Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: Prince_Lieven on April 15, 2006, 01:50:32 PM

Title: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on April 15, 2006, 01:50:32 PM
Hey, I bought a copy of 'Time' magazine today because it has a large article on the Queen in honour of her 80th birthday. I thought you guys might like to know some of the statistics the article presented. They ran several polls.

Should the Queen continue to carry on her duties as at present?
*Yes 59%
*No 24%
*Undecided 17%


Precentage who feel very or mostly favourable toward:
*Police 73%
*Armed Forces 72%
*Church of England 51%
*Royal Family 47%
*Parliament 43%


Percentage of people who say this attribute fits the royal family:
*Good for image abroad 56%
*Important to Britain 50%
*Highly respected 32%
*Out of touch 32%
*Supports and promotes charities 31%
*Hard working 23%
*Remote 20%
*Good value for money 13%
*Important to my life 4%


It goes on to say that since 1952, the Queen has received 3 million letters, hosted about 1.1 million people at her garden parties and made 256 official overseas visits to 129 different countries. It also quotes various people who've recently met the Queen and been extremely impressed. The article was very good - they talked to the Queen's staff, and Prince Andrew as well. When Prince Andrew was asked if his mother 'likes her job' he replied "People say to me 'your life must be very strange'. But of course I've never experienced any other life. It's not strange to me. It's the same for the Queen. She has never experienced anything else. That life, that knowlege, that wisdom is purely natural for her." Pamela Hicks says that the Queen "feels she must do the job she has been given and it will be for others to judge whether she has succeeded."

Remarking on her dry sense of humour, an anecdote is told whereby a foreign head of state who was visiting slipped out of the palace at night, the Queen quipped "Has he taken his wife?" Another time, she stood up at a family dinner and the footman pulled back her chair, but she wanted to continue the conversation so went to sit down again, and of course crashed to the floor. The family found it hilarious, but the footman was horrified, until the Queen reassured him.

Prince Andrew said of his mother: "Her desire is not to change the future, but to be there, today."

I can't speak for anyone else but personlly, my admiration for this woman is boundless and long may she reign!  :D
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Janet on April 15, 2006, 02:02:08 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/15/do1502.xml

A very good and thought-provoking article. An excerpt: "Can there ever have been anyone in public life with less desire to show off, bare her soul, win people's hearts or explain herself in any way?"

I can't begin to describe how much I admire this lovely Queen.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on April 15, 2006, 02:10:51 PM
Thanks for posting that link Janet, very interesting stuff. It's especially right when it mentions that the Queen has never wavered from her promise to serve her country. And it's been 59 years since then!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on April 15, 2006, 06:03:15 PM
Lieven, I am interested to find out if you know who was polled here, "Time" being an American publication?

There has been a perceptible change in opinions of the Queen, particularly in the last few years, with even non-supporters admitting she has performed her duties admirably and is not the humourless and staid person she was thought to be in the past.  Her image has softened - it's even obvious in her choice of clothes - whether it's because of changes she made post-Diana or post-Queen Mother or due to her advancing age is hard to know. ???

At my work, we are having a morning tea on April 21 as a celebration of EII's 80 glorious years...naturally only those loyal to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors according to law may attend! That won't be everyone but it will be quite a few...  ;)

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on April 15, 2006, 06:46:35 PM
It says that 2,264 'Britons' were interviewed in person between January 5-10 2006.  ;)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grand Duchess Kimbo on April 15, 2006, 11:57:42 PM
I admire the Queen. Sad to say, though, that I seem to be the only one in my age group over here. Here's a little story: Last year in class we were discussing the monarchy. When I said that I admired the Queen, I was shouted down, even by my teacher. One girl even said she wanted HM to die. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ferngully on April 16, 2006, 02:01:44 PM
she is a femme formidable in my opinion, but i don't think thats such a bad thing at all ;)
selina                 xxxxxxxxxx
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Caleb on April 16, 2006, 02:13:06 PM
The royals, as pointed out in a National Geographic documentary ("The Last Royals") bring in the tourists.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Dasha on April 17, 2006, 09:11:43 PM
I too admire Her Majesty.  She does a great deal and how many of us can say that at her age we're going to be as active?  I think she deserves a lot of respect for what she does and how she seems to handle the presure that comes with her position.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 18, 2006, 08:24:10 AM
As a proud Brit, I can say that personally I think the Queen is a very nice lady and all, but I don't have the boundless admiration for her that others do.

She is where she is because she was born into it, and I don't think she deserves any special praise for doing what is not really a particularly hard or unenviable job that she didn't have to work for.  What has she done, really, for mankind? Has she saved people's lives? Has she made the world a better place? Has she triumphed against adversity? Struggled with poverty and a lack of education?  No. My own standards of what deserves praise are simply not fulfilled by the Queen.  She has done her job well, and I am admiring of her ability to keep on doing it all these years, especially as it must be boring and frustrating to not be able to go out and do what YOU want to do with your life.  However, she's not exactly had a hard life so I find it difficult to say 'she's an amazing woman', because she's not in my eyes.

She's respected because of what she represents, not because of who she is, in my mind.  I'm sure she's a lovely person and I wouldn't mind her being my granny, but I'm not particularly admiring of her, I'm afraid.

Shoot me down now! I'm a traitor to my queen! ;)

I think Liam's statistics are revealing though.  The fact that more people support the Church of England than the Queen is a sign of how popular opinion is going down.  If people are more interested in religion than the queen, you know something's up.  My own theory is that as the older generations die off, the younger generations won't be as interested in the monarchy.  The only people keeping the opinion polls marginally in the royal family's favour are the elderly generations who still have the old attitude of deference to the monarchy.  Nowadays younger people like me are more apt to question why the monarchy exists and to resent the fact that our taxes go towards supporting a monarchy that has no real role and is simply there to fill the pages of Hello! magazine, or so it seems.

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Alexios on April 18, 2006, 09:04:06 AM
Quote
I think Liam's statistics are revealing though.  The fact that more people support the Church of England than the Queen is a sign of how popular opinion is going down.  If people are more interested in religion than the queen, you know something's up.  My own theory is that as the older generations die off, the younger generations won't be as interested in the monarchy.  The only people keeping the opinion polls marginally in the royal family's favour are the elderly generations who still have the old attitude of deference to the monarchy.  Nowadays younger people like me are more apt to question why the monarchy exists and to resent the fact that our taxes go towards supporting a monarchy that has no real role and is simply there to fill the pages of Hello! magazine, or so it seems.
Let's hope you're wrong. I have the highest respect for the queen and the monarchy. The British monarchy has such a long tradition, I would be very sad if it was ever abolished - I hope it will not happen in Australia.
I don't know why so many young people nowadays are so indifferent towards the monarchy...don't they know the splendid history of this glorious and noble instution? The monarchy is something special and precious...in my opinion the British should be proud of it and honour it. God save the Queen! Long may she reign!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: RichC on April 18, 2006, 09:06:52 AM
As an American looking over from the other side, I'm almost envious of the British system.  At least the British are honest about the head of state being born into the role.  Our current president *never* would have got to where he is if he hadn't come from a very powerful and wealthy family.  

I think the Queen does a good job, as long as she (or whoever the monarch is) stays out of party politics.  Also, the scrapes they get themselves in strike me as so minor compared to the messes our elected officials get into over here.  Yet the royals really get raked over the coals by the British press for the smallest misstep.  Our vice president recently shot someone by accident.  Can you imagine if Prince Phillip had done that?  

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Alexios on April 18, 2006, 11:45:48 AM
Quote
Yet the royals really get raked over the coals by the British press for the smallest misstep.  Our vice president recently shot someone by accident.  Can you imagine if Prince Phillip had done that?  
I agree.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 18, 2006, 12:50:16 PM
I think the difference between US politicians and the Royal Family is that the politicians got voted in by the public and don't scrounge off the public for their living.  Therefore, they're less accountable to the public for their private lives, because the only part of them that is public is their professional roles.

The Royal Family get paid by us for basically doing nothing; we fund their lifestyle.  We pay for them, so they're our property, in a sense, and so they're always prime fodder for criticism.  I know when it breaks down person to person individually it's a matter of pence that goes towards the royal family from our taxes, but still, they get to live the life of riley while we don't.  So, when they spend £1 million on taking helicopter rides between homes or say something racist, we are less indulgent and more critical of them because really they have no RIGHT to be where they are beyond who they happened to be born to.  Average Sun reader loves to get their knickers in a twist when they read the provocative headline: 'QUEEN SPENDS 1 MILLION OF OUR MONEY ON NEW ROLLS ROYCE' etc.  It's sensationalism and we love it.  The Brits love to moan, and if we're not moaning about the weather, we're moaning about the royals wasting our hard earned cash!

 I would be sorry to see the monarchy go, but I think anyone but the Queen/King should start getting jobs and funding their lifestyle themselves, especially royals such as Prince Andrew and Prince Edward; what do they do to justify their allowances?  If they spend our money, they have to be accountable for their actions, hence why they get raked over in the press.  

However, the British press is notorious all over the world for its vindictiveness towards all celebrities.  In certain parts of London you can't walk down the street without falling over a pap waiting to take a photo of someone 'famous' (usually the latest Big Brother winner). It's madness.  Someone just has to step out of a taxi with their knickers showing and it's front page news.  What the world has come to, eh?  ::)

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 18, 2006, 02:18:39 PM
Oh Rachel, you have certainly raised my ire today.  

Quote
I think the difference between US politicians and the Royal Family is that the politicians got voted in by the public and don't scrounge off the public for their living.  Therefore, they're less accountable to the public for their private lives, because the only part of them that is public is their professional roles.

First of all, since when don't politicans scrounge off the public for their living?  The city of Washington DC is completely populated with people paid for by the public, many of whom spend their entire careers padding their own pockets through political means.

Our presidents, senators, congressmen and other officials typically work for 4-8 years.  For the rest of their lives - and their widows' lives - they receive huge pensions, the finest health care in the world, and a range of other perks.  Our former presidents and their families receive secret service protection, staff and offices, travel, and many other benefits for their lifetimes.

We probably pay more a year for our former presidents and their families - everything included - than you do for all members of the Royal Family except the Queen herself.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 18, 2006, 02:27:18 PM
Quote
The Royal Family get paid by us for basically doing nothing; we fund their lifestyle.  We pay for them, so they're our property, in a sense, and so they're always prime fodder for criticism.  

The Royal Family gets paid for doing nothing?  Are you kidding me?  I would challenge you, Rachel, to prove that you work harder than the Queen, or Charles, or Anne.    

However, that's besides the point.  You do not fund the lifestyle of the British Royal Family.  Do not forget that the Queen surrendered the annual income of the Crown Estate to you in exchange for her annual stipend.   She gives you something like 200 million pounds a year, and you give her 35 million back.  Sounds like a deal to me.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Lucien on April 19, 2006, 03:00:48 AM
HM's life is about DUTY,that is the key word to her,it is not work but a way of life to her.Her sense of duty and dedication can be envied by many,even many who are youngsters at the time,but I think it is an inspiration to see HM go about at 80 still.Honestly,who would/could even come near her working through a busy schedule at any time and age let alone as an 80 year old?

I will not go into financial aspects,that's for the ignorant I'm sorry to say,all I say is that the revenues and spin-off of the British Monarchy exceeds by far any penny spend on it.

HM was a Monarch already as many of us,or their parents,where still in dipers.She has been a constant throughout the decades,in good times and bad,and there have been many of both.Highly admirerable how she remained herself to say the very least.

HM The Queens life,througout the decades:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4819.asp#
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on April 19, 2006, 08:45:57 AM
Rachel, some of your opinions regarding Queen Elizabeth are naive and uninformed, to say the least.

You may not support the idea of monarchy but to say that the Queen "basically does nothing" is simply incorrect.

She has diligently performed a demanding role on the world's stage for over 50 years now and has the respect, if not reverence, of leaders in many, many countries for her shrewd knowledge, her diplomacy and her sheer application, not to mention millions of her subjects who appreciate her longstanding dedication.  Please educate yourself a little better about what Her Majesty really does.

Politicians don't "scrounge off the public" for their living?  You are kidding - back to school here too, I'm afraid!

As to the British press - what has that got to do with the Queen?  When did you last see a scandal in the papers involving her?  That's right - you haven't.  And when you mention her children - she is no more responsible for the behaviour of her adult children than anyone else is, so don't hang this on her either, please!

Could you name anyone who would benefit by getting rid of the Queen and the Royal Family?

I think the opposite to you - I think she is respected for who she is, not what she represents - Kings and Queens don't automatically command respect and admiration - they have to earn it.

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 19, 2006, 10:19:26 AM
Quote
Rachel, some of your opinions regarding Queen Elizabeth are naive and uninformed, to say the least.

You may not support the idea of monarchy but to say that the Queen "basically does nothing" is simply incorrect.

She has diligently performed a demanding role on the world's stage for over 50 years now and has the respect, if not reverence, of leaders in many, many countries for her shrewd knowledge, her diplomacy and her sheer application, not to mention millions of her subjects who appreciate her longstanding dedication.  Please educate yourself a little better about what Her Majesty really does.


Other people may respect the Queen for what she does, but I don't. I know full well what her job involves, and I don't think it's hard work at all.  

I find it hilarious when people try and tell me how 'hard' the Queen works; she doesn't know the meaning of the word.  I'd like to invite her to come and live where I do, and do the jobs people where I live do.  Does the Queen get down on her knees and scrub toilets to make sure her kids can have something to eat? Does the Queen work a 12 hour night shift at a supermarket, then come home and go out to another job to make sure the rent gets paid? Of course not.  She may do a good job at what she does do, but it's not a particularly taxing job in my eyes. I'd far rather swap places.

I don't think I'm naive, or need to go back to school for having that opinion, thanks very much.  I'm not of the mindset that royalty should be idolised.  They're just people, who happened to be born into a position that gave them a title and a public role.  I don't think the Queen deserves respect for that myself.  The people I have respect for are those that risk their lives to help others, those that save lives,  those who would rather work for 20 hours a day to support themselves rather than scrounge off the government, etc.  The Queen doesn't really fit into my criteria.

Clearly we come from different backgrounds and have different ideas about what constitutes hard work, and what deserves respect.  I respect your opinion, and you're fully entitled to it, but I don't agree with it, and I never will.  That doesn't make me naive or stupid.  It just means I'm coming from a different angle than you.  :)

And about the press-  I never said anything about the Queen's behaviour and nor did I blame her for her children's.  I don't know where you got that idea from.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 19, 2006, 11:13:04 AM
I would just like to add that while I don't really admire the Queen for the work she does, I do think she has done a good job doing what she does do.  She has always conducted herself with the utmost propriety and has never given any reason for people to criticise her personally.  She has done her duty for a very long time, and the fact that she is going on into her 80s shows how proud she is of her position and how determined she is to do her duty to the role she was born into. I do admire her for that at least.

I don't have a problem with the Queen, which is the impression some people seem to have gotten from my previous posts.  I think she's a wonderful lady and I think she has done the job of being Queen very well.  I don't think the monarchy should be abolished, either, I just think the lesser members of the royal family should work for a living.  No-one other than the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales needs to be representing the Royal family and receiving a wage for doing so in my book.  The monarchy does do a lot for the country's standing abroad and it brings in a lot of revenue from tourism, I am well aware of that.  However, it does need subsidising.  Perhaps not very much, as I have already said, but it still does take money from the public.

My main problem with the way the monarchy is nowadays is that the younger members of the family and people like the Duchess of York simply trade on their name to become 'celebrities'.  The Royal Family is not supposed to be about getting into Hello! magazine for being at all the right socialite parties, it is supposed to be about being the figurehead of the country and setting a good example. The Queen has never done anything otherwise, and she has done very well in that respect. But I don't see why Prince Edward and Prince Andrew in particular should be getting allowances, because they're simply not necessary.  I am for a much more centralised Royal family, which I believe the Queen is pushing for herself.  Anyone outside of that central core should be working and funding their lifestyles themselves, otherwise they just give the Royal Family a bad name and make them unpopular, which is where the monarchy stands now in the majority of British people's minds.  Just look at Liam's statistics.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: RichC on April 19, 2006, 10:55:47 PM
Quote
I would just like to add that while I don't really admire the Queen for the work she does, I do think she has done a good job doing what she does do.  She has always conducted herself with the utmost propriety and has never given any reason for people to criticise her personally.  She has done her duty for a very long time, and the fact that she is going on into her 80s shows how proud she is of her position and how determined she is to do her duty to the role she was born into. I do admire her for that at least.

I would never want to trade places with the monarch and I think you are underestimating how difficult her job actually is.  I admire anyone who is able, on a regular basis, to parade him or herself in front of large crowds and hardly ever make a misstep.  I, for one, would be constantly worried that someone would shoot me, either a terrorist, or nutcase.  But if she's worrying about that, it never seems to show.  I admire that because it certainly takes guts!  I think someone actually did fire a gun at her many years ago, but I believe the bullets were blanks.  Nevertheless, she hardly flinched.  That shows a strength of character that few people have regardless of what stratum of society they come from.  Regardless of what public event she is participating in, (426 in 2005) she must always look very interested in what's going on, or whoever is talking, etc.  Hell, I can't sit in a meeting for more than an hour without my mind wandering off and I start yawning...

Also, the Queen is fluent in French, as well as English.  Few other heads of state can claim to be fluent in more than one language.  (The current U.S. president can barely speak English properly).

Do not forget, also, that the Queen is constitutionally barred from speaking her mind or giving her personal opinion about practically any political topic.  She has to keep her mouth shut to stay above party politics.  She can't take sides.  She could never partake in any kind of online discussion forum about anything -- something we all take for granted.  That must take a great deal of self-control.  It's almost as if she lives in a gilded cage.


Quote
My main problem with the way the monarchy is nowadays is that the younger members of the family and people like the Duchess of York simply trade on their name to become 'celebrities'.  The Royal Family is not supposed to be about getting into Hello! magazine for being at all the right socialite parties, it is supposed to be about being the figurehead of the country and setting a good example. The Queen has never done anything otherwise, and she has done very well in that respect. But I don't see why Prince Edward and Prince Andrew in particular should be getting allowances, because they're simply not necessary.  I am for a much more centralised Royal family, which I believe the Queen is pushing for herself.  Anyone outside of that central core should be working and funding their lifestyles themselves, otherwise they just give the Royal Family a bad name and make them unpopular, which is where the monarchy stands now in the majority of British people's minds.  Just look at Liam's statistics.

Here I agree with you.  They should not get allowances merely because they are the Queen's children.  In return for living lives in the lap of luxury, they should work for it and they should be held to much higher standards than the average individual.  
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on April 20, 2006, 04:16:40 AM
I agree wholeheartedly about the younger members of the Royal Family.  They either need to pull their weight as full time functional members (and there are literally hundreds of good causes crying out for help) or get out and support themselves, at least to a degree.

However, this thread is about what people think of the Queen these days, not her children, ex-children-in-law or grandchildren.

Frankly, in my opinion, none can stand next to her.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 20, 2006, 08:24:28 AM
Quote
When I said that I admired the Queen, I was shouted down, even by my teacher. One girl even said she wanted HM to die. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[


What a horrible girl!! ;D

Personally, I think the Queen is marvellous. She really has done a fantastic job. As another poster pointed out, the Queen and indeed many members of her family work extremely hard, doing a lot of good, and I applaud them for that!!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ferngully on April 20, 2006, 08:40:55 AM
my freind also can't wait for her to die. she just doesn't see the point of her
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 20, 2006, 09:25:39 AM
Quote
my freind also can't wait for her to die. she just doesn't see the point of her

How ignorant!! Sounds like some people on here, have some spiteful friends!! lol

You should try, if at all possible, to teach your friend some intelligence.   ;D ;D
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 20, 2006, 09:37:23 AM
I might not agree with a lot of you as regards the Queen, but I certainly wouldn't wish the poor love dead!

How nasty! How could anyone wish for anyone to be dead?! What do kids get taught in schools these days?? I am shocked!  :o

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 20, 2006, 09:47:23 AM
lol, some people are just awful i'm afraid, I just put it down to ignorance though!!  :)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grand Duchess Kimbo on April 20, 2006, 09:50:20 AM
Quote
I might not agree with a lot of you as regards the Queen, but I certainly wouldn't wish the poor love dead!

How nasty! How could anyone wish for anyone to be dead?! What do kids get taught in schools these days?? I am shocked!  :o

Rachel
xx



I don't know. The girl in question over here wanted to fit in with the rest of the lot(and the teacher), so she said that. Later it was spread around that her best friend had told her to say so because that best friend didn't like me all that much, and if she didn't, the best friend threatened lonliness forever. :( Stereotypical stuff. I'm glad I'm out of that classroom. :(
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 20, 2006, 11:38:12 AM
Quote
Anyone outside of that central core should be working and funding their lifestyles themselves.Rachelxx

Well, I'm going to have to concede on that point myself Rachel.  The current RF is too large - particularly when you throw the Queen's cousins into to the mix.  

However, how can they win?  The Kents and Glouchesters came of age in another era - when it was not only acceptable but expected that persons holding the HRH style lead royal lives.  It was not that long ago that it was considered disgraceful for a royal to hold a job.  Heck, even Sarah (a former royal) has been heavily criticized for her various efforts to support herself.  They cry "She's trading in on her status".  Well, excuse me, she IS the former wife of a prince.  Unless Britain's public wants to support her, she's going to have to earn her keep and yes, that means drawing from her circle - which happens to include many high rollers due to her title.  What is she to do?

It is obvious, however, that the RF is contracting.  30 years ago, cousins like the York princesses would be given apartments at Kensington and put out on the royal circuit.  Today, they are likely to raise their families privately, appearing only for major royal family events.

By the end of the present reign, the core RF will have shrunk by 1/3 from 30 years ago.  After the retirement or passing of Andrew, Anne, Edward & Sophie, it will shrink even further.  Makes sense too - they seem to be adopting the continental approach which often separtes the "Royal "House" from the "Royal Family".
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ferngully on April 20, 2006, 02:45:22 PM
Quote
Quote
my freind also can't wait for her to die. she just doesn't see the point of her

How ignorant!! Sounds like some people on here, have some spiteful friends!! lol

You should try, if at all possible, to teach your friend some intelligence.   ;D ;D


its not a quality she employs regularly ;D
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 07, 2006, 08:50:23 PM
This legal blunder (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2346451,00.html) has such an explosive potential that it may very well undo the British Monarchy, unless Prince Charles abdicates in favor of William. A series of prophecies speak of revolutions to come in Britain - and we all know whose heads roll during revolutions...

God bless!
Borbon Fan
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: carl fraley on September 07, 2006, 11:36:17 PM
COMPLETE RUBBISH
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 08, 2006, 10:53:58 AM
I agree with you Carl, the very idea is rubbish.  BUT, the headline got me to thinking about a "What If" scenario idea for a thread.  What would life be like for the British Royal Family - and Britian as a whole - if the monarchy did end?  What would be the biggest visible changes?  There are so many intertwined links.  Here's how I'd see some developments.

The ending of the UK monarchy would hardly come in the form of a revolution - that's simply Un-British.  Instead, it would have developed slowly, probably thorugh a series of referendums.  But were it to happen, we'd have the Queen and DoE retiring to Sandringham and Balmoral, probably receiving a lifetime stipend as "former heads of state".  President Blair would be tasked with the monumental job of dividing up assets between "state", "private" and "crown".  The lawyers would have a field day - especially dealing with art, jewels, etc.

I'd guess the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall would remain in royal hands - they are, after all, separate from all other crown possessions, and belong to the Queen as Duke no different than the Duke of Westminster's properties belong to him.  Plus, it would seem fair for the state to provide the former reigning house with properties sufficient to generate enough income to live comfortably through the generations.  The Crown Estate, in contrast, would probably be handed over to the state.

St. James, Buckingham, Windsor and Hollyrood would likely become museums or government offices.  Maybe President Blair would move into Buckingham or St. James to enable them to remain the ceremonial center of the nation.  (Number 10 is hardly appropriate for the kind of formal entertaining that Britain is used to!).

Charles and Cam might be granted lifetime use of Clarence House (or maybe on a lease), or they'd retire to Highgrove and Birkhall.  Ditto for Andrew, who already has a lease on Royal Lodge.  Anne's estate at Gatcombe Park is privately owned, and Alexandria of Kent's is leased from the Crown Estate.  The Kents and Glouchesters and Michael's of Kent would probably have to leave Kensington, finding apartments or country homes to live out their days.

Gone would be the pagentry from Trooping the Color, Jubilees, and Royal Weddings and Funerals.  Oh, people would still come to London for the royals' weddings and funerals, but without the troops, carriages and hroses, such events would pale in comparison.

State Opening of Parliament would probably turn into a neo-political event like it is here in America.  (I always cringe when I watch our State of the Union address.  What was originally a dignified, formal report on the health of the union from the Head of State to Congress has become nothing more than a cheap series of political maneuvering).

Terms like crown, royal patronage, court circular, footmen, and state carriages would fade from use.  The ravens at HM's Tower of London (err - now the Tower of the Republic) could be set free.  Tiaras, enormous necklaces and broaches, sashes and medals would slowly become relics, relegated to museums and storage.

The younger generation of royals - the Wales brothers, York Princesses and Lady Louise - would take jobs with brokerage firms or art galleries or perhaps some Chairmanships of the Board, and live lives similar to the children of Britain's current mere aristocracy. 

Within a generaton, Britain would look politically, socially and otherwise like France, Germany or America. 

How sad that would be....
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on September 08, 2006, 11:14:55 AM
Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: boffer on September 08, 2006, 12:06:10 PM
As prince philip once sed, in relation to canada - although it at some times has seem relevent at home here in Britaain aswell. He sed that if we want the monarchy to end then let them know about it and it can be ended on good terms.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 09, 2006, 06:11:16 AM



State Opening of Parliament would probably turn into a neo-political event like it is here in America.  (I always cringe when I watch our State of the Union address.  What was originally a dignified, formal report on the health of the union from the Head of State to Congress has become nothing more than a cheap series of political maneuvering).


Kinda reminds one of a tacky infomercial for ProActive acne medication or the Thighmaster does it not?   ;D ;D ;D

TampBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 09, 2006, 10:06:18 AM
Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ1.HTM)) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXR.HTM)) 

The revolutionaries have always been lapsed Christians or even outright anti-Christians. Such was the case with the Protestants who, deceived into heresy thanks to the newly invented printing press and, thus, the individually owned and interpreted Bibles, raised themselves against their God-annointed sovereign, King Charles I of England. It was also the case with the Bolsheviks and is now the case with the anti-Christian Australian republican Rupert Murdoch, who got to acquire a third of the British mass-media, thanks to Blair's press law reforms. A Blair who in exchange, regardless of his political blunders, has ever since been strongly supported by Murdoch's media, whether so-called centrist, so-called right-leaning, or outright leftist (as Murdoch himself truly is). His media empire is little by little chipping away at the public trust and respect for the Monarchy, for only when the last bastions of national sovereignty and identity, such as the Monarchy and the Church, are destroyed, only then he and the rest of the globalist plutocrats will finally be able to have complete rule over the entire world.

That's why, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone quickly to ban private media monopolies, you'd better get used to the idea that the days of the British Monarchy are numbered.

God bless!
Borbon Fan
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 09, 2006, 12:36:26 PM
Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ1.HTM)) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXR.HTM)) 

The revolutionaries have always been lapsed Christians or even outright anti-Christians. Such was the case with the Protestants who, deceived into heresy thanks to the newly invented printing press and, thus, the individually owned and interpreted Bibles, raised themselves against their God-annointed sovereign, King Charles I of England. It was also the case with the Bolsheviks and is now the case with the anti-Christian Australian republican Rupert Murdoch, who got to acquire a third of the British mass-media, thanks to Blair's press law reforms. A Blair who in exchange, regardless of his political blunders, has ever since been strongly supported by Murdoch's media, whether so-called centrist, so-called right-leaning, or outright leftist (as Murdoch himself truly is). His media empire is little by little chipping away at the public trust and respect for the Monarchy, for only when the last bastions of national sovereignty and identity, such as the Monarchy and the Church, are destroyed, only then he and the rest of the globalist plutocrats will finally be able to have complete rule over the entire world.

That's why, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone quickly to ban private media monopolies, you'd better get used to the idea that the days of the British Monarchy are numbered.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what Rupert Murdoch has to do with the British monarchy and whether it will continue. Also, you think Murdoch wants to take over the world?  ???




State Opening of Parliament would probably turn into a neo-political event like it is here in America.  (I always cringe when I watch our State of the Union address.  What was originally a dignified, formal report on the health of the union from the Head of State to Congress has become nothing more than a cheap series of political maneuvering).


Kinda reminds one of a tacky infomercial for ProActive acne medication or the Thighmaster does it not?   ;D ;D ;D

TampBay

To me, more like a bad elementary school play!  ;D
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 09, 2006, 01:10:07 PM
His media empire is little by little chipping away at the public trust and respect for the Monarchy, for only when the last bastions of national sovereignty and identity, such as the Monarchy and the Church, are destroyed, only then he and the rest of the globalist plutocrats will finally be able to have complete rule over the entire world.

That's why, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone quickly to ban private media monopolies, you'd better get used to the idea that the days of the British Monarchy are numbered.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what Rupert Murdoch has to do with the British monarchy and whether it will continue. Also, you think Murdoch wants to take over the world?  ???

Murdoch owns The Times in which the article above mentioned was published. He is known for his republican views, as he is behind the press campaign for a Republic in his home country, Australia. He is a globalist, as are most big industrialists (plutocrats) for whom the globalist tariff-free international commerce makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. He, as all globalist plutocrats, are in favor of a one world government, which will supposedly put an end to all wars, while in reality afford them an unhindered Big Brother-type control over all the nations. This is obviously opposed to the idea of Monarchy and to the Christian Church, which says that Jesus Christ alone rules the world from Heavens and which exhorts us to beware of the anti-christ who will at the end of times rule the entire world for a brief but bloody 3.5 years, during which all the remaining Christians who refuse to worship him as god will be killed.

That's why as long as Murdoch continues to own a third of the British media, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone, his newspapers, magazines, and TV stations will persuade the Britons little by little, just as this article does, to stop trusting and respecting the Monarchy to the point of eventually getting rid of it.

God bless!
Borbon Fan
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Guinastasia on September 13, 2006, 02:37:07 PM
Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ1.HTM)) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXR.HTM)) 
God bless!
Borbon Fan


Christians can't be revolutionaries?  I'm sure that would be a surprise to the countless numbers of Irish Catholics who fought for an independent Ireland!  Many of them were priests, even.

What about Rev. Martin Luther King Jr?  He certainly lead a revolution-was he not a Christian?

Hell, Christ himself, (the historical Christ, I'm not getting into a theological debate here!) was a revolutionary-certainly he was a radical. 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 13, 2006, 02:45:18 PM
Wouldn't the Crusades be counted as pretty revolutionary? Plus, those that fought didn't just happen to be Christian -they fought because they were Christian.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 13, 2006, 03:08:05 PM
IMO, the British monarchy is not in the least likely to be "overthrown" as long as it serves a valid constitutional  role in the governemnet and life of Britain. It may, however, become atrophied and redundant through acts of Parlaiment over time. Some would say that point has been reached, but I would dis-agree. Not just yet, imo.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on September 13, 2006, 03:15:40 PM
Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ1.HTM)) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXR.HTM)) 
God bless!
Borbon Fan


Christians can't be revolutionaries?  I'm sure that would be a surprise to the countless numbers of Irish Catholics who fought for an independent Ireland!  Many of them were priests, even.

Very true. Of course, not many priests 'fought' but most people who did were pretty devout Catholics.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 13, 2006, 03:51:03 PM
Lets ditch all the nonsense and look at the only two really valid points BourbonFan makes.   The Lord Chancellor did 'massage' the marriage laws to fit Charles marriage with Camilla.   I still believe, if challenged, there is the potential for trouble here.   Prince Charles appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (an organisation he, very vocally, previously deplored) to support his position.

Rupert Murdoch makes no effort to conceal he believes the  Monarchy has long outlived its usefulness..    There is little, in fact probably no, chance its demise would brought about by way of revolution.   There is, however, something much more incidious - apathy.   This is the British Monarchy's greatest enemy.   

Murdoch is a powerful newspaper proprietor, there is no doubt.   He makes money... lots and lots of money.   He knows photographs and stories about the British Royal Family are the surest ways to increase newspaper sales.   Effectively he is making money out a system he allegedly despises.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 13, 2006, 05:06:13 PM
Well, on the other hand, he owns the Times, which is decidely Tory, and prints the Court Circular. He is politically right wing. Hardly seems the revolutionary to me. Sure his papers make buckets of money, that is the idea, after all, behind printing them. And his tabloids are certainly no better nor worse than others [well, have to think about News of the World...]. Not defending the guy so much- I read both the Times & the Guardian, but just trying to be objective here.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 13, 2006, 07:31:02 PM
He also owns Sky News and Sky TV, doesn't he?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 13, 2006, 07:53:38 PM
A revolution means an overthrow of the current system of government (e.g. 1649, 1688, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1917, etc.). Wars for national freedom (the Irish in N Ireland) or for conquest (the crusades) are not revolutions. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that bans a war for defense. The apostles never castigated centurion Cornelius for being a soldier.

Also, Rupert Murdoch is left, not right wing. For if he were truly right-wing, his newspapers wouldn't have supported leftist Blair for so many years. Moreover, while at Oxford, Murdoch was active in the Labour Club and he actively supported the Australian Labor Party for some years. He now hides well his left wing sympathies by being an utter opportunist: in his US media he supports the so-called war on terror and the war in Irak, while in his UK press he criticizes it. This is not at all due to the so-called "editorial independence" of the press: he is well known for his micromanaging skills. Such editorial inconsistency is rather due to his utter opportunism - he supports whatever sells his papers and makes him richer. His ultimate goal? Control of worldwide media. How? By buying as many newspapers, TV and radio stations as possible. Why? For he who controls the information/news flow to the masses, influences decissively their political decision making. If one person were to own most of the national media, that person would essentially dictate who gets elected! How does he achieve his media empire building goals? By bribing politicians with his media empire's support in return for removing anti-trust provisions from the press laws. When the Australian PM opposed removing anti-trust provision from the press law, Murdoch moved his News Corp. to the US, where such anti-trust laws are a joke. In Britain, in return for Blair's reforms of the anti-trust press laws, Murdoch has been supporting him ever since. Murdoch now owns a third of the British media, thanks to Blair.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 14, 2006, 03:28:59 AM
Rupert Murdoch, it is reported (and by Murdoch press as well as others) is now in talks with David Cameron the Conservative, Leader of the Opposition.   So, BourbonFan's allusion to opportunism is probably perfectly apt.

However this thread is in danger of going completely off-topic (the press element of the 'Overthrow of the British Monarchy, might be better discussed in a thread, kindly started by Grandduchessella, but now confined to 'yesterday's' news).   The Crusades took place a number of centuries ago and are not relevant to the topic... although there could be a parallel found in today's world.   The 'Christians' however, have, in a sense, evolved and religious fervour of this sort holds no appeal.

So, how do posters perceive the possibility of the overthrow of the British Monarch?

tsaria 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 15, 2006, 12:40:26 PM
I personally agree with an earlier post that it would take years of apathy and slow erosion of the Crown's status through Acts of Parliament to end the monarchy, rather than any referendum.  In my opinion, it's unlikely in our lifetimes.  We have so many key royal events coming in the next couple of decades that will strengthen, not weaken, public interest in the monarchy - the Queen's Diamond Jubilee (and God willing celebrations of her surpassing Victoria's 63-year record reign), William's marriage, then eventually the Queen's death, followed by a coronation. 

But returning to my earlier thoughts - "what if" - what would happen to the commonwealth crowns if Britain became a republic.  Take Canada for example.  Canada's constitution requires any change to the status of the Crown be approved by the federal government AND each of the provinces.  Since it would be a cold day in hell before all provinces agreed on anything, I can't see how the Canadian crown could ever end.

At the same time, the matter of the "personal union of Crowns" is an issue.  When the Canadian House of Commons debated the Queen's title in 1953, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent asserted on the nature of the separate and shared characteristics of the Crown:  "Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom … It is not a separate office"

So, if Britain became a republic today, what would happen?  Canada's Queen is Queen because she is Queen of the UK.  If there is no Queen of the UK, then what? 

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: alixaannencova on September 15, 2006, 01:11:47 PM
I for one had never really thought of that point CHRISinUSA! I wonder what the coronation oath says about the dominions beyond the seas. Evidently, the position of Head of the Anglican Church would also have to be revised also.

A revolution seems far off to me, the Brits just seem too comfortable with the last vestige of herediment for the time being. All those past examples of bad and dodgy Presidencies has I think left an unpleasant taste in the mouth, where the subjects of dear old blighty are concerned.

It seems to me, rather reassuring to the English in particualr, within the United Kingdom that is, that their head of state has nothing to do with the tawdry politics of governement whereas Republican Heads of State are tied by virtue of the electoral path to power, and thus inevitably, to some form of political agenda. A figurehaed has more appeal than a President, the latter enjoying only a certain term in office, during which he/she may be tempted to take advantage of their brief peak at the top of the totem. Did Elizabeth II have a hissy when they took Britannia away from her, no. She is moving with the times, like any astute monarch would do. I wonder if Bush would do the same if they made him fly chartered airlines, as the Queen does now!

Gosh! I sound like a monarchist, but then I suppose I am really at heart. If it works, why tamper? Is what I am really saying. I think the English, who are surrounded on all sides by nationalistic inclined members of the Kingdom Union, are tending to look to the Queen and Charles and William to maintain and encourage the very essence of England now that the Scots and Welsh have gained partial political autonomy and want to flex their muscles. The Northern Irish have enough to contend with maintaining the Peace proccess, than to really contemplate now or in the near future the possible overthrow of the monarchy.
 

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Marlene on September 15, 2006, 01:35:53 PM


Your statement shows you know actually very little about the British monarchy.  The Prince of Wales cannot abdicate in favor of his son.  It would take an act of Parliament to remove Charles from his place in the succession.  Edward VIII's abdication could not happen without an Act of Parliament to allow it to happen ... 

and what an awful burden to put on a young man who has yet to carry out a major load of duties  --
This legal blunder (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2346451,00.html) has such an explosive potential that it may very well undo the British Monarchy, unless Prince Charles abdicates in favor of William. A series of prophecies speak of revolutions to come in Britain - and we all know whose heads roll during revolutions...

God bless!
Borbon Fan
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: gogm on September 15, 2006, 03:08:06 PM
Re. Reply 16 - Rupert Murdoch is very right wing. Mr. Blair has caught flak from his party for being very aligned with Mr. Bush and he hasn't offered any fresh alternatives. Privatization is not new.

If Mr. Blair is progressive, then Bill and Hillary Clinton are progressive, and I'm the Tsar of Russia! >:(

If Charles fizzles, Parliament can wrap up the show, but the prospect of a young, dynamic successor will probably allow the monarchy to sputter through. Besides, the monarch has real functions that would have to be substituted and serves as a national symbol. Without a monarch, folks up north might not be inclined towards any more union with England than the European Union!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 15, 2006, 04:34:33 PM
As a Scot and a monarchist I have to point out that although commonly referred to as 'Queen of England', Elizabeth II is very much a Scottish Queen.   Her mother was one hundred per cent Scottish.   The Queen and her family spend lengthy periods of time in Scotland every year. 

