Royal Gossip
August 23, 2017, 02:41:57 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: National Service of Thanksgiving - June 5  (Read 27924 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #180 on: June 09, 2012, 07:26:23 am »

If the BRF cares so much about the commonwealth countries why not send a member to the different countries to have continual representation and they could sell themselves every day. Could it be because the commonwealth countries don't want them there?
There are only 16 commonwealth countries left and they will get rid of the Monarchy once the Queen is gone.

Why does the BRF think they have a right to sway the citizens of these countries decisions? The colonial days are over and gone.
 
There have been so many different reasons for why the Queens children were snubbed that I can't keep up with them all. It began with showing austerity so the people could see that they were cutting expenses and it has evolved to be about the Commonwealth countries.

There are people all over the world who do not care for Charles and Camilla, why would them standing on a balcony or riding in a carriage change that?

When I post my opinion I am not representing the Institution or it's survival but I am representing myself. Isn't that what we all do on the forums express our own individual opinions. If your opinion is to help the institution survive then good for you.

Another opinion of mine is that all Charles was thinking when Diana died was how is this going to affect me. I find it hard to believe that a man is shattered about the death of a person that he couldn't tolerate.
Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #181 on: June 09, 2012, 07:58:44 am »

I'm not going to debate this with you in detail since I find that we are on two separate tangents.

I'm not here as an advocate for the British monarchy. I'm not here to denigrate your opinion or diminish your right to express it. And, I'm certainly not here to debate whether or not the BRF will survive in Commonwealth countries - or its reasons for wanting to do so.

Nor am I going to debate hypotheticals with you, which you are proposing. It's just not the way my mind works in debate.

I am simply expressing facts about recent visits by members of the BRF to Australia, Canada and NZ. This supports the proposition that the BRF wants to continue to reign over those countries. IMO, this explains, in-part (but not entirely) the balcony scene, which has caused some heated debate by virtue of its anomalous presence.

Again, it is not up for you - or I for that matter - to deny the BRF the right to so act over its subjects of the Commonwealth. I presented some brief facts and that doesn't seem to sit well with you. That's fine, your prerogative. But please remember, as it stands, the Queen is also the Queen of Australia and this Jubilee had some meaning for Oz also. It did not go unnoticed.

Now, I do know a thing or two about Australia's relationship with the BRF that you may not. It's only natural. I'm Australian and know a thing or two about politics and law. I'm not going to go into it now because it is off-topic and I don't care to.

But, just because YOU have decided that all the Commonwealth countries will not remain as Constitutional monarchies does not make it so. It does not mean the BRF thinks it's a hopeless case. It's a LOT more complicated than what you are suggesting, or even what I am posting here.

In Australia, at least, some of us think there are very good reasons for keeping the monarchy. It's not about personal feelings toward the Queen and her family. It's about our Constitution. But the only way the BRF can "sell" itself to us is to send its members on visits and to respect our right to govern our own country as we see fit.

Clearly, you despise Charles and my dissenting opinion of him doesn't abide with yours (obviously). I'm sorry about that and if it causes you sensitivity. But that is not something that I can change.
Logged
Mooster
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3273


"William, stop worrying...the paps wouldn't dare!"


« Reply #182 on: June 09, 2012, 09:20:51 am »

The Commonwealth countries partly because they are so distant are more progressive in that they don't see the point of having an archaic institution heading them up.  In Britain, we are so used to centuries of ingrained forelock tugging that we can't imagine life without the RF.  However, Scotland etc are now starting to shake off the shackles.  Members of the BRF don't care enough about the commonwealth countries to go and live there...goodness, they've got it too cosy back in Blighty with its ready made fawning citizens. 

If Charles thinks that basking himself, his spawn and their scheming wives in the limelight will sell themselves as the future of Britain and the Commonwealth...(sorry, I can hardly type for laughing) he's in for a big shock.  In fact it just highlights what we've got to look forward to...and it's not an alluring prospect.  The majority of people have lost a lot of respect for him and his aging, horsey wife and see them as self serving, deceitful opportunists - if they can deceive a young, beautiful, innocent Diana and treat her abominably, they will have no trouble treating the taxpayer with the same contempt - people don't trust them.  The Telegraph even acknowledge that the majority of people don't want him...and, I'm guessing, they won't want William and Thing either when they see how reluctant they are to take on more work as a result of Charles paring down the RF.

I agree Snokitty, that all Charles was thinking when Diana died was how is this going to affect himself.  Any sorrow was IMO due to the guilt of how he mistreated her when she was alive.
Logged

                                                                                                           Diana, Zac, Jemima, Ben and Sir James Goldsmith    

       
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #183 on: June 09, 2012, 10:00:50 am »

Well, as stated to SnoKitty, you may scoff all you like. You may not approve. But the fact is the BRF doesn't think it is a lost cause. That is what matters, pertaining to my point.

