peebeep Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I thought Wales was part of the UK ? :( It is. Wales is a principality, hence 'Prince of Wales'. Maybe they will live in a nice, quaint cottage ...? :P They already do. Wills' day job is at RAF Valley. peebeep Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Is it just me or has the news over done it with stuff about the upcoming Royal wedding. To try to answer your question, while sidestepping all of the macho types, beating their chests, and proclaiming,"Me republican, me hate royalty," the over-indulgent interest is probably because the girl is marrying a future king of Great Britain, which means that she could well be a queen. Not being mentioned is the thought that Charles is already tapping on, a bit, so might beat his mother into a grave, and there's the added complication that his second wife is generally loathed, so there's the (unspoken) prospect of him "Doing an Edward," by instantly abdicating in favour of William, elevating Kate to queen at a fairly rapid pace. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
71roadrunner426 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I really don't care about the wedding. They have more money than they know what to do with. I wish I had their problems, maybe they will do a reality show of them after the wedding Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peebeep Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 so there's the (unspoken) prospect of him "Doing an Edward," by instantly abdicating in favour of William, elevating Kate to queen at a fairly rapid pace. I don't think he would, he seems to have too much constitutional regard to consider it and he married his second wife without creating a constitutional crisis, unlike Edward with Wallis Simpson. Also is there any precedent for Kate to receive the title queen? Wouldn't she be the king's consort (on the assumption Wills one day becomes king)? peebeep Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) I don't think he would, he seems to have too much constitutional regard to consider it and he married his second wife without creating a constitutional crisis, unlike Edward with Wallis Simpson. Also is there any precedent for Kate to receive the title queen? Wouldn't she be the king's consort (on the assumption Wills one day becomes king)? George VI & Elizabeth were always known as King & Queen, as were George V & Mary; Philip is Queen's Consort, because he can't be termed "King," and it was the same with Albert & Victoria. Edgar Edited April 4, 2011 by Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ixgr1 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Not being mentioned is the thought that Charles is already tapping on, a bit, so might beat his mother into a grave, and there's the added complication that his second wife is generally loathed, so there's the (unspoken) prospect of him "Doing an Edward," by instantly abdicating in favour of William I get the impression the 'Poms' (English) are quite enthusiatic about him doing exactly this. My personal opinion is this was the trade off on his being alowed to marry Camilla. Also his quite love for the wellbeing of the country and monachy, may just allow his ego to make this happen. Certainly it would give the Brittish a clean and modern slate to build on - hence the attention on William, Kate and thier emence popularity ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonW Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Quite right, you have the Kennedys for that kind of thing!Er, um, not really.They're mostly deceased now. Maybe back in the 1960's, but now, not really much going on with them. To be honest, I'm not even sure which of them is alive or active in the public eye. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) Er, um, not really.They're mostly deceased now. Maybe back in the 1960's, but now, not really much going on with them. To be honest, I'm not even sure which of them is alive or active in the public eye. They are a non-issue these days (thank god). At best, one or two of them may be contending for low level positions. Other than that, they are pretty much keeping out of sight (again, thank god). Teddie's seat in the senate went to a Republican, that alone should tell you how well regarded the "Kennedy Legacy" is. Edited April 5, 2011 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonW Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 They are a non-issue these days (thank god). At best, one or two of them may be contending for low level positions. Other than that, they are pretty much keeping out of sight (again, thank god). Teddie's seat in the senate went to a Republican, that alone should tell you how well regarded the "Kennedy Legacy" is. Oh, believe me I know who Ted's seat went to, I voted for the guy. :)I never understood the Kennedy legacy to be honest. They got their start from bootlegging money during the Prohibition era, not exactly a clean start. I'm sure they meant well, but accomplishments were a bit thin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom ordie Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Quite right, you have the Kennedys for that kind of thing! They are all gone thank goodness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Just saw an add for the wedding on our news channel. Live at 3am. Think I might just catch the end when I have to get up for work anyway at 4. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richter111 Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Being an American, I am quite possibly speaking out of the side of my head.. I suppose the Brits look at the possibility, and the hope that this wedding and generation will be classy, and something worth having. Not like the tabloid circus that has been the past 30 years Here is to a class act, a long happy marriage and honesty! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Icehound Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Like it or not we can all wish them all the best for their future just like you would any normal couple getting married. Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Oh, believe me I know who Ted's seat went to, I voted for the guy. :)I never understood the Kennedy legacy to be honest. They got their start from bootlegging money during the Prohibition era, not exactly a clean start. I'm sure they meant well, but accomplishments were a bit thin. have you seen the mini-series on reelz yet? finally shows some of the things often dismissed about the family... on the royal side of things i know its overdone if local news stations here on the states are sending anchors and correspondents to cover the thing live. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loki Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 "Now it's no big deal to me"..............................................was it ever??????