DM's Beatles forums

Other forums => Current Affairs => Topic started by: Jane on September 03, 2008, 08:48:47 PM

Title: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 03, 2008, 08:48:47 PM
What do you think of the British monarchy? Is it an outdated institution? How does it combine with democracy? Wouldn`t Britain be better off without it?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kaleidoscope_Eyes on September 04, 2008, 01:33:23 AM
Although I loved studying about the British monarchy at school, I think it's loosing its vlaue over the years. I mean , we are in the democracy age, I dont see why the monarchy should "rule" [not that they do it really]. By all means, keep the monarchy as a memory and a peice of a history, but let the "demos" rule.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Geoff on September 04, 2008, 04:21:51 AM
I'm a Tory softy: I'm fine with the monarchy; they seem to be an interesting lot who perform their ceremonial role well. But of course I'm not paying for it.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Joost on September 04, 2008, 01:34:19 PM
Not really an opinion about the British monarchy in particular...

But I am against the concept of a monarchy. Our Dutch queen really just has a purely ceremonial function nowadays so she really is pretty much 'harmless'. But... Officially she still has the right to veto any decision the government makes. Of course she'd have a HUGE problem if she'd actually use that right... But still, it's not very democratic. And besides that, our royal family costs 113,9 million euros of our tax money per year, even though our queen Beatrix has an estimated fortune of 2,5 billion euros...
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kevin on September 04, 2008, 01:44:23 PM
Gawd bless Her Magesty!
Outdated maybe, but consider the revolutions, civil wars, fascists, communists, dictators and absolute-monarchists that that have stalked the history of almost every other nation* these past 300 odd years and we're obviously doing something right.
(* except the Scandies and the Lowlanders. But wait, aren't they also constitutional monarchies?? )
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Joost on September 04, 2008, 02:17:31 PM
Quote from: 185
(* except the Scandies and the Lowlanders. But wait, aren't they also constitutional monarchies?? )

Ehm, we did have a war here in the 1940s...
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kevin on September 04, 2008, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: 56

Ehm, we did have a war here in the 1940s...

But started by those Rexless Gerries.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: alexis on September 04, 2008, 03:39:32 PM
All I know as an ignorant yank is that Her Majesty is a very nice girl. And that is good enough for me  :)
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: alexis on September 04, 2008, 03:43:07 PM
All I know as an ignorant yank is that Her Majesty is a very nice girl. And that is good enough for me  :)
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 04, 2008, 07:04:35 PM
The British queen has the right to choose a prime minister, dissolve parliament, and declare war. Actually she never exercises her rights. In a democracy a leader is determined by elections, which means the queen does not choose a prime minister and can`t do it. Isn`t it better to abolish these rights of hers instead of pretending they exist? The situation is hypocritical, isn`t it?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: DaveRam on September 04, 2008, 07:34:34 PM
I've always liked the Queen , think she's done the job of head of state really well .
Having said that i would like her to be the last .
I would like to see a republic of England , think the UK will breakup in the next fifty years .
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 04, 2008, 11:57:24 PM
I think the Monarchy is more of a "figure head" type thing to carry on the grand British traditions.  "Just for looks", IMHO............correct me please if you don't agree............but doesn't the Prime Minister and House of Commons and all that "jazz" run the country.  I just know about this crazy American "politicking"...........
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: adamzero on September 05, 2008, 12:19:34 AM
Considering what the Tudors, et al, did to Ireland--and what the Hanoverians did to spread the "Empire" around the Globe, I pretty much hate the institution of the monarchy.  I think England would be a much different place today if they'd let their kings die with Charles I and never have gone through a Restoration (course I blame Cromwell and his roundhead zealots for that).  Although the US has much to answer for in re. its imperialism and exploitation of various peoples (not to mention the virtual genocide of the Native Americans), it pales in comparison to the global hegemony practiced by the Empire from the 17th to 20th Centuries.  In fact, much of the world is still f***ed up (like the Middle East, Iraq, deliberately divided up by Churchill to be unstable) because of British rule.  I guess you can't blame a monarchy for all those things, but those empty-headed twits represent the system.  Bush's vacuity during Katrina is nothing compared to Victoria and the British response to the Irish potato famines in the 1840s.  Victoria and her ministers allowed one million Irish die and essentially forced another million to immigrate (depopulating almost one fourth of the island).  While it wasn't a systematic genocide like the Jewish holocaust under the Nazis, it makes George Bush look like Mother Teresa.