I cannot detect any republican aspirations within the Scottish nation.   However, look out for May 2007 - there is the possibility of a political crisis in the wake of elections due to be held then.    This will be a reaction directed at politicians... most certainly not at Her Majesty.

tsaria   
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 15, 2006, 04:42:29 PM
Actually, she is Queen of neither England nor Scotland is she, but Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc.?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 15, 2006, 04:53:32 PM


Your statement shows you know actually very little about the British monarchy.  The Prince of Wales cannot abdicate in favor of his son.  It would take an act of Parliament to remove Charles from his place in the succession.  Edward VIII's abdication could not happen without an Act of Parliament to allow it to happen ... 

and what an awful burden to put on a young man who has yet to carry out a major load of duties  --
This legal blunder (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2346451,00.html) has such an explosive potential that it may very well undo the British Monarchy, unless Prince Charles abdicates in favor of William. A series of prophecies speak of revolutions to come in Britain - and we all know whose heads roll during revolutions...

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I never said Charles could singlehandedly pass the crown to William without the Parliament's approval. The UK is obviously not an absolute monarchy. Please, stop putting words in my mouth.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 15, 2006, 05:04:48 PM
Thanks for your vigilance, Robert.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 16, 2006, 11:46:54 AM
Well, on the other hand, he owns the Times, which is decidely Tory, and prints the Court Circular. He is politically right wing. Hardly seems the revolutionary to me. Sure his papers make buckets of money, that is the idea, after all, behind printing them. And his tabloids are certainly no better nor worse than others [well, have to think about News of the World...]. Not defending the guy so much- I read both the Times & the Guardian, but just trying to be objective here.


Mr. Murdoch talks out for both sides of his mouth with reguards to his media empire in the USA.  Fox News Network is ultra Concervative. The Fox Channel (the Simpsons) and FX Channel (Nip/Tuck) are pushing the envelope as far as ypu can push it for broadcast Television in the USA!

For Mr. Nurdoch it i all abput making money and there is nothing wrong with trying to make all the money can.


TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 16, 2006, 12:23:47 PM
Yes, TB, that is the point of capitalism is it not- making all the money you can ?
With Murdoch, he is either extremely open-minded about politics, or as has been mentioned, has a knack for going anyway the wind blows.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 17, 2006, 03:46:56 PM
Yes, TB, that is the point of capitalism is it not- making all the money you can ?

Yes, indeed. There is nothing wrong with capitalism per se, as long as the capitalists are barred from having too concentrated an ownership of the national media, and, thus, of the politicians so dependent on it, and, thus, of the destinies of the people. Otherwise, instead of free men in a national democracy, we end up slaves in a globalistic plutocracy.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 17, 2006, 03:56:49 PM
The press has recently made a huge headway towards the overthrow of the Monarchy, with the help of a crossdressing heir to the Throne (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/1,,2006420245,00.html). While the native Britons themselves, who have a history of crossdressing public figures, may tolerate such behavior from their future King, the immigrant Muslim Britons, for whom having ladies' undergarments draped over their head is an extreme form of torture, may not. And so St. Methodius' prophecy (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,7548.msg210313.html) of the ethnic revolts in Britain at the time of the Spanish King Filip the sixth's war of liberation of Europe and Byzantium from under the Muslims ("then will be troubled the nations that reside in the angles of the maritime Island" - the metaphor of Britain as the angular Island is very transparent) may finally come true...

God bless!
Borbon Fan
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 17, 2006, 03:59:31 PM
Yet you advocate autocracy, which would have far more control of the media and freedoms than any business mogol or politician.
 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 17, 2006, 04:10:29 PM
Yet you advocate autocracy, which would have far more control of the media and freedoms than any business mogol or politician.
 

Even in an autocracy as the French one, the King had an advisory body, while the various working guilds had the right to associate themselves and set standards and practices independently as they saw fit. These rights were all taken away under the so-called "democracy" imposed by the anti-Christian revolutions, that had made slaves to the bourgeoisie out of the working classes. It would take many bloody strikes before the workers would gain back some of the freedoms they used to enjoy at least in France before the revolution. While the King may ultimately govern and decide alone, he would do so after listening to his people. Between poorly educated masses who fell prey to these faux "freedom fighters" (the bourgeois revolutionaries) as the French revolution effect on the workers' rights shows, and an educated King who sees beyond the veiled plots for power and total control of the masses of the bourgeois plutocrats, I choose the King for a ruler.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 17, 2006, 08:50:44 PM
More about the protracted, planned war of the media moguls against the Monarchy:

"After Diana’s death, when the royal family stayed in silent seclusion at Balmoral without making a public statement, the people turned on them with a violence we have almost forgotten. So it seemed, to judge from the news, but I remember thinking at the time that the tabloids actively encouraged people to denounce the royal family to the cameras and call the Queen’s behaviour “ disgusting” and “disgraceful”.

Media-led or not
, this frenzy was catching: an opinion poll during that week found that one in four people wanted to get rid of the Queen. It was a sanctimonious time; one could almost hear the tumbrils rolling." ("Final triumph of the Queen over Diana," The Sunday Times, September 17, 2006 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2361363,00.html))

God save the Queen!
Borbon Fan
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on September 17, 2006, 10:15:55 PM
While the tabloid media has definitely appeared increasingly anti-royal over the past 20 years or so, I think it is not confined to the RF -- there is a generalised lack of respect for any public figure these days and none seem immune to attack, deserved or not. 

Surely we have to assume that the average man on the street has enough intelligence not to be "actively encouraged" by the tabloid press to have a "frenzy" over anything that appears in these papers.  Apart from a mindless few, I think people make up their own minds about the stories they read, without assuming every headline and article they see is gospel.

The very opinion poll you quote, Borbonfan, if conducted by a tabloid newspaper may not represent an accurate opinion at all, although I don't doubt that Elizabeth's popularity did slide for a time during this period.  :)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 18, 2006, 04:51:55 AM
Yet you advocate autocracy, which would have far more control of the media and freedoms than any business mogol or politician.
 

Even in an autocracy as the French one, the King had an advisory body, while the various working guilds had the right to associate themselves and set standards and practices independently as they saw fit. These rights were all taken away under the so-called "democracy" imposed by the anti-Christian revolutions, that had made slaves to the bourgeoisie out of the working classes. It would take many bloody strikes before the workers would gain back some of the freedoms they used to enjoy at least in France before the revolution. While the King may ultimately govern and decide alone, he would do so after listening to his people. Between poorly educated masses who fell prey to these faux "freedom fighters" (the bourgeois revolutionaries) as the French revolution effect on the workers' rights shows, and an educated King who sees beyond the veiled plots for power and total control of the masses of the bourgeois plutocrats, I choose the King for a ruler.

What a sinister, bloody farce, the so-called liberties brought about by the French Revolution: taking away freedoms enjoyed for centuries by the workers' guilds, thus, making of the workers essentially slaves to the new revolutionary rulers - the bourgeoisie! Replacing one autocrat with another collective one. One that would not shy away from firing into the striking workers until the Le Chapelier law was annulled in 1864.

Le Chapelier Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Le Chapelier Law (French: Loi Le Chapelier) was a piece of legislation passed by the National Assembly during the first phase of the French Revolution (June 14, 1791), banning guilds as the early version of trade unions - as well as compagnonnage and the right to strike, and proclaiming free enterprise as the norm. It was advocated and drafted by Isaac René Guy le Chapelier.

Its promulgation enraged the sans-culottes, who called for an end to the National Assembly, which nonetheless continued through the second phase of the Revolution.

The law was annulled on May 25, 1864, through a law passed by the Émile Ollivier government, one which reinstaed the right to associate and the right to strike.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chapelier_Law
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 18, 2006, 05:52:34 AM
While the tabloid media has definitely appeared increasingly anti-royal over the past 20 years or so, I think it is not confined to the RF -- there is a generalised lack of respect for any public figure these days and none seem immune to attack, deserved or not. 

Surely we have to assume that the average man on the street has enough intelligence not to be "actively encouraged" by the tabloid press to have a "frenzy" over anything that appears in these papers.  Apart from a mindless few, I think people make up their own minds about the stories they read, without assuming every headline and article they see is gospel.

The very opinion poll you quote, Borbonfan, if conducted by a tabloid newspaper may not represent an accurate opinion at all, although I don't doubt that Elizabeth's popularity did slide for a time during this period.  :)

The press has no desire to see the overthrow of the British Monarchy or the Windsors,  If something happened to the British Monarchy or the House of Windsors, what would the tabloids write about?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 18, 2006, 08:56:54 AM
While the tabloid media has definitely appeared increasingly anti-royal over the past 20 years or so, I think it is not confined to the RF -- there is a generalised lack of respect for any public figure these days and none seem immune to attack, deserved or not. 

Surely we have to assume that the average man on the street has enough intelligence not to be "actively encouraged" by the tabloid press to have a "frenzy" over anything that appears in these papers.  Apart from a mindless few, I think people make up their own minds about the stories they read, without assuming every headline and article they see is gospel.

The very opinion poll you quote, Borbonfan, if conducted by a tabloid newspaper may not represent an accurate opinion at all, although I don't doubt that Elizabeth's popularity did slide for a time during this period.  :)

The press has no desire to see the overthrow of the British Monarchy or the Windsors,  If something happened to the British Monarchy or the House of Windsors, what would the tabloids write about?

TampaBay
You speak of the British press as if it were a monolyth. Well, it's not: it's fragmented. However, the biggest chunk of it, about a third, belongs to an avowed anti-monarchist and a liberal, Rupert Murdoch.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 18, 2006, 09:21:07 AM
Then who would Rupert Murdoch write about?

She has a point. As much as he may hate the monarchy, they sell papers and he makes money. Several people make their money off of people or groups they supposedly hate. Would there be a need for an Ann Coulter or a Michael Moore if either the liberals or conservatives ceased to exist? They make their money by exploiting the faults of "the other side". Also, isn't the monarchy one of, if the the (http://the) biggest tourism draws in the U.K.? The monarchy and things monarchy related are one of the main reasons people go to England. I know it's why I want to go. I don't want to go because I like the rain.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Marlene on September 18, 2006, 02:20:24 PM
and when Philip and Elizabeth walked around the flowers at Buckingham Palaces - the crowds cheered her ... so much for violence.


More about the protracted, planned war of the media moguls against the Monarchy:

"After Diana’s death, when the royal family stayed in silent seclusion at Balmoral without making a public statement, the people turned on them with a violence we have almost forgotten. So it seemed, to judge from the news, but I remember thinking at the time that the tabloids actively encouraged people to denounce the royal family to the cameras and call the Queen’s behaviour “ disgusting” and “disgraceful”.

Media-led or not
, this frenzy was catching: an opinion poll during that week found that one in four people wanted to get rid of the Queen. It was a sanctimonious time; one could almost hear the tumbrils rolling." ("Final triumph of the Queen over Diana," The Sunday Times, September 17, 2006 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2361363,00.html))

God save the Queen!
Borbon Fan
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 18, 2006, 02:54:30 PM
I think the tourism idea can be safely debated. No tourist is likely to get a look at the roayals unless the brave the crowds at  the Trooping, Opening of Parlaiment or Remembrence Day ceremonies. As for roalty-connected venues, palaces, museums, churches, etc. All the former monarchies enjoy just as much tourist trade without living monarchs. I think Versailles, the Winter Palace, Ludwig's castles, et al enjoy far larger crowds than BuckHouse any day.
 All of these are superficial though, when the actual functions of the monarchy are considered. The institution is a working mechanism in the life of the nation. That is where it's relevance lies.
 Once those roles have dissapeared, there is no point in maintaining it.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 18, 2006, 07:15:36 PM
Then who would Rupert Murdoch write about?

She has a point. As much as he may hate the monarchy, they sell papers and he makes money. Several people make their money off of people or groups they supposedly hate. Would there be a need for an Ann Coulter or a Michael Moore if either the liberals or conservatives ceased to exist? They make their money by exploiting the faults of "the other side". Also, isn't the monarchy one of, if the the (http://the) biggest tourism draws in the U.K.? The monarchy and things monarchy related are one of the main reasons people go to England. I know it's why I want to go. I don't want to go because I like the rain.

They would write about the Posh Spices and Beckhams du jour. So no, there is no financial interest of the media in supporting the royals. The interests of the media are aligned with the political ones of the owners. As Rupert Murdoch clearly entertains dreams of worldwide political power and like him many other plutocrats, all Monarchies are but obstacles in their way which need to be uprooted. Little by little.

Unfortunately, sometimes the royals themselves give the press a helping hand (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,7986.msg210330.html#msg210330).
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 19, 2006, 07:38:07 PM
Birds of a feather flock together. Blair and Murdoch. Little by little, they deface and erase any trace of the Monarchy from the public conscience:

Stamps you can print out – minus the Queen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/19/nstamp19.xml

The Queen's head removed from postage stamps
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405779&in_page_id=1770

Quote: "Her Majesty's Prison Service has been renamed the National Offender Management Service following a merger with the Probation Service. While Her Majesty's Stationery Office is now The Stationery Office.

The Home Office has floated the idea of renaming the Crown Prosecution Service as the 'Public Prosecution Service'.

The staff of the new Serious and Organised Crime Agency, which includes police officers, immigration and customs officials, are not asked to swear allegiance to the Crown and the Queen. This is at odds with the oath traditionally sworn by serving police officers."

Unfortunately, the days of the British Monarchy are numbered. Not by a largely monarchist people, but by its "democratic" press and anti-monarchist elites.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 20, 2006, 04:33:24 AM
The press is not the principle offender here, BourbonFan.   You were right when you described Murdoch and his press as 'opportunistic'.   The majority of the British public know and understand their press.   Newspaper sales are falling year on year.   Hence newspapers are being given away for virtually nothing, surviving on their advertising income, but this can only go on for so long.   

It is the politicians who are responsible for the erosion of our traditions, especially those of value.   In Scotland, the 'executive' are proposing banning all Christian assemblies in schools.   Had it not been for the Church, there would not have been schools and education as we know them.   Scottish politicians are even more petty, bitter and jealous than their English counterparts.   The majority of them are republicans, but that doesn't stop them rushing off to attend garden parties and receptions with Her Majesty at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Also, it is Blair's government who have overseen the destruction of the House of Lords and replaced hereditary peers with total nonenties who have contributed as little as £50,000 to the Labour Party's coffers, but who, like sheep, will walk through the 'Government' lobby.   So much for democracy and a non-partisan, bicameral, parliamentary system.   This is where we will find the greatest threat to the British Monarchy.

tsaria       

I have yet to see Helen Mirren's new film, but I believe it exposes how Blair exploited the death of Diana to suit his own purposes.

Still on that theme, I believe a considerable number of people believe the late Diana, Princess of Wales was not accidentally killed, rather she was murdered, possibly by MI5.   Those who subscribe to this conspiracy theory have failed to take it to its logical conclusion.   MI5 could not and would not have carried out such an operation without the approval of the prime minister.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Nadezhda Edvardovna on September 20, 2006, 09:39:00 AM
Elizabeth II has done, in my opinion, a good job of encouraging charity, highlighting good and worthy things, but she's clung too tightly to tradition in the last ten or so years.  I fear that Charles will be more instrumental in the current rise of republicanism.

Reason?  Charles.  He's self-pitying, pliable, and weak.  And selfish.

I hate assertions without evidence, so here goes:

Self-pitying: Read the Jonathan Dimbleby biography.  Charles is still whimpering over a difficult childhood.   You're a grown man! Get over with it!

Pliable: He says he married Diana because the Duke of Edinborough told him to.

Weak: He permits his sons to share a bedroom with their girlfriends under Charles' own roof.  Yes, it may be common in today's society, but that doesn't make it right.  That's why the word is "common."

Selfish: I used this word rather than the stronger "sinful."  Charles lived in sin with Camilla before marrying her.  His marriage with Camilla may be illegal--in the eyes of civic entities, I won't vouch for God's opinion of the matter. 

More selfishness: Yes, yes, yes, I know Diana committed adultery first.  BUT, this is something people don't seem to remember: on his wedding day, Charles promised to love her, but he never did, and has said so on international television and in the Dimbleby biography, which was authorized.  At their coronations, British monarchs take an oath.  If I were a British subject, I would not trust Charles to keep his oath, because he has already lied in his marriage vows.

Head of the Church of England: I expect the Head of a Church to live up to high standards.  It's true that all are sinners, even Heads of Churches.  But because they are meant to serve as an example to lesser beings, they have a burden.  Charles has not lived the life of committed Christianity that I would expect of a future Church Head.  At the blessing of his civil marriage, he underwent a rite of penitence, but as we've seen above, Charles is a person who will lie, even in religious acts, for reasons of expediency.

But don't worry.  The tourist industry will survive, as people will get to see palaces, robes, crowns and carriages without the interference of some royal who wants privacy in enjoyment of such trappings.

Pax et bonum,

Nadezhda
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 20, 2006, 11:38:43 AM
You are being unduly harsh and rather sensorious.   The Prince of Wales is the focus for much good.   You produce the 'evidence' for his sins, but choose to overlook his many fine traits and work for worthy causes.   The Prince of Wales' work for charities raises upwards of £100,000,000 every year.   His ecological awareness, which has been the butt of many jokes, is being well and truly vindicated.

I also have to draw posters' attention to the fact, that Bob Atchison is an acquaintance and admirer of the work of the Prince of Wales.   Please be kind enough to bear this in mind when posting on Bob's website.

tsaria   
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: alixaannencova on September 20, 2006, 11:52:25 AM
I absolutely agree with Tsaria regarding the Prince of Wales. He may have his faults, but my goodness no one can say he doesn't have vision too!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Marlene on September 20, 2006, 12:57:00 PM


I absolutely agree - but then again, I have been a supporter of the POW for many years (and he's finally with the right woman)

I attended his speech earlier this year at the National Building Museum where he received a major award for his contribution to architecture.  Most of the audience were architects or in related professions -  his speech was funny, direct - and he was very much aware of what is happening ...

He received something like $25,000 as prize money.  Did he pocket it or give it to Camilla for a shopping spree?  No.  He donated it to one of his funds - the one for Built In Environment and sustainability which is working to help rebuild 6 Gulf Coast communities -- and I bet most of you did not know that ...

I absolutely agree with Tsaria regarding the Prince of Wales. He may have his faults, but my goodness no one can say he doesn't have vision too!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Salamander on September 20, 2006, 05:33:29 PM
I also agree with Tsaria, Alixaannencova and Marlene.  Its about time people stopped banging on about the past and look to the present and the future, and the good that the Prince of Wales and his Princess are doing and will do for their country and their people. 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 20, 2006, 05:44:11 PM
Now that the 'Overthrow of the British Monarch' is looking less likely!!! is there anyone willing to pursue the topic?

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 20, 2006, 07:02:45 PM
Now that the 'Overthrow of the British Monarch' is looking less likely!!! is there anyone willing to pursue the topic?

tsaria

I surely am, since I don't believe unlike you that the press is that powerless in overthrowing the Monarchy, even with their falling circulations.

How much of the good deeds of the POW are publicized by the press as extensively as are the misadventures of the Royal Family? How much does the British people learn about the good the POW is doing from the press? You are surely well positioned to answer this question, Tsaria, if you don't mind. Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: David_Pritchard on September 20, 2006, 07:45:21 PM
I surely am, since I don't believe unlike you that the press is that powerless in overthrowing the Monarchy, even with their falling circulations.

How much of the good deeds of the POW are publicized by the press as extensively as are the misadventures of the Royal Family? How much does the British people learn about the good the POW is doing from the press? You are surely well positioned to answer this question, Tsaria, if you don't mind. Thanks in advance!

I was certain that BorbonFan would be willing to continue the discussion, really any discussion at all. Of course the discussion would have to include a few basic elements: the prophecies of a pious Orthodox hermit in a cave, the writtings of a few long dead saints, and the future King of Spain converting to Orthodoxy and ruling all of Europe.

A number of regulars of this forum have been quite surprised that our dear and well beloved colleague, BorbonFan, has not yet suspended for his comments about other members religious faith but I find him to be rather amusing in an annoying sort of way.

David
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 20, 2006, 07:53:02 PM
Here! Here!  My Right Honoruable Friend and Partne rn Crime; I must agree!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 20, 2006, 07:56:11 PM
Here! Here!  My Right Honoruable Friend and Partne rn Crime; I must agree!

TampaBay

@ TampaBay and David Pritchard: I'm very glad to see that you're both amused. Amusement is better than anger. It's a step forward from the bitterness with which you have confronted me and the official views of my Church in the past.

Niceties aside, do you have anything pertinent to say on topic, rather than off topic? Any answer to my questions? Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 20, 2006, 08:00:30 PM
BourbanFan

I was only trying to lighten up the tone of the discussion.  I enjoy your post and articulate banter.  However, I would like to see the lighter and fun side of you! ;) ;) ;)

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: David_Pritchard on September 20, 2006, 08:01:37 PM
Niceties aside, do you have anything pertinent to say on topic, rather than off topic? Any answer to my questions? Thanks in advance!

If I were not perpetually verbose, I would be taken aback by your comment. How often do you think that you are on topic?

David
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 20, 2006, 08:03:13 PM
Niceties aside, do you have anything pertinent to say on topic, rather than off topic? Any answer to my questions? Thanks in advance!

If I were not perpetually verbose, I would be taken aback by your comment. How often do you think that you are on topic?

David

Yet another off topic remark.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 20, 2006, 08:04:58 PM
BourbanFan

I did not mean to offend.  Let us all have some fun and share history at the same time.  Can we not do this?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 20, 2006, 08:08:50 PM
BourbanFan

I was only trying to lighten up the tone of the discussion.  I enjoy you post especialy you articulate writing style. However,  I would like to see the lighter and fun side of you! ;) ;) ;)

TampaBay

Dear Tampa Bay, I'm afraid we'll have to keep the banter on the PM rather than the Forum, per the moderators' advice.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 20, 2006, 09:26:31 PM
Geez...

It is my fervent wish that the British Monarchy not be overthrown. Considering that in past cases, when such things occured in other countries, they happened over a period of time and not just one day out of the blue, I think that IF such a thing were to happen we'd know in advance. In Russia, France, Spain, and probably many other countries I'm too tired to remember even exist at this point, the situations were dire for more than one generation back. I imagine that if (and I sure hope it won't happen) England decides to do away with monarchy, we'll probably see it coming -not that any amount of postings on a forum will be able to change the inevitable. As a Christian (who understands that everyone doesn't feel the same way as me) I believe that what happens is what is meant to happen, for whatever reason. I could talk about Revelations and the end times, but people really aren't here for that.

Now, semi-off topic: I was watching the Daily Show a few nights ago and Jon Stewart was interviewing former President Clinton. President Clinton was talking about a foundation he had set up to aid people, especially those affected by Hurricane Katrina. He mentioned Rupert Murdoch and how he was a multi-million dollar contributor and I burst out laughing at the mere mention of Mr. Murdoch. It was a moment of complete cognitive dissonance -it was the first non-AP forum mention of his name I've seen in a long time.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 21, 2006, 01:42:18 AM
excuse me for my off-topicness, i hope it doesn't offend anyone, but i think some people should just learn to relax and take the stick out of their... oh wait i can't say that, it'd be offensive. scratch that. relax, not everyone's out to get you, breathe, and learn to laugh at a funny joke.

make love not war  ;)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 21, 2006, 05:04:54 AM
OK everybody - it is, at the very least, as easy to be pleasant, as unpleasant.    So, lets bear this in mind.   In other words, live and let live.   I am with David here - I find BonBonFan's postings in equal measure, infuriating and amusing.   I have yet to work out whcih is intended.   BonBonFan has come very close to being suspended and a thread was locked largely because of his/her persistent intolerance of others' opinions.

Now, to the topic and to answer the question:  Of course the Press has influence, but it does not have the influence it had once upon a time.   The linear press is under massive assault from numberless television stations and, of course, the internet.   The Press knows the fastest way to sell copy is to have a photograph of a member of the Royal Family on the front page.   Even the 'serious' press subscribe to this device.   BorBonFan perfectly described the relationship between Press and Palace when he/she described it (or rather Rupert Murdoch) as 'opportunistic'.   No, the British Press has absolutely no intention of killing their golden goose.   

I have no idea where you are located, BorBonFan, but if you are in the UK, it is impossible for you not to be aware that the most likely source of potential destabilisation of the Monarchy comes from our politicians and not from the press.   I agree the Monarchy, to an extent, will directly influence if, and how, it survives.   However other important factors will have a major influence in the near future.   The British government's flawed espousal of secularism and multiculturism is patronising in the extreme, but sooner, rather than later, there will be a price to pay for this.   The Monarchy could well be part of the price.   

It is not possible to pursue this particular theme without becoming Political and that is not the purpose of this website.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 21, 2006, 05:58:17 AM
i honestly don't think there's a plan behind the press, other then 'SELL SELL SELL'

they do not consciously think 'the monarchy brings us money, let's help sustain the monarchy' nor 'the monarchy is bad, let's get it down'. they see a story and they cover it - or not - based on it's profit potential, and they don't sit down and think with every story 'ha, this will bring the monarchy down'. they simply think 'this will sell - or not. let's publish it - or not'. it's that simple.

if you want to believe in conspiracy theories - fine. i don't.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 21, 2006, 06:16:49 AM
Yes, Ilyala, of course the Press wants to 'sell, sell, sell' - otherwise why bother.   It is no conspiracy - they know and we know, royal stories and royal pics sell copy - beginning and end of story.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 21, 2006, 06:50:02 AM
Yes, Ilyala, of course the Press wants to 'sell, sell, sell' - otherwise why bother.   It is no conspiracy - they know and we know, royal stories and royal pics sell copy - beginning and end of story.

tsaria

i was mostly talking to borbon (as far as the conspiracy comment went, anyway). i simply don't think the papers plan on overthrowing the monarchy (even if they do contribute to the shaking of the monarchy's prestige). the part that might be adressed to you is that i don't think they plan to do anything to keep it either. they just write and sell.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 21, 2006, 07:19:40 AM
@ Tsaria: Thank you for your reply, but you still haven't answered my question: how much of the good deeds, of the charity efforts of the POW does the press publish? It seems to me as somebody who doesn't live in the UK that what I read (at least in the on-line versions of the British press) is mostly attacks on the royals, mostly negative comments or bad incidents. It's IMHO way disproportionate and biased against the British royals and, thus, the Monarchy - hence my worries about the long term deleterious effects of the press against the Monarchy.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Salamander on September 21, 2006, 07:23:31 AM
Perhaps I'm showing my naivete here, but I would think that the only way the British Royal Family may lose its current status (and be downsized, as it were), would be if all of the senior royals died around the same time.  The ensuing confusion and instability would probably give the politicians the opportunity to move in and make changes.  The press would either support the politicians thinking that this would be what the people wanted, or attack the politicians (for the very same reason)!  

I seriously doubt this would happen though!   :)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 21, 2006, 07:28:40 AM
The dynamics of the UK are changing, that is the key fact.

Probably the majority of members of the present government are avowed republicans.   The spouse of the Prime Minister is a well known and freely-confessed republican.

I do not believe that, at present, there is any desire within the UK populace to divest ourselves of the insitution of Monarchy.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 21, 2006, 07:45:06 AM
@ Tsaria: Thank you for your reply, but you still haven't answered my question: how much of the good deeds, of the charity efforts of the POW does the press publish? It seems to me as somebody who doesn't live in the UK that what I read (at least in the on-line versions of the British press) is mostly attacks on the royals, mostly negative comments or bad incidents. It's IMHO way disproportionate and biased against the British royals and, thus, the Monarchy - hence my worries about the long term deleterious effects of the press against the Monarchy.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

how much of everyone's good deeds are published? take a newspaper - any newspaper - and compare the number of articles that are about the good deeds, compared to the number of articles that are complaining about something. take a personality - any public personality - and make a statistic on articles on good deeds/articles on anything scandalizing and you will (maybe surprisingly for some) discover the fact that most articles are criticizing. that happens for every public persona, whether it's royalty or not.

for the reason i mentioned above: the newspapers want to sell. unfortunatly for us, most people are interested in gossip and bad deeds, rather than good deeds. charity - as honourable as it is - does not sell. whether it's the prince of wales or someone else. so it's nothing personal.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: BorbonFan on September 21, 2006, 07:52:58 AM
The dynamics of the UK are changing, that is the key fact.

Probably the majority of members of the present government are avowed republicans.   The spouse of the Prime Minister is a well known and freely-confessed republican.

I do not believe that, at present, there is any desire within the UK populace to divest ourselves of the insitution of Monarchy.

tsaria

So you don't think the British press is biased against the Monarchy and publishes too little of the royals' good deeds and charity efforts?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on September 21, 2006, 08:27:11 AM
But Borbon fan thats true of any one in the public really. The press love to run people down and report anything negative!!! They rarely praise sadly!!!! especially when praise is due!!!!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 21, 2006, 12:29:27 PM
@ Tsaria: Thank you for your reply, but you still haven't answered my question: how much of the good deeds, of the charity efforts of the POW does the press publish? It seems to me as somebody who doesn't live in the UK that what I read (at least in the on-line versions of the British press) is mostly attacks on the royals, mostly negative comments or bad incidents. It's IMHO way disproportionate and biased against the British royals and, thus, the Monarchy - hence my worries about the long term deleterious effects of the press against the Monarchy.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

how much of everyone's good deeds are published? take a newspaper - any newspaper - and compare the number of articles that are about the good deeds, compared to the number of articles that are complaining about something. take a personality - any public personality - and make a statistic on articles on good deeds/articles on anything scandalizing and you will (maybe surprisingly for some) discover the fact that most articles are criticizing. that happens for every public persona, whether it's royalty or not.

for the reason i mentioned above: the newspapers want to sell. unfortunatly for us, most people are interested in gossip and bad deeds, rather than good deeds. charity - as honourable as it is - does not sell. whether it's the prince of wales or someone else. so it's nothing personal.

I agree. Look at Diana -the press was more interested in what she was wearing than what she was doing charity wise. I can probably picture in my mind ten of my favorite Diana outfits, but can only think of two causes off hand that she was involved with. It's all about sell sell sell, so the press will cater to what it thinks the public wants. In the 80's we wanted Diana and her clothes. In the 90's we wanted scandal. In the 2000's we pretty much want Charles to be happy and for William and Harry to stay out of trouble.

Furthermore, I was reading yesterday that Fox (the same company that brought you "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and the Simpsons, as well as Fox News) plans to cater to the Christians because there's money to be made there, too. They've started FoxFaith, which will put out several Christian films a year. WHY? Because there's a market for it. If there was a market for naked lawnmower racing and it would make millions, they'd capitalize on that as well.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 21, 2006, 02:00:14 PM
Well, Fox also brings us the wonderful House (with the to-die-for Hugh Laurie) as well as the late, lamented Arrested Development. Nothing wrong with making Christian-oriented movies--it's a niche just like kids movies or sci-fi ones. I don't know why it's always looked at like 'oh, the Christian audience'. ABC has ABCFamily with more family-friendly shows.

Anyway, just a reminder there's a thread on the monarchy & the press if anyone wants to continue with really in-depth points on their effect on the monarchy. It's certainly pertinent to this discussion but if people really want to get into the nitty-gritty, there's a whole thread (thought of by Tsaria) on the subject.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 21, 2006, 02:27:57 PM
Well, Fox also brings us the wonderful House (with the to-die-for Hugh Laurie) as well as the late, lamented Arrested Development. Nothing wrong with making Christian-oriented movies--it's a niche just like kids movies or sci-fi ones. I don't know why it's always looked at like 'oh, the Christian audience'. ABC has ABCFamily with more family-friendly shows.


I know (and definitely agree about Hugh Laurie!). I was just saying that where there's a market for something, someone will cater to it. There's a market for news about royals and there's a market for Christians and there's a market for people who want to marry strangers on television. It's nothing against Fox -I love many of their shows. It's just that from what I've gathered, some people seem to think that Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, is planning to overthrow the monarchy. However, I believe he cares more about money than overthrowing centuries of history. Even if he writes scathing editorials about why the royal family are horrible people, he knows that people will buy them because they still care about the royals enough to read about them.

There's definitely nothing wrong with family oriented television or film. Obviously the ABCfamily channel knows that its viewers don't care to see a great deal of sex and violence. So they cater to what the audience wants. I prefer it that way -I watch Gilmore Girls and my mother watches 7th Heaven! ;)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 21, 2006, 02:35:16 PM
Also I was just reading that Prince William is set to join his brother's army regiment. The article is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060921/en_afp/britainroyalwilliam (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060921/en_afp/britainroyalwilliam) if anyone cares to read it. If anything, it looks like the royals have got the PR machines pumping on their side, because William is being built up to be the next big thing in terms of monarchs. He's doing basically everything he can in order to prepare for the role. He has spent time in Belize and Chile as a volunteer. He's a college graduate, and he has joined the army. To top it all off, he looks very similar to his late mother, who is still in the hearts of many. The public opinion might not always be on his father's side, but it's certainly always been on William's side.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 21, 2006, 03:03:57 PM
Thank you Grandduchessella.   I think that thread has probably been consigned to page 2.   

For posters who wish to discuss the relationship between Palace and Press, please find, and use, the appropriate thread.

Here we will concentrate on the - unlikely - overthrow of the British Monarchy.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 21, 2006, 03:26:34 PM
Also I was just reading that Prince William is set to join his brother's army regiment. The article is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060921/en_afp/britainroyalwilliam (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060921/en_afp/britainroyalwilliam) if anyone cares to read it. If anything, it looks like the royals have got the PR machines pumping on their side, because William is being built up to be the next big thing in terms of monarchs. He's doing basically everything he can in order to prepare for the role. He has spent time in Belize and Chile as a volunteer. He's a college graduate, and he has joined the army. To top it all off, he looks very similar to his late mother, who is still in the hearts of many. The public opinion might not always be on his father's side, but it's certainly always been on William's side.

This was reported here today as well. With Harry serving--and being very public in his desire to go wherever his unit does and not be treated specially--and now with William following, I would think that this would boost the popularity of the monarchy. It makes them seem accessible without bringing them down in anyway.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 21, 2006, 03:57:26 PM
Trouble is, Grandduchessella, it makes them altogether too accessible.   Just think what a prize the kidnap or murder of one or other of these young men would be to an hysterical terrorist organisation.   I think it would be madness to allow either of them to serve in Iraq, or, even worse, Afghanistan.   There is no doubt in my mind that the Taleban, Al Queda and any other amount of rag-taggle terrorist organisations would make it their avowed aim to target and destroy one, or other, or both.

Terrorists determined to make Britain a Kaliphate under Sharia rule are among those whose dream would be to overthrow the British Monarchy.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 21, 2006, 05:37:02 PM
I totally agree about the risk. However, in terms of public relations, isn't it still a popular move? The real dangers are an entirely different subject. The appearance of the princes perhaps going into a combat zone is different than the government actually deciding to allow it. If Harry and William are perceived (honestly, I believe, on their part) of wanting to go with their fellow officers, I think that's a good thing. Whether they should be allowed to do so probably isn't a good idea. Still, they won't be perceived as trying to just join the military for the good photo ops and cool uniforms but from a real desire to serve the country that at least one of them is destined to lead.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: gogm on September 22, 2006, 12:32:16 AM
It reminds me of the Prince Imperial, Eugenie's son, going off to fight in Zululand (I hope my memory is correct). He was killed in action. Eugenie lost her bloodline bloodline and the Bonaparte dynasty was disrupted.

Putting both Princes into the middle east/south Asian wars would run the risk of disrupting the Windsor bloodline and leaving Charles without an heir. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are not especially fond of the UK. The Afghanis massacred a UK column with women and children in Victoria's day and the UK carved up the Arab world into the illogical jigsaw puzzle you see today, the jigsaw puzzle that could lead to the partitioning of Iraq into a Shiastan, Sunnistan, and Kurdistan.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 22, 2006, 02:43:11 AM
but if they're going they're showing support of a war that is (in my opinion) unfair. wouldn't that hurt their image in the eyes of the (many) people who don't agree with the war?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 22, 2006, 08:02:40 AM
That's an interesting, and delicate question. 

My guess is that, first and foremost, the young princes are representatives of the Crown.  The Crown is a representation of the country, governed by the Government.  That Government supports the war effort, and so, the official line of the royal family must be to support the war.  To oppose it - in word, act or lack of action, would be in opposition to the stance of the British Government.

As long as the princes are seen to desire to enter the war alongside their fellow soldiers, the public is satisfied.  There is no way, however, that the army is going to allow them into combat.  I could see Harry assigned to a post just close enough to allow good pictures of him on active duty being filtered back to the tabloids, but William will be limited to goodwill visits and so forth. 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 22, 2006, 08:34:02 AM
The government might support both the war and the occupation, however over 80% of the British public do not.   Although the Wales princes' desire to be involved in the 'action' has been spoken of, there is a huge gulf between that and the reality.

'Being with their boys' or 'leading their men' may sound laudible, but the reality is very different.   Even if neither ever sets foot in either Iraq or Afghanistan, this willingness to be part of the coalition will not go down well with the majority of the British public.   Although both these young men, by virtue of their birth, are potential terrorist targets, an offer to serve in either theatre of war could be extremely inflammatory.   

We saw the response to a few words - taken out of their context - which were uttered by the Pope.   Can you imagine the effect on the terrorists, not to mention the Muslim population of the UK, should either Prince William or Prince Harry actively or tacitly support the 'war on terror'?

tsaria 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 22, 2006, 09:41:19 AM
That's an interesting, and delicate question. 

My guess is that, first and foremost, the young princes are representatives of the Crown.  The Crown is a representation of the country, governed by the Government.  That Government supports the war effort, and so, the official line of the royal family must be to support the war.  To oppose it - in word, act or lack of action, would be in opposition to the stance of the British Government.

As long as the princes are seen to desire to enter the war alongside their fellow soldiers, the public is satisfied.  There is no way, however, that the army is going to allow them into combat.  I could see Harry assigned to a post just close enough to allow good pictures of him on active duty being filtered back to the tabloids, but William will be limited to goodwill visits and so forth. 

in a matter as controversial as this i would expect the royal family to keep quiet. it is not their decision to make, so they can't interfere. by choosing sides (whichever sides) they will enter a conflict that can only harm them. by sending the princes to a war that is highly controversial and unsupported by the public they are choosing sides. and this will only be seen by many as them siding with the unfair rich people rather than with the masses.

i am not expecting them to publicly oppose their own government - that would harm them just as much. i am expecting them to keep quiet about it and delicatly stay away from the topic.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 22, 2006, 10:53:09 AM
But they're not entering the military to support a particular war--Harry wants to make it his career, he's going in out of a sense of love of country and the camaraderie as well as the royal tradition it seems to me. Many of Queen Victoria's relations fought in wars (and not just the WW1 enlistments) and many in combat situation--Christian Victor gave his life as did Henry Battenberg, his son Maurice and Queen Mary's nephew, Freddie Cambridge. Arthur Connaught, Arthur Jr, Christian Victor, Dolly Teck and the Duke of Cambridge were career soldiers. There were political considerations then too--the Boer War wasn't too popular on the continent especially. I think serving is laudible but then I'm a military wife so I'm biased. I don't think that would rebound in an unpopular way--I doubt either will make public statements about their feelings. In the US military making public opinions (pro or con) is frowned upon--the military is there to serve the country not a particular agenda. Are their similar rules in the British military? In any case, the boys seem to have learned from their parents about the pitfalls of public comments on tricky issues--witness some of the flack Charles has taken over the years regarding modern architecture, etc...

They've talked of one or both going to Afghanistan. Is that war unpopular? Most of the references in prior posts seem to be invoking the Iraq war.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 22, 2006, 10:54:50 AM
Ilyala has perfectly illustrated what I mean when I write about our present government.   

