Discussion:
Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The Throne?
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-08 19:52:58 UTC
Permalink
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.

Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.

However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Turenne
2007-11-08 20:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession...
I must have been absent the day we 'did' the Stuarts at school -
but.....

James I
I
I
Charles I
I
I
Charles II

How are Charles I and II not descended from James I & VI?

Or am I missing something?

Richard L
Joseph McMillan
2007-11-08 21:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession...
I must have been absent the day we 'did' the Stuarts at school -
but.....
<snip>
Post by Turenne
Or am I missing something?
I think what DSH is trying to say is that Charles is not biologically
a direct descendant of either of the Kings Charles.

He is, of course, in the royal line of succession from them, as he is
from every other previous monarch of the UK, Great Britain, England,
and Scotland.

I'm not sure what not being a direct biological descendant of a prior
king has to do with one's regnal name and number. Charles is also not
a lineal descendant of George IV. Neither were his grandfather and
great-grandfather, but that didn't keep them from being George V and
VI. Charles's great-great-grandfather wasn't a direct descendant of
Edward VI, but that didn't keep him from being Edward VII. Why should
not being a direct descendant of Charles I or II keep the current
Prince of Wales from someday being Charles III?

Joseph McMillan
Turenne
2007-11-08 22:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Golly! Is that really what he was saying? He gets more obtuse by the
day. He knows full well that the names of monarchs have no link to the
relationship between the monarchs. Look at Charles XIV of Sweden..!

Richard
Hal
2007-11-08 23:15:11 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-08 23:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !

All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.

In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 01:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Whack all imperialists
2007-11-09 01:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agreed - he would probably spend most of his time practising being a
tampon for Comeinand Park-Yer Balls
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 09:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read somewhere
that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
-- Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Exactly.
--
Count Baldoni
The Doctor
2007-11-09 03:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
Olivier
2007-11-09 11:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
And William is a descendant of king Charles II by his mother !!
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:21:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
Renia
2007-11-13 14:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:10:45 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Renia <***@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
: The Highlander wrote:
:
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
:>>news:fh0jjo$4gu$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
:>>
:>>>In article <***@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
:>>>
:>>>>Hal expressed precisely :
:>>>>
:>>>>>On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:>>>>>>Line of
:>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>Why?
:>>>>
:>>>>Why indeed !
:>>>>
:>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:>>>>becomes King.
:>>>>
:>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:>>>>
:>>>
:>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:>>>--
:>>>Member - Liberal International
:>>>This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
:>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:>>
:>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:>
:>
:> Currently numbering around 40 members.
:
: They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
: but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.

It all depends on your definition.

Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
they are or have married Roman Catholics.

Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Renia
2007-11-17 01:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:>
:>
:>>
:>>>
:>>>>
:>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:>>>>>>Line of
:>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>Why?
:>>>>
:>>>>Why indeed !
:>>>>
:>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:>>>>becomes King.
:>>>>
:>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:>>>>
:>>>
:>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:>>>--
:>>>Member - Liberal International
:>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:>>
:>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:>
:>
:> Currently numbering around 40 members.
: They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
: but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
It all depends on your definition.
Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
they are or have married Roman Catholics.
Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.
I'm talking about the Civil List.
Sacha
2007-11-17 01:44:41 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/07 01:33, in article fhlgch$c3u$***@mouse.otenet.gr, "Renia"
<***@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Renia
I'm talking about the Civil List.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4971.asp

has the information you want.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'
Dave
2007-11-09 13:43:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
I think you may have misspelled "hysterical"...
Breton
2007-11-09 13:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?

Breton
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 15:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.

Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI

The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
David
2007-11-09 17:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.
Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI
The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
Not all of these people are closely related to each other!

In general, yes, women in the First World live longer than men.
However, Charles' parents are both long-lived: his father is 86 and
healthy, his mother is 81 and healthy. Barring any accidents, Charles
can expect to live at least into his 80s. At nearly 59, Charles is
already older than his grandfather George VI, whose early death was
probably not due to congenital factors. Edward VIII had lived to be
nearly 78, after all, and I expect that Charles lives a healthier life
than both men.

If Charles lives to the age of at least 80 (in 2028) he will almost
certainly outlive his mother, even if she matches the late Queen
Mother's century. Obviously Charles will not have one of the famously
long reigns of British history, but that is the price to be paid for
being the child of a long-lived parent -- as was discovered not only
by Edward VII, but also George IV and before him Edward the Black
Prince.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
Well his last wife was younger than he and she is very dead.
What has age got to do with it?
People die at every age.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 21:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni
Breton
2007-11-09 21:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I though you said you weren't trolling.

Breton
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:22:56 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
I think that's a gross libel.
William Earl Haskell
2007-11-20 05:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
And you've got the hemerrhoids to prove it, no doubt. Next time, make
sure to use enough lube.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-12 12:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).

With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.

Citizen Jimserac
Turenne
2007-11-12 18:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.


Richard Lichten
Breton
2007-11-14 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Precisely. You could usefully have mentioned that abdication is not a
unilateral act. It can't happen before accession and even then only
with the consent, not only of the UK Parliament, but also the
Parliaments of all the overseas Realms.

Not going to happen.

Breton
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 12:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Precisely. You could usefully have mentioned that abdication is not a
unilateral act. It can't happen before accession and even then only
with the consent, not only of the UK Parliament, but also the
Parliaments of all the overseas Realms.
Not going to happen.
Breton
Understood. But one last point, and this is not
to be taken as a disagreement but only an observation.

Charles has been stifled, chained, criticized, obstructed, repressed
and held back for an entire lifetime by the Queen, the press, by
protocol,
by convention, by his father and by god knows who else.
In such a circumstance, one must suspect that there
is no telling what he will do, when the time comes.

Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 13:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.

The question arises, how much weakening?

As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.

But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.

Citizen Jimserac
a.spencer3
2007-11-18 14:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.

Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 16:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-11-19 17:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.

Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-11-20 10:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!

Surreyman
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-20 12:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.

That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.

The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.

The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.

Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.

It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.

Citizen Jimserac
a.spencer3
2007-11-20 12:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes
to
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of
matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That's just some Scots and, of course, some English.
By no means makes it universal.
I have less than 'sparkling dedication'.
But I could give a damn, as would most.

Surreyman
William Black
2007-11-20 14:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?

Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?

Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?

Or the India one of ten years before that?

Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-20 15:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.

There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?

Citizen Jimserac

Renia
2007-11-19 17:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
Believe me that after 50 odd years in the MOD there were very few I met who
were just there to fight for her Majesty.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-20 12:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
Believe me that after 50 odd years in the MOD there were very few I met who
were just there to fight for her Majesty.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Thank you for confirming Citizen Jimserac's opinion, foreigner though
he
may be.

And to the other poster, THAT is what I meant by weakness of the
royal family.

