Originally posted by Nenya:
When is normal viewing going to be resumed on the TV?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:A week? Two?
Originally posted by Nenya:
When is normal viewing going to be resumed on the TV?
quote:Why, for heaven's sake? IME the views of most republicans are slightly less interesting than a bumper edition of You and Yours.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Interested in what those of a Republican nature have to say
quote:Like his dad has?
Originally posted by Firenze:
I hope that by the time this wean is of age, he need not dread a life shackled to an outworn myth and he can go off and do something useful and satisfying.
quote:But I've so far noticed about half a dozen articles, all with a seemingly royalist bent, practically taunting republicans about the birth. The National Post, a right-wing Canadian paper with strong anglophile pretensions, mused in its headline that republicans must be chagrined about the CN Tower in Toronto having its colours changed to commemorate the birth.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Why, for heaven's sake? IME the views of most republicans are slightly less interesting than a bumper edition of You and Yours.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Interested in what those of a Republican nature have to say
quote:The Daily Mail has - as ever - got lots of photos on its website. I think the 'self-proclaimed Town Cryer', the people who have baked a cake and bought balloons along, and the bloke who's been camped out on the bench outside the hospital for seven days should be moved on somewhere, possibly by men in white coats.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, don't get me wrong. Believe me, some of the company you have to share can make it pretty embarassing to be a monarchist.
quote:The only chagrin I have seen so far is a FB post by a challenge-traditional-notions-of-gender-identity activist of my acquaintance who is asking us to call in to the CN Tower to complain about gender stereotyping.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:But I've so far noticed about half a dozen articles, all with a seemingly royalist bent, practically taunting republicans about the birth. The National Post, a right-wing Canadian paper with strong anglophile pretensions, mused in its headline that republicans must be chagrined about the CN Tower in Toronto having its colours changed to commemorate the birth.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Why, for heaven's sake? IME the views of most republicans are slightly less interesting than a bumper edition of You and Yours.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Interested in what those of a Republican nature have to say
*snip*!
quote:Posh couple have baby equates to the Incarnation?
Originally posted by shamwari:
The phrase in question was a quote from a hymn by Charles Wesley.
quote:Wanting an end to the monarchy does not equal wanting the death of the monarch.
Originally posted by PaulBC:
This new prince will have a long wait until he is King. And that is as it should be . IF HM
King George VI had not been a heavy smoker IMO he would have lived long after 1952. Remember HM the Queen was only 25 when she came to the throne. Long may she reign.
To those who want the monarchy gone. Read the post above regard the defiition of treason in Britiss law.
Blessings all
PaulBC
quote:The carrots and parsnips are also doing OK!
Originally posted by Firenze:
However, as far as I can see - looking out the window - the Swedes seems to be taking it calmly.
quote:I feel about the same - I am glad for the couple and their new baby, and hope they get some decent time alone with him. But I feel the same as I do about any other baby belonging to people I don't know, but those babies don't tend to clog up my morning news programming. I'm much more interested in the weather forecast (hooray, rain at last!)!
Originally posted by Jigsaw:
When Diana died, my daughter came upstairs and said in disgust: "Diana and Dodi are dead and there's nothing else on the TV".
That's how I feel this evening - coverage across all major TV channels of people wittering platitudes outside St Mary's Hospital.
But - it's a baby, and that's always lovely.
quote:Apparently you're ok on the treason front if you have sex with the king or the prince of wales though (just not the queen or their eldest daughter), just in case anyone was concerned.
Originally posted by PaulBC:
This new prince will have a long wait until he is King. And that is as it should be . IF HM
King George VI had not been a heavy smoker IMO he would have lived long after 1952. Remember HM the Queen was only 25 when she came to the throne. Long may she reign.
To those who want the monarchy gone. Read the post above regard the defiition of treason in Britiss law.
Blessings all
PaulBC
quote:Don't be silly Firenze.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Posh couple have baby equates to the Incarnation?
Originally posted by shamwari:
The phrase in question was a quote from a hymn by Charles Wesley.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I'm an American. Registered Democrat. Congratulations to William & Kate Wales on the safe delivery of a boy child, yet to be named.
Originally posted by shamwari:
So we have a third in line to the throne.
A very long time for this child to wait. The present Queen is still going strong.
Interested in what those of a Republican nature have to say
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:So can we look forward to mass executions at the BBC? I mean, they needn't actually be at the BBC - we could drag them through the streets behind a team of horses as far as Tower Hill, and do it there.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
British respondents might be reminded that according to the English Statute of Treasons drawn up in 1351, it is an offence to ‘compass or imagine the death of our lord the king.' I'd stick to "God save the Queen," if I were you.
quote:I think televised executions would be more of an ITV thing.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:So can we look forward to mass executions at the BBC? I mean, they needn't actually be at the BBC - we could drag them through the streets behind a team of horses as far as Tower Hill, and do it there.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
British respondents might be reminded that according to the English Statute of Treasons drawn up in 1351, it is an offence to ‘compass or imagine the death of our lord the king.' I'd stick to "God save the Queen," if I were you.
quote:Don't be silly. Do you really think that they should come and arrest me for being a republican?
