Godlike giants is western concept of royalty. India has had a different system where royalty was not even top, much less divine or even godly.
Re the expansion of girth in waistline of Edward VII from POW days to actual king position 37:00 - 39:07, he had nothing to do most of his life but wait for the crown! He chafed and wanted more of a role, but Queen Victoria was adamant in playing it by the book, all the more so since her gender made her susceptible to be perceived as weak and in need of a male to take over. This had him left with nothing to do but either live a family life like his dad or party, and in his case party it was - the four kings between Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II are evenly split in this, the Edwards party and are all Europe cosmopolitan ones, the Georges maintain a life of family, England and empire.
The video is fudging for convenience 45:00 - 47:30 about the war, the cousins around Europe and the change of name, apart from skipping over the ghastly business of rescinding the offer of refuge to Romanov family who were both first cousins, and their subsequent massacre. These were decisions made in view of the growing public dissatisfaction with England headed by a royal family that was German in origin and had close relationships with most of royalty strewn across Germany. Change of name occurred before the end of war, and the German cousins hadn't lost royalty till the end. Kaiser fled to ignominy due to losing war.
Fudging again 54:00 - 56:12, about Edward VIIIth, this time. It wasn't about his ability to keep mistresses or the lower classes imposing morality on the rich. His grandfather had a steady mistress lifelong, and he himself with the younger brother did have affairs and mistresses. The younger brother gave up when he married and became domestic. So it wasn't about this being a century too late, far from it. The real tough contention wasn't about him playing around but rather that he was adamant he would marry the woman no one approved of for a bunch of reasons, and he wasn't going to keep her hidden either but have her as his Queen by his side, publicly. This is where both sides drew lines, and he preferred abdication.
This video, after all, is a sideways thrust to get people to sympathise with a possible king Charles and his new consort as Queen, by invoking Edward VIII and in particular the last sentence by the narrator 56:00 - 57:47 where she links it to Queen Charlotte and Queen Victoria, portraying the three as humans who needed love!
Fact remains however, that people might not forget that Princess of Wales was forced to endure a husband who had never loved her and married someone 11 years his junior only to cheat on her from night before wedding on through the marriage, and she was not only thrown out of the family and denied royal title despite being the future Queen Mother, but was killed in a very suspicious accident blamed on paparazzi who were nowhere around at the time of the accident. This ought not be rewarded.
Responding to a comment below the original YT video by Liz Arnott :-
"If Charlotte’s child had survived, there would’ve been no Kaiser Wilhelm."
There's no reason to suppose that Charlotte couldn't have had a daughter, that the daughter couldn't possibly be married to the son of Kaiser who would inherit the throne, and there couldn't possibly be a son, or that his name wouldn't be Wilhelm. All in all, the difference could only be little, since Victoria's children would be as much first cousins of those of Charlotte as the other network of royal relationships across Europe. Charlotte's German Kaiser grandson might or might not have been much more of the same, or worse.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=90V0n2CFqFw
An interesting video about the current royals, re changes in last names, is titled
"Queen Left In Tears Over Prince Phillip's 'BRUTAL' Demand To Take His Name | SHOCKING NEW BIOGRAPHY"
Funny, he himself used his mum's maiden name - Mountbatten, or its original Battenberg, isn't his father's last name, it was the married name of his mother Princess Alice's mother Princess Victoria, mother of Louis Mountbatten, and of her mother Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria; Princess Victoria had married her Battenberg cousin. So he wants his female ancestors' last name to continue, but not as far back as Queen Victoria, only as far back as the three women between him and her! As silly as it gets, this guy!
A comment, worth quoting, below the original YT video by Dan Fox:-
"Agreed
"Yes, Prince Philip did say that he felt like "a bloody amoeba being the only man in Britain not allowed to give his kids his surname".
"BUT, firstly, Mountbatten wasn't his actual surname - it was his mother's family name (or, at least, her Royal Family's "territorial" name - she was Princess Alice of Battenburg - which was Anglicised to Mountbatten - which was part of the House of Hesse). His father was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg so may have had that as a surname (though it could also have been Oldenburg as that was the original Royal House that Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was part of). It is quite likely that Philip's uncle - Earl Mountbatten of Burma (born Prince Louis of Battenburg) - was instrumental in pushing for a name change to House of Mountbatten as he was rather ambitious. Also, by taking Mountbatten as a surname, Philip would have been denying his father's "right" to have his male-line grandchildren take his surname - making Philip rather hypocritical.
Secondly, Philip renounced ALL of his titles and succession rights to the Danish and Greek thrones (he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark so was in line to these thrones). This meant that he was no longer a "dynast" so he could not start a Royal House nor continue an existing one using his name (compare this to Prince Albert - when he married Queen Victoria, their children became part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and this became the House name of the British Royal Family when Queen Victoria - who was a member of the House of Hanover - died). Thus, he could not start a "House of Mountbatten" as he was no longer Royal. As it turned out, he didn't need to renounce his titles - he just believed that he did in order to become a British Citizen, but he already was by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 (which stated that all of Sophia's legitimate descendants were British Citizens). That act was repealed in 1948 but that was AFTER he married the then Princess Elizabeth. Also note that he wasn't a Prince again until 1957 and this was well after the births of Charles and Anne, so they got their HRH's etc from their mother not their father.
