British monarchy - question of succession
Aug 12th, 2013, 01:52 PM
#61
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Pamela Harriman's first marriage was to Randolph Churchill, son of Winston, the British prime minister during World War II.
The Churchill family alternated between Winston and Randolph for the first name of a son from one generation to the next. It all gets confusing.
The Churchill family alternated between Winston and Randolph for the first name of a son from one generation to the next. It all gets confusing.
Aug 12th, 2013, 02:22 PM
#62
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Head of State and Head of Government are NOT the same in many countries. If that's the way their specific history grew the political system - so be it.
Elizabeth does NOT govern - she reigns. Big difference. (In fact she takes the place of the flag in american culture - although bringing in a lot more tourist $.)
Elizabeth does NOT govern - she reigns. Big difference. (In fact she takes the place of the flag in american culture - although bringing in a lot more tourist $.)
Aug 12th, 2013, 02:29 PM
#63
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Churchill's mom was American. Unlike her husband, she actually liked Winston to some degree and he worshiped her. Not unlike Pamela Harriman or Wallis Simpson, Lady Randolph reputedly violated the Seventh Commandment with some frequency.
Aug 12th, 2013, 02:38 PM
#64
"...a promiscuous American woman." chartley on Aug 12, 13 at 10:46am
Likely because the gentleman in question was having a hard time finding a British woman willing to give him the spanking he craved. Leave it to one of us to be up to the task.
Likely because the gentleman in question was having a hard time finding a British woman willing to give him the spanking he craved. Leave it to one of us to be up to the task.
Aug 12th, 2013, 03:23 PM
#65
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the '70s there was a wonderful BBC series called "Jennie".... about Winston Churchill's mother.
the lovely Lee Remick was the star.
As far as one's lineage goes... my husband could trace back directly to an ancestor who came to the states in the 1630's. As of 1901 there were 13M descendants of this man. Just think what there are now! So I should think anyone hoping to aspire to the British thrown on the basis of family history is at the back of a very long line. -
the lovely Lee Remick was the star.
As far as one's lineage goes... my husband could trace back directly to an ancestor who came to the states in the 1630's. As of 1901 there were 13M descendants of this man. Just think what there are now! So I should think anyone hoping to aspire to the British thrown on the basis of family history is at the back of a very long line. -
Aug 12th, 2013, 04:57 PM
#66
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chartley, Big Russ, PalenQ et al,
Highly recommend THE CHURCHILLS IN LOVE AND WAR by Mary S. Lovell which covers the whole gamut of Churchill lore. Speaking of American women, let’s not forget CONSUELO VANDERBILT who married Winston’s first cousin Charles Spencer-Churchill, 9th Duke of Marborough and became mistress of Blenheim.
The couple were miserable – he married her for her money and she married him at the insistence of her wealthy family for the Duke’s aristocratic connections.
Yada, yada….
Highly recommend THE CHURCHILLS IN LOVE AND WAR by Mary S. Lovell which covers the whole gamut of Churchill lore. Speaking of American women, let’s not forget CONSUELO VANDERBILT who married Winston’s first cousin Charles Spencer-Churchill, 9th Duke of Marborough and became mistress of Blenheim.
The couple were miserable – he married her for her money and she married him at the insistence of her wealthy family for the Duke’s aristocratic connections.
Yada, yada….
Aug 12th, 2013, 05:18 PM
#67
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<< The couple were miserable – he married her for her money and she married him at the insistence of her wealthy family for the Duke’s aristocratic connections. >>>>
Sounds like the perfect lose/lose arrangement. Sad.
Sounds like the perfect lose/lose arrangement. Sad.
Aug 12th, 2013, 10:43 PM
#68
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>> without being head of state would the Queen and the monarchy go away - no - so why not keep the Queen or soon to be King and just give them no office - they are queen or king of Brits. Period. Their visages could stay on coins and stamps and there could still be a changing of the guard, etc.<
That is the situation we have. Did your history books stop at 1776, or something?
That is the situation we have. Did your history books stop at 1776, or something?
Aug 12th, 2013, 11:11 PM
#69
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing that this issue causes more perforative comment and debate from those it doesn't affect. Seems some are stuck in the past, fighting Revolutionary Wars, while the real word has evolved and moved on.
Anyway, how does the itererary sound
Anyway, how does the itererary sound
Aug 12th, 2013, 11:17 PM
#70
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Useless slow slowing Fodors page...)
