That’s the thing with the right of primogeniture. You get what you are given, you don’t get to pick and chose.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Wish we could, Kings are bloody boring usually and we have 2 absolute snoozefests coming up!
It also got railways, the rule of law and Westminster style democracy and the end of widows being thrown on funeral pyres, the Empire was not all bad. In any case many of the worst aspects of Empire were actually begun by the East India Company.
The fact remains India is an independent republic and has been for decades and its national and state governments are responsible for the state of India now
They aren't terribly costly. The monarchy costs far less than the US Presidency for instance and brings in far more revenue from royal weddings, jubilees, coronations etc with global brand recognition unmatched for a head of state of any nation of our size.But that perspective was not posited either.
Complex issues like economic and social stability or poverty cannot be reduced to the existence of a monarchy in a particular state and it would be foolish on either side of the argument to state that. Gone are the days when the presence of a royal family may have held such sway or influence.
They are largely irrelevant beyond the occassional pantomime they put on, they're terribly costly and are an affront to a meritocratic society. It's *those* reasons (in my opinion) that they need to be phased out. I'd never fool my Republican self that they have any true economic impact.
I agree with the concern around having consistently older leaders but Charles is next and Charles it will be. The lack of choice is the very essence of the thing.
We elect our PM and Parliament, we don't need to elect our ceremonial head of state, the royal family do a fine job with it
Depends, James IInd was replaced by William IIIrd and Mary via a Parliament led process, Edward VIIIth abdicated in favour of his brother George VIth under pressure from Parliament. If the need is there Parliament can replace a monarch with another and has done so
Charles doesn’t seem to want to convert to Catholicism or have friends that would be considered enemies of the state, though. He seems pretty innocuous and I don’t think being over 70 is really much of a bar to a position that is mainly ceremonial.
Queen Juliana of the Netherlands contracted German Measles during her final pregnancy and never really forgave herself for the eye problems suffered by Princess Christina who was born virtually blind.
Just been reading about her - seems she was able to gain enough sight through operations and glasses to live a relatively normal life. Regardless of her struggles she achieved quite a lot with her work. Must have been devastating for Queen Juliana though.
The Queen so frail at the garter ceremony that I hardly recognised her. I truly believe that she has something more than mobility issues
I think in future they need to do away with having "spares" infant mortality is very low nowadays and with the slimmed down monarchy there won't be a direct role for them? The spares tend to have more problems, lack of direction and jealousy. They will be treated differently to the heir and that's awful for a child to deal with.
Before that it was shafted by the mughal empire. Humans are a crappy nasty race there's always some country/empire wanting to expand and dominate its happened for thousands of years.
Last edited:
They are but how is that any different to QE2? There have been lots of interesting Queens in history but she’s hardly one of them, the only thing going for her is longevity.
I agree. But I think it’s not even always clear what’s actually PR and what’s on the tabloids. See, I don’t believe H&M were made the whipping boys by the royal PR machine. They suffered the way most royal couples, especially those in second place, go. Hyped up through engagement and wedding. Smack down shortly afterwards. Happened to W&K as well. H&M were just in the unlucky position that the media had W&K to play them against and H is extra sensitive on top. The Cambridge PR had to do absolutely nothing. They leaned back and just presented W&K as good as possible. I think the royal PR machine did nothing to go against the smack down, but they never do, but they also didn’t cause it. A very different scenario than the Cambridge vs. Charles one we had some years before that.
Well, she was very pretty in her early years and Queens just bring the pretty clothes and sparkle. But that’s true for non reigning Queens as well. Superficial. Apart from that I don’t care either way because I don’t think the monarchs sex determines if it’s an interesting character/reign. HMTQ is interesting in so far as she came to the throne very young and wasn’t born into the heiress position. The fray out of the Empire is another interesting point to watch. If I were them, I would rid myself of all those little dominions as quickly as possible. Be a step ahead to avoid another Jamaica debacle. The second this became serious about getting rid of her as HoS she should have sent them on their merry way.
Last edited:
I'm gutted I missed out on the jubilee merch. Some of it looks amazing on the queen's shop.
If she makes it two more years will there be another jubilee to celebrate the longest monarch ever??
If she makes it two more years will there be another jubilee to celebrate the longest monarch ever??
Why is the british press so complacent and non-judgmental when it comes to Cambridges and their lovely Adelaide cottage? No front pages screaming ''How many toilets do you need'' etc...Because they need a hero and a villain, and they currently have ' modest 4 bedroom semi in Surrey' against 15 BEDROOM MANSION IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!. They will remember when the time comes.
What about the ' budget Easyjet flight' photo opp? They all try and outdo each other, and for no reason. Charles and William can do what they like. They will still get King. All I can think of is its extreme boredom.
It'll be on ebay before then! I was tempted to take a look. My son was gutted I missed out on the Aldi Jubilee Corgi. My aldi is tit.
Last edited:
But that’s exactly what I mean. The PR just jumped on the opportunity. They didn’t create the drama over the 11 private jet trips in two weeks. But of course they had the easiest time to build on it. I mean, that was too good to pass up on it. If they only had done it properly with an actual commercial flight
You can turn that on its head though. With a constitutional monarchy you can know exactly who you will get and be able to do nothing about it. Like Edward VIII, in some ways Mrs Wallis did this country a huge favour. What would have happened with him as king during the war could have been really bad. Real risk that things like appeasement might have been pushed for far longer and he would have been unstoppable.
It’s a tricky one isn’t it … and a lot must ride on the perception of the people involved, it’s pretty well written that Harry and William had barnies well before Kate and Meghan and that Harry felt a lot of his antics were overplayed in reporting to allow William’s to be underplayed.
if you grow up in that environment (and let’s face it, his mum and dad were at master’s degree level), it must make you fairly cynical about the various PR factions and their MO.
It’s strange with the Queen … her reign hasn’t been boring, really, it’s just that most of the stuff has happened around her rather than being anything to do with her directly.
Or was in the time when the royals really weren't criticised in the media.
She was described as sounding like a pious schoolgirl and her marriage with Philip went through a really bad time. Philip was raging at having to give up his career early when he really did have the ability to go to the top, was treated like tit by the courtiers, and wasn't allowed to give his children his surname; even now, the media forget the "Mountbatten" part, referring to Louise as "Lady Louise Windsor" instead of Mountbatten-Windsor. Andrew was known as "the lovechild" by Palace staff and there's two schools of thought: (1) make up child between Liz and Philip, or (2) child of Lord Porchester.
He was removed by Parliament well before that point under the Abdication Act and in any case the monarch does not decide when to declare war the PM does. In France and the US for example it is the President who decides when to go to war
After the funeral of HMQ and the coronation of Charles, H&M will be able to fade further back (should they choose to) as there will be fewer occasions where their presence is expected. That leaves a smaller field for that open season.
H&M are such crappy people that people overlook the Cambridges who are now saints, instead of just as spoilt with better PR because William is the heir. How many houses do they need? How much money will it cost when others cannot pay the bills? 'Private funds' still means taxpayer money, doesn't it? And why stay at Anmer when in 10 years he will most likely be king? They have no foresight. The only hard-working family members are Charles, Anne and Sophie.
- Status