Will Prince George ever become King George?

Limabeany · November 03, 2013, 02:12:37 PM

It is not about adoring but about respecting, the respect for the Queen is a buffer against openly criticizing the others. There will be no veiled criticism when she is gone, it will all be done in the open and it won't be as it is now. People who criticize are muted or shut up by a mere mention of the Queen now, there will be no such buffer in the future.

amabel · November 03, 2013, 05:29:52 PM

The queen gets and has had plenty of criticism. She's been attacked over the years for bad handling of her family, for Phil's gaffes, for just being rich and well born. Noone in British life escapes a lot of criticism. And again, if there are so many republicans, why aren't they in Parliament, working for an oficical end ot the monarchy?

SophieChloe · November 03, 2013, 05:41:14 PM

Disclose all the exact costs of the Monarchy - no ifs or buts about it - then put it to the people of the UK and let them decide from the true facts and figures. Whils they hide behind the FOI and security costs - we have no true idea how much this nonsense really costs us. What are they hiding?

amabel · November 03, 2013, 05:45:18 PM

I dont have the costs.

SophieChloe · November 03, 2013, 05:51:54 PM

Nor do I. That's the problem - they refuse to tell us!

Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2013, 06:03:58 PM

The 60p/year nonsense is not true (only working adults pay that).

If the true costs were published it would be a whole different matter. For what to help the young ones on and off helicopters and shop.

Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2013, 09:00:00 PM

This nonsense about stability - she is living in the biggest house down the mall whilst others are living in cardboard boxes. This good Christian Lady should be opening her doors to the needy....No?

Once she has gone, Charles might scrap in by the skin of his teeth. William and George = na - aint going to happen - IMO

Limabeany · November 03, 2013, 10:37:01 PM

Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2013, 05:29:52 PM
The queen gets and has had plenty of criticism. She's been attacked over the years for bad handling of her family, for Phil's gaffes, for just being rich and well born. Noone in British life escapes a lot of criticism. And again, if there are so many republicans, why aren't they in Parliament, working for an oficical end ot the monarchy?

They will come out of the woodwork...

Eri · November 04, 2013, 07:34:15 AM

Quote from: Limabeany on November 03, 2013, 02:03:49 PM
When the Queen dies, the real future of the Monarchy will be evident, no one can claim that people will be as adoring of either heir.

:goodpost:.

amabel · November 04, 2013, 07:35:43 AM

well nothing to worry about then. the monarchy wont outlast the Queen's life.

Windsor · November 04, 2013, 02:02:32 PM

Why is it that people keep bringing up the cost of the Monarchy? Is it their only argument? ... Everything in this world cost money, get over it!

The cost of supporting a Republic is a lot more than keeping the Monarchy. £95 million to support the French Presidency, and that excludes security, which by the way, figures are also NOT released! :thumbsup:

The Monarchy will cost the taxpayer just under £36 million for the next financial period. Over that of course there is the cost of security which is covered by the Government and figures are not released. That is the fault of the Government, and not the Monarchy! So to criticize the Queen for this is totally inappropriate. The cost of security will always be there, regardless of having a Queen or a President.

QuoteThis nonsense about stability - she is living in the biggest house down the mall whilst others are living in cardboard boxes. This good Christian Lady should be opening her doors to the needy....No?

That is for homeless shelter to attend to, not the residence of our Head of State. You don't see Obama or Hollande opening up their Palaces for the homeless either. So, lets keep it real! :P

QuoteDisclose all the exact costs of the Monarchy - no ifs or buts about it - then put it to the people of the UK and let them decide from the true facts and figures. Whils they hide behind the FOI and security costs - we have no true idea how much this nonsense really costs us. What are they hiding?

They already disclose all the information about their finances. Every penny spent to support the work of the Head of State is posted for the public to see. Security costs are not however released, and it wont ever be released, not for the Monarchy, not for Parliament, etc! That is government policy, not something the Monarchy puts forward.

Freedom of Information is a tool that can be used to dig deeper into the private lives of these people, hence why there are restrictions on the type of information available. You will find that these restrictions are only application for personal matters like correspondence and not financial matters, so really there is no issue here.

QuoteIt is not about adoring but about respecting, the respect for the Queen is a buffer against openly criticizing the others.

Plenty of people mock the Sovereign, plenty of people criticize the Queen. As Her Majesty the Queen once said in a speech:

Quote from: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II - Speech at the Guildhall, London 1992There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution - City, Monarchy, whatever - should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don't.

But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and that scrutiny, by one part of another, can be just as effective if it is made with a touch of gentleness, good humour and understanding.

This sort of questioning can also act, and it should do so, as an effective engine for change.

She wouldn't be saying such a thing if she was universally adored, respected and not criticized one bit.

amabel · November 04, 2013, 04:12:45 PM

Quote from: Limabeany on November 03, 2013, 10:37:01 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2013, 05:29:52 PM
The queen gets and has had plenty of criticism. She's been attacked over the years for bad handling of her family, for Phil's gaffes, for just being rich and well born. Noone in British life escapes a lot of criticism. And again, if there are so many republicans, why aren't they in Parliament, working for an oficical end ot the monarchy?
They will come out of the woodwork...

why will they Wait till then? It takes time to prepare and put through legislation. It takes time ot get parliamentary and public support. Do you think that they are just going to say on the Queen's death "Oh that's the end of the monarchy." it does not work that way.

Limabeany · November 04, 2013, 07:11:06 PM

Of course not! They will begin to openly criticize and undermine Charles... That is how it will begin...

SophieChloe · November 04, 2013, 08:12:54 PM

I agree! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.

