Not to mention that they had no problem with a divorced King in the past when they could have spoken up. When the Hanoverian line of the Electress Sophia was chosen to inherit should Queen Anne die childless, they knew that her son George was divorced, as that happened several years before the Act of Settlement 1710. Their main concern at that time was that he wasn't a Catholic. So many of the Stuart descendants were, but the Hanoverian line were staunch Protestants. The Electress Sophia's mother was a Stuart, the eldest daughter of James I, which was why they were offered the throne.

True! Same goes for the “Defender of the Faith” title which was given to Henry VIII by the pope for the treatise he wrote condemning the teachings of Martin Luther. The monarchy is lots of things but logical isn’t one of them.

I do not get their decor e rule but I do not like Camilla nor Charles as they do not know how to run a kingdom nor a nation and they barely even try to make Britain great again

Yes but it gave us elizabeth 2 as queen instead of the nazi king

@@dannyouellet2429 She would still have become Queen even if Edward VIII had remained on the throne, as he died childless. It would have been in 1972 instead of 1952, and there would have been no George VI, as he died before his elder brother. Everything else would likely be the same as today. There would still have been a Jubilee celebration last year, but it would have been her Golden Jubilee rather than her Platinum Jubilee.

Doubt she’d be happy, Mary was against divorce.

Queen Mary would not be happy with anything to do with Camilla.

@@samiam2088 She’s dead.

As that guy from King Ralph would say, you can't refuse the crown, it's a sacred trust! Even if you don't get a salary as such...

I see you believe the official propaganda about that crown. The diamonds were stolen. The countries have been for a long time asking for them back. They’ve taken so much from so many, so they can live in absolute opulence. Divine rights of Kings, while Britain suffers. How many castles do you have??

Pretty much. The only other caveat was that we know who she is but wish we never knew. This dynasty will fall for its poor choice of consorts.

@@Alusnovalotus Kate Middelton be like: Am I a joke to you?!

@@Alusnovalotus Camilla got QERII'S blessing. That should be enough. But we have so many Diana worshippers with clouded judgment. Diana cheated first.

​@@nuotatorre8741 Kate, no. This one ^^ - yes

She is basically some random person..... she just happened to end up where she is

Just out of curiosity, do you have any information about what the royal family did when the Britannic sank? I personally find the whole “twin ships that both sank” -story really fascinating and am baffled it isn’t talked about more

Wow! That must have given so much comfort and help to the families of those lost, many of whose loved ones bodies were never recovered. SMH

​@@kathleenwarner5183 That's what I was thinking. What's the big deal? What else would/should they have done? 🤷🏻‍♀️

@@blackeyedsusan727 maybe send food, clothing to the survivors? Something that would have really helped them. They could’ve sent personal letters of condolence to the families of the survivors. That would have made a real impact on their lives.

@@kathleenwarner5183 Correct. I was unclear: I meant as to the forenamed ceremony. It's not as if that was optional for them. I've just read another set of foolish comments here on how (1) monarchy is a superior system of gov't. "Statistically speaking, [under a monarchy] we the people have a better chance at life." (😆); and (2) that Charles *will do* so much for climate and "save us." That's why he's gotten so much hate [jealousy, fear, by those who have controlled until now]. (🙄🙄😒😒😒). The first is not even worth discussing, only to say that it's astonishing how truly dumb people can be. The 2nd, was something I didn't expect to read. I wonder how this person understands our current malaise, given that he's been the PoW for decades and has never done anything much more than organically farm a bit of land on a small island?

LA P. Im not sure its as simple as you make out...Thought the point you raise is factual...former Queens have attended their Sons Coronation, Perhaps forcing New Consorts Crowns to have to be made... Remember, Tiaras were acceptable head wear for Royals! Even ex Queens.

Interesting point. Hypothetically, if Queen Camilla survives King Charles, would that mean that the Queen Mary Crown should not be used for the coronation of King William and Queen Katherine?