Originally posted by PaulBC:
This new prince will have a long wait until he is King. And that is as it should be . IF HM
King George VI had not been a heavy smoker IMO he would have lived long after 1952. Remember HM the Queen was only 25 when she came to the throne. Long may she reign.
To those who want the monarchy gone. Read the post above regard the defiition of treason in Britiss law.
Blessings all
PaulBC
quote:They often have a habit of coming across that way.
Originally posted by Matariki:
I get a little tired or republicans being portrayed as chippy and joyless.
quote:Perhaps it's resenting the sense some people appear to have that we should be especially pleased and happy for this particular couple and their baby. When to us they're just another new family and our feelings are neither more negative nor more positive than they are for any other couple we do not know and have never met who have a new baby.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:They often have a habit of coming across that way.
Originally posted by Matariki:
I get a little tired or republicans being portrayed as chippy and joyless.
quote:Precisely. I am, and I do.
Originally posted by Matariki:
... Though I don't think people who dress from head to toe in Union Jacks and camp out for days to celebrate the birth of the third in line to the thrown are really a good look for monarchists. It comes across as a bit mad and really - if I were a monarchist - I would want the Royal Family to be spared this crazy celebrity status. ...
quote:No, he will become king because his ancestors and family did their job so well the country was pleased with them and assented to their rule (even when some of them went a bit doolally we liked them so much we kept them on the throne).
Originally posted by Matariki:
At the end of the day this child will become monarch because his ancestors carried a bigger stick than anyone else's and weren't afraid of using it.
quote:Hmmmm. IMO, gods and kings tend to be waaay too much in cahoots. After all, if the real reason you have the job is either accident of birth, or you knifed the last guy to hold it, then the thought will inevitably occur to the bystanders Why him and not me? So it helps if you can get them to accept that God picked you. Specially.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Don't be silly Firenze.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Posh couple have baby equates to the Incarnation?
Originally posted by shamwari:
The phrase in question was a quote from a hymn by Charles Wesley.
I imagine shamwari jsut thought it would make a good title for the thread (and it did)
quote:Bit of both, really, innit? The more immediate ancestors you're referring to were in a position to be dutiful (i.e. backsides on the big chair) because of their ancestors further back who had the bigger stick. William the Bastard didn't win at Senlac hill because of a sense of duty.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:No, he will become king because his ancestors and family did their job so well the country was pleased with them and assented to their rule (even when some of them went a bit doolally we liked them so much we kept them on the throne).
Originally posted by Matariki:
At the end of the day this child will become monarch because his ancestors carried a bigger stick than anyone else's and weren't afraid of using it.
When a king doens't do his job well, or the people think he hasn't, heads come off or they are forced to abdicate. The modern British constitutional monarchy (post William III I'd say) isn't a story of oppression of the strong, but of success of the dutiful.
quote:I like that. A lot.
Originally posted by Hawk:
The modern British constitutional monarchy (post William III I'd say) isn't a story of oppression of the strong, but of success of the dutiful.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I have a vague recollection of cultures where king or chieftain was a temporary office. With the downside that once your term expired you were sacrificed to the Gods. [With the added advantage that it prevent any notions of comebacks].
Originally posted by Firenze:
Perhaps the monarchy should be decided by lot* and be for a fixed term?
quote:Here's an interesting thought: Had Edward VIII married Mrs Simpson and refused to give up the crown (however unlikely that might have been), he would have been King until 1972. Because they were childless, the heir to the throne would have been the daughter of the late Duke of York, Princess Elizabeth (titled accordingly as the wife of Philip of Greece).
Originally posted by PaulBC:
This new prince will have a long wait until he is King. And that is as it should be . IF HM
King George VI had not been a heavy smoker IMO he would have lived long after 1952. Remember HM the Queen was only 25 when she came to the throne. Long may she reign.
To those who want the monarchy gone. Read the post above regard the defiition of treason in Britiss law.
Blessings all
PaulBC
quote:Treason ne'er doth prosper. What's the reason?
Originally posted by Hawk:
No, he will become king because his ancestors and family did their job so well the country was pleased with them and assented to their rule (even when some of them went a bit doolally we liked them so much we kept them on the throne).
quote:Exactly right.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Perhaps it's resenting the sense some people appear to have that we should be especially pleased and happy for this particular couple and their baby. When to us they're just another new family and our feelings are neither more negative nor more positive than they are for any other couple we do not know and have never met who have a new baby.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:They often have a habit of coming across that way.
Originally posted by Matariki:
I get a little tired or republicans being portrayed as chippy and joyless.
quote:Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
I was concerned to learn that his birth was announced on a sheet of foolscap paper, and denominated in pounds and ounces. Have we made no progress on international weights and measures during the reign of his great grandmother?
quote:Dressing head to toe in the Royal Standard would be a better look perhaps? Though possibly defacing the royal standard is treason? who knows?
