Run The World, Girls.

So, another technically member of the royal family who has a Twitter is Mike Tindall. Of course, that is completely unimportant, because Mike Tindall now also has a daughter.

That's right. If you haven't read already, Zara Phillips had a baby girl on Friday. So far, there is no word from the Palace on her name, but she's sixteenth in line to the throne and so she's a royal baby too. Though, and I hate to say this because all royal babies are wonderful, not half as important a one as Prince George. 

Even though they are never going to read this, my congratulations to Zara and Mike. I wish nothing but well for them and their baby daughter. Also, I wish that the entire family shows up for some royal event so we can have pictures.

When I first read the news, my train of thought went something like this: “One more royal baby? Cool! Oh, it’s a girl. Good thing I don’t bet money on these things, because otherwise I would have lost money. This is the Queen’s FOURTH great-grandchild. Her Majesty’s getting quite old. Third great-granddaughter, though. There’ve a lot of girls being born into this family. Princess Madeleine’s going to have a girl too. Lot of girls being born into a lot of royal families. Maybe they’ll call her Margaret. If I tweet about the possibility of them calling her Margaret, will Mike Tindall read it? Does Mike Tindall read posts tagged #royalbaby?” and so on and so forth.

A mostly pointless stream of thoughts, but one stayed in my mind particularly. There are a lot of girls being born into royal families. And now, with these new laws allowing succession of the first born child of the Monarch, irrespective of their gender, they can someday be Queen, no matter how many younger brothers they have. And that got me thinking; is it possible that a society that has been predominantly controlled by men for all these years could someday be ruled over by women? 

Politics are of no interest to me, so when I say 'ruled over by', I'm talking about the heads of the seven major monarchies in Europe - Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

Of the current group of rulers, the ones that existed pre-abdications, three are Queens. Two of them, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Margrethe, ascended the throne at a fairly young age, due to the unexpected circumstances their fathers' untimely death without any male heirs. Queen Beatrix, however, ascended the throne after her mother abdicated in her favour, and her grandmother had been Queen before that, so the Netherlands are no stranger to a Queen's rule. But, despite a surprisingly modern ratio of kings is to queens, the scale still tips in the favour of the men.

The next generation isn't any better. Worse, in fact. No one, apart from Crown Princess Victoria, is a woman, and most of them are going to rule because they are the elder sibling and not because the laws are biased.

It is the generation after that, the generation that consists of the grandchildren of the present monarchs (except Queen Elizabeth, whose great-grandchild is the one I'm considering, because she is OLD), who range between the ages of 1/2 and 12, that, for the first time in history, there will be more Queens of European nations than there will be Kings. Just look at the list.

FUTURE KINGS

Prince Christian of Denmark, second in line to the throne. 

The most featured baby on my blog. You should know his name and his position in the hierarchy by now.

And that's all. Two. Out of seven. Hopelessly outnumbered. On the other hand, 

FUTURE QUEENS

Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, first in line to the throne.

Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, first in line to the throne.

Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway, second in line to the throne.

Infanta Leonor of Spain, second in line to the throne.

Princess Estelle of Sweden, second in line to the throne.

That's just fantastic, isn't it? And, the best thing is, I'm not so much older than them that I won't be around to see this happen. I will! 

Oh, I can't wait. Only fifty years to go.

~

I'm doing a thing called the 100 Book Challenge on Twitter, where I try and read a hundred books in the year and chart my progress through tweets. So far, I've read one, but you can see how I'm coming along by following me @JustAsSaneAsMe. Also, participate in the challenge yourself. It's fun!

N

#HappyBirthdayKate

It's the Duchess of Cambridge's birthday. She's 32 today. Wish her on Twitter!

No, you can't, she doesn't have a Twitter.

Which brings me to my main subject - royalty on Twitter.
(If you were expecting something more to do with the actual event of Kate turning 32, there will be a post on Royal Central and an article in the Daily Mail which will list 32 facts about the Duchess, more than half of which I will already know. But I'll put links at the bottom of the post for those who want to know more, anyway.)

