Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Royal Baby Expected  
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2718 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Couldn't see this posted, apologies if I missed it.

The Duchess of Cambridge is expecting a child - so congrats to the happy couple. It is significant because this child will succeed to the throne after William, regardless of sex - as detailed in the article here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20600543

Personally, I think it's about time we had a funkily-named monarch, so here's hoping for something slightly more unusual in the naming department (wishful thinking, I know).

Anyway, Kate has been hospitalised the last couple of days owing to severe pregnancy-related sickness. Here's hoping she'll be fine.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Anyway, Kate has been hospitalised the last couple of days owing to severe pregnancy-related sickness. Here's hoping she'll be fine.

Yes, Congrats to them both.         

They say her severe morning sickness is due to the fact that she may be pregnant with twins, Oh the nappies !!!



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinehOMSaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 1):
They say her severe morning sickness is due to the fact that she may be pregnant with twins

If this were to actually happen, then I presume that the first one out gets the throne?



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

Quoting hOMSaR (Reply 2):
If this were to actually happen, then I presume that the first one out gets the throne?

Correct !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2690 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Personally, I think it's about time we had a funkily-named monarch, so here's hoping for something slightly more unusual in the naming department (wishful thinking, I know).

The bookies are already all over it: http://www.entertainmentwise.com/new...al-Baby-Names-Sex-and-Hair-Colour-

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Anyway, Kate has been hospitalised the last couple of days owing to severe pregnancy-related sickness. Here's hoping she'll be fine.

I heard on the news this evening that her hospitalization was the only reason they disclosed that she was pregnant. Her original plan was to tell the family at Christmas. The same news report said that the Queen was only told the good news about half an hour before the media knew!

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3):
Quoting hOMSaR (Reply 2):
If this were to actually happen, then I presume that the first one out gets the throne?

Correct !

That would certainly make for a very bitter second-born!



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2685 times:

Ohh boy, more hype   sure this baby's going to be the next monarch, but seriously, watch the US do something, such as, knock off Kim Jong-Un right after this baby's birth   


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4):

The bookies are already all over it
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
Ohh boy, more hype

Indeed.....I am preparing myself for months on end of reading about little but 'royal baby this' and 'royal baby that' in the news here.....



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13005 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

This potential person of the throne may not make there until they are in their 70's or about 2080 or so, considering the longevity of his ancestors.
Please, give mom and dad their privacy and the media go away.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4):
That would certainly make for a very bitter second-born!

Or a very bitter first born. The second born will get everything the first born gets except the same relentless degree of scrutiny and pressure for their entire lives that the crown brings.

Sure there would be expectations placed on both, but you just have to look at Diana vs Sarah Fergusen to see how differently the future successor and his/her siblings are seen/treated ( and yes I know that the situations were very different).


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 7):
Please, give mom and dad their privacy and the media go away.

Privacy? Well, in relative terms at least, here's hoping. As for the press going away? Never, just not going to happen - more's the pity.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16239 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Yes, congrats to the Royal couple.

I hope the child inherits HER looks and HER intelligence. I can't think of too much genetic contribution from William would benefit this child. I'm a Monarchist but not overly impressed with William.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 1):
They say her severe morning sickness is due to the fact that she may be pregnant with twins

I hear another cause was her low body weight which can contribute to severe morning sickness. There is a medical term for this which escapes me.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
It is significant because this child will succeed to the throne after William, regardless of sex

I don't see how that's significant, there is a queen right now isn't it ?

As for succeeding, well, we have many decades to live before that may happen !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6095 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2631 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 11):
As for succeeding, well, we have many decades to live before that may happen !

So many, that I will surely won´t be around to see it. Kinda funny feeling.



MGGS
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
sure this baby's going to be the next monarch

Third-in-line, actually. Charles is poised to be the next monarch.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
but seriously, watch the US do something, such as, knock off Kim Jong-Un right after this baby's birth   

I fail to see how those two potential events are even remotely related or why they would ever be.



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2604 times:

Quoting cws818 (Reply 13):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
but seriously, watch the US do something, such as, knock off Kim Jong-Un right after this baby's birth

I fail to see how those two potential events are even remotely related or why they would ever be.

After the royal wedding, we took out Bin Laden.

     



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 11):
I don't see how that's significant, there is a queen right now isn't it ?

If the Queen had a younger brother then he would have been King. She is only Queen because there were no male offspring.