If these young men, with all the enthusiasm of youth, wish to serve alongside their comrades in a war zone, the government hopefully has enough sense not just to advise against it, but to insist it would be lunacy.   But who knows to what lengths they will go to vindicate the mess they have made in the Middle East.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 22, 2006, 11:03:02 AM
Grandduchessella, I respect your position as a serviceman's wife, but we are living in altogether different times.

As for the British public's attitude to our troops' presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, there will be a march of millions tomorrow in Manchester, rallying to bring our troops home.   

These wars are unlikely any other.   Indeed the commanders are admitting they will need to develop altogether different strategies.   Afghanistan is now being referred to in the Press as the UK's Vietnam.   Our Minister of Defence announced, when the troops were move from the north to south east Afghanistan, that our men would be home within three years without firing a single bullet.   Well - how wrong can he be?

Insofar as the royal princes are concerned, it is my contention the stakes are far too high.   In stating this I do not just refer to the implicit dangers of being in a theatre of war, but the over-reaction of reactionary forces within our own island where, according to our security forces, there are an estimated 2,500 young people currently at different stages of terrorist training, including suicide bombing.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 22, 2006, 02:21:29 PM
participation in the war is volontary. i don't think anyone is forced to go there. i am not trying to start a conversation on the war and how fair it is (although i think it's clear that i do not support it). i am not trying to start a conflict.

but this *is* a very controversial matter. people have manifested against this war. as tsaria said, 80% of the british people do not agree to it. how do you think these people feel when they see their prince joining it?

this is not a national war. it's not like britain was attacked by any of these countries (and don't tell me that the terrorist attacks count - they were not made by these countries... they were made by particular people. they are not official attacks and provocation to war. *and* all terrorist activity in britain has severely increased ever since the war - i'm sure that helps the general attitude). you must admire a prince who goes to war in a war like world war 2, when the actual integrity of britain was endangered. but this is not such a war. this is a very controversial war. if you link this war to the royal family, the royal family will be harmed by this link. automatically. on the other hand, their image will be harmed if they disagree with the current government. so the best thing about it is to stay neutral.

i wasn't even mentioning the danger that would threaten the royal family if their members start joining the forces that attack iraq and afghanistan. it's a real threat, but had the war been an honourable national british war, i'm sure the public view on this join would have been that the princes are heroes. in this case, i think everyone will simply take it as a public statement.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on September 22, 2006, 02:37:25 PM
Certainly, this thread is not about war.   However, in exploring possible factors which could result in the 'Overthrow of the British Monarch', measuring the impact of the 2nd and 3rd in line to throne's participation in the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan - interventions which a massive majority of the British public condemn - has more than a little relevance.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 22, 2006, 03:16:53 PM
Yes, it does, Tsaria. But, I think, by the same token, no one blames the serving men & women for being there. Like the USA, we may HATE the wars Bush has gotten us into, but our loyalty to those in uniform never changes Viet Nam proved that years ago, it is the same now.
With the royals, I think most people, at least the ones I know-including my republican pals, look at as expected of the Princes to be in uniform, just like so much of their lives is "expected" to follow certain paths. I can't see anyone blaming them, or any service member for the causes of the conflicts. That is justly apportioned to the politicians- who of course, risk nothing, least of all their lives
 One of the great saving graces of the monarchy is that it stays- it is the gouvernment that comes & goes. The monarchy legitmises the choices of the people, when they change that choice, the monachy dismisses the old and certifies the new. And, if needed, can effect change of it's own. Of course, that is also at it's own risk.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Taren on September 22, 2006, 03:23:43 PM
I think there's a big difference between "willing to go to war" and "are going to war". By saying that they are willing to go to war, they are presenting themselves as brave, patriotic young men who don't want special treatment. Good PR for the next generation. My prediction: watch QEII's grandchildren step up and be the dignified royals that their parents for the most part were not. I recall reading around the time of Princess Beatrice's birthday that she is very conscious of her position. Surely Sarah wants her daughters to learn from her mistakes.

Whether they actually go to war, any war, whatever the justification for said war, is anyone's guess. I for one do not think they will see active duty. Not only would the security risk be astronomical to have numbers two and three in the succession out in a desert, fighting against an enemy that is hard to be defined, but doesn't PM Blair's plan to step down from office indicate that the public opinion is incredibly against the war and that they should be pulling out within a year? It's another Vietnam and at least he sees that. But that's beside the point.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 22, 2006, 05:52:26 PM
participation in the war is volontary. i don't think anyone is forced to go there. i am not trying to start a conversation on the war and how fair it is (although i think it's clear that i do not support it). i am not trying to start a conflict.

but this *is* a very controversial matter. people have manifested against this war. as tsaria said, 80% of the british people do not agree to it. how do you think these people feel when they see their prince joining it?

this is not a national war. it's not like britain was attacked by any of these countries (and don't tell me that the terrorist attacks count - they were not made by these countries... they were made by particular people. they are not official attacks and provocation to war. *and* all terrorist activity in britain has severely increased ever since the war - i'm sure that helps the general attitude). you must admire a prince who goes to war in a war like world war 2, when the actual integrity of britain was endangered. but this is not such a war. this is a very controversial war. if you link this war to the royal family, the royal family will be harmed by this link. automatically. on the other hand, their image will be harmed if they disagree with the current government. so the best thing about it is to stay neutral.

i wasn't even mentioning the danger that would threaten the royal family if their members start joining the forces that attack iraq and afghanistan. it's a real threat, but had the war been an honourable national british war, i'm sure the public view on this join would have been that the princes are heroes. in this case, i think everyone will simply take it as a public statement.

No, this thread isn't about the war and it would probably be best to keep individual politics and viewpoints out of it, difficult as it may be and stick to the fact that it is a controversial war (I don't think there's any disagreement about that) and what the effect could be on the image of the monarchy. People who have loved ones serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or, God forbid, having lost their lives in the conflict, may read the various postings condemning the war and basically saying that joining the military for WW2 is admirable but this one is not, and in fact, isn't 'honorable', may be deeply wounded and/or offended. Also, there's a very diverse group on the Forum and there could be people who vehemently disagree with the anti-war statements and all viewpoints should be respected--much as we've brought up in the various threads (including this one) the fact of people's various opinions on religion. It's best to keep them off the public forum. I keep my personal feelings regarding the administration and the war to myself (except in private PMs) but my husband served in Afghanistan and I confess that I was personally hurt by the statements that it's not 'honourable' to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. I just don't think this is the place to make judgment pro or anti the various wars but rather the effect they have on the opinion regarding the princes.

Has there been any public reaction to either Harry or William a) serving in the military in general and b) potentially going into combat.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 22, 2006, 08:09:32 PM
I agree grandduchessella. There are many emotive views within the membership of our forum (all valid), but lets try to keep on topic for the sake of this thread and its interesting content.

R.I.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 23, 2006, 06:36:41 AM
Why would the British want to overthrow a system of government that has worked since 1066 A.D. for a system of government that may not work?

The Charles reign will be short.  William will ascend the throne.  The British sysytem of government will go on as it always has.

Remember. the British tried a republic once and it did not work.  There was a reason it did not work.  The British seem to like a monarch as a check and balance on elected leaders.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on September 23, 2006, 06:40:45 AM
Britain will never be a republic hopefully.
 :-X
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 23, 2006, 08:23:41 AM

The Charles reign will be short. 

As a side note, if Charles doesn't assume the throne fairly quickly he'll possibly be the oldest person to become monarch. EVII was about 59 when QV died, Charles is almost the same age now. George IV was 57 while William IV was a shade under 65.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 23, 2006, 09:09:35 AM
Charles wil be a grandfather pushing 70 when he assumes the throne taking for granted he out lives his mother.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on September 23, 2006, 09:10:19 AM
So William IV is the oldest person ever to become monarch? Charles doesn't have long to go till he is that old. :-\
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on September 23, 2006, 09:11:12 AM
Charles wil be a grandfather pushing 70 when he assumes the throne taking for granted he out lives his mother.

TampaBay

Well maybe not, Charles could assume the throne next year, we don't know when it will be. ???
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 23, 2006, 09:13:30 AM
True!  However, I was just consiidering the normal life span and longevity of the Bowles-Lyon clan and the Glucksburgs.


TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on September 23, 2006, 09:15:59 AM

The Charles reign will be short. 

As a side note, if Charles doesn't assume the throne fairly quickly he'll possibly be the oldest person to become monarch. EVII was about 59 when QV died, Charles is almost the same age now. George IV was 57 while William IV was a shade under 65.

He's also very close to the record number of years as Prince of Wales as well, isn't it? I think he was made Prince in 1958, and invested in 1969. So if he's still Prince of Wales in 2018. The Queen would be 89 then, hardly inconceivable.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on September 23, 2006, 09:28:44 AM
EVII was POW from his birth so he was POW for almost 60 years.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ilyala on September 25, 2006, 02:01:37 AM
participation in the war is volontary. i don't think anyone is forced to go there. i am not trying to start a conversation on the war and how fair it is (although i think it's clear that i do not support it). i am not trying to start a conflict.

but this *is* a very controversial matter. people have manifested against this war. as tsaria said, 80% of the british people do not agree to it. how do you think these people feel when they see their prince joining it?

this is not a national war. it's not like britain was attacked by any of these countries (and don't tell me that the terrorist attacks count - they were not made by these countries... they were made by particular people. they are not official attacks and provocation to war. *and* all terrorist activity in britain has severely increased ever since the war - i'm sure that helps the general attitude). you must admire a prince who goes to war in a war like world war 2, when the actual integrity of britain was endangered. but this is not such a war. this is a very controversial war. if you link this war to the royal family, the royal family will be harmed by this link. automatically. on the other hand, their image will be harmed if they disagree with the current government. so the best thing about it is to stay neutral.

i wasn't even mentioning the danger that would threaten the royal family if their members start joining the forces that attack iraq and afghanistan. it's a real threat, but had the war been an honourable national british war, i'm sure the public view on this join would have been that the princes are heroes. in this case, i think everyone will simply take it as a public statement.

No, this thread isn't about the war and it would probably be best to keep individual politics and viewpoints out of it, difficult as it may be and stick to the fact that it is a controversial war (I don't think there's any disagreement about that) and what the effect could be on the image of the monarchy. People who have loved ones serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or, God forbid, having lost their lives in the conflict, may read the various postings condemning the war and basically saying that joining the military for WW2 is admirable but this one is not, and in fact, isn't 'honorable', may be deeply wounded and/or offended. Also, there's a very diverse group on the Forum and there could be people who vehemently disagree with the anti-war statements and all viewpoints should be respected--much as we've brought up in the various threads (including this one) the fact of people's various opinions on religion. It's best to keep them off the public forum. I keep my personal feelings regarding the administration and the war to myself (except in private PMs) but my husband served in Afghanistan and I confess that I was personally hurt by the statements that it's not 'honourable' to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. I just don't think this is the place to make judgment pro or anti the various wars but rather the effect they have on the opinion regarding the princes.

Has there been any public reaction to either Harry or William a) serving in the military in general and b) potentially going into combat.

i apologize if i hurt anyone's feelings that was not my intention. i was merely pointing out, that unlike ww2 where one HAD to fight for their country otherwise the country would disappear off the face of the earth, this war is not a necessity. if a prince ran from ww2 for the simple reason that he was a prince, while everyone else HAD to fight, it would have been cowardly. and yet the simple fact that he could do that and yet he served, when a prince went to war with his people it was very popular and in this context i mentioned 'honourable' and i would now add courageous.

however, in this particular war, participation is volontary and britain in itself is not threatened by any of these countries and not enrolling would not be considered cowardly. enrolling is not the most likely option for anyone, including the princes. therefor, if they enroll, they pretty much express an opinion and desire to fight this war, therefor expressing their agreement to it. that was all i was saying. for a normal person that is not 'dishonourable' and i am most certainly not going to throw rocks at people who fought in this war (no matter how much in disagreement i am to it, i am in disagreement with the people *leading* this war, not the ones *fighting* it). however, for a prince, expressing such a personal opinion can be dangerous. and it's not just the risk of getting killed in the action. that's all i was saying.

i hope no-one is hurt by my statements, maybe i simply didn't express myself properly.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Nadezhda Edvardovna on September 28, 2006, 03:16:07 PM
Tuesday, September 26, 2006, The Guardian published an excerpt from Jeremy Paxman's new book on the monarchy, in which he seems to argue that the republicans have quite the uphill battle.  You might find it interesting.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,1881153,00.html The article is entitled "The Zoo Must Go On." (Rather an odd title for a generally respectful article...)  Pax, N.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on September 28, 2006, 07:07:21 PM
A.N. Wilson said it best: "The Queen does not have a job but the Crown has a function

Frank Lloyd Wright: "Form should always follow function"

Tampaay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on October 16, 2006, 11:50:15 AM
Lets take the contributions of Tsarfan and Dennis from '"The Queen" - Helen Mirren' thread and expand on them here.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on October 16, 2006, 11:53:11 AM
I can't comment really on this film as I haven't seen it. It doesn't come to Australia until Boxing Day! >:( >:(
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 16, 2006, 11:54:15 AM
Just a small thought (and not even one I can take credit for - it was Christina Croft who first said it), but in years to come, I think the current Queen, Elizabeth II, will be regarded with as much awe and respect by royalists as Queen Victoria is now.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on October 16, 2006, 12:01:30 PM
I think Christina is almost certainly correct in this projection.   Christina is blessed with an ability to observe and assess far more deeply than just about anyone else I know.

Queen Elizabeth II has successfully ruled over the transition from Colony to Commonwealth - a Commonwealth of independent nations each one of which is proud to regard her as their Head of State.   She has embraced and adapted remarkably well to a period of worldwide change which has been more dramatic and faster paced than any of her predecessors could ever have imagined, far less witnessed.   

A truly, truly remarkable woman at least the equal of her great, great grandmother - long may she reign.

However, this post charges us to regard the British Monarch post Elizabeth II.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 16, 2006, 12:08:28 PM
On the other thread, Dennis said:
Quote
But, I get your point.  I think all of the things you mentioned about the foibles of the RF are true, but not in a way that will bring down the monarchy.  Simplified, yes.  As I said in another post, there will be great simplification within the next 25 years, because once the Queen is gone and Charles is King, all of those first cousins of Elizabeth are one step farther out of the Royal Family.
The current family is rooted in the four sons of George V and Queen Mary.

I agree with this. When Charles becomes king, if the currents dukes of Kent and Gloucester are still alive, they will still be HRH, but will be moved 'further down the line' so to speak. And once the Earls of Ulster and St Andrews inherit those dukedoms, they will cease to be royal. George V had four sons who had children of their own; nowadays there is a shortage of males in the immediate British royal family (well, in the younger generation). Once Charles is King, for example, Princess Margaret's children will also be moved more onto the fringe, as will Princess Anne's, eventually.

As Dennis also said, the immediate royal family will be Charles, Camilla, William (plus spouse and children), Harry (plus spouse and children), Andrew, Edward and Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise (they're spouses and children won't be royal, of course).

It's just a thought, but in the unlikely event of the Duke of Edinburgh outliving his wife, he'd be in a unique position - the only consort of a British queen regnant to outlive her, I think (except William III who was a king in his own right).
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on October 16, 2006, 12:50:39 PM
George V had three sons who had children of their own.  :)

I think the Queen is great. But the equal or greater of QV - no. But that is just my opinion of course.  :)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Tsarfan on October 16, 2006, 02:09:01 PM
I am an ardent admirer of Queen Elizabeth, one of whose great strengths has been to recognize that she reigns over a constitutional government that vests the Prime Minister with the role of reflecting the prevailing political sentiments of the time.  That government might be conservative this year and liberal the next.  But Elizabeth has studiously avoided putting herself into a position where politically-charged sentiments could be attributed to her.  As a result, modern Britons can vote any way they please without any sense that their votes will be undermined behind the scenes by the machinations of a partisan monarch.

Unfortunately, in today's media climate, the only way to guard the privacy of one's views and to avoid having them be flushed out, teased out, or inferred by what else is said -- or not said -- is to keep a very low profile behind a very high wall of protocol.  I sometimes wonder whether Britons appreciate just how lucky they have been to have a queen whose true feelings and views are so hard to divine.  Just look at the mess in which Charles found himself when his views of modern British education and the false sense of equality it bestows were unmasked.

But I fear that Elizabeth's generation of royals might be the last to grasp this sublety . . . and might be the last to put duty to the institution above a public pursuit of "being themselves".  Being an effective constitutional monarch in the constant glare of media devoid of the least bit of restraint is going to require a very special personality of which I see few signs in the current crop of royals.  Even two hundred years ago -- with far less media glare upon it -- the British monarchy was becoming a fragile institution under the unbridled pursuit of personal inclinations marked by William IV's reign.  Victoria and Albert did much to extend the monarchy's lease on life by, to put it bluntly, making the monarchy more boring and uptight.

And the public perception of propriety that Victoria wrapped around the monarchy was sufficient to get it past Edward VII's pecadilloes and even Edward VIII's walking off the job to marry Wallace Simpson.  Elizabeth (and her father) "recharged the batteries" of duty and propriety, as it were.  But batteries can be recharged only so many times, and today's media draws a lot more juice than yesteryear's.  I just don't think the monarchy today has the same margin of error available to it that Edward VIII had.

While I enjoy the discussions about who will carry the designation of "royal" in the next couple of generations, I hope the Windsors don't fall into the trap the Romanovs did.  While Nicholas and Alexandra were fretting about the hopeless task of being sure their fragile son -- and no other male Romanov -- become the next tsar, or were arguing with other Romanovs about morganatic marriages and strict adherence to arcane inheritance laws, they failed to notice that the whole institution was crumbling around them for lack of attention to the cracks that were spreading through the foundation of the monarchy.

The whole Diana and Charles imbroglio opened up a lot of new cracks in the foundation of the British monarchy, and their youngest son seems determined to pry them open further.  It does not auger well.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Leuchtenberg on October 16, 2006, 02:17:27 PM
The Monarchy will continue in the UK, but will be of a much lower quality.  The Queen for whatever mistakes along the way she has made, has been an excellent queen.  The Queen wants what she believes in her mind what is best for the people and the monarchy.  The Prince of Wales wants what he wants for no other reason than because  he wants it.  There is the difference between mother and son.

Will the Monarchy continue in Canada, Australia, New Zealand??  I hope so, but I doubt it will for much longer once The Queen is gone. :(
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on October 16, 2006, 02:23:46 PM
I think it will in Australia without a doubt continue.
Our Aussie Crown Princess Mary of Denmark has made royalty very popular again.

I agree mostly with TsarFan.

It is amazing how the Queen manages to keep all her personal and political opinions to herself, I could never do it.

However in the future it does not auger that well. Harry really needs to change his image from someone who does practically nothing but get drunk, party and have sordid liasions. He is really very repulsive to me.

It is true that the Monarchy does not have as much of a margin of error as it once did.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 16, 2006, 03:05:12 PM
George V had three sons who had children of their own.  :)


Thanks for the correction, I never was good at maths.  ;D

I think the monarchy will certainly continue in Britain - this has been argued well on other threads. The royal family will be very different when the Queen's gone though, beru much 'downsized'.  :P
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Dennis on October 16, 2006, 04:33:37 PM
I think it is pointless to speculate what the royals "think" or how they vew their postions, etc.  They know better than anyone what they have to lose.

I also wouldn't be so hard on Prince Harry.  He is only 22 years old!  Time will bring maturity, as with us all, and he will stop doing stupid things, hopefully.  And, just like Margaret, he will be the only sibling of the monarch.

BTW, Princess Margaret had her share of "stories" but they didn't wreck the monarchy.

Also, why do you think it has to be all or nothing?  There are the continental monarchies that could provide an example of simplification for the Brits.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on October 16, 2006, 04:52:45 PM
Leuchtenberg has, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head.   The PoW appears to totally misread the meaning of duty.   In this lies the danger.   Although a generation younger than his mother, his behaviour and many of his attitudes hark back to a different era - pre WW1.   HM seems to have a much firmer grasp of the role of the monarch in the 21st century.   I think the PoW may find it difficult adapting to the 'European model'.   There is nothing about him, or his way of life, which could be described as minimal.   That said, I do admire and respect many of his values.   Unfortunately many of his ideas are simply too idealistic for the times in which we live.

Princes William and Harry remind me of the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.   The older was the sensible one.   While the younger enjoyed the privileges of the position.   Just be glad they were born that way round!   

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Tsarfan on October 16, 2006, 05:02:03 PM

BTW, Princess Margaret had her share of "stories" but they didn't wreck the monarchy.


True.  But times were different . . . the media was less aggressive, the monarch herself was a symbol of rectitude who assumed the throne with her own reputation unsullied, and the Queen Mother was still very present as a revered symbol of monarchy and selfless leadership during the darkest days of World War II.

When Charles ascends the throne, he will be married to a divorcee with whom he carried on an affair while they were both married to others.  His first wife and his marriage to her will have been the subject of innumerable tawdry books and interviews, full of tales of neurotic behavior, petty strife, deliberate cruelty, and open vendettas.  He will have been parodied countless times in the popular press for past and future foibles.  There will be doubts hanging over his head about the paternity of his younger son.  And Britons will have formed the habit of looking to their monarchs for entertainment rather than dignified leadership.

This is what I meant by the loss of margin of error.  Monarchy can survive as a remote symbol of statecraft.  Its shelf life as a caricature of privileged self-indulgence in a media-frenzied age might be considerably shorter.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on October 16, 2006, 05:18:48 PM
I entirely agree Tsarfan, I think we could be in deep trouble.   The QUeen Mother's expression - if indeed she coined it - is proving all too true.

However, to address your point about changed times - we now live in a nation where one in every three marriage ends in divorce.   Personal attitudes and constraints are very, very different to those of 50 years ago.   However, even today, we do expect our monarch to represent the best rather than the worst of our national trends.

The Prince of Wales is on record declaring that when he ascends the throne he does not wish to be Defender of the Faith... rather as Defender of Faiths.   This is an area where he may find himself well and truly wrong-footed.   Although his divorce is one area of his life which will not necessarily be regarded as an impediment in so far as some other 'Faiths' are concerned, as it may to the indiginous population.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on October 16, 2006, 10:10:43 PM
If this is the case, the title and definition will need to be changed once he ascends the throne, in my opinion - he cannot be "Defender of Faiths" - nobody can.  Faith can't be made generic.  How would he ascribe to all faiths, regardless of how way out or far from the traditional Church of England credo these may be? 

I can understand if he intends it to mean that he will respect all faiths, but if he's going to be "Defender" of them all, he's simply going to look as if he stands for none of them, plus he's not going to have much time to do anything else!  ::)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on October 17, 2006, 04:06:08 AM
The danger of appearing to be 'all things to all men' Grace.   That was, in my opinion, a silly mistake.   Having said that, I do think he meant it sincerely when he said it.   Trouble was he did not think it through.   

To address Tsarfan's remarks vis-a-vis the Press, I wonder how far the British Press really would go in their contribution to the destruction of the Monarchy.    As we have discussed elsewhere - these two institutions are mutually dependent.

There is every chance, when the time comes it will be a case of 'Cometh the hour, Cometh the man'.   On Sunday evening, in a two part television documentary on the history of Royal photography, a film sequence was shown for the first time.   Shot from the 15th floor of the Hilton Hotel, it showed the Queen strolling around the grounds of Buckingham Palace accompanied by none other than her exiled uncle, the Duke of Windsor.   Shot on a long distance lens, the grainy film distinctly showed the two deep in conversation.   I believe the British Monarchy had a lucky escape when Edward VIII chose the marry the 'woman he loved' over the throne.   At that time, nobody could have imagined that a ten years old girl would evolve into a woman who, after reigning for almost 55 years, now enjoys more love and respect than ever before.

tsaria   
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on October 17, 2006, 05:01:27 AM
If this is the case, the title and definition will need to be changed once he ascends the throne, in my opinion - he cannot be "Defender of Faiths" - nobody can.  Faith can't be made generic.  How would he ascribe to all faiths, regardless of how way out or far from the traditional Church of England credo these may be? 

I can understand if he intends it to mean that he will respect all faiths, but if he's going to be "Defender" of them all, he's simply going to look as if he stands for none of them, plus he's not going to have much time to do anything else!  ::)

I agree with the above completely. That ''defender of faiths'' thing is just the stupidest thing Charles has ever said in public about his role.  >:(
He should be defender of only one faith - his own - the Church of England! I certainly don't need him defending my own Orthodox faith.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on October 17, 2006, 05:06:32 AM
I think it is pointless to speculate what the royals "think" or how they vew their postions, etc.  They know better than anyone what they have to lose.

I also wouldn't be so hard on Prince Harry.  He is only 22 years old!  Time will bring maturity, as with us all, and he will stop doing stupid things, hopefully.  And, just like Margaret, he will be the only sibling of the monarch.

BTW, Princess Margaret had her share of "stories" but they didn't wreck the monarchy.

Also, why do you think it has to be all or nothing?  There are the continental monarchies that could provide an example of simplification for the Brits.

Do all of them really understand what they have to lose? If so, then they should behave with more tact and decorum.

And stop being so publicly sleazy. Yes I am refferring to Prince Harry.

The older he gets, the less forgiving the public will be to his image and behaviour. He needs to become respectable! Princess Margaret was the sister of our great Queen. Harry, when his father is King, well then the Queen will be gone and things might not be quite so stable.

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. But I would MUCH rather it be ALL than a ''simplification.''
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: basilforever on October 17, 2006, 05:19:46 AM
The danger of appearing to be 'all things to all men' Grace.   That was, in my opinion, a silly mistake.   Having said that, I do think he meant it sincerely when he said it.   Trouble was he did not think it through.   

To address Tsarfan's remarks vis-a-vis the Press, I wonder how far the British Press really would go in their contribution to the destruction of the Monarchy.    As we have discussed elsewhere - these two institutions are mutually dependent.

There is every chance, when the time comes it will be a case of 'Cometh the hour, Cometh the man'.   On Sunday evening, in a two part television documentary on the history of Royal photography, a film sequence was shown for the first time.   Shot from the 15th floor of the Hilton Hotel, it showed the Queen strolling around the grounds of Buckingham Palace accompanied by none other than her exiled uncle, the Duke of Windsor.   Shot on a long distance lens, the grainy film distinctly showed the two deep in conversation.   I believe the British Monarchy had a lucky escape when Edward VIII chose the marry the 'woman he loved' over the throne.   At that time, nobody could have imagined that a ten years old girl would evolve into a woman who, after reigning for almost 55 years, now enjoys more love and respect than ever before.

tsaria   

Will we ever see this documentary on the history of Royal Photography in Australia? :( I really hope so.....

I'm still desperately waiting for this one:

(http://www.channel4.com/history/media/P/prince_eddy/prince_eddy_5cnotx_22nov.jpg)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Tsarfan on October 17, 2006, 06:28:26 AM
To address Tsarfan's remarks vis-a-vis the Press, I wonder how far the British Press really would go in their contribution to the destruction of the Monarchy.    As we have discussed elsewhere - these two institutions are mutually dependent.

Interesting question.  Would the tabloid press help kill the goose that lays their golden egg?

I would like to think not.  But the tabloid press is not a force that has evinced any capacity for self-regulation.  Instead, each publication subsists on the race to be the first to publish the next nude shot or to expose the next outrage.  RichC once posted that, a few years ago, a tabloid newspaper succeeded in planting an undercover reporter on the palace staff.  He then took a series of pictures of the royal family's personal apartments that revealed a comfortable, slightly shabby lifestyle behind closed doors.

When I think what such a shenanigan revealed about the British tabloid press -- a total lack of respect for privacy, no sense of boundaries, and a willingness to advertise the ease with which security could be breached -- I really wonder whether they could stop themselves from killing their goose.  It would mean giving up the story and taking the risk that some other publication runs it instead.  Unfortunately, that's suicide for their business model.

Remember that Diana -- Goose Numero Uno -- died in a high-speed pursuit through city streets by a completely out-of-control pack of photographers.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on October 17, 2006, 07:02:16 AM
Is that what you think happened to Diana, Tsarfan?

The British Press answers to the Press Commission.   Rather a toothless organisation you will think.   However, they only really get involved in extreme situations.   You will appreciate the danger of calling 'wolf'!   

The royal family, like the rest of us, is protected by the law of the land.   Problem there is the possibility of letting even more light in on the magic - as HMs sudden recollection of a conversation with Paul Burrell proved.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Tsarfan on October 17, 2006, 08:30:24 AM
You've lost me here, Tsaria, no doubt because you're better informed on some of these issues than I.  A little help in understanding your references, please?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Harumi on October 19, 2006, 04:40:41 PM

Remember. the British tried a republic once and it did not work.  There was a reason it did not work.  The British seem to like a monarch as a check and balance on elected leaders.
I am far from being well versed in British history but wasn't the fact that Cromwell was a demented tyrant the main reason why the Republic was a failure?
I also don't quite understand the check and balance remark? The Queen has merely a decorative role constitutionally wise. I know that technically she is invested by some powers but practically she cannot move a finger unless the Parliament and the Prime Minister tell her to do so.
I am sure that there are many genuine royalists who think the Monarchy fulfills many symbolic, religious, moral, etc. roles that are essentials to the UK. However I am not under the impression the younger Britons have such an intellectualised view of the Monarchy.
What I am saying is that I don't think the Windsor will survive the 21th century (and I believe they will survive) because their people are so loyal and devoted to them. I just think British people will be just keep the Windsor out of laziness.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on October 19, 2006, 05:12:01 PM
There was the remark by King Farouk of Egypt in 1948 that eventually there were be only 5 Kings who would be left--that of Spades, Clubs, Hearts, Diamonds and England.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Nadezhda Edvardovna on October 23, 2006, 08:01:45 AM
With regard to the Prince of Wales' statement that he would like to be 'defender of faiths':  I thought he meant that in a multifaith nation, he wanted to be a supporter of people's freedom of religion.  Rather an American concept.

At any rate, Defender of the Faith is a title bestowed upon Henry VIII by the pope, is it not? So then, how can it be changed but by the pope's successor? Pax, N.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 07, 2007, 12:17:55 PM
They largely respect her and some dare I say love her. Most have known noone else in their lives as Monarch.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 07, 2007, 12:32:29 PM
Well the British Monarchy is linked with the current Queen. As for the future, William is the best bet. As for the independent monarchies in Australia, Canada and New Zealand time will tell. Certainly Charles would not be a wise choice in any of these countries.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 07, 2007, 12:36:26 PM
This is too silly for words. If the monarchy ended in Britain, they always have other kingdoms. The end of the monarchy in Britain would not mean the end of the Monarchy in Canada, Australia or New Zealand immediately. These are all independent kingdoms and would make up their own minds.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 07, 2007, 03:31:01 PM
Dmitri, could you explain how the monarchy could continue in countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand if the British monarchy was to end?  ???     
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 07, 2007, 08:12:24 PM
The Commonwealth could continue with QE II as Head of State.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 07, 2007, 08:24:20 PM
QEII is not monarch, nor head of state for every Commonwealth  country. Most are republics already, and the rest are ready to follow after her sad demise.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 08, 2007, 05:47:37 AM
The Commonwealth could continue with QE II as Head of State.

TampaBay

If the British monarchy was abolished, she wouldn't be "QEII".
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 08, 2007, 07:42:06 AM
QEII is not monarch, nor head of state for every Commonwealth  country. Most are republics already, and the rest are ready to follow after her sad demise.

I thought QEII was Head of State of all the Commonwealth of Nations by invitation of the member nations.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 08, 2007, 08:39:32 AM
If the monarchy happened to be abolished in UK, Queen Elizabeth II would still be Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. until those countries decided what they wanted for their future. They are all independent realms which acknowledge Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen. In Australia there would have to be an Act of Parliament passed to allow for a referendum and then the referendum to succeed would require not just a majority of votes, but a majority of votes in the 6 Australian states. Only then could the monarchy be abolished.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 08, 2007, 08:52:34 AM
Thanks, D

That is what I thought.  Just because you are no longer the Emperor of Austria does not mean you are not the King of Hungary.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 08, 2007, 10:17:55 AM
You're very welcome TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 08, 2007, 10:41:56 AM
The Queen is head of the Commonwealth. She is not "head of state" for every country in it though. Most have their own presidents who fulfill that role. Some even have their own monarch, Tonga  for example.She is only  head of state for those that retain her as such- Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.
In any case, I see no chance of abolishing the monarchy is the present reign.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 08, 2007, 10:59:50 AM
In any case, I see no chance of abolishing the monarchy is the present reign.

I do not think the Monarchy of Great Britian, The UK or England will ever be abolished for the simple reason that there is no reaon to abolish it.  The consitutional monarchy of Great Britian, The UK or England  functions perfectly well rather the monarch is perceived as good or bad at their "job".

The reign of Charles III (or George VII) will be very short if it happens at all.  Charles will be 70 or older if his mother lives another 10 years and I believe QEII will live 10 years more or longer.  Charles may make a descent king.  William as the PoW will be doing most of the public work as Charles will need to attend to the "affairs of state" as the head of state.

Nobody wants to abolish the Monarch just to get rid of Chuck & Cammie, the public wants William.  All one needs to do it just sit back and wait.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 08, 2007, 06:44:22 PM
Nobody wants to abolish the Monarch just to get rid of Chuck & Cammie, the public wants William.  All one needs to do it just sit back and wait.

Why is everyone seemingly clamouring for William?  One day he may make a fine King but right now, in my opinion, he's just a somewhat gawky inexperienced boy... :o
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Aine on July 08, 2007, 09:06:11 PM
Why is everyone seemingly clamouring for William?  One day he may make a fine King but right now, in my opinion, he's just a somewhat gawky inexperienced boy... :o

I agree - I was never comfortable with the suggestion that the monarchy "skip" Charles for William's popularity (or speed the process along in any way). I sincerely doubt William would want it either; he's still enjoying being young, single, and a little carefree. It will far better to wait until he's more serious, experienced, and focused on his adult responsibilities.

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 08, 2007, 11:51:25 PM
There is no monarchy of England. The monarch is of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  If, for some reason in the future the " Kingdom" is no longer "United"  then the situation of the monarchy must be re-determined.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 09, 2007, 05:37:37 AM
I did not know which name to use so I used all three.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 09, 2007, 10:19:19 AM
The monarchy will not survive an unpopular monarch. It will go. I tend to think people confuse the popularity, respect and love for Queen Elizabeth II with the monarchy. Charles simply has never been held in the same regard. That is why the risk of having him as King is not worth it and why so many want William. He has the freshness needed and is popular. Remember Elizabeth II was young and well known when she became Queen in 1952. Times are radically different now from when Edward VII became King in 1901. Charles is tired and old and quite frankly no matter how much spin is not generally popular. If he had the real interests of the monarchy at stake he would move aside and that is possible. I think he would be far more successful as father of a new King than as King.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 09, 2007, 10:35:44 AM
I humbly disagree dmitri.  The British monarchy has already survived many unpopular occupants of the throne over the centuries.  It will survive the brief reign of King Charles III (or whatever name under which he chooses to reign).

Unlike the 1917-1918 era European crowns lost in the midst of war, any end of the British crown would not occur through a revolt, but through a political process.  It would be a lengthy and very, very complicated process.  Think about it - first you'd need a Prime Minister to take up the republican cause as a major policy.  Then he'd have to garner the support of the opposition parties, the established Church, etc.  A public referendum would be required - in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

Also, there would be the matter of the effects of the end of monarchy on the very essence of the UK as a whole, not to mention the dependant territories, the oversees realms and dominions, the Commonwealth.  Of course, this would also require a seemingly endless process of legally unlinking the Crown from the state. 

And beyond this, you'd also have to consider the division of assets currently held by the Queen - in the right of the Crown.  Oh, people like to downplay the significance of those words "held in the right of the Crown", but I'm sure legally it would be a nightmare to establish clear legal state ownership of certain assets - ranging from the Crown Estate, to the Royal Art Collection, to various Royal Jewels, to certain properties, to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, etc., etc. etc. 

In summary - the sheer number of people and entitites which would have to come to agreement on the end of the monarchy will probably ensure its survival long after any of us.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 09, 2007, 10:44:39 AM
I'm afraid that Chris has a point, or rather several.

Another factor that must be taken into consideration is that the fact that the British populace are generally apathetic when it comes to change per se.

Most people are content to see the RF continue to play out their largely ceremonial role in the life of the UK, whilst continuing to grumble about the cost of it all.

To do away with it would simply be too much hard work; if however we ended up with a Government with a hard-line republican agenda, then it might be a different story.

There is one other aspect that should be considered.  Our future monarch is well known for having opinions and expressing them, whether appropriate or not, in marked contrast to his mother, who has always understood the benefit of mystique and keeping one's trap shut.  Should these views and opinions come into conflict with Government (not unheard of and not unlikely), the role of Constitutional monarch could well come under closer scrutiny............
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 09, 2007, 11:01:30 AM
Quite so Martyn.

And I just thought of another thing.  There will likely be a monarchy in Canada long beyond the demise of the Crown in any other realm simply because of the way the crown was entrenched in the Canadian Constitution Act.  In a nutshell, that Act made it damn near impossible to alter the status of the Crown - you'd never get the federal government and all provincial assemblies to agree to the color of the sky, much less the status of the Crown.

The relevant text..

 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)  the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; 
(b)  the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force; 
(c)  subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language; 
(d)  the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and 
(e)  an amendment to this Part. 
 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 09, 2007, 05:39:57 PM
Even in Monarchy's worst and most unpopular days, they are 100 times more popular than the Conseravtive or Labor Party.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 10, 2007, 08:15:52 AM
Even in Monarchy's worst and most unpopular days, they are 100 times more popular than the Conseravtive or Labor Party.

TampaBay

Well that depends on how closely identified the monarchy is with politics.

The Queen, as we know is most careful not to express any opinions that could be construed in any way as being politically biased.  Pce Charles has been less careful in this respect, whether accidentally or purposefully........
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 10, 2007, 11:43:37 AM
Even in Monarchy's worst and most unpopular days, they are 100 times more popular than the Conseravtive or Labor Party.

TampaBay

You think so TB? Most of my British friends pay more attention to the parties [and you forgot the LibDems] and what they have to offer.  The current impression seems to be that they are just a "tourist attraction", ignoring the very real role the monarch plays.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 11, 2007, 05:52:52 AM
I have heard very few complaints about QEII in the kast five years and her father was extremely popular or am I wrong.


TampaBay
Title: ueen or her heirs who do that. These functiomns ca
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 11, 2007, 06:04:58 AM
No, TB, you are not wrong. I think the Queen is much admired, as was her father.  It is just that most people do not pay attention to her.  I noticed on my last visit that the Trooping ceremony recieved it's lowest ratings ever [never has been much of a tv draw] and most who watched it live were tourists. Royal events just do not interest most people I know in Britain.
My point was that the actual constitutional role of the monarchy not appreciated, whether it is the present Queen or her heirs who fulfill that.  Those functions can and are being removed, and eventually, there will be no valid reason for a monarch, unless the Swedish model is followed.
 The political parties do effect the lives of everyone, so they are the focus of most folks.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 11, 2007, 09:30:59 AM
Sadly many are so poorly educated they don't know much about anything. The monarchy is sadly the best thing Britain has going for it.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 11, 2007, 12:20:00 PM
The best thing Britain has going for it, in my opinion, is the British people.  The monarchy is a vital legal institution that can come or go according to the wishes of the people. If they loose complete interest, it will be over. Sue Townsend in her recent comedy tale [Queen Camilla] had them eventually placed, like waxworks, for public display in BP for a few hours a day.  That would be lamentable. There is a big difference between the Royal Family  and the Monarchy.  Both are in the process of being pared though.
Title: Re: ueen or her heirs who do that. These functiomns ca
Post by: TampaBay on July 11, 2007, 07:33:15 PM
No, TB, you are not wrong. I think the Queen is much admired, as was her father.  It is just that most people do not pay attention to her.  I noticed on my last visit that the Trooping ceremony recieved it's lowest ratings ever [never has been much of a tv draw] and most who watched it live were tourists. Royal events just do not interest most people I know in Britain.
My point was that the actual constitutional role of the monarchy not appreciated, whether it is the present Queen or her heirs who fulfill that.  Those functions can and are being removed, and eventually, there will be no valid reason for a monarch, unless the Swedish model is followed.
 The political parties do effect the lives of everyone, so they are the focus of most folks.

