# The heir to the UK throne needs a few pounds????



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 8, 2020)

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan of Sussex came back from their royal time-off with a big announcement: They're stepping down from their senior royal roles and plan to spend more time in North America.

"We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen,

I admit I'm not a royal watcher. But maybe a Brit can tell me why the heir to the UK throne needs to clip coupons to get buy. I was under the impression he received a salary fromthe Queen, and also from the government, for his needs. And I'm amazed he's going to get money from us Yanks?


----------



## DaveA (Jan 8, 2020)

It does seem like an odd statement?   Maybe our British friends can shed some light on the subject.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

He's not trying to 'get' money, he says he wants to Earn it.  He is a very qualified individual on several fronts.

Seems weird though.  He married a divorced woman, just like the King who abdicated.  And, Harry is not at the front of the queue to be heir to the throne.  A disaster would have to hit, in fact.


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 8, 2020)

Harry inherited a great deal of  money from his mother's estate,    among other financial avenues.  

They may want to live in Canada.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 8, 2020)

This photo shows the Queen with the next three royals in the succession





After the Queen comes Prince Charles, then his son Prince William and his son Prince George. Harry is way down the list. William's other two children are ahead of Harry.


----------



## Rosemarie (Jan 8, 2020)

Prince Harry is not the heir to the throne. Prince Charles is the heir, then will come Prince William and his sons. Unless they are all killed (which could happen if they continue to travel together), Prince Harry doesn't get a look in.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 8, 2020)

Also Charlotte. They changed the law allowing female offspring to inherit the throne.
 so, Harry may only be 6th in line at this time.
Charles
William
George
Charlotte
Louis


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

Good Lord!  Prince George is only 6 years old and is as tall as Great Grandma!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mike (Jan 8, 2020)

Unless other changes have been made, if Charles dies
before the Queen, then guess who is next in line?

Andrew is 

Mike.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 8, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Seems weird though. He married a divorced woman, just like the King who abdicated.


It's different, imo. It was a King who abdicated. Harry is just a prince. The monarchy and therefore the Church of England doesn't care about divorce anymore.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> It's different, imo. It was a King who abdicated. Harry is just a prince. The monarchy and therefore the Church of England doesn't care about divorce anymore.


Right you are and her name is Diana.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Good Lord!  Prince George is only 6 years old and is as tall as Great Grandma!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, George and Charles are on a step higher from the Queen and William.  It's hard to see, I read an article about it.  That photo will be used for a stamp and the photographer needed all four to fit into the stamp parameters.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 8, 2020)

I understand what they are doing but I don't understand the need for an announcement unless they fear some backlash for taking up residence in another country.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

Catlady said:


> No, George and Charles are on a step higher from the Queen and William.  It's hard to see, I read an article about it.  That photo will be used for a stamp and the photographer needed all four to fit into the stamp parameters.


Yes, I see that looking closely.  You're as sharp eyed as a cat!


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Yes, I see that looking closely.  You're as sharp eyed as a cat!


No, I just read about it in another article.  I would have missed it.  William is a lot taller than his father, and in this photo here he's shorter.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

Mike said:


> Unless other changes have been made, if Charles dies
> before the Queen, then guess who is next in line?
> 
> Andrew is
> ...


No.
"If Prince Charles dies before becoming king, then *Prince William* becomes heir. No. If Charles dies before the Queen, the crown would go to William, because he's Charles' oldest male child. At one time, Andrew was in line immediately after Charles, but only until Charles had children."
Gasp.  You should know better Mike!


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

This is what The Cheat Sheet says =

*Who will be king if Prince Charles dies before the queen?*
If Prince Charles dies before the queen, many speculate his brother, Prince Andrew will become king. However, that is not entirely true. While anything is possible, the line of succession won’t change should Prince Charles die before the queen. That means, Prince William will take his father’s place as heir apparent and become King of England once the queen passes or steps down from her role (another possibility, according to _The Sun_).
Should Prince Charles die before the queen and Prince William become the heir apparent, a few things will change. For one, the queen could name Prince William the Prince of Wales. Prince of Wales is an official royal family title that marks the ranking of an heir apparent in the royal family. However, out of respect for his father, Prince William and the queen could forgo the title change.
In addition to becoming the Prince of Wales, the heir apparent also receives a new dukedom and changes his title to the Duke of Cornwall. However, is Prince Charles dies before the queen, Prince William won’t. The Duke of Cornwall title is reserved for the monarch’s eldest son, so if Prince Charles never becomes king, Prince William won’t become Duke of Cornwall.


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 8, 2020)

... Oh, so many titles!   ...


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I admit I'm not a royal watcher. But maybe a Brit can tell me why the heir to the UK throne needs to clip coupons to get buy. I was under the impression he received a salary fromthe Queen, and also from the government, for his needs. And I'm amazed he's going to get money from us Yanks?



Harry is only number 6 in line.  The queen gives a salary only if they perform ''royal duties''.  She can also give them an allowance if she wants to.  Harry has plenty of money from Diana and will get more from Charles when he passes and also, Meghan was an actress, she must have some wealth.  But, considering how they're used to a high style of living and now having a child, they'll need a LOT of money to live on.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 8, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> why the heir to the UK throne needs to clip coupons to get buy. I was under the impression he received a salary fromthe Queen, and also from the government, for his needs. And I'm amazed he's going to get money from us Yanks?


 I don't know what you mean. Where do you see he will be getting money from us Yanks?

They're independently wealthy and the inference is that not only will they still work for the crown, they'll be working on their own, too.

I had a feeling they'd end up in either Africa or North America.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

This photo shows the step where Charles and George are standing on, I saw it before this thread =

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/queen-portrait-heirs-throne-1.5415386


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 8, 2020)

From that picture  above  ...   IMO ,  Prince George just has the 'look'  of KING already.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 8, 2020)

Like I said I'm not a royal watcher. I get confused which of the boys is heir, after Charles. Again, according to the couple's own public statement they intend to "work to become financially independent".  I guess doing whatever they do now does not pay well? 
Kind of lost, here.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 8, 2020)

It's not just "the boys" anymore!



fuzzybuddy said:


> "work to become financially independent".


Makes me think the Queen still gives them an allowance.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> It's not just "the boys" anymore!
> Makes me think the *Queen still gives them an allowance*.