The new laws that are going through now mean that the eldest child will be the successor regardless of their gender.


User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5123 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 11):
I don't see how that's significant, there is a queen right now isn't it ?

It is significant because up until recently, a daughter would only be heir to the throne if she had no male siblings. If her parents later had a male child, she would rank below her younger brother.

If this baby is born a girl then it will be 3rd in line to the throne regardless of any other siblings, whereas before she would only be third in line as long as William didn't give birth to a subsequent male child.



That'll teach you
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12281 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And the giveafuck-o-meter is registering a big fat zero. This may change slightly if we get a public holiday to celebrate the birth (very unlikely).


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2511 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 11):
I don't see how that's significant, there is a queen right now isn't it ?

As others have pointed out - only because she had no male sibling.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 17):
And the giveafuck-o-meter is registering a big fat zero. This may change slightly if we get a public holiday to celebrate the birth (very unlikely).

I sympathise with this view. Nonetheless, a significant bit of news that I felt was worthy of a bit of discussion, not least to find out how many other people were pretty underwhelmed by it.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 14):
After the royal wedding, we took out Bin Laden.

We? I had no idea you were part of that mission, I suppose you hd to keep it very secret.

Congratulations toboth of them. I think they will make great parents.

Fred


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 20):
DDDOOOOOOOONNN'TTTTT CAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRREE.

So just ignore it then? Unless that is you wouldn't mind us going into the droves of pointless American-related threads on here and voicing our lack of interest in those topics.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 8):
Or a very bitter first born. The second born will get everything the first born gets except the same relentless degree of scrutiny and pressure for their entire lives that the crown brings.

That's a good point. But title seems to be fairly important to this group, so I would assume that it will always be with the second-born that they were minutes from being one step ahead in line.

But we don't even know if it's twins yet, so we're arguing a hypothetical here.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10):
I hope the child inherits HER looks and HER intelligence. I can't think of too much genetic contribution from William would benefit this child. I'm a Monarchist but not overly impressed with William.

Genetic contribution from William: Better judgement than Harry.  



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 19):
We? I had no idea you were part of that mission, I suppose you hd to keep it very secret.

"We" as a collective term for the US.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Congrats!         

I believe ti's great news. I can see all the little old ladies already starting to knit booties for the baby.

Overall I can see this boosting the people's confidence in the UK. Good news does seem to improve a lot of things.

In terms of benefitting the UK, there is going to be a LOT of souvenirs & commemorative plates on the market, bringing in a lot of money.

And tourists. Look for a banner year of tourists flooding the UK. We will probably go, but that has ben planned since I had enough miles.  


User currently onlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2620 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Personally, I think it's about time we had a funkily-named monarch, so here's hoping for something slightly more unusual in the naming department

When I was a kid, I used to think that males in the royal family weren't allowed to have a name other than Edward, George, Henry, Charles, or Richard.

I suppose it is OK if RussianJet gets his way and they name the baby "Sunshine Space-Tweezers."



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2591 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2381 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Congratulations to the Royal couple on the expectant birth of the new third in line to the throne  
Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Personally, I think it's about time we had a funkily-named monarch

I have a feeling that if the child is female, she'll be named Diana in honour of the late Princess Diana.

I don't think we should have a funkily named monarch, personally, but maybe it's because I'm too old fashioned  



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 24):
I have a feeling that if the child is female, she'll be named Diana in honour of the late Princess Diana.

Maybe one of her names but not her first name, that would be stupid and sure to create problems.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 24):
I have a feeling that if the child is female, she'll be named Diana in honour of the late Princess Diana.

I hope not. I think the expectations heaped on the child, especially by the media, would be awful.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

I was visiting some old folks today...they couldn't talk about anything other than the royal foetus.  
More seriously, I wonder what will be left of the realm by the time it becomes monarch. I am pro-monarchy, but as ltbewr pointed out, it is going to be a very long time before it becomes monarch and plenty of the Commonwealth realms could have become republics by then.

I hope this new royal makes a good King/Queen, not that I'm likely to be alive at the time.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6):
Indeed.....I am preparing myself for months on end of reading about little but 'royal baby this' and 'royal baby that' in the news here.....

The gossip magazines will be having a field day.   

Quoting Airstud (Reply 23):
I suppose it is OK if RussianJet gets his way and they name the baby "Sunshine Space-Tweezers."