Do you think the Swedish Model is viable in the U.K.?  Please elaborate or PM me personally with your views.

I thank you in advance for your response.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on July 11, 2007, 09:13:31 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/15/do1502.xml

I can't begin to describe how much I admire this lovely Queen.

I love the Queen, even after she gave that stupid knighthood to Salman Rushdie.
HM Queen Elizabeth II is such an admirable, respectful lady, and everybody should be following her example.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 11, 2007, 09:44:31 PM
One of the lamentable mis-informations about the monarchy is that the Queen does not give those awards, stupid or otherwise. They are awarded by a government panel in her name. Salman Rushdie might have been unwise, considering the situation, but he was awarded for his literarry merits on behalf of the UK.
 And, No, TB, I do not think the Swedish model will work for the UK.  There is a vastly different constutional role.
 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on July 12, 2007, 06:49:55 AM
Yes it is very important to realise that the vast majority of honours are awarded by the government in The Queen's name. She is responsible for those who get the Garter, Thistle, Order of Merit and the Royal Victorian Order. The British people are a strength, but many are a severe challenge. Britain should be a leading nation. Sadly it has slipped badly.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 12, 2007, 08:24:22 PM
And, No, TB, I do not think the Swedish model will work for the UK.  There is a vastly different constutional role.
 

Lord Robert, Sir Hall,

What is the Swedish model of Consitutional Monarchy and hoe does it differ from the British model?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 12, 2007, 08:43:37 PM
The Swedish monarchy is flacid- it has no political role and exsists only at the wish of the government. Fortunately, their royal family is quite popular, especially the Crown Princess. It would be a mistake to  abolish it  in Abbaland.
 The UK monarchy validates the ruling government. To abolish it would take a great deal of parlaimentary manoevering to replace the function it serves.  All laws and judgements are done is the monarch's name, just for an example. The Church is another- in England at least. Everyone in uniform in the UK swears loyalty to the monarch.  Not a constitution nor a president. The monarch, whether Queen or future King is a live, functioning institute of State.
 In Sweden, as I understand it, the monarch is basically a popularity conbtest. which, happily they are winning!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on July 12, 2007, 09:30:34 PM
"Rupert Murdoch makes no effort to conceal he believes the  Monarchy has long outlived its usefulness..    There is little, in fact probably no, chance its demise would brought about by way of revolution.   There is, however, something much more incidious - apathy.   This is the British Monarchy's greatest enemy."   


This is a very reasoned, intelligent and interesting debate.   I was literally hounded off this message board a while back for even attempting to start such a thread.  I think any web site that is interested in Monarchy per se (and this thread - the Windsors in particular) has to put away their rose tinted spectacles once in a while and discuss where the Monarchy is going in the 21stC.

I too believe that apathy is the Monarchy's greatest enemy.  That coupled with indifferent but - above all the EU.   Times are certainly a' changing in Europe.

By the way, the Monarchy has always drunk at the font of "celebrity" - now with the likes of "Hello", "OK" etc - we have "celebrity" by the bucket load.

I do believe it will "whither on the vine" rather than be overthrown.  That just isn't going to happen.  You are just going to see a gradual disintegration.   The one thing that is holding it together at present is QEII.  When she goes, it will be interesting to watch.   As I read somewhere once, people in Sydney, Auckland, Montreal and other such far flung places will wonder how they came to have a certain Mrs Parker-Bowles from Wiltshire as their Queen.

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 12, 2007, 10:34:59 PM
Joan - I agree with your post, but when you first started here some of your remarks were very inflammatory to say the least and that would explain your less than welcome reception.  However, if I remember, the hatchet was eventually buried.  ;)

There certainly is apathy regarding the monarchy these days, but there is also apathy related to many other things that people once held dear, such as religion, family values etc.

As to how a certain Mrs. Parker-Bowles will one day be elevated to Queen, you will have to ask her second husband that - he gave no one else a say in the matter, not even his family.  It may yet be a decision he will live to regret.  :-\

 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 13, 2007, 07:20:13 AM
The question of how we came to have Mrs P-B as our future Queen is one that I have often marvelled at......

Times change.  It seems that Kings may now marry their divorced mistresses, when not too many years ago this was a situation that necessitated relinquishing the throne.

Maybe it is a good thing?  Perhaps we are finally moving closer to the idea that birth and rank do not necessarily dictate our lot in life?

Camilla as Queen?   I can't help but regret that coming to pass.........
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Arleen on July 13, 2007, 08:51:54 AM
I was reading the other day some letters from the late 1890's and it seemed that UK griped about the Monarchy just the same as they do now.  Queen Victoria did not mind her people, did not do this, or that, was too costly in taxes......the Monarchy had outlived its usefulness, etc. etc.....  Exactly like people today talk about the Monarchy!

Probably it will just go on forever.....and everyone will get use to Queen Camilla like they have everyone else!
Gossip and backbiting just seem to be human nature's jokes and fun!  Everyone does it but it doesn't mean much.

I was totally against Camilla "becoming anything"......even Charles wife.  But I have no say in anything being an American. 

Arleen
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on July 13, 2007, 09:26:54 AM
"I was totally against Camilla "becoming anything"......even Charles wife."

You are not alone on that one, Arleen !     

However, my particular interest in the Monarchy is as an institution.   

Personalities come and go and, although it makes for tittle-tattle as it always has, we who live and pay taxes in the UK really have to ask the question "How relevant is this anachronism in the 21stC?"   

There should be a public debate and I think there will be once QEII is no longer with us.

Whoops - have just correct myself - typed "public" without the "L"-  Purely a Freudian slip I am sure.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 13, 2007, 11:31:59 AM
I do think that when the Queen is no longer monarch, the institution of monarchy will come under closer scrutiny.

Arleen's point about the popularity of monarchy is a good one.  Its popularity has waxed and waned according to the nature of the incumbent of the office of monarch.

The popularity of Edward VII, George V and VI, and Elizabeth II has gotten us accustomed to having positive feelings about the monarchy per se.  But times have changed and the gloves are off when it comes to reporting on the RF in the media.  It is difficult to know how Charles is perceived by the general populace and whether this will extend to his wife.  It would also be interesting to know just how the British monarchy is perceived amongst the members of Britain's many ethnic communities.........

I suspect that if he sticks to form, basically the model of decorum and behaviour that has been set by his mother, not too much can go wrong; his wife as intended, will tail along in his wake and bask in his glory............
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 13, 2007, 11:41:11 AM
I have faith that Charles will make a good job of being King - a job he has been trained in since King. No doubt people will go on about a new begining etc when he becomes King, but as long as he doesan't change to much and respects the traditions he will be going along the right lines in my opinion. None of this nonsense about bringing the Monarchy upto date etc.

Also he has the Duchess by his side who's gone from strength to strength and be nice to see her dripping in more Windsor jewels.

The UK would be much worse a place if the Monarchy was dropped - which is not likely to happen otherwise it already would have done. Long Live the House of Windsor!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Janet_W. on July 13, 2007, 12:26:54 PM
Although as an American I don't have a vote in such matters nor the experience of actually living under a monarchy, I'm inclined to agree with you, Martyn. Charles is a conscientious person who is more than ready to take on responsibility. And in it's current incantation the monarchy seems to be far more of an asset than a debit, especially since the UK is highly reliant on tourism and I doubt tourism would thrive as well if the on-going saga of the Windsors became that of just another aristocratic family.

As for the Duchess, she is the acceptable version of Wallis Warfield Simpson, i.e., she's not American and has been divorced once rather than twice. And how can I say this without sounding too "meow" . . . relaxed standards have helped as well.  :P 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 13, 2007, 01:51:23 PM
Perhaps we are finally moving closer to the idea that birth and rank do not necessarily dictate our lot in life?

Now that is an interesting double-edged sword, Martyn.  How can a hereditary monarchy - which is in essence totally dependent on birth and rank - continue to exist while it is at the same time conforming to the more modern concept that birth and rank have no significance?

Hmmmm.   ???
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on July 13, 2007, 02:22:46 PM
"Although as an American I don't have a vote in such matters "

Neither do I, Janet, nor do my fellow UK subjects of Her Majesty and that's the whole point.   We live in a so-called democracy where we have no say in who is our Head of State.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 13, 2007, 02:33:26 PM
Yes, you do joan. By whom you elect as your mps.  Parlaiment can change the succession.  A democracy is only as good as the people who vote in it, after all.
Neither is monarchy neccessarily hereditary. It can be an elective or appointive. It can be invented  or abolished. Pretty versatile institution.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 13, 2007, 02:38:50 PM
A democracy merely means a government of representatives chosen by the people.  The UK, and most other monarchies, are represented by a government elected by the people.

Besides, the British people are totally free to end the monarchy and choose a fully elected head of state if they wished.  It would be a long and arduous process - but make no mistake, it could be done.  It would appear the British public have little real appetite for it, however.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on July 13, 2007, 04:13:43 PM
Excuse me but have I missed something here.   Our Head of State is at present QEII - when was she elected??
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 13, 2007, 04:48:27 PM
No one said she was "elected".  You elect your mps, who then can determine the succession. We are discussing the institution of monarchy.  Not the individual monarch.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 13, 2007, 06:52:33 PM
The question of how we came to have Mrs P-B as our future Queen is one that I have often marvelled at......

Times change.  It seems that Kings may now marry their divorced mistresses, when not too many years ago this was a situation that necessitated relinquishing the throne.

Maybe it is a good thing?  Perhaps we are finally moving closer to the idea that birth and rank do not necessarily dictate our lot in life?

Camilla as Queen?   I can't help but regret that coming to pass.........

Birth and rank do not trouble me at all as regards the future Queen Consort.  If she is the right person for the job, I think most of us can overlook this.  It's the years of deceit, adultery and the treatment of Charles' wife that I object to and continue to have a problem with, not Camilla's humble background.  I admire Camilla for the way she has handled herself since she became Duchess of Cornwall, but the 'Q' word?  :( ???
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on July 14, 2007, 05:37:22 PM
I agree with Robert Hall  that the best thing the UK has going for it is it's PEOPLE.   

I would far more prefer to pledge allegiance to to a "Country and it's People" (ie a Republic) than to "King/Queen and Country".   When I travel in France and Italy, I envy them their Republican and secular societies.

Elizabeth Windsor as a person I have no antagonism towards whatsoever - I just happen to think the Monarchy's time has passed.   As for her privileged brood and their various partners/spouses/girlfriends etc - I daren't say.   I will be hounded off this board again.

All I can say is when I read such headlines as "£2million spent on security to guard Camilla's unoccupied house" well.... >:(
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 14, 2007, 06:17:47 PM

Elizabeth Windsor as a person I have no antagonism towards whatsoever - I just happen to think the Monarchy's time has passed.   As for her privileged brood and their various partners/spouses/girlfriends etc - I daren't say.   I will be hounded off this board again.


Joan,

Any opinion you post respectfully is welcomed on this board.  I myself have come under fire a couple of times

When I re-read the posts in question I realized I could have said the same thing in a more respectful and polite manner.  All opinions are welcomed.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 14, 2007, 07:02:23 PM
I agree with Robert Hall  that the best thing the UK has going for it is it's PEOPLE.   

I would far more prefer to pledge allegiance to to a "Country and it's People" (ie a Republic) than to "King/Queen and Country".   When I travel in France and Italy, I envy them their Republican and secular societies.

Elizabeth Windsor as a person I have no antagonism towards whatsoever - I just happen to think the Monarchy's time has passed.   As for her privileged brood and their various partners/spouses/girlfriends etc - I daren't say.   I will be hounded off this board again.

All I can say is when I read such headlines as "£2million spent on security to guard Camilla's unoccupied house" well.... >:(

Joan, quite a few posters agree with what you have to say about the Queen's children, partners, spouses, girlfriends etc.  Many have questioned their worth as compared to QEII herself.  I've had a go myself about Camilla's unoccupied house and the money needed to guard it.  But a republic is not necessarily the answer here.  The monarchy works well but changes need to be undertaken with regards to the roles, attitudes and behaviour of the Queen's children and grandchildren sooner rather than later.  Otherwise, they will probably find public disinterest/disillusionment with them will magnify greatly once the Queen's reign has ended.   
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 14, 2007, 07:04:15 PM

Any opinion you post respectfully is welcomed on this board.  I myself have come under fire a couple of times

A couple of times?

 ;D :D ;D...just kidding... ;)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 14, 2007, 07:24:14 PM

Any opinion you post respectfully is welcomed on this board.  I myself have come under fire a couple of times

A couple of times?

 ;D :D ;D...just kidding... ;)

Grace,

I was not referring to our personal PMs!!!  LOL!  LOL!

;D :D ;D...just kidding... ;)

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 14, 2007, 08:25:46 PM
The monarchy is not a personality contest in most countries, it remains a viable political institution which can be modified or even replaced. I think, along the lines of Joan d that the UK monarchy must needs be seriously down-sized. 2 million for Camilla's vacant cottage?  Just so she has "a place to go to get away from Charles"? Puleeze! What nonsense. Let her trot her ponys with his at Highgrove and save the taxpayers some money.
 The institution itself will come into question if Charles assumes the throne  with his politcally Conservative opinions. His influence would be negligable,  while in comparrison, the present Queen's is valued.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 14, 2007, 08:34:19 PM
In what way do you mean 'down-sized', Robert?  Hasn't it already been down-sized?  There are hardly any of them receiving civil listing now.  I don't think people view the royals as too numerous - they just want the existing ones to work and behave appropriately.  It's not as if there's a shortage of good causes for them to take on.  ;)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on July 15, 2007, 08:06:05 AM

2 million for Camilla's vacant cottage?  Just so she has "a place to go to get away from Charles"? Puleeze! What nonsense.


Is this true?  Are the UK taxpayers really funding Camilla's privately owned guest cottage?

Who owns this guest cottage Charles or Camilla?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 15, 2007, 09:19:57 AM
It belongs to Cammie. I think part of her divorce settlement. The price for security comes from the taxpayer.
 One could assume she pays council taxes on it.
 Although I share the opinion of some others on the forum, in that I have no fondness for the woman, I do not think she is any factor in the future of the monarchy. Consort she may become, but queen? I highly doubt that.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 15, 2007, 09:56:06 AM
I have faith that Charles will make a good job of being King - a job he has been trained in since King. No doubt people will go on about a new begining etc when he becomes King, but as long as he doesan't change to much and respects the traditions he will be going along the right lines in my opinion. None of this nonsense about bringing the Monarchy upto date etc.

Well, some of us would quite like to see the monarchy brought up to date a little, by which I mean, more in touch (at which I think they are trying) and less Edwardian in lifestyle and attitude (a criticism which has been levelled with some justification at the Prince and his lifestyle)

Also he has the Duchess by his side who's gone from strength to strength and be nice to see her dripping in more Windsor jewels.

Well, not entirely.  There have been some criticisms that she is 'lazy', but her public profile has improved since the days of 'The Wicked Witch of Wiltshire' ( a great soubriquet, nonetheless).  Personally I do not wish to see her laden with any more historic Windsor jewellery, and judging by the furore caused by the recent Wales plumes brooch (which turned out to be her own 'service award', as opposed to any former posession belonging to the late Princess of Wales), quite a few people are of the same opinion.

The UK would be much worse a place if the Monarchy was dropped - which is not likely to happen otherwise it already would have done. Long Live the House of Windsor!!!!!!!!!

How so?  I'm interested to know why the UK would be so much worse........
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 15, 2007, 10:05:11 AM
Perhaps we are finally moving closer to the idea that birth and rank do not necessarily dictate our lot in life?

Now that is an interesting double-edged sword, Martyn.  How can a hereditary monarchy - which is in essence totally dependent on birth and rank - continue to exist while it is at the same time conforming to the more modern concept that birth and rank have no significance?

Hmmmm.   ???

Well, they can't.  I wasn't suggesting for one moment that the Windsors would ever subscribe to such a concept, as it effectively negates their existence.  However, perhaps it is about time that the populace of the UK finally do buy into this concept.  I simply no longer believe that monarchy and the class system that ensues from it is necessary for modern living.  In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War there was much discussion about the abolition of hereditary titles; perhaps it would have been no bad thing if this had come to pass?

Charles has had many years of training to equip him to be monarch, and a very good example set by his mother.  I am sure that he will do his duty.......
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Antonio on July 15, 2007, 10:50:13 AM
What kind of queen would Camilla make?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 15, 2007, 11:03:31 AM
What kind of queen would Camilla make?

Who knows?  Who ever thought that she would end up marrying the heir to the throne?  I for one, never imagined that would come to pass.

She may well make an excellent consort for Charles.  Discreet, unlikely ever to upstage him either with her personality or appearance, she will quite possibly make the perfect foil for him as monarch.

However, will she make a difference as Queen?  I suspect not.........
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on July 15, 2007, 06:11:22 PM
"Who owns this guest cottage   Charles or Camilla?"


THAT is a very good question, Tampa Bay, and one that has never been satisfactorily answered.   

By the way, Raymill House near Lacock in Wiltshire (not that far from where I live) is anything but a cottage but what used to be known as a "Gentleman's Residence" in it's own grounds.   Apparently Mrs P-B has had accommodation built recently for the security guys as there was a ho-ha about Planning Permission.

When, where and who paid for Raymill House is a complete mystery - was it part of her divorce settlement from Major P-B OR did HRH buy it for her in at one time.   

As with most other matters concerning the Royal Family's finance, the financing of Raymill House is shrouded in mystery.  As a heavily taxed British tax payer, I feel the GBP has the right to know such information.   That this property is being guarded (whether Mrs P-B is resident or not) to the tune of £2Million per annum is just rubbing salt into an already open wound.

I know the American posters on this thread think we have a pretty good set up by having a Royal Family but they are not going to get away with the same stunts they have pulled in the past.  Society is far far to open for that now.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on July 15, 2007, 11:48:46 PM
The Daily Mail said this about the house: "acquired for £850,000 after her 1995 divorce from Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles" for whatever it's worth. It also noted that it's just 17 miles from Charles's house so why should it be kept--at a large burden to the Wiltshire Police (several hundred thousand pounds a year )who are responsible for the day-to-day patrolling of it. 

An article on the subject:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=398153&in_page_id=1879
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 16, 2007, 04:39:02 AM
What a fascinating article.

I particularly liked Sir James Goldsmith's comment - 'when you marry your mistress, you create a job vacancy'.......this perfectly describes the cynical milieu in which such lifestyles are prescribed.

I doubt that Charles would take another mistress; Camilla seems to fulfil all the needs that he has - mother, wife, lover.  But if he did, I rather agree with the article in that I suspect that Camilla's sophisticated mindset would deal with the situation much more efficiently than her predecessor ever did.  I suspect that there is some truth in the suggestion that she also knows just how to handle the Prince - 'She didn't keep the prince interested for three decades without knowing how to keep him on his toes'.

Camilla is trying to assume the place of the Queen Mother in the Nation's affections? There's a notion.......

But I digress.  Raymill House is an unnecessary expense and yet another example of extravagance........
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on July 16, 2007, 02:05:34 PM
An article in today's New York Times on royal finances:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/yourmoney/15windsor.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

It's 4 pages long which is rather unusual in the US for a non-Diana story.

A pertinent quote from the end of the story:

“There is no push now for a president as head of state; people have looked at the alternative and they think that too much is controlled by party politics,” said Vernon Bogdanor, a professor of government at Oxford University. “They don’t want that. The role is to represent the country to itself, and this is becoming particularly important” now that “we have become a multicultural society.”
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on July 16, 2007, 02:09:08 PM
There was also this bit which should be prime for discussion.  :)

"Still, taxes remain a sore point between the monarchy and its critics. When the queen dies, for example, the next monarch will pay no inheritance tax on her private wealth, as long as she leaves it to that heir. And some critics wonder what Prince Charles plans to do with the royal assets if he becomes king. Although the Crown Estate, which surpasses $14 billion, has virtually passed into government hands, it retains links to the monarchy, and every new monarch must agree again to George III’s deal with the state. “Charles has made remarks about wanting to take it back,” said Kevin Cahill, the author of “Who Owns Britain,” a survey of land ownership. But he and others close to the palace say that any attempt by the prince to reclaim the Crown Estate would probably prompt overwhelming public opposition."

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on July 16, 2007, 02:41:29 PM
"I doubt that Charles would take another mistress; "


Are you serious Martyn - why break the habit of a lifetime??  Isn't obligatory for Princes of Wales to have mistresses.   I don't care what they do so long as it isn't at my expense.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 16, 2007, 02:42:28 PM
Ridiculous!! Charles getting another mistress?? What ever next!!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on July 16, 2007, 03:54:33 PM
If that happened it would sure cause scandal . . . ::)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on July 16, 2007, 04:04:00 PM
Another mistress?  I thought Camilla was now Charles' wife?  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on July 16, 2007, 05:26:04 PM
Ridiculous!! Charles getting another mistress?? What ever next!!

Well, according to the always-trustworthy National Examiner (about 20 steps down from the National Enquirer) Charles not only has another mistress, but intends on leaving Camilla for her--except that the Queen has forbidden it. I only read the cover headline while in the checkout line so can't tell you what juicy 'proof' (because, of course, they wouldn't run a story like that without proof  ::)) that offered inside.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 17, 2007, 01:39:54 AM
Hilarious Courtney.  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on July 17, 2007, 05:31:53 AM
"I doubt that Charles would take another mistress; "


Are you serious Martyn - why break the habit of a lifetime??  Isn't obligatory for Princes of Wales to have mistresses.   I don't care what they do so long as it isn't at my expense.

I just can't see it happening.

Even he must realise that the Press and everyone else would take him to pieces if the 'wonderful story of star crossed lovers united in marriage in old age' weas found to be a load of old bunkum and that he was still living his life like Edward VII......It just wouldn't be worth it.

Still, it would make marvellous reading......... ;)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on July 17, 2007, 03:05:06 PM
No offense to anyone on Charles's side, but if Charles does have another mistress that's just really jerk-ish. First he does it to Diana, and now Camilla? He shouldn't have gotten married.
Title: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Grace on September 26, 2007, 04:44:07 AM
It would appear that the younger members of the British royal family will have increasing freedom in the years to come to follow their own path in life career-wise in addition to holding the long-honoured title of 'Prince' or 'Princess', unlike previous generations of royals who seemed to accept without question that their position required duty to subjects only - the obligatory round of charitable activities long performed by royals who would never have considered following any personal vocation of their own.

Should the young royals, who have their titles and a wealth of privileges merely as an accident of birth, immerse themselves in 'good deeds' and interests of a personal nature as is traditional or do they have every right to pursue a dream and forge their own careers as well?  If so, is it possible that success may be due more to the advantage of a royal title and the fame which accompanies this rather than genuine ability or hard work?  Is it possible for them to devote themselves to career AND charity work or not?

 
 

Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Leuchtenberg on September 26, 2007, 09:15:02 AM
If they want to have careers outside the sphere of what would be considered traditional royal duties, they by all means, they ought to have the right to pursue their dreams.  However, they should be obliged to relinquish their HRHs and titles of Prince or Princess and settle for "Lord" or "Lady".   
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: dmitri on September 28, 2007, 01:30:08 AM
A career for a Prince or Princess of the Blood Royal or their spouses is one within the royal family only. That is their unique duty and privilege. If they choose to do something else they should forfeit not only their titles but all the other requisite perks such as trust funds and so on that come with the position and become plain Mr or Ms., Miss, Mrs as the case may be and go and get a job that they so much aspire to. There can be no room for a clash of interests. I find the latest behaviour of Princess Beatrice beyond acceptability as a member of the royal family. If she wants to be a catwalk model flashing the majority of her breasts she should do it as Miss/Ms. Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor and lose her title immediately. Such behaviour is a disgrace to her grandmother, The Queen and all the rest of the royal family. If the likes of her carry on in a manner that does not engender respect, ultimately the royal family will come crashing to the ground and will be smashed to pieces forever. I wonder whether anybody truly wishes to see that? With rank and privilege comes duty. Toss her out if she can't behave. Perhaps it is time for those who are not children of the Prince of Wales to lose their titles apart from The Queen's children and spouses and cousins holding the rank of HRH. I for one approve of The Earl and Countess of Wessex not having royal titles for their children. It's all a matter of whether people want a royal family or not. If they want one it should be able to be respected.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Lucien on September 28, 2007, 03:34:58 AM
As to the initial question,yes why not.As long as it isn't a career in any commercial enterprise as their connection with a ruling family might be hold against them/might be taken advantage of resulting in problems.A career in diplomacy or non-profit organisations is a good alternative.See no reason at all why on earth they should give up any title in such a case,nonsense.If,if they have the brains to match,no reason at all to sit and wait around being pretty and waste talent and they could very well provide their own income.It is done already in most reigning families,except the British.
Most people abhor free-loaders.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Tdora1 on September 28, 2007, 07:11:56 AM
Agree with Leuchtenberg here. I'd also expect there to be simultaneously less grabbing of the peripheral private perks eg. working lesser royals paying something closer to a market rent for apartments at Kensington Palace. Meanwhile, in a horrible example of how not to do it, Princess Beatrice needs a good swift kick up the a**e frankly. Her mother could use the same for having lead the child into believing this kind of vapid vanity is any kind of a 'personal affirmation' or whatever kind of New Age nonsense excuses this exploitation. My husband's cousin was for a while a tutor to PB during her last year at school and while the soul of discretion did let slip once that the poor kid's ambition seemed to be confined then to little more than how to blaze a trail as an innovative, daring and throughly 21st century Royal Socialite. Gaaaah.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: dmitri on September 28, 2007, 12:17:40 PM
How very unfortunate and shallow for Beatrice if this is at all correct.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 28, 2007, 01:29:13 PM
Very interesting topic, and I agree with other posters.

The Monarchy exists to serve and represent the nation.  The person of the Queen holds her title, style, perrogative and perks because she wears the Crown.  Fortunately, the current occupant of this office is above reproach, so no problems here.

The rest of the titled Royal Family hold their title and style because of their blood relationship to the person who wears the Crown, and enjoy their perks because they assist the Monarch in his or her duties for the nation and themselves contribute to upholding the dignity of the Crown and nation.  As such, those individuals should ONLY continue to enjoy their titles - and perks - if they are continuing to serve the Crown and behaving in a manner which upholds the dignity of the Crown.

It is not reasonable to expect that any royal can properly represent the nation, serve the neutral Crown, or uphold regnal dignity, while trying to pursue personal careers.  Every time one of them tries, it fails. 

So, I believe the Monarch should decide how many "working" royals are necessary to fulfill the various requirements placed on the Crown (for example requests from the Government for domestic and overseas engagements, requests for royal patronages, age of the monarch, etc.). 
When a royal prince or princess reaches adulthood - AND if there is an "opening" for a working royal, AND if the Monarch believes the prince/princess is suitable, he or she should be offered the job of working royal.  He/she should then be given a dukedom or appropriate peerage, the HRH style, the necessary income to operate a household / office / engagements, an apartment in one of the royal residences, and be expected to be a full-time royal working on behalf of the Monarch.

If that prince/princess isn't "invited", or chooses to decline the job, than he/she should undertake NO official engagements, be allowed to earn their own living, and should NOT be provided an office / engagement expense allowance, or an apartment in a royal residence.  Now - the Queen is a wealthy woman in her own right, so if she chooses to pay privately for her relatives' living expenses, that's her perrogative.  But they should give up the HRH style, and perhaps adopt some title/style that still acknowledges them as blood royal, but underscores that they are not a working royal (perhaps Lord and Lady Windsor). 

Alternatively, there could be a distinction drawn between the Royal House and the Royal Family - like with the Danish monarchy.  Only the children of Queen Margarethe II or her father, and the children of the Crown Prince, are considered part of the Royal House or hold HRH status.  The rest of the relatives (including those who marry against royal law) are considered Royal Family and hold lesser titles.

Titles aside, truthfully, parts of this already are in place.  No one except the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh currently receive Civil List incomes - athough the Queen does fund her relatives privately.  Yes - the Kent and Glouchester cousins do live in royal housing, but those were lifetime grants made in days gone by when things were different.  That won't happen with the York princesses I think.  (However, the royals will always need to be guarded because they will always be targets, and it's cheaper to have them all living in one central location than trying to protect scattered private residences).

Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: TampaBay on September 29, 2007, 07:05:23 AM
It seems to be very simple to me;  If you are a working Royal then being Royal is your full time job and you deserve a government check/ government stipend. 

If you are not a working Royal then you have a every right to make the best possible living you can by any legal means as you see fit.  Just like any other citizen of the realm.

The only current British Royal who has managed to successfully combine being a Royal with private sector work is Princess Anne due to her understading of "duty" and her intelligence.  She was smart enogh to pick a vocation (horse farming) that not only did not interfere with being a Royal but actually complimented it. Interestingly, her daughter Zara has done the same.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: joan_d on September 29, 2007, 11:27:35 AM
Time to get rid of the whole free-loading lot of them.   The House of Windsor is withering on the vine - I am very pleased to say !!!
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Tdora1 on October 03, 2007, 05:29:41 AM
The House of Windsor seems to be doing just about fine these days, nonsense from minor wannabe tarts notwithstanding. WHo'd a thunk the Golden Jubilee Celebs in 2002 or even Camilla's graceful slide into the tribe when a decade ago all seemed terminal?  ;D
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: dmitri on October 04, 2007, 02:36:04 PM
Yes a career outside the royal family inevitably compromises the said person.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: carl fraley on October 04, 2007, 02:52:04 PM
It seems to be very simple to me;  If you are a working Royal then being Royal is your full time job and you deserve a government check/ government stipend. 

If you are not a working Royal then you have a every right to make the best possible living you can by any legal means as you see fit.  Just like any other citizen of the realm.

The only current British Royal who has managed to successfully combine being a Royal with private sector work is Princess Anne due to her understading of "duty" and her intelligence.  She was smart enogh to pick a vocation (horse farming) that not only did not interfere with being a Royal but actually complimented it. Interestingly, her daughter Zara has done the same.

TampaBay

OUCH.... HRH Princess Alexandra has led a life beyond reproach and should be recognised as such, so I wouldn't say that HRH THe PRincess Royal is the only successful royal and HRH Princess Alexandra doesn't draw an income from the Civil List.  Half of the time people are always complaining that the Royal Family doesn't do enough to support themselves etc.... Yet when a few try to , they also reap the whirldwind for that as well.  The Queens Children and grandchildren will always be who they are , you can't penalize them for that.  In other countries were the monarchy was abolished a big enough percentage - half of the Former Royal Family estates were returned to the Family (Germany, Roumania, Austria), so if you weigh the Sovereign turning over the Crown Land Revenues vs the Civil list... The British Government is by far coming out the better.  THe presence of the Sovereign denotes continuity of Goverment and being above party which is a very stabilzing effect.    The following Quote comes from HRH PRincess Alice of Athlones autobiography and people should read it, think about it before judging the Royal Family:

"Finally, I would like my grandchildren sometimes to reflect that royalty was not, and is not, comparable with the pampered lot of queen bee.  It was, and is, an ARDUOUS profession whose members are seldom granted an opportunity of opting in or out of their predistined fate; they have to endure a RIGOROUS training and ABIDE by a strict programme.  Their lives are didicated from childhood to the SERVICE OF THEIR NATION.  Their daily tasks, for months ahead are prescribed and set out ina diary of engagements from which only SEVER ILLNESS can excuse them.  None but those trained from youth to such an ordeal can sustain it with amiability and composure.  The Royal MOtto, "Ich Dien" IS no empty phrase.  It means just what it says... I SERVE
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: TampaBay on October 04, 2007, 08:13:30 PM
It seems to be very simple to me;  If you are a working Royal then being Royal is your full time job and you deserve a government check/ government stipend. 

If you are not a working Royal then you have a every right to make the best possible living you can by any legal means as you see fit.  Just like any other citizen of the realm.

The only current British Royal who has managed to successfully combine being a Royal with private sector work is Princess Anne due to her understading of "duty" and her intelligence.  She was smart enogh to pick a vocation (horse farming) that not only did not interfere with being a Royal but actually complimented it. Interestingly, her daughter Zara has done the same.

TampaBay



OUCH.... HRH Princess Alexandra has led a life beyond reproach and should be recognised as such, so I wouldn't say that HRH THe PRincess Royal is the only successful royal and HRH Princess Alexandra doesn't draw an income from the Civil List. 

Alexandra is beyond reproach I agree.  I greatly admire Princess Alexandra.

HRH, The Princess Royal...aka Anne Mountbatten-Windosr Glucksburg....aka Mrs. Timothy Laurence  DOES NOT draw a civil list income payment.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 04, 2007, 08:42:13 PM
TB, the Princess Royal recieves a  Parlaimentary annuity each year of 228,000 pounds.  This is reimbursed by the Queen from   the Civil List she recieves which is 11.2million pounds per year. A bit altruistic if you ask me.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: dmitri on October 04, 2007, 11:00:52 PM
The late Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone was a very dedicated member of the royal family from the time of the final years of Queen Victoria right through to her death a number of years after the silver jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. She was very wise and apart from being a Princess of the Blood, she was consort to her husband when he served as Governor-General in South Africa and also Canada. Some of the current younger members of the royal family would do well to reflect on their own lives as some have forgotten the Ich Dien completely and brought great shame on the monarchy. The royal family will not last long if people lose respect for it as a whole. Thankfully the current Queen keeps it all going. Alexandra, Anne, the Gloucesters, Kents, more lately Edward and Sophie assist well. I wish William and Harry would take it all more seriously. They don't work in the army all the time. As for Beatrice she needs firm guidance and serious advice.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Antoniam on October 05, 2007, 09:02:28 AM
Some of the current younger members of the royal family would do well to reflect on their own lives as some have forgotten the Ich Dien completely and brought great shame on the monarchy. The royal family will not last long if people lose respect for it as a whole. Thankfully the current Queen keeps it all going. Alexandra, Anne, the Gloucesters, Kents, more lately Edward and Sophie assist well. I wish William and Harry would take it all more seriously. They don't work in the army all the time. As for Beatrice she needs firm guidance and serious advice.

Young royals are given time before they take on fulltime royal duties and they all have had careers outside the royal family. Yes even the sainted Kents, Gloucesters and Anne! The Duke of Kent and his brother Michael were both fulltime army officers, they each had 20 year careers in the army, it was only when they retired from the army that they took on fulltime ( in the case of the Duke, part-time in the case of Michael) royal duties.
The Duke of Gloucestor carried out no official duties at all until his older brother Prince William of Gloucester died. The current Duke ( Prince Richard trained and worked as an architect and eventually set up his own architectural business. His brother William was a full-time diplomat ( like everyone else he had to pass the Civil Service exam, he did on his third attempt) William worked in the British embassies in Nigeria and Japan. Only after his father Prince Henry of Gloucester had a stoke did William resign from the Civil Service and came home did he take up some of his father's duties. Richard took them on after William was killed in a plane crash and Henry died did Richard take up fulltime royal duties.
Alexandra went to finishing school in Paris, she also trained as a nurse in London. Being an aristocrat of her generation and female the most she was expected to do was marry and have children. She wasn't expected to have a career so was capable of taking on some royal duties, fewer still once she had children.
Anne in her early to mid 20's was in serious training as an equestrian, just like Zara is now. Anne did carry out some official duties but she wasn't a fulltime royal.

Prince Andrew spent 20 years in the navy and he only took up fulltime royal duties once he left the navy.

British royal have had careers outside their royal duties and have earned their own money.

When the Kents, Gloucestors, Anne and Charles were young they didn't need to carry a fulltime royal workload as there still was the older generation to to it. Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, Prince Henry, DoG, The Princess Royal. Just like now the younger royals don't need to be taking on fulltime duties as there is the older generation to do it.

It's insulting to suggest that William and Harry aren't fulltime army officers. Their workload in the army is the same as other army officers at their level. Also if you bothered to check their official calendar you'll see that both of them have engagements their patronages, Harry on the 11th and William on the 18th.

As far as Beatrice needing a firm hand, rubbish to that too. What's she done that's so bad? She'll be the first British Princess to attend
university. She got the best A level results of any royal.She was Head Girl at her school voted by the other students not chosen by the teacher so we can assume she was well liked.  She attends charity dinners which raise money for good causes, she modelled in a fashion
parade that raised money for this summer's flood victims in the UK. She has a steady boyfriend from the past year who doesn't have an unsavoury family or past, is university educated and is employed. He also is discrete and doesn't speak to the media. Unlike her cousins she's a non-smoker, she's a paragon of virtue!
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: ChristineM on October 05, 2007, 09:59:29 AM
Antoniam would make an outstanding PRO for the House of Windsor Inc.   The spin is terrific.   One problem, UK citizens are a bit fed up with spin these days.

However, the Windsors, who can be quite slow catching up, would welcome such broadspectrum support like that of Antoniam.   Posts here would make a good basis for a CV.

tsaria
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 05, 2007, 01:46:11 PM
TB, the Princess Royal recieves a  Parlaimentary annuity each year of 228,000 pounds.  This is reimbursed by the Queen from   the Civil List she recieves which is 11.2million pounds per year. A bit altruistic if you ask me.

Actually, the Queen uses her income from the Duchy of Lancaster - not from the Civil List itself - to reimburse the Treasury for the payments to all royals except herself and the Duke of Edinburgh.   Quoted from the official monarchy website section on the Duchy of Lancaster:

The Queen uses a large part of it (The Duchy income) to meet official expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family. Only The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh receive payments from Parliament which are not reimbursed by The Queen.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: ChristineM on October 05, 2007, 05:10:16 PM
'Should British princes and princesses have careers?'

Strikes me Beatrice plans to have enough 'careers' to make up for those who don't.

tsaria
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Grace on October 05, 2007, 05:15:21 PM
Agreed, Tsaria - modelling, having one's own clothing line and being an astronaut, or whatever she's doing, hardly compare with a career in the services, nursing or architecture, I don't think!
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: TampaBay on October 06, 2007, 06:33:43 AM
TB, the Princess Royal recieves a  Parlaimentary annuity each year of 228,000 pounds.  This is reimbursed by the Queen from   the Civil List she recieves which is 11.2million pounds per year. A bit altruistic if you ask me.

So her mother by choice is giving her a personal allowance? 