But I still love the Beatles (who had alot of Celtic blood in them), but Paul should never have written that silly song or accepted that silly knighthood, considering what the Empire did to his Irish forebears.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kevin on September 05, 2008, 08:43:45 AM
Quote from: 1393
The British queen has the right to choose a prime minister, dissolve parliament, and declare war. Actually she never exercises her rights. In a democracy a leader is determined by elections, which means the queen does not choose a prime minister and can`t do it. Isn`t it better to abolish these rights of hers instead of pretending they exist? The situation is hypocritical, isn`t it?

But I could argue that it's much better to have a Head of State outside the political game, therefore any appointments she makes could be regarded as impartial and not politically biased.
Remember - it was an elected Head Of State German President Hindenburg who appointed the Vegetarian Hitler as German chancellor.
Damn the Democratic Vegetarian Cabal. They'll be the death of us all.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kevin on September 05, 2008, 02:58:49 PM
Quote from: 9
.

But I still love the Beatles (who had alot of Celtic blood in them), but Paul should never have written that silly song or accepted that silly knighthood, considering what the Empire did to his Irish forebears.

Then should not native and black americans refuse to accept honours from the US government because of the enslavement, oppression, wars, genocide and ethnic cleansing inflicted upon them. Not to mention the invasion of Canada (1812) and wars of agression and annexation against Mexico (1846) and Spain (1898) and the two hundred thousand (some sources have it much higher) or so Phillopinos killed when the locals rose up against the occupation. Do you really believe that the US behaved better to those people who stood in its way of expansion because it had an elected head of state?
That Britain's monarchy killed more than the US presidents is nothing more than matters of scale. Stalin and Mao each killed many more than Hitler, so by your logic right wing totalitarian regimes are better than those from the left?
Surely empires are the evil thing, whatever their ilk.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: alexis on September 05, 2008, 06:55:59 PM
Quote from: 185

Then should not native and black americans refuse to accept honours from the US government because of the enslavement, oppression, wars, genocide and ethnic cleansing inflicted upon them. Not to mention the invasion of Canada (1812) and wars of agression and annexation against Mexico (1846) and Spain (1898) and the two hundred thousand (some sources have it much higher) or so Phillopinos killed when the locals rose up against the occupation. Do you really believe that the US behaved better to those people who stood in its way of expansion because it had an elected head of state?
That Britain's monarchy killed more than the US presidents is nothing more than matters of scale. Stalin and Mao each killed many more than Hitler, so by your logic right wing totalitarian regimes are better than those from the left?
Surely empires are the evil thing, whatever their ilk.


If killing lots of people is what makes empires evil, then surely "non-empires" countries can just as easily be considered evil. The Darfur murderers, the Butcher of Sarajevo, the little dictators of central America in the eighties ... any number of non-empire leaders have killed many people. If one suggests that matters of scale are not as important as the atrocity of the acts themselves, it becomes difficult to limit the description of "evil" to "empires". So does that statement need to be expanded to say "All countries/governments are the evil things", because some of them have perpetrated atrocities? That sounds a little drastic, but as long as matters of scale are discounted, it seems if the one is true, so is the other. Carrying it further - since human interaction at any level - empire/country/city/family/interaction between two strangers - can result in evil acts, does that mean that "all humans are the evil thing"?