   Part of me now hopes they name it something simillar.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 24):
I have a feeling that if the child is female, she'll be named Diana in honour of the late Princess Diana.

Not more of her again.  



Someone repaint ZK-PBG!
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

Nice to hear, I wish all three involved a happy time ahead! One cant say that the Windsors do have much problems these days.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 24):
I don't think we should have a funkily named monarch, personally, but maybe it's because I'm too old fashioned  

Absolutely agreed, a royal child is a sign of continuity and the bearer of a countries dignity, so its likely another Edward or George, or Elizabeth, or Anne. Arthur and Edgar are too distant in history to have a chance? And Diana not royal enough?

Quoting Airstud (Reply 23):
I suppose it is OK if RussianJet gets his way and they name the baby "Sunshine Space-Tweezers."

Good god, if you want to see the child become a brainless drug addict...

Multi-million, if not billions pound, euro and dollar business for the yellow press and even the serious magazines!


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2591 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2389 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting mariner (Reply 26):
I hope not. I think the expectations heaped on the child, especially by the media, would be awful.

That's a fair point. I sincerely hope that no one has to go through the sort of attention and invasions of privacy that Diana had to endure.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 27):
I am pro-monarchy, but as ltbewr pointed out, it is going to be a very long time before it becomes monarch and plenty of the Commonwealth realms could have become republics by then.

Could be, but not necessary. I can't speak or anyone else, but as long as I have a right to vote in this country, I will vote against a republic every single time. And based on polls I have seen recently, the majority of the population would also vote against a republic.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 29):
Could be, but not necessary. I can't speak or anyone else, but as long as I have a right to vote in this country, I will vote against a republic every single time. And based on polls I have seen recently, the majority of the population would also vote against a republic.

Interesting. Perhaps the change to become a Republic doesnt change anything to the positive. From far away, I cant see anything that would make life of the Australians better without the Queen while good connections to the UK and the commonwealth surely must have some positive effects without costing much.


User currently offlinepellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2324 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

I'm sick of Anglo-Saxons already.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 31):
I'm sick of Anglo-Saxons already.

"There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of
other people's cultures...and the Dutch."

- Austin "Danger" Powers


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 7):
Please, give mom and dad their privacy and the media go away.

The Royals don't want privacy. It's the media attention that keeps them on the throne. Wills and his brother are groomed to have constant newsworthy movements. The Royals have unbelievable control over the media. If they read your comments they would laugh.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):
Never, just not going to happen - more's the pity.

In Kazakstan? Wow, didn't know anyone in those parts would be interested in our monarchy.

I'm a royal fan and this new royal baby addition is happy news for everyone. It's good news for business, tourism and the UK.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 33):
I'm a royal fan

I'm a Kate Middleton fan!


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3527 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2315 times:

We now have 7 months of media frenzy to look forward to. Waiting in the queue to buy my morning paper yesterday and a man in front of me was moaning that his previosu days paper had 13 pages full of the pregnancy announcement. On that basis I son't even want to think about the covergae for the birth.

The way its going at the moment I have visions of a photographer with a long lens photoing the royal dilated cervix !!

It must be women who are interested in reading all about it, as all the men I've spoken to so far are either already fed up with the coverage, or totally uninterested.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1162 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Oh no, now media will be full of useless hype even in here Finland... I hope it won't be as bad and annoying as when Swedish royal family got a new member to waste tax money.

And I hope all the best to them, I just hate all the media hype this kind of events create.

[Edited 2012-12-06 10:09:05]


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 36):
And I hope all the best to them, I just hate all the media hype this kind of events create.

There will surely be a Media overkill, I just hope they leave them a little privacy. But the less official news, the more lies the Yellow Press will tell.
Anyway, still better to read about such positive things than about the drunken exploits of spoiled brats like Lindsay Lohan which would be the alternative...


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

BTW, I heard the TV say the conception happened in France, don't know if it's true but it would be funny.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2716 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 33):
The Royals have unbelievable control over the media. If they read your comments they would laugh.

Not always enough control it would seem....

Remember a few weeks ago in the worlds press corp.

The topless pics of Kate, while they were on holiday. Buck Place almost went into lock down because of that.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week ago) and read 2205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting babybus (Reply 33):
In Kazakstan? Wow, didn't know anyone in those parts would be interested in our monarchy.

