Prince Willie free!

[CharleyH]

I weep for him, his ugly broke ass will never find another girl. *sobs*

LOL - Care factor = 0. If his name is Willie? That does not bode very well. (Angry Inch) LOL

 

[Liar]

Prince William

I repeat: Who?

Some English sub royalty not even second in line for a pointless job? Cause the crown prince is that Charles dude, right? Does he have kids? Does a prince's kids also become princes? For how many generations?

Seriously, I still don't know who he is.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

I repeat: Who?

Some English sub royalty not even second in line for a pointless job? Cause the crown prince is that Charles dude, right? Does he have kids? Does a prince's kids also become princes? For how many generations?

Seriously, I still don't know who he is.

He's Prince William of Wales, the son of Prince Charles and next in line for The Throne. And no, I don't mean he's next in line to use the restroom.

 

[Equinoxe]

I repeat: Who?

Some English sub royalty not even second in line for a pointless job? Cause the crown prince is that Charles dude, right? Does he have kids? Does a prince's kids also become princes? For how many generations?

Seriously, I still don't know who he is.

He is second in line to the throne after his father, Prince Charles, who has two children, William and Harry, both of whom are also Princes. As far as the British Royalty goes, the children of a son of the reigning Monarch are generally likewise Princes or Princesses (the same does not necessarily hold true for the children of a daughter of the reigning Monarch).

The further removed one is from the Monarch the lesser the titles generally become, but if Prince William were to have a child, I assume that child would be a Prince or Princess—I don't know exactly though. The titles are largely at the behest of the Monarch herself.

Incidentally, the titles do not specifically affect the order of succession either. In fact, there are some who possess no title (Peter and Zara Phillips for example) who are much higher in the order of succession than some who do and there are some who possess a title who are ineligible for the throne in the first place (no one with the title Prince or Princess at the moment, though, I don't think). At some point, the King of Norway is on the list, but he's like 61st in the line of succession, as for that matter are the King of Sweden and the Queen of Denmark, but they are even further down the list.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Incidentally, Prince Charles is still my favourite royal. He actually thinks for himself and isn't full of the BS one typically sees from many of the Windsors and other royals. He did nothing that Di didn't do, but somehow incurred more wrath for doing exactly with Camilla what Di was doing with Hewitt and then Dodi Fayed.

Prince Edward is a close second. I loved his series, "Crown and Country".

 

[Just-Legal]

In regard to earlier posts:

William was NOT the one in the Nazi uniform, it was Harry.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

In regard to earlier posts:

William was NOT the one in the Nazi uniform, it was Harry.

Exactly. Didn't mean to confuse anyone.

 

[Vermilion]

In regard to earlier posts:

William was NOT the one in the Nazi uniform, it was Harry.

We were talking about Harry at that point

 

[Just-Legal]

We were talking about Harry at that point

The thing is, as I was reading through it, it wasn't clear. Hence the post. Sorry if I trod on anyone's toes.

 

[gauchecritic]

I was going to be all witty and ironical about the poster til I looked at the profile.

Now I don't much care. I could care less, but I can't be arsed.

 

[3113]

Also - Queen of England? Not all it's cracked up to be - probably the most boring job in the world, not to mention the most restrictive. Yawnsville.

True enough. At this point, I don't see how the perks can match up to the pain-in-the-ass of that job. It was one thing when the King and Queen were second only to God and had a lot of political power, or even, at the middle of the 20th century when Queen Liz II was at her height, and the position was that of cheerleader and good will ambassador.

But now? Any super-wealthy person can enjoy the life they enjoy--the ski-trips and mansions and island vacations--without being hounded by the press and having every embarassing word, deed and image plastered all over the tabloids.

I kinda wonder if, after Queen Lizzie finally kicks the bucket, Charles and boys won't be at the front of the line pressing parliment to dissolve the British Monarchy. Who wants to be born into the position of local tourist attraction, museum piece and tabloid fodder?

