Royal News

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
1,310
Points
184
I have always thought we should swap them around a bit with other Royalty of the World.
At the very least, it will solve the inbreeding problems.
The current British monarchy have this as a problem.
Traditionalists in "The Firm" are incredibly picky when it comes to the breeding stock. In the old days, royalty would breed with royalty to cement alliances, prevent in-breeding, and to ensure that the potential 'mate' would have prior training at being, well, royal.
The issue is that nowadays, there aren't that many secure royal families. Those that do exist are either reluctant to appear retrogressive (after all, the British monarchy could be held as a benchmark for tradition versus modernisation) or they are not 'of suitable type' i.e. too foreign. Could you imagine how the the Establishment, even the flag-waving Blue-rinse brigade would react to an Asian princess?
I've not actually done it but it might be interesting to get a list of current monarchs from around the world and see which nationality would be acceptable to the die-hard British monarchists.
The only other solution they have is to marry long-established noble lineage young ladies. Like Diana Spencer*. Er. Well that went well. Again suitability is limited as there's plenty of landowning nouveau riche, with the property and wealth boxes ticked but no lineage.
The absolute insistence of traditions, the blind concept of superiority has painted the Royals into a genetic corner. Even if someone senior said "Look, chaps, we've got to face facts and lower our standards if only we don't want the inbreeding to start showing." then if not the family, but their lackeys would be horrified! And this horror would filter down into government, into the media, and ultimately the people who prop them up.

* As suggested above, I believe there are certain 'conventions' i.e. superstitions concerning the 'coronation name' which are based in history. Not sure if Charles is verboten or Arthur (though it'd be a brave King who would suggest this, considering the implication).
It is interesting to note that there were mutterings before/during the Prince Charles "courtship" of Diana that her name - Spencer - might be linked too closely to the Despensers of Edward II's ill-fame. When she died, these mutterings increased to speculation that she'd been cursed because of her ancestors. Not sure of the true foundations of these speculations but it's certainly interesting to consider.
 

gordonrutter

Within reason
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
8,261
Points
309
The current British monarchy have this as a problem.
Traditionalists in "The Firm" are incredibly picky when it comes to the breeding stock. In the old days, royalty would breed with royalty to cement alliances, prevent in-breeding, and to ensure that the potential 'mate' would have prior training at being, well, royal.
The issue is that nowadays, there aren't that many secure royal families. Those that do exist are either reluctant to appear retrogressive (after all, the British monarchy could be held as a benchmark for tradition versus modernisation) or they are not 'of suitable type' i.e. too foreign. Could you imagine how the the Establishment, even the flag-waving Blue-rinse brigade would react to an Asian princess?
I've not actually done it but it might be interesting to get a list of current monarchs from around the world and see which nationality would be acceptable to the die-hard British monarchists.
The only other solution they have is to marry long-established noble lineage young ladies. Like Diana Spencer*. Er. Well that went well. Again suitability is limited as there's plenty of landowning nouveau riche, with the property and wealth boxes ticked but no lineage.
The absolute insistence of traditions, the blind concept of superiority has painted the Royals into a genetic corner. Even if someone senior said "Look, chaps, we've got to face facts and lower our standards if only we don't want the inbreeding to start showing." then if not the family, but their lackeys would be horrified! And this horror would filter down into government, into the media, and ultimately the people who prop them up.

* As suggested above, I believe there are certain 'conventions' i.e. superstitions concerning the 'coronation name' which are based in history. Not sure if Charles is verboten or Arthur (though it'd be a brave King who would suggest this, considering the implication).
It is interesting to note that there were mutterings before/during the Prince Charles "courtship" of Diana that her name - Spencer - might be linked too closely to the Despensers of Edward II's ill-fame. When she died, these mutterings increased to speculation that she'd been cursed because of her ancestors. Not sure of the true foundations of these speculations but it's certainly interesting to consider.
Charles was linked with Princess Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg and I always thought she would have been perfect for him, but she was catholic which at the time was a major issue.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
1,310
Points
184
Blimey! The loosening of the stays?
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
1,310
Points
184
Strictly this is stating the obvious. The government operates as her government. The government operates as a majority. Technically the government can be made up of a mixture of party MP's; but unless there's support for a coalition then it doesn't happen. The government are advisors to 'Er Maj'. She (theoretically) chooses out of their proposals which ones they should run with or forget.
Now, if a non-government person proposes a law then it has to run past those in control of parliament (i.e. the majority government). It is possible to propose a law that the sitting government doesn't agree with but ... hang on ... to pass a law, it has to be passed by Parliament. And if parliament is controlled by a majority party then the majority government gets to say if it's passed or not.
Then, Parliament puts a big "tick" on the Act, runs it past the duffers and time-servers in the Lords, tidies it up and then shows it to Queen Brenda. In effect, the government says "we all think this is a good idea. Be a nice Queen and put yer moniker on the bottom of the page and we, yer loyal Government, will enact it.
This is all the usual mechanics.
Now ...
The thing with being both a monarchy and a democracy is that while the Queen or the Heir Apparent technically tells everyone what to do, if they were to officially and publicly flex their muscles then, children, that is what's called a Constitutional Crisis. They stay in their palaces for as long as they let the Government (of any party) control the Parliament and actually run the country. So, both Queenie and Chuck get to say "by Royal Consent", they actually realise that this is in reality rubberstamping anything the Government implements.
In simple terms, the British Royal Family is motoring around on a big coach, being actually driven by the Government. They can say "We, the Royal Family, are in the driving seat!" but they'd be insane if they considered pulling the driver off the wheel and having a go themselves.
 

charliebrown

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
378
Reaction score
419
Points
63
Location
Earth
The bookies are putting out names for Harry and Meghan second child’s name.