I read that the Queen gets a percentage of something (GDP?).  So, if there's a recession she gets less, if its a banner year for tourists etc she gets more.  From that she pays her bills and other stuff, such as allowances to her family.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> .....according to the couple's own public statement they intend to "work to become financially independent".  I guess doing whatever they do now does not pay well?
> Kind of lost, here.


You're not lost.  You're forgetting what insanely wealthy people think about money and how much is needed for them to live as they feel they must, which is different from even ordinary wealthy people.  What doesn't pay well for them has nothing to do with the reality of your average rich person.


----------



## Gardenlover (Jan 8, 2020)

Warrigal said:


> This photo shows the Queen with the next three royals in the succession
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks photoshopped - sorry.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

Catlady said:


> Meghan was an actress, she must have some wealth.


Nah, she had a lot if she had a few hundred thousands, which means nothing.  She was beginning a decent career, but with show biz, who knows?  She wasn't Meryl Streep or anywhere near Angelina Jolie, the big buck earners.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

Gardenlover said:


> Looks photoshopped - sorry.


It does have a fake look.  Maybe they weren't all even in the same room, but placed together!


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 8, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Nah, she had a lot if she had a few hundred thousands, which means nothing.  She was beginning a decent career, but with show biz, who knows?  She wasn't Meryl Streep or anywhere near Angelina Jolie, the big buck earners.


She was a z list actress,  in a show the vast majority of people had never heard of until she got hooked up with Harry, so there's no chance she had any kind of fortune .


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

I think she's whiny and self-centered.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 8, 2020)

Catlady said:


> Harry is only number 6 in line.  The queen gives a salary only if they perform ''royal duties''.  She can also give them an allowance if she wants to.  Harry has plenty of money from Diana and will get more from Charles when he passes and also, Meghan was an actress, she must have some wealth.  But, considering how they're used to a high style of living and now having a child, they'll need a LOT of money to live on.


  and we've just been told that regardless how they mean to ''earn '' their own money ( incidentally there's doubtless going to be some charities getting set up by them very soon)...  and even if they go to live in Canada or the USA, we the British Taxpayer will still have to pay for their protection & security!!


----------



## Pepper (Jan 8, 2020)

hollydolly said:


> and we've just been told that reagrdless how they mean to ''earn '' their own money ( incidentally there's doubtless going to be some charities getting set up by them very soon)...  and even if they go to live in Canada or the USA,* we the British Taxpayer will still have to pay for their protection & security!!*


Absolutely you will, and that shows the extent of their immaturity in play acting being grown-ups.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

According to this article, they didn't even tell the Queen what they intended to do

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prince-harry-meghan-step-back-senior-royals-213237109.html

"Currently, Harry and Meghan's costs are largely funded from Charles' private income from the heir to the throne's estates, while the police foots their security bill.

Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt told Channel 4 television that royals thinking they can earn money in a side career "has always ended in tears"."


----------



## AnnieA (Jan 8, 2020)

They took out trademarks on all sorts of merchandising and media forms for the Sussex Royal name several weeks ago.   She was big into merching with her blog before Harry.  Thinking she's going for the same thing here but on a grand scale.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

I bet the Queen now thinks Diana was an angel compared to Meghan.


----------



## Linda (Jan 8, 2020)

From statements I saw on the news this evening, from both Meghan and Harry, I think they are stepping down because of the stress the royal life is putting on Meghan.   I know it would drive me nuts having a secretary telling me where I had to be each day, what I had to do and not only that having to get all dressed up and smile while I'm doing it.  And she's a new mom, maybe she just wants to stay home sometimes in her jammies and play with the baby.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 8, 2020)

Linda said:


> From statements I saw on the news this evening, from both Meghan and Harry, I think they are stepping down because of the stress the royal life is putting on Meghan.   I know it would drive me nuts having a secretary telling me where I had to be each day, what I had to do and not only that having to get all dressed up and smile while I'm doing it.  And she's a new mom, maybe she just wants to stay home sometimes in her jammies and play with the baby.


She dated him for how long?  She had NO IDEA what she was getting into?  I hardly think so.


----------



## Linda (Jan 8, 2020)

Catlady said:


> She dated him for how long?  She had NO IDEA what she was getting into?  I hardly think so.


 Maybe she did know what she was getting herself into.  Maybe she wanted to live the life awhile and then move to the states part time.  I don't know what she thought or knew ahead of time.  I know a lot of people spend 30 or 40 thousand on a nice wedding and get divorced in 5 or 10 years.  I don't understand that one either. 

I really do believe when people have stars in their eyes they probably can't imagine how the stress of the whole thing will play out.


----------



## Rosemarie (Jan 9, 2020)

Pepper said:


> I think she's whiny and self-centered.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.


I think she's disappointed that she hasn't been accepted as she expected to. Prince Harry should have thought more carefully about his choice of bride. Being part of Hollywood royalty and being part of the British royal family are two entirely different things.


----------



## Furryanimal (Jan 9, 2020)

He is not heir to the throne...Perhaps Megan should take up acting again.


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 9, 2020)

Furryanimal said:


> He is not heir to the throne...*Perhaps Megan should take up acting again.
> *



 take it up again?>..there's many who would say she's never stopped...


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 9, 2020)

Catlady said:


> I bet the Queen now thinks Diana was an angel compared to Meghan.


 Much as HM will be thoroughly disappointed in Harry and Meghan,.. and no doubt  the comparison between her Uncle Edward Vlll  and his American bride will not have escaped her, the fact is that Meghan unlike Diana, was never expected to become Queen or Queen consort.. so it was really important that Diana was seen to be acting on behalf of the Royals at all times, and she did _most_ of the time.  

In truth Harry's behaviour will have upset his grandmother and his father, I'm not so sure that Meghan's behaviour will have come as a great surprise to them, it hasn't for the majority of the UK public...


----------



## Marlene (Jan 9, 2020)

hollydolly said:


> and we've just been told that regardless how they mean to ''earn '' their own money ( incidentally there's doubtless going to be some charities getting set up by them very soon)...  and even if they go to live in Canada or the USA, we the British Taxpayer will still have to pay for their protection & security!!


What seems to be the feelings of the average British person about that?  Not sure, but it would seem they wouldn't be too happy about Meghan's antics anyway.  After all she married into a system.  It didn't marry into her.


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 9, 2020)

hollydolly said:


> and we've just been told that regardless how they mean to ''earn '' their own money ( incidentally there's doubtless going to be some charities getting set up by them very soon)...  and even if they go to live in Canada or the USA, we *the British Taxpayer will still have to pay for their protection & security!!*



In all fairness,   the British Press  is the reason for  their protection and security.  
Daily Mail, etc.,    seem to follow them on a daily basis,   covering every aspect of their lives ...  No??   