@@rogerd777 I think they would play that one by ear. The Queen Mary Crown was intended by Mary herself for the Consort to wear going forward, I don’t think she had expected to be alive at the next Coronation. They had to make a new one for Elisabeth as Mary was still around, and wanted her Crown. (And why not, it was hers - she bought and paid for it herself back in the day.) I can’t see Camilla making a fuss - I‘m pretty sure she would go with whatever fitted the overall plans best. If they wanted the QM Crown for Catherine, there’s lots of other bling - the I950’s Elisabeth Crown or the George IV Diadem for instance. From the practical point of view, I’d go with the George IV Diadem - it is lighter and easier to wear than the heavy crowns. She was struggling with the weight of the QM on Coronation day, and it might be a major difficulty umpteen years down the line.

Ça incite les gens à s'intéresser à ces petits détails ARTÉ pourrait en faire un reportage.... On aimerai

@@rogerd777 If Queen Camilla survives King Charles and is present for Prince William’s coronation, Catherine, The Princess of Wales will probably use the crown of Queen Elizabeth(The Queen Mother) because Camilla will probably be wearing the crown of Queen Mary.

Really???🙄🙄🙄

@@mariaassuntamarras2086 LMAO

Lolllllllll. Dumb

Adrian Spencer Elizalde Crowns are ostentatious, those with wealth wanted to show off that wealth

Stealing diamonds from 10 year old they oppressed & colonized is beyond ostentatious. Wearing the stolen diamond to this day is inexcusable.

I'd say it's more Belle Époch (those elongated teardrop arches) with some transitional elements but, as you say, definitely not Art Deco. Year of creation aside, Queen Mary was possibly the least Art Deco person ever. 😆

@@sarahy1680 I would have difficulty distinguishing between Belle Epoch and Art Nouveau, except in the degree of flamboyance

@@MandyJMaddison Gross over-generalization: the date, the innate value of the materials, and the amount of nature/human motifs, however stylized they might be. But yeah, it's a spectrum not a hard and fast cut-off from one to the other.

The owner of this channel gets a lot of very basic things wrong. Smh

@@blackeyedsusan727 yes she does and with the British economy in free fall I doubt many care what style it is. Most people have much more important things to be concerned about.

You’re the only one.

Yes I read the book years ago.. I gave it to my mom to read.. she kept it for about five years until I asked for it back.. she bought me a replacement for the book because she said she wore it out reading it over and over again. It was apparently her favorite book ever.. kinda struck a nerve in her about life with my father and the difficulties in raising my brother and I.

Wasn’t she the queen who was a kleptomaniac?

Which book are u reading? I’d like to get it!

What’s the name & who is the author?

She did live through the reigns of six monarchs!!!

And i think she's on par with kosem sultan, as she also lived during the reigns of atleast six sultans (including her father-in-law?)

I’m intrigued! I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t heard about either of them before, but yes please, that would be interesting!

Even Rani Abakka Chowta from Karnataka. She was one of the earliest Indians to fight against colonialism. She repulsed the Portuguese for 4 decades to defend the port of Ullal.

do you have any links on them to share?

@@generalvictoriouskilljoy8146 That's the thing , there aren't much information about them in English.

Yeah! Our queens were not like the European queens , they were warriors and were eager to give their lives for their people.

Thank you! Every time I heard 'Art Deco' I was going 'nooooooooooo!' Those elongated teardrop arches scream Belle Époch.

Charles crown has 4 arches, so 4 arches for her.

Why magpie???😅

@@nenisguevaragomez8122 Magpies are popularly thought to be attracted to shiny objects, and will take them if they get a chance. (Whether this is actually true is a different matter altogether, but it is a well known trope in European art and music from years gone by.) Queen Mary has been nicknamed The Magpie for years, and the name is often used affectionately on various blogs devoted to royal jewellery.

100% agree and now having seen it in action...the changes were...superbly done

Lol omg 😂 that is so cute! I love jewelry more than the average wo/man, myself. So i understand her compulsions to gather more More MORE. Lol

It truly is unbelievable! Say, to come up with it for a work of fiction would be laughed at because it's too easy (no pun intended 😅). Reality is crazier!

Does that make Charles and Camilla 3rd cousins?