None of the higher up royals are on Twitter. The Queen obviously isn't, and not just because she's getting on in age, and, if my grandparents are anything to go by, probably doesn't know how to use anything more newfangled than Google. No, she doesn't use it because she's the Queen. She has a certain image to maintain, and it would most certainly be defiled if she sank as low as Twitter, where she would have to be on an equal platform with the likes of Justin Beiber - even more so if she didn't manage to gather as many followers as him.

Prince Charles doesn't have a Twitter either, but Clarence House does. Clarence House is the official residence of the Prince of Wales, and usually they are the first to convey important royal news on the Internet. Like when Prince George was born, or when it was decided that the excitement about Prince George was going down and it was time to christen him to liven things up a little bit.

This is what Clarence House looks like. You can follow them at @ClarenceHouse.

Neither of Princes William and Harry have a recognised Twitter. That doesn't strike me odd - after all, they are a part of The Firm - but they're both still young, and Prince William has an iPhone. What does he do on it if he isn't tweeting?
Last year, it was revealed that Prince Harry did have a Facebook account, which was taken down following the debacle with the pictures in Las Vegas, and a little before that, he said in an interview that he reads almost all the articles written about him even though his father has told him not to. Which is why I wouldn't put it past Harry to have a Twitter too. It's probably called something inconspicuous, though, like Steve or Jim, so if you see someone on Twitter who looks to ordinary to be true, it's probably Prince Harry. Follow that person. (Don't really.)

However, the next in line to the throne (I'm excluding Prince George from this altogether. I don't think he knows how to speak, let alone tweet), the Duke of York, does have a Twitter.

If you're wondering why I've stuck a picture of Prince Andrew in the middle of the post is because he is a relatively obscure royal and not many people even know who he is. For those people, that is the Duke of York. His Twitter is @TheDukeOfYork, but he isn't the only one who uses it. In fact, he hardly uses it at all, just occasionally. His tweets are signed 'AY', for Andrew York.

Another, well, ex-royal with a Twitter, is Andrew's ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. Her Twitter seems like she actually uses it, which is fitting because she's always struck me as the most different and modern, I suppose, of the otherwise extremely rigid royal family. The Duchess was very interested in Queen Victoria before she got married (and after - she was a producer for the movie, The Young Victoria), so it must have been a dream for her to marry Victoria's great-great-great-grandson. Well, into the family, anyway. Even though she got divorced from Andrew, she never married again, which is why she was allowed to retain the title of Duchess of York. She's very close to her daughters, and sometimes she wears crazy clothes, like she is a 25 year old, not the mother of one. Despite leaving The Firm she's continued to do charity work and one time she did an interview with Cheryl Cole, and it was hilarious. Twitter: @SarahTheDuchess

None of the royals lower than Prince Andrew have a Twitter of which I know, but there is an account for the British Monarchy (@BritishMonarchy) which isn't maintained by any of the members of the family, but is an official account and does post relevant and accurate royal information, so if that's what you want you can follow them.

Good people to follow if you're looking for concise and almost instant information about the British Royal Family are royal correspondents. These are the people who write for newspapers and websites or appear on the news channels to talk about royalty. If you follow too many of them, like I have, and something big happens, like Prince William goes back to school, it does get a little bit repetitive, and a lot of the times it's just one correspondent retweeting another, so choose wisely.

My personal favourites are Dickie and Victoria Arbiter. They're father and daughter - he was a press spokesman for Her Majesty and she is a royal contributor for CNN. Both of them are great fun, especially if you have a fair bit of knowledge about the members and the working of the royal family. You can follow them at @RoyalDickie and @victoriaarbiter.

Also, you should follow Royal Central, because I write for them, and I'm not above blatant promotion of websites which I write for (A link to this post will go onto my Facebook page five minutes after it is published).

Duchess of Cambridge turns 32: Royal Central's article.

N

Good Luck With 2014.