Citizen Jimserac
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 01:27:18 UTC
Permalink
I think Renia is absolutely correct here.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway. [Robert Peffers]
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
David
2007-11-18 21:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
What do you mean by "weakening"? The constitutional powers of the
monarch are just the same. The Queen's job is just the same.
Monarchs may be popular or unpopular (and I suspect that the Queen
will grow in popularity every year from here on out) but that has
nothing to do with the strength of the monarchy. The monarchy is
weakened by _political_ missteps which make people feel that the
conduct of national affairs is not well served by a monarchic
structure -- which is exactly why the Queen doesn't involve herself in
public politics, and why her relatives get into trouble when they say
things that imply such involvement. But the late Princess' death
wasn't a political matter -- it may have involved the Queen in some
transient unpopularity, but that's not the sort of thing that
constitutional changes are built on.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-18 21:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Monarchs may be popular or unpopular (and I suspect that the Queen
will grow in popularity every year from here on out) but that has
nothing to do with the strength of the monarchy. The monarchy is
weakened by _political_ missteps which make people feel that the
conduct of national affairs is not well served by a monarchic
structure -- which is exactly why the Queen doesn't involve herself in
public politics, and why her relatives get into trouble when they say
things that imply such involvement. But the late Princess' death
wasn't a political matter -- it may have involved the Queen in some
transient unpopularity, but that's not the sort of thing that
constitutional changes are built on.
Fortunately...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-19 00:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Citizen Jimserac
there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
What do you mean by "weakening"? The constitutional powers of the
monarch are just the same. The Queen's job is just the same.
Monarchs may be popular or unpopular (and I suspect that the Queen
will grow in popularity every year from here on out) but that has
nothing to do with the strength of the monarchy. The monarchy is
weakened by _political_ missteps which make people feel that the
conduct of national affairs is not well served by a monarchic
structure -- which is exactly why the Queen doesn't involve herself in
public politics, and why her relatives get into trouble when they say
things that imply such involvement. But the late Princess' death
wasn't a political matter -- it may have involved the Queen in some
transient unpopularity, but that's not the sort of thing that
constitutional changes are built on.
In a long and interesting series of postings in a previous
thread (I believe it went well past 1,000 messages),
a variety of posters, all of them UK citizens alluded
to various weakening activities of the royal family,
personal escapades and extra marital entanglements
being at the forefront rather than
the political involvements that you mentioned,
which gave the impression
of a vague undercurrent of general resentment of the monarchy,
in some quarters,
and in my opinion I sensed some doubt
at the necessity of its continuance. THAT is
what I meant by weakening.

My own opinion of the monarchy is that
it represents a unique link in the continuity
of British history, and may eventually prove
to be a far more useful resource
and foundation than now appears.
But, I think the royal political involvements
of which you speak, rather than
being deleterious, may eventually
become a necessity and it is understood
that this is against all protocol and convention
and that therefore this conception
is completely speculative.

I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.

Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.

Citizen Jimserac
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-19 01:03:03 UTC
Permalink
The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large part,
as concerns these events.

DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.
Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-19 11:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large part,
as concerns these events.
DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.
Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.
CitizenJimserac
I've not seen it and probably won't.

However, the two recent Elizaabeth films are, I've
been told, quite good, though of course there
are going to be alterations of historical fact.
I'll probably see those when an opportune
moment arises.

Cit. J.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-19 12:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Don't miss _The Queen_.

It's on DVD.

Helen Mirren -- Best Actress Academy Award.

DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large
part, as concerns these events.
DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.
Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.
CitizenJimserac
I've not seen it and probably won't.
However, the two recent Elizaabeth films are, I've
been told, quite good, though of course there
are going to be alterations of historical fact.
I'll probably see those when an opportune
moment arises.
Cit. J.
James Hogg
2007-11-19 12:58:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:41:31 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Don't miss _The Queen_.
It's on DVD.
Helen Mirren -- Best Actress Academy Award.
Have you seen the new version of Lady Chatterley's Lover with that
wonderful performance by Jean-Louis Coulloc'h as the gamekeeper?

Tish
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-19 13:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Don't miss _The Queen_.
It's on DVD.
Helen Mirren -- Best Actress Academy Award.
DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large
part, as concerns these events.
DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.
Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.
CitizenJimserac
I've not seen it and probably won't.
However, the two recent Elizaabeth films are, I've
been told, quite good, though of course there
are going to be alterations of historical fact.
I'll probably see those when an opportune
moment arises.
Cit. J.
Oh, Helen Mirren is an oustanding actress,
perhaps I will view it.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-19 14:52:05 UTC
Permalink
You're Welcome.

_The Queen_

Superior Film.

DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Don't miss _The Queen_.
It's on DVD.
Helen Mirren -- Best Actress Academy Award.
DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large
part, as concerns these events.
DSH
Post by Citizen Jimserac
I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.
Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.
CitizenJimserac
I've not seen it and probably won't.
However, the two recent Elizaabeth films are, I've
been told, quite good, though of course there
are going to be alterations of historical fact.
I'll probably see those when an opportune
moment arises.
Cit. J.
Oh, Helen Mirren is an oustanding actress,
perhaps I will view it.
Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:16:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:59:45 -0800, Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
Citizen Jimserac
Boy, we're really up to our necks in crap tonight , aren't we!
Breton
2007-11-14 17:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
As usual you missed the point. The point was not about the merits or
otherwise of Diana and Charles. The point was: why post in a group if
you think the topic (in this case, Royalty, has no merit and is not
worth discussing?

As you your comments about Prince Charles "abdicating", he can't. This
has been explained to you. Charles will become King by virtue of
operation of law when Queen Elizabeth dies.l

That's all you need to know.

Breton
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 12:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
As usual you missed the point. The point was not about the merits or
otherwise of Diana and Charles. The point was: why post in a group if
you think the topic (in this case, Royalty, has no merit and is not
worth discussing?
As you your comments about Prince Charles "abdicating", he can't. This
has been explained to you. Charles will become King by virtue of
operation of law when Queen Elizabeth dies.l
That's all you need to know.
Breton
I stand enlightened.

Thanks, Mssr.

Citizen Jimserac
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:13:29 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Citizen Jimserac <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> On Nov 8, 6:57 pm, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
:
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
:
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
:
: Citizen Jimserac

The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Sacha
2007-11-17 01:32:06 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/07 01:13, in article
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
Oh really, this is such a tired old subject! Of course the Prince of Wales
will not abdicate. If he intended to do so, he would not be flogging
himself to death doing one tenth of the things he does now, all of which
benefit this country and so many of which, most unfairly, never get the
press coverage of some starlet's underwear colour or size. He could have
spent his time driving fast cars, commissioning luxury boats and spending a
fortune on interior design of his private home.

The subject of his failed marriage occupies far too much space in terms of
his 'value' to this country. That failure took two people; his continuing
usefulness to us all and his genuine concerns for UK far overwhelm that, IMO
and involve his dedication alone. He has battled on through whatever has
been thrown at him and he is most definitely being seen in a new light
because his own talents do now have a chance to shine. Dutiful, studious
and painstaking don't make for glamour or headlines but they do endure and
I'm not the only person I know who is thankful to see those in the PoW.