I don't think the US  puts  that much importance on their doings.  They were here from  mid-November to January,   and hardly anything was said or written about them during that time.


----------



## Ronni (Jan 9, 2020)

Weird moment.  

It's early in the morning, and I'm doing my usual....on the computer catching up on emails, forums, fb, groups etc., sipping my cup of coffee and watching the news and weather on TV.  

I started reading this particular post about Harry and Meghan, scrolled through the first page, and as I was starting on the second the exact same story was reported on one of my local TV channel news!


----------



## toffee (Jan 9, 2020)

prince Charles supports harry = with money from cornwall estates ..
royals look after their own  believe me -but he will still have duties where ever he goes to live ,i dont know the whole  story
as yet as to much press media is flying around ' but there is a uneasyness in the mornachy especially with the 2 brothers !

maybe a good thing if they gave up their royal duty now 'as all we can see is a very unhappy man--where as before he was a happy go lucky fella ... many  brits think hes far to sensitive now as its all part and parcel of being a prince and a celeb ..


----------



## Pepper (Jan 9, 2020)

Rosemarie said:


> I think she's disappointed that she hasn't been accepted as she expected to. Prince Harry should have thought more carefully about his choice of bride. *Being part of Hollywood royalty* and being part of the British royal family are two entirely different things.


But she wasn't.  She was a bit player.


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 9, 2020)

Rosemarie said:


> I think she's disappointed that she hasn't been accepted as she expected to. Prince Harry should have thought more carefully about his choice of bride. Being part of *Hollywood royalty* and being part of the British royal family are two entirely different things.




Where does that even  come from?     ...  confusing her with Grace Kelly.  
Grace Kelly was Hollywood Royalty when she married Prince Rainier


----------



## Meanderer (Jan 9, 2020)

Warrigal said:


> This photo shows the Queen with the next three royals in the succession
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pepper (Jan 9, 2020)

Bet she outlives him too!


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 9, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Bet she outlives him too!


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 9, 2020)

Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan?  I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it.  Did she do something awful?  Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race?  I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 9, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan?  I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it.  Did she do something awful?  Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race?  I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.



Makes two of us  ...  I wonder also.   Could it be because she is foreign/not  British  or at least European?  

I never heard of her before she started  dating Harry. .  Seems everything we learn about her is coming from  negative press coverage  there.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 9, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan?  I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it.  Did she do something awful?  Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race?  I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.


It does seem odd.

I like Harry and hope that he and his little family can find peace and happiness at home or abroad.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 9, 2020)

One thing I noticed was the "North America" terminology.  Let's see what nations comprise N.A.? Well, there's Canada. Gees, there's another one.....it's right on the tip of my tongue......... oh yeah, it's Guatemala.  No offense Canadians,  "North America" means LA or NYC. I think the idea of Harry not living in the UK would be hard for Brits to take. CNN had a blurb about this. Apparently, nobody at the "palace" knew this was coming- not even Grandmama. Somehow this doesn't sound like a happy family.
I wonder what "royal duties" are, and how necessary are they?
And hollydolly was correct. It's not like you or I moving to another nation. They need security and protection, which is , now, all up in the air.


----------



## AnnieA (Jan 9, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan?  I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it.  Did she do something awful?  Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race?  I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.



She's a narcissist on a 'royal' scale and pretty much every move she makes is consistent with that pathology.   The narcissistic behaviors go back further than her relationship with Harry to family, childhood friends, first husband that she dumped as soon as she got a stable TV role.

The narcissism is behind her monetary excesses.   She spent more money on clothes her first year as the Duchess of Sussex than any European female royal ever has.   Google the excesses of her NY baby shower.

Then there's the parade of staff members who've quit in her 20 months reign.  They could probably shed the brightest light on all that's wrong, but non-disclosure agreements are required for that type job.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 9, 2020)

I'm not sure monetary excesses  always = narcissism.

The Queen Mum spent fortunes on gambling and personal items, so much so that her daughter had words with her several times after paying her exorbitant debts. 

 Over spending can be a sign of narcissism but there's a lot more to that aberration. 

IMO, both Meghan and Harry planned to get out early on. All we've ever known about Meghan is what the press tells us.  She, like anyone else never really knows how things are until they've lived it.

The Brits don't need Harry; there's enough spares to go around. I wish them luck.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 9, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Meghan?  I'm not a royal watcher, so I don't understand it.  Did she do something awful?  Is it because she is divorced, or of mixed race?  I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just don't understand.


It could be a mixture of all of them.  But, mainly, it's the fact that royals are supposed to follow all the protocols and Meghan defied all of them, she seemed resolute in changing all the rules and do things her way.  The royals have to follow lots of rules, many of them silly, but that's the way it is and she knew about them, Harry was constantly telling her what to do or how to do it.  One, small example of her refusal to follow the rules is her public display of affection, okay in normal life but the royals are not supposed to do it.  Also, there were stories about how badly she treated the help, many quit on her or she fired them.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 9, 2020)

I have a different question altogether:  What's with the queen dragging her purse everywhere she goes, particularly within the palace itself? Perhaps she needs change for vending machines scattered throughout the place - gotta satisfy the urge for a Snickers break now and again?    Maybe she can't figure out how to put a tube of lipstick in every bathroom vanity in case of a touch-up emergency?  What the heck?  

Even on the Netflix show, "The Crown", which is presumably very accurate about those kinds of details, even in her early 20s she's hung on to her purse like the crown jewels themselves are inside.

Strikes me as very odd. Odder still, she's got it firmly on her arm in the official photo displayed in this thread.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 9, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I have a different question altogether:  What's with the queen dragging her purse everywhere she goes, particularly within the palace itself? Perhaps she needs change for vending machines scattered throughout the place - gotta satisfy the urge for a Snickers break now and again?    Maybe she can't figure out how to put a tube of lipstick in every bathroom vanity in case of a touch-up emergency?  What the heck?
> 
> Even on the Netflix show, "The Crown", which is presumably very accurate about those kinds of details, even in her early 20s she's hung on to her purse like the crown jewels themselves are inside.
> 
> Strikes me as very odd. Odder still, she's got it firmly on her arm in the official photo displayed in this thread.