It's the last day of 2013, and what a year it's been. There have been ups and downs and a lot more ups, and not just for the royals but for me too. Of course, no one cares about my life, so I'm just going to skip that altogether.
At the end of last year, I wrote about the year that had gone by. Write might not be the most appropriate word, though. I just stuck in a lot of pictures. Anyway, this year, instead of focusing on the past, I'm choosing to focus on the future. Mainly on what the future holds for the British Royal Family.

At the beginning of this year, there were a couple of major milestones and things to look forward to as far the BRF went. The 60th anniversary of the Queen's coronation was approaching and the Duchess of Cambridge was pregnant with the heir to the throne, who would have ruled irrespective of gender. Nothing that big is expected to happen next year, not unless you count Prince George's first birthday as an important milestone. Except, there is someone who can be quite unpredictable.

Prince Harry. As he approaches his 30th birthday, he must be starting to realise that he can't stay unmarried forever.

I really want Prince Harry to get married. I'm not the kind of girl who hankers after royalty, wishing that they were closer to her age but reasoning that an age gap of more than ten years isn't all that much (Lies). I do want to see another royal wedding in England, and I think I'll enjoy it more now that I know who Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are and understand why they would wear such ridiculous fascinators.
I don't want Prince Harry to get married to Cressida Bonas. I don't remember what I said I thought of her the last time that I wrote a post about her, but I don't like Cressida Bonas. It could just be a thing with Prince Harry's girlfriends, because I didn't like Chelsy Davy at first either, but I'm starting to miss her now that Cressida Bonas might become the new royal wife.

Here are Prince Harry and girlfriend leaving a theater in London

That being said, whatever Prince Harry does is fine with me. If he does get married, I get to watch a wedding, and if he doesn't get married, I get to heave a sigh of relief and continue to hope that something breaks the happy couple apart.

Perhaps the most important thing, according to me, that is happening next year is the Cambridges' tour to Australia and New Zealand in April. I love when royals go on tour, because that means that for the few weeks that they are in a foreign country, they make public appearances every single day. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have previously visited North America and South-East Asia, but what makes their visit Down Under so special is that this time they're taking Prince George.

No, that isn't the Cambridges and Prince George. That's the Wales's and Prince William.

There's a lot of excitement about the fact that Prince George is accompanying them. For seasoned royal watchers, the excitement is all because Prince William was about the same age - nine months - when his parents took him on his first foreign visit, also to Australia. I'm excited because it doesn't seem like there are going to be a lot of opportunities for pictures of Prince George leading up to the visit, but once in Australia, I'll be surprised if he doesn't come out in public at least twice. And public appearances mean pictures. I can't wait.

[I've written a post about a section of the itinerary for the visit on Royal Central, so you can click on this sentence to read that. Additionally, there is a link at the bottom which leads to a more comprehensive itinerary.]

Also, in the next few months, TWO babies will be born into the ever growing royal families worldwide.

The first is the son/daughter of Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall. This will be the first child for Zara and Mike, the third grandchild for Princess Anne (who is already grandmother to Peter Phillips' daughters Savannah and Isla) and the fourth great-grandchild for Queen Elizabeth (who, besides the two children of Peter Phillips mentioned above, is great-grandmother to Prince George). He/she will be 16th in line to the throne, behind his/her mother and ahead of David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. There is no word from the Palace yet on the gender of the child, but I am betting that it will be a boy and that they will call him Augustus.
The second is the daughter of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Chris O'Neill. Again, the first child for the couple, but second grandchild for the King and Queen, who are already grandparents to Crown Princess Victoria's daughter Estelle.

It is unlikely that either of these children will be given titles upon their birth. Unlike their older cousins, George and Estelle, they will have hardly any claim to the throne, and will lead as normal lives as possible, only mingling with higher-up royalty at weddings and Christmas and that sort of thing. However, despite their lack of proximity to the Crown, Zara and Princess Madeleine are two of my favourite royals, coming second and third, respectively, only to Kate. And it's no secret how much I love Prince George, so I'm certain I'll love their children too. Well, I'll blog about them when they're born, anyway.