I'm trying to avoid this thread - my blood pressure can not take it. :faint:

Queen Camilla · November 05, 2013, 03:14:35 AM

That okay, Charlie can be the last.

That way Diana will never be "king's mother". And the Spencer DNA will never be associated with a monarch, only as the DNA that destroyed the British Monarchy. :shemademe: :teehee:

amabel · November 05, 2013, 07:28:54 AM

??? Howe on earht can DNA destroy a monarchy? OK you don't like Diana. That's no reason why her son, who is heir to the throne, after his father, should be denied his rightful place. There are petny of cases where a royal partner has been unpopular, it does not mean that the hereditary principle is to be undermined.

Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sophiechloe on November 04, 2013, 08:12:54 PM
I agree! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.

I'm trying to avoid this thread - my blood pressure can not take it. :faint:

Why is this all going to be so slow? If the monarch is as bad as you seem to think it, and if it is as unpopular, then surely it ought to be ended as soon as possible. And that there would be massive public support for it, a republican party in parliament etc. Given that C's reign is likely to be quite short, these very shy republicans will harldy have time to get their act togehter, literally, by the time its ended.

Windsor · November 05, 2013, 11:52:40 AM

600 years ago Republicans were still claiming that they needed time to develop, and that their ideas would become reality 'in time' ... well, erm... 600 years later, and what happened? Only about 15% of the population actively claim to dislike the Monarchy, but aren't too bothered about it really as they lack organisation, for heavens sake they dont even have any representation in Parliament. :shrug:

amabel · November 05, 2013, 12:33:46 PM

Exactly Windsor. I've no objection to a republic per se, but I can see no sign that people really care, and the so called Republicans can't seem to get off their butts enough to organise anything.

Mike · November 05, 2013, 03:34:32 PM

Quote from: Queen Camilla on November 05, 2013, 03:14:35 AMThat way Diana will never be "king's mother".

That issue is so important to you? JEEZ! :huh:

QuoteAnd the Spencer DNA will never be associated with a monarch, only as the DNA that destroyed the British Monarchy.

On this issue, you might wish to reexamine the Windsor DNA more closely. Just a passing thought. :notamused:

Getting back on topic, as for George, as he matures I can't help but wonder what advice he will get from his uncle Harry.

sandy · November 05, 2013, 03:42:12 PM

Quote from: Queen Camilla on November 05, 2013, 03:14:35 AM
That okay, Charlie can be the last.

That way Diana will never be "king's mother". And the Spencer DNA will never be associated with a monarch, only as the DNA that destroyed the British Monarchy. :shemademe: :teehee:

HUH! Charles and Diana are both descended on several lines from Henry VII so maybe Charles can get rid of some of the "foul" Spencer DNA himself. They are related distantly. I think Charles did more than his share of destructive behavior. And then there were some of his ancestors as well...

Unless you can cross out the Spencers from all DNA charts, they are going to be on all the charts as ancestors.

And Winston Churchill was a Spencer too.

Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 03:44:02 PM

Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2013, 07:28:54 AM
??? Howe on earht can DNA destroy a monarchy? OK you don't like Diana. That's no reason why her son, who is heir to the throne, after his father, should be denied his rightful place. There are petny of cases where a royal partner has been unpopular, it does not mean that the hereditary principle is to be undermined.
Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: sophiechloe on November 04, 2013, 08:12:54 PM
I agree! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.

I'm trying to avoid this thread - my blood pressure can not take it. :faint:

Why is this all going to be so slow? If the monarch is as bad as you seem to think it, and if it is as unpopular, then surely it ought to be ended as soon as possible. And that there would be massive public support for it, a republican party in parliament etc. Given that C's reign is likely to be quite short, these very shy republicans will harldy have time to get their act togehter, literally, by the time its ended.

It is a given that not everybody agrees with QC on naming Diana the "unpopular partner." Some give that distinction to Charles.

Eri · November 05, 2013, 03:59:04 PM

He is just another baby his grandfather isn't King for God sake ... let the three Months old be a three Months old ...

Mike · November 05, 2013, 04:14:23 PM

I agree, but how long will the child be allowed to be a child before his royal instructions begin?

Macrobug · November 05, 2013, 04:30:23 PM

Remember the photo ops of Will and Harry as babies and toddlers. As cute as it was, it is just parading out/exploitation of children just to keep the media at bay as they bleat about the "public's right to know".

sandy · November 05, 2013, 04:33:04 PM

It isn't just that. Throughout history "the heir" needed to be seen otherwise the public might think there was something wrong with the child.

Macrobug · November 05, 2013, 04:46:16 PM

Don't agree with that in this day and age. Back when the very lives of the public depended on the health of the monarch, that was true. Today - if the child had health issues making him unsuitable for being in the line of succession then he would be removed.

It is just the public wanting to see the child and the media knowing that and how much money they make. There is no other reason for the kid to be photographed.

Eri · November 05, 2013, 04:58:42 PM

Knowing Willy he will keep baby Middleton from the public until he can't anymore due to bad press and people who would start to talk ... personally with Willy as a father to the future King the future seems pretty grim ... he will run the whole thing on the ground first ...

cinrit · November 05, 2013, 05:26:15 PM

I think it's apparent that William and Kate want to have as much of a "normal" family life as possible, considering who they are. But I doubt they'll hide George away from the public. So far, we've gotten the two photos that Michael Middleton shot, and aside from the five formal photos that were taken after the christening, we were allowed to see video that was taken as family members (including the three Cambridges) arrived for it, as well. I think that's pretty generous.

Cindy