By davidjay
#150
So, what's the general feeling about Brenda post-Phil? While my own thoughts on the royal family are much the same as I think about religion - not fussed either way but I wouldn't ridicule anyone who's a strong supporter - my cynical head thinks whoever took that solo photo of her in the chapel yesterday has probably ensured the future of the monarchy for another couple of decades at least.
By davidjay
#155
The Red Arrow wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:44 pm I'm hoping that a pissed-off populace will soon realise that Daily M*il columnists do not get to choose the line of succession and that realisation will lead to knock-on effects throughout society. There are debates to be had.
As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.
User avatar
By Boiler
#157
The only thing that should happen to Daily Mail columnists is that they get fed into industrial shredders feet-first. However, it'd be embarrassing explaining to a hire company that the reason it's jammed is because someone's pelvis is stuck in it.

Like the OP, I'm unfussed about the Monarchy and wouldn't ridicule a loyal supporter, although I do think the Civil List could do with a pruning. That photo of the Queen sat alone, the TV pictures of her head bowed so much her chin must have been resting on her chest will resonate with a lot of people; a mate of mine however does want Charles to abdicate in favour of his son as he views Charles as regressive and rather prone to meddling; he thinks a public that's still hung up on Diana Spencer will never accept him and Camilla on the throne, but would be more ready to accept William and Catherine.
User avatar
By Boiler
#158
davidjay wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:00 pm As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.
However, I understand the Monarchy has now set aside primogeniture post-Charles (or George VII as he'll be known).
By Bones McCoy
#160
Boiler wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:24 pm
davidjay wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:00 pm As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.
However, I understand the Monarchy has now set aside primogeniture post-Charles (or George VII as he'll be known).
I think they've moved form male-preference primogeniture to true primogeniture.
I'm no great follower of all the minor ones, but I don't think this has potential to make a difference for at least 3 generations, since all the relevant firstborns are male (let me know if I'm wrong).

As ever, the ardent monarchists and constitutional "experts" like Singen Stevas - there';s another twat who needs a proper hobby - will tie themselves in knots.
* The queen cannot retire and hand on the crown, since she has an "insoluble covenant with god".
* We don't want Charles inheriting the throne because we don't like him.
* OK Andrew's next.
* No, not like that!
* Edward?
* Too effeminate!
* Anne?
* Too masculine!
See where all this choice lands you.

As for taking on a new name, George is an odd choice.
Charles obviously has unfortunate catholic overtones which would have the above mentioned Baron Fawsley (a left footer himself) spinning in his constitutional expert mausoleum.
After all you have to respect the outdated, but traditional "No Catholics or Nonconformists" rule that safeguards the bloodline.
(Aside, ever wondered why they couldn't match Charles up with an available continental princess?)

That aside, changing name has a rather Papal feel to it.
But in George you're reflecting a potentially insane Lutheran, as opposed to a beheaded Catholic.

Such odd laws and traditions, these Royalists
User avatar
By Spoonman
#163
davidjay wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:00 pm
The Red Arrow wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:44 pm I'm hoping that a pissed-off populace will soon realise that Daily M*il columnists do not get to choose the line of succession and that realisation will lead to knock-on effects throughout society. There are debates to be had.
As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.
I think it was Dara O'Brian whom once said "It's a monarchy, you don't get to choose who your head of state is! If you want to choose, become a Republic!"
By Bones McCoy
#166
davidjay wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:38 pm William will be a fun name for a king as well. And with Arthur Phillip and Louis as the alternatives there's not much option.
William will go down well with one half of Glasgow, while reminding the other of a horse botherer who filled the court with his "young friends".

As for Charlie's nom do roi:
How about Frank (as in Spencer), Woodrow (A hand of friendship to our American cousins), or Kenneth (A nod to the Celtic fringes).
long long title how many chars? lets see 123 ok more? yes 60

We have created lots of YouTube videos just so you can achieve [...]

Another post test yes yes yes or no, maybe ni? :-/

The best flat phpBB theme around. Period. Fine craftmanship and [...]

Do you need a super MOD? Well here it is. chew on this

All you need is right here. Content tag, SEO, listing, Pizza and spaghetti [...]

Lasagna on me this time ok? I got plenty of cash

this should be fantastic. but what about links,images, bbcodes etc etc? [...]