Beyond that, is it really undisputable that "empires are ... evil.."? Is it beyond discussion that the Roman Empire was "evil", without also considering its contribution to the advancement of Western Civilization? Similarly for the Chinese empires and their contributions towards civilization? Is there a threshold of sorts, a balance between the overall good vs "evil" associated with an empire that must be crossed before an empire is considered evil, or do "empire" and "evil" always go hand in glove?

"Tell me what you see"  :)



Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 05, 2008, 07:19:23 PM
I hate people who think they are superior to all others by birth.
So I hate the monarchy.
Here in France people think the British Queen is quaint... because they don't have one!
I imagine it's the same in the US.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: alexis on September 05, 2008, 07:31:08 PM
Quote from: 410
I hate people who think they are superior to all others by birth.
So I hate the monarchy.
Here in France people think the British Queen is quaint... because they don't have one!
I imagine it's the same in the US.


I wonder if they nowadays still think they are superior by birth, or if they just consider themselves extremely lucky, and getting away with something they shouldn't be able to?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 05, 2008, 08:28:51 PM
As you`ve had said, Alexis, people in a democracy are born with the idea (principle) one person-one vote. Can you imagine any other situation for you? So the members of the royal family are born with the idea of superiority, they do not think they are superior, they know it! There`s a world of difference between thinking you`ve got it and knowing it, having it as something indispensable, in the blood.

It`s hard for us (outsiders) to judge about the monarchy in Britain. On the face of things it seems to be harmless, beautiful, impressive. As for me I would like the British monarchy to remain forever. But what do the actual taxpayers think, do they have to provide for the royal family, and is it really a burden? Or does it give more to the country than take from it? Nevertheless it can`t give more than take from the ordinary taxpayers.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: alexis on September 05, 2008, 08:32:55 PM
Quote from: 1393
As you`ve had said, Alexis, people in a democracy are born with the idea (principle) one person-one vote. Can you imagine any other situation for you? So the members of the royal family are born with the idea of superiority, they do not think they are superior, they know it! There`s a world of difference between thinking you`ve got it and knowing it, having it as something indispensable, in the blood.

It`s hard for us (outsiders) to judge about the monarchy in Britain. On the face of things it seems to be harmless, beautiful, impressive. As for me I would like the British monarchy to remain forever. But what do the actual taxpayers think, do they have to provide for the royal family, and is it really a burden? Or does it give more to the country than take from it? Nevertheless it can`t give more than take from the ordinary taxpayers.


I can't imagine, but I can rue my misfortune for being born a commoner  :o :)
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 05, 2008, 08:35:20 PM
Quote from: 971
I've always liked the Queen , think she's done the job of head of state really well .
Having said that i would like her to be the last .
I would like to see a republic of England , think the UK will breakup in the next fifty years .

You`ve forgotten the fact that the Queen is head of state of the 53 nations of the commonwealth. If she is to be the last, what will happen to the commonwealth? Would`t the abolition entail a lot of changes and reforms, which will need even more money than it now goes to sustain the monarchy?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 05, 2008, 08:46:00 PM
Please, could you explain to me what is meant by having a lot of Celtic blood, I am not sure I understand it to the full. And what does it mean to be on the Celtic fringe?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 05, 2008, 08:48:39 PM
Quote from: 185

But I could argue that it's much better to have a Head of State outside the political game, therefore any appointments she makes could be regarded as impartial and not politically biased.
Remember - it was an elected Head Of State German President Hindenburg who appointed the Vegetarian Hitler as German chancellor.
Damn the Democratic Vegetarian Cabal. They'll be the death of us all.

The Queen is above politics, so what appointments does she make herself?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 06, 2008, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: 568
I wonder if they nowadays still think they are superior by birth, or if they just consider themselves extremely lucky, and getting away with something they shouldn't be able to?