Most certainly he will not abdicate. Why should he? For having a failed
marriage or a mistress when his marriage failed? If that were the case the
monarchy would have collapsed centuries ago. Those are private matters, not
those of State and what led to them is also private and the subject of far
too much utterly ridiculous hyperbole. I simply do not care who did what to
whom, or when. It is just none of my business.
Nor will the Queen abdicate - ever. She took a vow and she will stick to
it. She knows, as does her eldest son, that becoming Monarch is not an
elective choice. And both know that to emulate Edward VIII would weaken the
monarchy by making it so. IMO, we're lucky to have both of them.
--
Sacha
Stan Brown
2007-11-17 18:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:32:06 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
Nor will the Queen abdicate - ever. She took a vow and she will stick to
it. She knows, as does her eldest son, that becoming Monarch is not an
elective choice. And both know that to emulate Edward VIII would weaken the
monarchy by making it so.
I have no doubt that you're right in your projection: the Queen will
not ask Parliament to let her out of the job as long as she's alive.

But if she did, I do not think it be "emulating Edward VIII"? Rather,
she'd be emulating Wilhelmina and Juliana. The Dutch monarchy seems
quite strong (more so in some ways than the UK one).

So why do you think abdication as honorable retirement would be a bad
thing in the UK, when it clearly is not a bad thing in the
Netherlands?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Sacha
2007-11-17 22:51:47 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/07 18:38, in article
Post by Stan Brown
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:32:06 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
Nor will the Queen abdicate - ever. She took a vow and she will stick to
it. She knows, as does her eldest son, that becoming Monarch is not an
elective choice. And both know that to emulate Edward VIII would weaken the
monarchy by making it so.
I have no doubt that you're right in your projection: the Queen will
not ask Parliament to let her out of the job as long as she's alive.
But if she did, I do not think it be "emulating Edward VIII"? Rather,
she'd be emulating Wilhelmina and Juliana. The Dutch monarchy seems
quite strong (more so in some ways than the UK one).
So why do you think abdication as honorable retirement would be a bad
thing in the UK, when it clearly is not a bad thing in the
Netherlands?
This is like asking why an apple isn't an orange. Different countries,
different traditions, therefore different expectations. In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I abdicate or
retire". In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
--
Sacha
Jan Böhme
2007-11-18 10:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
Nor is it in Sweden. For forty-eight consecutive years between 1925
and 1973, Sweden was ruled by a monarch past the legislated retirement
age of the times. During twenty-three of those years, the monarch was
over eighty years of age, and for three of them, over ninety.
Post by Sacha
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I abdicate or
retire". In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
It can be added that "fully voluntary retirement abdication" is a very
new invention - i know of no instance anywhere before the abdication
of Queen Wilhelmina in 1948 - and that the Netherlands still remain
the only European monarchy of normal state size where it has occurred.

The way matters are solved in other monarchies is that the heir takes
over more and more of the duties that need not explicitly be taken
care of by the monarch, as the monarch ages.

And of course there is always a regency if the monarch is truly
incapacitated.

Jan Böhme
Sacha
2007-11-18 11:15:34 UTC
Permalink
On 18/11/07 10:22, in article
Post by Jan Böhme
Post by Sacha
In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
Nor is it in Sweden. For forty-eight consecutive years between 1925
and 1973, Sweden was ruled by a monarch past the legislated retirement
age of the times. During twenty-three of those years, the monarch was
over eighty years of age, and for three of them, over ninety.
Post by Sacha
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I abdicate or
retire". In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
It can be added that "fully voluntary retirement abdication" is a very
new invention - i know of no instance anywhere before the abdication
of Queen Wilhelmina in 1948 - and that the Netherlands still remain
the only European monarchy of normal state size where it has occurred.
The way matters are solved in other monarchies is that the heir takes
over more and more of the duties that need not explicitly be taken
care of by the monarch, as the monarch ages.
And of course there is always a regency if the monarch is truly
incapacitated.
Jan Böhme
Exactly so. It's been said here in an understated way that it's unlikely
the Queen will do many more of the really long-haul foreign trips, though of
course, that might well be out of consideration for Prince Philip, too. And
the Prince of Wales has been taking investitures for some time now, though
not all of them.
--
Sacha
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
2007-11-18 11:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Böhme
Post by Sacha
In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
Nor is it in Sweden. For forty-eight consecutive years between 1925
and 1973, Sweden was ruled by a monarch past the legislated retirement
age of the times. During twenty-three of those years, the monarch was
over eighty years of age, and for three of them, over ninety.
Post by Sacha
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I abdicate or
retire". In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
It can be added that "fully voluntary retirement abdication" is a very
new invention - i know of no instance anywhere before the abdication
of Queen Wilhelmina in 1948 -
Philip V of Spain 1724?
Gary Holtzman
2007-11-19 15:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by Jan Böhme
It can be added that "fully voluntary retirement abdication" is a very
new invention - i know of no instance anywhere before the abdication
of Queen Wilhelmina in 1948 -
Philip V of Spain 1724?
As I understand it, he did not abdicate in hopes of a quiet retirement, but in
hopes of attaining a different throne.
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Jan Böhme
2007-11-19 16:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by Jan Böhme
Post by Sacha
In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
Nor is it in Sweden. For forty-eight consecutive years between 1925
and 1973, Sweden was ruled by a monarch past the legislated retirement
age of the times. During twenty-three of those years, the monarch was
over eighty years of age, and for three of them, over ninety.
Post by Sacha
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I abdicate or
retire". In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
It can be added that "fully voluntary retirement abdication" is a very
new invention - i know of no instance anywhere before the abdication
of Queen Wilhelmina in 1948 -
Philip V of Spain 1724?
Perhaps. But I'm uncertain about the "retirement" part of it. It
clearly wasn't retirement because of old age - he was only forty-one,
which wasn't really retirement age then either, and, going by the age
of his son, he abdicated as soon as he possibly could. Plus that he
carried on for another good score of years afterwards. He obviously
was a depressive hypochondriac, and I'd guess - admittedly without
really knowing anything specific - that the abdication was more linked
to his depression as to anything else.

But you're right - Spain seems to be a country where voluntary
abdications could be contemplated. One could argue that the abdication
of Charles V also was a similar case.

Jan Böhme
Stan Brown
2007-11-18 12:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:51:47 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
Giving up? The least of Her Majesty's subjects, serving fifty-five
years in the same post, would be entitled to an honorable retirement,
particularly when a successor is trained and ready to step into the
job. It seems to me you are way too harsh with her.
Post by Sacha
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I
abdicate or retire".
Straw man alert!

Are there any such words in the oath of the Netherlands monarch?
Post by Sacha
In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
I cannot agree that Edward's abdication was shattering. What was so
traumatic was the long constitutional crisis that preceded it. The
abdication itself was an end to that long struggle and a relief to
all concerned.