 

[Vermilion]

True enough. At this point, I don't see how the perks can match up to the pain-in-the-ass of that job. It was one thing when the King and Queen were second only to God and had a lot of political power, or even, at the middle of the 20th century when Queen Liz II was at her height, and the position was that of cheerleader and good will ambassador.

But now? Any super-wealthy person can enjoy the life they enjoy--the ski-trips and mansions and island vacations--without being hounded by the press and having every embarassing word, deed and image plastered all over the tabloids.

I kinda wonder if, after Queen Lizzie finally kicks the bucket, Charles and boys won't be at the front of the line pressing parliment to dissolve the British Monarchy. Who wants to be born into the position of local tourist attraction, museum piece and tabloid fodder?

But what would they do other than be Royalty - it would be literally centuries, I'm sure, before the glamour of monarchy wore off, if ever. So then they'd have all the downsides (the press and public interest in their lives) but none of the perks (like money, status, even a little power etc).
Damned if you do, more damned if you don't, methinks...
x
V

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

They all have a very keen sense of duty, and the UK without a monarchy is just unthinkable. The only other kind of regime that we've had is Cromwell's....and that was no democracy by anyone's standards. The very idea of a republic is still repugnant to many Britons.

 

[matriarch]

True enough. At this point, I don't see how the perks can match up to the pain-in-the-ass of that job. It was one thing when the King and Queen were second only to God and had a lot of political power, or even, at the middle of the 20th century when Queen Liz II was at her height, and the position was that of cheerleader and good will ambassador.

But now? Any super-wealthy person can enjoy the life they enjoy--the ski-trips and mansions and island vacations--without being hounded by the press and having every embarassing word, deed and image plastered all over the tabloids.

I kinda wonder if, after Queen Lizzie finally kicks the bucket, Charles and boys won't be at the front of the line pressing parliment to dissolve the British Monarchy. Who wants to be born into the position of local tourist attraction, museum piece and tabloid fodder?

And leave us prey to the likes of the presidents we find in the rest of the world.........I don't think so.

 

[matriarch]

They all have a very keen sense of duty, and the UK without a monarchy is just unthinkable. The only other kind of regime that we've had is Cromwell's....and that was no democracy by anyone's standards. The very idea of a republic is still repugnant to many Britons.

Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

 

[3113]

But what would they do other than be Royalty

They've got a ton of money and land. They don't need to do a damn thing...or if they do, hey, they've all got military careers. And Charles is married to a well off woman.

 

[3113]

And leave us prey to the likes of the presidents we find in the rest of the world.........I don't think so.

Dudette, you're prey to both the PM and the Monarchy. Wouldn't you rather just be prey to one?

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

The idea of republicanism in England died with Cromwell, and understandably so. You're very welcome. Just as America is guaranteed to stay a federal republic by its cultural traditions and historical experience, and wouldn't work well as a monarchy, so the opposite is true for England. The British cultural and political tradition is rooted in the Crown. We'd have a lot of chaos and backlash if we tried a republic in England. It just wouldn't work. We're used to a national symbol.

Monarchy is much in the blood of the English as republicanism and federalism are to the Americans. For some countries, it doesn't matter. When you have a monarchy as old and established, and so instrinsically a part of the national character as the Crown is to the UK, it's simply irreplaceable. It's like Japan without the Mikado or the Vatican without the Papacy.

The French are republican because of their history, and that will probably stay the case. I very much think that most countries are going to stay as they are in the future. The nations of Europe have found what works for them constitutionally and institutionally. Germany, France, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Austria, and Ireland are all going to be republics and that fits them. The UK, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, and Spain are pretty much going to stay monarchies. It fits us.

I've lived in one republic, then a monarchy, and now another republic. The first (Rhodesia) just didn't work as a republic, and it was pointless to penalise the Queen for what the politicians did. It deprived the country of a unitary symbol that a dominion would have had. It undercut a peaceful transition to black majority rule without the violence that accompanied Mugabe's regime.

The British monarchy and the American federal republic, on the other hand, are quite suited to their nations' needs. The status quo is perfectly sensible. Then again, I'm a Conservative.

