Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"Britain's Baby Princess" (1926)


Recommended Posts

BFI (British Film Institute) posted this on Facebook re: the new royal baby:




The newsreel is from 1926 and announces the birth of Princess Elizabeth - now Queen Elizabeth II.


In contrast, how the royal birth was announced earlier today:




So there you go...


In Canada, the CN Tower in Toronto will be lit tonight in blue (for a boy) from top to bottom.

Niagara Falls will be lit up in blue for the next two nights in celebration.






This item is mostly for Canadian users of the message board, but our American friends can celebrate too (or not) as they wish.


Unfortunately, I can't think of any classic films about a royal baby (babies) off the top of my head...


Edited by: RMeingast on Jul 22, 2013 5:21 PM

Forgot to post link to 1926 newsreel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also can't think of a movie that fits but how about *The Kings Speech*, which is about the baby's Great Great Grandfather.


Since this thread was recomended for Candaian readers I can't help thinking of the Dionne Quintuplets. However, their story is rather sad, (and not exactly related.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that the baby's name will be "Oscar". The entire royal family are big fans of Oscar Levant, Oscar Hammerstein, Oscar Homolka, and Oscar Meyer weiners..They also regularly watch the Oscars.


Edited by: finance on Jul 22, 2013 5:50 PM


Edited by: finance on Jul 22, 2013 5:53 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}I have it on good authority that the baby's name will be "Oscar". The entire royal family are big fans of Oscar Levant....



"Rhapsody in Blue" certainly fits the occasion:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a movie about the Quintuplets ? I remember Pierre Berton did a documentary about them.


There is. Jean Hersholt played Dr. Dafoe, the doctor who saved the lives of the quints. He improvised incubators for them.


I remember that they were huge attractions when I was a kid ... dolls, paper dolls, dresses like theirs, curls like theirs ... we had 'em all. Like Shirley Temple. Poor little kids. They had very sad lives as a result. They were babied to death, pampered like little princesses, had their own nursery and their own nurses, were put on display for the public to view through one-way glass. Eventually they were turned over to their own family, who treated them like pariahs. Almost Cinderellas in reverse. They were molested by their father as teens, according to the surviving quints.


One died in a convent, from an epileptic seizure which resulted in suffocation. Two others died of other causes. Two are still living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I can't think of any classic films about a royal baby (babies) off the top of my head...








The only ones I can think of are the Henry VIII movies which feature Edward VI's birth to Jane Seymour. There's "The Prince and the Pauper," of course, but Edward wasn't a baby by then.


I always liked that boy. I've read biographies about him and he seems to have been a very nice kid. He came to the throne at nine and died at 15 of a terrible form of tuberculosis, which he endured with great patience, considering the treatment the doctors of the time gave him, including arsenic, which caused him awful pain. I used to go over to Hampton Court Palace in Kingston when I lived there and go through the rooms he frequented, particularly the indoor tennis court, which he used all the time. He seems to have handled the mixed-up family problems very well, being good to his sisters regardless of their supposed legitimacy. Even though it was forbidden by law, he allowed his sister Mary to have Mass said in her private chapel and didn't give her a hard time about converting to Protestantism. He loved his sisters equally. Poor kid to die so young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only classic movie I can think of with a royal baby scene is Sleeping Beauty and that's a cartoon.




BTW here's a link to a picture of the newest royal, if you're interested ;) He looks like a baby...LOL



Link to comment
Share on other sites





And now, we're in anticipation over what the new baby's NAME is going to be! Cripes, they had NINE MONTHS to make that decision!



Since I mentioned the Tigers, why not PRINCE? Like in Prince Fielder?



Or, since William and Kate seem to be bucking all sorts of traditions, I suggest:










Of course, there's the risk any of those might put the QUEEN in such a tizzy, that Charles might finally get to the throne!






Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back from London last night. Saw Tower Bridge lit up in blue, quite impressive. Speaking of Canada, many people think the rules have been changed so that a girl can become Queen, if she is the eldest, even if she has a younger brother. The new rules haven't been entirely changed yet. Some of the Commonwealth countries -- for whom the Queen is technically head of state -- have to agree. The Canadians haven't agreed yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote: }{quote}The Canadians haven't agreed yet.



Canada passed its law in late March 2013:




But a legal challenge has been made by the province of Quebec (the separatist government hates the monarchy) and two Quebec professors and so that will have to be dealt with through the courts.

But the law stands until it is overturned by a court:



The Canadian law actually received Royal Assent (March 27) before the law in Britain (April 25) did...

So Canada was actually pretty fast in passing its law.


To read about what's going on in the other 15 Commonwealth countries (New Zealand and Australia appear to be in the process of working to pass their laws) go here:



The new rules apply to royal babies born after October 28, 2011 re: male primogeniture.

So if new royal baby had been a girl, she would've been 3rd in line to rule.

As it is, things are tied up for some time:

Prince Charles, then Prince William, then baby Prince George Alexander Louis...

Doubt I'll be around by the time Baby George becomes king...


You can see photos here of Ottawa's Peace Tower, Toronto's CN Tower, Niagara Falls, etc., lit up in blue:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

But watching the BBC the other day, when someone said it had been approved, the response from the news person was, not entirely, there's a problem with Canada. So whatever the actual facts are, the Canadians are being presented as holding it back, at least on the BBC Breakfast Show!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Primogeniture was the rule for the monarchy and aristocracy, usually male. First son inherits father's title/office, etc.... No son, then daughter inherits.


Henry VIII never had any sons, for example. That's why he married so many times. He wanted a son.

To heck with daughters for him.


For example, a duke has two sons, first born son inherits title and estate, second son gets nada, same for any daughters. Same goes for other aristocratic titles.


The father of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, for example, was a viscount and an earl.

He had a son, Charles, the brother of Diana. Her brother Charles inherited the titles, not Diana.

She was known as Lady Diana before she married Prince Charles.




The new law changes that for royal family so that elder son or daughter can inherit.

So if daughter is first child, she inherits and will become queen.

Doesn't matter if she has younger brothers.


Under old law, first child is girl, then second child is boy, boy becomes king.


Other changes under new law allow monarch or heir to marry a Roman Catholic.

Under old law this was a no-no as monarch is also head of Church of England.


Other changes under new law are here:











Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well... News item today about BBC News making mistake by naming Australia's prime minister as Canada's prime minister:




Think we're still all colonials to the Brits... Canada, Aussieland, Kiwiland - oh, they're all the same to us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Are most Canadians this schooled in royal-ography as a result of Canada's commonwealth heritage? I would guess that most Yanks don't know **** about this. I certainly don't.


I doubt it... But who knows about my fellow Canucks...


Then again, when you study English literature, it does help to know some of this stuff to understand the plot of novels/plays that feature the Brit aristocracy. Then that carries over to movies and TV shows that feature plots with British aristocrats. Or French aristos, or Russian, German, you name it, as they pretty much all follow the same rules.


Victoria became queen because her father and his three brothers all died without having sons

(One uncle of Victoria had two daughters but both died before either could become queen).


Elizabeth II became queen because Edward VIII married an American and abdicated (this also meant any potential sons and daughters were out of the running for the monarchy too).

Elizabeth's father (Edward's younger brother) became king and as she was the eldest daughter she would inherit if there were no sons.

There were no sons and her sister Margaret was four years younger, so Elizabeth was it after her father passed...


Got all that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...