I'm clueless, what if it were Edward

@@sweetanarchi he was a Hitler sympathizer, and almost certainly would have sided with him in the war. It really could have been bad

@@sweetanarchi Edward was gossiping about British troop movements to Italian Fascists at cocktail parties in Italy and was seen as a security risk, which he was. Had Hitler successfully invaded the British Isles, he would've put Edward back on the throne as a puppet king. This would've changed European history and made WWII much more difficult for the Allies to win, if not impossible.

@@silvermoontearoom7123 To be fair, I believe he only sided with Hitler because Hitler promised to reinstate him as king, and his wife was determined for him to be reinstated.

​@@sweetanarchi he was in cahoots with Hitler

😂😂😂😂

Exactly 😢😢😢😢😢😢

Get over it. Diana is long dead.

Lmaoo that part! I do not think she’d approve of Camilla whatsoever especially giving Camilla’s family history of being the side chick

I would be embarrassed if I were her.

Ah yes King Henry the 8th divorced and terribly abused Catherine of Aragon and his first daughter Queen Mary all because she couldn't give him a son. Which she did at first but the baby died at infancy.

Exactly

We are not catholics pedophiles! Thank GOD We are Anglicans Protestants ❤ Our church of England allows divorces

The hilarity of the start of the Church of England

@@ArchangelAva Shut up catholics pedophiles!

Simplicity ???🤔🤔🤔

​@@mariaassuntamarras2086 "Save the monarchy". Too bad she succeeded. Think of how much better off the UK would be without this antiquated system? The British monarchy (because there are many, many more than just one 🙄) is interesting - as are the others - in the days where the monarchy and the politics + history of the country are part and parcel of the same. But, that has not been the case since Victoria. So, this here is merely a curiosity about some shiny jewels 🤷🏻‍♀️

@@blackeyedsusan727 Last I checked they're struggling to survive brexit. Throw in a presidency and they'll go bankrupt entirely.

Victoria was a horrendous queen

​@@ArchangelAva Honestly. She was a Darth Vader of the British Empire! Who gives a toss? Prince Albert was much more interesting, if one had to choose 🤷🏻‍♀️

Just think Edward coulda been like Charles and not abdicated at all.

​​@@shellecapos8574e wouldn't let go of marrying Wallis Simpson, and there was no way in 1936 that the British government or the royal family would've allowed him to keep the crown with her as his bride because she was American and twice divorced. The whole business was quite the scandal at the time.

@@shellecapos8574 Edward was a traitor. The divorce was a convenient excuse to be rid of him.

Well...yeah.

She’s just “Queen Camilla.” She’s Queen Camilla now. People need to get over it.

@@professorbutters They don’t have to and they’re making their feelings known which they have every right to do.

Thank you... it's disgusting to keep reigniting hatred for a woman who is a better duchess and soon queen than Diana was as a princess, FACTS.

There are a few other names people call her

OMG THAT SPOOKY BOAT OUTSIDE THE AQAURIUM OF THE PACIFIC ACTUALLY LIKE FLOATED???

I feel the same when I hear queen Mary. The queen Mary is a beautiful ship. I train detection dogs and I have had the honor of searching with my dog on that ship. Such a cool experience

I must agree with you! He was a petulant man child who tended to sulk if he didn’t get his own way (after all he pretty much blackmailed Wallis into marrying him through threats of suicide). He would never have forgiven his mother for putting the Crown & duty first, over his own wants

@@sandrahart6033 H'mmmm sounds very current and familiar except for the reason ( substitute father for mother here). lol

@@l.m.2404 yes! Yes!! Yes!!!! I have thought that a certain person 😉😉 reminded me of his great uncle for a long time

I think David was just a difficult child to love. Mary was close with her youngest surviving son, Prince George and they bonded over their shared loved of interior design! And unliked what the movie about his life shows, she was very devoted and cherished her youngest son, Prince John. Before the war, and especially when he was still a little boy, there are many photos of them together, and actually she and his sister Mary had gone for a walk with him the morning of the day he died.

@@piratesswoop725 It doesn't change the fact that both David and Henry were an d are immature, self-centered, entitled boors that have less self awareness than a rock.

LMAO

Or go for Catherine of Aragon, she literally fought the Scottish and won while King Henry was busy in France.