Alfie
Arthur
Diana
Thomas
Alexandra

These are the favorites.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,418
Reaction score
11,272
Points
309
I’m going with Private Eye.
Sue for a girl and Rich for a boy.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,418
Reaction score
11,272
Points
309
But what are the pronouns going to be? That’s the most important thing.
’We’ is obviously off the table now.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
30,213
Reaction score
44,336
Points
284
Strictly this is stating the obvious. The government operates as her government. The government operates as a majority. Technically the government can be made up of a mixture of party MP's; but unless there's support for a coalition then it doesn't happen. The government are advisors to 'Er Maj'. She (theoretically) chooses out of their proposals which ones they should run with or forget.
Now, if a non-government person proposes a law then it has to run past those in control of parliament (i.e. the majority government). It is possible to propose a law that the sitting government doesn't agree with but ... hang on ... to pass a law, it has to be passed by Parliament. And if parliament is controlled by a majority party then the majority government gets to say if it's passed or not.
Then, Parliament puts a big "tick" on the Act, runs it past the duffers and time-servers in the Lords, tidies it up and then shows it to Queen Brenda. In effect, the government says "we all think this is a good idea. Be a nice Queen and put yer moniker on the bottom of the page and we, yer loyal Government, will enact it.
This is all the usual mechanics.
Now ...
The thing with being both a monarchy and a democracy is that while the Queen or the Heir Apparent technically tells everyone what to do, if they were to officially and publicly flex their muscles then, children, that is what's called a Constitutional Crisis. They stay in their palaces for as long as they let the Government (of any party) control the Parliament and actually run the country. So, both Queenie and Chuck get to say "by Royal Consent", they actually realise that this is in reality rubberstamping anything the Government implements.
In simple terms, the British Royal Family is motoring around on a big coach, being actually driven by the Government. They can say "We, the Royal Family, are in the driving seat!" but they'd be insane if they considered pulling the driver off the wheel and having a go themselves.
.. so once again, The Sex Pistols got England right ? ..

Sex Pistols- God Save The Queen (Audio) - YouTube
 

Who me

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
312
Reaction score
925
Points
94
If I were Harry I would not get to interested in the kid she will be divorcing him soon anyway
She will get more money out of him/us the tax payers that way.She knows exactly what she is doing it’s just a pity he is so clueless
 

Sgt Girth

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
621
Points
94
The bookies are putting out names for Harry and Meghan second child’s name.

Alfie
Arthur
Diana
Thomas
Alexandra

These are the favorites.
Not Stateside enough.......Now Hank or Dwayne.....that’s more like it.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
31,461
Reaction score
39,815
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Given that Prince Philip's condition is evidently serious enough to warrant a multi-day hospital stay and a visit from his son, I'll post the best picture of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh with the hope that the cantankerous old chap pulls through and makes his century this summer.

EuwzoUNXMAIr_fM.jpeg
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
2,000
Points
234
Location
In a Liminal Zone
Wasn't one of the reasons for insisting that Presidential candidates are natural-born Americans to ensure that none of King George III descendants, or other members of the British aristocracy become President? If Harry and Meghan's next sprog is born in the USA, he or she will be eligible to run for President from 2056.
 
Last edited:

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
The current British monarchy have this as a problem.
Traditionalists in "The Firm" are incredibly picky when it comes to the breeding stock. In the old days, royalty would breed with royalty to cement alliances, prevent in-breeding, and to ensure that the potential 'mate' would have prior training at being, well, royal.
The issue is that nowadays, there aren't that many secure royal families. Those that do exist are either reluctant to appear retrogressive (after all, the British monarchy could be held as a benchmark for tradition versus modernisation) or they are not 'of suitable type' i.e. too foreign. Could you imagine how the the Establishment, even the flag-waving Blue-rinse brigade would react to an Asian princess?
I've not actually done it but it might be interesting to get a list of current monarchs from around the world and see which nationality would be acceptable to the die-hard British monarchists.
The only other solution they have is to marry long-established noble lineage young ladies. Like Diana Spencer*. Er. Well that went well. Again suitability is limited as there's plenty of landowning nouveau riche, with the property and wealth boxes ticked but no lineage.
The absolute insistence of traditions, the blind concept of superiority has painted the Royals into a genetic corner. Even if someone senior said "Look, chaps, we've got to face facts and lower our standards if only we don't want the inbreeding to start showing." then if not the family, but their lackeys would be horrified! And this horror would filter down into government, into the media, and ultimately the people who prop them up.

* As suggested above, I believe there are certain 'conventions' i.e. superstitions concerning the 'coronation name' which are based in history. Not sure if Charles is verboten or Arthur (though it'd be a brave King who would suggest this, considering the implication).
It is interesting to note that there were mutterings before/during the Prince Charles "courtship" of Diana that her name - Spencer - might be linked too closely to the Despensers of Edward II's ill-fame. When she died, these mutterings increased to speculation that she'd been cursed because of her ancestors. Not sure of the true foundations of these speculations but it's certainly interesting to consider.
Well, Megan Merkle, (sp?) went down well with the firm and its enablers.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
Given that Prince Philip's condition is evidently serious enough to warrant a multi-day hospital stay and a visit from his son, I'll post the best picture of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh with the hope that the cantankerous old chap pulls through and makes his century this summer.

View attachment 35684
that is a terrible picture. She looks like she's had one too many gins and he looks like he's not had a solid motion for a month.

Very sad that these two have to keep peddling their wares in public as they do. Even sadder that they feel they can't trust the youngsters to take over.
 
Top