That's all with the royal events. There is just one more thing.

In the extremely near future - tomorrow - season 3 of Sherlock airs in the UK. Fangirls on Tumblr are going completely nuts, and understandably so. It's been a two year long hiatus for them. I get restless when Order of Splendor goes on holiday for a week.
The major focus of watchers' interest this season [SPOILERS] is finding out how Sherlock survived a fall off the rooftop. They've been racking their brains for an explanation for months and months, but I honestly don't think it's that important. If there was a question as to whether he was dead or not, their eagerness for answers would be justified, but now that it is very obvious that he is alive, I'm looking forward more to seeing John reacting to Sherlock explaining how he faked his death than to actually listening to Sherlock explain how he faked his death and seeing how much of it tallies with my theory. That being said, I do not have a theory about how Sherlock faked his death.

Something that I don't understand is the disparity between the air dates in different countries. England, obviously, gets to see it first, but then it is a full two and a half weeks before it airs in America, on the 19th, by which time the English will already have seen the final episode. I highly doubt that season 3 is going to end with anything other than a cliffhanger, probably Sherlock announcing his decision to retire from active detective work, and that means that there will be a four day period during which fans on one side of the Atlantic will be pondering this new plot twist, and fans on the other side of the Atlantic will still be trying to figure out how Sherlock didn't die when he jumped off the roof at the end of season 2.

I think it's a little bit odd, but I'm not going to question the folks down at BBC.

~

So, that's all for the year. Hopefully, all of you will keep coming back on Sundays to read the nonsense that I write. Do watch season 3 of Sherlock (unless you haven't seen seasons 1 and 2, in which case watch seasons 1 and 2 first), pray that Prince Harry doesn't get married, and if you live in Australia, go out to see the Cambridges in April. God save the Queen.

Good luck with 2014.

N

Happy Holidays.

I personally don't celebrate Christmas, but it doesn't bother me if someone wishes me a merry Christmas. However, it may bother a few people, and I don't want to be caught with my foot in my mouth (Ha!). So happy whatever it is that you celebrate, dear readers, and because it won't hurt you to do so, please refresh this page after you've finished reading, and read it again. I'm only two hundred views away from five thousand, and I want to reach that milestone before the new year.

You don't actually have to read it again, though.

Here is the Prince of Wales' Christmas card for 2013.

The picture was taken at Ascot in June this year. Why they chose to feature Camilla's granddaughter on their card from 2011, but not the FUTURE KING on this one I will never understand.

The final post for the year will be on Tuesday, the 31st, and in it I will talk about the royals at Sandringham, and discuss the Cambridges' upcoming tour to Australia and New Zealand and other things that I am looking forward to in 2014.

N  

UPDATE:  It's the Queen's Christmas broadcast!

The actual message is fairly boring - all about reflection and contemplation - but it is interspersed with behind the scenes videos from Prince George's christening. That was a lot of fun to watch, especially the moments when Kate actually seemed more like a mother and less like someone whose job is to have nice hair. 

Come back tomorrow.

Best. Week. Ever.

Nelson Mandela died on Thursday, which was a bit of a downer, but otherwise I've had the most marvelous week.

First things first, this:

The Duchess of Cambridge wore a tiara! Oh, happy days!

As someone who loves the Duchess and loves a good tiara, this is the perfect combination. The last time I saw Kate in a tiara was at her wedding, but I was such a novice at royal watching at the time, that I couldn't identify the tiara, and it didn't seem that special to me that she'd worn one. After all, princesses wear tiaras all the time.

Well, not this Princess (Do not ever refer to Catherine as a Princess. She is not a Princess. She is only a Duchess). There has been nary a tiara on her head since that glorious April day two years ago. Which is what makes this tiara appearance so special. It's the first one she's made in a couple of years and it may well be the last one she makes for another couple of years.

Details about the tiara are available on Order of Splendor (Link). If you aren't interested in reading all of that, I shall condense it into one sentence for you. Here: That is the Lotus Flower Tiara, it used to belong to the Queen Mum, and then to Princess Margaret, it is a very pretty looking trinket, and it shines.