@@BiG-JuPO1O1 she was not on the battlefield lol, the one that defeated the Scotts was the Earl of Surrey. why so many people have that fact wrong?

@@di3486 She still lead them to victory when she was left to rule England while Henry was busy in France and came back losing the battle. Only for him to come home to Catherine defeating the Scotts, people of England loved her for a reason.

@@BiG-JuPO1O1 Strategist, yes. I refer to those that picture her in armor and riding to battle😂

That may have made it a bit of an on-the-nose choice for her, and observers who know their history.

@@silvermoontearoom7123 I'm not saying anything bad about Alexandra or Mrs Kepple buuuuut I think about the hilarity of the situation. Also the fact that Charles and Camilla might actually be half-second cousins.

@@displacerkatsidhe well QE2 and Prince Philip, IIRC, were second cousins. Correction: Third cousins as well as.second cousins once removed. Inbred European royalty, sheesh!

@@lilymarinovic1644 oh yeah they're technically related in multiple ways. Something like over twenty different ways..cause of course. Which explains their children to be honest... *Cringe* I just amuse myself at their creepy relationship's expense

@@silvermoontearoom7123 that is so creepy, makes one shudder!! Remember he yelled at Diana why should i be the the only Prune of Wales not to have a mistress!?!

I feel just the same

Yup. She can spill the tea with the beat of them. 🫖

Your comment appears to display that you believe Queen regent Mary 1st (House of Tudor, daughter of Henry 8th) had children? (She didnt). Queen consort Mary of Teck had many sons. I do indeed think about if "Henry the 9th" had survived to adulthood. If that is not the case then I would think about re-wording it. In addition, many Queens had even more potential children (check up Queen Annes many pregnancies, Queen Elizabeth Woodville, Queen Charlotte)

@@charlottemunday7311 She worded it very well, you might have just read it too fast.

Cotillard has no taste Just look at the awful hats she wears. The one she wore at Zara's wedding was one of the uglier ones

Mary focused on miniatures that had a connection to the royal family and there is only one royal collection

Then Queen Elizabeth is a very good descendant of theirs. She’s every inch her grandparents.

Edward was annoyed because Mary completely cut him off after he abdicated. She acted like he had resigned from the family as she didn't communicate with him and discouraged everybody else to as well. She obviously wanted nothing to do with Wallis and didn't give her any jewelry.

Tbh they went through WW1 and for Mary WW2. In WW1 they had to change their name into more of English name like Windsor instead of what they originally had was more German name. Seeing other Royal Families collapse due to new belief of people seeing monarchy being part of the old world. They quickly adapted and tried to do everything they can to remain in power.

@@Alusnovalotus Elizabeth II is definitely an improved descendant… Queen Mary may have been dutiful, but she failed as a mother for not noticing her own children being abused. As for George V, he was so critical and harsh that his kids developed digestion problems from the anxiety of having to eat with him during family dinners. Needless to say, they may have been effective constitutional monarchs, but as people (not royals, but people), they aren’t that extraordinary imho. In contrast, George VI was affable, strong, loving towards his daughters, and possessed a gift of dry wit (which he passed on to Elizabeth II). These qualities alone make me respect him on a much higher level than his parents. Having said this, everyone’s entitled to their own thoughts and this is, of course, a subjective topic. They are all dead and buried now, so I guess it doesn’t really matter. Have a nice day!

​@@aceofspades8634 Thank you for your comment. ❤ informative!

Do you mean Diana? She was the one to have an affair first whilst breaking up two marriages and harrasing their wives

❤❤

Come on, Diana was an adulteress too.

@@silvermoontearoom7123 Hey 👋!! Good question !! 😉😉

I believe Jackie Kidwell miswrote and meant to write, Mary Tech and not Tudor.

@@silvermoontearoom7123Thank you for the information, but I'm sorry to hear that. ☹️☹️

@@silvermoontearoom7123 I personally thought Cromwell was terrible !! 😑😑😐😐☹️☹️

@@silvermoontearoom7123 The only reason that I surmised it to be Teck is the fact that Queen Mary Tudor's crown was dismantled in 1649 after the execution of Charles the First.

