Princess Kate (aka the Duchess of Cambridge) is Pregnant!

[Miss Chicken]

It is all rather stupid especially when it comes to the titles of the lesser Royals.


My mother absolutely adored Princess Marina and I grew up listening to gossip about her (though I was still a child when she died).

[Asbo Zaprudder]

wissaboo wrote:

---

because a king outranks a queen.

But a king can only move one square at a time, except when castling, and a queen can move any number of squares rank, file, or diagonally.

Really, I think I must be one of the few republicans left in the UK at the moment. The whole monarchy thing just seems so archaic.

[Dream]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

The whole monarchy thing just seems so archaic.

It is really great for tourism, which makes a lot of money for the country.

[J. Allen]

I like the monarchy. Granted, I'm an outsider, and I'm sure there are annoyances like there is with any governing body (both as figureheads and heads of state), but they just seem, well, charming.

[Deckerd]

Some of them are. Charles is hideous and his mother is the original Iron Lady. Forget Maggie Thatcher - she was a pusillanimous imitation.

[iguana_tonante]

Dream wrote:

---

It is really great for tourism, which makes a lot of money for the country.

I'm not sure it's true. Italy and France don't have royals anymore, but the tourism industry is hardly suffering for that. The trappings of royalty make money for tourism (Buckingham Palace, Crown Jewels, etc), but you don't need an actual royal family for that (and in fact, lots of people visit Versailles and the Reggia of Caserta even tho Italy and France are now republics).

Personally, I have nothing against the monarchy myself, and I wouldn't mind if Italy had retained the monarchy after WWII (except that the royals were kinda dumb, but that's a common occurrence with any kind of state representatives, I guess). I think monarchy is silly in this time and age, but I understand the appeal of royals as a connection to a country's past, so if the majority of people like to have it, so be it. Monarchy as a democratic feature, I guess.

[Bob The Skutter]

The Royal lands, palaces and castles bring a lot of money. If they weren't Royal then they would be private land and the treasury would lose all the money. Unless we nicked it all from them.

[Starkers]

I'm a Royalist and they genuinely seem like decent folks so I'm more than happy for them, just hope Kate is ok, it sounds especially nasty (I've heard for a small per centage of mothers this extreme morning sickness can last all the way!)

Glad the Commonwealth has agreed to the change in law...shame it isn't retroactive, be funny to see Anne shouting "In your face Charlie Boy!" Of course then Wills and Kate would be shoved aside in favour of Peter and, er, whoever Peter's married too!

[Skywalker]

For some reason a lot of Americans are just fascinated by the concept of a royal family. I think we miss having one.

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Starkers wrote:

---

Glad the Commonwealth has agreed to the change in law...shame it isn't retroactive, be funny to see Anne shouting "In your face Charlie Boy!" Of course then Wills and Kate would be shoved aside in favour of Peter and, er, whoever Peter's married too!

Wouldn't apply -- Anne was born in 1950 and Charles in 1948.

ETA:

Bob Cratchit wrote:

---

The Royal lands, palaces and castles bring a lot of money. If they weren't Royal then they would be private land and the treasury would lose all the money. Unless we nicked it all from them.

That's what the Inland Revenue is for. We'd also save on the Civil List handouts.

[lurok]

"In this UK nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and The Royal Family"

[Starkers]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

Wouldn't apply -- Anne was born in 1950 and Charles in 1948.

Gah of course! For some reason I just got an image of a toddler Anne with a baby in my head, either that or the timeline altered on me...

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Starkers wrote:

---

Gah of course! For some reason I just got an image of a toddler Anne with a baby in my head, either that or the timeline altered on me...

Perhaps the timeline - I swear that I heard about the Flixborough disaster on the radio the day before it happened, and I'm sure I've heard news reports about various people dying, only to find out that they're still alive several years later.
Most likely, it's just my addled memory playing tricks.

[Starkers]

Your mind and mine I think!

[iguana_tonante]

Bob Cratchit wrote:

---

The Royal lands, palaces and castles bring a lot of money. If they weren't Royal then they would be private land and the treasury would lose all the money. Unless we nicked it all from them.

Of course you nick it all. That's what we did, that's what the French did, and by God that's what you should do, too!