Edward didn't fail in his duty by abdicating: he had to abdicate
because he failed in his duty. Putting self above country for a year,
he forced matters to the point where he had to go. With the
abdication itself he finally recognized his duty and fulfilled it,
but if he hadn't been so selfish he would not have pushed matters to
the point where an abdication was necessary.

I cannot see any parallel between her present Majesty and her uncle.
She has fulfilled her duty beautifully. While I am not trying to
suggest she *should* ask to retire, and I don't believe for a moment
that she *will* ask, it seems to me that she would be *entitled* to.
And, apparently with one exception, I'll bet if she did ask that her
subjects would support her.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Sacha
2007-11-18 16:34:35 UTC
Permalink
On 18/11/07 12:32, in article
Post by Stan Brown
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:51:47 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
In UK the monarchy
isn't negotiable in terms of retirement or "I'm old and now I'm giving up".
Giving up? The least of Her Majesty's subjects, serving fifty-five
years in the same post, would be entitled to an honorable retirement,
particularly when a successor is trained and ready to step into the
job. It seems to me you are way too harsh with her.
I'm assuming that's a joke. She took an Oath and she's sticking to it.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Sacha
The Queen's Coronation Oath did not include the words "until I
abdicate or retire".
Straw man alert!
Are there any such words in the oath of the Netherlands monarch?
No idea but I'm sure someone will know.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Sacha
In this country the position of monarch is for life which is why
the abdication of Edward VIII was so shattering to the Commonwealth. He was
perceived as having failed in his duty to the country.
I cannot agree that Edward's abdication was shattering. What was so
traumatic was the long constitutional crisis that preceded it. The
abdication itself was an end to that long struggle and a relief to
all concerned.
Unless you were a Briton living in Britain at that time, or related to those
who were, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement. It was
indeed shattering to most because it was a shock as well as being seen as a
dereliction of duty in a dutiful age. Only a small inner coterie knew about
the matter for a long time, so when it broke to the public it caused a real
hoohaa. On top of that, he proposed to marry a twice-divorced woman at a
time when divorce was frowned upon in a serious way. Technically, she
couldn't have entered the Royal Enclosure at Royal Ascot!
Post by Stan Brown
Edward didn't fail in his duty by abdicating: he had to abdicate
because he failed in his duty. Putting self above country for a year,
he forced matters to the point where he had to go. With the
abdication itself he finally recognized his duty and fulfilled it,
but if he hadn't been so selfish he would not have pushed matters to
the point where an abdication was necessary.
I cannot see any parallel between her present Majesty and her uncle.
She has fulfilled her duty beautifully. While I am not trying to
suggest she *should* ask to retire, and I don't believe for a moment
that she *will* ask, it seems to me that she would be *entitled* to.
And, apparently with one exception, I'll bet if she did ask that her
subjects would support her.
I don't agree. I think the very notion that someone as dutiful and
hard-working as HM asking if she could retire would stun most royalists -
really shock them. We're accustomed to the fact that monarchs remain on the
throne until they die so a departure from that would indeed be almost
literally unimaginable and would - in this country - turn the monarchy into
something approaching a dynastic presidency. It may suit the Netherlands
but I really don't think it would suit us.
--
Sacha
David
2007-11-18 21:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Only a small inner coterie knew about
the matter for a long time
That would be the small coterie consisting of people who read the
newspapers.
Post by Sacha
It was
indeed shattering to most because it was a shock as well as being seen as a
dereliction of duty in a dutiful age.
That's a novel interpretation.
Sacha
2007-11-19 10:23:05 UTC
Permalink
On 18/11/07 21:43, in article
Post by David
Post by Sacha
Only a small inner coterie knew about
the matter for a long time
That would be the small coterie consisting of people who read the
newspapers.
The news did not break in the British papers until some time after the
problem was known to a small inner circle. It was being written about in US
newspapers, or alluded to but IIRC what I've read and been told about this,
there was a clergyman who said something about the King's affair with Mrs
Simpson during one of his services. This opened the matter up for
consumption by the British public.
Post by David
Post by Sacha
It was
indeed shattering to most because it was a shock as well as being seen as a
dereliction of duty in a dutiful age.
That's a novel interpretation.
Of what? The times in which this took place? It was indeed a dutiful age
but if you're not aware of that the whole matter of the abdication and its
effect probably wouldn't mean much to you.
--
Sacha
David
2007-11-19 13:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Of what? The times in which this took place? It was indeed a dutiful age
I'm sure that's how elderly, conservative people who are or were
looking back on the "age" years after would like to remember it, but
the reality of the time was something quite different. Especially for
the swank, gilded, high-fashion crowd that young "David" (the Prince
of Wales, not me!) rolled with.
Post by Sacha
but if you're not aware of that the whole matter of the abdication and its
effect probably wouldn't mean much to you.
--
Sacha
Breton
2007-11-19 17:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Sacha
Of what? The times in which this took place? It was indeed a dutiful age
I'm sure that's how elderly, conservative people who are or were
looking back on the "age" years after would like to remember it, but
the reality of the time was something quite different. Especially for
the swank, gilded, high-fashion crowd that young "David" (the Prince
of Wales, not me!) rolled with.
The point is that the the vast majority of people, who gave and still
give the Monarchy its support, were NOT the in crowd you are speaking
about. Most ordinary people, regardless of age, were indeed horrified
at "David's" action. It was a huge shock to them and they couldn't
understand how the King could abandon his duty for what was then
considered to be seriously damaged goods. These are the people that
the monarchy depends on for credibility and support, and he let them
down.

Breton
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-11-19 20:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
IIRC what I've read and been told about this,
there was a clergyman who said something about the King's affair with Mrs
Simpson during one of his services. This opened the matter up for
consumption by the British public.
That clergyman was the Bishop of Bradford. However, my understanding
is that his swipe at the King had nothing to do with his relationship
with Mrs Simpson, but the press (willfully?) misinterpreted his remark
as letting the cat out of the bag, thus allowing them to report on the
wider story. In fact, the Bishop of Bradford was completely unaware
of Mrs Simpson's existence!


--
AGw.
Stan Brown
2007-11-18 22:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:34:35 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
On 18/11/07 12:32, in article
Post by Stan Brown
I cannot agree that Edward's abdication was shattering. What was
so traumatic was the long constitutional crisis that preceded it.
The abdication itself was an end to that long struggle and a
relief to all concerned.
Unless you were a Briton living in Britain at that time, or related to those
who were, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement.
I don't really think you want to argue that a person can't have an
intelligent opinion about a period without living through it.

