Actually, I looked it up on a couple sites before I posted, because I knew there'd be comments!
One of them said it was undefined. I'd been thinking maybe an irrational number. (That was rattling around in my mental attic.) But I think I was taught in school that would be undefined. Along with things like 0/0, because a number over itself is 1, and 0 can't be 1. Something I found annoying, IIRC.
I'm getting ready for sleep. I'll look up the link later and post it.
Blame the young dead woman. Is that the game? Silly wee girlie? Well, f*** that noise.
Looked like the royal family wanted someone "acceptable", who they could control and train. Then she grew up and had her own ideas, which they could not tolerate. She was disposable. Keeping with the stilted way Netflix has them talk, they were "beastly" to her. I don't blame her.
No 'game', so far as I'm concerned. Just because she was, as others have said, sympathetic and kind, doesn't mean she wasn't a fool in agreeing to such a marriage under such conditions. That's not blame, it's just a fact. And a fact that played well into the hands of the plotters and planners.
The blame - if it's necessary to place blame - lies with those who had power and knowledge and therefore shaped the situation according to selfish needs. Also, what a shame her family and friends didn't counsel her as perhaps they should have. Did none of the Earl of Spencer's relations, acquaintances and legal team have any idea what was 'really' going on, in the appropriation of a young girl's life for royal purposes? Or was her entire family and circle of friends 'naive' and ignorant, too?
I think she was foolish in believing that after a handful of chaste meetings with Charles, she could possibly have had a realistic idea of whether or not she should be spending the rest of her married life with the guy. I feel sorry for her; that those closest to her didn't - apparently - advise her wisely, that she wasn't smart enough to figure it out for herself, that - apparently - she really thought this was some sort of love-story going on. I feel sorry that, in general, the only way the Palace's machinations could've had a happy ending, was either that their 'victim' was as foolish as Diana was, or alternatively as ambitious as some others believed her to be. So in saying she was a fool, in this, I reckon that's the kindest interpretation. Otherwise, one is saying she was well aware what she was doing, it didn't work out, and she should've just accepted it.
It's only my opinion that her later behaviour, while understandable, detracted from the undoubted status of victim she initially fairly occupied. But what other options she had, is unknown!
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Hilary Mantel has set a very high and disciplined standard for historical fiction. “The Crown” isn’t in the same street. It’s all too clear that so much of the reimagining of characters and conversations has been done for dramatic effect.
Hilary Mantel has set a very high and disciplined standard for historical fiction.
Although if you ever want to troll a group of Reformation /Counter-Reformation historians or literary scholars you could do worse than casually mention Mantel's depiction of Thomas More.
Hilary Mantel has set a very high and disciplined standard for historical fiction.
Although if you ever want to troll a group of Reformation /Counter-Reformation historians or literary scholars you could do worse than casually mention Mantel's depiction of Thomas More.
Indeed. How many of us as familiar with the times of Henry VIII as we are with the times that we've lived through?
I think this may be one of the problems that The Crown is now facing. As it gets closer to the present day, more and more of us remember what actually happened and so consider ourselves qualified to comment on the quality of the drama before us.
And I think there's another problem. On the basis of the 3 episodes I've seen so far of series 4, The Crown doesn't seem to be presenting Margaret Thatcher as able to walk on water. There seem to be a number of newspapers who don't accept this agenda (n.b. English understatement). So they are busy rubbishing the entire series. And this is before getting on to whether the show is taking a pro-Diane line or otherwise.
None of this means that it is poor drama, or not telling us truths about (a) the events protrayed or (b) the human condition. But it does mean that it's having to sail more into the wind than previous series have.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Been down that road, Dafyd. She has a minority view of Sir Thomas More, but a tenable one.
@Gramps49 Errm ... not sure about that. The US seems to go overboard for those members of The Firm who are either incomers or and/or seem hell-bent on destroying the monarchy from within.
I find the subject of this thread most offensive - Mr Netflix should be ashamed of himself (whoever he is).
