Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ilyala

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 136
The Tudors / Re: Edward VI and Jane Grey
« on: February 08, 2011, 02:07:19 AM »
wasn't edward engaged to elizabeth of france?

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: May 10, 2010, 06:03:41 AM »
well if henry could decide his heirs, why couldn't edward? after all they were both kings...

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.

I don't see why credentials are necessary to have an opinion.

...and with good reason when he ended up murdered...

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.

The Windsors / Re: Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York Pt II
« on: April 26, 2010, 06:06:46 AM »
My country has recently voted (through a referendum) slimming the parliament - making it out of one chamber as opposed to two.

While the government has started reviewing the constitution in order to introduce the change, it is still not even started to be written. Why? Because it's not that simple.

Slimming the parliament means establishing which members you cut (not as in people but as in whose representatives), how the laws are voted (so far one chamber needs to have 2/3 out of the votes, the other simple majority), etc. etc.

Same with the change of the head of state. You have to find a replacement, you have to choose how the replacement will be called, choose where they would live, how much they will get paid, what their role is (more like the American president that makes most decisions or more like the German president that has absolutely no power as far as I know?), how they will be appointed/elected, etc. etc. etc...

It's not as simple as just saying "yeah, I want a president, now let's get on with it"

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.

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.

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.

the whole sandra and missy arguing about dmitri sounds a lot like a soap opera.

it's interesting that no book picks up on it - not even the playboy king which picked up on any court gossip there was and wrote it as fact.

Indeed, Alexandra was against his son's marriage to Mary, but she persuaded the emperor. In the case of the bride's son, Nikolai Pavlovich was where democratic its soft, kind-hearted wife. In addition, experience has convinced him: marry only need to love. Well, if he could not prevent the marriage of his son with his first love - Pole Olga Kalinovskaya, here he felt obliged to help. As for the views of European courts ...
Just let them try to say something insulting about his daughter in law! Alexandra continued to resist. The last argument that persuaded her to surrender, was the story about the origin of the wife of Peter the Great, Empress Catherine I. In comparison, the origin of the Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt could be considered flawless.
In addition, Nicholas, perhaps, he was illegitimate.

nicholas illegitimate? that's a new one!

why was sandra jealous?

Is Dmitri's letter public? What does it say?

it might be, on the other hand I personally have nothing against the Princess of Wales title either...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 136