No, no, no. The queen really thinks she's superior and has the right to a life of luxury and command.She is conditioned that way from birth.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Geoff on September 06, 2008, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: 568
I wonder if they nowadays still think they are superior by birth, or if they just consider themselves extremely lucky, and getting away with something they shouldn't be able to?

I can't say, obviously, but I imagine they think of themselves as the people fulfilling the constitutional role of head of state in a parliamentary democracy, and as being the inheritors of a long tradition extending back to 1066 and beyond.  :)
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 10, 2008, 05:23:35 PM
Do you agree with the statement that "the harsh reality is that the young royals have done the monarchy immeasureable harm"? It`s because of their improper behaviour that the image of the institution has shaken or has been undermined. The young royals include all of them from Charles to Harry. Something is wrong within the royal family itself.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 10, 2008, 05:54:11 PM
No, this has happened in the past.
The royal family can be selfish, bloodthirty or even mad, but they're still the royal family.
That's the whole point.
You get lumped with whoever is next in line.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 10, 2008, 05:58:57 PM
So nowadays it doen`t matter what they do? They can be their true selves, get into scandals, get divorced, appear in tabloids? Nobody gets shocked?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kaleidoscope_Eyes on September 11, 2008, 10:36:18 AM
Nowadays the monarch is just a figure head as was mentioned here before. They just carry on a tradition [as England loves to do]

But what I find ironic, is when the british got rid of Charles I and got Cromwell , they wished for a monarch to rule them, and made Crommie be all monarch like!
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 11, 2008, 10:57:26 AM
Quote from: 1393
So nowadays it doen`t matter what they do? They can be their true selves, get into scandals, get divorced, appear in tabloids? Nobody gets shocked?

People can be shocked but it won't change anything.
One of the most famous monarchs, Queen Victoria, was heavily criticised for retiring from public view for twenty years.But the monarchy continued after her and she's now considered as something of an example of longevity!
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 11, 2008, 11:52:22 AM
It wasn`t the British, but Cromwell who executed Charles I and after a while started ruling like a king because he didn`t know any other way of running a country.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Arthur Mullard on September 11, 2008, 12:10:19 PM
Quote from: 1393
It wasn`t the British, but Cromwell who executed Charles I and after a while started ruling like a king because he didn`t know any other way of running a country.

What a load of codswallop! For a start, the British Union didn't come into being until 1707, so there were no 'British'. Cromwell was as English as they come.

In 1653 he dissolved the Parliament because they were incapable of coming to any decisions regarding election dates, and policies regarding the union of England, Scotland, and Wales. He did not want to rule like a King; it was everything he abhored.

Come back when you can make a sensible comment.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kevin on September 11, 2008, 12:22:47 PM
Gee arthur - how to win friends and influence people.
Please play nice or go somewhere else. Surely you come to a forum like this to engage in conversation with people who have similar interests to you.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Arthur Mullard on September 11, 2008, 12:54:18 PM
It's a fair cop. Apologies.

I'm proud to be British and annoys me when somebody starts throwing wild and inaccurate statements around about our past.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 11, 2008, 01:13:23 PM
Quote from: 1393
It wasn`t the British, but Cromwell who executed Charles I and after a while started ruling like a king because he didn`t know any other way of running a country.

Open your eyes, Arthur! I didn`t write it was the British, I wrote it wasn`t the British. And wrote it in response to another post. It wasn`t only me who was speaking. So first look through the posts before accusing.
Cromwell became Lord Protector, which meant practically the same as king at that time. So I was right.
If you are such a pundit, answer the questions I posed in the thread, cause some of them remained unanswered.  
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 11, 2008, 01:29:04 PM
Thank you, Kevin!  (heart3)(heart3)(heart3)
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 11, 2008, 09:42:25 PM
Quote from: 1393
Thank you, Kevin!  (heart3)(heart3)(heart3)

King Kevin meet Queen Jane.

And I hope you live happily ever after!