 

[3113]

Monarchy is much in the blood of the English as republicanism and federalism are to the Americans.

Now King George...er...President Bush is working very hard to change that. He wants the executive branch to have total and unquestioning power over, well, everything. And if he can manage it, he'd love to pass on the office of president to his kids and grandkids.

I'm sure Prince Charles or William would be willing to do the same (but opposite) for England and let the Monarchy, which has no real power at all anymore, fade into history.

 

[gauchecritic]

the Monarchy, which has no real power at all anymore,

Try telling that to the govt. when Chuck says something like "we should do more to integrate ethnic cultures".

 

[Vermilion]

They've got a ton of money and land. They don't need to do a damn thing...or if they do, hey, they've all got military careers. And Charles is married to a well off woman.

But if they weren;t the monarchy any more then what claim would they have to that land? Surely the land belongs not to them as *individuals*, but to them as the *monarchy* - as representatives of the British nation. If they gave up their "job" then wouldn;t they have to give up their pay and perks?
x
V

 

[Equinoxe]

Now King George...er...President Bush is working very hard to change that. He wants the executive branch to have total and unquestioning power over, well, everything. And if he can manage it, he'd love to pass on the office of president to his kids and grandkids.

There is nothing Kingly about President Bush. He is decidedly the product of the American Republic and of "democracy"; the United States has gotten exactly what it asked for and exactly what it wanted—and if people are finding that maybe they asked for the wrong thing, well, it's a bit late for second-thoughts.

 

[Kev H]

[Bush] is decidedly the product of the American Republic and of "democracy"; the United States has gotten exactly what it asked for and exactly what it wanted...

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. We didn't "ask" for a bumbler in much the same way that we didn't ask for a couple of NY skyscrapers to be cut down. Any student of American politics can set you straight, but let me be the first: The "public"--the common civilian--wants a wise and balanced Head of State. Instead, we get to choose between dumb and dumber--seen the voting statistics lately? Many people don't abstain from voting because they are ignorant...

Anyway, I'm glad the Prince's ex will soon be free of the uncomfortable media coverage, if that's what she really wanted.

 

[Vermilion]

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. We didn't "ask" for a bumbler in much the same way that we didn't ask for a couple of NY skyscrapers to be cut down. Any student of American politics can set you straight, but let me be the first: The "public"--the common civilian--wants a wise and balanced Head of State. Instead, we get to choose between dumb and dumber--seen the voting statistics lately? Many people don't abstain from voting because they are ignorant...

Anyway, I'm glad the Prince's ex will soon be free of the uncomfortable media coverage, if that's what she really wanted.

It's entirely likely, knowing our press, that the poor girl will continue to be hounded for the next few years w/o even the benefits of the Prince's company...
x
V

 

[Equinoxe]

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. We didn't "ask" for a bumbler in much the same way that we didn't ask for a couple of NY skyscrapers to be cut down. Any student of American politics can set you straight, but let me be the first: The "public"--the common civilian--wants a wise and balanced Head of State. Instead, we get to choose between dumb and dumber--seen the voting statistics lately? Many people don't abstain from voting because they are ignorant...

Plenty of people abstain from voting for reasons other than ignorance and that is important to the state of a "democracy", but it would only be a valid explanation of the trends if the average citizen were well-informed about the issues faced by the nation. They are not. The public does not know what it wants, it thinks it knows what it wants, only to find that it is horrified by the cost and consequences of what it wants. It wants the moon and so politicians promise it. To borrow a quote from a learned curmudgeon (who happened to be from Maryland), "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

The fact of the matter remains that in a nation in which the choice of the head of state is left to the mob, the head of state will be inclined to resemble the mob. Of course one does not get to choice from amongst the ideal candidates (but then, ideal according to whom?), nonetheless, the winner of an election is nothing more than the individual who appeals most to the most common prejudices. Whether that be an election to Congress, the Presidency, Parliament, the Diet, the National Assembly, or whatever the choice of body or position.