British monarchy - question of succession
Aug 11th, 2013, 10:15 PM
#42
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick, you are at least half right.
However, some of us are descended from SOMEONES, not just someone.
Cheers
Peter (who does not care in the slightest who he is descended from, and is just glad to be alive).
However, some of us are descended from SOMEONES, not just someone.
Cheers
Peter (who does not care in the slightest who he is descended from, and is just glad to be alive).
Aug 12th, 2013, 02:59 AM
#45
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read that most English people are descended from John of Gaunt. The upper classes had large families and more importantly, they tended to survive. The population was greatly diminished by the Black Death, so we probably all have noble blood.
What amuses me is that no American claims to be descended from Albert the rat catcher. Everyone of Scottish origin is descended from the laird and not from one of his ghillies
What amuses me is that no American claims to be descended from Albert the rat catcher. Everyone of Scottish origin is descended from the laird and not from one of his ghillies
Aug 12th, 2013, 04:00 AM
#46
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of us also have Neanderthal genes, but who goes around boasting about that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm
Aug 12th, 2013, 05:46 AM
#47
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>One interesting thing is that the Queen is not afraid to drive through London in an open carriage.<<
And in her time has ridden past/through gunfire (blank shots, as it turned out, but she wasn't to know that):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5FD3-CsMbc
And in her time has ridden past/through gunfire (blank shots, as it turned out, but she wasn't to know that):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5FD3-CsMbc
Aug 12th, 2013, 09:46 AM
#54
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing who will be head of state for the rest of the 21st century does give the British a sense of stability. We know that those in the frame are all eligible.
Why are Americans so obsessed about this? It doesn't affect them in any at all. Is it just that they cannot accept that other nations are quite content to do things in a different way from them?
Strangely, the only faltering in the functioning of the monarchy in the past hundred years was caused by a promiscuous American woman.
Why are Americans so obsessed about this? It doesn't affect them in any at all. Is it just that they cannot accept that other nations are quite content to do things in a different way from them?
Strangely, the only faltering in the functioning of the monarchy in the past hundred years was caused by a promiscuous American woman.
Aug 12th, 2013, 10:38 AM
#55
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangely, the only faltering in the functioning of the monarchy in the past hundred years was caused by a promiscuous American woman.>
always blame the woman and not the bloke - blame the institution and its recalcitrance to change and sheer hypocrisy - here is a King who married for love and then was deemed unfit to be king - yet British kings have whored with multiple partners for eons and no one said anything - as long as it ain't in public it's OK.
no chartley the cause was not an American woman but the institution - put the blame where it belongs - right in the UK not on some Yankee broad whose crime was being divorced and also at that time not a blue blood.
This is why this whole thing is so farcical and to much of the world a laughing stock!
always blame the woman and not the bloke - blame the institution and its recalcitrance to change and sheer hypocrisy - here is a King who married for love and then was deemed unfit to be king - yet British kings have whored with multiple partners for eons and no one said anything - as long as it ain't in public it's OK.
no chartley the cause was not an American woman but the institution - put the blame where it belongs - right in the UK not on some Yankee broad whose crime was being divorced and also at that time not a blue blood.
This is why this whole thing is so farcical and to much of the world a laughing stock!
Aug 12th, 2013, 11:20 AM
#56
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view the problem with these hereditary monarchies the preservation of the bloodline.
A lot of these royal families have been around for a long time and, as Palenq so eloquently puts it, there have been quite a few "interactions" between them over the past centuries.
To avoid what might be termed incest you´ll have to find a mate that has no direct connection to you or your family if you want to keep the line going.
Ultimately I think this has been understood for a long time and in some way explains the string of extramarital fun and games recorded in the history books.
Charlie boy found himself Diana Spencer who was dismissed after producing the "heir and the spare" and William has married a nice Berkshire lass with no regal ancestry.
To be honest, and despite everything, I quite like the idea of a line of succession spanning the centuries.
I have no special affinity with the House of Windsor and their desperate attempts to appear local by wearing kilts and killing the local wildlife but if I look at the circus the US goes through every 4 years in the name of democracy it´s a bearable alternative.
I think the secret is not to take the whole thing too seriously.
IMHO an interesting article on how DNA can be an influence on societies:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...rt-4-1-1503458
This does however leave the door open to Americans who claim to be Scots to now claim they are Viking as well though
A lot of these royal families have been around for a long time and, as Palenq so eloquently puts it, there have been quite a few "interactions" between them over the past centuries.
To avoid what might be termed incest you´ll have to find a mate that has no direct connection to you or your family if you want to keep the line going.