"The Queen decreed, on 8 February 1960, that those members of her family that had HRH were members of The House of Windsor and would use Windsor as a surname if needed. All non-HRH family members could use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname. Most have actually used their territorial designation as a surname (eg, Prince William used "Wales" whilst on active service and before he received his Dukedom) though Prince Andrew and Princess Anne did use Mountbatten-Windsor when signing the marriage register. So, Philip is being represented in that respect but none of his descendants have used just Mountbatten for a surname. It is possible that, if he hadn't renounced his titles and rights, the House of Windsor could have become the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg once Charles became King but the Queen's decree would have overridden that - as the Head of the House of Windsor, she had that right.
"So, both the Queen and Prince Philip would have known the situation BEFORE they got married and it would not have caused any issues between them - or, at least, for no more than a short period of time (and, certainly not to the degree that this video suggests).
"So, this is just another example of "America Today Network" not checking their facts, so creating fake news."
Another interesting comment below the original YT video by Guðbjörg Gísladóttir:-
"His mother was Alice of Battenberg and his father was Andrew of Greece and Denmark... so no, Philips real name was never Battenberg, it was more Danish than Greek.
"Possible Rosenborg as many Danish princes who marry without consent of the Danish monarch lose their dynastic rights, including royal title... and are then usually accorded the hereditary title "Count of Rosenborg" (City of Roses or Rosetown)
"If those royals were to use their fathers names as "a surname" He would be Phillip (or Fillip) Andrewson (or Andrewsen) and Charles, Andrew and Edward would be Phillipson"
Guðbjörg Gísladóttir - small correction - although yes his father belonged to a royal family who were ruling Denmark and Greece until the last war, the family itself was German, as indeed most of the relatives of Queen Victoria were and descendents were, and they hadn't until then used either Danish or Greek name for the family; as commented above by Dan Fox,
"His father was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg so may have had that as a surname (though it could also have been Oldenburg as that was the original Royal House that Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was part of)"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhiD-E1QHw
And another video, titled
Elton John opens up on Princess Diana | 60 Minutes Australia,
Has thumbnail state "I've never forgiven them".
10:13
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fVfRGPsawcw
Re the expansion of girth in waistline of Edward VII from POW days to actual king position 37:00 - 39:07, he had nothing to do most of his life but wait for the crown! He chafed and wanted more of a role, but Queen Victoria was adamant in playing it by the book, all the more so since her gender made her susceptible to be perceived as weak and in need of a male to take over. This had him left with nothing to do but either live a family life like his dad or party, and in his case party it was - the four kings between Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II are evenly split in this, the Edwards party and are all Europe cosmopolitan ones, the Georges maintain a life of family, England and empire.
The video is fudging for convenience 45:00 - 47:30 about the war, the cousins around Europe and the change of name, apart from skipping over the ghastly business of rescinding the offer of refuge to Romanov family who were both first cousins, and their subsequent massacre. These were decisions made in view of the growing public dissatisfaction with England headed by a royal family that was German in origin and had close relationships with most of royalty strewn across Germany. Change of name occurred before the end of war, and the German cousins hadn't lost royalty till the end. Kaiser fled to ignominy due to losing war.
Fudging again 54:00 - 56:12, about Edward VIIIth, this time. It wasn't about his ability to keep mistresses or the lower classes imposing morality on the rich. His grandfather had a steady mistress lifelong, and he himself with the younger brother did have affairs and mistresses. The younger brother gave up when he married and became domestic. So it wasn't about this being a century too late, far from it. The real tough contention wasn't about him playing around but rather that he was adamant he would marry the woman no one approved of for a bunch of reasons, and he wasn't going to keep her hidden either but have her as his Queen by his side, publicly. This is where both sides drew lines, and he preferred abdication.
This video, after all, is a sideways thrust to get people to sympathise with a possible king Charles and his new consort as Queen, by invoking Edward VIII and in particular the last sentence by the narrator 56:00 - 57:47 where she links it to Queen Charlotte and Queen Victoria, portraying the three as humans who needed love!
Fact remains however, that people might not forget that Princess of Wales was forced to endure a husband who had never loved her and married someone 11 years his junior only to cheat on her from night before wedding on through the marriage, and she was not only thrown out of the family and denied royal title despite being the future Queen Mother, but was killed in a very suspicious accident blamed on paparazzi who were nowhere around at the time of the accident. This ought not be rewarded.
Responding to a comment below the original YT video by Liz Arnott :-
"If Charlotte’s child had survived, there would’ve been no Kaiser Wilhelm."