I've heard she uses it for signaling. However she places it has a meaning like "get me away from this person" or whatever. But I agree, it does look so awkward and out of place at times.


_"As it turns out, the queen uses her purse to send signals to staff. In an interview with People, royal expert Hugo Vickers shared what her handbag really means: To indicate when she’s done with (or wants to leave) a conversation or engagement. Also, the queen’s bag also has the power to end dinner. Rumor has it, if she places her purse on the table, it’s a sign that dinner should finish in five minutes. And, if the handbag is put on the floor, it means she needs to be rescued from her dinner conversation immediately."

"In addition to using her handbag as her secret language, the queen also carries some essential items with her — including chocolate cake. Discover what’s in the queen’s purse, ahead."_

https://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-sty...eens-purse-including-why-she-carries-it.html/


----------



## Catlady (Jan 9, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I have a different question altogether:  What's with the queen dragging her purse everywhere she goes, particularly within the palace itself? Perhaps she needs change for vending machines scattered throughout the place - gotta satisfy the urge for a Snickers break now and again?    Maybe she can't figure out how to put a tube of lipstick in every bathroom vanity in case of a touch-up emergency?  What the heck?
> 
> Even on the Netflix show, "The Crown", which is presumably very accurate about those kinds of details, even in her early 20s she's hung on to her purse like the crown jewels themselves are inside.
> 
> Strikes me as very odd. Odder still, she's got it firmly on her arm in the official photo displayed in this thread.


I've heard a lot of good opinions about The Crown, I'm going to have to watch it.  I'm always disappointed how films always fiddle with the facts, and you and other reviewers have said it's pretty accurate.

I didn't pay attention to the purse, but her outfits and hats are all the same style mostly, just different fabrics and colors.  I always wondered why such a conservative woman wore those loud colors, and have recently read it's so that she can be seen also by people far away in the crowds.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 9, 2020)

In this article, it says the couple may buy a second home in Los Angeles near her mother.

https://www.etonline.com/queen-eliz...rince-harrys-decision-to-step-back-from-royal


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2020)

Shortly after the wedding I expressed my foreboding, in this forum, that she would turn out to be another Wallis Simpson, and so it has proved.

With the background of his mother she saw Harry was vulnerable and grabbed her chance will his big brother mentor was temporarily distracted.

I suspect she sees herself as a satellite royal in America, in the best Hollywood tradition;  she is, after all, an actress.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 9, 2020)

I'm intrigued by the couple's statement, especially by the reference to becoming financially independent. Form what I've been abled to judge, by what others says is the couples net worth, they can barely scraped by between $30-45 million of their own money. I suppose that means flying coach when they visit N. Amer. Mentioning 'royals' and money in the same sentence is a  "Firm" no-no.


----------



## Mike (Jan 9, 2020)

When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
living child, it used to be son, but that has changed, so
that statement really means that it should go to Princess
Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
go to Prince William as he will not be in line as his father
never had the Monarchy to pass on!

That is why I said in may previous post "unless there has
been a change", of the Rules/Laws about succession or
lineage, that is how it is.

Mike.


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 9, 2020)

Catlady said:


> *I've heard a lot of good opinions about The Crown, I'm going to have to watch it.  I'm always disappointed how films always fiddle with the facts, and you and other reviewers have said it's pretty accurate.*
> 
> I didn't pay attention to the purse, but her outfits and hats are all the same style mostly, just different fabrics and colors.  I always wondered why such a conservative woman wore those loud colors, and have recently read it's so that she can be seen also by people far away in the crowds.


 I hated it I could find fault in everything .
 I'm a real Monarchist (not to say I';m a great fan but I have a real interest in the history of the monarchy right up to the present day)  and I know so much about them, I just can't watch anything about the royals or the Victorians come to that of which I've also studied, without picking holes in it, and to expect anyone to believe that Olivia Coleman was the queen is just stretching credibility too far for me.. and the same goes for much of the cast!!


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 9, 2020)

In the 21st century slavery and bonded servitude has been left behind so I can see no reason why Prince Harry cannot choose where he wants to live, and what he wants to do. If that means that he chooses to take his family to a land where the media will not persecute his wife, then good on him. He has my blessing, not that that means anything at all.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 9, 2020)

Mike said:


> When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
> living child, it used to be son, but that has changed, so
> that statement really means that it should go to Princess
> Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
> ...


This is interesting!


----------



## peppermint (Jan 9, 2020)

Well, I live in America...So I really don't know about the Monarchy....But some here from
another country are very nice...I wouldn't say anything about any other Country...


----------



## Catlady (Jan 9, 2020)

Mike said:


> When the Monarch dies, *succession goes to the oldest
> living child, it used to be son, but that has changed*, so
> that statement really means that it should go to Princess
> Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
> ...


I thought that too since they changed the rules about daughters inheriting the crown after Elizabeth II became the queen.  But I read recently that in William's children's case, Charlotte will only become queen if her two brothers are not available for some reason or dead.  So, the gender bias is still there.

EDIT =  I guess whoever said the above was wrong, Charlotte is next in line after Prince George

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne


----------



## Catlady (Jan 9, 2020)

I found this under Quora.com  Someone asked if Charles dies before the Queen, if Andrew will become king.  Here's the answer, all very interesting:

The way that the order of succession works is that it exhausts one line of descent before moving to the next. The first child, and all his descendants, then the next.
So there's her Maj (in the order of succession 0: the current monarch), Her first kid Charles (1), his first kid William (2), William's first kid George (3), second kid Charlotte (4) and third kid Louis (5)… having run out of William's issue, we go one step back up to the second of Charles' kids, Harry (now 6th in line, after Louis' arrival). With the arrival of baby Archie, Charles’ line takes up the first 7 places in the order of succession.

Now there's a blip, all of the descendants of the monarch's first child are listed so next should be the second child, right? Wrong: the next-born child is Anne, Princess Royal. But until William's wedding just a few years ago, we had male primogeniture, boys got precedence over girls. So Anne is the second child, but she is not next in the order of succession after Charles' line.

So it skips to the third child because he's male: Prince Andrew, Duke of York is currently 8th in line to the throne with his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie 9th and 10th. Prince Edward, next, ditto, starting at number 11, and his two children. And _then_, after all of her brothers, Princess Anne, currently in 14th, and her lot. Anne’s youngest granddaughter Lena Tindall is currently 20th in line to the throne, and is the last of the Queen’s direct descendents in the order of succession.