The Queen can do no wrong. She is The Perfect Monarch™, as we have been told on these boards. The ministers of her Church pray twice daily for her, and for her Family, and there is no reason to suppose that these heartfelt prayers are anything but efficacious.
I have long thought it odd that while the US has a constitutional ban against royalty, we seem to have the highest infatuation with the British Crown.
Not disimilar to the US approach to religion, then.
The US hardly has a constitutional ban against religion.
Indeed, the Constitution protects freedom of religion.
And most of us don't give a fuck about the British Crown.
The British Crown? No, probably not. The members of the Royal Family, though, fall squarely under the American Cult of Celebrity. I don’t know what People magazine would have done without them.
I have long thought it odd that while the US has a constitutional ban against royalty, we seem to have the highest infatuation with the British Crown.
Not disimilar to the US approach to religion, then.
The US hardly has a constitutional ban against religion.
Indeed, the Constitution protects freedom of religion.
And most of us don't give a fuck about the British Crown.
The British Crown? No, probably not. The members of the Royal Family, though, fall squarely under the American Cult of Celebrity. I don’t know what People magazine would have done without them.
Probably just print more about Hollywoob celebrities, I imagine.
We like royals, the pomp and circumstance, etc. But we don't want to be *ruled* by them.
A lot of it is basically playing Pretend, albeit mostly in the mind. For women, it also includes the princess meme I mentioned upthread. And that runs pretty deep in American culture, and shows up frequently in books, TV, film--and, of course, fairy tales.
Many Americans are simply fascinated with the UK and its culture, and try to incorporate it into their lives: food and drink, colloquialisms, books, TV, film, music, etc.
The twist was that D and S/F got that dream (ok, S/F wasn't technically a princess)
In what way was HRH Princess Andrew not a princess? She used the title of her husband, in exactly the same way as HRH Princess Charles (The Princess of Wales) did.
The present Prince William of Wales has the title of Duke of Cambridge and his wife is the Duchess of Cambridge, but the Duchess of Cambridge is not a Princess,even although she is HRH and her daughter Charlotte is a Princess.
I think that the title Royal Duke is actually higher than that of Prince,but it is all very complicated.
In England the title Prince or Princess is used very sparingly,only for children of the monarch (or a Queen Consort)
The present Prince William of Wales has the title of Duke of Cambridge and his wife is the Duchess of Cambridge, but the Duchess of Cambridge is not a Princess,even although she is HRH and her daughter Charlotte is a Princess.
HRH Princess William is as much of a princess as any of the other wives of princes. She's not Princess Catherine, because that would imply that she was royal by blood. Similarly, the late Princess of Wales was never actually "Princess Diana".
She doesn't use the style "Princess William" because "Duke of Cambridge" outranks "Prince William". The only royal wife I can think of who uses the style "Princess" is Princess Michael of Kent.
<snip> The job of the Monarch is to sit down, shut up, and sign where indicated.
Which is what ER II does.
The job of the monarch's family is to be invisible.
Not really. Since WWI it has become the established norm for members of the RF to visit communities, hospitals and charities to highlight good work and give encouragement.
My position in the Australian debate over the Monarchy is Royalist minimalist, but I acknowledge the work that the Royal Family does in charities. The difficulty is the Press, really. For that reason, I wish they were all more like Prince Edward.
We like royals, the pomp and circumstance, etc. But we don't want to be *ruled* by them.
A lot of it is basically playing Pretend, albeit mostly in the mind. For women, it also includes the princess meme I mentioned upthread. And that runs pretty deep in American culture, and shows up frequently in books, TV, film--and, of course, fairy tales.
Many Americans are simply fascinated with the UK and its culture, and try to incorporate it into their lives: food and drink, colloquialisms, books, TV, film, music, etc.
Australians are not ruled by the monarch, except perhaps in law. In fact, we are governed by a Parliament responsible to the people. I am not very familiar with British constitutional law. I imagine it is a much more complicated. There might even be different answers depending on which part of Britain you live in.