I thougt all Royals except Cookie and Stavros Glucksburg were axed from the Civil List?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Tdora1 on November 30, 2007, 07:10:15 PM
Beatrice's A-Levels are nothing to shout about: History of Art, Drama and History. You can only get on with a trio like that if you are terribly well-connected - the HRH gets you an automatic entry into the hooray not-quite-Oxbridge Uni of your choice. Jane Bloggs would be lucky to get into my local St Sadtown College of Art (a EU-boosted concrete block designed to boost the numbers of "kids who stay on") with that lot. History of Art is the latter-day "Land Economy" subject for nice-but-dim aristocrats who can't cope with the rigours of anything more academic than being spoonfed picture-spotting. That went for you too, Wills - who needs all that study bore cutting into your time? The eventual Heir to the Throne however can afford to sign off on school stuff. Beatrice wants to work in the USA in the media or fashion. Guess she can too, then. And until proven or persuaded otherwise I tend to see the claim of dyslexia for her as a convenient excuse for, shall we say, not the intellectually curious type. Doesn't do genuine sufferers of the condition any good when every other average dullard is waving the special banner. (My cousin-in-law spent several months engaged as a French tutor to a VIth form Beatrice. Discretion prevails - these are my opinions!)
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Adagietto on December 01, 2007, 05:09:05 AM
Actually those are perfectly respectable subjects, with more cultural content and rigour than a great many of the subjects that are studied for A-level. Though it mght have been better if she, like many other young people, had studied a foreign language too.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Alix of Wales had Panache on December 01, 2007, 01:32:55 PM
My thought:  Don't mind if a U.K. royal engages in a personal career or completely involved in royal activities or are balancing the two options (for lack of a better term) as long as calls for abolishment of the institution they were either born or married in into are not increased. 
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: alixaannencova on December 01, 2007, 03:18:03 PM
I have to say that I tend to feel that History of Art has far more intrinsic value than say 'Media studies' which is perhaps the most popular of the latest 'disneyfied' courses available at university these days! Before it became a de facto subject standing alone, History of Art was taught as part of Classics and History.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Martyn on December 02, 2007, 07:23:13 AM
My thought:  Don't mind if a U.K. royal engages in a personal career or completely involved in royal activities or are balancing the two options (for lack of a better term) as long as calls for abolishment of the institution they were either born or married in into are not increased. 

Excellent point.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Martyn on December 02, 2007, 07:27:54 AM
I have to say that I tend to feel that History of Art has far more intrinsic value than say 'Media studies' which is perhaps the most popular of the latest 'disneyfied' courses available at university these days! Before it became a de facto subject standing alone, History of Art was taught as part of Classics and History.

Absolutely.  Not wishing to go too far off-topic, all the subjects that Beatrice is studying have their respective merits and are academically worthy if taught correctly.  The earlier disparagement of these subjects reflects the current vogue in society that is prejudicial to the both the studying of arts subjects and the pursuit of careers in this area. 
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Tdora1 on December 06, 2007, 05:23:16 AM
I have to say that I tend to feel that History of Art has far more intrinsic value than say 'Media studies' which is perhaps the most popular of the latest 'disneyfied' courses available at university these days! Before it became a de facto subject standing alone, History of Art was taught as part of Classics and History.

Absolutely.  Not wishing to go too far off-topic, all the subjects that Beatrice is studying have their respective merits and are academically worthy if taught correctly.  The earlier disparagement of these subjects reflects the current vogue in society that is prejudicial to the both the studying of arts subjects and the pursuit of careers in this area. 
   Beatrice is putting the Drama to some use, I'll give you that. Given certain predilections for pavement partying I rather think it is the last subject any young royal ought to take.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: ferngully on December 27, 2007, 05:46:42 PM
don't see why not. as long as they don't conflict with any royal duties they intend on performing. they can't get a job just as anything though
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on January 02, 2008, 11:06:16 AM
I have to say, art history can be a basis for whatever you want to do; so much culture is based on art and how a specific group of people produces/sees it. So no, IMHO I don't think that History of Art is a fluffy subject.

Should they have careers? I agree with whoever said it's important to balance royal duties and careers. But, being a pacifist, I don't think that they should be in the military.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: CHRISinUSA on January 03, 2008, 02:36:16 PM
IMHO, the military is a perfect career choice for a royal prince - or princess for that matter.  Military life builds discipline and self-control, and I can think of no better service to one's country than the defense of its people.

Peace is the ultimate objective, naturally.  But unless the entire world was rid of those who use force in aggression, the need to protect one's own shores from the attacks of others is very real and very essential.
Title: Re: Should British princes and princesses have careers?
Post by: anna11 on January 04, 2008, 07:39:02 AM
They will never really be in the military. It's more a showy thing, I don't know if Harry actually wants to go to Iraq, but there's no way on earth he would go there like any other solduir, it's way to much of a risk.

I'm not sure about careers. I don't know about whether they should in terms of whether they want it or not  but I think that if they want to have a normal career they deffinatly should be able to.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on January 27, 2008, 07:15:16 PM
From the Times

Royal engagements in 2007
A round-up of the Royal Family's working year

It is remarkable that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, in the year of their diamond wedding, have continued their busy working life, with Her Majesty actually increasing the number of engagements compared with those in 2006. Prince William carried out 16 engagements and Prince Harry 12, which included 5 overseas. The Duchess of Cornwall’s operation and the Countess of Wessex’s pregnancy were the reasons for their fewer official engagements during 2007. The Duke of York was again busy travelling abroad as special representative for trade and investment, which accounted for 75 per cent of his overseas engagements.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on January 28, 2008, 02:28:49 AM
While I can understand the reasons for the lesser engagements of the Duchess of Cornwall and Countess of Wessex, I doubt that William and Harry will drop from exhaustion at their itinerary of royal duties...
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on January 28, 2008, 05:03:19 AM
Yes it is to be hoped William will soon finish his military training and start pulling his weight as a full-time member of the royal family.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Adagietto on January 28, 2008, 01:10:32 PM
He's finished his military training and is serving in the army; there could be no question of the young son of the Prince of Wales devoting himself full time to royal duties, any more than Prince Charles did at that age.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on January 29, 2008, 09:24:51 PM
William is currently undertaking training in the Royal Air Force.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Lucien on January 30, 2008, 07:43:35 AM
William is currently undertaking training in the Royal Air Force.

Hmm yes,I posted as much two weeks ago,in the appropiate thread.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on January 30, 2008, 09:26:07 PM
I think Dmitri was just clarifying the mistake in a previous post that William is currently serving in the Army.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 31, 2008, 11:26:51 AM
William is STILL serving in the Army. He has been seconded to the Air Force for training as a pilot. Almost all armies have an air wing [and navies as well]
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: dmitri on January 31, 2008, 07:22:31 PM
He is actually in the Royal Air Force at present.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Janet on February 01, 2008, 02:39:40 PM
He is actually in the Royal Air Force at present.

He's an army officer seconded to the RAF.  Definition of seconding :to release (as a military officer) from a regularly assigned position for temporary duty with another unit or organization.  It doesn't mean he's left the army, does it?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on February 01, 2008, 09:54:06 PM
Thanks for the clarification Robert & Janet.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on February 12, 2008, 07:52:55 PM
From the Daily Mail:

The Queen's request for money to repair Buckingham Palace has been rejected

The Queen's pleas for extra money to repair a "crumbling" Buckingham Palace were rejected by the Government yesterday. The monarch had pressed for £3million of taxpayers' money to prevent her official London residence and other royal palaces from decaying further. Last summer, it emerged that a large piece of masonry came loose at Buckingham Palace and plunged to the ground, narrowly missing Princess Anne. A similar incident took place four months earlier on the day that almost 1,000 pupils and teachers were due to visit the palace for a science fair. The refusal by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to provide any extra funds is likely to be seen as a snub to the Royal Family.

The maintenance of all the royal palaces in England is funded by a grant from the culture department. This was set at £15million a year in 1991 which, aides argue, has meant a drop of almost 70 per cent in real terms. Palace officials had asked for an extra £1million a year over three years for the maintenance of the palaces. But in the months leading up to yesterday's announcement they admitted they might be fighting a lost cause. The refusal by the culture department to grant extra funding may be due to the ever-expanding bill for the 2012 London Olympics. ...Royal officials insist that the £15million they receive each year for maintenance does not stretch to the heavy-duty repairs that are now desperately needed on several properties.

And they fear that unless they can keep a rolling programme of repairs and replacements, essential work will become hideously expensive. Last year's annual report on the royal finances revealed that without the "essential" cash injection there would be a "critical backlog in maintenance".
All projects costing £800,000 or more have been put on ice. The crumbling facades on all sides of the quadrangle at Buckingham Palace are in need of maintenance. This work, which is classed as urgent because of the potential danger to those walking underneath, will cost an estimated £3million over five years. The roof of the palace's picture gallery needs renewing at a cost of £1.5million. And after 40 years, the entire building is in need of rewiring.

Other royal properties in need of dire refurbishment include Windsor Castle, which has had its lead roofs patched up so many times that an area the size of a football pitch needs completely replacing. At Frogmore, which is in the grounds of Home Park at Windsor, parts of the Victoria and Albert Mausoleum's ceiling have fallen in. English Heritage has warned that it may need to be closed completely. The maintenance and upkeep of the palaces is one of the expenses met by the Government in return for the Queen giving up her estates' income."

What do people think about all this? The part about Frogmore is distressing--could there be any consideration towards opening it to the public more often than it is to help make some money. Plus, is the government in any sort of violation of the 1991 deal and could the Queen then refuse to give up her estate's income and a public battle break out?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on February 13, 2008, 05:20:37 AM
This is absolutely typical of the attitude of the present London government.   Apart from most members of this government being republican by persuasion, the general mentality is not 'a stitch in time saves nine'.   They prefer wait until the place - palace, hospital, school - its makes no difference - is on the point of collapse before stepping in and the costs, of course, are many times greater. The cost of one day's 'peacekeeping' in Iraq (or Afghanistan) would be sufficient to secure all necessary repairs.   

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 13, 2008, 06:50:35 AM
I read that it was the Department of Culture that knocked back the request due to the severe belt tightening that is going on in Britain regarding the fiscal irresponsibility of the goverment over the last few years?Is it truw that the economy there is wobbly and that land values are decreasing?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on February 13, 2008, 12:32:26 PM
There is a huge diversity in house and land values throughout the UK.   In London and the South East, prices are artificially inflated and have been for some years.   However, prices here have fallen for six consecutive months.   This results in many people finding themselves in negative equity.   The mania for borrowing has got so out of hand that some people have been managing to borrow up to nine times their annual income to fund the mortgage on a house whose value is now dropping.   How on earth they existed after that, goodness knows.   The government did nothing to get things under control, on the contrary - they encouraged it.   In many other areas of the UK house prices are still rising, but not at the, up to, 25% per annum of the last couple of years.   

Eighteen year olds are bombarded by banks and building societies offering them loans of £5,000 interest free, for up to one year.   Many of these youngsters at university or college and away from home for the first time.   I feel sorry for them, beginning their adult lives in debt.

I can imagine the Queen is concerned over the condition of Crown properties, but somehow I don't think she's going to find herself in the bankruptcy court like so many of her fellow citizens.

tsaria   
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on February 13, 2008, 12:54:08 PM
There is a huge diversity in house and land values throughout the UK.   In London and the South East, prices are artificially inflated and have been for some years.   However, prices here have fallen for six consecutive months.   This results in many people finding themselves in negative equity.   The mania for borrowing has got so out of hand that some people have been managing to borrow up to nine times their annual income to fund the mortgage on a house whose value is now dropping.   

tsaria   

Tha EXACT same real estate mess that is happening in London is happening in Tampa, Florida!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on February 13, 2008, 05:19:41 PM
AND you must know the adage -

'When America sneezes, Britain catches 'flu'

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Martyn on February 15, 2008, 07:31:39 AM
The refusal to grant this money is simply the tip of the iceberg.

In order to fund the colossus that the Olympics threatens to become, money is being squeezed from all areas, not the least of which are the areas that pertain to the arts, culture and heritage.  There are many organisations whose public funding has either been frozen or even withdrawn in order to provide cash for the Olympics.

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on February 15, 2008, 09:34:41 AM
A question.....

Quoting the Monarchy's official website....

As a result of Royal Household efficiency savings and lower than expected inflation during the period up to December 2000, a reserve of £35.3 million was carried forward. The annual amount of the Civil List for the next 10 years for the period up to December 2010 remained fixed at £7.9 million.

In 2005, Civil List expenditure amounted to £11.2m. Since the transfer of additional expenditure to the Civil List with effect from 1 April 2001, Civil List expenditure exceeds the annual £7.9 million payment, and amounts are therefore now withdrawn from the reserve each year, rather than being paid into it.
.

And according to the latest available (2006) Head of State Financial Report, the reserve is being drawn down each year to the tune of about 3 to 5 million pounds.  Still, at the end of 2007 the reserve was expected to sit at around 24 million pounds.

So my question is - if the Queen has an extra 24 million pounds in a Civil List reserve, why wouldn't the Government allow her to draw on that reserve to pay for the emergency repair costs of the palaces?  I realize that the Civil List and the Property Services Grant are separate, but aren't they all coming from the same pot at the end of the day??
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on February 15, 2008, 09:44:17 AM
The refusal to grant this money is simply the tip of the iceberg.

In order to fund the colossus that the Olympics threatens to become, money is being squeezed from all areas, not the least of which are the areas that pertain to the arts, culture and heritage.  There are many organisations whose public funding has either been frozen or even withdrawn in order to provide cash for the Olympics.



Absolutely Martyn.   It presupposes the majority of the population is mad keen (they'd need to be very, very mad keen) on sport, that they'd want to visit London during summer AND that they can afford to fund both a stay in London and the entrance fees.   I doubt Islamic jihadists will cause a problem in China during this summer's Olympic Games, if they try, the world market swamped with donor kidneys, hearts and lungs - Chinese justice.   Can you imagine what it is going to cost to try to protect people and venues in London in 2012?

Like you in Yorkshire, Scotland has no possibility of benefitting from the vast sums currently being squandered.   Scotland, as a whole, probably gets a fairer deal from Westminster than Yorkshire.   We could always extend the border... now Berwick upon Tweed wants to become Scottish - again.   The first organisations to feel the hurt most from the diversion of lottery money and etc., inevitably will be the arts and culture.   Can you imagine if the money  (and lets face it they have no idea how these Games will cost, apart from a LOT and a LOT more than planned... along with the huge amounts being thrown way in Iraq and Afghanistan) was spent throughout the nation, then everyone might prosper apart from the sporting elite and those with the possibility of affording a very expensive fortnight.

Anyway, I've gone off at a tangent, but Martyn has touched on a sore point, not only will the tax payer suffer, but the nation's heritage too.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Vecchiolarry on February 15, 2008, 10:03:27 AM
Hi,

Didn't The Queen open up Buckingham Palace a decade ago to raise funds to rebuild & restore Windsor Castle?
And, isn't BP still open in the summer months?  Can she not use this money to fix Buck House?

Also, I am/was of the opinion that these palaces and castles were open to tourists and their monies to maintain these structures.  Is this not correct?

Larry
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Janet on February 15, 2008, 12:03:40 PM
Hi,

Didn't The Queen open up Buckingham Palace a decade ago to raise funds to rebuild & restore Windsor Castle?
And, isn't BP still open in the summer months?  Can she not use this money to fix Buck House?

Also, I am/was of the opinion that these palaces and castles were open to tourists and their monies to maintain these structures.  Is this not correct?

Larry

As I understand it, the income from opening these to tourists IS used to maintain both the Royal Collection and the occupied royal buildings.  it's quite likely, though, that even with this contribution and the parliamentary grants there is a shortfall re the expense to perform the repairs needed now.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on February 15, 2008, 12:33:34 PM
These buildings belong to the State and the State is responsible for their upkeep and for the disposal of monies gathered through entrance fees.   Knowing this governement - this could be spent 'peace keeping' in Iraq.

The Queen owns Sandringham House and Balmoral - she is responsible for their upkeep.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on February 15, 2008, 03:42:38 PM
I've always wondered about the public opening monies myself, so I just looked it up.  The income from the public openings of the royal palaces is paid to the Royal Collections Trust - which really isn't the government, nor is it the Royal Household.  It is an entirely separate, self-funding enterprise.  And from what I gather, the entire income from that business is being used to fund the development of the two Queen's Galleries in London and Edinbrough.

The monarchy website says.....

Royal Collection Enterprises is the trading subsidiary of the Royal Collection Trust. It is responsible for the management and financial administration of access by the public to Windsor Castle and Frogmore House, to Buckingham Palace including the Royal Mews and The Queen's Gallery, and to the Palace of Holyroodhouse. It is also responsible for promoting access to the Royal Collection through the development of retail merchandise, the sale of photographic rights and publishing.

The principal aim of the company is to generate income for the Royal Collection Trust to fund the presentation, maintenance and conservation of the Royal Collection. The schemes for the recently redeveloped Queen's Gallery at Buckingham Palace and the new Queen's Gallery at the Palace of Holyroodhouse are being paid for from this income. This cost will absorb the majority of the Trust's resources for some time to come.

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on February 15, 2008, 04:19:28 PM
Believe me when you see the word 'Enterprise' or 'Enterprises' tagged on to an official sounding title, its time to raise an eyebrow.   

Quangos rule OK?

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Vecchiolarry on February 16, 2008, 05:55:02 AM
Hi,

Thanks all for the information...

Just a rude thought:--
Perhaps Mitt Romney should have spent his $40,000,000.00 on fixing up Buckingham Palace instead of wasting it on a doomed Presidential election campaign..

Larry
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: ChristineM on February 16, 2008, 12:34:26 PM
What a brilliant idea, Larry.   Members of the Windsor Family who read this website, might just follow up on your suggestion.

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 16, 2008, 05:13:53 PM
Are you suggesting that they spend their 40 mill. Tsaria, or ask a Yank for the money!
Most inappropriate to ask a foreigner for a grant don't you think?
Is that what Brittain has become?

You have to admit John, it would have been better than throwing it down the drain.   

Nobody's asked for charity - Larry's suggestion of the lost $40,000,000 being spent on Buckingham Palace was, I believe, illustrating the iniquity of wasting that amount of money when there are thousands, probably millions of worthwhile causes which could have benefited - on of them, possibly, being Buckingham Palace - since this is a Windsor thread!!!   

Who knows, other likely losers, might have the wit to put their cash to better use...

tsaria
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 16, 2008, 06:55:08 PM
A "Yank", Ilias? Why not?. Those who have it give it.   MUCH of it American into all sorts of cultural projects all over the world. 
 The restoration of Versailles would not have stated without huge grants from  "Yanks".
 I  just today recieved a request from the Melbourne Arts Centre, and I have never even been there..  Yank money. How very insulting. So where does "Aussie" money go?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 16, 2008, 09:16:28 PM
Robert, I am sorry if you feel insultanded by the term "Yank".
I always thought that it was a term of endearement for the Northern US state soldiers of your civil war!
We in Melbourne called the US troops that term when they were here during WW2  assisiting us against the Japanese.
SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY!
APOLOGIES IF YOU TOOK OFFENCE.
Aussie money certainly doesent go to Buck House, I'll give you the tip'
Dont bother giving the MAC anything, they've got plenty, and I hear that the US needs as much as it can get. Keep it!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 16, 2008, 10:11:31 PM
Thank you , Ilias, and I also apologise  for  my outburst.  "Yank"  is as offensive to  some of us as is "Reb"  I am from Gettysburg, which  puts me on the line and my partner is from Georgia, GWTW territory [talk about Blues & Greys] Of course you would not know about these things.
 My point was, I guess,  that  American  money goes into many things, all over the world.  Some for better, some for, well, worse I suppose.
 IF some filthy rich person, whether  he/she be from  America, Dubai or wherever,  wishes to  contribute  the upkeep of  any palaces [maybe not Al Fayed!]  why not?
  Some may remenber when some State gift was given tio HM- a jewel encrustested camel [last I heard, , on the Britanniana]. What a waste of money!  Why not pay her for a new roof! [I was there  when the thing caught on fire!]
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: alixaannencova on February 17, 2008, 08:55:53 AM
I am a genuine believer to the preservation/conservation of our heritage, from which ever country we members come, but I find the prices charged by the HRP/RC absolutely incomprehensible! £12 for Kensington Palace, £15.50 for Buckingham Palace or £14.80 for Windsor Castle  compared to 15 euros for Versailles seems utterly oblique! I mean to say, that for what what one can see as a visitor Versailles is not only at least three times the size, but requires far more maintenance of its fabric due to the quota of visitors! Therefore the figures do not add up! I do appreciate that the French Government does provide generous heritage funding, but it is certainly nothing compared to what the Royal Collection receives for 'maintenance' of BP!

The balance between maintenance of a 'lived in' property and an 'exhibition' property is obviously quite variable when comparing Versailles to either BP or KP, as the latter are in use, which no doubt has benefits as well as draw backs! Nevertheless I still find the obscene prices charged in the UK difficult to comprehend, particularly when one sees the prices charged by their Graces of Marlborough £13.90, Devonshire £11.25, Bedford £10.50, Rutland £12.00, Grafton £6.00, Norfolk £13.00 etc for access to their homes!

I do appreciate that being Royal residences adds to the popularity of BP,KP and WC but in fact I feel that they should be more accessible to all and not prohibitive by price as they presently are! When you visit Blenheim you do not see water stains on the wall hangings! I wonder sometimes where all the admissions money from BP is going now? It is a disgrace that the Head of State is living in a crumbling edifice, whilst some of her subjects are managing to maintain their own edifices on a tiny proportion of the combined funds at HM's disposal! I understand that many of those I have cited have been accused of accepting EU farming subsidies, which caused a great deal of controversy at the time, but then again, unlike the head of state, they do not have the 'real' ear of the government to wring money out of! The issue of who should pay for works is simply outrageous! Who pays for the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster? I can not see any difference between this palace and BP? I am sure that MPs would soon push through a budget adjustment if they had buckets catching water dripping through the ceilings of their offices!!! BP is as much a symbol of Britain as St Stephen's Tower is!!!!

Perhaps English Heritage should take over maintenance of all Royal Palaces now, before further quibbles between Palace and Parliament allow them to deteriorate further!

     
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: alixaannencova on February 17, 2008, 11:20:04 AM
Perhaps tdora darling will add something of relevance eg. back me up hopefully here!!!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Vecchiolarry on February 17, 2008, 12:44:27 PM
Hi,

I second the motion that English Heritage should take over the maintenance of Castles and Palaces....  Somebody should before a tourist is clobbered on the head by the chimney falling off the roof!!! - - Just a metaphor there!!!

Tourism is a great industry in Britain as elsewhere, and if it's unsafe to visit BP or Holyrood then there goes one of your national revenue bases....
Simple mathematics should dictate:  how much to repair over how much does the country take in.  End of story!!

Too bad The Queen doesn't have any real ruling power anymore...  She's smart and could simply dictate:  "Fix my roof or it's off to The Tower with you lot;  and good luck that it too doesn't fallen around you!!".......

Larry
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 18, 2008, 04:56:19 AM
Thanks for the reply Robert.
I won'turn this into a mutual appreciation reply, I'll leave that to others,  but a new roof would be a great idea!(NOT SURE ABOUT THE CAMEL THOUGH)
However, seeing that these sites are supposedly public property, it is only just that the public maintain them. Granted they are working palaces, but they are working palaces on behalf of the citizens of the Nation!

And especially for you young Robert!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_yell
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on February 19, 2008, 11:37:14 AM
Everytime a royal finance topic comes up, it reminds me of the extremely unique funding situation for the British monarchy - that is, the Crown Estate.  No other nation has such a convoluted - and misunderstood - arrangement to fund their head of state.  And so discussions about it are avoided by both the Royal Household and the Government at every turn.  First, quoting The Crown Estate website:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign.  The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation – established by statute – headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.  To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels – part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

How did The Crown Estate come into being?
Although the ownership of some property can be traced back to Edward the Confessor, the estate as a whole essentially dates from the time of the Norman Conquest.  In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment – what we call today the Civil List.

So neither the people (through their Government), nor the Queen as an individual owns the Crown Estate.  Instead, the Crown (a third separate entity) owns the Estate.  So as long as the Monarch holds the Crown, he or she holds all rights to it - except those rights handed over to the Government in exchance for a fixed annual income. 

Said another way, George III only gave up the revenue from the Estate - not the Crown's ownership rights to it.  So the bottom line is - it is the Government's part of the bargain to pay the Civil List and maintain the occupied royal palaces.   That's what they "owe" in exchange for the annual revenue they receive.

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TampaBay on February 20, 2008, 06:43:59 AM
As I understand the Government got a good deal because the revenue from the Crown Eststes are HUGE!!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on February 20, 2008, 01:46:29 PM
Um, yes, but to be fair you have to consider the "full picture" of the situation.

In the past, the UK's Civil Government costs were paid for by the Sovereign under normal circumstances.  The money for this Public Purse was raised by income of the Crown Estate lands and holdings. In some circumstances, namely war or during budget shortfalls, Parliament raised additional money through taxes.  Given the Crown's large land holdings, this system was largely self-funding, and taxes were levied only when necessary.

But as the role of the government increased in the 18th century, the Public Purse was increasingly unable to raise enough to fund the development of the country.   That's why in 1760 when George III came to the throne, it was decided that the whole cost of civil government should be provided by Parliament, with the crown surrendering most of the hereditary revenues (principally the net surplus of the Crown Estate) by the king for the duration of the reign.

In this system Parliament was responsible for the finances of the UK, including paying the crown the Civil List allowance to meet the Sovereign's official expenses. (In 2006-07 the Crown Estate paid the Treasury over £200 miillion in return for an allowance of £7.9 million.)

In summary, while the Government IS getting a £192.1 miillion "surplus" out of the Crown Estate deal, it has to pay for the entire Civil Government.  In 2005, Government spending was £487.6 billion.  So, the Crown Estate surplus is barely a blip on that radar screen.

2005 UK Budget Spending by Area
£123 billion for social security benefits 
£23.9 billion for national debt interest 
£81 billion for health benefits 
£63.2 billion for education
£29.7 billion for defense
£105.3 billion for other departmental spending
£61.1 billion for other annually managed expenses (AME)

On the other hand, the total £35 million cost of the monarchy is only 0.0003% of "Other Departmental Spending".  So you'd think they could find a few million pounds to fix up Buckingham Palace when it needs it.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 20, 2008, 04:21:34 PM
Considering that these sites are amongst the most important buildings of the realm!
Title: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: carl fraley on April 14, 2008, 03:37:31 PM
Anyone know if Peter PHillips, or TRH Princes William or Henry visited osborne while on the island for the weekend?


off the wall question but if any member of the Royal Family chose to stay on the island is the pavillion Queen Victoria lived in available if advance notice is given?? 

When was the last time any memeber of the Royal Family was at Osborne to tour the Apts?? Anyone know
Title: Re: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: Windsor on April 18, 2008, 11:43:25 AM
Okay, since no one else has brought this up I will:  Isn't it a bit immature (tacky?) for young adults to behave the way the Princes did at this stag event?  Falling down drunk, dropping your pants in public, etc.?  Bad enough for anyone, but I think as a royal you should have a certain amount of respect for your postion and family.  Along with the priviledges, there is a certain measure of responsibility.
Title: Re: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: gogm on April 18, 2008, 12:15:29 PM
I'm not sure whether it cost 21 000 pounds or dollars to give that joyride in a CH-47 Chinook, a rather large cargo helicopter. Its 21 000. As USA air travelers have learned after a period of poor government oversight of air carrier fleet maintenance, aircraft require constant maintenance. Designers try to achieve the lowest hours of maintenance per flight hour, but that figure is always high and its even higher for helicopters.

Here in the USA, we're having problems with the highest-placed people being beyond accountability. I hope the Queen or the Prince of Wales makes good on the loss and has a pointed discussion with the boys.
Title: Re: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: Martyn on April 18, 2008, 12:36:02 PM
Are the members of the RF beyond accountability?

I'm quite sure that the Queen does not think so, but there are perhaps other members who do have this attitude.  The use of this helicopter for this purpose is not I am sure the only example of misuse..........
Title: Re: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: Richard_Maybery on April 20, 2008, 03:07:50 AM
More bad news about William in the press this morning. Am I the only one who is beginning to think that if members of the Royal Family are seen to be no different from everyone else that we may as well not bother with them? My tendencies are increasingly republican. Once the Queen goes, perhaps it's time to consign the monarchy to the past.
Title: Re: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: Mari on April 20, 2008, 06:15:48 AM
One newspaper said that Prince William had been assigned to practice takeoff's and landing and they joked that if you had to do it might as well do it in the in-law's Garden. 
Title: Re: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: Grace on April 20, 2008, 03:54:00 PM
More bad news about William in the press this morning. Am I the only one who is beginning to think that if members of the Royal Family are seen to be no different from everyone else that we may as well not bother with them?

Quite agree, Richard.  Prince William seems to me to have made far more strenuous efforts to be seen as just like everyone else than he has being a royal, with all the privileges and restrictions that role brings.  Not that I'm saying he has an easy job, mind you...
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: grandduchessella on April 21, 2008, 10:37:14 PM
Harry reunited with marine who lost arm in Afghanistan as he and William meet injured war heroes at rehab centre

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=561039&in_page_id=1770

RAF fury over Prince William's £30,000 helicopter stunt in Kate Middleton's backyard

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=560880&in_page_id=1770
Title: Re: Peter Phillips Stag Weekend & Isle of Wight
Post by: joan_d on April 22, 2008, 12:00:25 PM
More bad news about William in the press this morning. Am I the only one who is beginning to think that if members of the Royal Family are seen to be no different from everyone else that we may as well not bother with them? My tendencies are increasingly republican. Once the Queen goes, perhaps it's time to consign the monarchy to the past.

They ARE like anybody else.  Down the centuries, they have been able to "pull the wool" over people's eyes but not anymore with the media scrutiny as it is today.   After all wasn't it the "Dirty Digger's" avowed intention to bring down the House of Windsor.   I don't know whether he has completed that mission or whether it has imploided on itself.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ilias_of_John on April 24, 2008, 05:45:24 AM
We are all human beings and we all have our faults.
A young man enjoying one to many alcoholic drinks at his cousins stag night is the most common sight on any Saturday night in the Western world.
One must remember that these young men are commissioned officers in their nations military services who have undergone many trials to achieve this rank.They have proven themselves and they know what the boundaries of behaviour and etiquette are. Acting like a common yobo(drunken lout)is inexcusable, but I have not seen any evidence that either did, let alone harm the nation or the RF.
Those of us who think it demeaning of them should remember our own youth and its errors and thank providence that there were no cameras about, or that we seized the film.
Now, about this helicopter flight!
The Ministry of defence knows what it is doing, it was not a joy flight for a couple of lads out on a "drink a thon". A pilot needs to accumulate hours and gain experience and in this current tight fiscal world every shilling, cent, peso etc  saved is worthwhile. It is actually a compliment to the pair of them that they went to the island the way they did, a commercial flight is a lot more comfortable and less obvious.
It seems to me that there are those amongst us who for their own reasons are only interested in criticising the "boys" and other members of the RF. Is ther some sort of agenda lurking beneath these comments, or is it just out of blind jealousy and perhaps stupidity!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 24, 2008, 03:05:37 PM
I quite agree with your point, Ilias_of_John.  However, even the Ministry of Defense - and Clarence House - has acknowledged that this particular decision was ill-advised - not so much because it was wrong, but because it left both the future king, and the armed forces, vulnerable to legitimate public outcry.  Right or wrong decision, public perception is everything.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Ilias_of_John on April 25, 2008, 02:28:20 AM
Yes you are quite right
And i seemingly remember that it was illegal for both of them to be on the same flight/aircraft for security reasons.
Or, perhaps that rule has been abandoned?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 25, 2008, 08:42:02 AM
I doubt it was every illegal, but was rather generally accepted practice - that the monarch and heir apparent (or the heir apparent and HIS heir apparent) never be on the same flight. 

But your point is well taken - here we had the 2nd and 3rd in the line of succession both in an aircraft flown by a brand new pilot - and to a stag party no less!  Had that plane gone down, we would eventually see King Andrew on the throne, and then Queen Beatrice.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Kimberly on September 25, 2008, 11:08:11 AM
Really didn't know where to put this "snippet" so I thought this thread was quite apt;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061514/Catholics-born-daughters-allowed-throne-massive-reform-constitution.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061514/Catholics-born-daughters-allowed-throne-massive-reform-constitution.html)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Grace on September 25, 2008, 04:33:34 PM
We can be sure of one thing here.  If the current government gets its hands on the constitution, you may be sure it will be watered down to the point where it ceases to have any meaning at all - just like everything else they decide to 'revise'.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 25, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
I don't know Grace, but the British constitution is a very complicated set of rules and regulations based on court rulings, tradition and parliamentary  compromises. It is not easy to change anything. The succession would be a good start, however. That alone would not be an overnight process.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: joan_d on September 26, 2008, 08:58:39 AM
The latest news today is that the Monarchy should be treated as any other Government dept and be totally accountable to taxpayers.  I think part of this is due to the escalating costs of maintaining Buck House which is crumbling by the minute. 

About time too. 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: mcdnab on September 26, 2008, 09:06:45 AM
As Robert said unfortunately most politicians here are not quite aware of the raft of legislation that would need ammending or removing from the statute books to make the changes - the last time this was discussed by the newspapers was when Diana was expecting William but that primarily focussed on permitting the eldest child to succeed irrespective  (at that time most of Europe's surviving monarchies were looking at making changes many of them over the last 25 years have changed to absolute primogeniture rather than the male preference system - Sweden in 1980, Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990, and Belgium in 1991.)
Elsewhere the Danish government has had a first reading of a new bill to ammend their male preference system - however the bills hasn't had its second reading and there is no urgency since Queen Margarets grandson is older than his sister, the Spanish government has indicated it supports a change but has not done it yet, Monaco practises a similar system, Luxembourg is complicated because of various 19th Century family pacts but effectively men come before women there, Liechtenstein still practices salic law i think from memory. Spain currently practices the same system as Britain but the government has indicated it favours a change however the birth of a second daughter to the Prince and Princess of the Asturias removed the sense of urgency so whether it happens or not will perhaps depend on whether the Princess becomes pregnant again!
As to Britain to change to gender blind succession  wouldn't require a great deal of legislation - a simple Bill would do it - providing people don't tack on more ammendments relating to the religious questions and the rest of the countries of which the british monarch is sovereign would do the same.

As to the regulations relating to Royal Marriages - the Royal Marriages Act is effectively redundant although it is still used - a simple abolition would be fairly easy - however it would need replacing with something requiring immediate descendants of the monarch who were high up the line of succession perhaps limiting it to the descendants of George V or George VI or even Elizabeth II to require the monarch's consent or Parliamentary approval for their marriages.  Almost all European Monarchies still have some rules governing the marriages of members of their Royal Family either legal ones or family house rules enacted into law - after all you are still picking someone who will a) at points represent the country b) will require the support of the state in some way shape or form, c) may become Queen Consort or Prince Consort, and d) might be the parent of a future monarch.

Religion - the fact is that Britain is still a Protestant state - most of our anti catholic legislation stems from the chaos of the 17th Century - and the "Glorious Revolution" - James II attempts to lighten the load on Roman Catholics and his belief that he could be practising Catholic and remian on his thrones was mistimed and misjudged - not helped by his cousin Louis XIV's revocation of the Edict of Nantes (that had permitted some toleration of protestantism in catholic france) - Catholicism became increasingly associated with Absolutism and with Britains traditional enemies (France and Spain).

The most important remaining prohibition is that the throne is barred to anyone who is not in communion with the Church of England - if you remove that without disestablishing the Church of England then you have the potential for a Roman Catholic King or Queen who is in the bizarre position of being the titular Head of the C of E!  Uncomfortable for everyone. A British Monarch is also still required to sign the oath on accession preserving the protestant religion.  More importantly any change in Britain would have to be made in every other country of which the British monarch still rules - Britain can't move unilateraly to amend the rules - it would therefore dominate any government's legislative programme for quite a while.  

To give an example - William marries a Roman Catholic - Australia introduces legislation to amend the succession but the strong republican element hijack the debate results in a referendum monarchy abolished on the death of Elizabeth II, Canada introduces legislation to amend succession succesfully, Britain legislation introduced but bogged down in procedure and arguements over dis establishment of the Church of England - sudden death of Charles - William succeeds as King of Canada etc, Harry succeeds in Britain as Henry IX.

The idea of an hereditary monarchy is itself essentially discriminatory and i often believe that those who seem obssessed with the religious issue are often closet republicans - meddling with the whole kit and caboodle can cause more harm than good.  However abolition of the RMA (which says nothing on religion by the way) and introducing a bill to introduce gender blind succession would be relatively easy.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Adagietto on September 27, 2008, 05:58:21 AM
To change the succession law to allow the titular head of the Church of England to be a Roman Catholic would indeed be an exceedingly eccentric action!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Learning on September 27, 2008, 09:23:29 AM
Were not the Kings of Saxony in theory head of the Saxon Lutheran Church after they converted to Catholicism? IF I recall, they appointed a commission to carry out this function. Of course, the Queen is only the titular Supreme Governor so nothing would really change.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Adagietto on September 27, 2008, 05:29:40 PM
I'm sure something could be sorted out if the heir to the throne did convert to Catholicism, but that's a very remote possibility.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: toddy on December 19, 2008, 06:55:50 AM
what i never could understand is  since Buckingham palace and windsor castle are part of the crown estate ...why doesn't the crown estate pay for the repairs to there properties since the crown estate owns them? 
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on December 22, 2008, 09:49:38 AM
Because the Crown Estate has no responsibility to maintain the palaces. 

It's difficult for many (including myself) to understand the concept of "ownership" by a rather obscure entity known as "The Crown" - which is neither the Nation, nor the Government, nor the Queen herself.  But that's who owns it all - the Crown Estate, the Royal Palaces (occupied and historic) the Crown Jewels, and all the various other trappings associated with the monarchy - all owned by the Crown. 

What people (like me) really seem to want to understand is - if the monarchy ended, who would then own these assets?  It would be complicated, but in the end I have no doubt the nation would own virtually all of it.  But not today!  So, the real queston at hand is who "holds" or is "responsible" for each of these assets.  And that gets complicated because it has evolved differently for different assets, at different times.

The Crown Estate Commissioners are today responsible for maintaining Windsor Great Park and Home Park, but not the Castle itself.

For Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St. James Palace, and part of Kensington Palace, the Crown owns all of them but the Government is responsible for funding their maintenance - they agreed to pay for that when George III surrendered the Crown's right to the Crown Estate revenues to the Government. 

Hampton Court, Tower of London, the rest of KP, Kew Palace, even the Palace of Westminster are all still owned by the Crown.  Except for Westminster (which is managed by Parliamentary officials), the rest are "managed" by a separate entity called Historic Royal Palaces.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 22, 2008, 04:27:28 PM
If the monarchy were to be ended, the crown estates would most likely  simply change name to "the National Patrimony" just  like in other former [and current] monarchies.
 I have never understood the government's reluctance to fund nned repair and maintenance at BuchHouse, as it is a working office building with mainly civil service employees. At the very least it would seem to come under workplace conditions.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on December 23, 2008, 07:50:23 AM
Quite so Robert.  I wonder if Parliament would have as much financial restraint if Westminster were crumbling before their own eyes.  I bet that bill would pass rather quickly.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: mcdnab on December 23, 2008, 09:26:34 AM
Its a fairly murky issue - Firstly everything might be owned by the Monarch but can't be disposed of - technically its the property of the nation though with some exceptions the nation doesn't really get to use it - apart from her personal investments, jewellery, artworks, objet d'art and private estates (Sandringham bought for Edward VII as Prince of Wales, and Balmoral bought by Prince Albert and Queen Victoria - although it would be pretty unthinkable that the Queen or her successors would dispose of them though they could)

To understand the breakdown:

The Historic Royal Palace is a charitable Trust which was established by parliament - it receives no Government aid whatsoever and relies entirely on revenue it generates - that covers the unoccupied bits of Kensington Palace, The Tower of London, Kew Palace, Whitehall (the Banqueting House), and Hampton Court Palace.
The government became responsible for their management in 1851, the Government passed control over the day to day running of them to the Trust in the 1990's - they are run by trustees - the Chairman appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Culture Secretary, four trustees are directly appointed by the Queen and three further are automatic - director of the Royal Collection, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, and the Lord Chamberlain a further six are directly appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture who must include the Constable of the Tower of London in those six. The Trust is legally responsible to Parliament for the upkeep and maintenance of the buildings and ensuring public access etc.