Coming to what this post is really about, tiara wearing duchesses aside:

I saw the Catching Fire movie!

I don't know if anyone remembers, but watching the Catching Fire movie was the last on my list of things that I was looking forward to in 2013, and also the only non-royal thing, so obviously quite important to me. Unfortunately, due to scheduling conflicts, the movie only released in my city this Friday, instead of the intended two weeks ago, so I was subjected to two weeks of people on Tumblr fangirling without actually being able to join in. Until now.

Because it's been available to watch for so long, there are a vast number of better written reviews and opinions about Catching Fire floating about on the Internet, so whatever I write is too little, too late. But read through it because a view will be added to my tally whether or not you do. Don't let me get views for nothing.

Warning, spoilers.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. AMAZING. Really, REALLY good. A great adaptation, and so much better than the first one. There were shivers running down my spine as I watched it.

Disappointments? Finnick Odair. Well, Sam Claflin as Finnick. I had rather hoped that because they had cast an Englishman as Finnick, he would have a British accent, but he did not. Other than that, Sam Claflin was fine. And I particularly like Lynn Cohen as Mags.
Another disappointment was their failure to mention Haymitch's Games, the Second Quarter Quell. I understand that it would have been difficult for the people making the movie to construct a set for that specific arena, and get 48 children and go to all that trouble just for maybe five minutes of screen time, but I feel that it's important to give the viewers a bit of insight into what Haymitch was like, why he ended up like he did. Haymitch is a pretty important character, right till the end, and it'll be a shame if the people who only watch the movies don't know him at all.

Also, the kiss. The one on the beach at night, which is when Katniss really begins to feel something for Peeta, when she realises that she would be most affected by his death. Much like the first movie, where the multiple kisses from the book were reduced to a single, unmemorable one, this specific kiss is quite a blink-and-you-miss-it moment. As a matter of fact, at the precise point in time that Katniss and Peeta were kissing, I had something in my eye and was blinking like a mad person. Fortunately enough, there is a plethora of .gifs of that very scene that I was able to stare at unblinkingly when I got home. And there were a lot of other kisses throughout the movie, which I saw quite clearly.

Un-disappointments? Everything else. This was probably the best book to movie adaptation that I have ever seen, and one of my favourite movies of all time. Francis Lawrence was an awesome director and whoever wrote the script (Google it) really stuck to the original story. But it was the ending that was especially spectacular. I know how it ends, I know how the entire series ends, and yet I found myself holding my breath. The movie lasted two and a half hours. It felt like minutes. And, most important of all, the screen didn't shake everytime there was running! It's a miracle what a good camera stabiliser can do for a movie.
If you need further testimony of how good it was, know this: as far as the books go, I preferred The Hunger Games to Catching Fire. Having seen this movie, however, I am now seriously reconsidering.

As for the cast, Jena Malone as Johanna Mason was magnificent. As was Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee. And, of course, Elizabeth Banks. I've always liked Effie. I feel like I should also give a special mention to Josh Hutcherson, because he did an incredible job portraying Peeta Mellark, especially Peeta's love for Katniss. The real test of his acting, though, will be Mockingjay, in which he plays a deranged Peeta Mellark.

And Jennifer Lawrence. I'm not even going to get started on Jennifer Lawrence. Jennifer Lawrence is the best thing about the entire movie franchise. Jennifer Lawrence is well worth whatever obscene amount of money she gets paid. God bless Jennifer Lawrence.

Almost the minute I got home, I went onto Tumblr. Most of the fangirls there have seen the movie, three, maybe four times already. And there were a lot of posts about what they noticed in each of these viewings; how the movie deviated from the book in the first instance, the portrayal of the characters in the second instance, small details that they'd overlooked the first two times in the third instance.