By that argument, soon there will be no one "qualified" to make any
statements about that era.
Post by Sacha
It was indeed shattering to most because it was a shock as well as
being seen as a dereliction of duty in a dutiful age. Only a small
inner coterie knew about the matter for a long time, so when it
broke to the public it caused a real hoohaa. On top of that, he
proposed to marry a twice-divorced woman at a time when divorce was
frowned upon in a serious way. Technically, she couldn't have
entered the Royal Enclosure at Royal Ascot!
Sure, but you miss my point. The dereliction of duty was in his
conduct before the abdication, in consistently putting his private
happiness ahead of his duty to the nation. The abdication put an end
to that problem; it wasn't the problem in itself.

Of course it was traumatic, just as an operation to remove a diseased
gall bladder is traumatic. But the problem is the diseased organ, not
the operation. The operation is necessary to remove the diseased gall
bladder so that the body can function properly again.

(I'm not saying Edward was diseased, just illustrating the
distinction between a problem and the resolution of the problem.)
Post by Sacha
Post by Stan Brown
I cannot see any parallel between her present Majesty and her uncle.
She has fulfilled her duty beautifully. While I am not trying to
suggest she *should* ask to retire, and I don't believe for a moment
that she *will* ask, it seems to me that she would be *entitled* to.
And, apparently with one exception, I'll bet if she did ask that her
subjects would support her.
I don't agree. I think the very notion that someone as dutiful and
hard-working as HM asking if she could retire would stun most royalists -
really shock them. We're accustomed to the fact that monarchs remain on the
throne until they die so a departure from that would indeed be almost
literally unimaginable and would - in this country - turn the monarchy into
something approaching a dynastic presidency. It may suit the Netherlands
but I really don't think it would suit us.
I accept that you are closer to the current situation than I am.

I think we agree that it's all a moot point because HM has not
breathed a word about retiring, and based on what we've all seen of
her character it's immensely unlikely she would.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Sacha
2007-11-19 00:12:22 UTC
Permalink
On 18/11/07 22:22, in article
Post by Stan Brown
Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:34:35 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
On 18/11/07 12:32, in article
Post by Stan Brown
I cannot agree that Edward's abdication was shattering. What was
so traumatic was the long constitutional crisis that preceded it.
The abdication itself was an end to that long struggle and a
relief to all concerned.
Unless you were a Briton living in Britain at that time, or related to those
who were, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement.
I don't really think you want to argue that a person can't have an
intelligent opinion about a period without living through it.
I don't think you expressed an opinion. It appeared to me that you made a
statement. My grandparents and parents lived through the abdication and
they talked to me about it so while I do not have first hand knowledge of
it, I do have first hand knowledge of its affect upon those who experienced
it - members of my family.
Post by Stan Brown
By that argument, soon there will be no one "qualified" to make any
statements about that era.
Indeed. History is written by the survivors etc. But right now, there
*are* people who can comment on this time. My own mother is 89, she
remembers it. Our closest neighbour is 90 and she remembers it.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Sacha
It was indeed shattering to most because it was a shock as well as
being seen as a dereliction of duty in a dutiful age. Only a small
inner coterie knew about the matter for a long time, so when it
broke to the public it caused a real hoohaa. On top of that, he
proposed to marry a twice-divorced woman at a time when divorce was
frowned upon in a serious way. Technically, she couldn't have
entered the Royal Enclosure at Royal Ascot!
Sure, but you miss my point. The dereliction of duty was in his
conduct before the abdication, in consistently putting his private
happiness ahead of his duty to the nation. The abdication put an end
to that problem; it wasn't the problem in itself.
I'm not missing your point but your point is made in the light of present
knowledge, I would suggest. The public at large didn't know about the
King's come-day, go-day attitude at that time. They didn't know about wine
glass stains on secret documents. They didn't know the true role of Mrs
Simpson in his life *as it unfolded and developed*. It was, as we've said
before, a much more deferential age so that particular truth was kept from
the British public. There was no paparazzi flock and gossip columns used
'xxx' to discuss scandalous names. Now, we live in a ridiculous time when
two young princes are treated as deceivers if they break up with a
girlfriend. The differences are almost unimaginable to those who haven't
lived through them, or who have known, directly, those who have.
Post by Stan Brown
Of course it was traumatic, just as an operation to remove a diseased
gall bladder is traumatic. But the problem is the diseased organ, not
the operation. The operation is necessary to remove the diseased gall
bladder so that the body can function properly again.
(I'm not saying Edward was diseased, just illustrating the
distinction between a problem and the resolution of the problem.)
The opinion of the man on the Clapham omnibus of the time was that without
the disease there would have been no problem. The disease was perceived to
be selfishness and a dereliction of duty. At that time, this was something
very shocking. The 'me' generation just did not exist. I do think that this
has to be put in the context of its time. So many men had died in the first
world war, so many were wounded and maimed, rendered incapable of earning a
living, by doing their duty to their King & country, that the failure (as it
was then seen to be by my elders) of the King to sacrifice his own desires
for his country was volcanic in its meaning. The fact that the object of
his desire was seen as socially untouchable to all those respectable Britons
& members of the Commonwealth, who accepted their personal lot in life, was
just a step too far for that time. It was a combination of factors that
were just too much for this island race and its Commonwealth colleagues to
handle at that particular time in our history. It's a bit Richard
Attenborough or Noel Coward to say this now but our strength lay in our
unity then, in our sacrifice of self for country - how *could* we accept or
respect a King who appeared to have paid mere lip service to that and put
his own desires first? At that time, it appeared to be an insult to those
who had lost their lives and their health. My parents and grandparents view
of Edward VIII was that he was a weak and selfish man and that Mrs Simpson
'did us a favour'. Of course, we must remember also that if he had had no
children, the outcome would be no different in the present time.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Sacha
Post by Stan Brown
I cannot see any parallel between her present Majesty and her uncle.
She has fulfilled her duty beautifully. While I am not trying to
suggest she *should* ask to retire, and I don't believe for a moment
that she *will* ask, it seems to me that she would be *entitled* to.
And, apparently with one exception, I'll bet if she did ask that her
subjects would support her.
I don't agree. I think the very notion that someone as dutiful and
hard-working as HM asking if she could retire would stun most royalists -
really shock them. We're accustomed to the fact that monarchs remain on the
throne until they die so a departure from that would indeed be almost
literally unimaginable and would - in this country - turn the monarchy into
something approaching a dynastic presidency. It may suit the Netherlands
but I really don't think it would suit us.
I accept that you are closer to the current situation than I am.
I think we agree that it's all a moot point because HM has not
breathed a word about retiring, and based on what we've all seen of
her character it's immensely unlikely she would.
Agreed. It's not in her nature, (or our tradition) and IMO, it's not in the
nature of her heir, either. Becoming monarch isn't a popularity contest so
she will be monarch until she dies and her son, Prince Charles, The Prince
of Wales, will be monarch after her and then after him Prince William and so
on and so forth. It really is very simple, in fact and therein lies its
strength - it is predictable in an increasingly unpredictable world.
--
Sacha
William Reitwiesner
2007-11-19 02:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Unless you were a Briton living in Britain at that time, or related to those
who were, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement. It was
indeed shattering to most because it was a shock as well as being seen as a
dereliction of duty in a dutiful age. Only a small inner coterie knew about
the matter for a long time, so when it broke to the public it caused a real
hoohaa. On top of that, he proposed to marry a twice-divorced woman at a
time when divorce was frowned upon in a serious way.
At the time of the Abdication, she had only been divorced once. The
King was derelicting his duty to pursue a woman who was, at the time,
still married to Mr. Simpson.
Sacha
2007-11-19 10:26:25 UTC
Permalink
On 19/11/07 02:17, in article
Post by William Reitwiesner
Post by Sacha
Unless you were a Briton living in Britain at that time, or related to those
who were, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement. It was
indeed shattering to most because it was a shock as well as being seen as a
dereliction of duty in a dutiful age. Only a small inner coterie knew about
the matter for a long time, so when it broke to the public it caused a real
hoohaa. On top of that, he proposed to marry a twice-divorced woman at a
time when divorce was frowned upon in a serious way.
At the time of the Abdication, she had only been divorced once. The
King was derelicting his duty to pursue a woman who was, at the time,
still married to Mr. Simpson.
Yes but to marry him she would have had to be - as indeed, she was -
divorced twice. Once was bad enough but twice......!
Divorced people were not received at court from what I recall, hence the
exclusion from the Enclosure at Royal Ascot and some who did divorce even
went so far as to move abroad to live to escape the social ostracism. In
some parts of the British Isles (such as where I was born) you couldn't
*get* a divorce - there was no divorce law.
--
Sacha
Stan Brown
2007-11-19 23:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:26:25 +0000 from Sacha
Post by Sacha
Divorced people were not received at court from what I recall, hence the
exclusion from the Enclosure at Royal Ascot
Both of which were within the King's power to change. Doubtless if
he'd made Mrs Simpson his Queen those things *would* have been
changed.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 13:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
On 17/11/07 01:13, in article
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
Oh really, this is such a tired old subject! Of course the Prince of Wales
will not abdicate. If he intended to do so, he would not be flogging
himself to death doing one tenth of the things he does now, all of which
benefit this country and so many of which, most unfairly, never get the
press coverage of some starlet's underwear colour or size. He could have
spent his time driving fast cars, commissioning luxury boats and spending a
fortune on interior design of his private home.
The subject of his failed marriage occupies far too much space in terms of
his 'value' to this country. That failure took two people; his continuing
usefulness to us all and his genuine concerns for UK far overwhelm that, IMO
and involve his dedication alone. He has battled on through whatever has
been thrown at him and he is most definitely being seen in a new light
because his own talents do now have a chance to shine. Dutiful, studious
and painstaking don't make for glamour or headlines but they do endure and
I'm not the only person I know who is thankful to see those in the PoW.
Most certainly he will not abdicate. Why should he? For having a failed
marriage or a mistress when his marriage failed? If that were the case the
monarchy would have collapsed centuries ago. Those are private matters, not
those of State and what led to them is also private and the subject of far
too much utterly ridiculous hyperbole. I simply do not care who did what to
whom, or when. It is just none of my business.
Nor will the Queen abdicate - ever. She took a vow and she will stick to
it. She knows, as does her eldest son, that becoming Monarch is not an
elective choice. And both know that to emulate Edward VIII would weaken the
monarchy by making it so. IMO, we're lucky to have both of them.
--
Sacha
Well said !!! And may I add that any royal such as Prince Charles
that supports Homeopathy must be possessed of wisdom and good sense,
indicative of qualities which will stand him in good stead as King.