Originally posted by Matariki:
Though I don't think people who dress from head to toe in Union Jacks and camp out for days to celebrate the birth of the third in line to the thrown are really a good look for monarchists.
quote:Indeed. And they're not called Imperial measure for nothing, you know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
I was concerned to learn that his birth was announced on a sheet of foolscap paper, and denominated in pounds and ounces. Have we made no progress on international weights and measures during the reign of his great grandmother?
quote:Not really. I would prefer to take any and all gods out of the business entirely and recast it as a civic obligation, like jury service.
Originally posted by Sylvander:
quote:I have a vague recollection of cultures where king or chieftain was a temporary office. With the downside that once your term expired you were sacrificed to the Gods. [With the added advantage that it prevent any notions of comebacks].
Originally posted by Firenze:
Perhaps the monarchy should be decided by lot* and be for a fixed term?
Were you thinking along these lines?
quote:Any legal stationery shop will have some for you-- I like indenture paper for thank-you notes. While Buckingham Palace likely has a few rooms full of Edward VIII letterhead not used, from a quick scan of the electronic coverage, I think that the Palace used A4.
Originally posted by Albertus:
If it really is foolscap paper they must have a special supplier. I haven't seen any for years.
quote:Sadly, yes. There are many imperial-worshipping knuckle-draggers who still refuse to acknowledge the metric system, which is rather annoying for those of us who went to school from the 1980s onwards, who only had the old system referred to in terms of it being history. They often seem to moan about it all changing so fast, a ten year programme starting in 1965 or something being so very rushed, now that it's 2013. The French managed it before 1800, so I don't know why we're so crap.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
quote:Lietuvos' spiritual serenity would be enhanced if he but follow my example, and uses the mute button when journalists discuss the monarchy. However, he should not single out the US media for constitutional illiteracy on the monarchy-- Canadian journalists manage it as well, but with fewer excuses.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think the monarchy is an excellent constitutional device, but I don't care for all the goo-goo gah-gah surrounding the Head of State's family members. Americans are especially annoying because most of them, while idolising the royal family, have extremely little understanding of the succession, the constitutional role, and any aspect of titles and protocol. You'd think members of the news media might trouble themselves to get things right, but they clearly can't be arsed and regularly make the most outlandish mistakes when reporting anything to do with the monarchy and royal family.
quote:Babies do seem usually still to be denominated in lbs and ozs.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
quote:ALLCAPS in original.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed in the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Thomas Paine, I'm guessing?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of American opinions of the monarchy, here's an oldie but a goodie. An excerpt:
quote:ALLCAPS in original.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed in the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
quote:I too started school in the 1980s and having had 15 years or so or metric propaganda drilled into me, still can't estimate distances in kilometres and tend to size large objects in feet. So do many of my peers.
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:Sadly, yes. There are many imperial-worshipping knuckle-draggers who still refuse to acknowledge the metric system, which is rather annoying for those of us who went to school from the 1980s onwards, who only had the old system referred to in terms of it being history. They often seem to moan about it all changing so fast, a ten year programme starting in 1965 or something being so very rushed, now that it's 2013. The French managed it before 1800, so I don't know why we're so crap.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
quote:Partly, people prefer the imperial system because it's conveniently human-sized. A short adult human is 5 feet tall, a tall one is a bit over 6 feet. The numbers are much more convenient and memorable than 180 cm, for example.
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
]Sadly, yes. There are many imperial-worshipping knuckle-draggers who still refuse to acknowledge the metric system, which is rather annoying for those of us who went to school from the 1980s onwards, who only had the old system referred to in terms of it being history.
quote:Fortunately, I'm married -- so I have people for that. My wife calculates my density just about every day. Turns out I am very dense, indeed...
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
When was the last time you sat down with a pencil and paper and estimated your density?
quote:I suspect it appeals to us for similar reasons that stone appeals to you actually. For most heights, 100lb is underweight and 200 is overweight.* It's relatively easy to remember and understand.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Adult humans weigh a manageable number of stones. For an adult man, 10 stone is light and 15 is heavy. It's a more conveniently-sized number than 60kg or 100kg. (No, I can't explain why Americans weigh people in pounds.)
quote:Only an unkind observer would suggest that this be provided to members of the Bush family, as well as descendants of other former presidents who aspire or who have aspired to the office.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:Thomas Paine, I'm guessing?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of American opinions of the monarchy, here's an oldie but a goodie. An excerpt:
quote:ALLCAPS in original.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed in the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
quote:Personally? Not all that much. The Duchy of Lancaster owns 46,000 acres, apparently, which is a little less than 0.1% of the UK. That's not personal property, though - if the monarchy were to be deposed, there's basically no chance that they'd get to take the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster with them. The Crown Estates own another 350,000 acres (and that's even less personal property), and the Duchy of Cornwall owns another 130,000 acres.