Probably not there, but you never know. But here, in the UK where I was born and brought up, and live, it will be in the press a lot.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 39):
Not always enough control it would seem....

Remember a few weeks ago in the worlds press corp.

The topless pics of Kate, while they were on holiday. Buck Place almost went into lock down because of that.

That was the foreign press. The British press is a whole different kettle of fish, as the Diana legacy still maintains a lot of influence in the relation between the Royals and the newspapers, aside from other regulatory differences.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

Congrats to the "royals" haha I cannot even type that with a straight face...


Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 17):
And the giveafuck-o-meter is registering a big fat zero.

Amen.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 20):
So just ignore it then?

I'd love to, except it's freaking everywhere. The media just immerses itself in this royal crapola incessantly and it's everywhere.

I've never understood the fascination, nay--obsession, with the royals. I despise the concept.

And I couldn't give two shits about some limey bastard baby who is born with a silver spoon in its mouth before it even sees the light of day. An aristocratic heir that will never have to work a day in its life, be fawned over for NO reason other than a happy accident of its birth.

This royalty garbage is actually quite embarrassing and would be shameful if those who give this crap the time of day had any shame. God save the queen--barf.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2591 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting slider (Reply 42):
I'd love to, except it's freaking everywhere.

Not here on A.net it's not. There's just this one single thread. You can choose not to click on it.

Quoting slider (Reply 42):
An aristocratic heir that will never have to work a day in its life

That just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. But I guess ignorance is bliss ...  



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 43):
That just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. But I guess ignorance is bliss ...

So please correct me then if I'm mistaken.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 42):

Why then do you waste some minutes to write such a long post and even come back later?

Quoting slider (Reply 42):
An aristocratic heir that will never have to work a day in its life,

The expert speaks...


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slider (Reply 42):
An aristocratic heir that will never have to work a day in its life, be fawned over for NO reason other than a happy accident of its birth.

The unborn child's father and future uncle are both working - by choice - in the military, with one of them in the front line in Afghanistan and an announced target of the Taliban.

Quoting slider (Reply 42):
I've never understood the fascination, nay--obsession, with the royals. I despise the concept.

You don't like it, you don't want it - you don't understand it - fine. You live in another country with a different system which - I think - has some serious flaws to it. A healthy percentage of your electorate does not believe that your head of state is "legitimate."

For myself, I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy to any other.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinepellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2324 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 32):

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 31):
I'm sick of Anglo-Saxons already.

"There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of
other people's cultures...and the Dutch."

- Austin "Danger" Powers

Ok well I'm not intolerant of anyone's culture. I don't think US news needs to dominate on this...understandable if British news chooses to. Even if I were a Scot I'd be a little miffed. There's much more serious shit going on in the world than Kate's pregnancy. I watched the Royal Wedding too. But. Meh.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2591 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2028 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting slider (Reply 44):
So please correct me then if I'm mistaken.

Members of the British Royal Family have traditionally served - and indeed are expected to serve - in the military. Prince William is a RAF Rescue Helicopter pilot; Prince Harry is on the front lines in Afghanistan; Prince Andrew served in the Royal Navy as a pilot and saw action in the Falklands War; Prince Charles was a pilot with the RAF and flew HS 780s; then served in the Royal Navy and served as a helicopter pilot; Prince Philip served in the Royal Navy and saw action during World War II; hell, even the Queen herself served in the British Army as a truck driver and mechanic. When this child reaches 18 years of age, he or she will probably attend a university to get a degree and then serve as a military officer.

Aside from their military careers, they represent the nation in many State functions. Their lives are devoted to duty; there is rarely a time when they are off duty, and even when they are off duty, the media attention they get anywhere they go pretty much ensures that they rarely have time to themselves. It is an erroneous assumption to believe that they just sit on their backsides in their palaces and get their servants to do all the work.

Quoting mariner (Reply 46):
You don't like it, you don't want it - you don't understand it - fine. You live in another country with a different system which - I think - has some serious flaws to it. A healthy percentage of your electorate does not believe that your head of state is "legitimate."

For myself, I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy to any other.

I agree.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinewolverine From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

I don't understand what this hype is all about. She's pregnant, so what? All the best for her and her kid! But just because she is married to a Royal makes this special? This is so overrated!


Face your fears, live your dreams! (No Fear)
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1925 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wolverine (Reply 49):
I don't understand what this hype is all about. She's pregnant, so what? All the best for her and her kid! But just because she is married to a Royal makes this special? This is so overrated!

