UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 2, 2017 7:47:13 GMT
Will a decision be made to skip a generation or bypass the lines of succession?
The current candidates are: Prince Charles, Prince William, someone else - Prince Harry, Prince Andrew or Princess Anne for example - or no one.
It is possible that none of the candidates wants to be the next monarch! In the past, people would make plots, discredit and destroy rival claimants, fight and kill to get the throne, but now there is little power and a great loss of freedom.
The past may be a guide to the future, but society has changed greatly since 1952. Much of the reverence has gone; respect needs to be earned and the expense of the monarchy justified.
Social media and the increase in knowledge and sophistication make it increasingly difficult for the royals to hide their misdeeds behind a façade of respectability.
At one time, illegitimacy was a major factor in removing someone from the succession; now we have surrogacy to think about.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 2, 2017 8:33:45 GMT
King George VI and a plot to remove him from the lines of succession
It is well known that George VI never expected to become king. He was forced into the role when his elder brother King Edward VIII abdicated. The official story is that he made a much better king than his brother would have, but the skeletons are coming out of the closet and a very different view of him has been revealed. The man who became King George VI was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George. The name Albert was given to please Queen Victoria. He was known within the royal family as ‘Bertie’ Albert is said to have assumed the name ‘George VI’ to emphasise continuity with his father George V and restore confidence in the monarchy. This sounds like a reasonable explanation. As we know, Bertie’s elder brother had no children and he himself had just two daughters. There is evidence of a possible plan to remove him and his children from the lines of succession: “A cabinet document prepared by a civil servant before the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936 has emerged, suggesting the line of succession could have been radically different. The handwritten note, revealed by The Times as the Queen celebrates her 90th birthday, envisioned making Queen Mary, mother of Edward and his younger brother Albert, regent. Without becoming the sovereign, she would rule until, it was hoped, Princess Elizabeth’s uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent, became king at a later date, the newspaper reported. Written by Sir Maurice Gwyer, the first parliamentary counsel, the letter was addressed to Sir Horace Wilson, an adviser to Stanley Baldwin, the prime minister.” www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/why-queen-might-never-have-taken-the-throne-in-whitehall-plot/
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 2, 2017 8:43:15 GMT
More about the plot to bypass Bertie
This seems to have been suggested on the grounds that Prince George, Duke of Kent, was at that time the only brother with a son. There were other reasons too: Gwyer went on: “The difficulty about the immediate ‘succession’ of the Duke of York is that a substantial part of the country might still favour the present King and see his brother as a sort of interloper. Queen Mary as Regent would re-establish the reputation of the monarchy. The Duke of York could scarcely object and all the King’s subjects would only rejoice to see Queen Mary carrying on again.” There were many at the time who did not view Albert as King material. Among them was George V’s doctor, Sir Stanley Hewett, who said: “ The Duke of York is the worst of the four sons and has a mean character. Steady and reliable, but dull…Concerns were raised about Albert's ability to lead the country. As well as having a bad temper, a report years earlier by James Birley, the RAF's director of medical services, noted he was “too highly strung” to fly solo. He also had a debilitating nervous stammer…” So there is a precedent for at least considering removing someone from the line of succession on the grounds of unsuitability… but George of Kent was no angel… he might not have been killed in a mysterious plane crash if he had been made the official heir, and the man who is now Duke of Kent might be our king. “…Dermot Morrah, a royal speechwriter, wrote in the Work of The Queen: “It was certainly considered at this time whether, by agreement among the Royal Family, the crown might be settled on the Duke of Kent - the only one of the abdicating King’s brothers who had a son to become Prince of Wales, and so avoid laying so heavy a future burden upon the shoulders of any woman.” www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/why-queen-might-never-have-taken-the-throne-in-whitehall-plot/Agreement among the Royal Family? Is that all it takes? This makes some of the wilder speculation about who might be the future monarch seem not so wild after all. So who is considered unsuitable now? Prince Charles, very much so; Prince William, dismissed as useless by many people.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 2, 2017 11:06:05 GMT
How young will the next monarch be on accession?
The three longest reigning British monarchs:
Queen Elizabeth II 65 years and counting Queen Victoria 63 years King George III 59 years
Monarchs who reign for a long time provide continuity and stability. They obviously need to come to the throne when they are young, which usually means that the heir will be old when he becomes king.