As others have said, it is a soap opera. I should point out that I have not seen an of it, as I don't have Netflix. But I have seen all the stuff around it.
It draws from known - publicly available - information, and drawing these details out as much as they can.
I have very mixed feelings about the royals. I think they have a place, but I also think they sometimes - oftentimes - get it wrong.
It should be constitutionally impossible for the Queen to be wrong. Its not her decision. It's the Prime Minister who is wrong. Any private decision she might make is irrelevant. The job of the Monarch is to sit down, shut up, and sign where indicated. The job of the monarch's family is to be invisible.
That can't be right. They are supposed to do their share of royal duties
My position in the Australian debate over the Monarchy is Royalist minimalist, but I acknowledge the work that the Royal Family does in charities. The difficulty is the Press, really. For that reason, I wish they were all more like Prince Edward.
How did you vote in the referendum? Our street is a very conservative street in a very conservative suburb. The only neighbours who admitted to voting against the republic came to Australia as refugees from Vietnam back in the early '80s.
Australians are not ruled by the monarch, except perhaps in law. In fact, we are governed by a Parliament responsible to the people. I am not very familiar with British constitutional law. I imagine it is a much more complicated. There might even be different answers depending on which part of Britain you live in.
The classic formula, both here and in the UK, Canada, NZ and most other kingdoms in the Commonwealth*, was that the monarch reigns but does not rule.
*There are from memory 5 kingdoms in the Commonwealth with their own monarch - Tonga, Malaysia, Brunei, Swaziland and Lesotho.
Can't help you with that. As children, we were all taught of Queen Salote's attendance at the Coronation, and her refusal, as a mark of respect, to have the hood of her carriage closed in a downpour.
As Australia knows, more trouble has been caused by Governors General than the queen herself. I refer, of course, to the removal of Gough Whitlam in 1975.
Indeed. There's still debate about the extent of the Queen's involvement and foreknowledge of that. Prof Jenny Hocking was convinced that HM was not only aware but encouraged Kerr's actions - even if only by silence. The letters released make it clear that the then private secretary was well aware beforehand, but contain no information one way or other about what HM did in fact know. Prof Hocking seems now to be pursuing the argument that if the private secretary knew, HM must also have known. I'd be not at all surprised if the private secretary deliberately said nothing, so that HM could properly and honestly say that she had no foreknowledge. Either argument at the moment is no more than speculation.
The twist was that D and S/F got that dream (ok, S/F wasn't technically a princess)
In what way was HRH Princess Andrew not a princess? She used the title of her husband, in exactly the same way as HRH Princess Charles (The Princess of Wales) did.
(Not sure if that's meant to be funny or serious.)
I'm familiar with the "Princess Andrew" nickname for Sarah/Fergie, but not "Princess Charles" for Diana. IIRC, Diana officially became a princess when she married Charles. She came from a noble family, so qualified to get a princess promotion. Sarah/Fergie was a commoner, so didn't.
How did you vote in the referendum? Our street is a very conservative street in a very conservative suburb. The only neighbours who admitted to voting against the republic came to Australia as refugees from Vietnam back in the early '80s.
1999 was not my best year Gee. I don't remember very much from around the turn of the century. I wasn't paying much attention to anything outside of work back then. It was a very bad time for me.
The twist was that D and S/F got that dream (ok, S/F wasn't technically a princess)
In what way was HRH Princess Andrew not a princess? She used the title of her husband, in exactly the same way as HRH Princess Charles (The Princess of Wales) did.
(Not sure if that's meant to be funny or serious.)
I'm familiar with the "Princess Andrew" nickname for Sarah/Fergie, but not "Princess Charles" for Diana. IIRC, Diana officially became a princess when she married Charles. She came from a noble family, so qualified to get a princess promotion. Sarah/Fergie was a commoner, so didn't.
Nothing at all to do with being a "commoner": that term applies to anyone who isn't armigerous* in their own right. Thus, technically, both the late Queen Mother and Lady Diana Spencer were commoners because they were female (in other words out of the line of inheritance) daughters of earls.