Abolishing male primogeniture hasn't been backdated, but it does mean that even though the third Cambridge baby, Louis, is a boy, Princess Charlotte is still ahead of him in the line of succession, and so would her kids and grandkids be in turn. Princess Anne, and her little niece Lady Louise Windsor (Edward's older child), will be the last members of the British royal family to have their place in the order of succession be substantially altered by their sex.

Andrew would become king if the entire of Charles' line were gone: Charles himself, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry and baby Archie. It's all but impossible.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 9, 2020)

Anne.  Ugh.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 9, 2020)

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are already separated from the royals at Madame Tussauds London

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...yals-at-madame-tussauds-london-021856205.html


----------



## Laurie (Jan 10, 2020)

Would someone enlighten me as to why there is so much antipathy toward Megh

Because she's a control freak, like her mother-in-law.

There's only room for one prima Donna in the Royal Family, as Diana found out.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 10, 2020)

I'm impressed that Harry is hoping to raise his family somewhat removed from the predatory media glare that ultimately took his mother's life.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 10, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> One thing I noticed was the "North America" terminology.  Let's see what nations comprise N.A.? Well, there's Canada. Gees, there's another one.....it's right on the tip of my tongue......... oh yeah, it's Guatemala.  No offense Canadians,  "North America" means LA or NYC. I think the idea of Harry not living in the UK would be hard for Brits to take. CNN had a blurb about this. Apparently, nobody at the "palace" knew this was coming- not even Grandmama. Somehow this doesn't sound like a happy family.
> I wonder what "royal duties" are, and how necessary are they?
> And hollydolly was correct. It's not like you or I moving to another nation. They need security and protection, which is , now, all up in the air.



*List of countries in North America (countriesoftheworld.com)*
Occupying the northern part of the large supercontinent known as Americas or New World, North America is surrounded by the Arctic Ocean from the north and by the Atlantic Ocean from the east, by the Pacific Ocean from the west and south. It has an overland border with South America continent, which runs along the state boundary between Panama and Colombia.
In total, in North America, there are 23 officially recognized independent states. The largest of them is Canada, followed by also rather big the United States. These two giants together occupy more than 79% of the whole continent area. The smallest country in this part of the world is Saint Kitts and Nevis, it is only two small islands in the Caribbean.
Among the most visited North American countries the number one is the USA, where New York City is considered the most attractive landmark for travelers, further followed by Mexico and Canada.
The always up-to-date list of countries of North America in alphabetical order

A
Antigua and Barbuda
B
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
C
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
D
Dominica
Dominican Republic
E
El Salvador
G
Grenada
Guatemala
H
Haiti
Honduras
J
Jamaica
M
Mexico
N
Nicaragua
P
Panama
S
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
T
Trinidad and Tobago
U
United States of America (USA)
List of dependent territories of North America in alphabetical order

A
Anguilla (UK)
Aruba (Netherlands)
B
Bermuda (UK)
Bonaire (Netherlands)
British Virgin Islands (UK)
C
Cayman Islands (UK)
Clipperton Island (France)
Curacao (Netherlands)
G
Greenland (Denmark)
Guadeloupe (France)
M
Martinique (France)
Montserrat (UK)
N
Navassa Island (USA)
P
Puerto Rico (USA)
S
Saba (Netherlands)
Saint Barthelemy (France)
Saint Martin (France)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France)
Sint Eustatius (Netherlands)
Sint Maarten (Netherlands)
T
Turks and Caicos Islands (UK)
U
US Virgin Islands (USA)


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 10, 2020)

Mike said:


> When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
> living child, it used to be son, but that has changed, so
> that statement really means that it should go to Princess
> Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
> ...



That is  very interesting.  Does Princess Anne have children?  If so would the crown go to them on Princess Anne's passing (if she became Queen)?  If Princess Anne becomes Queen and dies without living children,  what happens to the crown then?


----------



## StarSong (Jan 10, 2020)

Practically speaking, most people identify North America as Canada, US, and sometimes Mexico.  Central America: sometimes Mexico and all the countries south of Mexico  from Guatemala through Panama.  Countries south of Panama are in South America. 

Island nations in the Caribbean Sea are generally known as Caribbean Nations.

Truly, I've never heard anyone refer to Panama as being part of North America, though technically it appears that it would be if one were splitting the land mass in two rather than three or four.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 10, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> That is  very interesting.  Does Princess Anne have children?  If so would the crown go to them on Princess Anne's passing (if she became Queen)?  If Princess Anne becomes Queen and dies without living children,  what happens to the crown then?


Read my post #72.  Princess Anne is #14 in the succession order.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 10, 2020)

Horrors, a 38 year old man runs away from home!

Wife breaks protocol!  
(by holding his hand, going barelegged, having squabbles with staff and in laws.)

 Off with their heads!


----------



## JustBonee (Jan 10, 2020)

Yes,  welcome to the REAL  world ...


----------



## Catlady (Jan 10, 2020)

The *MANY *do's and dont's of the royals. 

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/543727/fashion-rules-royal-family
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/g4817/odd-royal-family-rules/?slide=1


----------



## Don M. (Jan 10, 2020)

I can't understand why the U.S. media pays so much attention to the British Royal Family.  I suppose that what that "hierarchy" does has some minor effect on citizens of the UK, but their lives are of no consequence here.  IMO, they can do what they want.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 10, 2020)

Don M. said:


> I can't understand why the U.S. media pays so much attention to the British Royal Family.  I suppose that what that "hierarchy" does has some minor effect on citizens of the UK, but their lives are of no consequence here.  IMO, they can do what they want.


I've always said that nobody admits to gossiping, but most of them do it.  Especially if the subject is famous, like a royal.  The other reason is that England is the ''mother country'' of most of the US, and their people are the ''cousins''.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 10, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I'm impressed that Harry is hoping to raise his family somewhat removed from the predatory media glare that ultimately took his mother's life.



She courted the media glare.The paparazzi were a drug to her, and she became addicted.

Princess Anne managed to raise Zara away from the glare of publicity.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 10, 2020)

Nobody wanted to pay much attention to Princess Anne.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 10, 2020)

This may sound strange but consider the source.

I'm beginning to think that the flap surrounding Harry and Meghan's announcement is a carefully crafted way to draw fire away from Andrew and his association with Jeffrey Epstein, the interview, etc...

