Chuck will stew until Liz croaks....and id the old bird lives to be 100, Chuck will be king at age 77...if he lives that long...
RB
ps: My dear Mom was an ardent monarchist and I was raised with lots of British royal family news, and Chuck was born a couple months after me but given the behaviour of most of them over the last several decades, I think they all need to get a job and stop sponging off the British taxpayers.
Amen to that. These 'Windsors' aren't even British. Back around WWI they changed their real German name to Windsor from Saxe Coburg Gotha. Canada should kick their useless arses down the road and off the dole. It costs million$ to have any of those spongers come here. Makes me sick to see the public bowing and grovelling to these idiots. They live off our tax monies, therefore they should damn well be bowing and grovelling to US!
I live in the UK, and as my name implies (to those who know their history) i'm greatly opposed to the monarchy.
The sooner this farce ends and we (the people of Britain) reclaim all of the palaces, the money, and gifts they've received on our behalf for the last few centuries the better.
I dont believe that is true, and I remember when that argument was used for the royal yacht 'Britannia'. It was the mantra said by everyone in the media and MP's from all the three main political parties when Britannia was due to be scrapped. ....then the numbers were crunched and it wasnt even close. The only argument that had any *small* amount of merit was that British businessmen were able to occasionally use it as a floating expo/conference facility. The idea was that foreign government civil servants and businessmen would be so impressed by it, that they would award contracts to British business regardless of the bottom line, timescale, kickbacks or any of the other things which non-British companies needed to cut a deal.
EssexExMo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The idea was that > foreign government civil servants and businessmen > would be so impressed by it, that they would award > contracts to British business regardless of the > bottom line, timescale, kickbacks or any of the > other things which non-British companies needed to > cut a deal.
There is some truth to the idea though.
If a salesman turns up in a high end luxury car you are naturally more inclined to listen to them, rather than a guy turning up in a 20 year old rust bucket that barely starts.
There is the law of diminishing returns though. Is there a difference between a salesman who turns up in a new $50,000 car versus a $1,000,000 car? Probably not.
Victoria ruled from 1837 to 1901. Elizabeth started in 1952. In between, Mary of Teck was the Queen Consort and Queen Mother.
Mary was extremely influential. Diaries show she spent more time raising Elizabeth than Elizabeth's mother, for example. Her husband and sons often followed her advice(and badly needed it). Her popular presence may well have saved the monarchy when other countries dumped theirs after WWII.
Women leaders have had a huge influence in England since the time of Joseph Smith. We still didn't get much mention in the BoM.
We can all name and recognize a picture of the current British monarch. I can't do that with any other European monarch. They are indeed tourist attractions and avatars for the UK, and darn good ones at that. Money well spent.
And Kate is too cute to dispense with. She'll keep their run going for another century. I think the Lady in Red in the Toyota ads was deliberately chosen because she resembles Kate in appearance and behavior.
Until Elizabeth was a teenager (as I remember), she was NOT in direct line for the throne...that only happened when her uncle abdicated his position as king (which meant that Elizabeth's father succeeded her uncle, placing her next-in-line as monarch).
Her uncle abdicating...her father then becoming king...and, thus, she herself becoming next-in-line were unexpected and fairly shocking to everyone (including individual British subjects).
Given that these events were totally unanticipated, I think Elizabeth has (overall) done an amazing job during a period of continuing historical change unique in world history...and it is obvious that she has done the best, and BETTER, than would have been predicted from her own capabilities and her own deficiencies.
I am sorry for her sister, who basically committed long-term suicide after her older sister forbade her to marry the only man her sister ever really loved.
I am sorry for Charles and Diana, who virtually had an arranged marriage to meet Charles's requirement to provide "an heir and a spare."
I am sorry for her former daughter-in-law who was detested by both Elizabeth and (most especially) Elizabeth's husband, Philip---to the point where son and daughter-in-law divorced, but continued living together as a family because that's where they wanted to be.
And I am sorry for her. She was able to get the "approved" marriage that she HAD to have...and she unquestionably gained a good friend from that marriage, but she has NEVER known real love (or, very probably, ANY good sex---the kind that comes from two people who really are in tune with each other, and really in love and in lust with each other).