Originally posted by no prophet:
How much of the UK do the Windsors collectively own? As in land.
quote:Her Majesty is thought to have a personal wealth of around $500 million. Not much of that is in cash. The Prince of Wales is worth around $200 million, with the rest of them worth comparatively little (a small number of tens of millions). The Duke of Cambridge has a personal wealth of about $20 million (mostly a legacy from his mother). The whole lot of them together have a personal wealth of less than $1 billion. They're not exactly poor, but they're not in the "absolutely filthy" category.
How much money do they have?
quote:The baby isn't a Duke of anything, and owns nothing (although I'd bet he's in for a few decent gifts at his baptism...). He will be HRH Prince Whatever of Cambridge until he marries, whereupon the monarch of the time will probably appoint him to a peerage. Given he will some day be King, he'll be in for a Dukedom. Assuming Her Majesty has died by then, Cambridge would be available.
Does the baby already own a castle because he's a duke of something?
quote:Although as an American I don't care two figs about the British monarchy, it still grates on me when the media refer to "Princess Kate." I don't have a problem with Brits or even Canadians having a bit of a to-do about the birth, but when Americans--who threw off the monarchy centuries ago--get all gaga about "the" royal family it bewilders me a bit.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think the monarchy is an excellent constitutional device, but I don't care for all the goo-goo gah-gah surrounding the Head of State's family members. Americans are especially annoying because most of them, while idolising the royal family, have extremely little understanding of the succession, the constitutional role, and any aspect of titles and protocol. You'd think members of the news media might trouble themselves to get things right, but they clearly can't be arsed and regularly make the most outlandish mistakes when reporting anything to do with the monarchy and royal family.
quote:No, Royal Dukedoms carry no land. Peerages don't of themselves carry a grant of land, that's a separate transaction. The two last beneficiaries of a land grant in England to go with a title were the Duke of Marlborough who received Blenheim Palace and the Duke of Wellington who received Stratfield Saye. The latter is rather small as there wasn't much money to go around in 1815.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is it important they be absolutely filthily rich? Or would just a bit dirty rich do? Does the baby already own a castle because he's a duke of something?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Is it possible to take oneself out of the line of succession? Before you could have just found a nice Catholic to marry, but now that wouldn't work.
quote:Nope - can't do that. The throne would pass after your death according to the established line of succession - to your younger siblings and their children, then your uncles and their children etc.
I was wondering today what would happen if you were an heir to the throne but did not want children - I suppose you could name your own heir even if you didn't have a child,
quote:The Prince of Wales was apparently told in no uncertain terms to get on with it.
but the pressure to marry and have children must be enormous.
quote:Then we'd be expecting King Henry IX in due course. Interestingly, the last monarch to die without legitimate issue was William IV.
What if William and Kate had not wanted children?
quote:They can still become RC in their own right, which takes them out of the succession. If Paris was well worth a mass to Henri IV, then avoiding Buckingham Palace could also be well worth a mass.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Is it possible to take oneself out of the line of succession? Before you could have just found a nice Catholic to marry, but now that wouldn't work. *snip*
quote:Sure, but as I said, almost all of that isn't personal wealth. The Queen can't flog it off and retire to the south of France.
Originally posted by no prophet:
I guess 1% is not that much in one way of looking at it, but it is quite a lot compared to the 99% divided by the however many millions of souls also living in the country.
quote:It's wealthy on the scale of normal people, but chicken feed on the scale of the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world. 10 million is about enough for a couple to be able to invest and "guarantee" to be able to live a comfortable upper-middle class existence on the income. It's wealthy, but not more than that.
The "not very much" aspect of 10s of millions does boggle me anyway.
quote:And things didn't turn out too badly after that.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Then we'd be expecting King Henry IX in due course. Interestingly, the last monarch to die without legitimate issue was William IV.
What if William and Kate had not wanted children?
quote:What, (as some might say),
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[....
quote:Then we'd be expecting King Henry IX in due course....
What if William and Kate had not wanted children?
quote:Indeed. I'm 6 foot; would like to be 13 stone. Live five miles from the nearest city; sit a metre and a half away from my colleague. Drink a pint of beer; cook meat at 15 minutes per 450g. Swelter in heat above 22 degrees C.
Originally posted by ken:
I think nearly everyone in Britain uses stones and pounds and ounces for some things and kilos for others. And people are measured in old money. As are milk and beer - even though soft drinks are metric.
Temperatures on the other hand - I went to school in the 1960s and we went over entirely to C while I was in primary school. In the 1960s. I'm far too old to get used to Fahrenheit now
quote:Didn't Wellington get some cash too? I seem to remember reading that European countries were keen to heap honours on Wellington after Waterloo, but the British government were embarrassingly stumped as he already had a dukedom and the Order of the Garter. I thought he got some cash with the house to make up for it ( though I may have mis-remembered).