Citizen Jimserac
allan connochie
2007-11-17 07:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.

Allan
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-17 07:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
[sop]
True.
Post by allan connochie
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though
that in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Also True.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
The Highlander
2007-11-17 18:02:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.

It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.

There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"

The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."

The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"

I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Turenne
2007-11-17 18:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.

Richard Lichten
The Highlander
2007-11-18 00:53:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.
Richard Lichten
You're English! That subtle blend of ignorance, bad manners,
pretentiousness and need to be noticed brands you instantly as home
county Anglotrash. Probably born in Croydon, living in Surbiton and
doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.

Doesn't it embarrass you make a fool of yourself on Usenet? Because
you just did, with your invented claims above.
j***@bigpond.com
2007-11-18 09:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.
Richard Lichten
You're English! That subtle blend of ignorance, bad manners,
pretentiousness and need to be noticed brands you instantly as home
county Anglotrash. Probably born in Croydon, living in Surbiton and
doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
Doesn't it embarrass you make a fool of yourself on Usenet? Because
you just did, with your invented claims above.
I think he is in fact Mancunian.
The Highlander
2007-11-18 17:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@bigpond.com
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.
Richard Lichten
You're English! That subtle blend of ignorance, bad manners,
pretentiousness and need to be noticed brands you instantly as home
county Anglotrash. Probably born in Croydon, living in Surbiton and
doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
Doesn't it embarrass you make a fool of yourself on Usenet? Because
you just did, with your invented claims above.
I think he is in fact Mancunian.
Ah yes - "What Manchester does today, London does tomorrow!"

(A Mancunian slogan).
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 13:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!

Citizen Jimserac
The Highlander
2007-11-18 17:19:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-18 17:47:47 UTC
Permalink
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.

Score one for Citizen Jimserac.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by The Highlander
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 18:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.
Score one for CitizenJimserac.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), CitizenJimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
CitizenJimserac
You're the expert!
Finally! Praise for something!

Citizen Jimserac
James Hogg
2007-11-18 18:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Temporarily putting aside his X-rated popcorn box,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.
Come on, Davey, you can't expect everyone to demonstrate your
extraordinary skills in the cut and thrust of wit and repartee.

It's especially difficult to emulate your skills since they have yet
to be demonstrated.

Pointing out that someone has reversed two letters and writing
"Hilarious" doesn't count.

Sorry.

James
Renia
2007-11-18 22:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
Temporarily putting aside his X-rated popcorn box,
I like it!
The Highlander
2007-11-19 07:25:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:47:47 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.
Don't you think it's time for you to die? Your usefulness has expired.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Score one for Citizen Jimserac.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by The Highlander
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
Turenne
2007-11-18 18:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Probably born in Croydon,
No, Northumberland
Post by The Highlander
...living in Surbiton
No, Cheshire
Post by The Highlander
..and doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
And succeeding...

Richard L
The Highlander
2007-11-19 07:27:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:22:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Post by The Highlander
Probably born in Croydon,
No, Northumberland
Post by The Highlander
...living in Surbiton
No, Cheshire
Post by The Highlander
..and doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
And succeeding...
Richard L
In a nutshell, a nobody.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 18:38:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), CitizenJimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
CitizenJimserac
You're the expert!
Hah!

Citizen Jimserac
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 17:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the minutes
silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when any royals
are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
William Black
2007-11-19 17:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks

The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.