I think she’s actually going to the UK to watch it in person!

Yes it would’ve been better not to take it but that’s the whole point of colonialism, enslave the people and take what they have or why bother. After almost 200 years you can’t give it all back without causing more problems. That area of India and Pakistan is a trouble spot already and it’s not like the Koh I Noor will help the people if they get it back. The Elgin Marbles definitely belong to Egypt along with all the mummies and grave goods but I don’t know if they’ve said they want the Elgin Marbles back. They’ve definitely said they want the mummies and other ancient grave goods but I don’t think it’ll happen. GB isn’t the only Country that stole things either.

Great excuse to keep something stolen. How about they allow the other countries to determine a loan scheme where each would hold in exhibit for a certain amount of time each. You know like other museums and zoos.

Im not a diplomat nor a museum curator. Write this suggestion to H M The King via Buckingham Palace. London. and see what he thinks... Simple solutions sound great they "Rarely" are in practice. For example Why would The Taliban in Afghanistan offer to share ownership with Pakistan and why would India agree to share with either of these countries, after all thats three of the countries who clam ownership of the stone. and what about Britain, we got it as a "gift " does that make it four countries..I think it does. No one died to allow Britain to gain ownership of the Stone. Although it’s impossible to know exactly where the Koh-i-Noor came from orginally we do know it was pillaged along with Thousands of stones... Coloured stones were at that time deemed more worthy and so more valuable. Turco-Mongol leader Zahir-ud-din Babur came from Central Asia through the Kyber Pass (located between modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan) to invade "India in 1526" establishing the Islamic Mughal dynasty and a new era of infatuation with gemstones. MIllions of People died fighting wars to gain controle of areas of land that Diamonds and other stones came from. The Mughals would rule northern India for 330 years, expanding their territory ( killing millions) across nearly all of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and eastern Afghanistan, all the while reveling in the mountains of gemstones they ... "inherited" ! Your idea has merrit for sure.

@@hotoneinspai Why should I write anything to anyone since you're the one advocating for the thieves to remain thieves? Your moral compass is screwed up, I am merely pointing out how flawed it is.

She should have worn her seat-belt.

why?

That's the hoax, not true. They got along brilliantly and Camilla's dignified silence over the hoax is highly admired.

@@debramoss2267 I really believe the Queen did NOT approve of Camilla, and did not like her. Her Majesty did everything she did for Charles, knowing he would be crowned upon her demise. For that matter, I do not approve of Camilla.

@@rms5993 you may have been convinced of that, but it is not true. It was Queen Elizabeth who called upon Charles after Harry was born and his devastation to say enough is enough. By that time at least ten affairs were very public and numerous public dalliances strongly likely, Diana had decimated him. The hoax interview had convinced Diana and those without knowledge that an affair with Camilla had started. Her husband- not the nicest of chaps and friends with some of the perpetrators- had happily entered his two bob lies, too. Charles young Equerry, seventeen has been known as Harry's 'second Dad' ever since. His name is Mark Dyer and he has been there for him, I hope he still is, but I would assume Megan's dispensed with him, too. Queen Elizabeth has been cruelly portrayed in the hoax and following scam as a cold, distant harradon, especially in the Crown. It's just not true. Queen Camilla has been a tremendous support and her stoic silence against the hate and the lies to protect Diana's boys and memory is verging on saintly. She works incredibly hard and her programs and charities are not easy. One of the most challenging is bringing women and their children into safety from Conflict Zones who have been brutally sexually assaulted and raped as War Trophies. Most often have been forced to watch it happening to their little ones and the little ones forced to watch Mums. They become untouchable in several regions and Camilla with the phenomenal women involved provides everything they need to heal and for the life they choose. Many are highly qualified, now and living their happiest lives possible. Can you see just how far those lies are from this wonderful woman? Diana's affairs ended her own marriage and several others. Can you see how far those lies are from the vibrant joy focused woman? We loved Diana so much, you deserve to know the real person. She was no lamb to the slaughter she was far too sassy for that. Please fact check and release this anger, it serves no purpose, is very unfair and damaging to your health. It is fuelled by a very cruel hoax on Diana that literally terrified her to death.