In the case of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson they became princesses because they married a prince - thus Camilla is de facto Princess of Wales, Sophie is Princess Edward, Catherine is Princess William and Meghan is Princess Henry.
Where the waters were muddied was with the press, domestic and foreign, persisting in calling the late Princess of Wales "Princess Diana": the only woman living at the moment entitled to be called princess and then her own name is Anne, the Princess Royal, because she is the daughter of a monarch.
It has also been the convention that wives of princes get the honorific HRH after marriage; the denial of that courtesy was one of the causes of the rift between the Windsors, Edward and Wallis, and the rest of the RF because she was denied the right to HRH.
I'm not sure if Princess Charlotte (daughter of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge) would be counted as a 'woman' but she is ,as far as I know, female and may well grow in time into a woman.
The Organist is, of course, talking about Princesses in terms of the UK. There are lots of women in other countries who claim legally the title of Princess, including the recently enobled, Altesse Royale,Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg,Princesse de Belgique.
As Australia knows, more trouble has been caused by Governors General than the queen herself. I refer, of course, to the removal of Gough Whitlam in 1975.
That's one way of looking at it. Which trouble was the greater?
Because of the federal nature of our Constitution and because of its provisions the Senate undoubtedly has constitutional power to refuse or defer supply to the Government. Because of the principles of responsible government a Prime Minister who cannot obtain supply, including money for carrying on the ordinary services of government, must either advise a general election or resign. If he refuses to do this I have the authority and indeed the duty under the Constitution to withdraw his Commission as Prime Minister. The position in Australia is quite different from a position in the United Kingdom. Here the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision. In the United Kingdom the confidence of the House of Commons alone is necessary. But both here and in the United Kingdom the duty of the Prime Minister is the same in a most important aspect – if he cannot get supply he must resign or advise an election.
— Governor-General Sir John Kerr, Statement (dated 11 November 1975)
I'm not sure if Princess Charlotte (daughter of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge) would be counted as a 'woman' but she is ,as far as I know, female and may well grow in time into a woman.
The Organist is, of course, talking about Princesses in terms of the UK. There are lots of women in other countries who claim legally the title of Princess, including the recently enobled, Altesse Royale,Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg,Princesse de Belgique.
I also left York princesses Beatrice and Eugenie off the list, and Lady Louise Windsor is, technically, Princess Louise of Wessex.
I'm familiar with the "Princess Andrew" nickname for Sarah/Fergie, but not "Princess Charles" for Diana. IIRC, Diana officially became a princess when she married Charles. She came from a noble family, so qualified to get a princess promotion. Sarah/Fergie was a commoner, so didn't.
Everything you wrote here is wrong. Being a "commoner" has nothing to do with it.
"Princess Andrew" is not a nickname - it is the style of the wife of Prince Andrew. Given that Prince Andrew was made Duke of York, and "Duke of York" as a title outranks bog-standard royal prince, then the lady in question was known during their marriage as HRH The Duchess of York, because that was her husband's highest-ranking title. She was also Princess Andrew, but that's a lesser title, so doesn't get used when there's a higher-ranking one available.
HRH The Princess of Wales is the style of the wife of the Prince of Wales. "Prince of Wales" is Prince Charles's most senior title. In Scotland, the late Princess was known by convention as HRH The Duchess of Rothesay (the convention is that the Royals use their Scottish titles when in Scotland). HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is now known as HRH The Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. Camilla is also Princess Charles, and although she's technically Princess of Wales, doesn't use that style in a nod to public sentiment about the previous holder of that title.
I think the only living royal wife whose husband doesn't have a more senior title is Princess Michael of Kent, whose title derives from the fact that she's the wife of Prince Michael of Kent.
Looking at the younger Royals, there aren't so many opportunities for another wife to be a mere princess. Prince Louis of Cambridge is probably the next possible candidate. If he doesn't get a royal peerage as a wedding present, his potential future wife would be HRH Princess Louis of Cambridge, regardless of her standing before marriage.