LOL - for anyone living within a constitutional monarchy, it is a bit special. It assures the succession.

As to the celebrity aspect of it, who knows? I've long wondered why anyone cares about Kim Kardashian.

But - they do.  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wolverine (Reply 49):
But just because she is married to a Royal makes this special?

Yup. The Royal Family here are, by definition, special - so yes.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1897 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 29):
I can't speak or anyone else, but as long as I have a right to vote in this country, I will vote against a republic every single time.

Myself as well, but things could have changed in 60-70 years time. I hope they don't.

Quoting mariner (Reply 46):
For myself, I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy to any other.

   I like this system as the vast majority of the population likes the head of state. At the very least, it is one less politician.

Quoting mariner (Reply 50):
I've long wondered why anyone cares about Kim Kardashian.

Because she is hot.



Someone repaint ZK-PBG!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Monarchies only work thanks to history, they can't appear out of thin air (I mean in our current world, in the past they did). So by definition they're not an example of a modern political system (doesn't mean it can't work). Also, to me and many, the idea that some citizens are worth more than others is unbearable. Then there is the church of England for the icing on the cake.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 52):
I like this system as the vast majority of the population likes the head of state. At the very least, it is one less politician.

So, what happens if a king or queen is not liked ? Wait, I know the answer to that one : head separation by way of a steel blade.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 53):
Also, to me and many, the idea that some citizens are worth more than others is unbearable.

In practice it makes very little difference. This is not an absolute monarchy what we are talking about.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 53):
So, what happens if a king or queen is not liked ? Wait, I know the answer to that one : head separation by way of a steel blade.

Maybe several hundred years ago, but much of the world is civilised today. Constantine II (of Greece) lost his powers via a referendum as many despised his political involvement, yet his head is still firmly attached to the rest of him.



Someone repaint ZK-PBG!
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 53):
Also, to me and many, the idea that some citizens are worth more than others is unbearable.

That's a curious idea. No person is "worth" more than any other just because they are royal.

As head of state, the monarch (in the UK) is the representative of all the people, regardless of political ideology.

The monarch is there by the will of the people, expressed through the Parliament, and the succession was decided by the Parliament.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

Quoting wolverine (Reply 49):
This is so overrated!

Calm down. The world is full of overrated people and things.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 52):
I like this system as the vast majority of the population likes the head of state. At the very least, it is one less politician.

Very good said. It has something to it that the head of state isnt a politician who marched through the ranks and is either a semidictatorial character or someone corrupted by the system. I must say, that over the years, and undoubtedly influenced by the highly respected personality of Elizabeth II as opposed to the league of largely dull and grey-suited men who held the democratic equivalent post in Germany, I have learned to like the system of a purely representative royal head of state.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 53):
Monarchies only work thanks to history, they can't appear out of thin air (I mean in our current world, in the past they did)

It wasn't all that long ago that Bokasa made himself emperor of the CAR. Admittedly his reign wasn't a resounding success....



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1812 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 55):
is the representative of all the people

The Queen (in the UK) is representative of the British State, not the people. While the monarch may be above party politics, she is not outside of political ideology. The very existence of "constitutional monarchy" is a political ideology given constitutional form. While I have no problem with you supporting that ideology, please accept it for what it is.

Non-partisan is not the same as above politics, despite however often that claim is made.The fact that there are unwritten reserve powers and that Parliament may not ask questions related to the Royal Prerogative without the express approval of the Queen is a political fact. That Bills affecting the Queen's interests and those of the Duchy of Cornwall are presented to the Queen and the Prince of Wales respectively for approval before being submitted to Parliament is a concern. If consent is not given, the Bills may not be presented to Parliament. Again, this state of affairs arose out of political decisions at particular points of conflict. So let us not confuse being impartial when it comes to Twiddledee or Twiddledum being elected with being non-political. The Monarchy is there for a reason that has nothing at all to do with being above politics.

Back on topic: names for a Girl - Tegwin Orlaith Fatimah Alenka. For a boy - Arwyn Fergal Zakir Bozymir. These names link the past with the present and recognise the contribution to British society by both the ancient Britons and more modern migrations. It also safely avoids any dispute over whether his (Will's) grandmother is named in preference to her (Kate's) great aunt in the order of naming. Mind you, I accept that I haven't included any indigenous names from Tuvalu, Nunavut or from Ngaanyatjarraku. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

What is the expected date and time of delivery? Perhaps we can draw up a horoscope while we are choosing names.  