I think that in a week or two some compromise will be announced where Harry and Meghan will split time between their cottage at Windsor Castle and a new home in North America.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 10, 2020)

I have read that they're planning to use the name ''Sussex Royal'' for merchandizing, but if he gives up royalty he "might" get stripped of his royal title and won't be able to use it.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 10, 2020)

Catlady said:


> Read my post #72.  Princess Anne is #14 in the succession order.



But here is what Mike said above about the event that Prince Charles predeceases the Queen:

"When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
living child, it used to be son, but that has changed, so
that statement really means that it should go to Princess
Anne, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, it cannot
go to Prince William as he will not be in line as his father
never had the Monarchy to pass on!

That is why I said in may previous post "unless there has
been a change", of the Rules/Laws about succession or
lineage, that is how it is. "


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 10, 2020)

Aunt Bea said:


> This may sound strange but consider the source.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that the flap surrounding Harry and Meghan's announcement is a carefully crafted way to draw fire away from Andrew and his association with Jeffrey Epstein, the interview, etc...
> 
> I think that in a week or two some compromise will be announced where Harry and Meghan will split time between their cottage at Windsor Castle and a new home in North America.


Could be AB. But I thought it was always going to be sharing time in each country anyway.


----------



## Pink Biz (Jan 10, 2020)




----------



## Catlady (Jan 10, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> But here is what Mike said above about the event that Prince Charles predeceases the Queen:
> 
> "When the Monarch dies, succession goes to the oldest
> living child, it used to be son, but that has changed, so
> ...


I just googled it =

Only *if Charles dies before* the *Queen* would William become king *when* the *Queen dies*." This means that *if* William becomes the king of England, Middleton will become the *queen* of England. ... William and Middleton's son Prince George is next in line for the royal throne.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 11, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> Nobody wanted to pay much attention to Princess Anne.



Oh yes they did, from the day she was born, which I am old enough to remember.

She let them know in no uncertain terms how she felt.

She might have said, "Naff Off", but that's not what she meant, and they knew it!


----------



## saintdave (Jan 11, 2020)

Dig that cartoon, Pink Biz. Good for a laugh. Harry won't get stripped of his title and he is most certainly independently wealthy. If only I could have his yearly shoe budget, I'm be a  happy little camper. You're right, Laurie. The Princess certainly knew/knows how to handle the media.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 11, 2020)

Laurie said:


> She courted the media glare.The paparazzi were a drug to her, and she became addicted.
> 
> Princess Anne managed to raise Zara away from the glare of publicity.



Diana was 18 when she started dating 31 year old Charles, and had barely turned 20 when they got married.  Good grief - that speedy courtship and age difference alone would be a lot for any 20 year old to sort out.  

Throw in going from anonymity to being plastered on the front page of every newspaper on the planet, realizing you had parents-in-law from hell, being thrust into a life where your every move was governed by detailed protocol and high expectations, and discovering you were married to someone whose heart was elsewhere... Not exactly a Disney Princess story, though she surely looked the part.

This was a woman more to be pitied than scorned.  Her parents should have slowed that courtship waaaay down.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 11, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Diana was 18 when she started dating 31 year old Charles, and had barely turned 20 when they got married.  Good grief - that speedy courtship and age difference alone would be a lot for any 20 year old to sort out.
> 
> Throw in going from anonymity to being plastered on the front page of every newspaper on the planet, realizing you had parents-in-law from hell, being thrust into a life where your every move was governed by detailed protocol and high expectations, and discovering you were married to someone whose heart was elsewhere... Not exactly a Disney Princess story, though she surely looked the part.
> 
> This was a woman more to be pitied than scorned.  Her parents should have slowed that courtship waaaay down.


Charles dated her older sister first, then aimed for Diana.  I don't know the details about that. 

 I agree with everything you said.  And she probably thought she was a Disney Princess and Charles was her Prince Charming.  She probably didn't know that Camilla was the love of his life and he was not allowed to marry her because she was already married and he was not allowed to marry a divorced woman.  My, how times have changed since then!


----------



## Laurie (Jan 11, 2020)

*This was a woman more to be pitied than scorned.  

*She was a harpy who never so much as blinked without calculating what was in it for Diana.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 11, 2020)

Laurie said:


> *This was a woman more to be pitied than scorned.
> *
> She was a harpy who never so much as blinked without calculating what was in it for Diana.


Wow, that's pretty harsh!


----------



## Catlady (Jan 11, 2020)

Here's how Harry and Meghan plan to support  themselves =

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-...-royal-exit-might-just-pay-off-200435532.html


----------



## Lc jones (Jan 11, 2020)

What is the percentage of people in the United Kingdom that actually support the monarchy? I just don’t see why the people of the United Kingdom would support this kind of system? Seems to be unearned, archaic, elitist, without usefulness, as well as expensive. I don’t mean to give offense but I can’t see the logic/basis for this system ....??


----------



## Catlady (Jan 11, 2020)

Lc jones said:


> What is the percentage of people in the United Kingdom that actually support the monarchy? I just don’t see why the people of the United Kingdom would support this kind of system? Seems to be unearned, archaic, elitist, without usefulness, as well as expensive. I don’t mean to give offense but I can’t see the logic/basis for this system ....??


I asked my English friend that, she said they more than earn their pay by attracting tourists to visit England.  I also read that the Queen gets a percentage of the GDP, so she gets more when the economy is booming and less during a recession.


----------



## Lc jones (Jan 11, 2020)

Catlady said:


> I asked my English friend that, she said they more than earn their pay by attracting tourists to visit England.  I also read that the Queen gets a percentage of the GDP, so she gets more when the economy is booming and less during a recession.


Isn’t the queen like the richest woman in the world? Wasn’t she born into the system, what did she earn, just saying?!


----------



## Laurie (Jan 12, 2020)

Megan risks losing what little sympathy she has left by refusing the summons to Sandrinham tomorrow and insisting the Queen conducts her afraid by telephone.

The Queen is an old lady and doesn't need this hassle.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 12, 2020)

I'll bet the "old lady" has been on more tele-conferences and Facetime meetings than any of us.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 13, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> I'll bet the "old lady" has been on more tele-conferences and Facetime meetings than any of us.



With whom?

For what reason?

I'm not saying she has never made a phone call, but if she wants to to see someone she just lets if be known, she doesn't even have to send for them.

That's why today's meeting is unprecedented, and the public announcement of it is deliberately calculated to indicate her displeasure.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 13, 2020)

Laurie said:


> Megan risks losing what little sympathy she has left by *refusing the summons to Sandrinham* tomorrow and insisting the Queen conducts her afraid by telephone.
> 
> The Queen is an old lady and doesn't need this hassle.