@@debramoss2267 No idea what happened to what I was typing, internet blinked for a second. Just as well though. You do you honey child and I'll do me, and please never tell me what to do or think again.

@@rms5993 The Queen and Camilla did get on well in the end, when she could see that she was good for Charles.

I would LOVE to see Alexandra's crown on her.

We can’t know, but Maybe Queen Mary would have approved of her great grandson finally finding happiness with the woman he loved.

@@suej9329 Perhaps We wont ever know will we. I think the fact both Charles & Camilla where seeing each other while married just throws out the marriage vow & its meaning to their spouses. I put the blame on Queen Elizabeth for matching Charles with Princess Diana with their significant age differences & how Charles disregarded Diana's feeling in this & now we have a principless Queen Consort & king on the Throne. A marriage between 2 is sacred. Anyway it is what it is. I will keep my focus on Prince William & Kate.

Again with making things up

The Cullinan was a gift from a diamond miner to Edward VII (George V's father.) It took years to cut so the stones were given to Queen Mary. Not from colonizing.

@@GoddessDiv If they weren't colonizing he would not have found it. Africans just didn't jump up and give it freely. If people are under basic slavery they will do anything to get that boot off of their neck. If not for a minute

Camilla can have a new crown. It would just look bad to spend all that money on a crown while their subjects are currently suffering due to high inflation and low wages.

@@LDF1218 I mean, is not like they actually care about what real people go through. Kate spent around 300K in clothes only lasts year. So, there you go.

Queen Mary’s crown was actually designed to be a permanent consort crown. Camilla is simply using it for its intended purpose

​@@LDF1218 and high cost of energy in this green world.

They are still first cousins, just once removed.

It was kinda similar the other way - Mary was looked down by many royals because of her father being a child from a morganatic marriage. Many royals believed she wasn't royal enough to be a Queen but Kaiser Wilhelm II was always nice to her and treated her like an equal, that's why Mary liked him a lot. Which I find to be interesting, because otherwise he could be rather snobbish

Mary was not George V’s aunt because she was not his father’s sister, Queen Mary and King George V were second cousins once removed.

You won't have to imagine: Charles will show you what a bunch of useless oafs they are. Except that the Nazi King was at least brave enough to put his love of his woman, wisely before the responsibilities that he would have failed at: had Charles had enough backbone to remain with Camilla from the start he would not have destroyed Diana's life and memory, and now disgrace the lives of his children and grandchildren with his foolishness and selfishness. He and former King Juan Carlos: two dotards and excellent arguments for abolishing monarchy.

If Edward HAD stayed king...it was to be a morganatic marriage? The crown would them have still passed to George VI ?? IT would have made ZERO difference at all?

​@@suzyfarnham3165 Agree, it wouldn't have made any difference in the end, since Edward and Wallis never had any children - the crown would still have gone to Elizabeth; it would just have been twenty years later than actually happened (Edward died in 1972). But in that scenario, Elizabeth would have had 20 more years to enjoy her marriage, raise her children, and live a relatively "normal" life before having to shoulder the burden of being Queen. What I wonder is, would Charles and Andrew have turned out differently if Elizabeth had had that additional 20 years to be able to focus on her children's upbringing, instead of being forced to move it farther back on the burner to take over the duties of the monarch at such a young age? Another thing to wonder about, what direction would the country and WWII have taken if Edward had kept the throne, given his attitude toward the Third Reich? The outcome of WWII might have been very different, and not in a good way. There is, though, the possibility that Edward only latched onto Herr H. out of rebellion against his family. I'm sure somebody has probably written an alternate-history novel on that premise.

@Wosiewose No, it was not rebellion. Edward VIII viewed himself as more German than English and felt that Hitler was a miracle worker.

She has not yet been crowned, thank God. The gold-digging....is still and always will be in my eyes known as Queen Consort.

@@rms5993 It’s a disgusting turn of events that Camilla will wear a crown! Just shows how corrupt the monarchy is. Nothing is sacred. The laws of the Church of England were thrown out the window. Had his mother not come to Camilla’s defense before she died, people wouldn’t be accepting her as anything except what she is: a treacherous mistress determined to disrupt the course of history

@@cberry6751 Exactly!

