General Chat

Precisely, LaGooner!

I didn't intend to elicit a lecture in my what I thought was a fun response ;-)

I was completely at a loss to see where the connection was unless William is in the habit of wearing a Toga in private ;-) :-D :-D :-D

I was completely at a loss to see where the connection was unless William is in the habit of wearing a Toga in private ;-) :-D :-D :-D

:-D :-D :-D :-D

No, neither could I!!!

But I could see him in that restaurant I mentioned, named best new one only a couple of years ago ;-) ;-) ;-)

I'm sure he enjoys a nice emal out, just like the rest of us!

It's a long way to travel for a night out :-0 :-D :-D :-D :-D

I suppose monarchists have always been blind to republicans.

Been there ... a sort of upmarket TGiFridays, v popular for sure.
Prefer Ruth's Chris .
After a day's sailing Poggio Trattoria in Sausalito is great or just the other side of the bridge try Cavallopoint.

San Francisco is an expensive shadow of what it used to be sad to say but it has lots of company. It is now much cheaper ( and less violent than London ) to look at LA South. Rather than education it is gentrification which is making the difference.

I am just not a fan of George I and his descendants. They are the primary reason why our half baked democracy is such a mess.

SPQR

I am so grateful for the laughs :-D :-D :-D :-D

Cut back to basics, I'd rather have King William than President Trump. The days of the divine right of kings may be gone and for the best, but there are bigger threats to democracy than having a Royal family.

I like William, and in spite of some ethical objections, I also like Charles. It's rather a shame he will be king though, I like the fact that he can speak out on topics that concern.... and he has a very nice garden so can't be all bad ;-) I bet Trump wouldn't know which end of a daffodil bulb goes upwards.

But I digress......
:-D

What I have noticed over the years that we have lived outside the UK is that having a Head of State who is not elected and is therefore apolitical allows for a far better "appearance" at official events around the world than when the Head of State is elected, a la President of the US, President of France, etc.

It was made particularly apparent to me at one of the recent papal coronations (I forget whether it was Pope Francis or Pope Benedict) ................

all the dignitaries where there, seating in the open in the Square, Prince Charles represented the Queen, and then there was the President of the US

Much of the coverage was directed to where the President was sitting, who was sitting next to him/in front of him/behind him, what this meant in terms of honouring him or insulting him, what this would mean to diplomacy between the Papal State and the US, etc etc. His position was really important to a lot of political commentators over here, and probably to some of his advisors :-0

ie, very political, and very distracting from the real event .............. the coronation of the new Pope.

On the other hand, Prince Charles' attendance was treated as perfectly normal, no discussion on why he was seated where he was, who was next him ............ just his attendance was praised.


We have the Governor-General of Canada who can represent Canada at such events (as do Australia and NZ, and several other ex-Commonwealth countries), with the same apolitical reporting of their attendance(s).

I LIKE that apolitical aspect!

Prince William and his brother may have found the strength behind their

from Charles and their Uncle. I respect Charles for having the character to

shake hands with an apprehensive Gerry Adams.

Thank you for your contributions, he's proving to be a good Father too.

Although not reported in the UK Europe is awash with rumours that the Queen is considering abdication. All move up one.
:-0

Europe's always been 'awash with rumours' about the royals.

Rollo ......


............ that rumour is also being heard over her, but even more .............. I've seen it mentioned in English newspapers, so it is being reported in the UK, for anyone who still reads a newspaper ;-)


FWIW ....... the rumour is that she is considering stepping down on her 95th birthday.

By which time hopefully, the "rumour" that Kate would like another child will have come true, and Harry and his starlet bride will have dropped out the top list of Royals. They can then go and do whatever they want without impacting too much on what is left of the majesty of the monarchy.

I believe it's not so much abdication than handing over more and more duties as required. She's always been very anti abdication.

Caroline ............. I think you're right. She's going to let Prince Charles do many of the things she's still doing, and then take it easy like Philip.

In recent years photographs of the Royal Family have omitted the younger

sons and the daughter, focusing on HM the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh,

Princes Charles, William and Harry, and their wives plus of course their children.

Windsor 1 - 6

Under QE2 the UK Royal Family has morphed into a gilded version of the Kardashians with well paid sinecures and lux housing all round for jobs anybody could do eg flying helicopters.

The more serious jobs of state have long been abandoned though properly carried out by all but one of the other C20 monarchs.

There are plenty of indications that Charles and William take a wider view of the responsibilities of the monarchy. The Queen going on and on may well spell an end to the monarchy altogether.

Apart from the usual culprits such as Bild and Hello dull, serious (and expensive ) central European business newsletters are discussing the poss. of E. abdicating sooner rather than later.

If Canada, Oz are so keen on the monarchy why don't they pay some of the bill ? The PMs actually like the status quo 'cos with an elected head of state their wings would be well and truly clipped.

Rollo ...........


stop talking out of the back of your head.

Canada, Australia etc do not contribute directly to the support of the Royal Family in the UK, why should they???

But they do support them by paying the vast majority of costs when a member of the family is on an official tour in the country.

Even if they make an unofficial visit, as Harry did many times before getting engaged to his now wife .............. every visit he made involved security costs for Toronto police etc that were not paid by the UK.

I'm not a monarchist, but I have a great respect for many members of the Royal Family and for what they stand for.


I despise your views and your know-it-all attitude ................ I wish it was possible on this site to be able to avoid reading postings by other posters.


EDIT:- I mean block out certain posters, not everyone ;-)

Your opening words were polite Sylvia, not the words I would use ;-) :-D :-D :-D :-D