[Edited 2012-12-12 08:04:48]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 58):
The Queen (in the UK) is representative of the British State, not the people.

Well - yes. Any head of state is representative of that state. I don't know what else the term means.

In this instance, as established with the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, the "state" resides in the Parliament, as representative of the will of the people.

This usually means the majority of the people, of course - I doubt Morrissey would agree.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5467 posts, RR: 13
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

I wish them the best but I don't give a rat's pattotty about the royals (pain in the you know what) I've already had enough of the hype


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 46):
For myself, I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy to any other.

Bully for you. Enjoy being subservient to another by choice.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 48):
Members of the British Royal Family have traditionally served - and indeed are expected to serve - in the military.

I understand that--and I appreciate the history of this, which goes back to kings riding into battle and leading armies directly.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 48):
Aside from their military careers, they represent the nation in many State functions. Their lives are devoted to duty; there is rarely a time when they are off duty, and even when they are off duty, the media attention they get anywhere they go pretty much ensures that they rarely have time to themselves. It is an erroneous assumption to believe that they just sit on their backsides in their palaces and get their servants to do all the work.

In other words, once they serve in the military, they're a very expensive show pony. This "duty" is nothing more than what a Kardashian might do, except with better manners, better dressed and more philanthropy.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2591 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 1726 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
Bully for you. Enjoy being subservient to another by choice.

Who said anything about being subservient?

In a Constitutional Monarchy, the Monarch reigns by consent of Parliament, but the Monarch does not 'rule' per se. Parliament does. Parliament makes all the important decisions for the country. The Monarch's powers are all limited by law (specifically, the Constitution).

In the UK, the Queen on the whole acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. While there is still a Royal Prerogative for the Monarch to act against the advice of a Prime Minister, such a prerogative has very rarely been exercised. Indeed, I can't think of a single time in modern British history that this has happened. The Monarch in the United Kingdom has a largely ceremonial role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
In other words, once they serve in the military, they're a very expensive show pony.

Expensive? They bring a lot more tourist dollars to the United Kingdom than they cost the taxpayers.

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
This "duty" is nothing more than what a Kardashian might do, except with better manners, better dressed and more philanthropy.

You're overestimating Miss Kardashian.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 1713 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 62):
They bring a lot more tourist dollars to the United Kingdom than they cost the taxpayers.

Don't know if I agree on that one one bit. Is there an economic impact statement? I've been to London numerous times and all of my activities have not revolved around any of that sideshow crap one bit. I don't think that's quantifiable at all.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 62):
You're overestimating Miss Kardashian

LOL! You're right on that one, man, haha... She's an oxygen thief.


**

Even symbolic monarchy is a ridiculous notion in a free society. But I guess it's one of the last vestiges of imperial greatness the UK has, so bask in it all you want. Meanwhile, islam is the fastest growing 'religion' in the UK and there's no assimilation of those people. So you may fawn over your kings, queens, royal babies, wedding spectacles, and the like, but it's tantamount to bread and circuses whilst Rome burns.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 1711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
Bully for you. Enjoy being subservient to another by choice.

You seem to have a very medieval concept of the monarchy.

I respect the office, and the woman presently holding it, in ways I doubt I would respect any politician. But when did respect become "subservience?"

I dislike the concept of an elected head of state, where, as in the US, a healthy percentage dispute the legitimacy of the head of state, or, as in Germany, where a recent head of state had to resign because of corruption.

The moment the office is elective it becomes open to both politics and possible corruption, but I don't know how anyone could bribe Betty Windsor.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 6 hours ago) and read 1702 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 64):
but I don't know how anyone could bribe Betty Windsor.

Would they actually need to?

There have been reports in the British media covering how Prince Charles has used his position to block developments that he wasn't all that fond of. Bills are regularly provided to both the Queen and the Prince of Wales to ensure that no bill that affects their business or other interests is presented to parliament without their prior approval and their right to suggest changes before Parliament even gets to see a copy of the draft. While theoretically the Queen rules by consent of Parliament it is a safe bet that the members of cabinet are willing to turn a blind eye to "insider trading" by members of the Royal household rather than precipitate a crisis that may result in a new Parliament being elected in which those Cabinet members were no longer in the majority party. It may be countered that if they lost that suggest support for the monarchy but it is equally suggestible that they lost because the electorate did not support the rest of their program and their record in office.

