Royal Thread the Second- Tiaras Optional! ?

She's my role model

I enjoyed that film too

Thank you Al, I was trying to think where it originated from

She how must be obeyed was the H Rider Haggard character. I loved that film when I was young!

‘She who must be obeyed’ was Mrs Hilda Rumpole

Rather than “she who must not be named” I think “she who must be obeyed” is entirely appropriate for the un-named woman.

Meghan would have to curtsy to everyone in the room

‘Up and down like a merryman’s backside’

There used to be a rather odd broadcaster on BBC WM who used this phrase.
Malcolm something or other.
I haven’t thought of it for 20 odd years

I googled the curtseying thing. It all makes absolute sense, in the 21st century

As alluded to previously, the wife takes on her husband’s rank when the couple is together. In a sense, the husband’s presence validates the wife’s royal status. For example, if Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were in a room with the queen, Prince Charles, Camilla, Princess Anne, Princess Beatrice, and Princess Eugenie, Meghan would only need to curtsy to the queen, Prince Charles, and Camilla, because they are the only royals in the room who rank higher than her. In this example, Anne, Beatrice, and Eugenie would actually have to curtsy to Meghan because she takes on Harry’s rank, which is above that of those three women. (This would be the first time British royalty would curtsy for an American, according to Best Life.) Now imagine that same scenario, except Prince Harry isn’t there to accompany his wife. In that case, Meghan would have to curtsy to everyone in the room.

Sorry to introduce she who must not be named, it is purely coincidental

At least we can avoid that awful ‘Poor baby’ title here

Cherie Booth wouldn’t curtsy.
I can’t think of anyone else.
A curtsy is actually a very odd thing when you think about it…
I only recently properly learnt about debutantes and the whole coming out thing, and being presented to the king.
They practised loads.
It was from a really interesting book called ‘Debs at War’ which is about upperclass women’s role in the war.

Alegrias for some reason the Active List doesn’t work like it used to.
I’ve raised it with the management on a couple of occasions, as have others, but they deny that it is actually happening. Which is quite a stance to take!

If the Queen did change the rules on curtsying and bowing. In her own family that is a family matter and of no importance to
us. We have a choice, some choose to some do not.

Some time ago I proposed the idea that we should keep the RF but they should become a sort of heritage/reenactment performance for tourists. But moving wiith the times I now have a better idea, never mind Chelsea, or Geordie Shore or any of the other reality shows, let's have Life in the Palace and stick cameras everywhere. It would serve the dual purpose of cutting security costs as well because they would be on camera all the time.

Well I never knew this was here - it didn't pop up on my "active" list.

Republican, of course.

Or, a completely slimmed down monarchy of maybe 4 people where they come along and wave as required but we don't have to be deferential and they don't actually think that they are that important.

Fanny you’re not alone. I feel I’ve got a foot in both camps too. I’m not fully a Republican as our elected politicians are bad enough without having to elect a Head of State, but equally I think having a hereditary monarchy ensures that rank and privilege continues, just by which a family a person is born into. I don’t like all the bowing and scraping within the royal family. All this curtsying to someone of higher rank within the family and which the Queen perpetuates. She recently had the rules changed so a person who marries into the royal family needs to curtsy to the ‘blood’ princesses, unless their husband is present, in which case, the ‘blood’ princesses have to curtsy to the ‘married into’ family member. The Queen had the rules changed, a misuse of power in my opinion. And it’s not important or relevant in today’s world.

Thread? Camp, I meant (not the feather boa kind)

Hi guys! (Yuk)

I’m reviving this thread in the hope that we can have a bit of a chat about Monarchy v Republicanism, and all permutations in between.
And talk about anything else that pops into our heads too.

I fancy a bit of a natter, basically.

Having listened to and banged on about Baker’s book, I realise now that my traditionalist heart says monarchy; while my head is firmly in the republic thread.

Yes agree FannyCornforth it is a good book an eye opener of what the Royals get away with.

The legal bills could come from the Sovereign Grant queen bankrolls her family that way, queen gets £22 million from Duchy Lancaster also.

The duchies should be nationalised belonging to the nation.

Queen does not work for our constitution her role is pointless and powerless

I have not the foggiest about his wealth.

Would I help my child ? yes if the help was needed

Front page this morning,
Will the Queen pay Andrew’s legal bills?
1. Nobody else’s business, though the newspapers have already made it so and it’s yet another bandwagon to jump on.
2. Does he need the money?
3. Would you help your child pay their legal bills?

Grany just wanted to let you know that I have listened to Norman Baker’s excellent book several times (due to me falling asleep - no fault of the author).
I found it incredibly interesting, well written and researched.
I thought that it was going to be quite a dry listen, but it was entertaining too.
In fact, on of the best audio books I have listened to.
Highly recommended to all!
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️

People who defend the monarchy because they don’t want “President Boris” haven’t realised that’s what we already have. Crown powers make the PM one of the most powerful leaders in the democratic world.

And Boris is doing such a good job mates contracts billions wasted cronyism with no checks or balances.

I've finished the book "Battle of Brothers" by Robert Lacey and enjoyed it. I needed some light reading.

I don’t understand why some expect the Queen to do or say anything, he is 61 years old, has a legal team .

As for his daughters, quite possibly they believe what their father has told them. They are use to the media and must recall
lies which have been used to attack family members.

I am not saying the allegations are a lie.

I feel sorry for the Queen, being put into this scenario at her very old age. She must have wondered what she’s done to deserve this.
I have read that the Queen is very fond of Fergie. Prince Philip famously disliked her, probably for bringing the family into disrepute. I’m glad he’s not here to see this latest development.