING BIGGER THAN POSH AND BECKS: You tell us--is there any reason to care about the now-officially-impending wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton? The best I can come up with is that it marginally increases the likelihood that William will be the next King of England rather than his father.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
None whatsoever. But we will hear ALL the details whther we want to or not.
ReplyDeleteAt least we know what the cover of HELLO! Magazine will be for the next eighteen months.
ReplyDeleteOh, yeah, I was going to ask: what exactly are the rules about marriages between nobility and commoners and how they affect succession? I thought that Edward VIII had to abdicate because Wallis Simpson was a commoner, but was it really because of her divorce and the opposition of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
ReplyDeleteAs I write this, I realize how completely stupid it sounds. I've been reading a lot about England during the Wars of the Roses and the early Tudor period, or fiction based on it (Lancaster vs. York; Wolf Hall; Game of Thrones).
My understanding is that it's less law than tradition, and that the Simpson abdication was less driven by her "commoner" status than her divorce. My understanding is that Charles is not well-liked among the British people, while Diana and her children remain venerated, and he may step aside "for the good of the crown," particularly depending on how long the Queen lives.
ReplyDeleteIt may provide some amusing 30 Rock jokes and storylines.
ReplyDeleteHer two divorces, two living ex-husbands, the supposed unsuitability of her as a consort (morally, that is), the perception of her as a gold digger; also, the Church of England at the time did not allow divorced persons to remarry while the ex-spouse was still alive, making this a major problem to marry such a person when Edward was the titular head of said church (and there's also the interesting legal question of whether Wallis' first divorce, in the US, would have been recognized under English law). Add in that she was an American at a time when Anglo-American relations were strained and it was a major mess. The commoner thing was just icing on the cake.
ReplyDelete(Interestingly, any children of William and Kate would change the line of succession for the first time since 1990, when Eugenie, daughter of Andrew and Sarah, was born in 1990.)
So I guess that somehow over the last 30 years (when Charles chose tradition over what his personal choice would have been) they've decided that the tradition is a poor fit for modern times? Or is it that the Queen exerted her influence on Charles, but Charles is letting his children make up their own minds?
ReplyDeleteIf you're really bored, take a look at the whole line of succession. William and Kate's children would be beneath William but ahead of Harry in the line of succession. Most recent change in the Top 10 in line was actually in 2007.
ReplyDeleteWow that is a crazy pants list, and I love the part down in the 500s when Queen Elizabeth's husband is in the line of succession through some relative of his who goes back to Victoria.
ReplyDeleteQuery: Who is the highest-ranked on the list who isn't invited to the William-Kate wedding, the kind of doesn't-matter analogue to the Cabinet member who doesn't attend the State of the Union?
ReplyDeleteYou are asking about King Ralph, I assume.
ReplyDeleteNice catch, Matt! The list I was looking at missed both James and Louisa Windsor. And I find the whole list kind of fascinating when you see which of the royal houses outside of Britain have precedence; go Norway! (Plus, great names like <span> Princess Josephine of Hohenzollern).</span>
ReplyDeleteI didn't scroll down far enough to see when the Genovian monarchs joined the line of succession.
ReplyDeleteFunny -- Gloucester was a practicing architect (until his older brother died, he ascended to the Duchy, and he had to resign his partnership in the architecture firm to fulfill his royal duties). York is obviously represented, but there don't appear to be any claims from Norfolk, Suffolk, Northumberland (where are the Percys?), or Marlborough.
ReplyDeleteKate Middleton cannot succeed to the Crown in her own right. Prince Phillip, however, is himself 70th in line for the throne or some such.
ReplyDeleteOther things you'll find in the line of succession is that the choice of law is strictly English: In the low 200s, you'll see that Princess Victoria of Sweden, is behind her younger brother, even though Victoria is herself Crown Princess of Sweden.
ReplyDeleteOne last thing: next time I have occasion to write a perpetuties savings clause, I'm citing the succession list on wikipedia.
ReplyDelete503 says wikipedia
ReplyDeleteWere the Percys ever in the line of succession, whether they were earls or dukes of Northumberland? I always thought they were a separate house that never had been in line for the Tudors, Lancasters, Windsors or Stuarts.