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The two last beneficiaries of a land grant in England to go with a title were the Duke of Marlborough who received Blenheim Palace and the Duke of Wellington who received Stratfield Saye. The latter is rather small as there wasn't much money to go around in 1815.
quote:Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What happens if the little sprog is gay? Will he be married off to an Austrian commoner, so that he can carry on gay affairs au secret? Just curious.
quote:If you consider the royal household's dedication to compassion and self-expression, I think more likely Edward II.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
quote:Students of such tendencies among the Lord's anointed will of course also think of William III-- Queen Anne thoughtfully directed some of his personal effects to his longtime companion William Bentinck, Earl of Portland. British shipmates will of course know of the current earl from The Archers.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If you consider the royal household's dedication to compassion and self-expression, I think more likely Edward II.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
quote:There might be an example closer to hand if stories in a (now defunct) Cambridge student newspaper are to be believed.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:Students of such tendencies among the Lord's anointed will of course also think of William III-- Queen Anne thoughtfully directed some of his personal effects to his longtime companion William Bentinck, Earl of Portland. British shipmates will of course know of the current earl from The Archers.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If you consider the royal household's dedication to compassion and self-expression, I think more likely Edward II.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
quote:If pubic opinion continues along current trends, when he's of age, there would be general support for him to marry another man in that event.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What happens if the little sprog is gay? Will he be married off to an Austrian commoner, so that he can carry on gay affairs au secret? Just curious.
quote:Hmm...
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:If pubic opinion continues along current trends, when he's of age, there would be general support for him to marry another man in that event. [...] [Italics mine]
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What happens if the little sprog is gay? Will he be married off to an Austrian commoner, so that he can carry on gay affairs au secret? Just curious.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:I had to check.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Didn't Wellington get some cash too? I seem to remember reading that European countries were keen to heap honours on Wellington after Waterloo, but the British government were embarrassingly stumped as he already had a dukedom and the Order of the Garter. I thought he got some cash with the house to make up for it ( though I may have mis-remembered).
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The two last beneficiaries of a land grant in England to go with a title were the Duke of Marlborough who received Blenheim Palace and the Duke of Wellington who received Stratfield Saye. The latter is rather small as there wasn't much money to go around in 1815.
quote:This is complete nonsense! If Prince George ever becomes king, it will be because the British Constitution, backed by parliament and the people, allows it to happen.
Originally posted by Matariki:
At the end of the day this child will become monarch because his ancestors carried a bigger stick than anyone else's and weren't afraid of using it.
quote:If you're a genuine royalist you don't go around saying it would be sensible for unpopular heirs to the throne to abdicate in favour of the next in line. That's not real monarchism: that's unprincipled spin-doctoring.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A YouGov poll, carried out in February 2011, said that just 13% of voters favour becoming a republic on the death of QEII. In spite of the noise they make in the media, and even on a forum such as this, republicans are an insignificant minority in Britain today. Charles may prove to be a much less popular monarch than his mother, but if he did the sensible thing, and abdicated in favour of William, I don't think its popularity would fade at all.
quote:Won't happen. The Prince of Wales knows that it is his duty to be King. Frankly, I think he'd be much happier retiring to the life of a country gentleman and leaving the show to the Duke of Cambridge, but it won't happen.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Charles may prove to be a much less popular monarch than his mother, but if he did the sensible thing, and abdicated in favour of William,
quote:I agree with you to the extent that the institution of monarchy is about the institution itself, not about the individual who sits on the throne, and so Charles is perfectly entitled to be king. But he has problems. I am old enough to remember what an immensly popular young man he was, and how ardent monarchists, like my mother, felt secure about the future in his hands. All this was ruined by his ill-fated marriage. Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either Charles stays or all the Windsors go. If we want a monarchy we abide by the line of succession. If we want to choose the head of state by popularity contest we might as well have a republic.
quote:I do agree. But the venerable institution is democratic if the people in that democracy want it! If the people of New Zealand or any of the 16 countries which have the Queen as Head of State, including the UK, decide they want to be a republic, then it would be undemocratic to retain the monarchy. It is ultimately down to the voters, and where I live, there is little will, apart from a vociferous small minority, to change our constitution. Perhaps New Zealand will do it soon. I see little point in having a Head of State who lives on the opposite side of the globe!
Originally posted by Matariki:
Republicans simply put a democratic principle before a venerable institution, you might not agree.
quote:Oh, come on. Lots of people like Camilla and don't have a problem with her - the only people who do are the die-hard Diana fans. As you say Camilla is a very dignified lady, and in person she's warm, friendly and charming. She'll be fine as queen.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I personally see the Duchess of Cornwall as a very dignified lady, and I have no problem with her, but how is Charles going to pass her off as his queen? The British public will never accept her. They still perceive Charles and Camilla to have done an enormous wrong to Diana, even though it is in no way that simple.
quote:What would be the issue with Charles being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while married to a divorced woman? The CoE marries divorced people and allows divorced clergy, I don't see why it should be a problem. Also I actually don't think the public would reject Camilla as queen now - she's more popular than she's ever been, and comes across as very down to earth. I think she's actually improved Charles' image somewhat.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I agree with you to the extent that the institution of monarchy is about the institution itself, not about the individual who sits on the throne, and so Charles is perfectly entitled to be king. But he has problems. I am old enough to remember what an immensly popular young man he was, and how ardent monarchists, like my mother, felt secure about the future in his hands. All this was ruined by his ill-fated marriage. Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either Charles stays or all the Windsors go. If we want a monarchy we abide by the line of succession. If we want to choose the head of state by popularity contest we might as well have a republic.