Queen Elizabeth I reigned for 44 years, but she had no direct heir.
The female royals on the whole live longer than their male relatives, so maybe we should be looking for a young woman. Princess Anne is considered to be the best of a bad bunch, but her age is against her. Her daughter Zara has been mentioned as a possible candidate. She is 36 years old. There is a Queen Zara in the film V for Vendetta…
The two daughters of Prince Andrew are in the race as outsiders too. They are both still in their 20s.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 2, 2017 11:07:12 GMT
Monarch Airlines collapsed today
Monarch Airlines ceased trading earlier today. Not particularly relevant as a news item, but might be symbolic of the end of the monarchy in Britain.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 2, 2017 15:05:00 GMT
Operation London Bridge: preparing for the handover of the monarchy
I learned from a recent TV programme about the death of King George V that preparations for dealing with the death of the monarch and the handover to the next in line are made very early on in the reign. Everything and everyone are ready to go.
By coincidence, London Bridge is the name of the operation in question.
“Operation London Bridge is the codename for the plan for what will happen in the days after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. The plan was originally devised in the 1960s and is updated several times each year. It involves planning from government departments, the Metropolitan Police Service, the British Armed Forces, the Church of England, media and Royal Parks of London. Some key decisions relating to the plan were made by the Queen herself, although some can only be made by her successor after her death.
The phrase "London Bridge is down" will announce the death of the Queen to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and key personnel, setting the plan into motion.”
From WiKi
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 2, 2017 21:22:40 GMT
Monarch Airlines collapsed today
Monarch Airlines ceased trading earlier today. Not particularly relevant as a news item, but might be symbolic of the end of the monarchy in Britain. I noticed this had been mentioned, and had thought it an interesting detail to note. It might be some form of predictive programming, but I think the Jury is out on that one. Still, interesting to note.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 2, 2017 21:30:33 GMT
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 2, 2017 21:35:16 GMT
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 3, 2017 5:46:05 GMT
Very useful contributions to this interesting subject.
I am putting my money on a token replacement, a lot of constitutional changes and a slow slide into oblivion.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 3, 2017 5:48:15 GMT
The rules of succession
Under the old rules, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II would not have come to the throne if they had had brothers, even younger brothers. Sons took precedence over daughters no matter what.
Queen Elizabeth I had a younger half-brother and he did become king, but only for a short time as he died young.
This rule applies only to the children in a particular family. Queen Victoria was the only child of George III’s fourth son, the Duke of Kent. She became heir to the throne because the candidates who would have taken precedence all died in infancy.
George III’s fifth son had a son called George, who was born in 1819 just a few days after Victoria. He is said to have felt some entitlement to the throne because he was a boy and Victoria was only a girl. The rules said otherwise. She took precedence over him, so he would become king only if she died or was removed from the line of succession. His father hoped that he would marry her, but nothing came of it: Prince Albert was the lucky man!
The rules were changed recently. Now, age alone determines precedence. The rules are not back-dated though, so they would need to be changed again to permit Princess Anne to become queen if Prince Charles and all his descendants were eliminated – unless of course her younger brothers and their children could be removed from the line of succession for some reason…
The rules of succession are one thing; following them is something else. They can certainly be bent or broken. So the throne could go straight to Prince Harry...or maybe ‘they’ have decided that the time has come to end the monarchy.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 5, 2017 5:25:18 GMT
Prince Harry confirms our theory
No one wants to succeed the Queen: “Prince Harry says no one in the Royal Family wants to be king or queen. In an extraordinary interview he insists however that Britain and other countries still need 'the magic' of the monarchy. The 32-year-old prince also appears to criticise his family's decision to make him walk behind his mother's coffin as a 12-year-old, saying: 'No child should be asked to do that.' On the monarchy, he asks: 'Is there any one of the Royal Family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.' Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4626868/No-Royal-Family-member-wants-throne-says-Prince-Harry.html#ixzz4khW7FY8t I wonder what Richard III and all the others who desperately wanted the throne and would do anything to get it would say to this! Perhaps it is damage limitation, declining in advance something that might never even be offered.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 6, 2017 5:17:40 GMT
Benjamin Fulford backs Prince Harry for king
Benjamin Fulford’s name came up on the old forum. I didn’t know him, but had a quick search and found his take on who should be the heir:
“Fulford goes on to make the outrageous claim that America’s evils result from the fact that we have no monarchy, like the British Windsors, to guide us. Really? Perhaps this is his Canadian bias, or perhaps it is evidence of his brainwashing.