But she certainly has fulfilled her responsibilities (beginning IMMEDIATELY when it became obvious that she would one day be Queen), and it is obvious that she has done her very, very, VERY best.
For her nearly unbelievable loyalty to her country and her people (unlike, for example, her uncle), she deserves the place in history she has earned.
She did the best she could with what she had, and that is---in reality---the best ANY of us can do in any of our lives.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2015 03:55PM by tevai.
I feel very uncomfortable speculating on the love and sex lives of living people. it seems a strange pastime to me. I feel like saying "cite your source", but I don't think I really want to know...
finnan haddie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel very uncomfortable speculating on the love > and sex lives of living people. it seems a strange > pastime to me. I feel like saying "cite your > source", but I don't think I really want to > know...
It is not speculation, and it is not a "pastime"...it is a matter of biographical and historical record...and (as has always been the case in European history as a whole, and PARTICULARLY in the U.K.) it actually does have a great deal to do with understanding the "whys" and "hows" of greater European history (going back at least to the 1500s).
EDITED TO ADD: In my opinion, one of the best introductions (on levels both historical AND biographical) is the critically very well-regarded...
PRINCE PHILIP: The Turbulent Early Life of the Man Who Married Queen Elizabeth II, by Philip Eade...
Read this and you will understand European (as a whole), AND U.K., history better than you probably ever have before.
Very highly recommended (by me!!!). :)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2015 05:11PM by tevai.
Princess Elizabeth met Philip when she was 13 and developed a crush on him. They corresponded for years. She was always determined that he was the one for her. Her parents and many courtiers felt she could do better and were wary of Lord Mountbatten's ambition. She eventually won out. They seem to have had a happy marriage.She, at least, was definitwly in love.
bona ea unregistered Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Princess Elizabeth met Philip when she was 13 and > developed a crush on him. They corresponded for > years. She was always determined that he was the > one for her. Her parents and many courtiers felt > she could do better and were wary of Lord > Mountbatten's ambition. She eventually won out. > They seem to have had a happy marriage.She, at > least, was definitwly in love.
Based on what I have read(*), I agree on all points, bona dea.
[ (*) When I was in fifth grade, I was given permission for self-directed reading in place of having to be part of "reading class." Mr. Lang (my teacher) said: "Go to the library, pick out a book you want to read, and after you read it, write a book report on it, turn in the book report...and then go back to the library and get another book." He said I could read any book I wanted from our "local" (in a different community, at that time) public library...and books in the adult section were not only permitted, but expected. The first book I chose was an adult biography titled something like "The Princesses," about the lives of Princess Elizabeth and her sister, Princess Margaret...and how Elizabeth had been an "accidental" heir to the throne, and how her life changed so radically after her father abruptly became king, and about her real expertise as an auto mechanic---her actual job during WW II---which impressed me immensely!!! From what I've been able to gather, she still IS a crack auto mechanic!! :D After that first book about [at that time] recent British history, I've read a book about British history/government/biography every two or three years since---just to kind of review, as well as keep up.]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2015 05:03PM by tevai.
Sorry to most of my fellow Brits here who appear to be very anti-monarchy but I have nothing but the highest regard for the Queen.
My husband was with the foreign office on a posting to the British High Commission in New Delhi in the 80's when the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh paid a state visit to India. Everyone at the High Commission, including spouses, was roped in to help with the smooth running of the visit. The schedule that the Queen and the Duke had was absolutely punishing, it certainly opened my eyes to the amount of work that she did then and continues to do today in spite of her great age. Very few people can say that they have fulfilled their duty like she has.
Many of the true British patriots, those loyal to the people fled to the US and Holland to avoid the wrath of Charles II.
The monarchy is not worth the money. How many holidays do Andrews waster daughters need?
How is it that Britain will give £200 million to fund this birth right spectacle and yet complain about funding education for kids from poor backgrounds.
The birth lottery means a child born to this family gets everything and total access as compared to a child born in Glasgow slums who will be means tested for basic necessities and get no free passes to Wimbledon or any other glamour events.