In the meantime back to the debate.Whenever kings or queens disappear they obviously have to be replaced by a figurehead, usually a president.
But a president can be replaced every so often.Some presidents try to install dynasties (Kennedy, Bush...) but they're never permanent.
Monarchy, on the other hand, is here to stay.And the message is that however hard you try you will never be in charge of the country because you are automatically inferior to the people in power and excluded from the highest authority.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Joost on September 12, 2008, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: 1570
I'm proud to be British

I never understood why anyone would be proud of his or her nationality.

I'm glad to be Dutch because of the high standard of living. And I like my country because it's the only country where I feel at home and because the people that are dear to me live here. But proud of being Dutch? Heck no, why should I? It's not like it's an achievement, right? It's more like, "Here's a map of Europe, you were born here between that line and that line and therefor you're Dutch". Big f-ing deal.

I think the concept of being proud of something should be reserved for achievements that actually require some effort...
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Bobber on September 12, 2008, 01:05:59 PM
A lot of people put an effort in getting a certain nationality.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 12, 2008, 11:29:20 PM
Why would you not feel proud of your nationality?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: alexis on September 13, 2008, 01:02:51 AM
Quote from: 483
Why would you not feel proud of your nationality?

I think he's saying it's no more meaningful than being proud of ones height or the fact that they have 10 fingers ... it's a trait that is theirs by virtue of luck (born with it), not because of anything admirable they may have done to obtain it.

Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Kaleidoscope_Eyes on September 14, 2008, 04:48:53 AM
Quote from: 56
It's not like it's an achievement, right? It's more like, "Here's a map of Europe, you were born here between that line and that line and therefor you're Dutch". Big f-ing deal.
It's more than that, I think. Well for one , you dont have to be born in that place to have that nationality, and secondly, if you are Dutch , dont you feel a connection and pride to the Dutch people?
It's more of being proud of your country in what they done (worldwise, history, literature) , I think.
And also, i think opinions will differ due to one's location. The further you are from home the more proud you are of your nationality (well, I speak for myself)

Slightly off topic....



Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Joost on September 14, 2008, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: 568
I think he's saying it's no more meaningful than being proud of ones height or the fact that they have 10 fingers ... it's a trait that is theirs by virtue of luck (born with it), not because of anything admirable they may have done to obtain it.

That's exactly what I meant. Thank you.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Joost on September 14, 2008, 10:36:09 AM
Quote from: 596
It's more of being proud of your country in what they done (worldwise, history, literature) , I think.
If you're consequent, besides being proud of the good things your country has done, you should also be ashamed of the bad things your country has done. Right? The Dutch pillaged Indonesia for centuries, they were the main purveyor of slaves to America and have made money off of pretty much every war that's been fought in the last couple of centuries. To name just a few things. And since I had nothing to do with all of that, I'll pass for taking responsibility. Just like Americans don't have to take responsibility for centuries of slavery or the genocide on the American Indians.

Quote from: 596
if you are Dutch , dont you feel a connection and pride to the Dutch people?
A connection, probably. But I'm not sure if it's really such a good thing to feel more of a connection to a certain group of people than to people in general. It can become an "Us vs. Them" thing. And history has thought us that these sentiments can start wars.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 15, 2008, 08:38:43 PM
I think you should start another topic. This has nothing to do with the British monarchy.
Except perhaps to say that some British people would be proud if their country got rid of the monarchy.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 24, 2008, 08:25:26 PM
There is a myth or should I say some speculation about Harry not being Charles` son. Diana had extramarrital affairs with a navy captain and the royal family and Charles accepted the child and suppress the truth. Actually Harry looks like the captain very much, only the captain`s hair was black. I remember the photos, they do look alike. That is the main reason why Harry will never be King of the country.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 24, 2008, 08:34:12 PM
Harry could quite well be king. I imagine he's third in line.The official version is the only one that counts.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 25, 2008, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: 1393
That is the main reason why Harry will never be King of the country.

You say that as if you know it for a fact.

