OT: It's Catherine with a C, folks

[modnar]

In article ,
Ophelia wrote:

"of Wales"


Well, that's why Wills got a dukedom, so she wouldn't need to use it. I
remember I got so confused when I was in England for my junior year abroad
and kept hearing about Princess Michael of Kent. "That poor woman!
Whatever were her parents thinking, naming her Michael?!" The penny
finally dropped.


Not officially/legally. She was HRH The Princess of Wales. What people
outside the court called her, of course, is another matter.


Yes, they let her keep the modified title (minus HRH) as part of the
settlement.

Catherine will be "Queen Catherine" (God willing) but not "Princess
Catherine" of anything - at least, not officially, unless (God forbid)
something horrible happens and the sovereign grants her the style. *

* The Queen granted the style to her late aunt-by-marriage, Princess
Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, upon the death of Prince Henry, Duke of
Gloucester. Princess Alice was born Lady Alice (iow, not a princess in
her own right). At Henry's death, their son became Duke and his wife
the Duchess. Princess Alice for some reason did not wish to be known as
the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and petitioned for the title change.

Charlotte
(ok, the part about the titles here I had in my head. Occasionally some
of the oddball info I keep track of is socially useful.


--

[tsh tshhhhh tshhh tsh]

"Lyndon Watson" wrote in message
news:373ad500-b807-4e44-b137-fc7201cbfd4e@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 9:24 am, "Ophelia" wrote:

She was never Princess Diana. The queen did not grant her that
title. She was granted the title "Diana, Princess of Wales" and, as
someone else has noted, her marriage entitled her to be called
"Princess Charles" which, as far as I know, she never was. Apart from
that, the only title she had of right was "Lady Diana Spencer" as the
daughter of an earl.

LW

And that's that!

Felice

[&&&]

On 30/04/2011 6:32 PM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:


Okay.... Pet peeve of mine..... game shows like Jeopardy often have
questions about British monarchs. My view is that if some
king or queen is the first one with that name, they are not X the first.
They are simply X. The 16th Century Queen Elizabeth was simply Queen
Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth I or Queen Elizabeth the first.

[pro-model]

In article
,
spamtrap1888 wrote:



You've got it, all right. It was before my time (I wasn't born until
1949, and rather late in the year at that), but I've read about it. At
the time, it was the only World War, so there was no need to tack the
"1" onto it. It was often referred to as the "war to end all wars":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_war_to_end_war

Many felt that there could never be another World War. Of course, once
there was another World War, then there had to be a way to differentiate
them, so they were then numbered.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]

[Aliiiiii]

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
She only became that when the current Liz became Queen.
Graham

[sixteenfire]

On 01/05/2011 11:09 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

Until WW II came along it was known as The Great War.

[BabySis]

"graham" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Similarly, some people will try and start a new tradition by calling some
event the "first annual whatever".

[Chrome Medley]

Dan Abel wrote:



One historian i read made the observation that one of Louis XIV's
seventeenth century Wars was the first World War, in that, limited as it
was, it involved almost all of the European world at that time,
including colonies.

Both W.W. I & II are badly termed such as at no time in recorded history
has the entire world of all nations been formally at war with each other.

For all the social evolution in the modern world mankind is really no
better, morally, than it was 2,ooo years ago.

We used to have, "Great Wars," civil wars, revolutionary wars, Boer
wars, Crusades & etc. now we just number them.

It boggles my mind that American is in Afghanistan, talk about history
repeating itself! I thought it amusing for the Russians to be there,
sort of a curse of the Tzars foreign policy
--
JL

[bruiser]

In article ,
Dave Smith wrote:

She was Queen Elizabeth no-number in her lifetime but after 1952 she
wasn't the only (regnant) Queen Elizabeth. The ordinals/numerals became
necessary at that time.

I haven't seen numerals/ordinals attached to the ones who were the only
one of their names so far (post-Conquest: Stephen, John, Anne, Victoria).

Charlotte
--

[emi-loo42]

"Janet" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Depending on the exchange rate at the time, that is about $10 mil.