That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Renia
2007-11-19 17:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
William Black
2007-11-19 17:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it certainly wasn't
on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it certainly
wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
Renia
2007-11-19 21:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it certainly
wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
Turenne
2007-11-19 22:03:48 UTC
Permalink
...However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
This excerpt is telling:

"First, on the faith, prayer, and self-dedication of the King himself;
and on that it would be improper for me to say anything except to
commend him to God's grace, which he will so abundantly need, as we
all need it - for the King is a man like ourselves - if he is to do
his duty faithfully. We hope that he is aware of his need. Some of us
wish that he gave more positive signs of such awareness."

The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.

Richard L
David
2007-11-20 02:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
...However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
"First, on the faith, prayer, and self-dedication of the King himself;
and on that it would be improper for me to say anything except to
commend him to God's grace, which he will so abundantly need, as we
all need it - for the King is a man like ourselves - if he is to do
his duty faithfully. We hope that he is aware of his need. Some of us
wish that he gave more positive signs of such awareness."
The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.
Richard L
That should perhaps read: "...and, as AGw suggests, not for his
relationship with Mrs Simpson." Otherwise the sentence is ambiguous.
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-11-20 04:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Turenne
However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had
nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.
That should perhaps read: "...and, as AGw suggests, not for his
relationship with Mrs Simpson." Otherwise the sentence is ambiguous.
Ah, so is *that* what Richard meant?


--
AGw.
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-11-20 04:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had
nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
"First, on the faith, prayer, and self-dedication of the King himself;
and on that it would be improper for me to say anything except to
commend him to God's grace, which he will so abundantly need, as we
all need it - for the King is a man like ourselves - if he is to do
his duty faithfully. We hope that he is aware of his need. Some of us
wish that he gave more positive signs of such awareness."
The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.
Is there an error in that last sentence? What you've stated me as
having "suggested" is the exact opposite of what I said, as can be
seen from my text as quoted in your own post!


--
AGw.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
By the way Scotch cannot watch TV and we Scots have known this for many
years.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 01:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Robert Peffers is quite correct here.

Pogue Black, the Englishman, should go back to school and learn the
difference between and among SCOT, SCOTTISH and SCOTCH.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch [sic]
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
By the way Scotch cannot watch TV and we Scots have known this for many
years.
William Black
2007-11-20 08:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Robert Peffers is quite correct here.
Pogue Black, the Englishman, should go back to school and learn the
difference between and among SCOT, SCOTTISH and SCOTCH.
I know exactly the difference.

It's possibly too subtle an insult for your feeble brain to encompass.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs and many
also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote when they
see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the volume either.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
William Black
2007-11-20 08:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs and
many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote when they
see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the volume either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech on TV.

You're either a liar or a fool.

Which is it to be?
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Renia
2007-11-20 09:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs
and many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote when
they see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the volume
either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech on TV.
You're either a liar or a fool.
Which is it to be?
Personally, I think he's a fool.
allan connochie
2007-11-19 23:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has always
been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best solution
is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)


Allan
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 02:01:55 UTC
Permalink
We seem to have a very small Anti-Royalist claque here -- crawling out of
the woodwork with their amusing Republican [in the British sense] ideas and
brain farts.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has always
been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best solution
is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
allan connochie
2007-11-20 07:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
We seem to have a very small Anti-Royalist claque here -- crawling out of
the woodwork with their amusing Republican [in the British sense] ideas
and brain farts.
On the contrary I may lean towards Republicanism but it is a vert soft
Republicanism at that and I'm quite happy to go on with what the majority of
the state wants. Like most of the British who are neither rabid Republicans
or Royalists. The system kind of works mostly because the monarch, who has a
couple of theoretical powers which will probably never be used, just doesn't
get involved in the running of the country. If she did then people would
seriously question the right of an unelected person to do so. Real power
lies within the Prime Minister's grasp and the pertinent question is whether
that position has gained too much power.

However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law. The main piece of interest seems to be as
to what she is dressed like! I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about
everyone else in my various circles, not a dot!


Allan
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has
always been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best
solution is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 07:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law.
Well, they remember the War Years and the binding forces of the British
Monarchy.

You don't have the benefits of that historical foundation.

They sound like the sort of Real Brits I should prefer to meet and avoid
_hoi polloi_.

Christmas is about more than just "festivities".

Cheers,

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
a.spencer3
2007-11-20 10:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by allan connochie
However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law.
Well, they remember the War Years and the binding forces of the British
Monarchy.
You don't have the benefits of that historical foundation.
They sound like the sort of Real Brits I should prefer to meet and avoid
_hoi polloi_.
Christmas is about more than just "festivities".
Good Lord ... Hines isn't approving of me at last, is he?
I must re-examine my values.

Surreyman
CJ Buyers
2007-11-20 12:52:17 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 20, 7:28 am, "allan connochie" <***@noemail.com> wrote:
" I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about everyone else in my
various circles, not a dot!"

Probably because, like most Brits, they sense a republican about to
mount his soapbox, mumble a mild agreement and move on for the sake of
peace and harmony.
Nebulous
2007-11-20 07:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
I'm pretty sure it is on at least three terrestrial channels imcluding ITV.
The difference now is that it is not shown at the same time. I think it is
around 6pm on ITV.

Neb
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:08:47 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <baldoniXXV <nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
: Hal expressed precisely :
:> On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> I'll spare the Irish.
:>
:>> It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>> Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>
:> Why?
:
: Why indeed !
:
: All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
: somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
: becomes King.

I don't think he has given serious thought to being anything but
Charles III but the newspapers need to fill their space...

: In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.

Why do you say that?
I'm not aware that he has had significant health problems.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David
2007-11-09 15:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
As has been pointed out, this is not particularly relevant.

I'm not sure why Princess Elizabeth chose the name "Charles" in 1948
-- perhaps it seemed more romantic -- but it's a little late to go
back now.

Anyway, there's a big difference between being a Charles and being a
George --

Random entry from the diary of a Charles:

CHARLES: London rioted again today. Some fool of a Puritan minister
(Dr. Morefruit Muddifoot, perhaps) says that after burning the
Catholics they will come and chop off my head. Ha, ha! What an
amusing people I rule.

GEORGE: Unable to hunt again due to the GOUT!!!! Mem: Find good
excuse to HANG that Scotch dog of a doctor!!!! Also, add another
course of meat pies to breakfast.
George Knighton
2007-11-10 13:11:41 UTC
Permalink
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.

It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:01:05 UTC
Permalink
What has he said about George III?

DSH
Post by George Knighton
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
Claude Latremouille
2007-11-11 05:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
*
Not to mention that George is one of his given names...
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille

=== ***@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:16:32 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty George Knighton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
: the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
:
: It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
: pick that name for his reign.
:

George.
I don't think there's a serious chance that he will pick any name
other than Charles.

Of course he is two months from the age at which Edward VII acceded,
and seems likely to break the record for age at accession now held
by William IV.