What makes you think she was summoned and refused to go? Not saying you're incorrect, only that US news hasn't mentioned it.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 13, 2020)

It was fa


StarSong said:


> What makes you think she was summoned and refused to go? Not saying you're incorrect, only that US news hasn't mentioned it.



It was fairly widely reported over here that Charles, William,  Harry and Megan had been summoned to Sandringham , but Megan would stay in Canada and use the telephone.

One only knows what the press reports, of course, but the briefings seem to be at fairly high level.

The Queen has now said that certain aspects will be worked out with a transient time which the Sussexes will spend in both the UK and Canada.

Feeling has hardened markedly against Megan over the last few days, and she needs to regroup.

Leaving Harry alone over here to be worked on by the whole family is a mistake;  she knows how weak he is, that's how she got him.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 13, 2020)

I think you are a bit harsh here, Laurie. 
You speak as if you know things that you cannot possibly know for certain.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 14, 2020)

Warrigal said:


> I think you are a bit harsh here, Laurie.
> You speak as if you know things that you cannot possibly know for certain.



I did stress that, like everybody else, I only know what the press publish.

I stand by my remark that the briefings seemed to come from High level, but that, like the rest of my remarks, is a personal opinion based on 80nyears of experience of the Royals, the British press, and the relationship between the two.

When I was born the abdication scandal was less than two years old  and in my youth was a regular matter of discussion among those who shaped me, who had lived through it.

I know there are more modern views but it is up to others to present those.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 14, 2020)

I defer to your local knowledge. I know that their lives are totally different to ours but I also know that a lot of made up rubbish is published in certain sections of the print media. I ignore all of that and try to see them as human beings.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 14, 2020)

It now transpires she took no part in the discussions, but whether she declines or was excluded was not made clear..

If the former she was foolish.  If the latter her case is strengthened.

The Queen thinks the world of Harry and still thinks of him, as all grandmothers shoud, as a vulnerable little boy.


----------



## Lc jones (Jan 14, 2020)

So much attention is given to people who have never earned it and in addition have not strived to improve the lives of the helpless


----------



## Pepper (Jan 14, 2020)

Lc jones said:


> So much attention is given to people who have never earned it and in addition have not strived to improve the lives of the helpless


It's called 'supply and demand.'  People want it, so it is supplied.


----------



## Lc jones (Jan 14, 2020)

Pepper said:


> It's called 'supply and demand.'  People want it, so it is supplied.


that’s too bad.....


----------



## Pepper (Jan 14, 2020)

Lc jones said:


> that’s too bad.....


I Know!


----------



## Catlady (Jan 14, 2020)

Just curious.  What if the UK people want to get rid of the monarchy, what would have to happen? Considering how long it's taking and how complicated is Brexit, I can't imagine what would have to be done and how long it would take to get rid of all those ever multiplying royals.

Right now, only 10 countries have a royal ruler with ''real power''
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/10-countries-where-royalty-still-rules
The other royals have no real political power
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/sovereigns/0000world.html


----------



## Catlady (Jan 14, 2020)

Royals of the world at Queen Elizabeth' s Diamond Jubilee on 5/18/2012 at Windsor Castle


----------



## Laurie (Jan 15, 2020)

Catlady said:


> Just curious.  What if the UK people want to get rid of the monarchy, what would have to happen? Considering how long it's taking and how complicated is Brexit, I can't imagine what would have to be done and how long it would take to get rid of all those ever multiplying royals.
> 
> Right now, only 10 countries have a royal ruler with ''real power''
> https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/10-countries-where-royalty-still-rules
> ...



You're right to suggest it would take some time.

Long and complicated negotiations with the Commonwealth would be only one of a series of negotiations.  

It wold firstly require a referendum, which itself would require an Act of Parliament, and if a Republic was chosen, that would require another Act of Parliament.  Both acts would need to be signed by the Queen, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

There would be bitter division throughout the Union, with factions based on race, religion, sex and age.

There would be widespread civil disobedience, and never forget, in the event of such troubles, the Queen is Commander in Chief.

Almost certainly the Union would break up.

Can't see it happening myself.  Be interesting to see how it would pan out if Australia went down that road as many of them want to do do.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 15, 2020)

Lc jones said:


> So much attention is given to people who have never earned it and in addition have not strived to improve the lives of the helpless


As opposed to say, the Kardashians? Or "social influencers?"


----------



## Catlady (Jan 15, 2020)

Laurie said:


> You're right to suggest it would take some time.
> 
> Long and complicated negotiations with the Commonwealth would be only one of a series of negotiations.
> 
> ...


I agree, I doubt it will happen in a long time, if ever.  Certainly not in our lifetimes.  Thanks for explaining, very interesting.

Here in the US we have Texas wanting for a long time to become independent, and recently also California and Colorado (all I remember), it will be a long struggle to make it happen.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 15, 2020)

There is a huge amount of speculation about the current royal tiff. As with most family snits, no one is free from blame.  I do think it's odd that the couple is not willing to be part of the Firm when performing their "duties", but have no problem making a living being the " Royal Sussexes". One thing I've wondered about was those 'royal duties". Yes, at times, the royals do meet world leaders, but if you check out their 'dairies', it's mostly being at the opening of a preschool, or a hospital quilt show-sometimes up to twice a week. Another of my "musings" ( when I can't fall asleep) is that The Queen's longevity poses a problem. For the next half century, the monarchy will be headed by 70-80 year old men. I wonder how that will play out.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 15, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> There is a huge amount of speculation about the current royal tiff. As with most family snits, no one is free from blame.  I do think it's odd that the couple is not willing to be part of the Firm when performing their "duties", but have no problem making a living being the " Royal Sussexes". One thing I've wondered about was those 'royal duties". Yes, at times, the royals do meet world leaders, but if you check out their 'dairies', it's mostly being at the opening of a preschool, or a hospital quilt show-sometimes up to twice a week. Another of my "musings" ( when I can't fall asleep) is that The Queen's longevity poses a problem. *For the next half century, the monarchy will be headed by 70-80 year old men. I wonder how that will play out.*



Since 1707 the British monarchs have been fairly elderly folks.  Elizabeth's youthful ascension to the throne was the exception rather than the rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs


----------



## Catlady (Jan 15, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Since 1707 *the British monarchs have been fairly elderly folks*.  Elizabeth's youthful ascension to the throne was the exception rather than the rule.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs


Here in the US, Ronald Reagan was the oldest at almost 70.  Now, all the top candidates are 70+.  The youngest was JFK at 43

Trump 73
Biden 77
Sanders 78
Bloomberg 77
Warren 70


----------



## Laurie (Jan 15, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Since 1707 the British monarchs have been fairly elderly folks.  Elizabeth's youthful ascension to the throne was the exception rather than the rule.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs



Victoria was 18 on accession, George VI, 41.

