Royal Thread the Second- Tiaras Optional! ?

I wonder why HM was allegedly so fond of him?
And Sarah and their daughters?
Despite him being an absolute arse, the significant women in his life are very loyal. Interesting (well, to me anyway…)

Perfectly natural for the Queen to ‘be fond’ of her son surely
Fanny

Yes, fair point Annie!
Thinking aloud again, as it were. Daft comment alert needed!

All the ‘ Fergie is with him because of the latest reports’

She has been living with him in Royal Lodge for years

Anniebach

All the ‘ Fergie is with him because of the latest reports’

She has been living with him in Royal Lodge for years

But she couldn’t always go to Balmoral with him. Philip Wouldn’t allow it when he was there!

I expect HM is like most mums. We almost always defend our children even when we might be entertaining less complimentary thoughts.

Also we have no idea what his daughters really think. I would think it would be almost impossible for them to process that.

The Queen hasn’t defended him, I can’t recall her ever speaking of family troubles.

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.

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

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.

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!
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️

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?

I have not the foggiest about his wealth.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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