Harry is currently third in line to the throne, so it's unlikely that he would ever get there, but it has never been suggested that he couldn't be King.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: zipp on September 25, 2008, 07:13:31 PM
Quote from: 483
Harry is currently third in line to the throne, so it's unlikely that he would ever get there, but it has never been suggested that he couldn't be King.

Absolutely. Here's the current situation :

Current monarch: HM Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926)

In line to succession -

1 HRH The Prince of Wales (The Prince Charles), son of Queen Elizabeth II
2 HRH Prince William of Wales (b. 1982), son of The Prince of Wales
3 HRH Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984), son of The Prince of Wales
4 HRH The Duke of York (The Prince Andrew; b. 1960), son of Queen Elizabeth II
5 HRH Princess Beatrice of York, daughter of The Duke of York
6 HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990), daughter of The Duke of York
7 HRH The Earl of Wessex (The Prince Edward; b. 1964), son of Queen Elizabeth II


Henry = Harry for those who don't know.

Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 25, 2008, 07:40:08 PM
Quote from: 483

You say that as if you know it for a fact.

Harry is currently third in line to the throne, so it's unlikely that he would ever get there, but it has never been suggested that he couldn't be King.

No, it`s not a fact. I didn`t want it to sound like that. Make allowances for me, English is my second language. I`ve written that there`s speculation going on. And that sentence was a continuation of the idea of speculation. Some Britons say that the royal family will look to it that Harry will never become King. Though certainly he formally has the right to.

Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 25, 2008, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: 1393
Some Britons say that the royal family will look to it that Harry will never become King. Though certainly he formally has the right to.


Back that up. I've not heard anything of the sort. Do you just read the tabloids?
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: An Apple Beatle on September 25, 2008, 09:08:36 PM
Quote from: 1393
Some Britons say that the royal family will look to it that Harry will never become King. Though certainly he formally has the right to.


I think to simplify things for you Jane, Harry couldn't be King unless William dies childless. Purely because Harry was born after William. It's the same system for most, if not all Royal families. Judging by how long the Queen is living in reign, William will be quite old when he inherits the throne as he also has to wait for his father, Prince Charles to reign. (Charles himself is eldest son over Andrew and Edward.) Automatically, tradition dictates that the eldest son and heir to the throne holds the title 'Prince of Wales.'

So you see, the odds that Harry will become King are quite clearly slim based only on traditional laws and nothing to do with speculated paternal issues.

Put another way, he has no right to become King unless William (The eldest son) dies childless.

I hope that helps. :)
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Geoff on September 26, 2008, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: 1393
There is a myth or should I say some speculation about Harry not being Charles` son. Diana had extramarrital affairs with a navy captain and the royal family and Charles accepted the child and suppress the truth.  

This is surely just tabloid rubbish. Pay no attention to it.

Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 26, 2008, 06:14:50 PM
1. BlueMeanie, you are very strange. How can I back up information that is so delicate? Even if it were true, nobody could prove anything. Are we supposed to post only reliable information here? As far as I could judge there is a lot of tittle-tattle going on here, especially about personal lives of the Beatles. Why can`t I ask such a question? I didn`t intend to impose this view on you, to make you accept it. I thought that you might know something on the subject, since there are some British posters here. I`ve heard it from diplomats serving in London, who said it might be so, having learned something about it from some sources.
And I don`t just read tabloids, in fact I don`t read foreign tabloids at all. I don`t have time for it, cause I have to read the paper Economist, among other broadsheets, from cover to cover every week for professional purposes and certainly do quite a bit of translation. I am sure few people read such a fundamental and serious paper here.
2. Thanks, Geoff, for your opinion. You are a true newspaper pundit, as far as I can see. You`ve answered my question. Now I see people treat this supposition as gossip or rubbish.
3. An Apple Beatle, thanks for the insight into the British succession to the throne. So, you`ve heard nothing of the sort concerning Harry. I absolutely believe the British in this question, as it touches upon their country. Ok.  :)
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 26, 2008, 06:25:39 PM
Quote from: 1393
1. BlueMeanie, you are very strange. How can I back up information that is so delicate? Even if it were true, nobody could prove anything. Are we supposed to post only reliable information here? As far as I could judge there is a lot of tittle-tattle going on here, especially about personal lives of the Beatles. Why can`t I ask such a question? I didn`t intend to impose this view on you, to make you accept it. I thought that you might know something on the subject, since there are some British posters here. I`ve heard it from diplomats serving in London, who said it might be so, having learned something about it from some sources.
And I don`t just read tabloids, in fact I don`t read foreign tabloids at all. I don`t have time for it, cause I have to read the paper Economist, among other broadsheets, from cover to cover every week for professional purposes and certainly do quite a bit of translation. I am sure few people read such a fundamental and serious paper here.

