I understand your train of thought Pauchen about Madeleine not residing in Sweden; but I agree with Dame Margaret that its a great move for equal rights for women; its the 21st century and with most monarchies trending absolute primogeniture why not make her daughter a princess? I think the downsizing planned by The Prince of Wales will not work ; the Swedish Royal Family is not a world wide brand ruling over 16 nations; the Windsor's will be to stretched out to meet the demands and needs of their subjects in todays world.
Agree with you completely. At first I thought Madeleine's daughter wouldn't be given a title. Too used to thinking in the British succession rules where titles don't normally pass through the female line. But I think it is great that her daughter does have a title. Not sure if Sweden has a version of HH like Norway or Denmark.
If Prince Charles does trim the royal family, it too makes me wonder how they will manage the various charities and organizations that have come to rely on royal patronage. I suspect there will be a lot of disappointed organizations in the years to come.
The dear woman is now Mrs. William Windsor or more properly HRH Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Stop calling her by her maiden name. Journals all do it not because they are ignorant (which is debatable) but to save space on newspapers and mags.
To be fair, this question was posed a few years before the engagement, hence using her maiden name here.
I personally don't think it's so wrong to call her by her maiden name. Think of Jane Seymour, Anne Boleyn, Wallis Simpson -- we still call them by their maiden names (or previous married name, in the case of Wallis). Going further back, we remember "Catherine of Braganza," "Matilda of Flanders" etc., not just "Queen Catherine," or "Matilda of England," or whatever. Using their original names helps differentiate one Queen Catherine or Queen Anne from another, acknowledges each woman's individual identity, and is convenient as titles change over time (Kate probably won't be Duchess of Cambridge all her life). So, while it's proper to use her current title, I don't think it's wrong to say "Kate Middleton." That's how she'll be remembered in history books.
Agree, although because of this sometimes I have a hard time thinking of Anne Boleyn as a Queen!
Thought I read somewhere that the media continued to use 'Kate Middleton' because of search engine optimization. Proper or not, people are more likely to search for her using Kate Middleton instead of Catherine Cambridge or HRH Duchess of Cambridge. Is there any truth to that?
Catherine is neither a political person nor a movie star so to critique her is in very bad taste. The amount of criticism from professional journals and journalists who aren't fit enough to kiss her hem is appalling. Leave the dear mother-to-be alone for Heaven's sake. You should all get down on your knees and thank the higher powers that William chose a seemingly lovely lady to be his Queen.
Catherine is a public figure and as a result people will have opinions on what she does, doesn't do, wears, etc. If she did not want people to criticize her, she should have chosen to remain a private citizen.
No one should think of themselves as fit/unfit to 'kiss her hem' or get 'down on their knees' to thank anyone for William marrying her. What degrading statements.
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Jun 25, 2012 19:53:15 GMT
Yes, other royal families have thrown a few curve balls with the names they've chosen for their children, haven't they?
I can see William and Catherine going the traditional route with names for their children. Meaning nothing like 'Apple' or 'Harper'. While Savannah and Isla are pretty names, I can't imagine them for a future queen regnant.
If they have a girl, I'm predicting there will be some hoopla surrounding whether or not the name 'Diana' or 'Elizabeth' will be amongst them.
I would personally love to see another royal baby named Princess Grace!