The problem with Royal Prerogative is that it is undefined. In theory the Queen (or her successors) always acts on the advise of the Prime Minister and the fact that Royal Prerogative has not been used in recent times does not mean that it is in abeyance or no longer enforceable. In the UK, the Queen can refuse to assent to bills. She may not be likely to but she can. If she were to do so it would force a dissolution of Parliament, long before anybody suggested the Charles I solution.

While not all gay men are in favour of marriage, indeed some may suggest that being free to engage in ad hoc relationships without marriage is somehow challenging the status quo, the advice that helped frame a bill that specifically makes it illegal for the Church of England to solemnise gay marriages is based on the fact that it "may" encroach upon the Royal Prerogative to enact otherwise. Among her very varied titles is Head of the Church in England as by Law established. Some people might be fine with that because the Royal Prerogative is more important than whether people have the right to choose whether to marry or not. In stating this I do not mean to imply that the Queen herself is opposed to same-sex marriage. I obviously have not had tea and biscuits with her. But the Royal Prerogative can be exercised by Ministers of the Crown. In the UK not all Ministers have been elected.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 65):
There have been reports in the British media covering how Prince Charles has used his position to block developments that he wasn't all that fond of.

I'd need to know a lot more about it than you have provided to make an assessment of it. Morrissey (again) has proclaimed the the royal family is directly responsible for the suicide of the hospital nurse. He would, of course.

But on the face of it, "blocking" doesn't sound like "bribery." I can think of many developments I would try to block if only anyone would listen.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 65):
The problem with Royal Prerogative is that it is undefined. In theory the Queen (or her successors) always acts on the advise of the Prime Minister and the fact that Royal Prerogative has not been used in recent times does not mean that it is in abeyance or no longer enforceable.

In one sense, reserve powers have been recently used (well, recently as in 1975 and in Australia, not in the UK).

What's interesting (to me) is that no change has been made to the Australian constitution to remove the reserve powers of the GG, despite, I would have thought, a fairly compelling case to do so and with which I would whole-heartedly agree. But I wouldn't remove the office just to fix the glitch.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 65):
In stating this I do not mean to imply that the Queen herself is opposed to same-sex marriage. I obviously have not had tea and biscuits with her.

Then I'm not sure what you do mean. Certainly, the late Queen Mother was famously hospitable towards gay men, as was her mother-in-law.

Back in the bad old days, "certain politicians" demanded a purge of the royal yacht as "a haven of homosexuals" - LOL.

I am not remotely surprised that some politicians would use any means, legal or otherwise, to try and block same-sex marriage. I, homosexual, am deeply ambivalent about it (same-sex marriage) and obviously there are those who are strenuously, perhaps even violently, opposed to it.

But if this issue reveals flaws in the system, then those flaws should be fixed (see Australian GG, above).

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 65):
In the UK not all Ministers have been elected.

In New Zealand many MP's - list MP's - are not elected. I think it is a pernicious system, but I would change the detail of it, not throw out the baby of proportional representation along with the bathwater of MMP.

Same with the constitutional monarchy, which was paid for in blood (and a regicide), a civil war and a revolution, until the "will of the people", expressed through the Parliament, demanded settlement. Thus the Act of Settlement.

If there are glitches in the Act of Settlement, fix the glitches, as is happening with the succession. The bathwater of primogeniture is out the window (and the anti-Catholic bias). The baby of succession remains safe.

mariner

[Edited 2012-12-13 11:55:10]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
Morrissey (again) has proclaimed the the royal family

I don't know who this Morrissey is but the Guardian has published several reports on how the Prince of Wales has used his powers. They have also revealed how they were forced (well not exactly forced, it was the only way they could confirm it) to obtain information under Freedom of Information legislation to back up their reports.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
But on the face of it, "blocking" doesn't sound like "bribery."

As I have queried, would they actually need to resort to bribery when the law places them in a preferential position compared to other residents in the UK? Bribery is only used by those who can not force their decisions.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
Then I'm not sure what you do mean.