Jane, you make statements as if they were hard facts. And I think your English is pretty damned good, so don't make excuses for yourself. There were once rumours that Harry could possibly be the son of James Hewitt. Maybe it's true, but I have not seen anything written in the English press for years now.

Please quit making wild statements that are based on nothing but your own vivid imagination. If you've got something to say, say it, but don't just make things up for the sake of it.
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 26, 2008, 07:49:38 PM
Quote from: 483

Jane, you make statements as if they were hard facts. And I think your English is pretty damned good, so don't make excuses for yourself. There were once rumours that Harry could possibly be the son of James Hewitt. Maybe it's true, but I have not seen anything written in the English press for years now.

Please quit making wild statements that are based on nothing but your own vivid imagination. If you've got something to say, say it, but don't just make things up for the sake of it.

Sorry, i am not offending anybody. I am not saying that somebody is this or that. I wondered about Harry and you took it too close to heart. Why? If you love the royal family, then I apologise for hurting your feelings.
I wrote that it was speculation about Harry, I didn`t say it was facts. You are misunderstanding me and misinterpreting me, why can`t I write something i`ve heard of or I`ve read about if it`s related to the topic? You are discussing here some gossip too. I thought it would be interesting for you to hear what some say about the royal family. No pressure, trust me. And I DIDN`T MAKE IT UP!!! Some diplomats spoke about it. BlueMeanie, what`s wrong??? We have freedom of speech, especially westerners cherish it...

Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: An Apple Beatle on September 26, 2008, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: 1393
3. An Apple Beatle, thanks for the insight into the British succession to the throne. So, you`ve heard nothing of the sort concerning Harry. I absolutely believe the British in this question, as it touches upon their country. Ok.  :)

No worries Jane. The theory cannot be true based on the rules and laws of monarchy. This is why it dosn't need to be talked about in the UK. This also explains why it sounds absurd to Brits. If Harry were to become King and he did not have royal blood, then I am sure some elitist/secret royal crusader would have him 'beheaded.' lol

Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: An Apple Beatle on September 26, 2008, 09:01:59 PM
That last line was a joke just in case it got lost in translation. heheheh
Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: Jane on September 26, 2008, 09:45:08 PM
Quote from: 15

No worries Jane. The theory cannot be true based on the rules and laws of monarchy. This is why it dosn't need to be talked about in the UK. This also explains why it sounds absurd to Brits. If Harry were to become King and he did not have royal blood, then I am sure some elitist/secret royal crusader would have him 'beheaded.' lol


I understand. Thank you once again. "It sounds absurd to Brits"- different perception of the same things. Now I understand!

Title: Re: The British monarchy
Post by: An Apple Beatle on September 26, 2008, 10:20:48 PM
Quote from: 1393

I understand. Thank you once again. "It sounds absurd to Brits"- different perception of the same things. Now I understand!



You can see how wars start and public opinion is shaped. lol
The Harry not being Charles's son is not absurd to Brits, just the fact that it would be the MAIN reason he won't get to the throne. Hopefully that has covered all the angles. :)