I personally see the Duchess of Cornwall as a very dignified lady, and I have no problem with her, but how is Charles going to pass her off as his queen? The British public will never accept her. They still perceive Charles and Camilla to have done an enormous wrong to Diana, even though it is in no way that simple. Edward VIII abdicated in order to prevent a major constitutional crisis, and passed the throne to his brother who had a wife and children and were, at least to the outside world, a perfect family.
Though times have changed, and Charles' accession may not cause the same problems to church and state as those of Edward VIII, the stability of the crown would be better served, as in 1936, by an abdication which would allow william, his lovely and popular wife, and thei children to be in the spotlight. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't give my allegiance to Charles as king, if he chooses to stay.
quote:I like that story, I think it shows why she gets on well with the horses-dogs-and-countryside Windsors and others in their social set. I still object to the system of monarchy but I think Charles and Camilla seem like very nice people, Camilla especially.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not at all, Albertus. I am not attracted to her in a sexual way, but I find her a very likeable, loveable and attractive figure. I once read that, as a young woman, she would come back from a day's riding, throw off her clothes, put on her gown and go off to the Hunt Ball without faffing around with make-up or anything like that. It's that sort of get-up-and-go spirit (though more aged and refined) that seems to come across now (to me, anyway). Perfect qualifications to be Queen, I reckon.
quote:Agreed, they are far more suited to each other than Charles and Diana ever were. William and Harry are clearly close to Camilla which helps. I may not want her as my head of state but I'd certainly go out for a drink (or 5) with her.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Glad I'm not weird, then!
Yes, she seems very down to earth, sorted and good fun. I think she's loosened him up a bit. Great pity that they didn't marry first time round.
quote:Standard Operating Procedure for the heir to the throne. They get an official wife to provide the heir and the spare (and if they manage to survive long enough to do the public duties of a Queen Consort). But they also have another (or occasionally more than one other) for the more private parts of a marriage. See George IV, William IV, Edward VII. Edward VIII's mistake was in insisting on marrying "the woman I love" rather than just seeing her for long weekends while getting his heirs on a well-connected young princess, the way obedient royals do.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Great pity that they didn't marry first time round.
quote:Seeming like and being are two different things. The last few years have seen a real PR effort to rehabilitate C and C and for the most part it seems to have worked. Doesn't change their nature though as private opinions surface from time to time that are at odds with the carefully cultivated public image. Some of Philip Mountbatten's comments would get him on a racist or sexist register in a workplace or school and as for dear old Auntie Margaret, well her comments about working class people were as vile as her drinking habits.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]I think Charles and Camilla seem like very nice people, Camilla especially.
quote:Just so long as the Governor of the Church of England isn't divorced himself. Where would the Church of England be if the King was allowed to be divorced?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What would be the issue with Charles being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while married to a divorced woman? The CoE marries divorced people and allows divorced clergy, I don't see why it should be a problem.
quote:If that is true doesn't it rather put them on a par with most of their subjects?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[T]he Royals are dismissive of anyone who they think isn't in their class.
quote:How do you know that, please? Do you / did you move in more exalted circles than we had suspected? (Take it that your first name is Mark: surname Philips, perhaps?)
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[...In private, the Queen apart, the Royals are dismissive of anyone who they think isn't in their class...
quote:If the stability of the monarchy is served by Charles abdicating then the monarchy has no stability.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Though times have changed, and Charles' accession may not cause the same problems to church and state as those of Edward VIII, the stability of the crown would be better served, as in 1936, by an abdication which would allow william, his lovely and popular wife, and thei children to be in the spotlight. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't give my allegiance to Charles as king, if he chooses to stay.
quote:Given Henry VIII, it would be non-existent if the King wasn't allowed to be divorced.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Just so long as the Governor of the Church of England isn't divorced himself. Where would the Church of England be if the King was allowed to be divorced?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What would be the issue with Charles being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while married to a divorced woman? The CoE marries divorced people and allows divorced clergy, I don't see why it should be a problem.
quote:There's plenty of Alexandras in recent royal history (including Her Majesty) though. I thought Philip would have been in there, too, although I could see the Duke of Edinburgh favoring Louis.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
George was the bookies' favourite, Alexander seems surprisingly un-royal (for the English at least, though not for the Scots) and Louis is surely in honour of Mountbatten. I thought that Phillip would have been in there, not that it matters.
quote:In that case, he was bang on. What he said was:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Charles' comments a couple of years ago about young people's inappropriate aspirations were a case in point.
quote:And he was right. It's not about "knowing your place," it's about knowing your capabilities. Most people will not make it as a professional footballer, pop star, or whatever - you only have to look at the large pool of bad singers queuing up to audition for things like Pop Idol to understand how deluded people are.