The obvious: that the power may not be actually exercised by the Queen herself but one of her ministers.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
which was paid for in blood

Please mariner, you know as well as I do that there are many who are prepared to pay in blood (preferably someone else's) for their beliefs. Mussolini was strung up but I doubt we would find many sympathisers for his views today. That claim also ignores the deaths of those who opposed the idea of monarchy. Their deaths were just as real as those of people who supported a republican system. To me the notion of regicide is no more offensive than the notion of execution on the grounds of treason of those who oppose monarchy. Do you really believe that Cromwell would have kept his head if Charles had prevailed? Admittedly it is open to speculation but past practice of the treatment of those who opposed the idea of kingship leaves me to conclude he would not have been wearing the most fashionable of ruffs.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
until the "will of the people",

And this at a time when 100% of women and a significant proportion of men did not have the right to vote. By any calculation that would be more than 50% did not have a way of indicating whether they were for or against that historic compromise.

Quoting mariner (Reply 66):
(and the anti-Catholic bias).

Is it? The head of the Church in England remains the monarch. Anyone who would be King may not be a Catholic for the simple reason that you can not be both a Catholic and head of the Church in England. It's a bit like Gillard being leader of the Labor and Liberal parties at the same time - it simply doesn't work. That has not changed as far as I am aware.

[Edited 2012-12-13 12:32:20]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24959 posts, RR: 85
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 1682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 67):
I don't know who this Morrissey is but the Guardian has published several reports on how the Prince of Wales has used his powers. They have also revealed how they were forced (well not exactly forced, it was the only way they could confirm it) to obtain information under Freedom of Information legislation to back up their reports.

I didn't dispute that it may have happened. Almost any person in a position of power, perceived or actual, can persuade others to their point of view.

But if anyone felt they were being "unduly pressured" they had simple and obvious recourse.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 67):
The obvious: that the power may not be actually exercised by the Queen herself but one of her ministers.

Then, as I said, perhaps that should be changed. I don't see it as a basis for ditching the entire system.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 67):
And this at a time when 100% of women and a significant proportion of men did not have the right to vote. By any calculation that would be more than 50% did not have a way of indicating whether they were for or against that historic compromise.

That was the electorate at the time and thus you can belittle any law that was introduced then, if the mood takes you.

But while the will of the people is expressed through the Parliament, you don't always need a vote to express dissatisfaction. Many men who did not have the vote simply refused to die in battle any more, and/or the cost of persuading them to do so become too high, and/or many of the landowners saw that they were losing money.

Parliament, then as now, was susceptible to the popular mood, as with the Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753 and it;s rescindment in 1754.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 67):
Is it? The head of the Church in England remains the monarch. Anyone who would be King may not be a Catholic for the simple reason that you can not be both a Catholic and head of the Church in England.

As I understand it, and as the BBC says:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20713315

"Royal succession bill published

The bill will also end the ban on anyone in the line of succession marrying a Roman Catholic.

The Queen's cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, was once 8th in line to the throne. Marriage to a Roman Catholic helped put pay to that.

Now, with the disqualification if one marries a Catholic to be removed, Prince Michael will rejoin the line of succession.

So too, will one of the Duke of Kent's sons. But neither should raise their hopes as they will be very low down the list of potential future monarchs."


mariner

[Edited 2012-12-13 13:13:43]

[Edited 2012-12-13 13:28:46]


aeternum nauta
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Protocol And The Royal Wedding posted Wed Jan 12 2011 20:42:06 by DocLightning
Royal Mail Never Deliver posted Fri Oct 15 2010 05:01:22 by fca767
The Royal Danish Navy Turns 500! posted Tue Aug 10 2010 06:10:51 by AirPacific747
Rahm Emanuel Expected To Quit White House posted Sun Jun 20 2010 21:35:25 by Dreadnought
Should The United Kingdom Ditch The Royal Family? posted Sat Jun 5 2010 11:01:23 by T8KE0FF
Royal Caribbean To Return To New Orleans posted Sun Apr 25 2010 11:51:31 by MSYtristar
Mother, Baby Revived After Dying In Labor posted Tue Dec 29 2009 23:14:46 by Longhornmaniac
Will There Be A New Royal Yacht? posted Mon Dec 14 2009 19:31:16 by United Airline
50 Ft. Waves Expected On Oahu's North Shore posted Tue Dec 8 2009 11:34:17 by MadameConcorde
MS Prinsendam VS Royal Viking Sun posted Fri Nov 20 2009 06:48:13 by United Airline