[ SECRET POST #2544 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2544 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Kim Richards, Real Housewives of Beverly Hills]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Saints Row IV]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Magnificent 7]


__________________________________________________












[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]













06. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Sons of Anarchy]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Person of Interest]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for I have no idea. Doctor Who?]



__________________________________________________



10. [SPOILERS for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.]




__________________________________________________


11. [SPOILERS for Frozen]



__________________________________________________













[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]














12. [SPOILERS for Reign]
[WARNING for dead people?]



13. [WARNING for rape]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - ships it ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't they have laws in UK to prevent stuff like that from happening if the current sovereign was a woman? So as to avoid that some stranger starts effectively ruling the country? Like how Elisabeth II's husband isn't King of UK but Prince consort. She would probably still be fucked over by a dude, but probably not her husband.

[crunchysunrises]

They have those rules now but they didn't have them then.

[(Anonymous)]

Just a few years earlier her sister Queen Mary made her husband King. No one in the UK accepted him, but he had been named king. if you look in Spanish pages they talk about Queen Mary and King Phillip of England.

[crunchysunrises]

She married him but, by the terms of the marriage contracts, he had to specifically give up his rights to her titles and properties because, by law, they were his upon marriage.

Here's a summary from the Queen Mary I page of Wikipedia:

Mary was—excluding the brief, disputed reigns of Jane Grey and Empress Matilda—England's first queen regnant. Further, under the English common law doctrine of jure uxoris, the property and titles belonging to a woman became her husband's upon marriage, and it was feared that any man she married would thereby become King of England in fact and in name.[89] While Mary's grandparents, Ferdinand and Isabella, had retained sovereignty of their own realms during their marriage, there was no precedent to follow in England.[90] Under the terms of Queen Mary's Marriage Act, Philip was to be styled "King of England", all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple, for Mary's lifetime only. England would not be obliged to provide military support to Philip's father in any war, and Philip could not act without his wife's consent or appoint foreigners to office in England.[91] Philip was unhappy at the conditions imposed, but he was ready to agree for the sake of securing the marriage.[92] He had no amorous feelings toward Mary and sought the marriage for its political and strategic gains; Philip's aide Ruy Gómez de Silva wrote to a correspondent in Brussels, "the marriage was concluded for no fleshly consideration, but in order to remedy the disorders of this kingdom and to preserve the Low Countries."[93]

TL;DR --> No, the law that the queen remains the queen and her hubby is a consort/prince/whatever she appoints him wasn't in effect in the mid-1500s in England. Special provisions had to be made for King Phillip.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

That was Victoria. Elizabeth I's position came with a ton of strings and political traps. She shared a fair bit of power with Parliament and her Privy Council, who had the effective power to approve or disapprove of any marriage. She was also legally a bastard. A politically well-connected husband might be tempted by the possibility of a Regency (only a child and a shove down the stairs away). More likely, an unpopular marriage might have triggered a armed revolt (as it did for Mary I), cost her in Parliament, or delivered sympathy for Mary, Queen of Scots during that period.

[(Anonymous)]

A politically well-connected husband might be tempted by the possibility of a Regency (only a child and a shove down the stairs away). More likely, an unpopular marriage might have triggered a armed revolt (as it did for Mary I), cost her in Parliament, or delivered sympathy for Mary, Queen of Scots during that period.

Good thing none of that happened. I'll just leave this here:

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/elizabeth-golden-speech

(I am not a monarchist, but the actual Elizabeth I was pretty awesome.)

[(Anonymous)]

Elizabeth II could have named Prince Phillip as the King, but she chose not to. I have this impression he had no problem with it. The point is, it's isn't some state law that made him Prince Consort, but Elizabeth's choice of what title to bestow on him.

But that's current royalty. Back in the 1600s it could have been different, and Elizabeth the first was not going to just hand over the power she went through shit to gain to a man who might decide it's better to drag an increasingly Protestant country back to the Catholic church.

But I do agree that the Doctor could have been a totally guilt-free choice. Someone who wasn't interested in political power he could gain through her.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

From what I just read on this issue, her grandmother and Churchill pushed through an act that limited his titles. Elizabeth II pushed her own act after they both were dead adopting a hyphenated name. I think the Abdication Crisis demonstrated that the Royal Family needs Parliament more than Parliament needs a Royal Family.

Which is to say that I don't think she could have named a foreign cousin without any real inheritance and Nazi in-laws King in post-war England.

[crunchysunrises]

*snofles* Phillip's not the only one who's got embarrassing relatives to hide.

There are some pretty damning photos of her abdicated uncle and his new wife being super chummy with Hitler and the Third Reich in general. In fact, they had to be ordered home by his younger brother, the King, and were subsequently shipped off for the duration of the war to shut them up about what a delightful man that Hitler chap was.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Hey, a lot of people in the late 1920s and early '30s were taken in by the Nazis before (and even some after) the Nazi Enabling Act. They made the trains run on time, donchaknow.

The Americans certainly weren't any better; most of the US was all in favour of the Eugenics policies against "the weak and feeble-minded" -- even after the Nazis started the whole Aryan master race garbage.....

[crunchysunrises]

I would never impugn the honor of German trains or their punctuality. And the autobahn is a thing of wonder. ^_^

But I at no point even implied that the Americans' policies were better during that time period. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding eugenics (the majority opinions were wildly in favor of it) are pretty hair-raising. And I'm fairly certain that the states are waiting for the victims of their eugenics policies to die rather than acknowledging what happened and making reparations as best they can.

None of that, however, negates the fact that the current Queen's aunt and uncle were rather clueless or that they greatly enjoyed their Nazi holiday with Hitler. The world has the photos (and several unguarded remarks/bits of correspondence) to prove it, after all.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Oh, definitely, I think the disowned relatives in question were either the most naive people on the face of the planet (this would be my choice, as it helps me sleep at night) or the most evil. Also a possibility, but that would cover a large amount of people.

I think my point was, before Hitler started actually, being Hitler-like (lol), a surprising amount of the world was taken in by him. Kind of like the conservative right-wing politicians in our own time. I mean, what?

For the 20th century American who wins the most like Hitler prize, hands down, my vote is for Margaret Sanger. But was she evil? Meh. I don't know. Something I ponder, sometimes.

Also? For the record, there are victims of Canadian eugenics programs, who were sterilized in the 1970s.

[(Anonymous)]

The Queen and Prince Phillip are first cousins. They have the same Nazi relatives.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 for actual grasp of English history

[(Anonymous)]

DA

First cousins? Are you sure? I mean, yeah, yeah, House of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha, etc. etc., let's change our name b/c we're fighting our own not-so-distant relations here, and we're kind of Germans ourselves, and it mightn't look so good for us if we don't, but I thought Bess and Phillip were second cousins, or just a tad more distantly related?

Victoria and Albert were first cousins, IIRC. Which. Y'know. Given how much she fawned over him. Is kinda creepy. I wasn't aware the current Commonwealth royals were similar....