Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
@amabel Charles Spencer offered her a cottage on the estate then withdrew the offer as it would be an intrusion with security and media. However he had no problem with the intrusion of visitors paying to see his exhibits and a glimpse of her grave and selling trinkets after her death. Everyone knew the Spencer Tiara belongs to him as head of the family but again he took it back out of spite knowing how much she wore it and identified her as a Spencer. Interesting to note neither of his subsequent wives had or has worn the tiara when he married them.
@amabel I agree as the carriages drew up to the cathedral it was so magical seeing that majestic dome and for this wedding it was the best choice. Charles went to the trouble of picking all the music and it was just beautiful the sound was much clearer and Dame Kiri was awesome.
Prince Harry / Re: Harry & Megan - Part 2
« Last post by Curryong on Today at 08:53:05 PM »
Meghan has apparently flown into London with her mother ahead of her 36th birthday next week.

Meghan Markle is in London ahead of 36th birthday
Prince Harry / Re: Prince Harry: No royal wants to be king or queen
« Last post by Curryong on Today at 08:42:55 PM »
Well, I wouldn't get too excited about it. The next Federal election here for the House of Representatives is likely to be called near to November 2019. If Bill Shorten, the ALP leader wins the election he said he will call for a referendum at the end of his first term. That will make it near to the end of 2022.

Also, there are a number of hoops to be jumped when there is a referendum question. To be passed it has to be a Yes vote in a majority of States and Territories , and it has to have a majority of votes nationally. It didn't get anywhere near to the numbers for Yes last time and if a government is unpopular at the end of its first term the population is hardly likely to go rushing out to vote in favour of any of the proposals it puts up. As elsewhere the Australian population is divided at the moment. No government has won decisively for years, they just scrape it in.

Because of the above processes, only a handful of referendum questions have passed since Federation in 1901. Most have sunk without a trace.
Prince Harry / Re: Prince Harry: No royal wants to be king or queen
« Last post by tiaras on Today at 06:37:16 PM »
Labor will put Australian republic to vote in first term if it wins next election | Australia news | The Guardian

If this happens then it'll get the ball rolling on other commonwealth countries and eventually Britain will start wondering about keeping them around as well. About darn time.
Yes I actually do prefer someone like the POW @Curryong . Had Charles adopted the model of his mother, there would be no Princes Trust and the Duchy of Cornwall would still be making losses (it was making losses of about $6 million a year and is now making profits of about $30 million). The organic living movement, alternative therapy and even some historical properties would have struggled to find funding. Republicans wanted him to sit back, do nothing and say nothing. I for one I am glad he refused to follow that mold.

I do give the Queen some credit on speaking out about apartheid in South Africa but in many instances, she remains silent. The points raised by @Russophile do resonate with me in some respects.

Of course I do not know whether she raises these issues in audiences because we are not party to it. If she does then good for her.

I must say that the republicans love the QEII model because it bolsters their starting point that the monarchy is a useless archaic institution that is surplus to requirements. At other times they dismiss it as nothing more than a tourist attraction.  With someone like Charles, they may find it hard to push that line. Instead they will attack him personally and try to persuade him to abdicate so that they can have another good looking figurehead that does nothing and says nothing.

Tony Blair was never a fan of the monarchy as an institution. He was a "wicked stepmum" figure...seeming to help whilst destroying. Blair was the sly and manipulative face of republicanism and I am sure the queen is well aware that he meant her no good at all. His advisers are much more candid than him...but again they also have more honesty and integrity.
Elizabeth 'wears a tiara and eats a dinner', with regard to the Commonwealth? Did you read the article I provided a link to in which some of the Queen's interventions at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings were described?

Queen Elizabeth has been admired and praised by her fellow monarchs and by the politicians who have been PMs and Ministers in her reign. Even Tony Blair, no monarchist, admired her.

I suppose what you admire is someone like the POW, who wears his heart on his sleeve with regard to various causes. We are yet to see whether that sort of a monarch fits well into the British political system. He may well be told, politely but firmly, that as an unelected figurehead he should just butt out, and in fact in an era of much less deferential politicians I can clearly see that happening.

Elizabeth is not passive. According to political memoirs of various PMs and ministers they have seen very clearly where she is coming from on various issues. However, as Elizabeth is discreet, all conversations are kept private.

What is more, King George VI had a terrible war and mass bombing to bring his character to the fore in the nation's heart. If he hadn't then it's probable that his reign would have been virtually unremarked except for its coming into being as a result of the Abdication crisis.
No it is not "absolute nonsense" @amabel. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean passivity. It has never been taken to imply that you turn up look nice and eat great dinners. That is just a republican fantasy as a precursor to raising the question: what does the monarchy do? EII' predecessors were never passive. Even her father was very active in the war effort and boosting morale in a battered nation (together with his wife).

Besides in the UK "an electoral mandate" is not always necessary to get involved in issues and even public administration. The House of Lords and the Privy Council is a clear example that you do not have to be voted in by any majority to get involved in state affairs. That is a complete misreading of the unwritten constitution of this nation.

The Monarchs of Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden for example are not passive monarchs. They talk about the things that affect their people without breaking any constitutional conventions. The queen of Denmark has spoken about the need to integrate into Danish society, issues that have been spoken about by the kings of Sweden and Norway. The King of Spain has spoken about Gibraltar. QEII just looks on and signs whatever is presented to her (at least that is what it seems to me).

Even with the commonwealth the queen has been amazingly passive. Turn out for fancy dinners, dress nice and make small talk. Meanwhile many commonwealth countries have HDI (Human Development Indices) that are shocking. That inevitably leads to economic migration. Meanwhile the queen wears a tiara and has a dinner. That is what I mean by passivity.

Queen Victoria was the reals start of a real constitutional monarchy but even in her widowhood she lent an identity to an empire. EII has overseen the decline of the nation in virtually every aspect. I do not blame her for the disastrous government policy because she does make them. I simply feel that she is detached from the problems of her people.

No I do not expect her to be a brilliant politician like Elizabeth I or to be a tyrant like Henry VIII. Neither do I expect her to be impervious to constitutional restraints like Charles I. However, I would expect her to be a passionate and concerned monarch like her current contemporaries in other European monarchies.
My criticism of EII is her passivity. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean being passive. We have many constitutional monarchies in Europe with even less power but one cannot accuse them of being passive. EII is an incredibly passive person, even where matters concerning her family are taking place. She just waits to follow protocol. Maybe some people like that...I don't. I prefer a monarch who is passionate and interested in people.
that's absolute nonsense.  A constiutinoal monarch does what her govt wishes.  She or he has no electoral mandate to do anything.
charles Spencer says tat he asked the queen what she thought of his speech??
an I know there's no point in saying this, but he didn't "deny her a bolthole".  but I've written about this subject many times.. as for the Tiara it belongs to him as head of the Spencer family.  When he and Diana had a bitter row, he asked for it back. 
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10

Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites