|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 8, 2013 20:31:04 GMT
The 2nd male consort in recent history, Prince Phillip to his dismay is no Albert. Queen Victoria's Albert and Prince Phillip are very similar men. The only difference is, Prince Albert did not have two powerful "Dowager Queens" who strong armed him.
Couldn't even put his name on the royal house, upon Charles taking the crown, which I think is just plan wrong. They should have let the house change. Change is a good thing.
However, despite the above, Prince Phillip has made a name for himself not only as the Queen's biggest support, but has jumped into science, tv documentaries, parton of various orginizations, and his probably the most "human" of the royals with his plan talk, and quick wit.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 8, 2013 20:20:57 GMT
The King who threw it all away for love vs the brightest Child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If one knows their history, these are two strong royals.
Victoria(Vikki), the oldest Child of Victoria, and by far the most like her perfectionist father, Albert. And had all the good qualities of both her parents. Very beautiful, and Smart. And it is worth noting, Vikki gave birth to the eccentric "Kaiser Wilhelm II" of Germany who inadvertently got the unfair majority of the blame.
Vikki was the first to marry, and married the German Crown prince, later Frederick III who only lasted a few months before dying.
Edward VIII, love, jazz, innovation, are a words that describe Edward VIII. Speculation exists to this day whether or not he abdicated just because of his unsavory girl friend, or whether he had a liking for the policies of Hitler, and made waves to stay away from Europe.
I'd like to think he didn't know the full extent of what Hitler did. When the Duke of Windsor and his wife went to visit Germany, he was a man who was sad, and slightly offended his family did not recognize Wallis, and give her the "HRH" title.
It was a bad situation, no perfect way to handle it, and a lot of people went to their deaths not making up.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 8, 2013 20:08:58 GMT
An interesting match up, the little known 9th child of Queen Victoria, vs the infamous "Wallis Simpson", the woman for whom Edward VIII gave up his throne for. This will be an interesting one. I consider Wallis the "consort of Edward VIII" because of their long marriage, and her infamy.
Would you like to see Wallis face off against her opposite in the Queen?
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 8, 2013 20:04:16 GMT
Alfred slips past Prince Harry for the first upset of the tournament, but he is up against the modern day version of his own mother, Queen Victoria. I can't see anyone beating Her Majesty the Queen, but maybe Alfred another upset in him.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 2, 2013 3:55:19 GMT
I have given my vote on this site to my dad, who is too busy to make him an account on anything to vote, so I will vote friday, to ensure I either break a tie or prevent a tie. So those interested, get your votes cast.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 2, 2013 3:52:02 GMT
This score is tied 2-2 Alfred made a surge.. Could Harry be in trouble?
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 2, 2013 3:50:48 GMT
Andrew is up 3-1.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 2, 2013 3:49:56 GMT
This one is tied 2-2
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 2, 2013 3:49:17 GMT
As it stands, the score is tied 2-2
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 1, 2013 18:25:30 GMT
Victoria has taken a commanding 2-0 lead over George. Any love for the WWII causality?
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 1, 2013 18:24:28 GMT
Alice has taken a commanding 2-0 lead over Leopold.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Apr 1, 2013 18:23:31 GMT
Thanks to the facebook voting Eddy and Andy are now tied at one all. I shall vote last in the event to either prevent a break or Prevent a tie.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Mar 31, 2013 8:24:03 GMT
For those of you who didn't get a look at the tournament I have started, I highly recommend you vote. Maybe you are waiting for people you know, but you should vote to make things interesting.
Due to the reasonable board rules of no photos, I highly suggest for the matches that you look up the photos online if you are unsure, and prefer a visual aid, because there are a lot of pretty princesses that you may not notice on name sake alone.
I find it a neat historical's vs modern's battle, and interesting to see how individual battles will go.
The voting is open for the play-in matches till April 5th at roughly noon London time. The official first round of games will be posted once voting ends.
Once again, I highly suggest you vote, and vote for every match, even if you don't care for a either royal in a match.
The explanation and bracket are in polls, under "Royal Family Feud".
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Mar 30, 2013 4:48:05 GMT
I'm not expert, but I think it would make sense across the board with all titles. But sometimes royalty or life just doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by Edward_IX on Mar 29, 2013 11:14:29 GMT
I think people are a little unfair to Charles. Yes, He did Diana wrong, both in their marriage, and marrying Camilla. But give him credit on Camilla, he stuck to his guns. He was indecisive as a youth, and it cost him huge. But a lot of people were worried about Edward VII when he succeeded Queen Victoria, and he turned out to revolutionize the monarchy into what it is today. Can we expect Charles to do the same. Is that not the beauty of the Prince or Princess of Wales, to be different from the previous monarch? I would go so far to say, and being from the USA no less, that the monarch should have more influence, and added powers. Mind you, the monarch has to give a good reason for Parliament not to override a veto. Think about it, you have someone in the monarch who is duty bound, and really would rather not be where they are, but accept it, and revel in it. The parliament is made up of politicians willing to sacrifice the ideals that a voter sent them with to make a deal, or to gain power, but a monarch does not have that drive, and in a limited use, could use the veto powers, and influence for the good of the people. It's a good balance. As long as there is public support for the monarchs actions, why not? If the parliament feel's he or she is overstepping the bounds, and the public complains, then they sanction the monarch. Good example, the Apartheid issue in South Africa back in the 80's that threatened to break up the Commonwealth, that the Queen, the Commonwealth, and the majority of the British People were in favor of sanctions, but Margaret Thatcher wasn't. The Queen, knowing the mood of the people, and the threat of CW break up, should have had the right to put Mrs. Thatcher in her place. Especially a monarch like the Queen who has years and years of experience, and knowledge. Let the monarch have veto power, that could be overridden by law by 2/3 majority if the parliament feels the Monarchs actions are uncalled for. Let the Monarch have the ability to help in military strategy if Parliament gives the ok for war or military action should the sitting monarch wish. I'm willing to give Charles a chance. He might shock everyone. Or he might ruin the monarchy, it shall give us a lot to talk about, let's hope The Queen has another good decade in her before we talk about that
|
|