Liz. and Phil

I don’t give a damn about Henry - my point is that Charles and Camilla set no examples to us at all and are spoilt entitled selfish people.

Yes maryeliza, Charles should follow the good examples of some of his ancestors like Henry V111 shouldn't he?

My views are not sacrosanct Eloethan, see thread title.

Thank you Nina. Both events in the same year and probably the wedding too, too much Windsor in one year. Bet there is a flap about the wedding.

And Camilla and Charles - bloody hypocritical adulterers both of them - what role models.

As so often happens, personal insults take the place of reasoned argument. Why is it that some people feel that their opinions are sacrosanct and it is perfectly acceptable to make insulting remarks about those who think differently:

" Far more entertaining than reading the sour grapes whining of some pinched-mouthed republicans." (*Alima*)

Really don’t understand why it should leave you pondering Jalima, I wasn’t aware of the tie-in with republicans and atheists. I am a royalist and an atheist. Where does that leave me, enigmatic? Split personality?
(Just to clarify, I am a royalist as regards our Queen and in future, Charles as King with Camilla as his Queen. Not to sure about the next generation, but by then I will be past caring).

I have nothing against Charles! In fact, he does a lot of good.
We have a young friend who works for the Prince's Trust.

Annie if you believe what the the insiders are supposed to know, Harry and Meghan will announce their engagement once Will's new child is born. Harry has apparently discussed this with the queen and although not over keen on Meghan's past she can see it's what Harry wants.
I read it just to see what others comment. Nobody seems to have a good word for Charles and most are horrified at the thought of Camilla being queen consort.

Jalima and perhaps one of the cats in Downing St?

Your post leaves me pondering Alima - are most republicans also atheists and/or are atheists, generally speaking, also republicans?

But I won't ponder for too long, it is Saturday night after all and I am just supping a cider

Need a “like” button. I also agree with Henetha. (When I saw the thread title I thought it was about Philip Schofield and whichever numpty presents that morning show with him).
It is The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh’s 70th wedding anniversary on Monday. (Not bad, huh?). There is a programme about it on BBC1 that night. I for one will be glued to it. Far more entertaining than reading the sour grapes whining of some pinched-mouthed republicans.

Perhaps some posters have got secret drones with video recorders disguised as a corgi

Yeo, so do I
There seems to be a lot of thinking that posters know the inside info on many things, the state of HM’s marriage and fly on the wall stuff from Westminster.

henetha Sat 18-Nov-17 10:11:40

I agree with henetha's post.

Here we go, re Trump as the alternative. If we had a president, it would be like the German or Irish model - they are heads of state not heads of government. Trump is both - it’s a totally different system.

I have never been a royalist or anti royalist, always anti the palaces. But I really want Charles and Camilla as king and Queen consort when it's their time

I often agree with Paddyann on lots of things but in this case I don't. I love the Royal Family. Perhaps I just love the tradition? I love the pomp and circumstance attached to our history.

I don't think I am alone - you only need to see the hundreds of thousands of people who turn out on Royal Occasions, many visitors from abroad who find it fascinating also.

Am a northerner but whenever am in London, the amount of people posing outside Buckingham Palace, excitedly taking photos of changing of the guards is staggering - do I just go on busy days ha ha. I feel excited and proud.

As for the marriage - who knows what its like? Probably not mine or your idea of true love (again who knows) and there may have been infidelity but what they have demonstrated is that they have continued to support each other. I'm sure the Queen could strangle him at times for his comments but isn't that the same for most couples? Personally, I don't care. Early footage of them meeting seems to confirm that they were besotted with each other rather than just agreeing to an arranged marriage. Of course, it doesn't stay all starry eyed, whose marriage does?

I have no doubt in years to come things will change but for now....I will soak it all up.

You would prefer a President? Like Trump, with places found for all his children? The royal family has been considerably slimmed down, and most of them earn their own living, and have no obvious privileges. (apart of course from Beatrice and Eugenie, who are neither use nor ornament).

Nina, I don't read face book, do tell, what are their opinions on Megan? Just curious not nosey

I wonder why the ‘bold’ type thing didn’t work?

Goodness,*Eloethan*, you know a lot about what they think and feel!

I'd much prefer a president ,a lot less expensive than an ever expanding royal family with countless homes and massive security costs.Ireland has had presidents for a long time ,they dont appear to be abusing the country //system and some people even LIKE them and think they do a great job

Aaah! All my illusions shattered! There was me thinking Queen and Prince P had a cup of cocoa last thing whilst discussing the funny thing young George had said to them, and wasn't Good old Cammy doing a good job with their naughty son. Then "night night honey, love you".

I agree that the intimacies of their marriage cannot be known and are, in any event, not really anybody's business but their own - though, in my view, how they are financed and what they spend is our business.

But the royal family actually welcomes this sort of coverage, designed to create a romantic (but perhaps sanitised) view of an ideal traditional marriage and to reinforce the notion that they "belong" to us rather than that we are their "subjects".

As for the comment to the effect that they have never, unlike Diana, courted publicity, that is absolutely incorrect. Some people may recall that in the 1960's the royal family was felt to be losing public support - particularly with the younger generation. In 1969 a full length documentary - perhaps the first example of "reality TV" - filmed the royal family over a period of time to show "the people" that they were really just like us.

It was viewed by over 30 million people and has been described as a "PR triumph". The previously worrying rumblings of public dissatisfaction ceased. How
sever, the queen ordered that the film - having achieved its aim - never be broadcast again.

They still welcome coverage of their comings and goings - but only when they have absolute control over what is filmed.