|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Born a child and yet a king
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
I get a little tired or republicans being portrayed as chippy and joyless.
They often have a habit of coming across that way.
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.
Exactly right.
I am a republican but would settle for a civic monarchy - all this 'anointed king' blarney is pure nonsense. The celebrity culture which follows them all is even worse.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I am a cheerful person, always looking for a laugh - so I don't know where the 'joyless' tag comes from. 'Hypeless' YES!!
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
If it really is foolscap paper they must have a special supplier. I haven't seen any for years.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Dressing head to toe in the Royal Standard would be a better look perhaps? Though possibly defacing the royal standard is treason? who knows?
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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?
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
Indeed. And they're not called Imperial measure for nothing, you know.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Firenze's comment (intended as a put down) raises an interesting theological point.
She said "Posh couple have baby equates to the Incarnation?
Nobody in their right mind would equate the birth of the prince with the incarnation of the Prince of Peace. I certainly wasn't.
But
Is not ours an incarnational faith?
In the OT the King was regarded both as "son of God" (Psalm 2) and even as "messiah". In both roles the king was supposed to be God's agent and the instrument of God's purpose.
In other words God accomplishes His purpose through human agencies.
And could it not be that whenever some man or woman embodies God's Truth and Justice and Mercy and Love then is that some sort of "incarnation"?
Why keep the word to refer only to the incarnation of God in Christ. It has a wider reference. And I cannot help but quote Norman Pittenger in his book 'The Word Incarnate'. He said;
"The incarnation of God in Christ is focally, but not exclusively true of him. He is indeed crucial and definitive, but what is seen there is pervasively true of the whole cosmos.
Jesus is not an isolated entrance or intervention of God into a world which is otherwise without His presence or action. Rather, he is as man, a climactic and definitive point for God's presence and action among men in a world in which God is always present and ceaselessly active. Jesus is not the supreme anomaly, he is the classic instance"
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Perhaps the monarchy should be decided by lot* and be for a fixed term?
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].
Were you thinking along these lines?
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.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If it really is foolscap paper they must have a special supplier. I haven't seen any for years.
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
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.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Private Eye have nailed it (not for the first time of course). Plain cover, "Woman has baby" ....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
Babies do seem usually still to be denominated in lbs and ozs.
For luvanddaisies and others who moan about this, it is very difficult to think in terms of measurements that are different from the ones you learnt at school, whichever system that was. You learnt the metric system. I went to school in the fifties and sixties. In theory I know what metres, kilos, centigrade etc are, but they don't mean very much. I still have to convert them into the measurements I think in.
Metric temperatures are the ones I find most opaque.
The only reason the French seem better at it, is that everyone who was around in the generations when the measurements were changed has long since died.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Speaking of American opinions of the monarchy, here's an oldie but a goodie. An excerpt:
quote:
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.
ALLCAPS in original.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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 ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of American opinions of the monarchy, here's an oldie but a goodie. An excerpt:
quote:
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.
ALLCAPS in original.
Thomas Paine, I'm guessing?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't vast swathes of the population use pounds and ounces?
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.
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.
Given that metric roadsigns are illegal and milk and beer are sold in pints, it's difficult to see how the old system can be considered 'history' if you lived any kind of life outside of the classroom.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.)
Metric is much easier for doing calculations with, but most people never want to do that. When was the last time you sat down with a pencil and paper and estimated your density?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
When was the last time you sat down with a pencil and paper and estimated your density?
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...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
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.)
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.
*Mind Americans are heavy, and my simplification of the scale runs light, so maybe I'm totally wrong about why this seems simple to us.
[ 23. July 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmmm. As an erstwhile, recently and for 50+ years armchair warrior, monarchist, fanatic English patriot (though I dislike the word nearly as much as nationalist for England is a motherland), completely radicalized against my will ... God bless the wee laddie and my prince! May he live to lay down his privilege. I´d insist he keep it if he did I suspect.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of American opinions of the monarchy, here's an oldie but a goodie. An excerpt:
quote:
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.
ALLCAPS in original.
Thomas Paine, I'm guessing?
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Privilege accumulates. At least we´ve institutionalized it tastefully. At the highest level.
Perhaps if we abolished all debt every 7 years. Hark at me! I used to defend capitalism too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
How much of the UK do the Windsors collectively own? As in land.
How much money do they have?
I did a little searching, the first question doesn't appear to have a clear answer, and the second on a little fuzzy also.
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?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
How much of the UK do the Windsors collectively own? As in land.
