Announcement from Buckingham Palace?

Royals are actually human too I personally couldn't give a monkeys who gets what job. I love having a Royal family, its a fundamental part of our heritage. Let me think about an alternative, oh yes a "president" or a "dictatorship".

The Investiture of Prince Charles was an invention to make Charles look somehow Welsh;

How can it be an invention when the investiture of Charles' great uncle, Edward VIII took place in 1911?

Agree you can't accuse Queenie of trying to "hitch her wagon" (love that expression).

The RF DO make it up as they go along, imho. They changed their name to Windsor to sound English in an attempt to disassociate themselves from their German heritage at a very sensitive time, and to reinvent themselves in a new, appealing image. They are clever in a cunning sort of way. They know they are ordinary, and terrified of being "found out".

The Investiture of Prince Charles was an invention to make Charles look somehow Welsh; he was sent to Aberystwyth to learn Welsh. It didn't work as the Welsh are not so dull as ro be taken in by it.

Remember the debacle of It's a Royal Knockout? An attempt by the Royals to look "ordinary"? A spectacular backfire.

Trouble is, attempts to look "just like us" are bound to fail - the mask of Royalty slips and what are we left with? A bunch of very ordinary people, not clever, not even good looking or talented, and maybe not particularly nice either.

Queenie is canny enough to realise this. Aloof works better.

Perhaps he'll do something stupid enough for them to take it away again.

DJ - I thought it didn't happen, duh!

Sunseeker still clinging to the old 'Saint Diana' versus 'The Other Woman' myth. Who says the workshy William is more popular than the POW? The Cambridges are untested, with one-track, populist interests just like Diana... latch onto something that will make headlines.... mental health, children's hospices, in Diana's case it was AIDS and landmines...worthy causes but chosen for maximum press coverage??? Just as Diana could hear the click of a camera shutter at 500 yards, so she and her sons could/can spot a 'good cause' at the same distance and for the same media opportunity... IMHO of course. The Queen may be criticised for being aloof but no-one can accuse her of hitching her wagon to whatever trendy star is in the ascendency.

Sorry, Elrel, but I've just read that Mark T is a hereditary baronet.

They'll have no problem changing it to Middleton then.

What's happened to Mark T anyway? Haven't heard of him for ages. Or Carol, come to that.

Iam64 - a friend used to sadly say to Republicans 'President Thatcher!'. He also pointed out that were Mrs T given a hereditary title (as some wanted) it would be handed down to DS Mark!

I thought the royal family changed their name to Windsor.
Nothing traditional about that.

Perhaps Queenie with a Trump Comb over ?!

Only less amusing norose4, with the current POTUS where if we suspend terror, its possible to find him amusing. In my youth, I was a Republican of course. My father insisted I tell him who we could have as president to replace the RF. The older I get, the more I understand dad's position on this. The Queen or Mr T... hmm, that's a tough one (not)

RIverwalk I don't think the royal family makes it up as they go along, They stick to the traditions & rules of the monarchy & country(even when abdicating) And have you seen the age range & turn out for all the royals & they bring in tourists , far better to watch than a pompous President but perhaps less amusing !!

It does make family history searches complicated. Our Greek friends are amazed that women 'disappear' from the family history.
The name of the bride and grooms father appears on their marriage certificate but not the mother.
You're right about death certificates Annie.
I naively thought that the move as a result of the women's liberation movement, for women to keep their own name, or make a new name out of the newly married/civil partnership couple seems to have disappeared again. Almost all my friends kept their own name, or made a new one when legalising a relationship by civil partnership or marriage. Almost all our now adult children have married with the bride taking her husband's family name.
I recognise my views aren't consistent with many on gransnet. I'm a bit of a traditionalist in many ways but not where equality is concerned.
None of my gay or lesbian friends took their partners name on marriage or civil partnership. Equality is the name of the game.

What really annoys me is reading a man's death certificate and we have name, occupation, cause etc. A woman is wife of,widow of, daughter of

It messes up family history research, though.
I've been trying to find someone who died in 1860.
She was married to an earl, and took his name. After he died she married someone else, but never took his surname. She was married to him for a lot longer than the first husband.
She has become very elusive, because the first family did not want her known about.
It would be good to have a system.
I do not understand why she did not take her second husband's name, as, in the 1800s you became your husband's property, which is why you took his name.

I find the tradition of women giving up their own name in order to use their husband's name tedious. Some women become the third Mrs Trump for example, with former wives still using that name? I kept the name on my birth certificate, though I did consider taking my mother's family name. I rejected that idea because of course, it came from her father rather than from the good female role models she grew up with.

My daughters husband took my daughter's surname, much to the approval of us all.

If a woman doesn't have the right to take her husbands title then wife no 1 could object?

Women don't have a right to take surnames, surely it's just convention and tradition.

The royal family make things up as they go along and use whatever titles/family names they please, to suit the public mood.

It would seem logical if a man is Prince of Wales then his current wife should be Princess of Wales but they didn't dare announce that as Camilla's public title, instead chose Cornwall.

If Camilla shouldn't have her husbands title because she is his second wife and they had an affair then no second wives who had affairs with their husbands should have the right to take his surname on marriage

Queenie should do what's best for the country. I think she's afraid of what will happen if she appoints Charles Regent, nit because he's unpopular so much but because she's worried that younger people, who may not be quite so monarchist, will rally against the concept of monarchy, threatening its future.

Most people in the country are used to the Queen, and will tolerate her; however a change in monarch may be a step too far.

It matters not a jot whether some people like him or not or who is popular. There are probably more who do.

I hope Charles stands aside for William. He is past retirement age and, at least in my circle of friends, is not well liked. Camilla will always be "the other woman" I think the Royal family need to have a younger image and William and his brother are much more popular than their father.