The Occupied Royal Palaces Estate covers Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Windsor Castle, the Occupied Parts of Kensington Palace, Hampton Court Mews and the Home Park (Windsor). Responsibility for upkeep remains with the Department of Culture but in 1991 it delegated that responsibility to the Royal Household who receives grant in aid of £15 million - unfortunately the grant has hardly changed in the last decade unlike the costs (despite the savings and additional revenue raised by the Royal Household) hence the current arguement over the backlog of maintenance.

The Private Estates - Sandringham House and Estate in Norfolk and Balmoral in Scotland - their maintenance and running costs are met by the Queen out of her private income. They are regarded as her personal property inherited from her father (who bought them from his brother Edward VIII after the abdication).

The Crown Estates - now worth over £7 billion - these are the monarch's hereditary land and property holdings that were surrendered by George III to the Government in return for a fixed income (the Civil List) - the revenues of these estates are around £200 million a year and go directly to the Government.

The Duchy of Lancaster Estate - The Duchy is administered on behalf of the Sovereign by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (a cabinet minister) - management of the Duchy's assets lies with a body called the Duchy Council. The members of the Duchy Council are appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Chancellor. established by Royal Charter -  The Monarch has no right to the assets or any capital increases in value merely the net income.

Works of Arts etc - The bulk of the Queen's Art Collection etc is now under the control of the Royal Collection which again receives no Government grant-in-aid or public subsidy.  It is administered by the Royal Collection Trust, a registered charity.  The Trust was set up by The Queen in 1993.

Jewels etc - the rest of the assets would primarily be the Queen's collection of Jewellery which is probably the most difficult part to dissect between "held by the Queen for the nation" and personal property - Undoubtedly The Crown Jewels would be regarded as the property of the nation, arguably though the Royal Family could claim that certain of the stones used in the crown jewels would be their personal property for example the Cullinan II which is in the Imperial State Crown and the Cullinan I which is in the sword of state - the Cullinan was given to Edward VII on his birthday and apart from "the greater" and "lesser" Stars of Africa in the Crown Jewels the other bits of it are still worn by the Queen in the other pieces of jewellery made for Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary. Arguably some of the most famous pieces would certainly be regarded as private property.  The vast majority of the Queen's Jewellery was commissioned and made in the last 100 to 150 years and its size is partly due to the collections of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary. Most gifts of jewellery to the Queen from foreign heads of state are now considered to be gifts to the nation and as such the nation technically should own them however similar gifts made before the second world war are far more likely to be considered family gifts and private property - it would also be very hard for the state to claim the many pieces made and purchased by Queen Mary.

Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: mcdnab on December 23, 2008, 09:27:23 AM
There are a few probable scenarios if the monarchy were abolished however in most circumstances its unlikely that mass confiscation and exile would be likely.

Option 1 - an independent Scotland votes for a Republic - in which case the Scots Government would almost certainly insist on any Royal Assets in Scotland being transferred to them - that would probably include Holyrood House (only used occassionally by the Queen anyway) and possibly the transfer of any property administered by the Crown Estates which would reduce its income.  There might be future tax issues for the "Queen of England" as a foreign resident with property in Scotland - but the Scots Government would probably have had to give tax undertakens to the many English nationals who also own property north of the border.

Option 2 - Britain as a whole becomes a Republic (with Australia almost certainly following suit) - The former monarch would still technically be King or Queen of Canada, New Zealand etc - however an abolition here would probably snowball elswhere
I suspect the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster would be abolished with the assets transferred to the state given the technical fact that the Crown Estates are still the monarch's property (though held by the state) a small financial settlement might be reached.  The Monarch would probably agree to waive any claim to the historic gems set in the crown jewels - the Koh I Noor, The Cullinan 1 and 2, the Stuart Saphire etc. 
The entire jewellery collection including gifts of jewellery made during the reign would be regarded as private property. The Royal Collection transferred to state and would probably continue as it does now - private art work not part of the Royal Collection regarded as part of the private fortune of the monarch.
Balmoral and Sandringham private property all the rest of the Palaces transferred to the Historic Royal Palaces Trust (with a new board and arrangements for its governance).
The Duchy of Cornwall estates also abolished and transferred to the state with a possible small financial settlement made to the former heir to the throne.
It is also possible that the State would give the family permission to retain occupation of possibly Royal Lodge at Windsor and Clarence House paying either a commercial or peppercorn rent as part of any deal regarding the contents of the Royal Palaces in occupation, its also likely that those members of the Royal family and the Royal Household using houses at some of the Royal Palaces would be allowed to continue living there providing they were paying a commercial rent for them - though over time i suspect that would cease.  It would be in the State's interest to deal fairly with the former Royal Family to avoid lengthy and expensive law suits to try and establish what was and wasn't private property. The bigger issue would be taxation - whilst the current monarch pays tax on her private income, property left by one reigning monarch (or his spouse) to the next reigning monarch is exempt from death duties - the risk of abolition and the abandonment of that rule is that within a couple of generations we might be seeing Sotheby's auctioning off gems like the Cullinan 3 and 4, the Cambridge Emeralds, the Cambridge Tiara, or the Vladimir Tiara to help the family meet their liabilities.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: toddy on December 23, 2008, 10:44:54 AM
My feeling is  if the Monarchy was ever abolished  Scotland would want to be independent and I am sure if Scotland went Wales would want to follow  i feel the Monarch is the glue that holds the United Kingdom together  I predict the day they abolish the Monarchy  the UK  will come apart ...  anyone else thoughts on this are welcome :)
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on December 23, 2008, 11:03:09 AM
Very interesting mcdnab, you are probably quite right in most cases.  The one thing I question is the Duchy of Lancaster, which is separate from all other crown assets - confirmed many times over the years.  I would think that any settlement with the former monarch would involve her (?) retaining the Duchy - she is, after all, the Duke.  That would provide her the necessary income to maintain her lifestyle appropriately.  Naturally the Duchy's palentine-like rights would revert to the state, but would the lands?

Oh, and it's odd to think about it, but yes, if Britain ended the monarchy, the Queen might just end up remaining as Queen of Canada.  Not because Canadians necessarily want a monarch, but because the Queen's status in Canada is deeply entrenched in the constitution - altering it would be exceedingly difficult to do the way it is written.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: mcdnab on December 29, 2008, 07:00:58 AM
The Duchy of Lancaster is odd - but under the original charters establishing it the Monarch has absolutely no rights to the assets of the Duchy merely the income created by those assets. With the abolition of the monarchy it is one of the things that might cause considerable tension over who has the right to control those assets.
Title: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 11, 2010, 05:10:38 AM
Apropos the question, 'If Charles were to ascend the throne next week' how many here would NOT be happy should Camilla become Queen rather than Princess Consort and why?

Ooops I forgot the e in 'prsent' sorry!!!!!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 11, 2010, 05:21:44 AM
I will not be happy when (I no longer think it's 'if') Camilla becomes Queen Consort because of the very unpleasant circumstances leading up to her marriage with Prince Charles...the two of them caused a lot of problems for a lot of people to stand where they stand today.  I don't bear any malice towards the lady, but that's the way I feel!!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 11, 2010, 05:26:44 AM
I am not a UK citizen, but more or less an ex-pat American.. However, I agree with Grace. Ultimately, it will be up to Charles [ guess what he wants?] the Church and Parlaiment.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 11, 2010, 05:59:07 AM
I am going to stick my neck out and say that Camilla should be Queen Consort. The only reason that she isn't officially Princess of Wales is sentimentality over Diana.

On a practical level, the longer the Queen continues to reign and the longer Camilla has to establish herself and demonstrate her good qualities before Charles succeeds, the better.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: darius on April 11, 2010, 06:48:51 PM
I agree and I believe that Camilla has shown herself to be a decent person - and no I don´t think it is spin. She seems to be well accepted by the other members of the family including her two step sons.
I believe that if Charles ascends the throne then Camilla should be crowned as his Queen Consort. Whether that is something that Camilla will want to do is another matter - I don´t think that she ever hankered after being royal, Princess of Wales or Queen for that matter.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 11, 2010, 07:10:57 PM
Apropos the question, 'If Charles were to ascend the throne next week' how many here would NOT be happy should Camilla become Queen rather than Princess Consort and why?

I would not like it, because I'd love to see that amazing institution: morganatic marriage finally triumphant in "liberal Britain"! Apart from that I don't care. :-)
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 12, 2010, 05:15:56 AM
I highly think this is a morganatic marriage type of situation. Camilla is old enough to assume that there will be no children, and even if there were, Prince William and Prince Harry pretty much ensure that none of her offspring will be a monarch.

So the only problem is whether or not Camilla should receive the title - since no other person (besides her husband) will be affected.

I personally see no problem with her being Queen. In the end, English monarchs do not have the influence they used to, it's not like Camilla will influence politics or anything like that. I find her dignified and fit enough to do her duty (in many ways more than Diana - who was a bit impulsive) so I really don't see why not.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 12, 2010, 05:28:36 AM
What is  "moganatic" in| Britain ?There has not been an "equal"  marriage  since Queen Mary,  consort of George V. The only equirement is consent of the sovereign and  not a Roman Catholic. Other than that,  the Windsors can mary from any class they choose.Queen Victoria once said that they did not have morganatic marriages, the concept  did not  exist in  her realm.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Adagietto on April 12, 2010, 06:50:57 AM
I think if she were not Queen there would be a certain awkwardness in the situation which would be best avoided.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 12, 2010, 07:10:34 AM
On the other hand, if she were queen consort, it would damage  Charles & the monarchy's credibility- going back on  what he  promised.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 12, 2010, 07:25:37 AM
Margot

True, but that was a sop to the Diana faction in the first place.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 12, 2010, 08:46:59 AM
I can't seem to find any recent polls on the British public's opinion of this (the most recent were in conjunction with the Duchess of Cornwall's 60th birthday when a poll put the number of Brits approving of her becoming Queen at 28% (up from just 7% at the time of the marriage).  A few years has passed since then, so that number has probably grown.

But here's the thing.  I personally approved of Camilla adopting the title Duchess at the time of their marriage, given the sensitivity surrounding the previous Princess of Wales.  But there is a big difference between the position of the wife of the heir apparent and the wife of the King.  When Charles succeeds Camilla will LEGALLY be HM The Queen.  The only way around that is for Parliament to pass a law specifically denying her the rank and title.  And I cannot imagine that would ever happen because it would open official debate in Parliament about the monarchy in general, and that would not be desirable.  I do not believe Camilla should become Princess Consort with the style HRH, while her husband becomes King with the style HM. 

But the reality is, Elizabeth II is quite likely to live at least another 10 or 15 years.  Given that, there is naturally the possibility that Charles does not survive his mother; and also a possibility Camilla does not survive to her husband's succession.  But even if both are living at that time, the reign of King Charles will be relatively short.  I think by that time the public will tolerate Queen Camilla for a few years.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 12, 2010, 09:47:23 AM
I would be perfectly OK with HM Queen Camilla.Get off your horses and give the Lady a break.She has done nothing wrong
ever since her marriage,and the way leading to that??Hypocrite to critisize as 1 out of every 3 british couples files for divorce!

Really!!The Nerve to dare to critisize Camilla,except for the pompous and prey do telll dare say critters around.
(No Grace,not you!!)

Nah,they're the last ones to complain or nag or anything negative towards this Lady that I respect more then the loose cannon her
predecessor was with her tantrums and causes causing trouble...Don't call a saint a saint until there's an offcial sainthood,
not lingering mass hysterics...

HRH Camilla Princess of Wales is not only an exemplary Royal,but a wonderfull wife,mother,grandmother
and,very important,wonderfull stepmother as both William and Harry really "dig her" love her.

And if they,of all living souls,do appreciate and acknowledge & love Camilla,then all should be silent and grand her
what is hers and will be hers rightfully since her marriage to HRH The Prince of Wales.

She did what many had not held possibly,she did become an examplary Royal and is an icon for women her age,
and recent polls,guess that's why someone thought to open this thread,show there is indeed a strong support for HRH.

She will make an excellent Queen at Charles's side,I have never doubted that,maybe it helps to not read british
rags as they really claim to any bull one can possibly think of.HM Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom sounds fine,and
will be even better.Just wait and see.

Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Michael HR on April 12, 2010, 10:03:25 AM
Mind you if she is to be Queen by what name will she be known? Camilla or something else?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 12, 2010, 04:41:19 PM
What else? 

Traditionally a British monarch (or consort) reigns using one of their given names.  Camilla's given name is Camilla Rosemary, so it would be either Queen Camilla, or Queen Rosemary.  I just can't imagine her using Rosemary.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 12, 2010, 04:46:56 PM
Well, Queen Cammila is no prize either. Does not exactly roll off the tongue
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 12, 2010, 05:37:51 PM
On the other hand, if she were queen consort, it would damage  Charles & the monarchy's credibility- going back on  what he  promised.

Yes, that it would, Robert, but I for one do not wish to see Camilla styled Princess Consort. She will be Queen of the United Kingdom and should be thusly styled.

Margot, forgive me for adding my opinion even if it does not align with your original question for this thread.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 12, 2010, 06:39:11 PM
Goodness me Royal Watcher you have nothing to worry about!!!! I am so pleased to see lots of comments here! It is all most interesting! The more the merrier!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on April 12, 2010, 07:04:34 PM
Given there were assurances given by The Prince of Wales in regard to his wife and how she would be styled upon his succession, it would seem that any change to this position without consultation could be viewed as reneging on the future Kings word.  Perhaps this might be the subject of a referendum when the time comes? Allowing the electorate to decide Camilla's title upon Charles' succession would certainly be an unprecedented move and may engage his subjects and the Crown in a closer relationship? Of course there would be costs to bear in such a move, but would they be worth paying?

R.I.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 12, 2010, 07:18:14 PM
Yes, very clever, Emperor of the Dominion, I like that idea very much. Charles seems to be always chided for not being "in touch" with his future subjects and your idea of reaching out to the masses is quite appealing. I would not be surprised if this does happen.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 12, 2010, 10:03:12 PM
What is  "moganatic" in| Britain ?There has not been an "equal"  marriage  since Queen Mary,  consort of George V. The only equirement is consent of the sovereign and  not a Roman Catholic. Other than that,  the Windsors can mary from any class they choose.Queen Victoria once said that they did not have morganatic marriages, the concept  did not  exist in  her realm.

Granted, it isn't / won't be morganatic in a technical sense. But it will be morganatic in spirit! I just love that the late Queen Mother, who was much more British than the cosmopolitan royals before her, had to ressort to the un-British, frightfully Teutonic concept of a morganatic spouse when dealing with "that woman": The Duchess of Windsor was just a duchess and Her Grace, while her husband was a prince and HRH!

BTW there can still be a morganatic union even if there is no Ebenbürtigkeit requirement. She who was "that woman" in MF's childhood, Countess Danner, was King Frederik VII's morganatic spouse even if he, as King of Denmark, could marry whomever he wanted and make her his queen. He just didn't, because public opinion was against it.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 13, 2010, 02:45:37 AM
Well, Queen Cammila is no prize either. Does not exactly roll off the tongue

practice..
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 13, 2010, 02:51:04 AM
Well, Queen Cammila is no prize either. Does not exactly roll off the tongue

It's only three syllables!!! Compared to Queen 'Alexandra' it is a breeze to say! (That is four syllables like Queen Victoria'). By the way, vocally Queen Camilla is just the same as saying Queen Diana....count the syllables! Would have any one have had difficulty getting use to saying Queen Diana had it happened? I think not!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 13, 2010, 03:01:38 AM
I would be perfectly OK with HM Queen Camilla.Get off your horses and give the Lady a break.She has done nothing wrong
ever since her marriage,and the way leading to that??Hypocrite to critisize as 1 out of every 3 british couples files for divorce!

Really!!The Nerve to dare to critisize Camilla,except for the pompous and prey do telll dare say critters around.
(No Grace,not you!!)

Nah,they're the last ones to complain or nag or anything negative towards this Lady that I respect more then the loose cannon her
predecessor was with her tantrums and causes causing trouble...Don't call a saint a saint until there's an offcial sainthood,
not lingering mass hysterics...

HRH Camilla Princess of Wales is not only an exemplary Royal,but a wonderfull wife,mother,grandmother
and,very important,wonderfull stepmother as both William and Harry really "dig her" love her.

And if they,of all living souls,do appreciate and acknowledge & love Camilla,then all should be silent and grand her
what is hers and will be hers rightfully since her marriage to HRH The Prince of Wales.

She did what many had not held possibly,she did become an examplary Royal and is an icon for women her age,
and recent polls,guess that's why someone thought to open this thread,show there is indeed a strong support for HRH.

She will make an excellent Queen at Charles's side,I have never doubted that,maybe it helps to not read british
rags as they really claim to any bull one can possibly think of.HM Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom sounds fine,and
will be even better.Just wait and see.


For so long I've kept my mouth shut when up against this type of discussion.
But Lucien, thankgod you've said what has always been in my thoughts.
Excellent post. :)
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 13, 2010, 03:19:52 AM
'Queen Camilla' rolls perfectly easily off the tongue. In any case, she would presumably become 'the Queen' in ordinary usage pretty quickly, just as Charles III or George VII or whatever he chooses to be called will be 'the King'.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 13, 2010, 03:33:25 AM
It is not the syllables that  I was referring to. The siound of the name. Diana  did not sound much better, to me. But Ann is right,  the names become suprflous, as no one would refer to them  othan that  "the King", etc.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Michael HR on April 13, 2010, 07:04:20 AM
We shall have to wait and see. I think it will be the peoples view that will prevail. If they do not want her as Queen she will not use this title or be crowned but if they do then so be it. Charles I think will follow people opinion in public at least
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 13, 2010, 08:24:24 AM
Of course, public opinion will be considered, to be sure, but that will be measured quietly by polls, not through a referendum.  I agree with you Emperor of the Dominions, there will be somewhat of a tricky PR situation if Camilla assumes the title Queen (given Charles' prior statements that Princess Consort will be used instead).

But there are many other critical issues on the table than the current whim of the British public.  Don't forget, the Queen is not only Queen of the UK, but also Queen of 15 other realms, and Head of the Commonwealth, and Head of the Church of England, and many many other legal roles.

I believe the most likely scenario is that the palace & government will keep their eyes on polls over the years to see which way the wind is blowing - in the UK and the Commonwealth Realms, and the Church of England.  When a new reign appears likely on the horizon, the government, palace and other involved parties will open quiet / private discussions about a wide range of issues related to the new reign (from the Crown Estate and Civil List agreements, to the coronation, to the Church of England establishment, Camilla's title, etc.). 

In the end, whomever is Prime Minister at that time will have to advise Charles, after having considered the global perspective.  You can't have Camilla as "Princess Consort" of the UK, if Canada or Australia don't agree and she is Queen of those realms (or the reverse!).  But if Australia or Canada have become republics in the meantime, that won't matter as much.  If Charles is going to succeed his mother (or not) as Head of the Commonwealth, that might impact the PMs advice too. 

Finally, I don't think any prime minister wants to even tackle this thorny issue until absolutely necessary, hoping to instead pass it on to his successor to handle.  So no final decision will be made until it has to be made.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ashdean on April 13, 2010, 11:04:41 AM
I am going to stick my neck out and say that Camilla should be Queen Consort. The only reason that she isn't officially Princess of Wales is sentimentality over Diana.

On a practical level, the longer the Queen continues to reign and the longer Camilla has to establish herself and demonstrate her good qualities before Charles succeeds, the better.

Ann
I completely agree with you....AND in an age where discrimmination of any kind is a crime...would it not be a crime if the wife of a King was not a Queen????!!!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ashdean on April 13, 2010, 11:06:35 AM
Well, Queen Cammila is no prize either. Does not exactly roll off the tongue

practice..
LOL
Title: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 13, 2010, 02:28:11 PM
Look at them?!!!What a great & loving couple!!Only good can come from that.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1271173542.html

Priceless courtesy,Barbara D,BRMB. :-* ;D ;D
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: mcdnab on April 13, 2010, 03:12:07 PM
I have always thought that Charles and has adivsors gave an unsavoury hostage to fortune when they announced that she was to be Duchess of Cornwall and then Princess Consort. Its was done one assumes with the tacit consent of Number 10 and Buckingham Palace but its clear that a lawyer never took a decent look at it.
It is not normal practice in the UK for a woman not to share her husband's full styles and titles (if he has any) - legally she is HRH, The Princess of Wales and on his accession she will be Queen. To turn George VI's quote about Wallis Simpson on its head "If she's good enough to be a HRH then she's good enough to be Queen".

The public feeling about Diana aside there is no real reason why she shouldn't be - if the Church of England was willing to bless the marriage then there is no reason why a future Archbishop couldn't crown her.

To my mind there are numerous of these kind of issues that have been allowed to develop without any clear lead from the Palace or Number 10. If as has been traditional it is the Monarch who is the supreme arbitor of who is or isn't a member of the Royal Family then the Queen needs to start using the appropriate methods that were good enough for her father and grandfather and for her when she made her husband a Prince of Great Britain (which her father seemed to have forgotten to do in 1947).
There is the stupidity over The Earl of Wessex's children's titles - the Queen should have issued new patents governing the use and style of the HRH either to confirm all male line grandchildren as HRH with an exception for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn or new ones limiting it to the children of the sovereign and perhaps the children of the Prince of Wales (my preferred choice) with an exception for the Duke of York's daughters.
And If William marries in her lifetime she's going to have to issue new ones as if he has a daughter she won't be HRH until Charles succeeds and likewise if he has two sons only the elder will be HRH.

Princess Consort is a ludicrous title with no precedent and will put Camilla in a bizarre situation.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 13, 2010, 03:37:44 PM
Princess Consort is a ludicrous title with no precedent and will put Camilla in a bizarre situation.
Of course for all pan-European royalty buffs Princess Consort (as in княгиня / Fürstin, not принцесса / Prinzessin) has wonderful shades of such morganatic princesses as Joanna Grudzińska, Julia von Hauke, Ekaterina Dolgorukaya, Sophie Chotek (initially a Princess, then a Duchess, of Hohenberg) - and perhaps most obscure, but also most equivalent: The woman who not only wasn't ebenbürtig spouse material for a King of Prussia, but also had the problematic role of succeeding the "sainted" Luise of Mecklenburg-Streliz as Queen: Auguste von Harrach, Princess of Liegnitz.  
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 13, 2010, 05:03:37 PM
Hi Margot,

I'm not a big fan of Charles & Camilla;  and I hope that The Queen lives on for quite a while.
But if charles became King any time soon, I would hope that Camilla would be styled and titled HM Queen Camilla...  As that is proper in Britain.

Also, perhaps The Queen should announce that Camilla should now be called 'Princess of Wales', which she is entitled to..
Surely, the cult of Diana is now waning, and perhaps over really...
Am I wrong in this?

Larry
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 13, 2010, 05:15:40 PM

...will put Camilla in a bizarre situation.


Again.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 13, 2010, 05:20:45 PM
To put it bluntly, Larry- yes you are.  The ardour may  not be as hysterical, but there is still a great deal of  sympathy and admiration for Diana. It is much more sane now, but her sons are her legacy and remind everyone of her. As do her  good works. I think most are just indifferent to the Charles & Camilla show, except, of course, the royal groupies.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 13, 2010, 05:45:09 PM
Thanks Larry! Wise words from our Canada based Sage! Unfortunately I suspect that the 'Cult' of Diana still continues!

All I can say is that  if the boys were to be asked to make a decision regarding whether they would mind their step mother using the Princess of Wales title, I would be fascinated to hear their response! Personally, I wouldn't give a hoot if Camilla did start using the Wales title! After all it is only a title! I dare to muse that Diana would probably have preferred to be remembered for the person she was and not through the title she held! Her good works were because of her person and not her title! After all, Diana was not the Princess of Wales after her divorce! The position became vacant as soon as the divorce became absolute and remained so until April 2005! Everyone knows Camilla is the Princess of Wales and that she doesn't use it because of the sensitivity and the obvious  associations the title had to Diana. As I say, William and Harry would no doubt be consulted, should the idea of Camilla ever using the Wales title officially be considered seriously! They are really the only two people who have any right to be justifiably and personally upset at the prospect! If they were to accept such an idea than I think the Diehard Diana worshippers who evidently still do carry their torches, would have to bite their lips and accept that through her legacy of her boys, the topic may be settled!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 13, 2010, 08:10:54 PM
Why shouldn't Camilla have the title of POW's?
No matter who she is, there IS going to be ANOTHER one.
If William weds tomorrow or in five years time, HIS wife is going to have the title because that's what she is entitled to,as long as he's POW.
So in hindsight, the title is going to remind him either way.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 13, 2010, 08:28:11 PM
Bravo Lindelle! Well said! I only suggested that perhaps the boys could have some say perhaps in whether Camilla start using the Wales title, merely as a ploy to hopefully neuter possible Diehard Diana Worshippers that may be lurking here, from 'going off on one' and starting a diatribe about how hurtful and awful such a thing would be! Diehards tend to use the boys as being 'wronged' and 'aggrieved' in such matters where the memory of Diana is concerned. It is like some sort of ammo in their ceaseless campaign to besmirch Camilla and idolatrise their heroine.

By the way Lucien you absolute sweetie pops! Love the photographs of Charles and Camilla...so loving and genuine! Really made me smile!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: chasmat on April 13, 2010, 09:25:23 PM
I'm new here, but have been a lurker for a long time and am shocked that my first post is related to Charles and Camilla given my interest in the more historical aspects of the monarchy however, here goes. It seems like logic and law are in favor of Camilla becoming Queen, however there are two issues of tradition that may be something to consider. First, the Queen Consort has a secondary role as mother of the future monarch. Since Queen Alexandria, the Queen Mother has held a prominent role within the royal family during the life of and after the death of the current monarch as mother to the new monarch. While that is more of a 20th century innovation, it plays an important role in the royal family as mother/gradmother to the heir. Camilla can never be that and then the Queen Step mum, how awkward is that? (should she outlive Charles) Secondly, there has been a Prince Consort for more than 50 years with no awkward circumstances within the institution of the royals. People are used to that arrangement, and while a Princess Consort would be a first, it would allow Charles to keep his word and the circumstance would not be that different from his parents. The sex of the consort in today's world does not have to create different results for male vs female consorts. Having said that, Camilla probably will become Queen and that's fine too. Princess Diana will always be remembered via her boys and for her being Diana, what goes on with King Charles and Queen Camilla will be irrelevant to Diana's memory.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 14, 2010, 12:42:28 AM
Of course chasmat and that's the way it should be now.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 14, 2010, 01:07:12 AM
Hi Margot,

I'm not a big fan of Charles & Camilla;  and I hope that The Queen lives on for quite a while.
But if charles became King any time soon, I would hope that Camilla would be styled and titled HM Queen Camilla...  As that is proper in Britain.

Also, perhaps The Queen should announce that Camilla should now be called 'Princess of Wales', which she is entitled to..
Surely, the cult of Diana is now waning, and perhaps over really...
Am I wrong in this?

Larry
Oh Diana bla bal is the lingering mass histerics I referred to in the previous post.Forget it,she is DEAD,poor thing but nonetheless D.E.A.D.
She belongs in her own thread not here.I don't do false emotions,and boy,did she have a way with that imo.

Chances are that in the very near future William and Harry will go to see the Queen,and shortly after HM
will write the Duchess to "encourage her" to use the title Princess of Wales,rightfully hers but kept away
due to too much false emotions imo.The spouse of future Heirs will most likely always be styled Princess of Wales,
it won't stop because the next best thing to "Dallas" stopped untimely and many lost their icon and stage act..

So again,anyone who's still on it,get of your darn horse and into reality.
Reality being that there is a future King Charles and Queen Camilla and no vox populi,nor any rag,can ever change that.
Monarchy is not about day to day histerics and hypes.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 14, 2010, 03:26:53 AM
Chasmat raises a fair point about king's widows. However, that is unlikely to be a problem in practice, as, from all I know of her, Camilla is a down to earth lady and a practical solution will be found. The last king's widow who0 was not the mother of the next ruler was Queen Adelaide, widow of William IV, and I do not think her position caused any difficulties (unlike the doings of Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent!). Camilla will just have to be called Dowager Queen or Queen Camilla, rather than the Queen Mother.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 14, 2010, 04:35:31 AM
Bowing down Lucien... in admiration and mutual appreciation...Gosh you don't mince your words do you? Go for it! I feel like I have been tip-toeing around an elephant in the sitting room so to speak, while you have come in all brave and decisive! I bow down!

Ann you have made a marvelous point about Queen Adelaide......Camilla can be just the same when the time comes!

Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 14, 2010, 04:37:35 AM
I've a soft spot for Queen Adelaide. She sounds a thoroughly nice person. There is a letter she wrote to Queen Victoria within a day or so of her husband's death which ends, 'I hope to remain your Majesty's most devoted friend, aunt and subject'.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 14, 2010, 04:39:47 AM
I love Adelaide too Ann very much a peace maker and a good person, a bit reactionary but then no one is ever perfect...have you got Mary Hopkirk's bio? It is full of letters! Sorry very OT sorry! Ooops!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 14, 2010, 07:28:22 AM
Hi Margot,

I'm not a big fan of Charles & Camilla;  and I hope that The Queen lives on for quite a while.
But if charles became King any time soon, I would hope that Camilla would be styled and titled HM Queen Camilla...  As that is proper in Britain.

Also, perhaps The Queen should announce that Camilla should now be called 'Princess of Wales', which she is entitled to..
Surely, the cult of Diana is now waning, and perhaps over really...
Am I wrong in this?

Larry
Oh Diana bla bal is the lingering mass histerics I referred to in the previous post.Forget it,she is DEAD,poor thing but nonetheless D.E.A.D.
She belongs in her own thread not here.I don't do false emotions,and boy,did she have a way with that imo.

Chances are that in the very near future William and Harry will go to see the Queen,and shortly after HM
will write the Duchess to "encourage her" to use the title Princess of Wales,rightfully hers but kept away
due to too much false emotions imo.The spouse of future Heirs will most likely always be styled Princess of Wales,
it won't stop because the next best thing to "Dallas" stopped untimely and many lost their icon and stage act..

So again,anyone who's still on it,get of your darn horse and into reality.
Reality being that there is a future King Charles and Queen Camilla and no vox populi,nor any rag,can ever change that.
Monarchy is not about day to day histerics and hypes.


LARRY!Love your post. Got to agree with you.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 14, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Bravo Lindelle! Well said! I only suggested that perhaps the boys could have some say perhaps in whether Camilla start using the Wales title, merely as a ploy to hopefully neuter possible Diehard Diana Worshippers that may be lurking here, from 'going off on one' and starting a diatribe about how hurtful and awful such a thing would be! Diehards tend to use the boys as being 'wronged' and 'aggrieved' in such matters where the memory of Diana is concerned. It is like some sort of ammo in their ceaseless campaign to besmirch Camilla and idolatrise their heroine.

By the way Lucien you absolute sweetie pops! Love the photographs of Charles and Camilla...so loving and genuine! Really made me smile!


Margot, could you possibly continue your obvious support of the future King Charles and Queen Camilla in this thread you began without constantly sniping at the late Princess of Wales?  We get it that you don't like her and I don't think one necessarily has to be a "Diehard Diana Worshipper" - to use your expression - to find that it's getting a little repetitive and actually quite nasty.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 14, 2010, 09:15:44 AM
Grace I am sorry if I have offended you! Sorry but I feel I am being singled out! I don't mind at all as it adds to the conversation! Adds colour and texture so to speak IMHO! It is interesting to just review the post history here I think.......as I do not feel that I am constantly sniping at all!

I would like to point out that I did not bring Diana into this conversation! Diana was brought into this thread by others starting in post 6 and then again in post 10! I first mentioned Diana post 22 when someone said that Queen Camilla didn't roll quite so easily off the tongue, and I responded harmlessly enough IMHO, that like saying 'Queen Diana' which many would have become used to in time, 'Queen Camilla' only had three syllables would be the similar to get used to!  

Diana was again mentioned by someone else in the context of a 'cult' in post 33 to which I subsequently responded in post 36 and then again after another poster mentioned Diana in post in post 37 with my own reply in post 38! I hope that is all the posts where Diana has been mentioned? I hope I haven't missed any! Out of 47 posts I hardly think that I am 'constantly' hijacking this thread with my views of Diana, which I believe to amounted to three posts, as I did not bring her up in the first place and I did not make the first comment about her that may be construed or interpreted as negative by others!

If it would be preferred by general consensus that Diana not be mentioned on this thread then fine, I will oblige! But it seems a tad draconian, overly sensitive and excessively precious IMHO!

Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 14, 2010, 09:47:27 AM
Ooops I forgot post 41 which was not mine either!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 14, 2010, 09:52:17 AM
It is really very difficult to discuss Camilla (or her constitutional position) without issues relating to Diana coming up. Strong feelings are aroused in either camp, and those who are broadly in favour of Camilla (and I include myself) tend to be rather irritated by the continuing adulation for Diana.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 14, 2010, 10:27:16 AM
Yes, let's concentrate on the similarities to the Princess of Liegnitz's situation.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 14, 2010, 11:19:31 AM
Yes, let's concentrate on the similarities to the Princess of Liegnitz's situation.

Let's not.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Adagietto on April 14, 2010, 01:25:45 PM
Maybe there is less sensitivity about Camilla being called Queen than there is about here being called Princess of Wales (so associated with Diana)?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 15, 2010, 04:05:49 AM
it might be, on the other hand I personally have nothing against the Princess of Wales title either...
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: mcdnab on April 21, 2010, 09:44:30 AM
It is an interesting point but it is worth bearing in mind that Queen Consorts when widowed tended to revert to the background of life - Queen Alexandra made very few public appearances after the death of Edward VII, she spent most of her time at Sandringham or Marlborough House until her death - her trips to Denmark stopped in the early 20's - partially because of her failing health. She made her annual Queen Alexandra drives, which she didn't particularly like but that was about it.
Queen Mary in widowhood played a more visible and supporting role in the early days after the abidcation partially because of circumstances but again her public duties were limited and again she played no constitutional role and never acted as a councellor of state - though on occassions she stood in for Queen Elizabeth (particularly during the mourning period after the death of the Queen's mother the Countess of Strathmore).
Queen Elizabeth was a different case she was widowed in her early fifties, was still tremendously popular and had played a much more public role during her husband's reign than either Queen Mary or Queen Alexandra. She also acted as a councellor of state during her daughter's early reign. Her long life and long widowhood has rather emphasised the public side of her life but they are not requirements for a widowed Queen consort.
On the titles - during the reign of her husband a Queen Consort is formally simply The Queen - in widowhood both Alexandra and Mary were referred to as Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary. Queen Adelaide who was childless was simply known as Queen Adelaide until her death during Victoria's reign. The style Queen Mother was used for both Mary and Alexandra but the only person to bear the style formally - was Elizabeth Bowes Lyon - whose correct style was Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - this was in part to distinguish her from her daughter - in the Household Elizabeth II was referred to simply as The Queen whilst the Queen Mother was referred to as Queen Elizabeth.
Should Camilla outlive Charles - then she simply stays as she is Queen Camilla - and perhaps like many other Queen Dowager's has a less visible public profile.
I'm new here, but have been a lurker for a long time and am shocked that my first post is related to Charles and Camilla given my interest in the more historical aspects of the monarchy however, here goes. It seems like logic and law are in favor of Camilla becoming Queen, however there are two issues of tradition that may be something to consider. First, the Queen Consort has a secondary role as mother of the future monarch. Since Queen Alexandria, the Queen Mother has held a prominent role within the royal family during the life of and after the death of the current monarch as mother to the new monarch. While that is more of a 20th century innovation, it plays an important role in the royal family as mother/gradmother to the heir. Camilla can never be that and then the Queen Step mum, how awkward is that? (should she outlive Charles) Secondly, there has been a Prince Consort for more than 50 years with no awkward circumstances within the institution of the royals. People are used to that arrangement, and while a Princess Consort would be a first, it would allow Charles to keep his word and the circumstance would not be that different from his parents. The sex of the consort in today's world does not have to create different results for male vs female consorts. Having said that, Camilla probably will become Queen and that's fine too. Princess Diana will always be remembered via her boys and for her being Diana, what goes on with King Charles and Queen Camilla will be irrelevant to Diana's memory.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 21, 2010, 10:00:39 AM
Agreed. It is an important point that the Queen Mother was only 51 when she was widowed, and in very robust health, whereas Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary were both in their late 60s. Additionally, the present Queen was much younger at her accession than any of her predecessors since Queen Victoria, and had young children. The Queen Mother was simply not ready to retire. Because she lived so long, and became such a fixture, we tend to forget that she was the first Queen Dowager to have a high profile role.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 21, 2010, 10:18:41 AM
Hi,

Mcdnab, your post is spot on and a very intelligent and informative rendering of the correct history of Queen Mothers...  Thank you!!

For the record, it was I who mentioned the 'cult of Diana', not Margot;  so blame me if she (Diana) has reared her head on this thread.
Also, FTR, I championed Diana while she was alive, but less so after the "sturm & drang" of the marriage break-up...  I was shocked at her death, but now I'm over it & frankly bored with all the hoopla over "this poor dead princess"....

BTW, what is all this singular association of that title with Diana;  I do also associate the title "Princess of Wales" with Alexandra and Mary, as they were PoW in a past time...

Larry
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 21, 2010, 05:02:34 PM
The far more prominent roles held by women following both world wars is probably what encouraged a higher public profile for the two widowed consorts (Mary and Elizabeth) in my opinion, and would be more relevant than the ages or the status of their health even after their husbands died.  In Alexandra's day, you quietly withdrew when you lost your husband.  The wars put paid to that.  Maybe they took their cues from social change?     
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 21, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Hi,

Mcdnab, your post is spot on and a very intelligent and informative rendering of the correct history of Queen Mothers...  Thank you!!

For the record, it was I who mentioned the 'cult of Diana', not Margot;  so blame me if she (Diana) has reared her head on this thread.
Also, FTR, I championed Diana while she was alive, but less so after the "sturm & drang" of the marriage break-up...  I was shocked at her death, but now I'm over it & frankly bored with all the hoopla over "this poor dead princess"....

BTW, what is all this singular association of that title with Diana;  I do also associate the title "Princess of Wales" with Alexandra and Mary, as they were PoW in a past time...