So what happens if you call one of these people the technically wrong thing? It may depend?
Recalling that, I think it was Margaret, had a chief of one of the indigenous nations tap her on the shoulder in Regina, Saskatchewan at a fancy supper, and he introduced himself by first name and called her by her's. There was some brief kerfuffle, which raised chief and princess and perhaps something else. The understanding is that they continued in first names. Which made me understand that unapologetic ignoring of titles may work sometimes.
For a list of the titled and nontitled members of the British Royal Family, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royal_family I note it still lists Harry and Megan Duke and Duchess of Sussex. That needs to be updated.
For a list of the titled and nontitled members of the British Royal Family, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royal_family I note it still lists Harry and Megan Duke and Duchess of Sussex. That needs to be updated.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. As part of their walk away from Royal responsibilities, they agreed not to use the style "HRH", although they are still entitled to.
I get the impression that we are moving towards answering the question this thread poses with a 'yes'. Not individually awful, perhaps, but collectively? An aphorism about bear and toilet facilities in an arboreal setting springs to mind!
For a list of the titled and nontitled members of the British Royal Family, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royal_family I note it still lists Harry and Megan Duke and Duchess of Sussex. That needs to be updated.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. As part of their walk away from Royal responsibilities, they agreed not to use the style "HRH", although they are still entitled to.
Honestly, they probably are awful, but in ways that are entirely different to the portrayal of them in The Crown.
Churchill is often depicted as a waspish drunkard, as opposed to a blundering genocidal imperialist. While I don't think Prince Charles is quite that bad, I imagine the stories of him not being able to carry out mundane tasks like dress himself are closer to the truth - some of the Ruperts I had the misfortune of meeting the infantry couldn't so much as boil an egg.
Comments
One of them said it was undefined. I'd been thinking maybe an irrational number. (That was rattling around in my mental attic.) But I think I was taught in school that would be undefined. Along with things like 0/0, because a number over itself is 1, and 0 can't be 1. Something I found annoying, IIRC.
I'm getting ready for sleep. I'll look up the link later and post it.
But half of 0 is 0 divided by 2, not anything divided by 0.
0/2 is 0
2/0 is undefined.
Yeah, to clarify,
1. GK's assertion is that half of 0 is undefined.
2. This is incorrect; Half of 0 is 0÷2 or 1/2 × 0 - you can look at it either way. Both ways the answer is 0
3. It's dividing *by* 0 which is undefined, but we're not doing that.
No 'game', so far as I'm concerned. Just because she was, as others have said, sympathetic and kind, doesn't mean she wasn't a fool in agreeing to such a marriage under such conditions. That's not blame, it's just a fact. And a fact that played well into the hands of the plotters and planners.
The blame - if it's necessary to place blame - lies with those who had power and knowledge and therefore shaped the situation according to selfish needs. Also, what a shame her family and friends didn't counsel her as perhaps they should have. Did none of the Earl of Spencer's relations, acquaintances and legal team have any idea what was 'really' going on, in the appropriation of a young girl's life for royal purposes? Or was her entire family and circle of friends 'naive' and ignorant, too?
I think she was foolish in believing that after a handful of chaste meetings with Charles, she could possibly have had a realistic idea of whether or not she should be spending the rest of her married life with the guy. I feel sorry for her; that those closest to her didn't - apparently - advise her wisely, that she wasn't smart enough to figure it out for herself, that - apparently - she really thought this was some sort of love-story going on. I feel sorry that, in general, the only way the Palace's machinations could've had a happy ending, was either that their 'victim' was as foolish as Diana was, or alternatively as ambitious as some others believed her to be. So in saying she was a fool, in this, I reckon that's the kindest interpretation. Otherwise, one is saying she was well aware what she was doing, it didn't work out, and she should've just accepted it.
It's only my opinion that her later behaviour, while understandable, detracted from the undoubted status of victim she initially fairly occupied. But what other options she had, is unknown!