“The Americans have fallen into the horrible state they have because they lack an institution with a long history of stability and national unity.”
Fulford wants to continue the British monarchy, supporting Diana’s son Harry as the new king of England, sidestepping the fact that his mother was most likely killed by the Windsors…the Monarchy is supported by most British, Canadians and Australians because it is seen as a symbol of all that was good about the British empire.
‘It may be true that the German Saxe Gotha family that took over the monarchy should be replaced with true British royalty. I personally support Harry because his mother Diana was a Stuart and Harry’s father is not Prince Charles.’”
deusnexus.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/fulford-digs-hole-deeper/
He is presenting speculation as established fact, which is not something I would expect from a high-level initiate, as he calls himself.
His words come from 2014. A lot has happened since then, and I don’t think the Monarchy is supported by most British people now.
Prince Harry is featured in the Red Hair thread.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 6, 2017 16:19:16 GMT
Take your pick of the princes
Which one would you like to see as the next monarch - the one with the flyaway jacket flaps or the one with the crumpled trousers? Prince Charles has aged a lot in recent years. I am not surprised, considering how William and Kate have been behaving and the recent Diana revelations.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 6, 2017 21:38:57 GMT
The rules of succession
Under the old rules, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II would not have come to the throne if they had had brothers, even younger brothers. Sons took precedence over daughters no matter what. Queen Elizabeth I had a younger half-brother and he did become king, but only for a short time as he died young. This rule applies only to the children in a particular family. Queen Victoria was the only child of George III’s fourth son, the Duke of Kent. She became heir to the throne because the candidates who would have taken precedence all died in infancy. George III’s fifth son had a son called George, who was born in 1819 just a few days after Victoria. He is said to have felt some entitlement to the throne because he was a boy and Victoria was only a girl. The rules said otherwise. She took precedence over him, so he would become king only if she died or was removed from the line of succession. His father hoped that he would marry her, but nothing came of it: Prince Albert was the lucky man! The rules were changed recently. Now, age alone determines precedence. The rules are not back-dated though, so they would need to be changed again to permit Princess Anne to become queen if Prince Charles and all his descendants were eliminated – unless of course her younger brothers and their children could be removed from the line of succession for some reason… The rules of succession are one thing; following them is something else. They can certainly be bent or broken. So the throne could go straight to Prince Harry...or maybe ‘they’ have decided that the time has come to end the monarchy. The future of the British monarchy is certainly interesting, and you pose a very interesting question: is the Royal Family being undermined and toppled? My thoughts on this are as such (as things currently stand): The power structures of the world have generated the One Percent. This is not some monolithic block but rather a collective of differing groups and interests that have ended up working together towards commonly held groups. One of these groups was the British Royal Family. As objectives are now being realised, those at the top are now turning on each other, because these groups and interests are not truly wanting to share among themselves. Evil has a way of consuming itself; this is what is happening here, I feel. So yes, they are being targeted for removal, but here is the thing: they are aware of the targeting, and are trying to respond, defend themselves and retaliate. They have a lot of fingers in many pies, and are not going to go down easily. Thus, we will see an ongoing fight for a while yet, and maybe a streamlining of the size of the Royal Family, to try and survive what is happening to it. Just my take on it, I could easily be wrong.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 6, 2017 21:43:59 GMT
Benjamin Fulford backs Prince Harry for king
Benjamin Fulford’s name came up on the old forum. I didn’t know him, but had a quick search and found his take on who should be the heir: “Fulford goes on to make the outrageous claim that America’s evils result from the fact that we have no monarchy, like the British Windsors, to guide us. Really? Perhaps this is his Canadian bias, or perhaps it is evidence of his brainwashing. “The Americans have fallen into the horrible state they have because they lack an institution with a long history of stability and national unity.” Fulford wants to continue the British monarchy, supporting Diana’s son Harry as the new king of England, sidestepping the fact that his mother was most likely killed by the Windsors…the Monarchy is supported by most British, Canadians and Australians because it is seen as a symbol of all that was good about the British empire. ‘It may be true that the German Saxe Gotha family that took over the monarchy should be replaced with true British royalty. I personally support Harry because his mother Diana was a Stuart and Harry’s father is not Prince Charles.’” deusnexus.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/fulford-digs-hole-deeper/ He is presenting speculation as established fact, which is not something I would expect from a high-level initiate, as he calls himself. His words come from 2014. A lot has happened since then, and I don’t think the Monarchy is supported by most British people now. Prince Harry is featured in the Red Hair thread. There has been speculation on Harry's parentage before, if I recall correctly. And isn't it interesting how he is being labelled a Stuart! And they way he has been surfacing, it is interesting - like being a key element for the Invictus Games, for example. A huge difference to his brother, and a large number of the Royals, when you think about it. A new monarch for a new time, perhaps?