Larry
What hoopla?  She's been dead for almost 13 years.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: chasmat on April 21, 2010, 11:45:22 PM
Yes, thank you Mcdnab for the historical info on the Queens of the 20th century. And I'm sure the roles these queens played is historically accurate, however, one only needs to look over this board and all the topics and discussions in multiple parts on the consort queens to realize that the influence of Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, both while their husbands were on the throne and in their widowhood was great, regardless of the actual time they put into the job,  and continues in so many ways. One of the greatest stories within all the history of the Monarchy is how these women influenced and inspired their husbands and thier country amd used their influence to enhance the role of the royal family in the commomwealth. My point perhaps is better stated that Queen Camilla, should the Prince of Wales ascend the throne next week, would probably not fulfill the role of consort (should she becomre the Queen) in quite as grand a manor as the 20th century consorts simply due to the circumstances and controversy surrounding her marriage, and should she outlive Charles, that she will not be the mother of the new King.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: mcdnab on April 22, 2010, 07:03:27 AM
Actually it is debatable about the amount of influence a consort has historically offered.
Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was hugely influential on both her husband and daughter probably the most influential consort for good and bad since Prince Albert and before that you'd probably have to look to George III's mother, the Princess Dowager of Wales and before her Henriette Maria of France wife of Charles I.
Queen Alexandra's influence as such was minimal in fact her husband having waited so long and having been so excluded by his mother was extremely jealous of his position and shared very little beyond the social with his wife after his accession. Her influence on her children was stronger  - her natural anti prussian/german views had far less effect on her husband (who already loathed his nephew the Kaiser anyway) and certainly wasn't shared by her children unlike the effect of Marie Feodorovna's views had on her husband and children. She also babied all her children into their late middle age (in common with many of the descendants of Christian IX of Denmark), she also could be held responsible for her children's lack of any great thirst for knowledge but certainly both her sons adored her. She was in many ways the Diana of her day adored by the public from the moment of her arrival in the UK, beautiful and very domestic but she wasn't clever or particularly witty but her influence on the monarchy and on British life was minor.

Queen Mary never really got over the real love of her life, the British Crown, her influence on George V was also pretty minimal, she subdued her tastes and interests to his throughout their married life and only really embraced her passions after his death. She was essentially a town person and it is quite noticeble that she never returned to Balmoral in widowhood. Her influence on her children was again subordinate to the views of George V - her children, think the Duke of Windsor, commented on how different she was when they were left alone with her. Her passion for art and history was confined pretty much to things with Royal connections.

I suspect that were she to become Queen - Camilla would actually be a much more traditional Queen Consort. But I wouldn't underestimate her ability to influence things, Charles clearly adores her and I suspect that she gives him an often much needed dose of the "real world".
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 22, 2010, 11:28:06 PM
my personal view of Camilla is that this woman has no taste.  If a commoner marries into royalty, she should have at least something to compensate for her lack of royal status.  Camilla, in my opinion is raw unbridled ambition at its worst. I feel that if Charles becomes monarch, the thought of Camilla being Queen will be the tipping point for monarchic ex colonies like Canada and Australia and New Zealand to become republics.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 23, 2010, 01:55:21 AM
my personal view of Camilla is that this woman has no taste.  If a commoner marries into royalty, she should have at least something to compensate for her lack of royal status.  Camilla, in my opinion is raw unbridled ambition at its worst. I feel that if Charles becomes monarch, the thought of Camilla being Queen will be the tipping point for monarchic ex colonies like Canada and Australia and New Zealand to become republics.

You're exagerating and you know.This post rambles dear Constantinople.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 02:08:29 AM
Lucien
         Australia has been close to becoming a republic for a while and the view in Canada is that most people do not want to see this woman as a consort to the head of state.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 23, 2010, 03:23:01 AM
No taste?

Camilla may not be a clothes horse like Diana, but she is always well turned out. More important, she does seem to be a kind-hearted person and particularly good in dealing with servicemen. Finally, she and Charles do seem to be really in love.

Interestingly, despite all the controversy over her, since she and Charles married the British press have not managed to find a single gaffe to report, rather the reverse.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 03:31:14 AM
I think that that is out of fear of reprisals from the monarchy.  Before she was married, the royals couldnt say anything when she was criticised because she didnt have legitimacy.  Now she is married.  If she is well turned out, it is because she has well paid advisors.  I really find this woman distasteful and it is for a lot of reasons and I am not alone.   she remind me of Wallace Simpson.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 04:20:16 AM
this is the prevalent Canadian view on Camilla
In 1983, when Charles arrived with his then bride, Diana, for her first tour, crowds of thousands greeted them and they basked in the glow of being thought of as a fairytale couple – a handsome (if you squint) prince who married a beautiful princess who was thought to be glamorous, beautiful, sweet.

No such fairy dust propels this journey. At one event, in Cupid Newfoundland, a mere 57 souls turned up. No one was believing the “cupid” business this time around.

Well, there is the adultery issue. The “I want to be your tampon” comment of Charles’, caught on tape. There is no more dreaminess and wide-eyed belief in monarchy on this tour of duty.

As Rosie DiManno, columnist for the Toronto Star and a reporter who has covered many a royal tour put it: “She may indeed be a jolly broad, the cat’s pyjamas, the bee’s knees, and a good fit for her besotted prince. But the Duchess is about as suitable for throne-sitting as Dame Edna – and with a worse wardrobe.’


“Royal men are defined by what they say, royal women by how they look. As are most women,” says Andrew Morton, a former royal reporter and author of Diana Her True Story, which makes him by default Diana’s official biographer.

The shadow of the eternally young Diana dogged Camilla’s every step, and whereas Diana was a daily fashion show, Camilla has been subjected to a daily ribbing for being, well, middle aged and spreading.
Charles, whatever you may think of him, was prescient in many laudable ways – he was an early adopter of environmental concerns and the righteousness of organic versus not, and his invention, Duchy Originals, was a revolutionary company, one of the very first organic producers of damn good food.

Camilla, however. There’s the rub. What does she do again?

The hidden irony is that while she was a wife, Diana was no better at getting dressed in the morning than Camilla. Though no one noticed for the fairy dust she wore horrendous “frocks” more suitable to a woman twice her age – to that extent, Camilla has her beat by dressing in tasteful if not interesting clothes suitable for her age.

Camilla’s fault is not her age or appearance, it is her lack of ability to recognize that her role is to inspire.




Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 04:21:51 AM
In Diana’s case it wasn’t solely how she looked that made millions attend and watch both her wedding and funeral; by the time she died Diana was known to be vain, a bit nutty, petty. But she sang for her supper, she comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable.

As for Charles and Camilla this trip, maybe the soldiers they have visited have felt inspired by their presence. Few others, except for die-hard royalists, seem to have been moved by either Charles’ or Camilla’s presence on our soil. Our own Prime Minister was caught in a photograph utterly bored and reading his program rather than engaging Camilla in conversation at one of their first events here. A picture worth a thousand words.

In Diana’s case it wasn’t solely how she looked that made millions attend and watch both her wedding and funeral; by the time she died Diana was known to be vain, a bit nutty, petty. But she sang for her supper, she comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable.

As for Charles and Camilla this trip, maybe the soldiers they have visited have felt inspired by their presence. Few others, except for die-hard royalists, seem to have been moved by either Charles’ or Camilla’s presence on our soil. Our own Prime Minister was caught in a photograph utterly bored and reading his program rather than engaging Camilla in conversation at one of their first events here. A picture worth a thousand words.

Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 04:23:06 AM
And Camilla? Her name is on the books of some 50-odd charities but in fact she is content to be a pampered wife it seems; “my greatest triumph is to love you” she reportedly told Charles. But if she loved him more wouldn’t she be a bit more, well, noble? Stand for something other than the sweater department at Marks & Spencer?

Eleanor Roosevelt was no beauty but she was not attacked for it, her contribution to the world garnering her respect and admiration. Even if you correct for the changes in reporting I don’t think anyone would comment on her looks rather than her mind. Charles’ sister Anne, Princess Royal, is also no beauty and something funny is going on with her hair, too, but this is not the focus of any coverage of her exploits, likely because her quiet work for charities and Save the Children is well respected.

You should not be attacked merely because you are middle aged. But neither should you get a free pass for it.

Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 04:56:24 AM
and then there is the reality of taxpayers having to support this woman.  Camilla is now on the Civil List, which means she is probably drawing a hefty salary for all she doesnt do and all those nice expensive trips to Canada are paid for by the Canadian government which means, the Canadian tax payer.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 23, 2010, 05:22:59 AM
Princess Anne also went through a long period of constant criticism, but has eventually won through on the basis of hard hard work and sense of responsibility. Camilla is making a late start and because of all the Diana adulation she has quite a mountain to climb. Perhaps she's just taking it very steady and not trying to be something she's not, i.e. another Diana.

As far as I'm concerned, she is a pleasant looking middle aged woman who dresses appropriately for her age, physical type and what she's doing.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 23, 2010, 05:41:11 AM
Why is "Diana adulation" constantly, CONSTANTLY brought up in relation to whether or not Camilla is warmly and universally accepted as future Queen Consort?  Why is it that so many posters here think only "Diana fans" are against Camilla becoming Queen?  

Some people don't approve of "Queen Camilla" because of her longstanding liaison with the Prince of Wales - whilst he was married to someone else as was she and they believe that their subsequent marriage damaged the integrity of the monarchy.  Some don't believe Camilla should become Queen because of her husband's future position as head of the Church of England, while some resent her simply for the fact she was the cause of a vulnerable young woman suffering a great deal of anguish due to her hovering presence.  None of these examples, even the last, are necessarily the feelings of "Diana fans" AT ALL.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 23, 2010, 05:56:27 AM
Dear Grace,

You'd be surprised at 'the hoopla' that still exists for Diana.  I personally know 4 people who bewail her passing and one that even has a "shrine" to her in his kitchen!!!

While I was a 'fan' of Diana while she was alive, I was not and am not a fanatic about her.
BTW, Constantiople, I saw Charles and Diana on that 1983 trip to Canada (in Edmonton) and waved my little Canadian flag at them!!!

Larry
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 23, 2010, 06:06:11 AM
Oh yes, Vecchiolarry, I'm sure there are many people out there who love and revere Diana who resent Camilla very much because of this.  But I'm saying there are also those not necessarily particularly enamoured with the late Princess of Wales who don't wish to see the Duchess of Cornwall crowned Queen Consort.  They have other reasons apart from Diana for their opinions.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 23, 2010, 06:14:07 AM
I don't understand people's fixation with their heads of state leading immaculate lives. Starting with trying to end Bill Clinton's presidency because of adultery!

Has anyone checked the statistics? Real people cheat, adultery happens everywhere and I don't expect to get fired from my job because I cheat on my boyfriend/husband/whatever.

It's pretty obvious that Charles has married Diana because Camilla was already married and he had to marry someone. So he picked the wide-eyed child who seemed to adore everything he did. What's so wrong with him now trying to get a resemblance of a normal marriage with someone he obviously cares about since he stood by her for ages.

Had he decided at 60 to marry a 20 year-old bimbo, I would have understood the fuss. But it's obvious that real feelings are involved and that it's quite likely that his marriage to Camilla will bring him more peace (which in turn might make him a better less-stressed king) than his marriage with Diana ever did.

So, he talks dirty. So do 60% of the people who have sex. The difference is he's the Prince of Wales and got caught on tape. Personally I think it's a proof that he's human. I would have a harder time trusting a rigid old fool.

As for "everyone loved Diana so Camilla sucks"... Diana might've been more eye candy for the public and the press, but she had her share of problems - many of which arose from her unhappy marriage. The fact that Charles is trying to move on from that unhappy marriage for me is a good thing.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 23, 2010, 06:22:58 AM
'Diana adultation' is my shorthand for both the 'Diana was wonderful' mentality and the 'Diana was dreadfully treated' mentality. I think objectors to Camilla who preofess other reasons for their disapproval are much fewer in number.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 23, 2010, 06:24:36 AM
One problem is that people don't expect or want their King or Queen to be "real people".  They want somebody better than that, realistic wish or not.  They don't want to think of their future ruler talking dirty, I'm not sure they even care or not whether he's happy or has "moved on" from Diana.  They want somebody like the present Queen who just gets on with the job, doesn't share her angst about what doesn't suit her in life and puts duty, not personal happiness, before all else.  A tall order indeed, but that's how I see it.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 23, 2010, 06:28:31 AM
The people want a king who does his job.

Queen Elizabeth is doing her job and I think Charles was educated to do his job too - he probably will do it quite well.

Had he gone to a TV Show and started talking "dirty" on purpose, that would have been unsuitable for a king.

But he did that in his own private room and he did not intend for that recording to go to the public - it was for Camilla's ears only. So, no, I still don't see the problem.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 01:00:57 PM
Some people but not many have a problem with Charles becoming King.  A LOT of people have a BIG problem with CAmilla becoming queen.  She does not look like a queen.  She does not act like a queen.  She does not have the breeding or DNA to be queen in name or in a de facto state.  And when the British part of the tab is £36 million a year and she is not elected, people have a right to be upset.  And that does not include what the other commonwealth countries that she will be head of state kick in. She has a troop of PR specialists working on her trying to make her palatable but you know what they say about silk purses and ears?  Her entire history prior to her marriage has been one of opportunism and arrogance.  the arrogance did not come out of achievments that she was personally responsible for merely being concubine to a prince.  By the way her Great Grand mother was Mrs Keppel so she seems to have a genetic disposition to these types of behaviour.  For those who don't know who Mrs Keppel was, she was Edward Vll's mistress.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Adagietto on April 23, 2010, 02:50:30 PM
'She does not have the breeding or DNA to be queen in name or in a de facto state. ' What on earth does that mean? That she does not come from a royal line? And God knows what a Queen 'looks like' or 'acts like; like everything under the sun to judge by the looks and behaviour of the Queens that have been seen in European countries in the last century or two. I don't have any strong feelings about her either way, but she doesn't strike me as being in the least arrogant and seems to conduct herself rather well on public occasions. This sort of bile strikes me as curious (and unappealing).
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 23, 2010, 03:25:48 PM
I could not agree more; Constantinople, there was so much that was not accurate in your post, I'm having trouble finding anything that is.  Not to mention, you are free to dislike her, but your attack on the Duchess of Cornwall is quite unwarranted. 

Where to begin?  Suggesting Camilla's appearance makes her unsuitable to be Queen Consort is pure venom.  Her "breeding" is no less suitable than that of the future Queens of Spain, Denmark, Norway or Belgium.

The "£36 million" you reference is not for Camilla, or for any other single person for that matter.  It maintains a large number of historic properties, funds the salaries and duties of over 1,000 royal employees who administer the office of Head of State for 16 separate countries, and so forth.  Trying to tie that expenditure to Camilla is absurd.

Camilla will never be "head of state" of any country, as a Queen Consort has no constitutional role in the UK or any commonwealth realm.  And Camilla does not have a troop of PR specialists attempting to make her palatable.  Instead, the Prince of Wales employs that troop to handle all sorts of public relations and public information duties related to himself, his work, his wife and his sons.   This is no different than any other national leader on earth. 

Camilla's history (either prior to her 2nd marriage or since) has displayed absolutely no opportunism nor arrogance.  In the 1970s she wed and raised her family quietly and without fuss.  That she and the Prince of Wales remained in love throughout their separate marriages was certainly unfortunate for all involved, and the fact that they carried on an extramarital affair is certainly disappointing, but how is that arrogant or opportunistic? 

And by all accounts she did not seek to become Charles second wife; she would have been perfectly content to remain a divorcee living quietly in the country for the rest of her life - with no title, public role or any of the things that come along with it.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 03:54:43 PM
Well Chris
living in the US its nice of you to tell me who i can like or not like as my head of state.  And even if she is not head of state she will be the consort of the head of state and have access to all the royal jewels that are the property of the government.  Unlike the US, she could be there a lot longer than 8 years.  And the £36 million is the actual budget for the head of state which means at that time she will be dipping into the public purse big time.
  And we do know what a Queen acts like as we have an excellent example with the current Queen who noone disrespects or her mother or the previous 5 occupants of that position.  Queens dont usually start off as damaged goods who have affairs when they are married.  Generally it can be assumed that they at least have the possiibility of producing children.  And the reason Prince charles will be King is royal DNA so the idea.  There is a lot of division about CAmilla and if Charles was thinking of his duty more than his own situation, he would have married someone else or stayed single. if he stayed single and maintained a relationship with her, probably noone would be saying anything. And Chris feel free to voice your opinion but don't state that others don't have the right to offer differing opinions.  And as for your analysis of how politics works outside the US you might want to take a refresher course.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 04:07:10 PM
Well Ilya
    the point is that as a constitutional monarch we expect more than basic human behaviour when we are pahying the type of money that monarchs demand.  If  you want that type of head of state, go for a republic and you can save a lot of money.  Noone ever accused the Queen of anything like these types of things and everyone knows she is completely human.  When you are paying people to be  monarchs.  If the standard erodes enough you can get Ken the Truck driver to be King for a few years and then rotate it but when he starts picking his nose inparliament you might regret the lapse in standards.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 23, 2010, 04:07:30 PM
Nowhere did I suggest that you are not entitled to dislike Camilla, nor dislike the idea of her being the spouse of your future King.  Debate all you wish about the institution of monarchy; however as all members here are aware, personal attacks against any individual royals are not permitted on this forum.  
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Marlene on April 23, 2010, 04:08:29 PM
The jewels do not belong to the government ... many of the jewerls are privately owned, and will remain as such.  DNA has nothing to do with being a king.  I love Camilla.  The wife of a king is the queen.  Periiod.  Full stop!  Camilla is the perfect wife for Charles ... quote author=Constantinople link=topic=14861.msg436209#msg436209 date=1272056083]
Well Chris
living in the US its nice of you to tell me who i can like or not like as my head of state.  And even if she is not head of state she will be the consort of the head of state and have access to all the royal jewels that are the property of the government.  Unlike the US, she could be there a lot longer than 8 years.  And the £36 million is the actual budget for the head of state which means at that time she will be dipping into the public purse big time.
  And we do know what a Queen acts like as we have an excellent example with the current Queen who noone disrespects or her mother or the previous 5 occupants of that position.  Queens dont usually start off as damaged goods who have affairs when they are married.  Generally it can be assumed that they at least have the possiibility of producing children.  And the reason Prince charles will be King is royal DNA so the idea.  There is a lot of division about CAmilla and if Charles was thinking of his duty more than his own situation, he would have married someone else or stayed single. if he stayed single and maintained a relationship with her, probably noone would be saying anything. And Chris feel free to voice your opinion but don't state that others don't have the right to offer differing opinions.  And as for your analysis of how politics works outside the US you might want to take a refresher course.
[/quote]
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on April 23, 2010, 04:21:48 PM
Welll,

As for Charles becoming King.... I have no problem with it and I think that Camillia meight get the title of Queen Consort or Princess Consort. I must admit Camilla is not my favorite person but she is too often judged on what happened prior to Diana's death and so I try to look at her as a woman who loved a man whom she could not marry because she was not 'fit' to be a member of the Royal Family. That is atleast how it appears she was judged in the 80's by those who knew of Charles' affair with her. As for Diana, she always will have a saintly image, and I must say I admire her very much for her good works and her warm-hearted appearance, that was her biggst charms - and she passed it on to her sons -, yet I must admit that Diana also had her faults. Yet, the mistakes she made are understandable because she was unaccepted by the Royal Family and turned out to be so different from them, therefore she wanted attention for her problems and she wanted the world to know that her marriage was not as happy as it was meant to be. I think that is one of the reasons why Charles, and especially the Royal Family, accept Camilla because she appears to be much more like them, unlike Diana who was as different from the Royal Family as day and night are from each other.  

That does not mean I do not 'prefer' Diana because in my opinion she had all the good graces a Queen could have: good looks, charm & grace, style and a heart-warming appearance. After all that is what made her so loved, even up to this day. And as for Camilla, she is accepted by the people now, and even though Diana made bigger news, she is far closer to the Royal Family in her ways and acting then Diana was and therefore she will not get 'caught' in the eye of attention in the way Diana did.

Also I often like to compare the marriage of Charles & Diana to that of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria and Empress Elisabeth 'Sisi' because both marriages started as fairytales and could have worked and ended happy if both partners would have understood each other better and would have accepted each other better without trying to find other happiness... But when one is not happy in marriage one looks for happiness outside the marital bed, it happens all the time and will never change. Only these days people part much more often.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 04:24:59 PM
DNA has nothing to do with being a king?  
wow
DNA has everything to do with being a King
as for liking Camilla that is your choice
as for disliking her that is my choice and I wish to keep the freedom to do so and state it in what is a public forum
and as for those jewels, over they years they have been paid for by the public purse so even if they are in the Royal Famiily's possession, they should be in the state's.  And do not let loving Camila get in the way of understanding how monarchy works.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 04:31:13 PM
Yes I agree that DIana was a deeply flawed person but it was her deeds that set her apart like going to Africa and spending time with orphans whose parents died from aids or showing people that people with AIDS needed love too or campainging against landmines.  she set an example. I cant see what Camilla has done except consume and appear.  Even her smile seems unnatural and forced.  I wish Queen Elilsabeth a very (no make that and extremely long) life.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 23, 2010, 04:53:03 PM
DNA has nothing to do with being a king?  
wow
DNA has everything to do with being a King

Yes, in the sense of being the heir of the body of a king, but not because there is a specific royal DNA, which you make it sound like. I didn't expect you to be the person to bring up blue blood, Merovingians, Holy Blood - Holy Grail, and sang real, in short "royal DNA". :-)
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 05:16:54 PM
Well Chris  you should llook up some of the comments that were made about President.  They were both negative and personal.  But in this particular position, noone has elected the holder or the consort but they sure pay for both and that is the rub.  This is someone who is going to be the recipient of my tax dollars that I had no choice in selecting.  But someone did.  And I have a right to say if he selects her at least have the guts to abdicate like Edward Vlll.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 23, 2010, 05:22:05 PM
Can someone tell me who actually decided that Charles should marry Camilla?

Did Charles himself insist on the marriage, thus making her future Queen Consort - or were there outside pressures (namely from the Queen or others) who pushed for it, regarding this preferable to Charles maintaining his mistress behind the scenes?  

The Duchess of Cornwall has always appeared discreet and low-key, particularly since 2005.  Is this because she has been thrust into a role she didn't truly want or because of advice from the palace to tread carefully in the early days to test the waters, so to speak?  

Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 05:38:06 PM
Grace if  you check the newspapers from the 1990s you will see a chain of controversies involving Camilla and it certanily wasn't anyone in the Royal family who convinced Charles to marry her.  They feel the same way that I do but bit the bullet when explaining to Charles the same arguments that I used here fell on deaf ears (and what miighty ears they are) . And if his subjects or at least a large proportion of them, do not share his view, then the safest thing to do would be to step down for his son to take up the monarchy and thsly sidestepping an unpleasant dilemma.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 05:54:52 PM
here is the link to the referendum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 23, 2010, 06:27:03 PM
Grace if  you check the newspapers from the 1990s you will see a chain of controversies involving Camilla and it certanily wasn't anyone in the Royal family who convinced Charles to marry her.  They feel the same way that I do but bit the bullet when explaining to Charles the same arguments that I used here fell on deaf ears (and what miighty ears they are) . And if his subjects or at least a large proportion of them, do not share his view, then the safest thing to do would be to step down for his son to take up the monarchy and thsly sidestepping an unpleasant dilemma.

That will not happen.  Charles has a mighty sense of entitlement to his role as future king and, it seems, a sense of entitlement to change the rules as he sees fit along the way!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 06:43:46 PM
Well Grace
he doesnt own Australia.  they arent saying he shouldnt be king of Britain.  And this is not a poll.  It was a referendum which has political teeth.  My message to Camilla is that 6% is not that much. 
  and In Canada which is cutting eduction budgets and other social budgets, the apetite is not there to support someone in a lavish  lifesyle who doesnt earn it
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 23, 2010, 06:46:56 PM
I think we are getting our wires crossed on these threads!  I mentioned Australia becoming a republic on the Sarah Ferguson thread (in response to another poster) and it seems to have migrated over here!  Points taken on board regardless though!   
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 06:58:00 PM
I think you are right and I dont think he will step down either.  He has been waiting too long but he will do as much damage to the image of the monarchy if he rules with CAmilla by his side as Edward Vlll did when he abdicated because he wanted to marry Wallace simpson.  Most fairminded people dont accept the fact that you can eat the cake and still have it.  It is not up to him to change the rules, it would have to go through a parliamentary process so it will probably depend on which party is in government when the issue came up.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 23, 2010, 08:40:38 PM
Ilya, the fact that PC personal ph call went out to millions is disgraceful. You are correct that it was intended for only the two people involved.
And yes, his moving on is a good thing. What do people expect, for him to stay locked in the past?

DNA doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whom the monarch shall marry. In this case, Camilla and Charles both have their offspring so why the worry? Many other Royal European future monarchs have married people who don't have the Royal bloodline, especially in recent years.

Australia in the past HAS accused the Queen of the dollars it's cost US (Australian's) when she comes here. It's ALWAYS in the news about how much we as the taxpayers fork out for it. It's a thing I resent. So in reality, what is costing us now for the Queen and PP to visit us, PW and his future wife, will be no different for Charles to bring Camilla.

Camilla HAS done a lot of things, she just doesn't get the press coverage for it - a little like Anne if you like.

Personally, give me Anne, Charles and Camilla any day to visit us over the Queen or PW.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: jehan on April 23, 2010, 09:33:26 PM


Australia in the past HAS accused the Queen of the dollars it's cost US (Australian's) when she comes here. It's ALWAYS in the news about how much we as the taxpayers fork out for it. It's a thing I resent. So in reality, what is costing us now for the Queen and PP to visit us, PW and his future wife, will be no different for Charles to bring Camilla.



I've always wondered why people begrudge the cost of paying for a royal visit.  It's about as much as one would pay for a visit from the president of the USA or Russia or any other country.  And she would probably visit, as she does,  whether she were your Queen or just a visiting foreign head of state.  The cost for state dinners, security etc remains the same, more or less.  And it's probably just pennies per person anyway.  (I think the cost of maintaining the monarchy in Canada worked out to less than a dollar per person).

And is a presidential system any cheaper? With inaugurations every 4 years, several residences to maintain, security,  foreign visitors to entertain and foreign visits to make, - I would think it costs the taxpayers  as much or more than the monarchy does in the UK.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 23, 2010, 11:37:12 PM
The cost of the Queen visiting is signficantly higher than a non British royal visit as the Canadian or Australian government pays for everything from hotel rooms, transportation and it is not pennies.  The last visit of Charles and Camilla cost Canadians $2.6 million.  The visit of the Queen in 1964 cost $1,000,000 and that is in 1964 dollars, so these tours are not cheap.  When a foreign head of state visits, the visit is usually just a day or two and the only cost is minor police protection and a state dinner (maybe).
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: jehan on April 23, 2010, 11:52:30 PM
The cost of the Queen visiting is signficantly higher than a non British royal visit as the Canadian or Australian government pays for everything from hotel rooms, transportation and it is not pennies.  The last visit of Charles and Camilla cost Canadians $2.6 million.  The visit of the Queen in 1964 cost $1,000,000 and that is in 1964 dollars, so these tours are not cheap.  When a foreign head of state visits, the visit is usually just a day or two and the only cost is minor police protection and a state dinner (maybe).

Well Obama came to Ottawa for 6 hours last year, and it cost us 2 million.  That's the price of visits from heads of State.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267566
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 24, 2010, 12:33:28 AM
Jehan
if you read that article closely, that was the total estimated costs including closing businesses along the route of the motorcade. Obama's visit was exceptionally expensive due to the perceived threat of possible assassination due to him being the first black American president and a lot of those costs like housing US secret service officers was paid for by the US.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 24, 2010, 12:36:20 AM
The cost of the Queen visiting is signficantly higher than a non British royal visit as the Canadian or Australian government pays for everything from hotel rooms, transportation and it is not pennies.  The last visit of Charles and Camilla cost Canadians $2.6 million.  The visit of the Queen in 1964 cost $1,000,000 and that is in 1964 dollars, so these tours are not cheap.  When a foreign head of state visits, the visit is usually just a day or two and the only cost is minor police protection and a state dinner (maybe).

The royals don't stay in hotels in Australia.  They usually stay at various governor's residences.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 24, 2010, 01:02:59 AM
Can someone tell me who actually decided that Charles should marry Camilla?

Did Charles himself insist on the marriage, thus making her future Queen Consort - or were there outside pressures (namely from the Queen or others) who pushed for it, regarding this preferable to Charles maintaining his mistress behind the scenes?  

The Duchess of Cornwall has always appeared discreet and low-key, particularly since 2005.  Is this because she has been thrust into a role she didn't truly want or because of advice from the palace to tread carefully in the early days to test the waters, so to speak?  

Exactly Grace,she has not set a foot wrong.She has risen way above expectations,and will do so again once Queen,
regardless what some retired queens here say,or think they know,except they love to hear themselves and talk as if
they sleep next door to the couple.They know nada.Charles already made his choice for Queen...

Oh and please,get off it with comparing presidents with who knows who.
We do not care,this is Great Britain and it is a Monarchy,nothing compares to that.

We are talking Charles and Camilla here, a great couple and no doubt they will do a fine job.
There were worries on E VII after Victoria,but even he turned out to be a whale of a King.Nice that E II has the longivity she has,
but her subjects and moreover the rags they love to read don't know which way to turn,le peuple never does till the last moment
and then join the one who won.The vox populi and all the referenda and hypes created by them are nothing,they mean nothing,
at all.Not to anyone with more then two grey cells in its head.Its populist junk I will kick around as often as I have to and can.

And on costs,it still generates more,much more,then it will ever cost.This constant blabbering on a buck says a lot on what sort of people do that.
Not that anyone had a sandwich or big mac less tho,most still consume like there's no tomorrow.So that issue is complete nonsense.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 24, 2010, 01:18:36 AM
In  your opinion but not in others.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 24, 2010, 01:21:39 AM
In  your opinion but not in others.

Not in all others,no,but most by now.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 01:55:43 AM


Australia in the past HAS accused the Queen of the dollars it's cost US (Australian's) when she comes here. It's ALWAYS in the news about how much we as the taxpayers fork out for it. It's a thing I resent. So in reality, what is costing us now for the Queen and PP to visit us, PW and his future wife, will be no different for Charles to bring Camilla.



I've always wondered why people begrudge the cost of paying for a royal visit.  It's about as much as one would pay for a visit from the president of the USA or Russia or any other country.  And she would probably visit, as she does,  whether she were your Queen or just a visiting foreign head of state.  The cost for state dinners, security etc remains the same, more or less.  And it's probably just pennies per person anyway.  (I think the cost of maintaining the monarchy in Canada worked out to less than a dollar per person).

And is a presidential system any cheaper? With inaugurations every 4 years, several residences to maintain, security,  foreign visitors to entertain and foreign visits to make, - I would think it costs the taxpayers  as much or more than the monarchy does in the UK.


I agree with you. I just personally resent working my butt off to have them come here and I don't even get a personal visit from them.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 01:57:43 AM
When it's said in this thread that the Government pays for the Queen to visit Australia, that money the government has, actually comes from my taxes. So I am paying for it.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 02:00:02 AM
The cost of the Queen visiting is signficantly higher than a non British royal visit as the Canadian or Australian government pays for everything from hotel rooms, transportation and it is not pennies.  The last visit of Charles and Camilla cost Canadians $2.6 million.  The visit of the Queen in 1964 cost $1,000,000 and that is in 1964 dollars, so these tours are not cheap.  When a foreign head of state visits, the visit is usually just a day or two and the only cost is minor police protection and a state dinner (maybe).

The royals don't stay in hotels in Australia.  They usually stay at various governor's residences.


Correct Grace. It's only when they are visiting outback and there are no government buildings there, that's the only time they stay in not hotels here but motels.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 24, 2010, 02:14:27 AM


Australia in the past HAS accused the Queen of the dollars it's cost US (Australian's) when she comes here. It's ALWAYS in the news about how much we as the taxpayers fork out for it. It's a thing I resent. So in reality, what is costing us now for the Queen and PP to visit us, PW and his future wife, will be no different for Charles to bring Camilla.



I've always wondered why people begrudge the cost of paying for a royal visit.  It's about as much as one would pay for a visit from the president of the USA or Russia or any other country.  And she would probably visit, as she does,  whether she were your Queen or just a visiting foreign head of state.  The cost for state dinners, security etc remains the same, more or less.  And it's probably just pennies per person anyway.  (I think the cost of maintaining the monarchy in Canada worked out to less than a dollar per person).

And is a presidential system any cheaper? With inaugurations every 4 years, several residences to maintain, security,  foreign visitors to entertain and foreign visits to make, - I would think it costs the taxpayers  as much or more than the monarchy does in the UK.


I agree with you. I just personally resent working my butt off to have them come here and I don't even get a personal visit from them.
That would cost you even more butts to work off Lindelle unless they bring their own biscuits ofcourse.....grin...
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 02:17:30 AM
 :)I know!
I've always got the kettle on.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 26, 2010, 06:00:18 AM
I have never made any calculations in regards to costs for monarchy as opposed to presidency.

But if monarchy is more expensive, I would qualify it as a luxury good: something not everyone can afford to pay, but which brings extra value.

A monarch is born and raised to be a monarch - unlike a president. Most of them are educated to the role since they were little, which means they have less chance (even though not zero) of screwing it up.

A monarch provides stability - the system of changing the head of state each 4,5,6 whatever years means that the elected head of state will most of the time focus on short and medium-term measures in disfavor to long-term measures (like not closing down a factory for ecological reasons because the improvement in ecology will show in 100 years while the people are getting fired now).

A monarch does not belong to any party which means there are more chances (even though not 100%) of the monarch being impartial as opposed to a president that will probably favor his party's proposals.

I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is this: check out the list of most developed and best countries in terms of life quality. You will see that in the top 10, at least half of them are monarchies, even if on the whole there's only 25% monarchies in the world. That should tell you something.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 26, 2010, 06:24:33 AM
Ok, anyone can feel free to answer my question.
I had an argument with my husband about if Australia became a republic, it would take away our heritage.
True or False?


ilyala, why do you believe it's a luxury good when I pay for a royal tour?
How does it benefit our country?

The last royal to tour our shores was PW and granny paid for it FOR him. So why can't she pay her own way instead of using my money to benefit herself and her husband, valets, ladies-in-waiting etc.

The thing that irked us the most with PW's visit was that he made us late for work! Roads were closed, traffic lights were out and we had to use back streets to get there.

Look I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's a true bee in my bonnett when I have to pay for something that only causes me nothing but money.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 26, 2010, 06:30:33 AM
If all the queen/princes and other members would do is stay in Buckingham palace and sign papers, they would be perceived as isolated from the people and not fit to be monarchs. Remember the English reaction to Queen Victoria's lengthy mourning of Albert?

But if they do go on tours and try to meet the people and see how the people they supposedly rule live, that's a waste of taxpayer's money.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And the traffic would have stopped whether there was a monarch or a president there too.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 26, 2010, 06:43:12 AM
I agree ilyala - totally with what you are saying.
But my point is,let them tour and visit on their own paypacket, not mine.
I don't live in one of many palaces and castles, nor do I have the luxury to go to a weekend mansion or cottaage.
Lets not forget that the Queen only started paying tax a few years ago, I've been paying it a lot longer than she has or ever will and I'm still expected to fund her trips here?
No thanks, let her pay for it on her own, not my money.
Wouldn't it be strange if Australians could turn around and say,
'Yes Queen Elizabeth, by all means come and visit us, but would you mind if your travel arrangements were held up as people have to get to work so they can pay for your trip here? Oh and by the way, would you mind PAYING for a little something - you know, just to help us out a little? Ta Lillibet'.

Oh I don't mean to sound harsh, but I just had to bring some light hearteness into this. :)
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 26, 2010, 07:52:14 AM
The herıtage would still remain but teh future would change. at some point tehre would a heritage combined of different elements.

As for the luxury good, if part of it is not genuine then the luxury good becomes debased.  Which is why morganatic marriages are anathema to maintaining monarchies in their pure states.  That is unless the commoner element can compensate for the lack of royal dna.  it is like adding base metal to gold or claiming that one of those fake  Patek Phillipe watches you can buy in Dubai is real.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 26, 2010, 08:23:43 AM
This is all very fascinating but aren't we veering a rather great detour off topic now?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 26, 2010, 08:29:31 AM
I agree ilyala - totally with what you are saying.
But my point is,let them tour and visit on their own paypacket, not mine.
I don't live in one of many palaces and castles, nor do I have the luxury to go to a weekend mansion or cottaage.
Lets not forget that the Queen only started paying tax a few years ago, I've been paying it a lot longer than she has or ever will and I'm still expected to fund her trips here?
No thanks, let her pay for it on her own, not my money.
Wouldn't it be strange if Australians could turn around and say,
'Yes Queen Elizabeth, by all means come and visit us, but would you mind if your travel arrangements were held up as people have to get to work so they can pay for your trip here? Oh and by the way, would you mind PAYING for a little something - you know, just to help us out a little? Ta Lillibet'.

Oh I don't mean to sound harsh, but I just had to bring some light hearteness into this. :)

Well, the Queen and the royal family don’t visit Australia unless they’re invited first and you usually don’t invite guests to your home then tell them they have to pay whilst they are there!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 26, 2010, 10:35:48 AM
Yes and that's where it comes unstuck.
If we were a republic, we wouldn't have to invite her plus, the governments money should be spent on more important things-like our roads.
Still, Id like to see her put her hand in her pocket for her country.
But yes we are way off topic now so we should let Charles take the stand. Afterall, it's his thread. :)
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 26, 2010, 10:52:51 AM
As the topic is what would happen if Charles were to ascend the throne next week, it is a speculative examination of verious causes and effects, therefore none of this is that off topic.  The Queen being the head of state for Australia means that Australians are obligated for something that is foreign and was not voted for.  Given the extremely exemplary role that the Queen has played, there is not a lot of argument about that as she adds a lot of value.  With Prince Chariles there is mixed opinion but general acceptance. With his consort, there is polemically opposed vitipritude, meaning a schism between those that think she adds value and those who totally oppose her being in even an ancillary position to influence or appear with the new head of state.  The feeling against the Duchess of Cornwall is extremely strong and deep and that is a serious problem if you want to maintain a monarchy in countries like Canada and Australia.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 26, 2010, 09:23:18 PM
My point was, the last page sounded like it was a topic of discussion more akin to say 'Who should pay for state visits?', and bore little relation to 'what would happen 'If the prsent Prince of Wales  were to ascend the throne next week....' That is all, just making an observation! By the way Constantinople I applaud you for your comments re:Africa on the Vatican thread! Ooops OT!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 26, 2010, 10:04:29 PM
Thanks Margot
The question of who bears the costs of trips is one aspect of the republican/monarchist debate, as is the appropriateness of a foreign based head of state.  I don't see how a country that evades the reality of having your  own, domestically based head of state can develop as a country.  It is sort of like lilving at home when  you are 48.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 26, 2010, 10:23:22 PM
Absolute tosh.  Being a member of the Commonwealth does not create the ability for a country to "develop" at all and nor does it prevent it from doing the same, but it does have its subtle benefits.  Perhaps you can name someone you feel would be appropriate as Australia's first Head of State or explain how Australia would benefit in any way from getting rid of our traditions? We might save a few bucks on royal visits, then I'm sure Rudd and Co. would rapidly find something else to squander them on...
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 27, 2010, 12:44:23 AM
I agree Grace.Some just love to hear themselves regardless if it makes sense or not.Bullocks.
Title: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lucien on April 27, 2010, 12:56:39 AM
Yes and that's where it comes unstuck.
If we were a republic, we wouldn't have to invite her plus, the governments money should be spent on more important things-like our roads.
Still, Id like to see her put her hand in her pocket for her country.
But yes we are way off topic now so we should let Charles take the stand. Afterall, it's his thread. :)

If you wouldn't spend it on HM,you would spend it on every single silly bugger that would be elected every four years or so.
A total waist of money as you already have a system that works perfectly,don't ment it if it ain't broken.
It all boils down to populist hashbash,nothing else.Ab-so-lu-te-ly nothing else!