ReplyDeleteNone. Though I did enjoy this bit from the Fiver:
ReplyDeleteThree cheers for the British royal family. Hip-hip hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! With this morning's Very Big Announcement making it an excellent day to bury bad news, Clarence House was quick to take advantage of the media hoop-la surrounding Fabio Capello's decision to start Jordan Henderson, Andy Carroll and Kieran Gibbs against France, to sneak out the disappointing revelation that the Queen's grandson Prince William is set to marry a commoner who is neither German nor a blood relative, and used to work in ... [Fiver holds nose between thumb and forefinger] … a shop.
I hope the Middleton genes are strong enough to offset the genes that made Wills go from Hot Prince to Not.
ReplyDeleteThere is one reason, and one reason only, to care about the impending wedding: the hats. The glorious, enormous, feather-bedecked, spangled, jewel-encrusted, birdnest-bearing hats. Clearly, the worst thing about being born American and common instead of British and noble is the lack of sensational hat-wearing opportunities.
ReplyDeleteI have been meaning to read Wolf Hall for ages, but bought it, stupidly, in hardcover -- and it's too big for the subway, so doesn't get read.
I thought he was higher up (and his marriage even weirder) but there it is.
ReplyDeleteI quite liked Wolf Hall and I'm looking forward to the sequel.
ReplyDeleteAs for the hats, as Americans we always have the Kentucky Derby.
I believe Sweden had the first royal house to equalize succession (my brain is failing me as to the name for it); the brother was originally crown prince, but a constitutional reform that was already in progress bumped him back to second (this was when they all were still children) and make Victoria crown princess.
ReplyDeleteEdward VIII's Nazi sympathies probably played a role in his abdication (the dude WAS German, at the end of the day) -- the royals have remained apolitical sense.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when those two get divorced, that'll move some tabloids.
ReplyDeleteI loved that Wikipedia thing, especially once you got deep into the list and started getting normal sounding names like "Ryan Hudson."
ReplyDeletehe may have been higher up before some people grew up and had babies and it is still totally weird.
ReplyDeleteNot to be overly earnest, but I kind of wish the best for them. William's not responsible for his parents' circus of a marriage, it's tough for any kid, even one as rich and privileged as he is, to lose their parent at that age, and it seems like he tried to avoid making his parents' mistakes by dating someone in a normal way and actually getting to know her over a significant period of time.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I cannot understand what the market is for that commemorative china.
I wear a hat to synagogue every week. I love hats, even though I look terrible in most of them.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I would convert if I found a synagogue where all the women wore Derby hats every Saturday.
ReplyDeleteJJF -- I guess not. After all the efforts during the Wars of the Roses to marry daughters into the Percy family, it's funny that it came to nothing. And, according to Wolf Hall, Anne Boleyn was betrothed to a Percy before Wolsey stopped it, so in a way you can blame or credit (take your pick) the Percys' lack of stick-to-itiveness for the English Reformation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there was a Northumberland, but not a Percy, on the throne: After the attaintment (or dying-out -- I don't know which) of the original Percys, the next-created Northumberland backed his daughter, Lady Jane Grey, the nine-days' queen, for which he got his own attaintment. The next-created, and current, Northumberlands weren't Percys at all, but the husband of the daughter of the First Duke of Northumberland, who became the Duchess because she was the First Duke's only heir, took the name Percy when they got married. That's kind of neat.
Wiki tells me that the current Duke of Northumberland had an affair with the woman who later became Naomi Campbell's mother.
All of these are things I didn't know two weeks ago, before Wolf Hall/Wiki research.
I'm loving Wolf Hall, and I'm especially loving it on my Kindle.
ReplyDeleteI'm just hoping that the date they pick is in no way close to the dates of my planned London trip next year...
ReplyDelete"Lord Irrelevant"
ReplyDeleteI, on the otherhand, hope they get married the same day I do, so the paparrazi stay away from my wedding. (Because you know they'd be all over it if not for those royals.)
ReplyDeleteI, too, am in it for the hats. Derby has nothing on Ascot.
ReplyDeleteFrom Jesse Walker is this great headline: Lifelong welfare case to hold lavish wedding at public expense.
ReplyDeleteLink. just a headline, no article, and I'm not responsible if you read the comments (may can politics and bad language).