Indeed. How many of us as familiar with the times of Henry VIII as we are with the times that we've lived through?
I think this may be one of the problems that The Crown is now facing. As it gets closer to the present day, more and more of us remember what actually happened and so consider ourselves qualified to comment on the quality of the drama before us.
And I think there's another problem. On the basis of the 3 episodes I've seen so far of series 4, The Crown doesn't seem to be presenting Margaret Thatcher as able to walk on water. There seem to be a number of newspapers who don't accept this agenda (n.b. English understatement). So they are busy rubbishing the entire series. And this is before getting on to whether the show is taking a pro-Diane line or otherwise.
None of this means that it is poor drama, or not telling us truths about (a) the events protrayed or (b) the human condition. But it does mean that it's having to sail more into the wind than previous series have.
The Queen can do no wrong. She is The Perfect Monarch™, as we have been told on these boards. The ministers of her Church pray twice daily for her, and for her Family, and there is no reason to suppose that these heartfelt prayers are anything but efficacious.
Not disimilar to the US approach to religion, then.
The British Crown? No, probably not. The members of the Royal Family, though, fall squarely under the American Cult of Celebrity. I don’t know what People magazine would have done without them.
We like royals, the pomp and circumstance, etc. But we don't want to be *ruled* by them.
A lot of it is basically playing Pretend, albeit mostly in the mind. For women, it also includes the princess meme I mentioned upthread. And that runs pretty deep in American culture, and shows up frequently in books, TV, film--and, of course, fairy tales.
Many Americans are simply fascinated with the UK and its culture, and try to incorporate it into their lives: food and drink, colloquialisms, books, TV, film, music, etc.
But that king has no clothes. Trust me, the back of him is better than the full frontal.
In what way was HRH Princess Andrew not a princess? She used the title of her husband, in exactly the same way as HRH Princess Charles (The Princess of Wales) did.
I think that the title Royal Duke is actually higher than that of Prince,but it is all very complicated.
In England the title Prince or Princess is used very sparingly,only for children of the monarch (or a Queen Consort)
HRH Princess William is as much of a princess as any of the other wives of princes. She's not Princess Catherine, because that would imply that she was royal by blood. Similarly, the late Princess of Wales was never actually "Princess Diana".
She doesn't use the style "Princess William" because "Duke of Cambridge" outranks "Prince William". The only royal wife I can think of who uses the style "Princess" is Princess Michael of Kent.
My position in the Australian debate over the Monarchy is Royalist minimalist, but I acknowledge the work that the Royal Family does in charities. The difficulty is the Press, really. For that reason, I wish they were all more like Prince Edward.
Australians are not ruled by the monarch, except perhaps in law. In fact, we are governed by a Parliament responsible to the people. I am not very familiar with British constitutional law. I imagine it is a much more complicated. There might even be different answers depending on which part of Britain you live in.
How did you vote in the referendum? Our street is a very conservative street in a very conservative suburb. The only neighbours who admitted to voting against the republic came to Australia as refugees from Vietnam back in the early '80s.
The classic formula, both here and in the UK, Canada, NZ and most other kingdoms in the Commonwealth*, was that the monarch reigns but does not rule.
*There are from memory 5 kingdoms in the Commonwealth with their own monarch - Tonga, Malaysia, Brunei, Swaziland and Lesotho.
(Not sure if that's meant to be funny or serious.)
I'm familiar with the "Princess Andrew" nickname for Sarah/Fergie, but not "Princess Charles" for Diana. IIRC, Diana officially became a princess when she married Charles. She came from a noble family, so qualified to get a princess promotion. Sarah/Fergie was a commoner, so didn't.
1999 was not my best year Gee. I don't remember very much from around the turn of the century. I wasn't paying much attention to anything outside of work back then. It was a very bad time for me.
Nothing at all to do with being a "commoner": that term applies to anyone who isn't armigerous* in their own right. Thus, technically, both the late Queen Mother and Lady Diana Spencer were commoners because they were female (in other words out of the line of inheritance) daughters of earls.
