Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In my minds eye, with every freedom comes responsibility. This forum demonstrates this particularly well. We can all debate pretty much what we like but we have the responsibility to try not to offend other members. I'm sorry Carole, but I find your observations regarding our Royal Family both insensitive and offensive, as I suspect will quite a few others on this forum do.

We do not do "politics" for just this reason, and although I realise that this whole thread has the potential for strong personal opinions, I had hoped it was not going to descend into that particular abyss.

There are members here who have risked their lives in the name of the monarchy, and probably other members who would do so if called upon. Please bear that in mind when commenting on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have avoided contributing more to this thead as I had a feeling that it might head in the wrong direction.

I must comment though John that I am 100 percent in agreement with what you say.

It has been bad enough with the media constantly looking to try and portray our Royal family in a negative way.  Please let us not allow this thread to go the same way.

With regard to Princess Diana about who the thread started about.

It is 20 years since the tragic events in Paris and although she will never be forgotten it is long time she was allowed to rest in peace.

The Royal Family, especially Prince William and Prince Harry will always have the true  memories of her but they must be really sick of constantly seeing her pictures all over the papers after all this time.

I do not wish to add further to this thread but I am a Royalist and am proud to says so.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not remotely anti royalist, indeed I consider our royal family one of, if not our greatest, asset.  I'm just not and never have been, pro Diana.  Regarding William and Kate, latest figures show the number of "engagements" carried out by them fall very short of most of the rest of the working family  the reason being given, that they wish to  remain at home with their children I think this is grist to the mill of anti royalists and republicans and is basically wrong. I really had hoped they would do better than this and saw them as a breath of much needed fresh air when they arrived on the scene who would do much good for the royal family's image. The Princess Royal raised 2 children while carrying out a punishing work load and continues to quietly  do so. This is the sort of commitment that will assure the continuity of the Royal family. Do not accuse me of being anti royalist nothing could be further from the truth, but in todays' climate I do see them as something of an endangered species which I find worrying.

 

 

carole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, Once again I got it wrong.

Carole, I have just re-read ALL your posts on this thread and it is plain to see your stance is, as spelled out to me in this most recent post.

I unreservedly and publicly apologise. I took two of your posts completely out of context.

In reality, we do agree on much, especially Diana and this latest mawkish raking over the ashes. Where we seem not to agree is the current situation regarding Prince William and family. Things are different these days. Media is permanently on overkill, technology denies any privacy and the Prince & Princess are in the public eye vastly more that our Queen was when she was a princess. I think to-date they are doing just fine

I believe that when King, William will have a reign probably nearly as long as our Queen's. He is of that age. I doubt Charles' reign will be of great length, though it is essential that he does become King for Prince William to succeed him.

If I have this right, If Prince Charles were to abdicate now, or if anything were to happen to him before the end of the Queen's reign, Prince Andrew would be next in line for the throne. No disrespect intended but I do not see that as a good thing for the Monarchy.

If Prince William does take things easy for a bit, he will earn that time later when he will be very very busy, I hope for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Whoops, Once again I got it wrong.

Carole, I have just re-read ALL your posts on this thread and it is plain to see your stance is, as spelled out to me in this most recent post.

I unreservedly and publicly apologise. I took two of your posts completely out of context.

In reality, we do agree on much, especially Diana and this latest mawkish raking over the ashes. Where we seem not to agree is the current situation regarding Prince William and family. Things are different these days. Media is permanently on overkill, technology denies any privacy and the Prince & Princess are in the public eye vastly more that our Queen was when she was a princess. I think to-date they are doing just fine

I believe that when King, William will have a reign probably nearly as long as our Queen's. He is of that age. I doubt Charles' reign will be of great length, though it is essential that he does become King for Prince William to succeed him.

If I have this right, If Prince Charles were to abdicate now, or if anything were to happen to him before the end of the Queen's reign, Prince Andrew would be next in line for the throne. No disrespect intended but I do not see that as a good thing for the Monarchy.

If Prince William does take things easy for a bit, he will earn that time later when he will be very very busy, I hope for many years.

Happy to accept the apology MM,  thank you Yes  we do seem to see things similarly,  I actually think Prince Charles will make a very good conscientious King, given the chance and suffers unfairly I think from adverse publicity. Air miles Andy for king? I would hope not!

 

 

Carole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In discordance with my previous comment re- Prince Charles I do in fact uphold our monarchy,  my comments were made on the basis of the only time i met Charles, where my hand was briefly shaken and he was already moving on to the person next to me, it was so brief that the photographer covering the event missed his shaking hands with me. however given the gorgeous young lady beside me next in line, I can fully understand his lack of interest.

That said I do applaud his stance on modern architecture, and the various other good causes he stands for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark (PsychicSurveyor),

That is indeed the line of succession but for it to follow through, each member has to be crowned and then abdicate (or die).

I think you will find that if Prince Charles were to "withdraw" (before being made king) from the existing line,  then the Queens eldest son (or perhaps now her daughter) would be the next in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that if Prince Charles were to "withdraw" (before being made king) from the existing line,  then the Queens eldest son (or perhaps now her daughter) would be the next in line.

 

I can't see him quitting this near the finish line,  60 years of waiting must give you great patience :default_biggrin:

He also allegedly has a very low opinion of his brothers and his nieces..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote "Withdraw" as a tactful way of saying "no longer in the running" for any one of many possible reasons. However, my research tells me that It seems the protocol I believed was still current is no longer the case and that even if he predeceases the Queen, his heirs are still in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To confirm that if, for any reason HRH The Price of Wales were not to ascend the throne the line of succession continues, i.e. William, George etc. Like any family, I think the House of Windsor has some better members than others but in general I have great respect for our Monarchy, I think it does an excellent job for this country. That said, I do think they treated Diana quite shoddily, virtually arranging the marriage between her and Charles but she was far from the sweet little innocent which she portrayed. She jumped on the train and rode it for all it was worth and became an expert at manipulating the press and public opinion. That said, she did support and promote a number of excellent causes. Whatever your opinion of Diana I find the constant attention she still receives in the media quite tiresome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like Kate.  I admired her for trying to continue a life of normality when she first married into the royalty.  Was a bit stunned one morning to bump into her (well not literally, but to pass her in the aisle) in Holyhead Tesco's around 8am, a few months after they got married and he was still serving as a helicopter pilot in the RAF Mountain Rescue team in Anglesey. I'm sure she must have had security people/person around her somewhere, but if so they were very discreet.  People in Anglesey loved that they occasionally turned up in local pubs and even the local pizza take-away.

By the way, working in the Mountain Rescue helicopter team isn't a free-load by any measure.  They frequently have to fly out in the worst of weathers.

Helen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.