I wouldn't call Australia 'progressive'. But I would call Australians irreverent, not subscribing to class warfare. It's an issue here right now.  spy

And, with respect, you are not Australian, so you don't know how the mood is over here. I know what's going on behind the scenes a bit, so it most certainly is not a "done deal" - not yet. Changing our Constitution - any Constitution - is a big deal.

I admit, I thought it was a fait accompli, but the political landscape in Oz has changed dramatically. Like I said, it's not about the members of the BRF - it's so much more than that. So, most Australians don't care about Camilla and Kate. Charles is not well liked, but I'm not sure it's enough for us to become a republic. With regards to Australia, it's not really personal - in the main - the way it seems to be in Britain.

The BRF cannot live in Oz, or any member of it, which you well know. We have the best of both worlds: we don't pay for the BRF, but we get the stability of a constitutional monarchy. It keeps out corruption at the top.

I appreciate your input on Charles and your right to express that opinion. It's just diverse opinion. But when it comes to expressing an opinion on Australia's position with the monarchy, I disagree based on the fact that I have considerable idea about what the real issues and obstacles are.

There are many things I could say but haven't and I don't intend to. But we do have monarchists in this country - high profile ones too.

Anyway, I just offered a point of view as to why the balcony scene was so slimmed. I'm happy to agree to disagree.  flower
Logged
Mooster
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3273


"William, stop worrying...the paps wouldn't dare!"


« Reply #184 on: June 09, 2012, 10:07:27 am »


And, with respect, you are not Australian, so you don't know how the mood is over here. I know what's going on behind the scenes a bit, so it most certainly is not a "done deal" - not yet. Changing our Constitution - any Constitution - is a big deal.


Even though you have prefaced this comment 'with respect', I don't think it's respectful at all.  I could equally dismiss all your comment with the reason that, with respect, you are thousands of miles away so what do you know - I'm nearer to the hub of the BRF.
Logged

                                                                                                           Diana, Zac, Jemima, Ben and Sir James Goldsmith    

       
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #185 on: June 09, 2012, 10:58:41 am »

Actually, I meant it.  flower I respect you as a Brit with good opinions. You might be a bit sensitive and I can't help that.

You can't dismiss what is 'fact'. And the fact is that you are not Australian and don't know what is going on here. Well, at least you have shown ignorance to it ... I don't claim to know anything about the British mind. I merely offered an opinion that was based in fact.

You have been arguing as to why Harry was on the balcony. I offered an explanation for it. If you don't agree, that's fine. But there is absolutely no need to invent an argument about the merits of what I know, or not, about the BRF.

You have put it upon yourself to tell me what my countrymen will do and what type of country I live in ('progressive'). Do you not agree that you are being presumptuous? When have I ever stated that I know what the Brits will do and what type of continent it is?  blink

If anyone should take offence, it is I, as Australian. I think I responded with good grace.

I'm just letting you know that decisions for Australia to become a republic will not boil down to personalities of the BRF. If that were the case, then William could save the day. But it is beyond that.

Now, I have never presumed to know if and why the Brits would keep or scrap the monarchy. All I proposed was that if prominent Commonwealth countries become republics, it may reinvigorate republicanism in the UK.

And, for the record, Australia is still very much a conservative country; it is not 'progressive' at all. We have always been irreverent and not inclined to class distinction, however.
Logged
Jane23
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8312



« Reply #186 on: June 09, 2012, 11:21:14 am »

For the love of God Liz is not brain dead and has her own staff I am 100% sure everything that happened was pre approved by HER ...the things people will *despise* Chuck for are hilarious to me he is just being hated for things that went down in the 80's  bored3...HE and his children are the feature of The Monarchy nothing wrong with LIZ underlining that on the last day of the celebrations for her Jubilee the faces of the BRF are changing and we won't see his siblings as much as we used to do that is PERFECTLY normal NOTHING wrong with it in the immediate feature the BRF will be :


Prince Charles and The Duches

Will and Kate (and children)

Harry and wife (and children)


What do people expect? Again it doesn't mean his siblings will disappear now it's only they will be seen less it doesn't mean Prince Charles is "evil" that is just the way things work  wopedo...I am sure his siblings know that...having touched  upon this nonsense can we talk about  Camilla's hat ?  tehe
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 11:23:11 am by Jane23 » Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13950



« Reply #187 on: June 09, 2012, 11:41:02 am »

By the time Charles is king William possibly will have four kids, then it would make Harry the sixth. So if they are streamlining it doesn't make sense that he is considered as an important part of the RF.

Charles's brothers and cousins may disappear from the limelight in important events but I doubt that they will stop having royal duties, first because it wouldn't make sense to stop being patron of charitites simply because Charles is king and second because they have to maintain the royal duties if they want royal priveleges like living in Kensington palace.