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 7, 2017 5:28:47 GMT
I remember that at one time we suspected that the DM was promoting Harry at the expense of William. Then Meghan Markle came into the picture. Now, all bets are off.
The latest question: is Prince Charles really a carrier of the red hair gene? Not only that, but is Prince Andrew a carrier too?
|
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 8, 2017 6:48:05 GMT
Prince Charles’s future: two possibilities
I have noticed that the anti-Cornwall movement is growing, even in the DM where very critical comments indeed of both Charles and Camilla are permitted. Diana is the completely innocent victim of these terrible people; Prince Charles is weak and behaved very badly; Camilla is a marriage breaker who should never be Queen. It could be that the monarchy will pass Prince Charles by. There are historical precedents: George III for example was the grandson, not the son, of George II. Prince Frederick, father of George III, had predeceased his own father. Could the monarchy skip a generation again now? Not because of a death this time, but because of total unsuitability and unpopularity. Which brings us to William and Kate... On the other hand, the DM is suggesting the Prince Charles might take over as Prince Regent in a few years’ time: “…with the Queen now into her 91st year, and with the hard-working Duke of Edinburgh choosing to retire last month at the age of 96, plans are afoot which, if implemented, would see Charles appointed King in all but name. Palace sources have indicated that the Queen has told her inner circle that, if she is still on the throne at the age of 95, she will ask for a piece of legislation called the Regency Act to come into force – granting her eldest son full power to reign even while she still lives... I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace. They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785166/Is-Queen-preparing-abdicate.html#ixzz4pcPIZpmL When George III was declared insane, his son Prince George, known as Prinny, took over as Prince Regent. His marriage too was tempestuous, with people taking sides. So which will it be for Prince Charles, regency or rejection?
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 9, 2017 23:10:12 GMT
These are certainly interesting times for the Monarchy. I find it noteworthy how Harry is trumped up. He is the one that does things, he has the Invictus Games as a merit, and is cast in a different light to his brother, who is seen as lazy. Charles is unlikely to be king at his point, due to his marriage to Camilla. They might improve if she divorced him, or was to die, mind you. Found the above. I like how he is appearing comical in a number of pictures. A great way to discredit him, of course. In general, I think I have the perfect picture to sum up the Royals, and their quest for an answer:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 10, 2017 6:31:54 GMT
You mean that they are looking to the heavens for guidance? Very amusing.
I can't dismiss the theory that they are all trying to deliberately discredit themselves to avoid the burden of being the next monarch.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 10, 2017 6:33:57 GMT
Republicanism in Britain
Queen Victoria and the growth of republican sentiment.
The quasi-republic in Britain after the Civil War lasted for 11 years, after which the monarchy was restored.
Since that time, there have been many people who were against the monarchy in general and some dynasties and occupants of the throne in particular, but it was not until Queen Victoria’s reign that republicanism became a serious threat.
Queen Victoria was devastated when Prince Albert died, in 1861. She retired from public life and neglected her duties, which made her very unpopular with many people.
Republican sentiment grew; there was even a rally in Trafalgar Square in 1870 at which 3,000 protesters carrying republican banners and wearing French Liberty Caps demanded her removal.
Republican clubs were formed in the major cities, and Prime Minister William Gladstone was extremely concerned because the fund of public goodwill towards the monarchy was drying up and he did not see how it could be replenished, considering that the Queen was invisible and the Princes of Wales not respected.
A pamphlet by an anonymous author asked what the Queen was doing with all the public money that she was given from the Civil List. Other members of the royal family were thought not to need or deserve their allowances. People thought that Victoria’s isolation had shown that the country could operate well without a monarch.
