A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: The British monarchy  (Read 4814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #40 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.

Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

Kaleidoscope_Eyes

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 3984
  • Alles Goed!
    • BananaSpeel
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #41 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....



Logged

Arsenal is forever England and England is forever Arsenal

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5040
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #42 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.
Logged

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5040
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

zipp

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 946
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #44 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.
Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #45 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.
Logged

zipp

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 946
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

zipp

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 946
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #48 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.

Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #49 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.

Logged

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #50 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?
Logged

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #51 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. :)
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

Geoff

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2133
  • One Thing I Can Tell You Is You Got To Be Free
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #52 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.

Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #53 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.  :)
Logged

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #54 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.
Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #55 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...

Logged

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #56 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

Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2008, 09:01:59 PM »

That last line was a joke just in case it got lost in translation. heheheh
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #58 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!

Logged

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5614
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: The British monarchy
« Reply #59 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. :)
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com/studio
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!
Pages: 1 2 [3]
 

Page created in 1.379 seconds with 27 queries.