Enough with the jubilee already.

Yes, dangerous things.

It may have been in a documentary years ago.

Callistemon21

Glorianny

You could have accused my late FIL of doing exactly the same thing. His minesweeper ran aground on a sandbank in the Channel. He knew they couldn't get off until high tide so all the men got off and played football on the sandbank. He was asleep when it happened but technically in command. It probably isn't that uncommon. (At least Charles wouldn't have to worry about a u-boat finding them)

I've heard that story before!!
Making the best of a bad job ?

I think it probably happens more than most people think. Sandbanks are not fixed, they move about.

Glorianny

You could have accused my late FIL of doing exactly the same thing. His minesweeper ran aground on a sandbank in the Channel. He knew they couldn't get off until high tide so all the men got off and played football on the sandbank. He was asleep when it happened but technically in command. It probably isn't that uncommon. (At least Charles wouldn't have to worry about a u-boat finding them)

I've heard that story before!!
Making the best of a bad job ?

Not that I know of Call!

You could have accused my late FIL of doing exactly the same thing. His minesweeper ran aground on a sandbank in the Channel. He knew they couldn't get off until high tide so all the men got off and played football on the sandbank. He was asleep when it happened but technically in command. It probably isn't that uncommon. (At least Charles wouldn't have to worry about a u-boat finding them)

Funny that.

Are you married to our friend?

My husband is in the know ...

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

He ran his ship aground!

Really?
Do you have a link please?

It seems to have missed the Naval grapevine.

It's not true.

Germanshepherdsmum

He ran his ship aground!

Really?
Do you have a link please?

It seems to have missed the Naval grapevine.

He ran his ship aground!

Germanshepherdsmum

I feel sorry for him because apart from his short and none too illustrious stint in the Navy this is the only job he’s been trained to do and he’s been waiting for it for such a long time. A lifetime. He’s now an elderly man and his mother is happy for him to do the work but won’t let him have him have the title. It’s entirely possible that he could die before her.

Why do you say his Naval service was none too illustrious? GSM
He trained as a helicopter pilot then joined the RN where he served for five years.
By all accounts from those who served with him he was an excellent officer and then captain, helpful, understanding and not at all arrogant.

paddyann you should look beyond your own back yard. The sheer number of jubilee events in Scotland has been highlighted all over the press and social media.

I think that sometime this year they will announce a Regency. This means Charles will do most of the work but the Queen will not lose complete power.

We should just stick to the Queen - she's done the job for the past 70 years.

There's no rhyme nor reason why she's there, and no rhyme nor reason to change the rules - unless you don't agree with having an hereditary monarchy.

Germanshepherdsmum

I feel sorry for him because apart from his short and none too illustrious stint in the Navy this is the only job he’s been trained to do and he’s been waiting for it for such a long time. A lifetime. He’s now an elderly man and his mother is happy for him to do the work but won’t let him have him have the title. It’s entirely possible that he could die before her.

Well indeed, his none too illustrious stint in the Navy was down to his not being up to it - but you want him to be our Head of State!

He shouldn't get his go at being our HoS just because he's been waiting for a long time - it's bad enough he gets it by virtue of his birth!

Huge outpourings ofgood will? Not in my part of the world ,I think there were 10 folk for the beacon being lit in Dumbarton and a councillor remarked there were 20 and a dug in Strathclyde park ...and it was more than they had expected

I feel sorry for him because apart from his short and none too illustrious stint in the Navy this is the only job he’s been trained to do and he’s been waiting for it for such a long time. A lifetime. He’s now an elderly man and his mother is happy for him to do the work but won’t let him have him have the title. It’s entirely possible that he could die before her.

abdicate is such a weird word. How does it mean to fail to fulfil if you are 96 fgs

Germanshepherdsmum

She could go on for years like this. I feel sorry for Charles.

But why do you feel sorry for Charles?

He's in this extraordinarily privileged position by virtue of his birth, not down to any skills on his part.

And by the same token, his mother become Queen at a very early age by virtue of her birth.

That's just how it is... if you are a fan of the monarchy I don't know why you wouldn't accept this.

Monarchy not looking on very shaky ground at all judging by the colossal outpourings of good will all over the country.
I suppose that's the problem for the anti monarchy people looking for a concrete H of S. It's how the monarchy makes people feel that's so intangible yet invaluable.

I really think that this is the real divide.

There are people who think that the Queen (or King) should be Queen or King just because that's the way things are, and we need to keep quiet and accept that, and they can't understand how anybody can question that. So questioning that becomes disrespect to the person of the present Queen, in their head.

The there are those who think the being the monarch is about being an important part of the way this country is governed, and that we should expect certain things from the person in that position. And that it's an important role that shouldn't just be given to the next in line, because of who their parent was.

StarDreamer quite possibly!

Isn't the monarchy "on shaky ground"now with someone in charge who isn't well enough to fulfil the duties of a H of S?

I'm surprised at monarchists expecting the Queen to abdicate to make way for Charles - isn't that being rather pragmatic and sensible? IMO there's nothing sensible about a Royal Family in this day and age.

We have an hereditary monarchy, not a meritocratic one... if you go down a 'who is best' or 'makes more appearances' why don't we have say Princess Anne lined-up.

I'm not a monarchist, but do like and admire the Queen as a person in her role - monarchists advocating abdication should be careful what you wish for!

IMO the monarchy will be on shaky ground when Charles becomes king - the world has moved on since the Queen was crowned.

?