Some of Victoria’s children even composed a letter to her in which they very affectionately and respectfully tried to make her understand the seriousness of the situation.
Many of the criticisms and complaints sound very familiar indeed: they are being applied to members of today’s royal family!
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 10, 2017 6:35:03 GMT
More about Republicanism in Britain
Queen Victoria and the diminishing republican sentiment.
The serious threat from the republicans receded after both the Queen and the Prince of Wales became seriously ill – the latter was not expected to live. Crowds came out to see them attend a service of thanksgiving in 1872, and public goodwill returned, all the more after an unsuccessful assassination attempt on the Queen.
After experiencing large amounts of public sympathy and approval, Queen Victoria made more public appearances. Her friend Benjamin Disraeli, who became Prime Minister in 1874, coaxed her into gradually returning to her duties. He made her Empress of India, which pleased the public. Rudyard Kipling’s poem The Widow at Windsor describes her power as the head of a great Empire.
So it seems that although there were always some die-hard republicans, what the fickle public really wanted was a highly visible monarch who could be respected. The monarch could turn the tide of public opinion by how they behaved. The public could bring the monarch back into line by making their dissatisfaction clear.
This reminds me of what happened when the Queen didn’t return to London after the death of Princess Diana. Many people were outraged:
"Show us you Care" said the front page of the Express, while the Sun asked "Where is our Queen? Where is her Flag?"
The Queen gave in to many demands, including one for a flag at half-mast over Buckingham Palace and a public statement.
The question now is, will ever-growing rumblings of discontent turn into another demand for the abolition of the monarchy or will indifference just cause them to fade away?
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 11, 2017 23:29:37 GMT
You mean that they are looking to the heavens for guidance? Very amusing. I can't dismiss the theory that they are all trying to deliberately discredit themselves to avoid the burden of being the next monarch. Pretty much. You can find some very entertaining pictures of the Royals, once you start looking. As for all of this talk of succession, herre is an image that made me chuckle: A rather amusing photoshop. And I think the people might get behind that, too. Again, at least Harry seems to do something... But here is the thing: the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom is also the Head of State. Given all of the political chaos, Elizabeth to not act at all is likely to be quite damaging long term. What is the point of a Head of State that doesn't... well, Head of State? It is shirking a rather important responsibility...
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 12, 2017 5:42:25 GMT
Inside the toxic court of Prince Charles
Earlier this year, the DM published unflattering extracts from a new biography, comparing Prince Charles unfavourably with the Queen. His unsuitability for taking over from her is highlighted. “One of the less attractive facets of the driven, mercurial heir to the throne — as I discovered from spending four years interviewing 300 of his friends, officials, family members and acquaintances — is that he doesn’t like being challenged or forced to give ground. According to many who know him, rather than engage in debate, he will shut it down — or even simply leave the room. To this day, Prince Charles remains resistant to ideas that contradict his intuition, even when he is presented with compelling new research. Consequently, he has always sought out people — both on his staff and in his collection of outside advisers — who agree with him. Thanks to the Duchy of Cornwall, he has far more millions in spending money than the Queen. Even the 2008 financial crisis failed to dent his fortunes: his shrewd advisers managed to pull his funds out of the stock market before the crash. His wealth has given him a stupendous level of luxury. By 2003, he had a retinue of 91, including 17 on his personal staff. A year later, the number of personal staff serving Charles, Camilla, William and Harry was 28. The Prince also has a weakness for the perks — and the company of — the super-rich. Over the years, he has taken full advantage of offers of yachts, flights on private jets and sumptuous estates for private holidays. Indeed, he can become querulous if the level of luxury isn’t to his satisfaction.” Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4377214/Inside-toxic-court-Charles-startling-portrait.html#ixzz4dG8csRlt There is plenty more of that in the three-article extract. It all makes him seem very difficult if not impossible to deal with and work for and a big sponger despite his own huge fortune.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 12, 2017 5:50:16 GMT
Handing over to Prince Charles has started
“The Queen has asked Prince Charles to step in and lay her wreath at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. This break in tradition will see Her Majesty observe the annual ceremony from the balcony instead. It will be the first time she will be present at the service without laying a floral tribute. Buckingham Palace has not given a reason for the change in protocol but it is known the 91-year-old monarch has gradually started to share out royal duties with her eldest son as she gets older. “ Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4970776/Queen-asks-Prince-Charles-step-lay-wreath.html#ixzz4vGnaL8as He may seem like a joke or at least not very suitable for the position, but he is there and he is the heir so by default he will take over.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 12, 2017 9:12:16 GMT
Handing over to Prince Charles has started
“The Queen has asked Prince Charles to step in and lay her wreath at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. This break in tradition will see Her Majesty observe the annual ceremony from the balcony instead. It will be the first time she will be present at the service without laying a floral tribute. Buckingham Palace has not given a reason for the change in protocol but it is known the 91-year-old monarch has gradually started to share out royal duties with her eldest son as she gets older. “ Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4970776/Queen-asks-Prince-Charles-step-lay-wreath.html#ixzz4vGnaL8as He may seem like a joke or at least not very suitable for the position, but he is there and he is the heir so by default he will take over. I noticed that being said. I wonder if she has hidden problems?