But I got Effie's reference to Mahogany, a subtle hint at her most famous dialogue from the first movie. I heard Katniss say that she loves Peeta, right at the end on the hovercraft. I saw Annie Cresta off on one side when Mags volunteered. For some reason, I always knew exactly where to look, and looked just there. I didn't miss a single thing. And I am so proud of myself.

An interesting thing that I read on that website was that the end of Catching Fire, at the moment when Katniss and Johanna walk away from the lightning tree, is the last time we see Peeta as his completely normal self. I didn't realise that when I read about it, because obviously I didn't know what happened next. If you've read the books, you know that he gets captured by the Capitol and tortured until he starts to hate Katniss. If you haven't read the books, I already warned you about spoilers, so you can't hold that against me.

But that post really got me to thinking. Peeta never really was the same after that. Sure, he and Katniss got married (Did they, though?) and had children together, but I don't think he ever really loved her as much as he did the first time. And that's a shame, because he loved her truly. And because I ship them.

N

A Multitude Of Royal Happenings

It's December! That means Christmas at Sandringham and New Year celebrations and a whole lot of other exciting royal events that I get to spend my days watching instead of actually celebrating things with other people. Fun!

Not that much happens in November, but I missed the entire month of royal coverage thanks to a certain baby's Christening, so I'm going to write about it all in this one post. Now would be a good time to close the window and find something better to do with your time.

On the 14th of November, Prince Charles turned 65, officially making him the oldest heir to the British throne ever. He's also been waiting to be King for the longest time, because the only British monarch who's ruled for longer than Queen Elizabeth is Queen Victoria, but her successor, King Edward VII, wasn't born until she had been Queen for three years.

Prince Charles celebrated this milestone in Kerala, were he and the Duchess of Cornwall were visiting at the time. Where he should have gone, however, is Kenya. For one, he would not have been out of place had he started singing about waiting to become King. Secondly, his wait might have ended. Queen Elizabeth (Well, Princess Elizabeth) was in Kenya when she heard about her father's death. The same could have happened with Charles.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon your views about the monarchy, Queen Elizabeth is still alive and well. In fact, she visited Southwark with the Duke of Edinburgh last week (read all about it), and also celebrated her 66th wedding anniversary quite recently. Sixty six years. The Queen has been married for longer than her father was alive.

Earlier this week, Prince William hosted a charity event at Kensington Palace to raise money for his charity, Centrepoint. There were performances by Jon Bon Jovi, and Taylor Swift and at some point in the night, Prince William decided to get up on the stage and join in the singing. And this happened.

'Prince William sings with Taylor Swift and Jon Bon Jovi', as the video is titled. Or 'Taylor Swift high-fives the second in line to the British throne, and everybody loses their minds'. Kate and George were nowhere to be seen.

Moving away from the United Kingdom, the Danish Royal Family had a portrait made of them. And it looks like hell. Literally.

See, this is the family on a regular day:

For those of you unfamiliar with the Danish Royal Family.
Top (from left to right): Prince Vincent, Crown Prince Frederik, Princess Josephine, Crown Princess Mary, Prince Joachim, Princess Athena
Bottom: Prince Henrik, Princess Isabella, Prince Christian, Queen Margrethe, Princess Marie, Prince Henrik, Prince Nikolai, Prince Felix

And this is the portrait.

It was painted by Thomas Kluge, and for some reason he was actually paid for doing it. If you look closely, you'll notice that only the Queen and her two direct heirs, the Crown Prince and Prince Christian, are breaking the fourth wall and staring directly into the soul of the viewer. I read somewhere about the significance of this, but I've forgotten. 

I also read that it took the artist four years to paint, which would explain why Christian and Isabella look so much younger than they do now. However, none of Prince Vincent, and Princesses Josephine and Athena were born four years ago, so that must have required the painting to constantly be changed.

And what are Felix and Nikolai playing with in the corner? Is that blood? Going by the theme of the painting, I wouldn't be surprised. 

Comparisons, of course, were made between this and that creepy portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge. Creepy as it may be, at least the painting of the Duchess didn't have a eight year old who was made to look capable of cold-blooded murder. 

 

N