Tiffibunny Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=...36822761321B216 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtryka Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Is the Queen mother the same as Queen Mary? (maybe I am just confused with the names of ocean liners). I didn't even remember that she passed away in 2002, though I knew she was quite old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 The Queen Mum was Queen Elizabeths Mother, she lived from 1900-2002. Queen Mary was Queen Elizabeth's Grandmother she lived until 1953. There is an interesting portrait from the funeral of George VI in 1952, with Queen Mary, the Queen Mum and Queen Elizabeth standing together. The Queen Mum is very deserving of an extravagant memorial, she was a very very popular member of the Royal Family and did much for morale during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Queen Mary on the other hand is not deserving of a memorial. Horrid woman she was. She was disliked and feared by the aristocracy of Great Britain because if she went round to your house and something caught her eye it disappeared into her handbag. If she was having an honest moment she'd politely inform you that those two vases on the mantlepiece were such a nice gift and weren't you generous in offering them to her. Mary's daughter in law Queen Elizabeth (the Queen mother) was a much nicer person. Although even she had her dark sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtryka Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Ok, so it was Mary, then Elizabeth, then Elizabeth II, so when you are talking about "Queen Elizabeth" how do you know if you are talking about the current queen's mom, or the ancient Queen from "Elizabethan" times? This royalty stuff is so confusing to us Americans, yet it fascinates us so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabbs Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 This royalty stuff is so confusing to us Americans Certainly not just to you. The £5 coin mentioned in the last paragraph, by the way, is this one: http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/Mul...es/UK80BU_3.JPG Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 See Below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ok, so it was Mary, then Elizabeth, then Elizabeth II, so when you are talking about "Queen Elizabeth" how do you know if you are talking about the current queen's mom, or the ancient Queen from "Elizabethan" times? This royalty stuff is so confusing to us Americans, yet it fascinates us so! You work most out from the context; However some things remain consistent; The Queen = Elizabeth II (Being that she is the Current one) The Queen Mother [sometimes Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother] = Elizabeth II's mother, wife of King George VI. Queen Mary [when a Queen Mary is mentioned in relation to Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother or the current Royal family then it usually means Mary of Teck] = Queen Mary of Teck, mother of George VI & Edward VIII, wife of George V. The retired Cunard liner 'Queen Mary' is named after her as she and her husband were on the throne when it was built. Elizabeth I nearly always has the numeral after her name. Sometimes she may be referred to as Queen Elizabeth alone but you'll know it's her from the context, e.g if they're talking about an event in 1588 it's a good guess. Mary I = Mary Tudor [sister of Elizabeth I] is generally referred to as; Bloody Mary, Mary I or Mary Tudor. Mary II = Generally as Mary II, that and William III [her husband] is never too far away. It's no different than US history when someone mentions Roosevelt or Bush... okay which one? If it's not specified then context usually gives you a clue. It can get really, really confusing in some places though. E.G; Edward IV's brother was called Richard (i.e Richard III), Edward IV's sons were called, prince Edward and Prince Richard. Edward IV's father was called Richard. Richard III's son was called Edward. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|-----Edward V xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|---Edward IV--------------| Richard Duke of York---------|xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|----Prince Richard xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|---Richard III (Duke of Gloucester)-- Prince Edward xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|---George (Duke of Clarence)-----Prince Edward Gets really confusing, especially since most of them are also known by their titles as well. To further muddy the waters Prince Edward (George's son), also had several people running around the country pretending to be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Certainly not just to you. The £5 coin mentioned in the last paragraph, by the way, is this one: http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/Mul...es/UK80BU_3.JPG Christian Well that's a bit plain. Flat, low relief, modern. Modern = bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabbs Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 One example of what I find confusing about "Royals" is that the spouse of a king is usually Queen Soandso, while the spouse of a queen is not (never?) King Soandso. And how do I know whether Prince Soandso is the husband or the son of Queen Soandso? Sure, as a citizen of the country in question, you won't have much difficulty keeping them apart ... (And let's not get into titles and such.) Oh, and then there is the question of whether QE II should actually be The Second in the entire UK. As far as I know, that (including the "II" part) is the official version. But I bet some people in Scotland think differently about her being the Elizabeth "number two". Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 One example of what I find confusing about "Royals" is that the spouse of a king is usually Queen Soandso, while the spouse of a queen is not (never?) King Soandso. And how do I know whether Prince Soandso is the husband or the son of Queen Soandso? Sure, as a citizen of the country in question, you won't have much difficulty keeping them apart ... (And let's not get into titles and such.) Oh, and then there is the question of whether QE II should actually be The Second in the entire UK. As far as I know, that (including the "II" part) is the official version. But I bet some people in Scotland think differently about her being the Elizabeth "number two". Christian Of the first paragraph. With regards to that it comes down to old fashioned gender roles. Upon marriage the man takes the property and is head of the household. Up until the 1500s in England it was always a male that succeeded (except in one case in the 1100s but you really, really don't want to start me off on that). Mostly this was through sheer luck rather than anything else, male children just happened to come along. England never stipulated 'officially' against female monarchs, unlike say France. So the prince became King and his wife the princess would become Queen. Simple. When Edward VI died however, there was only Mary and Elizabeth and Mary was next in line. So she became Queen in her own right. She then married Phillip II of Spain, however, due to concerns amongst the English about Phillip taking over they passed a law ratified by the Queen that Phillip should not become King and that the property 'i.e England', would remain invested with Mary alone. Mary would be constitutionally above Phillip in England, therefore he was merely her consort. A King is always above a Queen and therefore they needed another title, 'Prince Consort', hence why Victoria's husband was Prince Albert, and the modern Duke of Edinburgh is Prince Phillip. With regards to your second paragraph, this is very true and it is a hard one to get around. Elizabeth is officially the second one in England, Wales and N. Ireland. She is however, only the first Elizabeth of Scotland. The ideal solution would have been to refer to her as II of E/W/I and I of S, but this could lead to confusion with Elizabeth I of England. The same problem is found with Edwards and Williams. Edward VIII of Britain, is actually Edward II of Scotland and Edward XI of England. William IV was only William III in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtryka Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ok, now my head really hurts! Oh, and for presidents, like George H. W. Bush, and George Bush or Theodore Roosevelt and Frankin Roosevelt, or John Adams and John Quincy Adams, we generally find ways to distinguish them as seen from their names commonly used. Certainly with Presidents, the potential use of first and middle names in addition to last names aids in clarifying, much as it would be clear if Kings and Queens used last names, like Queen Elizabeth Jones or King George Smith or whatever, so the royals even have last names? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlavicScott Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 so the royals even have last names? Elizabeth II --> Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (as in the House of Windsor). Using last names would be of little use in the UK, as the family lines ran for many generations of monarchs. Take for example the Hanovers. This would include George I, George II, George III (grandson of George II), George IV, William IV (brother of George IV), and Victoria. I think it is easier to use George I, II, III, and IV, instead of their given names, which would be George Ludwig, George Augustus, George William Frederick, and George Augustus Frederick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Elizabeth II --> Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (as in the House of Windsor). Using last names would be of little use in the UK, as the family lines ran for many generations of monarchs... Last names would get really confusing... i have to question wether Hanover was even George I's last name, Hanover was where they were from. Marriage could real mess things up; Prince Albert's last name was Saxe Coburg Gotha. So Edward VII was Edward Saxe Coburg Gotha... and until his son George V changed it to Windsor in 1917 that was the name of the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.