The norwegian royal family has what you could say is the type of monarchy Charles could want, only the monarchs and the heir&wife have royal duties, while the daughter who is fourth only attends very specific events but has no important role. What is interesting is that they have thought about the future and the heir's second son doesn't even have the HRH. This is logical and you can see that they know what kind of monarchy do they want.

In Charles case he won't be able to streamline the monarchy in his reign unless he is king when he is 100 years old and his sibligns and cousing have died already. The only thing he can do is make the rules so the BRF will be able to change during William's. For example by not making Harry's children HRH and only lord/ladies like the Wessex children.

As a final point please try to keep the discussion civil  flower
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Mooster
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3273


"William, stop worrying...the paps wouldn't dare!"


« Reply #188 on: June 09, 2012, 11:51:51 am »

Jane23, so what if anything is approved by Liz, as you call her, many on this board say that she often makes the wrong decisions or no decisions at all.  Charles is not particularly popular, he has a huge uphill struggle, and what he did in the 80s horrified a great many of his people.  The country was as close as it can get to a republic in recent times when Diana died.  The Queen made lots of wrong decisions at that time - so don't try and tell me she always knows what is best for her family and her own country.  Harry may be part of Charles vision to bolster his own, and Camilla's popularity - but that's Harry is, a pawn in Charles game - plus, the fact that he is not a direct heir, but was included on the balcony, shows that is what Charles is up to.

June, I'm not sensitive, just very astute when people are trying to sugar coat a barb.  The fact is I'm British, and if I follow your logic, I know a lot more than an Australian about how the people in my country feel about the RF and Charles in particular.  You seem to be inventing all sorts of things about what I should and shouldn't know and for someone who does not 'know' what goes on in Britain, you sure have a lot to say on the subject.  With respect, the decisions about what happens to the BRF here and in Australia can very well boil down to their personalities - it's the very reason why they employ such vast PR to rehabilitate themselves.  Diana was loved by Australians but Camilla and Charles  tehe  I disagree, Australia is much more progressive...sure you have your snobs and haves and have nots but it is not entrenched in centuries of deference as the UK.  Jeez, it took an Australian to give second wave feminism momentum here.  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 11:54:33 am by Mooster » Logged

                                                                                                           Diana, Zac, Jemima, Ben and Sir James Goldsmith    

       
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #189 on: June 09, 2012, 02:30:00 pm »

@ June The BRF does not cause me sensitivity nor does Charles it wasn't me that he used as a "Brood Mare".
I don't think that you can speak for all Australians either just because you happen to be one of the people who live there. I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. It is not as if Australia would throw out the entire Constitution and start over to remove the British Monarchy as their head of State.  easter-lol
How many people in these Commonwealth countries have you spoken with or do you just think Australia, Canada and New Zealand are the only ones left?
They don't plan on slimming down the Monarchy they just plan on hiding the rest of them from public view. That is why the balcony scene was such a joke. It was all about Charles wanting the limelight. If he could have found a way to keep the Queen off of the balcony he would have done it.
I don't even know who ask you to debate hypotheticals, I was just stating my opinion. I only ask questions to see what your thoughts are but you did not answer them, you just did some kind of Lawyer speak to try and change it. The impression I got was you were speaking for the Commonwealth countries. bored3
It is the cost that people want the BRF to streamline not the people, they need to start spending their own money more and taxpayer money less.  shifty
Logged
Jane23
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8312



« Reply #190 on: June 09, 2012, 06:39:55 pm »

Willy 4 kids really now?  lmao  As for Harry and his feature as a Royal  it's useless to discuss it he could end up being 4th in Line to The Throne (at best) or he could end up being KING or Willy may have no children and his child may take on The Throne who knows ...or maybe by the time Liz and Chuck leave us there will be no Throne to sit on for Willy (or Harry) let alone any "grandchildren" the possibilities are endless...having said that Willy and Harry are  a "double act" they are a team Harry ain't going anywhere EVER and Harry's children given that he is Willy's ONLY sibling and will be very near The Throne will be treated with the MAXIMUM respect ...can we leave the whole Harry thing go? Again Ann , Andrew  and Edward are out he is in we all knew that was going to happen so I don't get why anyone is surprised or "angry" about it I didn't know Andrew was so beloved  lmao hold on Andrew fans he will be on that Balcony very soon given That Liz's birthday is coming up his girls too .