Ultimately I think this has been understood for a long time and in some way explains the string of extramarital fun and games recorded in the history books.
Charlie boy found himself Diana Spencer who was dismissed after producing the "heir and the spare" and William has married a nice Berkshire lass with no regal ancestry.
To be honest, and despite everything, I quite like the idea of a line of succession spanning the centuries.
I have no special affinity with the House of Windsor and their desperate attempts to appear local by wearing kilts and killing the local wildlife but if I look at the circus the US goes through every 4 years in the name of democracy it´s a bearable alternative.
I think the secret is not to take the whole thing too seriously.
IMHO an interesting article on how DNA can be an influence on societies:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...rt-4-1-1503458
This does however leave the door open to Americans who claim to be Scots to now claim they are Viking as well though
Aug 12th, 2013, 12:02 PM
#57
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chartley,
You wrote: “Why are Americans so obsessed about this? It [the monarchy] doesn't affect them in any at all. Is it just that they cannot accept that other nations are quite content to do things in a different way from them?”
Au contraire, I think that most Americans that I know are fascinated by the British monarchy, especially since THE wedding and THE recent royal birth. (We will let what happened in Las Vegas, stay in Vegas.) Of course, we know that model wouldn’t fit us so we lumber on with what we have – those horrid four year election cycles which begin shortly after the newly elected president is sworn in.
I often read the scandal sheet DAILY MAIL on line and notice that most articles about the royal family are met with derision and contempt by Brits in the comments below.
God save the Queen…
You wrote: “Why are Americans so obsessed about this? It [the monarchy] doesn't affect them in any at all. Is it just that they cannot accept that other nations are quite content to do things in a different way from them?”
Au contraire, I think that most Americans that I know are fascinated by the British monarchy, especially since THE wedding and THE recent royal birth. (We will let what happened in Las Vegas, stay in Vegas.) Of course, we know that model wouldn’t fit us so we lumber on with what we have – those horrid four year election cycles which begin shortly after the newly elected president is sworn in.
I often read the scandal sheet DAILY MAIL on line and notice that most articles about the royal family are met with derision and contempt by Brits in the comments below.
God save the Queen…
Aug 12th, 2013, 12:44 PM
#58
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, we know that model wouldn’t fit us so we lumber on with what we have – those horrid four year election cycles which begin shortly after the newly elected president is sworn in.>
well don't think it is much different in the U K where Cameron, especially with a coalition government, starts looking to the next elections and that's the kicker - QE II is Head of State yet the real head of state is the PM - why does someone by sheer birth even technically be head of state - without being head of state would the Queen and the monarchy go away - no - so why not keep the Queen or soon to be King and just give them no office - they are queen or king of Brits. Period. Their visages could stay on coins and stamps and there could still be a changing of the guard, etc.
Just why are the monarchs Head of State by sheer birth circumstances? That's the foolish part of it all (besides a large number of subject being ineligible to be monarch simpoy because of their religion.
well don't think it is much different in the U K where Cameron, especially with a coalition government, starts looking to the next elections and that's the kicker - QE II is Head of State yet the real head of state is the PM - why does someone by sheer birth even technically be head of state - without being head of state would the Queen and the monarchy go away - no - so why not keep the Queen or soon to be King and just give them no office - they are queen or king of Brits. Period. Their visages could stay on coins and stamps and there could still be a changing of the guard, etc.
Just why are the monarchs Head of State by sheer birth circumstances? That's the foolish part of it all (besides a large number of subject being ineligible to be monarch simpoy because of their religion.
Aug 12th, 2013, 12:59 PM
#59
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Strangely, the only faltering in the functioning of the monarchy in the past hundred years was caused by a promiscuous American woman>>
Um, the hideous American slut married a bloody fool who was, nominally, English . . . and a Nazi sympathizer to boot. It was the stupidity of the English crown prince to (a) fall for the harpy, (b) stay with the harlot (the length of the list of her affairs would make Pamela Harriman jealous) and (c) throw away his options for her.
And that faltering in the monarchy issue was worsened by Churchill's decision to take Edward's side . . . which blew a large wad of the great man's political capital - a stash it took the old man three years to rebuild.
Um, the hideous American slut married a bloody fool who was, nominally, English . . . and a Nazi sympathizer to boot. It was the stupidity of the English crown prince to (a) fall for the harpy, (b) stay with the harlot (the length of the list of her affairs would make Pamela Harriman jealous) and (c) throw away his options for her.
And that faltering in the monarchy issue was worsened by Churchill's decision to take Edward's side . . . which blew a large wad of the great man's political capital - a stash it took the old man three years to rebuild.