And,btw,you all have a way with getting OT fast.If you can't stick to a topic here,or anywhere for that matter,
how is it you'lll want to be taken seriously?Seriously... ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lindelle...get the kettle on,I'm coming over..
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 27, 2010, 04:56:15 AM
 :D Your funny Lucien.

As it stand I've always got the kettle on and you have gone OT.

You coming over or what?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 08:24:09 AM
Grace
    İt is hardly tosh.  Have you studied much political science?  İ can suggest some good books on constitutional law.  As for Australıians who would make good heads of state, start with the current Governor General.  Others that would do a good job would be Sir Sam HOrdern (if he were alive today), Thomas Keneally, Dame Joan Sutherland, Alexander Downer, İan Frazer, Fiona Wood, General Peter Cosgrove, Mandawuy Yunupingu, Kay Cottee and quıte a few others.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 01:21:52 PM
the following should give you some idea of the degree of impassioned elan the Duchess of Cornwall can bring to the game.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalChannel?blend=2&ob=1
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 27, 2010, 03:41:26 PM
Grace
    İt is hardly tosh.  Have you studied much political science?  İ can suggest some good books on constitutional law.  As for Australıians who would make good heads of state, start with the current Governor General.  Others that would do a good job would be Sir Sam HOrdern (if he were alive today), Thomas Keneally, Dame Joan Sutherland, Alexander Downer, İan Frazer, Fiona Wood, General Peter Cosgrove, Mandawuy Yunupingu, Kay Cottee and quıte a few others.

Constantinople, as you certainly enjoy questioning the education and knowledge of other posters who do not share your views, would you care to enlighten us about your own constitutional law and political science credentials?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 03:49:58 PM
I have a degree in political science, was mentored by Edward McWhinney and have passed foreign service officer exams
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 03:54:55 PM
in case you don't know who Edward McWhinney is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_McWhinney

I also communicate with Sir Martin Gilbert
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 27, 2010, 03:56:49 PM
I see.  Certainly impressive, although it would seem diplomacy was sadly lacking in the curriculum.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 04:04:16 PM
it seems you dont understand diplomacy either.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 04:05:09 PM
And your credentials?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 27, 2010, 04:16:22 PM
Why have they sudden become necessary, Constantinople?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 27, 2010, 04:59:15 PM
...I suppose my last post was unfair, as Constantinople was asked his "credentials" before anyone else, so...fire away, I guess!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 09:11:30 PM
ChrisintheUSA seems to have become Chrisinthevoidofsilence very quickly.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 27, 2010, 09:13:33 PM
well its like poler when someone thinks you are bluffing and asks you to show them your cards. But this time the other person seems to have run away from the table with his cards.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 28, 2010, 03:07:24 AM
I don't see why credentials are necessary to have an opinion.

Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 28, 2010, 03:14:21 AM
Goodness me this is all getting way OT! Really chaps and chapettes!

Let's move on shall we?

If Charles were to succeed next week then we would have a coronation to contemplate next year! I wonder if the next coronation will be very different from those previous? Now that the Hereditary peers have been booted out, I ponder the attendance and symbolism conveyed by those of Life peerages in this ceremony of anointing the hereditary monarch! It will seem rather at odds to see life peers putting on coronets at the moment of the crowning IMHO! All meritorious bar the sovereign himself!
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 28, 2010, 03:34:27 AM
Most of the hereditary peers have been booted out of the House of Lords, but they still have their peerages, so is there any reason for that aspect of the coronation ceremony to change?

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 28, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
Well the hereditary peers are now redundant and have no power so why would they attend a coronation! It seems rather hollow to me! Also the abbey would be fit to bursting with 600 hundred odd life peers and heaven knows how many hereditary peers! Goodness!

My point is the hereditary peers would really have no place at a coronation as they are no longer part of the legislative! Barring the ninety odd still in the Lords temporarily
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on April 28, 2010, 03:57:43 AM
Goodness me this is all getting way OT! Really chaps and chapettes!

Let's move on shall we?

If Charles were to succeed next week then we would have a coronation to contemplate next year! I wonder if the next coronation will be very different from those previous? Now that the Hereditary peers have been booted out, I ponder the attendance and symbolism conveyed by those of Life peerages in this ceremony of anointing the hereditary monarch! It will seem rather at odds to see life peers putting on coronets at the moment of the crowning IMHO! All meritorious bar the sovereign himself!

"Chaps" and "chapettes"!  Love it!  Isn't there already a committee formed a year or two now (in which Charles is heavily involved) to discuss his future coronation? 
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 28, 2010, 04:23:42 AM
Just because heriditary peers no longer have legislative functions or powers does not mean that they would not appear but it would depend on what the government and Prince Charles decided.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ashdean on April 28, 2010, 05:18:55 AM
I see.  Certainly impressive, although it would seem diplomacy was sadly lacking in the curriculum.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 28, 2010, 05:34:18 AM
?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 28, 2010, 07:04:03 AM
If the case was the Abbey would fill to overflowing, where else would/could they have it?
St Pauls?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 28, 2010, 07:49:00 AM
And your credentials?

I don't see why credentials are necessary to have an opinion.

Certainly Ilyala, they are most unnecessary here.  That was exactly my point.  Read back a few posts - on several occasions Constantinople chose to attack other posters' comments, not by contradicting them with facts, but instead by questioning their knowledge of political science and constitutional law.  The obvious intention of that was to convey that his credentials on that topic are far superior to other posters, which is the only reason I bothered to ask. 

But I agree - enough of that, and back to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 28, 2010, 10:30:46 AM
Considering the fact that we were discussing a constitutional issue, conversion to republicanism from a constitutional monarchy, my comments were totally appropriate.  And Chris in the US, what exactly are your credentials, seeing you asked me first.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 28, 2010, 11:43:38 AM
Hi,

Lindelle:
I think that tradition dictates that Westminster Abbey is the venue for Coronations.  Certainly most monachs since William the Conqueror have been crowned there and I don't think any have used St. Paul's.....

Margot:
I hope that Charles will have an "old fashioned traditional" Coronation and invite all the hereditary peers - the life time peers can stand outside the Abbey with us & we can all put on our coronets together!!!  I'll even hold your train for you!!!   Should be fun!!!

Of course, I hope his Coronation doesn't take place for several years....
I intend to celebrate The Queens Diamond Jubilee in London with friends in 2012....  And, I hope she lasts longer than that, too!!!!!!!!

Larry
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 28, 2010, 12:00:04 PM
Larry

I agree with all that you say. Traditional coronation, with all the traditional flummery.

The only coronation I am aware of since 1066 which did not take place at Westminster Abbey was that of Henry III, who was crowned at Gloucester Abbey in a hurry because a civil war was raging and there was a French army under the future Louis VIII on English soil. As up to 1272 coronation made the king it was imperative to get young Henry (aged nine) crowned as quickly as possible. I will need to check, but I'm fairly sure that, like several medieval kings, he had a second coronation in more settled tgimes.

Vivat Rex!!!

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 28, 2010, 12:34:15 PM
Considering the fact that we were discussing a constitutional issue, conversion to republicanism from a constitutional monarchy, my comments were totally appropriate.  And Chris in the US, what exactly are your credentials, seeing you asked me first.

Sigh, in the interests of not boring everyone to death, let us drop this line of conversation in the forum.  I'm perfectly happy to try once again to make my point in a private message.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 28, 2010, 01:48:46 PM
Hi Ann,

Thank you for that information on Henry III;  I did not know that.
But, it makes perfect sense to get your King crowned speedily, before someone else snatchs the crown...

Cheers,
Larry
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Kalafrana on April 28, 2010, 02:02:03 PM
Interestingly, by the time Henry III died in 1272, things had changed. His son Edward I was out of the country on crusade, and it was nearly two years before he reached England. Government carried on in his absence and no rivals emerged. Admittedly, Edward was on excellent terms with his brother and paternal cousins, and had already shown himself to be a sufficiently formidable military commander for any potential rivals to have second thoughts! Plus potential  opposition to Edward among the magnates had been destroyed in the Barons' War of 1264-65.

Ann
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 28, 2010, 08:38:53 PM
Hi,

Lindelle:
I think that tradition dictates that Westminster Abbey is the venue for Coronations.  Certainly most monachs since William the Conqueror have been crowned there and I don't think any have used St. Paul's.....

Margot:
I hope that Charles will have an "old fashioned traditional" Coronation and invite all the hereditary peers - the life time peers can stand outside the Abbey with us & we can all put on our coronets together!!!  I'll even hold your train for you!!!   Should be fun!!!

Of course, I hope his Coronation doesn't take place for several years....
I intend to celebrate The Queens Diamond Jubilee in London with friends in 2012....  And, I hope she lasts longer than that, too!!!!!!!!

Larry


I know it' a traditional thing, but is there any bill that says it can't be changed, for whatever reason?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 28, 2010, 10:29:36 PM
When you dilute the tradition, you erode the cache of monarchy but things can be changed.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Margot on April 29, 2010, 02:53:23 AM
Has the abolition of a real fully paid up proper coronation undermined the monarchies in Europe countries where coronations as they were are no longer held? Is King Harlad any different from the Queen in that sense? Or any other monarch who has not gone through the old style coronation ceremony? Are we saying that because King Olaf V was not crowned in a coronation akin to that of his father he was any less of a monarch? The same applies to the POW surely? Or any other reigning monarch who has not been crowned in the fashion that Elizabeth II enjoyed in 1952? I am just curious as to whether today the absence of old fashioned coronations really dilutes the tradition and respect of monarchy in other countries compared to the UK? Or does such ceremony simply continue to raise the monarch to a pedestal where they perceived as out of touch and beyond their mortal subjects as God's anointed rather than subjects' crowned head of state?
 
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 29, 2010, 05:21:16 AM
Yes Margot all of the examples you cite are less monarchical than what preceded.  İ remember when the first glimpses of the British royal family were shown in documentaries (Prince Philip barbequing comes to mind).  Prior to this there were not the thorny debates on the function of the Monarchy and no debate about their future. The more human a royal family looks, the less monarchical.  When a large proportion of the polity starts to think, they are just like us except we pay them a lot of money, then the more possibility there is of the role being down graded or fazed out.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on April 29, 2010, 06:02:29 AM
Has the abolition of a real fully paid up proper coronation undermined the monarchies in Europe countries where coronations as they were are no longer held? Is King Harlad any different from the Queen in that sense? Or any other monarch who has not gone through the old style coronation ceremony? Are we saying that because King Olaf V was not crowned in a coronation akin to that of his father he was any less of a monarch? The same applies to the POW surely? Or any other reigning monarch who has not been crowned in the fashion that Elizabeth II enjoyed in 1952? I am just curious as to whether today the absence of old fashioned coronations really dilutes the tradition and respect of monarchy in other countries compared to the UK? Or does such ceremony simply continue to raise the monarch to a pedestal where they perceived as out of touch and beyond their mortal subjects as God's anointed rather than subjects' crowned head of state?
 



I wonder that too  Margot.
IF the RF choose to have a ceremony at another place, does that dilute the monarchy? I don't think so. The only diluting going on here is what someone presumes they know. What a laugh I would have if it came true, that they decided to have the coronation at St Pauls. Speaking of, does that then mean that when Charles married Diana at St Pauls instead of the 'traditional Westminster Abbey ', then they were diluting the monarch?
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 29, 2010, 07:44:42 AM
Lindelle
          I understand your ambitions to be more like Hyacinth Bucket but do you understand the difference between a coronation and a wedding?  You could have the coronation on the beach with everyone wearing shorts and sandals but a lot of the mystique would be evaporated.  Without the religious component and the element of formalised ritual, the ability to sell the monarchy as something that should be supported by the majority of the population is lessened.
  Time to go back to the TV guide and the lotto tickets Lindelle.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: ilyala on April 30, 2010, 03:55:42 AM
I don't really agree with that point of view. the Scandinavian monarchs are more 'real people' compared to the British monarch and i didn't hear of any referendums challenging the monarchy and trying to turn it into a republic.

The king of Sweden married someone who was not aristocratic in any way in 1976 (which is years before Camilla - who btw does have aristocratic origins - became an issue). While I wasn't even born back then, were there any scandals, were there any Sweds shouting that if he was to marry someone out of his rank, they would want a republic? I didn't read anything of the sort.

Queen Sonja of Norway is also non-royal, non-aristocratic - normal person. Prince Haakon of Norway married a woman who has a son from a previous relationship (as far as I know - not even a marriage). And yet I read nothing about abolishing monarchy in Norway!

Why is it that only British people seem to want saints and not humans for monarchs? Saints cannot understand humans. Saints are overbearing, rigid and cannot provide leadership for a country made of humans. This whole mystique idea was fine when subjects were uneducated and stupid and looked up to their monarchs to be educated and smart. Now subjects are educated, rational and (hopefully) intelligent.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on April 30, 2010, 05:25:43 AM
The Swedish monarchy is considerably diluted but because Sweden is a very egalitarian society, that is acceptable.  Britain is the opposite and one of the ways that the current Royal family are sold is because it is not diluted.  It was very important for the Queen to marry a prince.  Camilla Shand's father was an army officer but to the best of my knowledge not aristocratic and certanly not royal.  The closest that she can claim royal association is that one of her grandmothers or great grandmothers was Mrs Keppel who was mistress to Edward Vll. 
    At some point, when there is enough dilution of royal blood, the general population starts asking the question, 'Why can't I do that job?'.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 30, 2010, 10:15:48 AM
The Swedish monarchy is considerably diluted but because Sweden is a very egalitarian society, that is acceptable.  Britain is the opposite and one of the ways that the current Royal family are sold is because it is not diluted.  It was very important for the Queen to marry a prince.  Camilla Shand's father was an army officer but to the best of my knowledge not aristocratic and certanly not royal.  The closest that she can claim royal association is that one of her grandmothers or great grandmothers was Mrs Keppel who was mistress to Edward Vll. 
    At some point, when there is enough dilution of royal blood, the general population starts asking the question, 'Why can't I do that job?'.

Granted, Camilla's background is not highly noble, but like many people today, she can trace her lineage back to as much royal blood as the late Queen Mother had in her veins.  Camilla descends from King Charles II.  Her maternal grandfather was the 3rd Baron Ashcombe; two of her great-great-grandfathers include George Thomas Keppel, 6th Earl of Albemarle and Sir Allan Napier MacNab, 1st Baronet, Prime Minister of Upper Canada 1854-1856.   Going back even further, her ancestors include Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond;  Alexander Gordon, 2nd Duke of Gordon; Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll.

But I believe it is very narrow thinking to put so much emphasis on bloodlines when discussing how a population today views monarchy.

Yes, for centuries bloodlines were essential when determining a person's rank and position in society.  But that was an artificial concept which developed slowly over time with the sole objective of concentrating wealth and power into the hands of very few.

Originally, a leader arose from the masses because he was the strongest, best able to defend the people against outside threats.  Power did not automatically descend to offspring; it had to be earned each generation.  Eventually monarchies became elected; then such elections were concentrated in members of a single family.  From that the concept of automatic hereditary monarchy began to be codified into law, although even over the past 1,000 years there are many, many examples where bloodlines were ignored for other practical reasons.

This whole system worked just fine for centuries, but ONLY because the 90+ % of the population was poorly educated, illiterate, desperately poor, and even enslaved or indentured by laws designed to keep them that way.

None of that applies anymore, and automatic hereditary leadership has been eroding almost continuously for several centuries.  In the 16th century most King were autocratic; by 300 years later most power had shifted away from the Crown but only went as far as the nobility.  By Word War I that all ended (except for Britain where hereditary Lords still held power).  Now even that is gone.

Today, nearly every monarchy is a popular monarchy - it exist only because the people want them to, not for any of the reasons they existed in the past.  Monarchs now have to work hard to continually evolve and adapt to serve their people in a way the people want. 

I believe Elizabeth II has done an excellent job of that.  But had she insisted that her off-spring only marry other people with royal or noble blood, I believe the British Crown would be well on its way to extinction by now.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 30, 2010, 10:53:02 AM
Hi,

Back to the topic -

I wouldn't object to the venue being changed to St. Paul's or even to York or Winchester;  just as long as it's a proper Coronation (just like Mummy's)...
But, I do think that Westminster Abbey is the best place for one.  That's just my opinion!!
I know it will cost a lot of money and many people will grouse about the spendthrift and waste;  but the pomp and circumstance and pageantry and the thrilled crowds is what I remember about 1953.

I don't think any the less of the European monarchs, who didn't have Coronations.  I greatly admire Queen Beatrix, and she just had an Investiture Ceremony;  but is not less a Queen...

Larry
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 30, 2010, 11:09:00 AM
I couldn't agree more Vecchiolarry.  It's funny, with every major royal event there are critics who whine about the cost, or how irrelevant it is to modern Britain, etc. etc.  Remember when they claimed the Golden Jubilee would be a bust, with nobody coming out to cheer the Queen?  So wrong.  Coronations, royal weddings, funerals - they are all exactly what many people want.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: grandduchessella on April 30, 2010, 11:44:41 AM
I have taken the step of removing the off-topic and personal remarks from the thread. I would remind posters to please refrain from personal attacks. Some of the remarks were quite personal and aimed to be insulting. There's no place for that on this Forum as the FA has reiterated time and again. The whole discussion could have been handled with an exchange of PMs and there was no need to drag other Forum members into it merely, it seems, to be provocative and insulting.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: mcdnab on May 04, 2010, 10:57:09 AM
A few points about some of the recent comments which I've read with interest.

Whoever your head of state is (president or monarch) it would be expected for the State to pay them some form of salary and the costs of their official duties.

As far as I am aware those countries of which the British Monarch remains Head of State of: Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc - Do not pay anything for the annual running costs of the British Monarch just the costs of their Governor General who in effect is their 'real' Head of State. However when the Monarch or a member of the family visit those countries they pay something of the costs involved (in exactly the same way they do when other heads of state visit).
If those countries wished for their own resident Head of State that is something they are quite able to manage on their own and they can pick up the tab for it by just translating their Governor Generals into an elective and non political President.

It is rather churlish to moan about spending money on a state visit that happens pretty infrequently and why should a visit by their own, if foreign, monarch be any less welcome than a visit by any other head of state - I suspect that a visit by the President of the United States would be slightly more expensive.

On the Coronation - most British royal occassions are fairly recent inventions courtesy of Edward VII who though a King should be on display! The Coronation is pretty much unchanged in form though - with certain changes in styles to reflect constitutional and religious changes - for example the Protestant Oath only refers to the UK not to any other states.
The cost will no doubt be an issue - but i suspect will be a fraction of what we'll be spending on the 2012 Olympics and if we're that desperate we could always put the broadcast rights up for the highest bidder and take a bigger percentage on the souvenirs. Personally I hope Charles doesn't make too many changes - he can't with the oaths because they are prescribed by Statute.
The hereditary peers aren't a vital role - and could be removed with ease - using only those hereditary peers who hold hereditary offices in relation to the crown for example would cut the numbers to a handful, arguably there's no need for all 650 Members of the Commons to attend either!
Given how infrequently we have them I don't thing it matters a great deal about how relevant to modern Britain it all is....a rather nice archaic ritual that reminds us of our history and that happens probably once or twice in most people's lifetimes - we had only four coronations in the 20th Century (Edward VII, George V and VI and Elizabeth II) only three in the 19th (George IV, William IV and Victoria) and the chances are we'll only have three or four in the 21st.

On Camilla's background and the "diluted" nature of a Royal Family that's married with people not of a Royal background - it is a load of old rubbish - English and Scots King's have only had a very recent history of only marrying equally. There was no pressure on the present Queen to marry a Prince - in fact his foreign background was more of a hindrance in the post-war period - both her parents would initially have preferred a British aristocrat.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on May 04, 2010, 04:00:14 PM
Regarding your fourth paragraph mcdnab, you may think it 'rather churlish', to our moaning about paying for visits - and I don't care who it's for - it's a total waste of our money when we are crying out for charities and road improvements to stop deaths. Not evryone here wants the RF to visit and if again, if she does then pay for it herself, we have our own to look out for.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on May 04, 2010, 04:14:12 PM
How often does a royal visit to Australia happen, Lindelle?  Hardly ever.  I think the Australian government wastes money on much more trivial matters than royal visits and more often too.  I really don't think the amount spent on these is relevant in the overall scheme of things.  HM is still Queen of Australia until she is legally removed from that position, so visits from her and her family are still appropriate, in my opinion.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 04, 2010, 05:53:37 PM
So your position is that royal visits to Australia cause deaths because the money isn't being spend on repairing roads? 

I looked up a few things in the 2010-11 Australian national budget (it's all online).  Total spending is $338 billion. 

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's total budget is $154 million (not counting discretionary funds).  That equals less than 0.00041.  And a tiny part of that covers "Ceremonial and Hospitality".  And for the year, that was spent on: 

-  37 "Guest of Government" visits to Australia (Heads of State, Heads of Government and Senior Ministers)
-  169 airport facilitations for foreign leaders either transitioning or making private visits to Australia.
-  3 State funerals and Memorial Services
-  National Day of Mourning
-  5 Council of Australian Government meetings
-  Farewell dinner for an ambassador
-  Swearing in of the Governor General
-  3 receptions for Australia Day
-  Morning tea in honour of the 2009 Australian of the Year Award Finalists

It also paid for 11 official overseas visits for the Prime Minister, an official visit to Switzerland for the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister's visit to Thailand for the East Asia Summit (despite it being cancelled).

So, Australia spent more money on greeting foreign dignitaries to Australia ON PRIVATE TRIPS than they did on royal visits.  Oh, they also spent more on contributing to re-election funds than for ALL ceremonial and hospitality events combined.

So, if you want to reduce deaths due to bad roads, I'd start by asking the Prime Minister's office to stop contributing to his party's re-election campaigns - rather than blaming it on the Queen's visits.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on May 04, 2010, 08:25:36 PM
That's All of it Chris.
The Royal visits are only part of it and NO I am DEFINATELY not blaming the RF for the road deaths.
If you care to read carefully - and into it more - we as a country need to spend money on the foremost needs here rather than wasting it on others.
Blame whoever you wish, the fact of the matter is that we would be better off being a republic. I like the RF, but that doesn't mean that I need to spend money on them when there are far more worthy causes here.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on May 05, 2010, 01:35:45 AM
...and of course an elected president, with all his/her perks and flunkeys wouldn't cost you a cent...
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on May 05, 2010, 07:39:10 AM
It is not about the cost but about the cost being spent on a foreign head of state.  To have a vestigial colonial status is not politically mature.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 05, 2010, 08:24:59 AM
I certainly cannot argue with that point, and I concede it seems almost inevitable that Australia will become a republic in due course.  It isn't likely in the present reign, but most likely the next (regardless of whether that be that Charles or William).

And I'd expect that event would result in Canada once again reviewing its present structure.  Canada's constitutional formula for amending anything related to the status of the Office of the Queen, Governor General or Lt. Governor makes it a bit challenging, as these require consent of the House of Commons and the Senate, and of ALL provincial assemblies (rather than a majority of the provinces).  If I'm not mistaken, a public referendum is not constitutionally required, but would probably be considered essential before such a drastic action was taken.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on May 05, 2010, 08:50:11 AM
to the best of my knowedge, a referendum has not been held in Canada but In Australia, referenda seem to go hand in hand with proportional representation.  Edward MacWhinney, who is Australian and Canadian and one of the world's top constitutional experts has outlined a number of ways that Canada can move to Republican status.  By the way for smaller countries like Fiji, it may be more ecnonomical to maintain the Queen or King of Britain as a constitutional monarch.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: mcdnab on May 05, 2010, 09:01:47 AM
I hope you didn't think i was having a go with the "churlish" remark Lindelle - i was simply stating that in reality countries like Australia would have to pay out considerably more if they had a resident monarch or president and the annual costs of the rare state visit probably amounts to a few cents per household.
Personally I am rather neutral on whether Australia, New Zealand and Canada should become Republics - I would hope if they did they would do as other former Dominions have done and retain the link with the UK and the British Crown via the Commonwealth. I have to say that since Dominion status and the Westminster conference - they might as well be!!

The financial arguements apply in any country - whatever form of head of state you have you have to pay for it somehow.
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 05, 2010, 12:49:21 PM
to the best of my knowedge, a referendum has not been held in Canada but In Australia, referenda seem to go hand in hand with proportional representation.  Edward MacWhinney, who is Australian and Canadian and one of the world's top constitutional experts has outlined a number of ways that Canada can move to Republican status.  By the way for smaller countries like Fiji, it may be more ecnonomical to maintain the Queen or King of Britain as a constitutional monarch.

Constantinople, what is the current status of Quebec's separatism movement?  Do you think t the process of removing the monarchy in Canada be a catalyst for those folks to revisit breaking away from the rest of Canada? 
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on May 05, 2010, 02:04:14 PM
If there is a republic it will probably defuse some of the separatism but it will be seen as a time for renegotiation for cpmparative rights and privileges (but not obligations)
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Grace on May 05, 2010, 03:20:41 PM
It is not about the cost but about the cost being spent on a foreign head of state.  To have a vestigial colonial status is not politically mature.

You forgot to add "in your opinion".
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Constantinople on May 05, 2010, 05:16:52 PM
welll it isnt just my opinion that is the analysis of most political analysts and constitutional experts
Title: Re: If the prsent Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne next week....
Post by: Lindelle on May 05, 2010, 08:36:45 PM
I hope you didn't think i was having a go with the "churlish" remark Lindelle - i was simply stating that in reality countries like Australia would have to pay out considerably more if they had a resident monarch or president and the annual costs of the rare state visit probably amounts to a few cents per household.
Personally I am rather neutral on whether Australia, New Zealand and Canada should become Republics - I would hope if they did they would do as other former Dominions have done and retain the link with the UK and the British Crown via the Commonwealth. I have to say that since Dominion status and the Westminster conference - they might as well be!!

The financial arguements apply in any country - whatever form of head of state you have you have to pay for it somehow.


Well I didn't really no what to think. But it's ok, thanks for that. :) I won't take offence.
Title: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: MarshallHowell on December 21, 2010, 09:47:08 AM
Hello, with the possible abdication of Queen Elizabeth II after her Diamond Jubilee and ninetieth birthday I was wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are. I personally disagree with the idea of her renouncing the throne in favor of Prince Charles, but that is just me.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 21, 2010, 10:30:27 AM
First, the Queen cannot abdicate without an act of Parliament.  At best, Prince Charles could become regent and assume more  "royal duties", which he is doing  now.
 Secondly,  the British monarchy is not  like the Netherlands.
 and thirdly, abdication is a dirty word in the UK, they are quite used to having "older queens", so to speak.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Kalafrana on December 21, 2010, 10:54:58 AM
No British monarch has ever voluntarily abdicated, apart from Edward VIII. That is a precedent which is most unlikely to be followed.

The Queen seems to be very gradually scaling down her public appearances as she gets older, and I think this will continue, but she will remain on the thrrone until she dies. That goes with the job.

I also think it most unlikely that the Prince of Wales will renounce his rights to the succession - and why should he?

Ann
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 21, 2010, 11:13:21 AM
I think that is utter nonsense. The Queen will NEVER abdicate.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Rani on December 21, 2010, 11:27:22 AM
I hope the Queen has her mothers vitality. Charles is okay, but I prefer Harry. William is very odd.

What bout a dynasty change? The Jacobites with their current head Duke Franz in Bavaria?
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Kalafrana on December 21, 2010, 12:09:15 PM
Rani

What makes you say that William is very odd? I don't find him odd. I find him a bit bland.

Ann
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 21, 2010, 12:54:47 PM
 For once, I agree with Eric, and Ann is correct. The Queen CANNOT abdicate nor the Prince of Wales renounce his rights without an  act of Parliament. Some seem to forget this legal bit. Getting anything like such actions  would most likely take longer than any of our lives.
 Also- change of dynasty ?  How silly, the Bavarian is CATHOLIC, for one- another act of Parliament. And a new government as well.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Grace on December 21, 2010, 02:52:52 PM
Marshall II, where did you get the idea of the possible abdication of the Queen after her Diamond Jubilee and ninetieth birthday?  I've never heard these rumours and was just wondering, as those who know a bit about the Queen are pretty convinced she regards her job for life following the commitment she made at her coronation ceremony in 1953. 

Apart from that, I have the suspicion that the Queen has a few concerns about her immediate successor the same as a lot of us do.

Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Rani on December 21, 2010, 03:26:12 PM

 Also- change of dynasty ?  How silly, the Bavarian is CATHOLIC, for one- another act of Parliament. And a new government as well.

How charming..
There is a little, tiny movement. But how silly from me to mention the option.
And I know that they are catholic. I live in Germany. I think I know a little bit of Bavaria. But hey...


http://www.jacobite.ca/
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: carl fraley on December 21, 2010, 05:09:39 PM
To Quote HM on her 21st Birthday,

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

and the word "Abdication" is taboo I would think to HM, The Queen Mother was reported to remark when asked if the Queen would ever abdication "really, this is not the Netherlands".  and  Queen Wilhelmina, who led her country through World War II, abdicated at the age of 68 (despite the comment of Charles's great-grandmother, Queen Mary, that 68 was not an age to just "give up one's job".  IMO HM meant what she said, she dedicated her WHOLE life and it is a life committment, and she cemented that with her coronation, and that oath is something HM would take as binding, the same as IMO as she hold the legitimate and lawful succession.


Anything else is just rag tag reporters trying to sell PUre RUBBISH
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on December 21, 2010, 07:36:26 PM
This thread in my opinion should not even appear! HM is  HM until the day she dies, this is what she said;

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

End of.

God Save our Queen

R.I.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Grace on December 21, 2010, 08:10:39 PM
Couldn't agree more, Emperor.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: MarshallHowell on December 21, 2010, 10:15:51 PM
It has been discussed on the news recently as the preparations are made for William and Kate's wedding; and it came up as they were discussing the future of the monarchy as its a question of which the British public is certainly aware. If the queen lives as long as her mother Charles would be almost eighty before he ascends the throne. Becoming king at such an age might lead to views expressing a "lack of vitality" as far as the public opinion of the monarchy.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on December 22, 2010, 08:13:42 AM
I'm sure you are right Marshall, the media will discuss any and all topics that they think will sell papers or enable them to have "scoops" in our 24 hour a day instant news cycle.  But it means nothing. 

Robert and other posters have it right.  Let's set aside for one minute the absolute fact that the Queen intends to reign until her death.  But even if she didn't, the British monarch has no power to abdicate unilaterally.

Let's just theoretically say Elizabeth II did signal she wished to abdicate.  The UK Parliament would have to pass a law giving her the right to do so in Britain.  The Parliaments of each of the other 15 Commonwealth Realms would each have to approve a similar bill to let her abdicate their Crowns.  If any refused, Elizabeth could theoretically remain Queen of those countries while Charles ascended the Thrones of the others.  But the more likely scenario would be that the resulting debates would end with some Realms abandoning the Monarchy itself and becoming republics.  Then there's the matter of the position of the Head of the Commonwealth itself, which doesn't automatically lie with the Monarch. 

Elizabeth II did not dedicate her entire life to the Crown only to see it break up in this way.  End of story.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Kalafrana on December 22, 2010, 09:14:41 AM
The Duke of Windsor abdicated by executing a Declaration of Abdication, which was ratified by Act of Parliament the following day. The then Irish Free State also rushed through an Act giving effect to the abdication, and as far as I know the other Dominions did likewise. The situatiuon was made easier by the fact that the king effectively abdicated on ministerial advice, and none of the Dominions objected.

In the entirely hypothetical case of the present Queen, things are likely to be rather more complicated, as there would be a good deal less unanimity on the issue of both abdication and succession (though there were apparently suggestions in 1936 that George VI should renounce his rights, so that the Queen would succeed with a regent, or that the Duke of Gloucester should succeed).

Ann
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: ashdean on December 22, 2010, 09:25:07 AM
This thread in my opinion should not even appear! HM is  HM until the day she dies, this is what she said;

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

End of.

God Save our Queen

R.I.
HERE HERE!
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 22, 2010, 11:05:26 AM
Thanks for the quote. I think thisshould squash such rumours.
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Grace on December 22, 2010, 03:48:10 PM
This is obviously nothing new, Eric, and unfortunately it's failed to quash rumours that the Queen may abdicate which have been doing the rounds for years if not decades now. 
Title: Re: Abdication of Elizabeth II
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 22, 2010, 05:30:43 PM
So true Grace. I think the first time I read  about this scenario was when Charles was invested with the Prince of Wales title at Carnaevon [sic].  That was indeed decades ago !
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 23, 2010, 11:07:12 AM
There is very few abidications in British History. Apart from the well known case of Edward VIII, there is also Henry II's abdication to his eldest son Henry & the forced abdication of Mary Queen of Scots in favour of her infant son James.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Kalafrana on December 23, 2010, 11:14:41 AM
Henry II did not abdicate in favour of his eldest son. Following Capetian practice, he had his eldest son crowned in his own lifetime to ensure the succession (perhaps not surprising, given that he had become king after the Anarchy of Stephen's reign), but retained full powers. Henry the Young King died while in rebellion against his father because Henry refused to give him anything more than an empty title.

Edward II technically abdicated rather than being deposed. Richard II may have abdicated in similar fashion but was deposed anyway. The only voluntary abdication remains Edward VIII, apart from several Anglo-Saxon kings who abdicated and became monks.

Ann
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 23, 2010, 11:19:39 AM
That is why it is almost impossible. Would be Queen become Princess Elizabeth again (in the Dutch mode) after her abdication ? It would simply not work. Yes, Henry II crowned his son king, would the Queen remain queen while Charles King in that model ? A Queen Camilla & a Princess Elizabeth ? Not likely...
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Kalafrana on December 23, 2010, 12:19:15 PM
No, it's not going to happen. Our tradition is entirely against it. I think the Queen will continue scaling down her public duties very gradually, and may reach a point where age and infirmity mean an effective retirement, but abdicate, defrinitely not. And bear in mind that both the Queen Mother and Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester carried on doing public duties almost to the end of their lives. Princess Alice's last public appearance was at the time of her hundredth birthday, but according to the Court Circular she continued to receive visits from commanding officers of her regiments for some time after.

Ann
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 23, 2010, 12:35:39 PM
I think the structure itself made it impossible. Those who think it could work do not understand the workings of the British Monarchy. It is very different from the Dutch. Apart from Britain, there is also the Commonwealth.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: darius on February 13, 2011, 11:00:23 AM
Quote
Anyone outside of that central core should be working and funding their lifestyles themselves.Rachelxx

Well, I'm going to have to concede on that point myself Rachel.  The current RF is too large - particularly when you throw the Queen's cousins into to the mix.  

However, how can they win?  The Kents and Glouchesters came of age in another era - when it was not only acceptable but expected that persons holding the HRH style lead royal lives.  It was not that long ago that it was considered disgraceful for a royal to hold a job.  Heck, even Sarah (a former royal) has been heavily criticized for her various efforts to support herself.  They cry "She's trading in on her status".  Well, excuse me, she IS the former wife of a prince.  Unless Britain's public wants to support her, she's going to have to earn her keep and yes, that means drawing from her circle - which happens to include many high rollers due to her title.  What is she to do?

It is obvious, however, that the RF is contracting.  30 years ago, cousins like the York princesses would be given apartments at Kensington and put out on the royal circuit.  Today, they are likely to raise their families privately, appearing only for major royal family events.

By the end of the present reign, the core RF will have shrunk by 1/3 from 30 years ago.  After the retirement or passing of Andrew, Anne, Edward & Sophie, it will shrink even further.  Makes sense too - they seem to be adopting the continental approach which often separtes the "Royal "House" from the "Royal Family".

Of course these cousins have been a great support to The Queen during the past 60 years - and have represented the UK abroad without any scandal on numerous occasions.  I think that the same should be true today.  The York princesses should be put out on the royal circuit - its what their title represents, what they were born to do - not ski and jet off to the caribbean at every available opportunity.  It is such a shame that British princesses have become little more than eurotrash.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 13, 2011, 11:58:59 AM
Totally agree Darius! They should set an example. They give the Royal Family a bad name with there antics!! They should have been sent to a very expensive finishing school in Paris say & then returned ready to do there job, I'm sure the public would be interested to see them presiding over functions wearing some of there grandmothers choosiest jewels & elegant gowns & doing good!! They have a duty.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: darius on February 13, 2011, 12:19:23 PM
I don´t think that the French finishing school would have been necessary - their predecessors managed without that.  I think that DUTY has not been instilled into them and they pretty much carry on as they please ... a bit like their mother - its all fun and games for them.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 13, 2011, 12:25:51 PM
So very true...
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: darius on February 13, 2011, 01:17:02 PM
Don´t they spend time with their grandmother at all?  Supposedly Beatrice is very interested in her Romanov ancestry and with her mother´s books on Queen Victoria etc you would expect them to have some notion of their heritage and what is expected from them.  I´m half expecting them to turn up as contestants on the X Factor or something!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Lindelle on June 03, 2011, 07:25:04 AM
Well Darius their mother WAS involved in that stupid 'It's A Royal Knockout', so where there's smoke.....................................
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Adagietto on June 11, 2011, 04:14:06 AM
"The York princesses should be put out on the royal circuit - its what their title represents, what they were born to do - not ski and jet off to the caribbean at every available opportunity."

Oh, please no! Jet them off to some remote island in the Pacific.
Title: QE II to scale back travel - POW as Co Head of Royal Family?
Post by: darius on May 08, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
Following on from post regarding the POW attending the State Opening of Parliament for first time in 17 years and earlier announcement in the press that HM would not attend the biennial CHOGM in Sri Lanka due to a desire to "pace" her public duties, does anyone know when the Queen Mother ceased to travel abroad and to where she last travelled?
Title: Re: QE II to scale back travel - POW as Co Head of Royal Family?
Post by: Jen_94 on May 08, 2013, 03:36:20 PM
I'm not so sure when her last international trips abroad were. I have read she made trips to Continental Europe between 1963-1992? So it appears she was still going abroad well into her 80's/early 90's?
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: TimM on May 08, 2013, 05:08:25 PM
She was a pretty active woman for much of her life.
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Vecchiolarry on May 08, 2013, 06:00:29 PM
Hi,

The QM was in Edmonton and Toronto in Canada in 1985 for four days total and had a pretty busy time then.
I believe she went to Venice in the late 90's;  I've seen a photo of her in a gondola there.

Larry
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 10, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
Her last official tour was in 1989, during a visit to Canada which marked the 50th anniversary of her first visit there.  She did make private annual visits to continental Europe until 1992 (when she was 91).


Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eric_Lowe on May 10, 2013, 11:50:49 AM
I think the Queen can go on until 91 too...
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Jen_94 on May 10, 2013, 12:36:22 PM
The Duke has recently returned from a solo international visit to Canada. Yes, I think she'll go on into her early 90's. 

She's got so much stamina in her, I admire her for the sense of duty, and how she promised that 'her whole live with be dedicated to service'. She's done exactly that.  She'll definitely be on the list of one of GB's greatest Monarchs in my opinion!
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Eric_Lowe on May 12, 2013, 12:06:46 PM
Like Queen Victoria, the present Queen has become an institution and that means she is immovable and will remain the representation of the living history of her country. I do worry aboput the next generations. They will not have the same tolerance for the Queen had in the same age. Times are changing...
Title: Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy
Post by: Jen_94 on May 19, 2013, 03:44:14 PM
Plus, the Queen said she will serve her entire life.

I agree, I have to say. Although the POW might? I don't know...we'll have to wait and see until the day that comes.