In the case of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson they became princesses because they married a prince - thus Camilla is de facto Princess of Wales, Sophie is Princess Edward, Catherine is Princess William and Meghan is Princess Henry.
Where the waters were muddied was with the press, domestic and foreign, persisting in calling the late Princess of Wales "Princess Diana": the only woman living at the moment entitled to be called princess and then her own name is Anne, the Princess Royal, because she is the daughter of a monarch.
It has also been the convention that wives of princes get the honorific HRH after marriage; the denial of that courtesy was one of the causes of the rift between the Windsors, Edward and Wallis, and the rest of the RF because she was denied the right to HRH.
* entitled to and bearing their own arms
The Organist is, of course, talking about Princesses in terms of the UK. There are lots of women in other countries who claim legally the title of Princess, including the recently enobled, Altesse Royale,Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg,Princesse de Belgique.
That's one way of looking at it. Which trouble was the greater?
Because of the federal nature of our Constitution and because of its provisions the Senate undoubtedly has constitutional power to refuse or defer supply to the Government. Because of the principles of responsible government a Prime Minister who cannot obtain supply, including money for carrying on the ordinary services of government, must either advise a general election or resign. If he refuses to do this I have the authority and indeed the duty under the Constitution to withdraw his Commission as Prime Minister. The position in Australia is quite different from a position in the United Kingdom. Here the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision. In the United Kingdom the confidence of the House of Commons alone is necessary. But both here and in the United Kingdom the duty of the Prime Minister is the same in a most important aspect – if he cannot get supply he must resign or advise an election.
— Governor-General Sir John Kerr, Statement (dated 11 November 1975)
I also left York princesses Beatrice and Eugenie off the list, and Lady Louise Windsor is, technically, Princess Louise of Wessex.
Everything you wrote here is wrong. Being a "commoner" has nothing to do with it.
"Princess Andrew" is not a nickname - it is the style of the wife of Prince Andrew. Given that Prince Andrew was made Duke of York, and "Duke of York" as a title outranks bog-standard royal prince, then the lady in question was known during their marriage as HRH The Duchess of York, because that was her husband's highest-ranking title. She was also Princess Andrew, but that's a lesser title, so doesn't get used when there's a higher-ranking one available.
HRH The Princess of Wales is the style of the wife of the Prince of Wales. "Prince of Wales" is Prince Charles's most senior title. In Scotland, the late Princess was known by convention as HRH The Duchess of Rothesay (the convention is that the Royals use their Scottish titles when in Scotland). HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is now known as HRH The Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. Camilla is also Princess Charles, and although she's technically Princess of Wales, doesn't use that style in a nod to public sentiment about the previous holder of that title.
I think the only living royal wife whose husband doesn't have a more senior title is Princess Michael of Kent, whose title derives from the fact that she's the wife of Prince Michael of Kent.
Looking at the younger Royals, there aren't so many opportunities for another wife to be a mere princess. Prince Louis of Cambridge is probably the next possible candidate. If he doesn't get a royal peerage as a wedding present, his potential future wife would be HRH Princess Louis of Cambridge, regardless of her standing before marriage.
Recalling that, I think it was Margaret, had a chief of one of the indigenous nations tap her on the shoulder in Regina, Saskatchewan at a fancy supper, and he introduced himself by first name and called her by her's. There was some brief kerfuffle, which raised chief and princess and perhaps something else. The understanding is that they continued in first names. Which made me understand that unapologetic ignoring of titles may work sometimes.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. As part of their walk away from Royal responsibilities, they agreed not to use the style "HRH", although they are still entitled to.
Thank you for the clarification.
Churchill is often depicted as a waspish drunkard, as opposed to a blundering genocidal imperialist. While I don't think Prince Charles is quite that bad, I imagine the stories of him not being able to carry out mundane tasks like dress himself are closer to the truth - some of the Ruperts I had the misfortune of meeting the infantry couldn't so much as boil an egg.