@@rms5993 Yes mam..

​@@rms5993 well, Diana cheated on Prince Charles first, even fucked her stable boy when Charles was away, get over it

yeah it was, That’s so thoughtful of you Darcy, Thanks for your positive review, How are you and how’s the weather over there?

I disagree. I think Catherine will wear this crown for one reason - it was created with a thought that the future consorts would use it on their coronations and I think William would prefer to continue it - it saves money and carries on a family tradition

@@wruszka If Queen Camilla is still alive to see William become King, Catherine will more than likely wear the crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

ULTIMATE first world problem

i think KC111 is the first Romanov King in 300yrs.

@@reitapresley925 Charles has no Romonov blood. George V and Tsar Nicholas II were related through their mothers. Queen Alexandra, Edward VII’s wife, was a princess of Denmark and Tsarina Elizabeth, birth name Dagmar, was Queen Alexandra’s sister, also a Princess of Denmark. Nicholas wife Alexandra was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria as her mother was Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Alice. Their children were blood relatives of Queen Victoria but the Tsar was related by marriage. Prince Philip’s mother was related to the Romanov’s through his mothers Danish Royal blood. That’s why he, not Queen Elizabeth gave a DNA sample to confirm the identity of the bodies of the Romanovs. They only died 105 years ago, not 300.

@@kathleenwarner5183 thankyou i didnt know he was the king. 105yrs ago. i believe KC111 is a direct descendent of dracula. but im sorry as i cud be wrong on that also. i also thought Prince Phillip was Charles father.

@@reitapresley925 ???What Philip IS the father of Charles?!!What Kathleen is trying to explain it Queen Alexandra[who was married to Edward VII and great grandmother to Queen Elizabeth].......had a sister Dagmar who married a Romanov. It was through the 2 Danish princesses that Nicholas Romanov and King George V were cousins. They were related by marriage not blood.

@@suzyfarnham3165 oh thankyou.

Cancelled for me. That happens when you continue an affair for 30 years?? People sometimes find being a sl*t not a positive? She will ALWAYS be The Mistress to me. She could have just kept her legs closed???

Meghan wasn't having an affair with Harry either? All of a sudden Cammilla is the pinnacle of womanhood? Nope...STILL A MISTRESS.

Well she was actually the original first true love.

@@loner1878 And so? He didn’t marry her did he? She was still a decades long adulteress.

@@kathleenwarner5183 He couldn't marry her. diana was an adultress too lol

@@loner1878 Not until he went back to Camilla after the 23 year old wife had fulfilled her required duties. Plus Diana never stooped so low as to be caught saying she wished she could be his mistress tampon. We’re supposed to respect these people? Righttt! The fact that she was 19 and he was 32 says about all it does about the entire bunch of them.

@@kathleenwarner5183 No, diana stopped so low as to sleep with other married men and do to other women what she was supposedly so hurt about. She also stooped so low as to try and publicly humiliate her sons' nanny over rumors of an abortion she didn't have and didn't stop until legal action was threatened against her. All because she was jealous of the nanny because her sons were close to her (the nanny). Also Charles never wished to be a tampon, if you actually read what was said, he said with his luck he would be a tampon, meaning it wasn't his first choice. Idk about you but I find sleeping with multiple married guys and stalking exes to be far less respectable than joking about a tampon. diana was in her 30's when she did most of these stunts, quit pretending she was a perptual teenager.

So if you are an American...it is MOM. Don't lecture people how they spell or pronounce words. Colour / Color Which is right?? Wherever YOU come from is the right spelling to you? No I am NOT American.

Yes the four arches represent England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales as I understand. The removal of the other arches is appropriate as the Monarch is no longer Emperor of India.

Who cares, is just a diamond.

​@@di3486it isnt just a diamond. this thing is worth more than most people will see in a lifetime

😹😹😹

??

@@monachaalida-uf9qx both Mary and the English are synonymous for taking things that aren’t theirs to take.

@@ArchangelAva It's not that far. It's okay, hopefully I can find something better. Just let it go

@@monachaalida-uf9qx I’m sorry I don’t understand your comment