Ps: PRINCE Edward's children are a Prince and a Princess  sly ...in the feature they will be called as such  Cool given that that's what they are.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 06:43:51 pm by Jane23 » Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13950



« Reply #191 on: June 09, 2012, 06:44:40 pm »

If the Queen&Charles wanted to take the York girls their HRH it's logical to think that Harry's children won't have that treatment. In fact if he has children right now they won't have it, same with William. Although in the second case they will probably gave it to them because William is a heir apparent not like Harry.  sigh

No, you are totally wrong the Wessex children are prince/princess simply because they couldn't change the letters as Andrew was against it, it was said that they would always be called lord/lady. But I doubt Edward will want to anger Charles allowing his kids the HRH treatment even though it's their right. Why do you think the York girls are HRH and their Wessex cousins not?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 06:47:10 pm by Alexandrine » Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #192 on: June 09, 2012, 06:50:21 pm »

This is not about loving Andrew or any of the future children that someone might have. This is about the Queen having four children and not one. This was the Queen's Diamond Jubilee not Charles's. When you are celebrating 60 years you do not leave out everyone in those years.
In my opinion the future of the Monarchy is not what Charles has in his mind anyway.
Logged
Jane23
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8312



« Reply #193 on: June 09, 2012, 07:17:09 pm »

PRINCE Edward's children may or not use their Titles when they are old enough his boy may take upon his Title when he dies who knows...as for The York girls that is just hearsay and they are HRH so ...I doubt Harry's children will be treated any differently than The York girls are which is with the maximum respect they have their Title and their grandmother always has them with her .
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13950



« Reply #194 on: June 09, 2012, 07:21:04 pm »

Ok so why the York girls get one treatment and the Wessex children another?
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Nighthawk
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


« Reply #195 on: June 09, 2012, 07:25:59 pm »

could it be age differences?
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13950



« Reply #196 on: June 09, 2012, 07:26:49 pm »

Age difference between who?
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #197 on: June 09, 2012, 07:30:58 pm »

The titles have not garnered respect for the York Sisters, they are vilified and tore apart for everything. Mostly because of who their Mother is. Those two girls do more for charity than Lazy Katie does but the press acts like Lazy is perfect.
Logged
Mooster
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3273


"William, stop worrying...the paps wouldn't dare!"


« Reply #198 on: June 09, 2012, 07:44:36 pm »

As for Harry and his feature as a Royal  it's useless to discuss it he could end up being 4th in Line to The Throne (at best) or he could end up being KING or Willy may have no children and his child may take on The Throne who knows ...

This statement contradicts what you said before.  Before, you said that Harry was a direct heir.  Now you are saying he is not.

I really don't know why you keep going on about Andrew's popularity/lack of popularity - it's immaterial.  He is HM's son, he has supported her throughout her reign, if Harry was included, he should have been on that balcony on that occasion as should her other children and grandchildren.  And Snokitty, I agree, I do think if Charles could have appeared on the balcony without HM he would have done (HM should watch out for any banana skins on the stairs .....only joking  flower  ).  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 07:50:34 pm by Mooster » Logged

                                                                                                           Diana, Zac, Jemima, Ben and Sir James Goldsmith    

       
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35954


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #199 on: June 09, 2012, 07:45:55 pm »

Quote
I disagree, Australia is much more progressive...sure you have your snobs and haves and have nots but it is not entrenched in centuries of deference as the UK.  Jeez, it took an Australian to give second wave feminism momentum here. 


Quote
With respect, the decisions about what happens to the BRF here and in Australia can very well boil down to their personalities - it's the very reason why they employ such vast PR to rehabilitate themselves

I find it interesting how the BRF gives so much attention to Australia and seem almost paranoid about losing it. I mean, the BRF pays more attention to Australia and Canada than the majority of the other Commonwealth countries.

Quote
why not send a member to the different countries to have continual representation and they could sell themselves every day.

Quote
the commonwealth countries don't want them there?


Perhaps because no one in the BRF wants to be torn away from the fun of the London nightlife or wants to live in another country? The thing is, I think that if for example Princess Beatrice went to New Zealand and Eugenie lived in Australia and Harry in the Barbados/Jamaica, there would be a more tangible symbol and it would keep them gainfully occupied and away from the golddiggers in Britain. Perhaps the BRF should offer to send a member and see how that works out?

Quote
Why does the BRF think they have a right to sway the citizens of these countries decisions? The colonial days are over and gone.

The BRF is full of idiots; forgive me, the thing is that HM can't seem to get it into her head that she is not supposed to meddle in these affairs and another thing is, that HM can't seem to comprehend what her family used to be and what they have become. The Scots will probably break away and I hoep for HM's sake that it's not true that she is scheming to work on preventing the independence movement. If she is caught out, it will trigger a violent backlash and only more countries will want ot break away, resorting to violence if need be.

The titles have not garnered respect for the York Sisters, they are vilified and tore apart for everything. Mostly because of who their Mother is.

Which is why I wish someoen would work on extracting Fergie from their lives because that woman is an albatross.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!