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peebeep Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 George VI & Elizabeth were always known as King & Queen, as were George V & Mary; Philip is Queen's Consort, because he can't be termed "King," and it was the same with Albert & Victoria. But is there not a difference between popular use of the term King and Queen and the actual constitutional position of who is monarch? Would Elizabeth and Mary have been entitled to call themselves head of state, or be signatory of any documents thereof? peebeep Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Elizabeth and Mary were not "popularly" known as Queens (especially not Mary, since she was allegedly a right so-and-so,) but constitutionally, since they were married to the King, though it carries little power. She can stand in, for him, if he's indisposed, at state functions, but little else. A King's wife is automatically a Queen, but a Queen's husband cannot be King, unless she wishes it, which is why Philip has only ever been a Prince. When George V died, Mary (as she was entitled) kept the title "Queen Mary"; when George VI died, his wife felt that there couldn't be two Queen Elizabeths, so she took the (unique to her) title of Queen Mother. If the King dies, the Queen is out of a job, there and then, since the monarchy immediately transfers to the next in line, hence the saying,"The King is dead; long live the King." Elizabeth II became Queen the instant that her father died, not at her coronation, and Charles will be King, the moment she dies. Now, that could get very interesting/nasty, since "Queen Camilla" will not go down well in every corner of Britain. If Charles pops his clogs before his mother, William inherits, and Camilla is just another OAP. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick_Nevin Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 "Now it's no big deal to me"..............................................was it ever??????? I remember the Queen's Silver Jubilee being a bit cool really, street parties and the like B) I think that's what they may be aiming to get back to with the Big Society push, and I wish our leaders luck with it...as thirty-odd years of being encouraged to be selfish is no small obstacle to overcome. I watch the TV mainly for films these days and can't remember the last time I viewed BBC1, so if anything the Royal publicity seems positively underdone. Hope it works out for the couple, and NOT being self-employed am quite grateful for the day's modelling...I mean, watching it all on the box... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Is it just me or has the news over done it with stuff about the upcoming Royal wedding. When I was a young boy, I recalled how exciting Charles and Diana's wedding day was. With today's access to so much on it, I don't think I'll watch it. When it was announced, I was going to watch but all this and that about it on tv and the net has made me tire of the thought. I'm more excited with building a kit so I guess on that day I'll do that or somethingelse more exciting than sit in front of the telly on April 29, 2011. Weddings are for girls, I wasn't even excited about Diana's wedding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve N Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Weddings are for girls Hehe...when Mandie and I got married a couple of years ago, I told her I was under no illusions as to my role. The groom's sole purpose at a wedding is to not embarrass the bride..he has no other function. We actually got married twice..we were legally hitched in a civil ceremony at the courthouse (I had recently lost my job, and that way I could get on her health insurance) and then the following summer we had a full church wedding for the families and such. As for the Royal Wedding, being a Yank I just don't get the whole Monarchy thing anyway (I think I remember reading that we fought a war against that sort of nonsense back in the day.) Still, I wish the young couple the best. He seems like a stand-up guy, and she appears to have her head on straight. SN Edited April 9, 2011 by Steve N Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 It doesnt matter if you like it, the wedding isn't for the Plebeians Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madmike Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Having had a daughter married last November and another one getting married next week, I am over weddings...seriously.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flying Penguin Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) It doesnt matter if you like it, the wedding isn't for the Plebeians Call me naive but I've always viewed the wedding as being for the couple, like any normal wedding, although the scale may be different. The publicity however... Anyone fancy a trip into republican* tin foil hat alley? :D As for me, there's going to be a street party near my house, am probably going to be there, as I wasn't born for Charles and Di's wedding, it's a good way to meet the neighbours and it's a lot more fun than sitting in a dark room swigging Jack Daniels and grumbling about how "the man" is beating me down.... Jamie *as in opposite of monarchist, not as in GOP. Edited April 11, 2011 by Flying Penguin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 As for the Royal Wedding, being a Yank I just don't get the whole Monarchy thing anyway (I think I remember reading that we fought a war against that sort of nonsense back in the day.) So did we, beating you to it by 100 years, or so, and the aftermath is probably why you received our load of Puritans aka "The Pilgrim Fathers." We tried a republic, once, and didn't like it, so resurrected the monarchy. Every time the noises, from our republican renovators, get too loud, we get a Prime Minister, like Tony Blair (anagram of B-Liar,) and realise that there are advantages to having a monarch, like Elizabeth, who works for her countrymen, and not her cronies. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flying Penguin Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 So did we, beating you to it by 100 years, or so, and the aftermath is probably why you received our load of Puritans aka "The Pilgrim Fathers." We tried a republic, once, and didn't like it, so resurrected the monarchy. Every time the noises, from our republican renovators, get too loud, we get a Prime Minister, like Tony Blair (anagram of B-Liar,) and realise that there are advantages to having a monarch, like Elizabeth, who works for her countrymen, and not her cronies.Edgar +1 Always good to have the decision maker (the PM) kept in their place. Cuts them down to size with fewer personality cults. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.