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 12, 2017 16:56:35 GMT
Illegitimacy and the line of succession
There are several variations when it comes to illegitimacy and the royals.
For some illegitimate royal offspring, there was never any suggestion that the parents were married. Although some illegitimate sons of kings and princes were given status, money, titles etc. the lack of their parents’ legal marriage was a deal breaker when it came to the lines of succession. There was none of the blurring of boundaries that we see today, so they were out of the game. Charles II for example had around eight sons, but the crown passed to his younger brother James. Charles acknowledged these boys – the name Fitzroy made it official - but as he wasn’t married to any of the mothers, they did not qualify as his heirs.
In other cases, there were allegations that the marriage itself was invalid, or rumours that the official father could not have been the real father. This was done to remove people from the lines of succession. Richard III tried dirty tricks like these to get the two Princes in the Tower declared illegitimate.
In these cases, it was possible to be reinstated; this happened to Elizabeth I. Henry VIII’s marriage to her mother Anne Boleyn was declared null and void and she was declared illegitimate by Parliament, but events were in her favour and she became queen after all.
The rumours about the possible parentage of Prince Harry and Prince Andrew are well known. There is also the story that Pindar the lizard or dragon king is Prince Charles’s real father.
Then we have ‘Pinky and Perky’: Prince Williams’ brown eyes, Charlotte’s resemblance to various people – and many other anomalies – have brought their parenthood into question too. There may be no truth at all in any of these allegations, but if it were proved that James Hewitt, ‘Pindy, Porchie or Plunky’ was the real father or Kate Middleton was not the real mother of someone, that person would be removed from the line of succession.
Illegitimacy has been a factor for centuries; in addition, we now have surrogacy and genes for red hair and brown eyes to think about.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,064
|
Post by UnseenI on Oct 12, 2017 16:59:59 GMT
Prince Charles and his suitability for the throne yet again
“I like how he is appearing comical in a number of pictures. A great way to discredit him, of course.” Avacyn perhaps presenting him as a buffoon is damage limitation. So what is he really like? If you read about Prince Charles’s childhood and schooldays, you would probably feel sorry for him. If you read about some of his interests, which include metaphysical matters, you might think him a thoughtful, philosophical person and a cut above his philistine relations. If you read the critical biographies, you might think he is weak and a pain to work for: “...he is a ninny, a whinger, a tantrum-throwing dilettante, hopelessly thin-skinned . . . naïve and resentful. He is a preening snob, keenly sensitive to violations of protocol, intolerant of opinions contrary to his own, and horribly misled about the extent of his own talents. “ If you adored Princess Diana, he is an evil monster who destroyed her. There is much more to it than that; there is something sinister going on and it is time to review some of the less well-known information about the heir to the throne. Your words have triggered memories of posts I made a while back on the David Icke Forum. There was a lot about Prince Charles and his friends and mentors in the Jimmy Savile thread. Much of it speaks for itself; for example, I remember that Jimmy Savile was the only person who was allowed to smoke at Highgrove. I will put more examples of his undesirable friends and mentors – or handlers, blackmailers and exploiters - on the Behind the Royal Façade thread. PS Princess Diana is alleged to have told Prince Charles that he would never become king and that he looked ridiculous in his medals.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,234
|
Post by Avacyn on Oct 12, 2017 21:19:05 GMT
|
|