Will he break the record for time as The Prince of Wales (50 years
next year,I think only George IV and Edward VII were Prince longer
than that)?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David
2007-11-17 05:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
I don't think there's a serious chance that he will pick any name
other than Charles.
I don't either, but I wonder how much time a new monarch has to pick a
name? They need one pretty quickly for the formal proclamation, don't
they? Had Edward VII already made it known before his accession that
he wished to be known as Edward instead of Albert (contrary to his
mother's wishes)?
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

Interesting Connection...

Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>

DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Feck all sassanaigh
2007-11-10 16:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:17:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:50:24 -0800, Feck all sassanaigh
Post by Feck all sassanaigh
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
Even despite your example, I find that unlikely.
Turlough
2007-11-10 18:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
jl
2007-11-12 10:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
Turlough
2007-11-12 11:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?
I'm afraid we'll never know, Jochen. The man is quite shy, you
understand. You have a great web site though... :>)
Sacha
2007-11-12 11:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
"HIS passion for the countryside was mocked, he had a mania for architecture
and some dismissed him as a dangerous eccentric. Now a public rehabilitation
of King George III is being sought by the Prince of Wales.
Today ³mad² King George¹s place in history is as the monarch who lost the
American colonies. But in a BBC documentary the Prince says that his
ancestor¹s energy and down-to-earth charm might even have persuaded American
revolutionaries to change their minds if only a royal tour across the
Atlantic had been possible in the 18th century.
History has obscured the real George III, who demonstrated some of the most
attractive traits of any monarch, says the Prince, describing him as one of
Britain¹s most dutiful, cultured and misunderstood rulers.
For all the bouts of mania, enshrined on film in The Madness of King George,
the King was definitely not mad. ³I¹ve read the doctor¹s reports and the
King¹s correspondence in the royal archives and I concluded that yes, he was
ill, but he was not insane,² the Prince says in the BBC Two Timewatch
documentary, to be broadcast next week.
The Queen is backing the rehabilitation campaign. In March, Buckingham
Palace will stage the first major exhibition of artefacts collected by
George III and his consort, Queen Charlotte. The 500 pieces from the Royal
Collection present George as the era¹s leading patron of music, the arts and
sciences.
³For many years I¹ve been fascinated by my ancestor,² the Prince says.
³George III led Britain through 60 years of enormous social upheaval,
industrial revolution and terrible hardships inflicted by war with Napoleon.
Yet history remembers him above all as the Œmad king¹ or the king who lost
America. This is a travesty.²

extracted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1003367.ece
26.01.04

and from The Guardian 27.12.05

"Clarence House yesterday issued a pained denial of claims that the Prince
of Wales has held private discussions with "trusted friends" about the
possibility of reigning as George VII rather than risk the negative
connotations attached to the name King Charles.
...................
One such friend told the Guardian: "Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales
knows he does not sit around talking to his chums, discussing what he wants
to be called. Inasmuch as officials have discussed it with him at accession
planning meetings the thinking was that he would remain Charles.""

(posted to atr only)
--
Sacha
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Turlough
2007-11-13 11:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
The Highlander
2007-11-13 16:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
That's very caring of you, Turlough! Here's how it works:

soc.culture.scottish and soc.culture.irish are irresistible targets
because they are two of the world's most interesting cultures.

In both groups the same agendas are at work. They are as follows:

People who are of Scottish or Irish descent who want to connect with
their roots.

People who aren't of Scottish or Irish descent but would love to be.

People with an axe to grind, aka "The English" and "The Australians".

People overcome with envy because the Scots can move smoothly into sex
mode by merely flipping up their kilts instead of spending hours
trying to disentangle their Y-fronts from their Doc Martins while
hobbling after their encounter of the evening, shouting, "Come back!
I love you! Didn't I buy you two rum and cokes!"

Irish people overcome with envy because the Scots have the knack of
wheedling free drinks out of tourists.

Scots overcome with envy because the Irish can blow up pubs where
tourists don't offer them free drinks and get away with it. "It was da
Rah, yer honour!"

Specialized agendas:

Men who want to be Braveheart.

Women who want to be interfered with by Braveheart.

Men who want to have a shower with Braveheart.

Men who want to join an IRA Active Service Unit.

Men who read Ray's memoirs and decide to pass.

Men who are drawn to the Scots/Irish image of unlimited violence.

Women who believe that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

Men who hope that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

People who think the Scots and Irish are "cute".

People who hate the Scots and the Irish for being "cute".

People who want to wear skirts but are afraid their mothers will find
out, unless there is an excuse, like "wearing the dress of my
ancestors!" (Fashion warning: a cute little summer number with polka
dots and a low bustline just isn't going to cut it, If you decide to
go for it anyway, at least shave your chest.)

People who want to spend the rest of their lives in a drunken stupor
shouting "Fuck the Bastard English!" or "Feck da Prods/Taigs!"

People who are bored with soc.culture.british and want more out of
Usenet than whining in four-part harmony.

People who are demented and think scs/sci can be a home on the Net.

People who get off on tormenting the demented.

People like you and I who watch all this with bemused wonder.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:19:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
died without legitimate issue.

Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Robert Peffers
2007-11-13 20:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
died without legitimate issue.
Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
By the way he goes on now he seemes to have already lost much of its
contents.
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:18:02 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
: <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:
:>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>
:>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
:>was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
:>twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:
: Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
: Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
: of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:
: Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
: would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:
: Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.

That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.

: Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
: entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
: short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
: vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
: ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
: insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
:>
:>However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
:>FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
:
: There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
: Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
: inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
: died without legitimate issue.
:
: Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
:
:>DSH
:>
:>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
:>------------------------------------------
:>
:>"allan connochie" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
:>news:AIHYi.9746$***@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
:>>
:>> "Brian Sharrock" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
:>> news:bgFYi.9718$***@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
:>
:>>> The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
:>>> as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
:>>> 'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
:>>> presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
:>>> Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
:>>> bet as to which it might be.
:>>
:>> Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
:>> Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
:>>
:>> Allan
:>
:

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
allan connochie
2007-11-17 07:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>
:>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
:>was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
:>twice removed to the throne in 1603.
: Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
: Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
: of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
: Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
: would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
: Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
The Arbroath Letter states categorically that if the monarch isn't acting on
behalf of the Scottish people then they can be deposed. King Robert himself
must have agreed to this contractual monarchy even if he wasn't happy about
it. However James VII was actually thrown off the throne by the Scots
(admittedly they could only safely do this once he'd lost his English power
base) and was proclaimed a traitor. Again it was spelt out clearly what a
monarch must do to hold the crown and that was they had to be of the
Scottish royal line, be of the Protestant faith and swear the Coronation
Oath guaranteeing the Presbyterian settlement in Scotland. So the idea that
it is contractual with the people as to who gets to sit on the throne is as
old as the hills, in England as well as in Scotland. As to the monarchy
itself, no matter what you think, or wish, the case to be, the fact is that
if the British people decided they wanted a Republic (a mighty big if but
I'm talking hypothetically) then a Republic there would be!

Allan
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...