What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of child-centred system which admits no failure. People think they can all be pop stars, High Court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.
quote:Probably but at least most of us don't pretend otherwise or spin it
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If that is true doesn't it rather put them on a par with most of their subjects?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[T]he Royals are dismissive of anyone who they think isn't in their class.
quote:In fairness to Charles, The Prince's Trust does extremely practical and helpful work with disadvantaged young people, which often involves helping them find/get skills towards a career.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:In that case, he was bang on. What he said was:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Charles' comments a couple of years ago about young people's inappropriate aspirations were a case in point.
quote:And he was right. It's not about "knowing your place," it's about knowing your capabilities. Most people will not make it as a professional footballer, pop star, or whatever - you only have to look at the large pool of bad singers queuing up to audition for things like Pop Idol to understand how deluded people are.
What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of child-centred system which admits no failure. People think they can all be pop stars, High Court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.
Prince Charles was not saying that people shouldn't aspire - but that their aspirations should have some kind of connection to their skills and talents, and that they should be prepared to put in the necessary effort to get there, rather than hoping that a multi-million pound contract to be the next big TV personality will just land in their lap.
There's a certain irony in the fact that it's Prince Charles saying it, but that doesn't make him wrong.
quote:Henry VIII was never divorced. The Church of England was created to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, on grounds of consanguinity. He had tried to get the pope to do it, but had ran out of patience, and Anne Boleyn was pregnant anyway. His marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled on grounds of non-consummation.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given Henry VIII
quote:We've had three King Alexanders. The third is part of the primary school history curriculum, so most people would recognise it as a royal name here.
Alexander seems surprisingly un-royal (for the English at least, though not for the Scots)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:George is a "safe" name, Alexander is an excellent name, Louis is one of the more interesting choices from the pool of current Royal names. I like it. Good choice.
I'm surprised not to see any discussion of the baby prince's name. Are you all pleased with the choice of George Alexander Louis?
quote:Divorced persons can still get married in the CoE and become clergy, so still no barrier. However, speaking personally, disestablishment would be best all-round!
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Henry VIII was never divorced. The Church of England was created to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, on grounds of consanguinity. He had tried to get the pope to do it, but had ran out of patience, and Anne Boleyn was pregnant anyway. His marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled on grounds of non-consummation.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given Henry VIII
So every time Henry married, his marriage was licit in his own eyes, and those of the Church of England, because his previous wives were either dead (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard by execution, Jane Seymour by natural causes) or his marriages to them were pronounced null by the Church. Hence no divorces there!
quote:The thoroughly silly part about obsessing over this child is that the order of succession is already known for probably 100 people or more. Probably WAY more. Heck, the current monarch already has over a dozen other descendants available. I think Zara Phillips is in slot 15 now.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:If pubic opinion continues along current trends, when he's of age, there would be general support for him to marry another man in that event.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What happens if the little sprog is gay? Will he be married off to an Austrian commoner, so that he can carry on gay affairs au secret? Just curious.
This would, of course, be a problem for the succession - heirs have to be legitimate heirs of the body, and even with an extra 30 years of medical science, I don't think a gay man and his husband will be able to manage that.
That's still OK, though - he'll probably have siblings, and cousins, that will stand after him in the succession.
quote:Arguably not wrong (I think he is) but he's certainly a hypocrite given his own position and how he got there. He's neither qualified nor, IMHO, does he have the ability.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]
There's a certain irony in the fact that it's Prince Charles saying it, but that doesn't make him wrong.
quote:What - you think it is better for people to waste their time dreaming of things they aren't capable of doing, rather than making the best use of the talents they have?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Arguably not wrong (I think he is)
quote:No, he's not a hypocrite. You will note that nowhere in his statement does he make any claim about himself.
but he's certainly a hypocrite given his own position and how he got there. He's neither qualified nor, IMHO, does he have the ability.
quote:As I understand it, he doesn't want to be Supreme Governor of the C of E. This could be our big chance for disestablishment!
Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?
quote:I put this to all who, like Jade, object in principle to the system of monarchy. Do you object, in priciple, to the British people retaining their monarchy if that's what they, as a whole, want? Admittedly we've never had a popular vote on the subject, but there's no loud public clamour for it, like there is for EU membership. And there's no political party calling for it. It's on the lines of, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still object to the system of monarchy
quote:The divorced Governor of the Church of England was George II
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[
So every time Henry married, his marriage was licit in his own eyes, and those of the Church of England, because his previous wives were either dead (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard by execution, Jane Seymour by natural causes) or his marriages to them were pronounced null by the Church. Hence no divorces there!