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.
So all told, that's a bit more than 1% of the UK which is in some sense owned by the Crown.
quote:
How much money do they have?
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.
quote:
Does the baby already own a castle because he's a duke of something?
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
The "not very much" aspect of 10s of millions does boggle me anyway.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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. 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, but the pressure to marry and have children must be enormous. What if William and Kate had not wanted children?
The system of monarchy is as unfair on royalty as it is on the rest of us, since it forces them into a role they did not choose and means they cannot be a private person. Even the mother of Our Lord got a choice in the matter, yet a human being born into the 'right' family does not! I have nothing against the Royal Family and they seem on the whole like nice people, and if I could democratically elect the Queen to be head of state I would do! It's not the people involved, it's the system that's wrong and inherently unfair - and IMO, not very Christian. If there is no gentile or Jew in Christ, why should there be commoner or royal?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
So I'm a bit bored at work and waiting for the boy who may be a king to come out with his Mum and Dad.
And he comes out.
And all I can see are these fingers waggling at each other.
And all I can think is
"Excellent! Smithers, release the hounds."
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
The Queen owns Sandringham House in Norfolk and Balmoral personally, the rest of the Royal Palace are state property.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
No, I don't think you can. You could abdicate once you inherited the big seat, but even that isn't something you can do yourself. When Edward VIII abdicated, it required an act of parliament - His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 - to remove him from the throne.
Parliament can, similarly, alter the succession, so you could petition to have yourself removed from the list, but it's not something you can unilaterally do.
quote:
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,
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.
quote:
but the pressure to marry and have children must be enormous.
The Prince of Wales was apparently told in no uncertain terms to get on with it.
quote:
What if William and Kate had not wanted children?
Then we'd be expecting King Henry IX in due course. Interestingly, the last monarch to die without legitimate issue was William IV.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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. *snip*
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
The "not very much" aspect of 10s of millions does boggle me anyway.
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
What if William and Kate had not wanted children?
Then we'd be expecting King Henry IX in due course. Interestingly, the last monarch to die without legitimate issue was William IV.
And things didn't turn out too badly after that.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It's great to hear about the birth of any child but ..... there's only so much one can take and I think I've taken it.
It's not so much the birth itself as the endless speculation about the child and what he'll do as King, his name and all that kind of stuff. It's simply empty nonsense - no one knows!
If only we gave even a fraction of the same attention to a child born in an overcrowded under staffed NHS hospital, who really needs it. No NHS birth gets the undivided attention of the team that Katie and Billy had.
As to name, how about starting a new trend of calling him "Windsor?"
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
I know, let's ask Katie Hopkins for a name - she should choose a nice one!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[....
quote:
What if William and Kate had not wanted children?
Then we'd be expecting King Henry IX in due course....
What, (as some might say),
another one? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
A mishmash then.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
If you consider the royal household's dedication to compassion and self-expression, I think more likely Edward II.
[ 24. July 2013, 13:08: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
If you consider the royal household's dedication to compassion and self-expression, I think more likely Edward II.
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Or maybe handed a biography of James VI and told to read, mark, learn?
If you consider the royal household's dedication to compassion and self-expression, I think more likely Edward II.
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.
There might be an example closer to hand if stories in a (now defunct) Cambridge student newspaper are to be believed.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Tho' other rumours suggest that young Cambridge's other great uncle is the one in that generation who is, ahem, not as other men: certainly his former wife felt moved, for some reason, to deny it, quite unprompted.
I hope, genuinely, to live to see the first Royal gay wedding.
[ 24. July 2013, 17:04: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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.
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]
Hmm... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
In other news, the bairn's been named George Alexander Louis, says the BBC.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.
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).
I had to check.
Marlborough got Blenheim Palace, which created a precedent. Wellington was expected to get something as his achievements were even greater.
He got £600,000 in 1814 and £100,000 after Waterloo with which he bought Apsley House in London and Stratfield Saye. The later was supposed to be demolished to be the sight of a "Waterloo Palace" but the Iron Duke abandoned the plans as too expensive in 1821; 20 years of war had driven prices high.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
This could all be different half a century down the line. Perhaps we will have tired of royalty by then, and elected a republican parliament which could put the question to the people about a change of constitution. In which case, we would become a republic. Though I'm a monarchist, I'm even more a democrat. This is why it's so wrong when republicans claim the hereditary Head of State is undemocratic. If the Queen has 83% of voters in favour of replacing her on her death, her position is far more democratic than any government I've ever lived under.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