Hardly elderly folks!


----------



## Laurie (Jan 15, 2020)

This has now become a fully fledged soap, with Megan's half sister weighing in, her father cited as a witness against her, and the publication of various personal texts.

The Queen's solicitor (lawyer) has severed his involvement, a sure sign that things may be slightly grubby!


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 15, 2020)

Laurie said:


> This has now become a fully fledged soap, with Megan's half sister weighing in, her father cited as a witness against her, and the publication of various personal texts.
> 
> The Queen's solicitor (lawyer) has severed his involvement, a sure sign that things may be slightly grubby!


Where did you get this info Laurie? Would you please share your source? Thanks.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 16, 2020)

BBC main early evening, flagship, TV news.

I'd post a link but you'd probably run in to copyright problems.

You could try CNN.  I know they and the BBC share some stuff.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 16, 2020)

Laurie said:


> Victoria was 18 on accession, George VI, 41.
> 
> Hardly elderly folks!


Fair enough.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 16, 2020)

I'm not sure that having a 70 year male monarch is is going to go over as it did in 1710. The monarchy's existence depends on public opinion, which is generally about 50/50. I believe the Queen is a uniquely beloved individual. Charles is going to have a hard time filling her shoes. It may be a boost in tourism, if Buckingham Palace was open for tours 365 days  a year?


----------



## AnnieA (Jan 16, 2020)

Wow.  These two aren't very smart.   They released a video on their Instagram showing Harry at today's last official function set to the lyrics below.   Not a great move considering the Queen is hashing out what titles, funding etc they're going to get.  


https://pagesix.com/2020/01/16/prin...pears-to-contain-hidden-message-about-megxit/
The Stone Roses - This Is the One

A girl consumed by fire
We all know her desire
From the plans that She has made
I had her on a promise
Immerse me in your splendor
All the plans that I have made

This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
She's waited for

This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
Oh this is the one
This is the one
She's waited for

I'd like to leave the country
For a month of Sundays
Burn the town where I was born
If only she'd believe me
Bella belladonna
Burn me out or bring me home

This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
She's waited for

This is the one
This is the one
This is the one
Oh this is the one
This is the one
I've waited for

I paid her back
Then I got one
This is the one
This is the one
She's waited for


----------



## Laurie (Jan 16, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I'm not sure that having a 70 year male monarch is is going to go over as it did in 1710. The monarchy's existence depends on public opinion, which is generally about 50/50. I believe the Queen is a uniquely beloved individual. Charles is going to have a hard time filling her shoes. It may be a boost in tourism, if Buckingham Palace was open for tours 365 days  a year?



It has nothing to do with public opinion and everything to do with law.

We have had unpopular monarchs in the past, and one who was so mentally ill a regent acted for him in all respects  He still remained King though, until he died.

You're thinking like the the English, but the British monarch does no just rule England, but  lot of other places, and millions of people   too, from Sark and the Isle of Man to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  I cannot speak for these places but the Duke of Rothesay, as Charles is known in Scotland, is very popular here.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 17, 2020)

Laurie said:


> It has nothing to do with public opinion and everything to do with law.
> 
> We have had unpopular monarchs in the past, and one who was so mentally ill a regent acted for him in all respects  He still remained King though, until he died.
> 
> You're thinking like the the English, but the British monarch does no just rule England, but  lot of other places, and millions of people   too, from Sark and the Isle of Man to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  I cannot speak for these places but the Duke of Rothesay, as Charles is known in Scotland, is very popular here.


I think it's time for Elizabeth to step aside and give her son a crack at the bat.


----------



## gennie (Jan 17, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> Horrors, a 38 year old man runs away from home!
> 
> Wife breaks protocol!
> (by holding his hand, going barelegged, having squabbles with staff and in laws.)
> ...



But old women have never been above trying to tell their grandchildren what to do.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 17, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I think it's time for Elizabeth to step aside and give her son a crack at the bat.



We have no mechanism for that.

The last abdication nearly brought the monarchy down.

As I posted yesterday, even when the monarch is mentally unfit to rule we appoint a regent , but the sovereign remains in place.

In fact, Charles is shouldering more and more of the burden behind the facade.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 18, 2020)

Laurie said:


> We have no mechanism for that.
> 
> The last abdication nearly brought the monarchy down.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info.  I didn't think it was a big deal for an elderly monarch to retire - perhaps moving to an advisory position.  In the US we don't learn much about the inner workings of your monarchy.  We pick that up as we travel through life.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 18, 2020)

deleted


----------



## Laurie (Jan 18, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Thanks for the info.  I didn't think it was a big deal for an elderly monarch to retire - perhaps moving to an advisory position.  In the US we don't learn much about the inner workings of your monarchy.  We pick that up as we travel through life.



Each monarchy is different.

In Holland abdication  is a perfectly normal method of succession.


----------



## RubyK (Jan 18, 2020)

I think it would be difficult to be born into royalty and not have free choice to lead the life you want. Harry has had to follow proper protocol his whole life. His chances of being King of England are slight. I think he is doing the right thing for his little family. He can earn plenty of money just on the fact that he is a royal. I say, "Go for it, Harry."


----------



## Laurie (Jan 18, 2020)

*He can earn plenty of money just on the fact that he is a royal. I say, "Go for it, Harry."   *

But you can't turn your back on your family then use your family connection to earn your living.

That's dishonest.

As thousands of rebel sons will testify, if you don't go into the family business, don't expect it to provide for you.


----------



## RubyK (Jan 18, 2020)

He won't be turning his back on the royal family and won't be dishonest in the least. Doesn't just about everyone know Harry is a royal? He is easy to recognize and a likeable young man. Jenna Bush is making money because she is the daughter of a president and a Bush family member, which is mainly why she is on The Today Show. She is a very likeable young woman too. Seems like the same premise as Harry using his royalty, doesn't it?


----------

