Guest Guest66881 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 Loose the Royalty and Britain loses it's history, i am not a royalist at all i find the Germanic element interesting it's the alien lizard side of the family that as me worried:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted September 15, 2013 Author Share Posted September 15, 2013 There is no reason for Britain to lose its royalty, just some of the un necessary trimmings that got with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrshire2oz Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 The RTP one of the best books ive read in a long long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jen85 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Someone has to do the royal jobs and the queen is getting to old and charles isn't going to get the thrown so it makes sense for Will to take over. You have to keep it going its history! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Someone has to do the royal jobs and the queen is getting to old and charles isn't going to get the thrown so it makes sense for Will to take over. You have to keep it going its history! Who said Charles wont get the throne ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest littlesarah Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 For those who favour a republic, would electing and maintaining property for a president be cheaper than the current situation? After all, most of them have multiple residences, jet planes, etc, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jen85 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Who said Charles wont get the throne ? I don't reckon the Queen's going to give it to him and not many other people do either from what I have heard, sucks for him but as long as they keep the traditions going thats all that matters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest littlesarah Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I don't reckon the Queen's going to give it to him and not many other people do either from what I have heard, sucks for him but as long as they keep the traditions going thats all that matters! The likelihood is that the Queen will die before Prince Charles, in which case he is next in line, and even a Royal can't control who lives and dies (unless you believe that Diana conspiracy theorists, but that's a different thread!)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I don't think Charles is that big an issue it is Camilla that many people don't like and would not want as Queen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted September 16, 2013 Author Share Posted September 16, 2013 I don't think Charles is that big an issue it is Camilla that many people don't like and would not want as Queen Would she be Queen though? Phillip is not a King. I thought the public perception had modified with regards to Camilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 They would look like an advert for cuprinol:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Would she be Queen though? Phillip is not a King. I thought the public perception had modified with regards to Camilla. True but the palace is starting to send Camilla out on her own now to perform royal duties possibly to gage public reaction. People have long memories and they may be warming to Charles but Camilla ? hum not sure of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jen85 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 True but the palace is starting to send Camilla out on her own now to perform royal duties possibly to gage public reaction. People have long memories and they may be warming to Charles but Camilla ? hum not sure of that. Isn't that because the royal title goes down the male line not the female? i.e. because the queens dad was king she carries it on whereas phillip was not royalty to begin with, this wouldn't apply to Catherine though because Will is royal, as I said down the male line, not sure just guessing really.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incata Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Isn't that because the royal title goes down the male line not the female? i.e. because the queens dad was king she carries it on whereas phillip was not royalty to begin with, this wouldn't apply to Catherine though because Will is royal, as I said down the male line, not sure just guessing really.. I don't know whether or not your reasoning is correct, but you have made one minor factual error. Prince Philip is royalty. He is Prince Philip of Greece and had Greece retained their monarchy he would be King of Greece. Now that would be interesting, having our Queen as both Queen of England and Queen of Greece at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix16 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Nope, and a twenty second search would mean you could post something correct rather than propagating mistruths to try and support your opinion. it's only Wikipedia, but its the most succinct of all the returns Finance[edit source | editbeta] Australians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside of Australia. Only when the Queen is in Australia, or acting abroad as Queen of Australia, does the Australian government support her in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family. Usually the Queen's Australian governments pays only for the costs associated with the governor-general and governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices and ceremonial occasions, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia Thanks for that, interesting and I've learnt something I didn't know!! Big thanks!! Could you take it a step further and let me know if we pay anything to be part of the commonwealth or is that all free too?? Would be awesome to think our taxes go totally and fully to Aus government and no monies from Aus go towards the commonwealth (which I do personally link directly or indirectly to royals hence my previous comments!,) quite intrigued to think we are part of the commonwealth, we have the queen as head of state and all for FREE!! Wowser and awesome! Happy to have a freebie not sure I'd want to financially contribut if I had a choice!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix16 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Nope, and a twenty second search would mean you could post something correct rather than propagating mistruths to try and support your opinion. it's only Wikipedia, but its the most succinct of all the returns Finance[edit source | editbeta] Australians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside of Australia. Only when the Queen is in Australia, or acting abroad as Queen of Australia, does the Australian government support her in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family. Usually the Queen's Australian governments pays only for the costs associated with the governor-general and governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices and ceremonial occasions, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia PS a 2 minute google search on something so pointless is just 2 minutes of my life wasted, thank you for saving me the trouble xxxxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fisheys Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 After a seven year stint in the military Prince William is taking a year out to find himself. It is said it cost GBP 3 million to train him. His interest seem to lay with protecting wild life in Africa. Some may ask if this is not a waste of a top education in what could look a little like a 31 year old privileged man opting out in order to follow Royal Duty as a career path. Surely he is up to more higher callings than cutting ribbons and unveiling plaques? No one begrudges six months off maternity leave but could William be going down the road of Prince Andrew? Or his Dad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fisheys Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I suppose in fairness he cannot have a life he chooses, his life / career is pre ordained, so he cannot exercise any real life choices. And before the usual suspects kick off whinging about how hard it must be to be a future king, remember he couldn't choose his life, the rest of us have all had to a greater, or lesser extent some choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jen85 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I don't know whether or not your reasoning is correct, but you have made one minor factual error. Prince Philip is royalty. He is Prince Philip of Greece and had Greece retained their monarchy he would be King of Greece. Now that would be interesting, having our Queen as both Queen of England and Queen of Greece at the same time! I stand corrected, educated in oz not a brit so thanks for the clarification, in that case I have no idea! :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Probably not the best PR for Prince William, people were generally not going to like the idea of a 31 year old royal and future king "having a year off" to think about what to do, thank goodness he didn't say to "find himself". But to those complaining that his privileged life is "not fair" well news flash is that no, life is not fair. Many people have inherited wealth, not just royals and I expect there are billions of people on this planet that would look at ordinary people like us on PIO and think it not fair that they did not get the life we all got by virtue of where we happened to be born. No life is not fair, anyone who wants fairness is going to spend their life disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Isn't that because the royal title goes down the male line not the female? i.e. because the queens dad was king she carries it on whereas phillip was not royalty to begin with, this wouldn't apply to Catherine though because Will is royal, as I said down the male line, not sure just guessing really.. As I understand (and I may be wrong and happy to be corrected), it isn't going down a line, it is about marriage not parentage. So Philip is not King because the spouse of a Queen is not a King. However the spouse of a King is a Queen. Catherine will be Queen as will Camilla (although suspect she might not use the title). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.