quote:Of course - there's no point in objecting to monarchy because it's intrinsically undemocratic, and then wanting some kind of undemocratic republican takeover! But I think most people are just plain apathetic and don't care either way, or support the monarchy based on the personality of the monarch and not whether the system is right or wrong. When I mention my republicanism I often get how can I think this when the Queen is such a Good Christian Woman, when that's not really the point.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I put this to all who, like Jade, object in principle to the system of monarchy. Do you object, in priciple, to the British people retaining their monarchy if that's what they, as a whole, want? Admittedly we've never had a popular vote on the subject, but there's no loud public clamour for it, like there is for EU membership. And there's no political party calling for it. It's on the lines of, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still object to the system of monarchy
Though I'm a monarchist, my belief in democracy trumps my support for the Royal Family, and if any of the 16 countries of which the Queen is Head of State wants to democratically change this, I support their right to do so. Do you support our right to love the system we have, and to retain it by popular consent?
quote:Of course not. What I do object to is the idiocy in statements about whether or not the British people will "accept" Charles as king or Camilla as queen. If the British people don't "accept" Camilla as queen, what exactly are they going to do about it except read trash about her in the papers and talk about what a great queen Diana would have made?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I put this to all who, like Jade, object in principle to the system of monarchy. Do you object, in priciple, to the British people retaining their monarchy if that's what they, as a whole, want?
quote:He's popular with me - and I can tell you that now the history is clearer there are plenty of people who see Diana was never a saint.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I agree with you to the extent that the institution of monarchy is about the institution itself, not about the individual who sits on the throne, and so Charles is perfectly entitled to be king. But he has problems. I am old enough to remember what an immensly popular young man he was, and how ardent monarchists, like my mother, felt secure about the future in his hands. All this was ruined by his ill-fated marriage. Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either Charles stays or all the Windsors go. If we want a monarchy we abide by the line of succession. If we want to choose the head of state by popularity contest we might as well have a republic.
I personally see the Duchess of Cornwall as a very dignified lady, and I have no problem with her, but how is Charles going to pass her off as his queen? The British public will never accept her. They still perceive Charles and Camilla to have done an enormous wrong to Diana, even though it is in no way that simple. Edward VIII abdicated in order to prevent a major constitutional crisis, and passed the throne to his brother who had a wife and children and were, at least to the outside world, a perfect family.
Though times have changed, and Charles' accession may not cause the same problems to church and state as those of Edward VIII, the stability of the crown would be better served, as in 1936, by an abdication which would allow william, his lovely and popular wife, and thei children to be in the spotlight. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't give my allegiance to Charles as king, if he chooses to stay.
quote:I daresay you're right, but I think it's silly. It's not like we haven't had unpopular queens before... mentioning no Elizabeth Woodvilles in particular. Camilla wouldn't even be queen regnant; merely queen consort. If the British public really can't stomach having a queen they don't like much, perhaps it is time the British public considered republicanism.
Similarly, if she were considered to be very unpopular, or at least, on thin ice when Charles inherits (and I don't think she will, BTW), one might imagine it being proposed that she should be known as e.g. Duchess of Lancaster.
quote:Exactly. The public discussion of the monarch and her family, of whether they are qualified for their jobs, of whether the British people approve of the things that they do -- these things make monarchy itself look ridiculous. You want a hereditary monarchy? Fine, suck it up and take without complaint what that gives you: people who are born into their jobs no matter what their qualifications, character or personal preferences might be.
Originally posted by Jane R:
If the British public really can't stomach having a queen they don't like much, perhaps it is time the British public considered republicanism.
quote:But looking ridiculous is all part of it. It is ridiculous, and bitching about it is part of the point. If not complaining about it was part of the deal, we'd have a revolution tomorrow.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Exactly. The public discussion of the monarch and her family, of whether they are qualified for their jobs, of whether the British people approve of the things that they do -- these things make monarchy itself look ridiculous. You want a hereditary monarchy? Fine, suck it up and take without complaint what that gives you: people who are born into their jobs no matter what their qualifications, character or personal preferences might be.
Originally posted by Jane R:
If the British public really can't stomach having a queen they don't like much, perhaps it is time the British public considered republicanism.
quote:That, perhaps, is a key consideration which almost no republican deals with. There may be a head-of-state function, but the Swiss manage to share it among a commission and the Swedes split it between the Speaker and the King. Uruguay once considered a nine-man directory to undertake it. However, with a set of clear rules on dealing with parliamentary situations, and perhaps a few dozen judges or other public officials to hand out decorations and preside at functions, there is no real need for one. To speak of presidents and elected governors general rather than monarchs might simply be a waste of time and a basic misunderstanding of what a modern state does.
Originally posted by ken:
Why have a Head of State at all?
quote:
The public discussion of the President and [his] family, of whether they are qualified for their jobs, of whether the American people approve of the things that they do -- these things make the Presidency itself look ridiculous.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Fixed that for you. Or rather, translated it into American terms to point out that (some of) you bitch about your Head of State too.quote:I reckon that's got more to do with the way the media has changed since the early 80's than anything else.
Originally posted by Firenze:
More than that, there seems to be a kind of mana involved: young Cambridge comes trailing more than ordinary clouds of glory.