There's no reason to suppose that Charlotte couldn't have had a daughter, that the daughter couldn't possibly be married to the son of Kaiser who would inherit the throne, and there couldn't possibly be a son, or that his name wouldn't be Wilhelm. All in all, the difference could only be little, since Victoria's children would be as much first cousins of those of Charlotte as the other network of royal relationships across Europe. Charlotte's German Kaiser grandson might or might not have been much more of the same, or worse.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=90V0n2CFqFw
An interesting video about the current royals, re changes in last names, is titled
"Queen Left In Tears Over Prince Phillip's 'BRUTAL' Demand To Take His Name | SHOCKING NEW BIOGRAPHY"
Funny, he himself used his mum's maiden name - Mountbatten, or its original Battenberg, isn't his father's last name, it was the married name of his mother Princess Alice's mother Princess Victoria, mother of Louis Mountbatten, and of her mother Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria; Princess Victoria had married her Battenberg cousin. So he wants his female ancestors' last name to continue, but not as far back as Queen Victoria, only as far back as the three women between him and her! As silly as it gets, this guy!
A comment, worth quoting, below the original YT video by Dan Fox:-
"Agreed
"Yes, Prince Philip did say that he felt like "a bloody amoeba being the only man in Britain not allowed to give his kids his surname".
"BUT, firstly, Mountbatten wasn't his actual surname - it was his mother's family name (or, at least, her Royal Family's "territorial" name - she was Princess Alice of Battenburg - which was Anglicised to Mountbatten - which was part of the House of Hesse). His father was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg so may have had that as a surname (though it could also have been Oldenburg as that was the original Royal House that Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was part of). It is quite likely that Philip's uncle - Earl Mountbatten of Burma (born Prince Louis of Battenburg) - was instrumental in pushing for a name change to House of Mountbatten as he was rather ambitious. Also, by taking Mountbatten as a surname, Philip would have been denying his father's "right" to have his male-line grandchildren take his surname - making Philip rather hypocritical.
Secondly, Philip renounced ALL of his titles and succession rights to the Danish and Greek thrones (he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark so was in line to these thrones). This meant that he was no longer a "dynast" so he could not start a Royal House nor continue an existing one using his name (compare this to Prince Albert - when he married Queen Victoria, their children became part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and this became the House name of the British Royal Family when Queen Victoria - who was a member of the House of Hanover - died). Thus, he could not start a "House of Mountbatten" as he was no longer Royal. As it turned out, he didn't need to renounce his titles - he just believed that he did in order to become a British Citizen, but he already was by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 (which stated that all of Sophia's legitimate descendants were British Citizens). That act was repealed in 1948 but that was AFTER he married the then Princess Elizabeth. Also note that he wasn't a Prince again until 1957 and this was well after the births of Charles and Anne, so they got their HRH's etc from their mother not their father.
"The Queen decreed, on 8 February 1960, that those members of her family that had HRH were members of The House of Windsor and would use Windsor as a surname if needed. All non-HRH family members could use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname. Most have actually used their territorial designation as a surname (eg, Prince William used "Wales" whilst on active service and before he received his Dukedom) though Prince Andrew and Princess Anne did use Mountbatten-Windsor when signing the marriage register. So, Philip is being represented in that respect but none of his descendants have used just Mountbatten for a surname. It is possible that, if he hadn't renounced his titles and rights, the House of Windsor could have become the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg once Charles became King but the Queen's decree would have overridden that - as the Head of the House of Windsor, she had that right.
"So, both the Queen and Prince Philip would have known the situation BEFORE they got married and it would not have caused any issues between them - or, at least, for no more than a short period of time (and, certainly not to the degree that this video suggests).
"So, this is just another example of "America Today Network" not checking their facts, so creating fake news."
Another interesting comment below the original YT video by Guðbjörg Gísladóttir:-
"His mother was Alice of Battenberg and his father was Andrew of Greece and Denmark... so no, Philips real name was never Battenberg, it was more Danish than Greek.
"Possible Rosenborg as many Danish princes who marry without consent of the Danish monarch lose their dynastic rights, including royal title... and are then usually accorded the hereditary title "Count of Rosenborg" (City of Roses or Rosetown)
"If those royals were to use their fathers names as "a surname" He would be Phillip (or Fillip) Andrewson (or Andrewsen) and Charles, Andrew and Edward would be Phillipson"
Guðbjörg Gísladóttir - small correction - although yes his father belonged to a royal family who were ruling Denmark and Greece until the last war, the family itself was German, as indeed most of the relatives of Queen Victoria were and descendents were, and they hadn't until then used either Danish or Greek name for the family; as commented above by Dan Fox,
"His father was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg so may have had that as a surname (though it could also have been Oldenburg as that was the original Royal House that Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was part of)"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhiD-E1QHw
And another video, titled
Elton John opens up on Princess Diana | 60 Minutes Australia,
Has thumbnail state "I've never forgiven them".
10:13
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fVfRGPsawcw
