Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Member |
Come and get it, if you think you can. | |||
|
Member |
| |||
|
| half-genius, half-wit |
I'm interrupting, but only to note that in the same way that I do not insult, denigrate, poo-hoo or otherwise belittle YOUR Head-of-State. I would ask you to temper your opinion of my Head-of-State with a little gentlemanliness. We can not all love each other, but the UK and what it stands for have been good friends of the United States of America for well over two hundred years. Reading some of the comments here, a reader might well be led to think totally the opposite. Thank you. | |||
|
32nd degree |
I agree 1000% Tac foley. my original post was a serious question. All ways looking for more light. ___________________  "the world doesn't end til yer dead, 'til then there's more beatin's in store, stand it like a man, and give some back" Al Swearengen | |||
|
| The Ice Cream Man |
tacfoley, don't take this personally. However, as an explanation: The "aristocracy" were brigands, who became the first Socialists. Much of the US are descended from the property of those brigands/people who were heavily persecuted fleeing being forced into bondage. Some of the US culture are the second sons of brigands, who mostly came here out of a desire for chattel of their own. My family family killed its way out of bondage, eventually made it to the colonies, and served during the War of Independence. If our nations get along, that's great - but only the sick parts of American culture like the concept of aristocracy. (Nothing against Elizabeth, personally - but when Americans oblige her whims, beyond the courtesy due to a woman of her years, its disgusting.) | |||
|
| Big Stack |
She's been doing her deal level best to outlive him.
| |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Oh, get over it. It was 250 years ago. We have no beef with the British now. In fact, we have been the best of allies since the middle of the 19th century. Sure, we don't want a monarch, but the British seem to like theirs for the most part, and the system is working for them. I think the Queen is admirable and has done her duty very well for a very long time. She isn't my queen, but I'd be happy to give her her due. (Charles will be king unless he has the bad luck to be outlived by his mother. All the speculation about him being skipped hasn't come from any real source. It is just talk.) The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
Step by step walk the thousand mile road |
That is your opinion. Speak it loudly, if that's your shtick. But there is nothing "sick" part of my interest in aristocracy and monarchy. The United States of America would not exist had it not been for the British and French monarchies and aristocracies. So knowing about both strikes me as historically relevant. As for my admiration of Queens Elizabeth (QE1 fucked two monarchies and aristocracies that deserved it - Spain and the Vatican; QEII help disassemble her own Empire). Queen Elizabeth II has shown herself of be an elegant woman, brilliant diplomat, and government leader. Nice is overrated "It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government." Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018 | |||
|
| Member |
Man, that's some grade A ignorant BS right there. Right up with those that want some reparations for crap that happened 250 years ago. Of course, 'don't take this personally', my ass. | |||
|
| Member |
Follow the money A leading consultancy firm found that the Royals contributed £1.766 billion to the economy in 2017. Maintaining the monarchy costs around £292 million - £4.50 per person. Brand Finance measured the monarchy's value as if it were a business and said it was worth £25.5 billion. This included the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and the jewels and art that comprise the Royal Collection. They estimate the Royals will bring in a further £42 billion to the UK economy over the next few years. This is why they keep the Monarchy | |||
|
| Get my pies outta the oven!  |
I recall reading something about a theory that Charles may take the throne upon the death of Elizabeth II but would immediately turn around, abdicate and hand it off to William his son. Has anyone heard this one? | |||
|
| Member |
I think that's wishful thinking. I've heard it, but I think it's very unlikely. Charles is 74 so his reign isn't going to be long anyway.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pyker, | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
I have heard it, but only in the form of speculation from people who wouldn't really know. Why would he do that? The man was raised to be King, and has shown no signs of not wanting the job. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| 32nd degree |
I hear Prince Charles has covid again. Should he expire before his mum, does the crown pass to his brother like it did with his Grand father ? I would think the blood line is stronger. ___________________ "the world doesn't end til yer dead, 'til then there's more beatin's in store, stand it like a man, and give some back" Al Swearengen | |||
|
| Get my pies outta the oven! |
I read he came down with Covid right after meeting with his mother the Queen, hopefully she's OK. I think Andrew has been completely cut out of any succession and it would go to William. | |||
|
Fighting the good fight |
It would go to William, because he's next in the line of succession. Andrew isn't cut out of succession (at least yet...) He's just currently 9th in line, behind William and all of his children, as well as Harry and all of his children. (1) Charles, Prince of Wales -(2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge --(3) Prince George of Cambridge --(4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge --(5) Prince Louis of Cambridge -(6) Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex --(7) Archie Mountbatten-Windsor --(8) Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor (9) Prince Andrew, Duke of York | |||
|
| Team Apathy |
Really easy to follow line of succession at this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...t_line_of_succession I’ve never much had a particular interest in the royal family or the British monarchy in general, but I’d be honored if I had the chance to meet the Queen. She seems like an exemplary person deserving of tremendous respect. | |||
|
| 32nd degree |
thanks thumper, really clarifies the rule. ___________________ "the world doesn't end til yer dead, 'til then there's more beatin's in store, stand it like a man, and give some back" Al Swearengen | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
No, William is next after Charles. Then William's oldest child, then the next child, then the third child. It runs down the line of the oldest offsping. It used to skip girls, even if they were older, but the sex of the heir doesn't matter any more. Andrew was pushed down the list as soon as Charles started having children, and pushed even farther down when his children started having children. Andrew is going to have to chop off a lot of heads to get to be King. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Member |
This fascination by Americans with British royalty has been going on for as long as I can remember. When I was a boy in the forties and fifties, every one of my mother's ladies magazines, featured the latest doings of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, which continued until their deaths, so don't hope to be rid of Harry and Meghan any time soon. As for Camilla, I can't get past the tampon story. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024