Amazing that this issue causes more perforative comment and debate from those it doesn't affect. Seems some are stuck in the past, fighting Revolutionary Wars, while the real word has evolved and moved on.
Anyway, how does the itinerary sound? I want to visit 12 countries (but I'm not telling you which ones) in 3 days, and can I get travellers cheques from an ATM at the airport….
Amazing that this issue causes more perforative comment and debate from those it doesn't affect. Seems some are stuck in the past, fighting Revolutionary Wars, while the real word has evolved and moved on.
Anyway, how does the itinerary sound? I want to visit 12 countries (but I'm not telling you which ones) in 3 days, and can I get travellers cheques from an ATM at the airport….
Aug 13th, 2013, 12:13 AM
#71
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course you can get travellers cheques (in dollars) at the ATM in Europe, but there is a 2% service charge which is outrageous.
Fortunately the trip is entirely free of other charges since the flights and hotels are paid for on points, the museums are free (but, oh! those dreadful long lines) and I will reclaim the VAT on any purchases.
They ought to love my tourist dollars over there, and become more like the USA.
Fortunately the trip is entirely free of other charges since the flights and hotels are paid for on points, the museums are free (but, oh! those dreadful long lines) and I will reclaim the VAT on any purchases.
They ought to love my tourist dollars over there, and become more like the USA.
Aug 13th, 2013, 03:37 AM
#74
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nytraveler: <Elizabeth does NOT govern - she reigns. Big difference. (In fact she takes the place of the flag in american culture - although bringing in a lot more tourist $.)>
Not quite as politically passive as the US flag. The Queen still retains the power to sack a prime minister, and actually signs into law any new legislation in the UK, although by convention she does these things on the advice of the PM.
Her Majesty is also the "Defender of the Faith" of the Anglican Church, which is why Catholics are disbared from this position - Ever since Henry VIII fell in lust with Anne Boleyn there has been a need to keep Papal authority away from British affairs.
Not quite as politically passive as the US flag. The Queen still retains the power to sack a prime minister, and actually signs into law any new legislation in the UK, although by convention she does these things on the advice of the PM.
Her Majesty is also the "Defender of the Faith" of the Anglican Church, which is why Catholics are disbared from this position - Ever since Henry VIII fell in lust with Anne Boleyn there has been a need to keep Papal authority away from British affairs.
Aug 13th, 2013, 06:43 AM
#77
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PLondon,
I thought I was missing something too. Looked up “perforative” – maybe used as adj. form of the verb PERFORATE
“to make a hole or holes through by boring, punching, piercing, or the like”
Thanks for the clarification.
I thought I was missing something too. Looked up “perforative” – maybe used as adj. form of the verb PERFORATE
“to make a hole or holes through by boring, punching, piercing, or the like”
Thanks for the clarification.
Aug 13th, 2013, 08:23 AM
#78
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Should be pejorative (chuffing autocorrect)<<
I rather guessed so, but on the other hand perforative is a great word for some of the remarks we get on here.
>>The Queen still retains the power to sack a prime minister<<
I don't think that's ever been tested, certainly not in the UK since before William IV, AFAIK. Australia's Governor-General did it on his own account when it was a question of what sort of election should resolve a deadlocked dispute between two houses of parliament.
I rather guessed so, but on the other hand perforative is a great word for some of the remarks we get on here.
>>The Queen still retains the power to sack a prime minister<<
I don't think that's ever been tested, certainly not in the UK since before William IV, AFAIK. Australia's Governor-General did it on his own account when it was a question of what sort of election should resolve a deadlocked dispute between two houses of parliament.
Aug 13th, 2013, 11:13 AM
#80
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - she does not have the power to sack the PM - she could try but the PM wouldn't go.
She needs to recognize the election of a new one - but it's all a formality. She has no active role in government, other than through force of personalty.
(There are all sorts of laws on the books - just because they have never been removed - that could never be enforced.) And with the British system of organic growth - rather than a specific Declaration of Independence and Constitution - obviously a lot of things are loose.
She needs to recognize the election of a new one - but it's all a formality. She has no active role in government, other than through force of personalty.
(There are all sorts of laws on the books - just because they have never been removed - that could never be enforced.) And with the British system of organic growth - rather than a specific Declaration of Independence and Constitution - obviously a lot of things are loose.
