Are the royals on the rocks?

1141517192042

Comments

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Yes, I know the British Constitution is unwritten. That is why I specifically said you would need a constitutional convention to write one.
    A constitutional convention is one way to write a constitution, but it’s not the only way. Nor, so far as I know, is a written constitution required in order for a nation to move from being a monarchy to being a republic.

  • The mechanism is easy: majority vote in both houses of Parliament.

    There are two principal challenges, both of which have come to the fore when this has been discussed in Canada and Oz; 1) how do you find an agrement on the way to select the president/whatever? and 2) how do you keep partisan considerations our of the selection of a figure of unityÉ Or, more pithily, in the words of an Australian pilgrim I met: "If you hold an election, we'd get one of those ****ing politicians, and I'd rather have a dead snake."

    The mechanism might be that simple in the case of Canada and Australia. I seriously doubt that is the case in the UK.

    As for the pilgrim's statement it reflects everything I detest about our current cynicism. It is the PEOPLE who are the problem, not the politicians. Politicians are great. Politicians are extremely noble by and large, much more morally upstanding that the mass of the population. It is our current cynicism about politicians that reduces the quality of politicians, as people falsely think that "it's no job for a decent person".

    Both in Canada and Australia referenda would be required. In Canada, the abolition and replacement mechanism would need the unanimous consent of all ten provinces. That sentence alone drives Canadians into shrieks of hysterical laughter.

    In the UK, parliament is supreme, and majority votes of both houses, and a sovereign signing off, would be the only necessary stages. Others have suggested a constitutional convention etc, and they're right in terms of common sense, but there's no requirement in law.

    If the UK abolished the monarchy, this would have no effect on other realms. Saint Lucia, Jamaica, etc, would have their Queen tomorrow until they felt like changing it. I do not see any of these places providing employment or prospects for anyone but Charles & William, and I fear that many Buckingham Palace staff would be driven to life in Protocol Services in the Home Office.
  • The then Princess Elizabeth was in the ATS and trained as a heavy-goods driver and mechanic. Princess Margaret was too young - she turned 15 just after VJ Day.

    Exactly - "trained." No evidence whatsoever that she served in any traumatic events - we must therefore assume, given the mythology that's built up around it, that it was a wonderful piece of spin.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited March 4
    Since she only turned 18 in April 1944 (and conscription for women didn’t apply until 20, and legal majority was still 21), the chance of her having served in any traumatic events was relatively slight, and has never been claimed AFAICT.
  • You could say that the rot set in with two particularly foolish mothers (the late Queen Mother and Princess of Wales) not dinning it into their "spares" that their first job was to support the heir and the second to keep their nose clean. You might also think our own monarch didn't do too brilliantly either, but she at least had the excuse of being busy queening while her children were small.

    I think this suggestion highlights the unfairness of being born as the "spare". Can you imagine this happening in a "normal" family? My daughter's life would have been wrecked if her first job was to support her elder brother. I can't imagine what my brother would have done if his first job was to support me.

    The idea that a younger siblings e.g. choice of spouse should be constrained in order to choose a wife who would share in the first job of supporting the elder sibling is a deeply disturbing idea.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate

    Better the devil you know?

    Yes, I'm afraid so...but a smaller, slimmer monarchy would not be a Bad Thing - and if much of the ridiculous hype is done away with, so much the better.

    Agreed. I am no fan of the monarchy but becoming a republic would mean having a president which, looking at the US, would be far worse.

  • Boogie wrote: »

    Better the devil you know?

    Yes, I'm afraid so...but a smaller, slimmer monarchy would not be a Bad Thing - and if much of the ridiculous hype is done away with, so much the better.

    Agreed. I am no fan of the monarchy but becoming a republic would mean having a president which, looking at the US, would be far worse.

    Strongly disagree with your assessment of the US. Even the worst presidents have been much better than the worst absolute monarchs of European history.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Indeed. But in the UK we no longer have absolute monarchs. So the comparison ought to be with constitutional monarchs.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Since she only turned 18 in April 1944 (and conscription for women didn’t apply until 20, and legal majority was still 21), the chance of her having served in any traumatic events was relatively slight, and has never been claimed AFAICT.

    Perhaps it hasn't been claimed but more assumed that, having done the training, people overlook age and opportunity to make more of it than it is.

    It sort of sits with the Queen Mother's "now we can look the East End in the face" as a masterful piece of wartime PR and spin. As I said upthread, the Windsors spent most of the war in the town of the same name - a fact that (I think) only came to light well after 1945.

    We should be careful not to make them - as we would no doubt wish for ourselves - more than they really are. There's a line between respect for application to duty and semi deification; with the Windsors it's very easy to cross it in the case of some and very easy to assume the absolute worst in others.

    I have posted before about my own experience in being in the near company of a Royal. Suffice to say that the expressed opinions were enough then to interest the boys in blue were you and/or I to utter them in the same way and in the same language/context.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited March 4
    The then Princess Elizabeth was in the ATS and trained as a heavy-goods driver and mechanic. Princess Margaret was too young - she turned 15 just after VJ Day.

    Exactly - "trained." No evidence whatsoever that she served in any traumatic events - we must therefore assume, given the mythology that's built up around it, that it was a wonderful piece of spin.

    No, we must not assume it was spin. As all other young women in the UK at the time who weren't in a "reserved" occupation or education, she was obliged to register at the local Labour Exchange and was then assigned to an occupation or branch of the services. Although the age for conscription for women was 21 most girls registered at 18. She probably expressed a preference on the form for a branch of the services and she got the ATS. (My Mama was a Land Girl and told us how it worked.)

    As for serving in traumatic events, she didn't start basic training until the end of January 1945.

    The fact that she learned the job of a mechanic properly is well proved by the number of occasions over the years when stricken motorists in Norfolk and Scotland have suddenly realised that the helpful lady was in fact the monarch.
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    (My Mama was a Land Girl and told us how it worked.)
    My Mama also; she seemed to have a very mixed attitude to the royal family, on the one hand saying how "wonderful" the Queen Mother was (the power behind the throne) while at the same time being aware that the family "were shipped out to Windsor" every night during the war. She had, as I think may have been typical of that generation, a very high regard for Duty and What's Expected Of You When You're In That Position.

    I've watched the film of Harry with James Corden (and that's 20 minutes of my life I won't get back) and thought it a very clever piece of PR. Two young men goofing around, one of them an unfit buffoon, the other a strong, sensible-sounding family man. I am not actually that interested but I am puzzled as to why Harry and Meghan left the country to avoid public attention and are now courting it. :confused:
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    The Sussexes have nothing to sell except themselves. They have to market themselves as a Story.
  • I think they are trying to avoid unwanted attention. This does not preclude one's own publicity. The key word is consent. Thus, if I invite you round for a drink, that does not warrant burglary.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    It won’t end well for them or the royal family.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    It won’t end well for them or the royal family.

    I wonder if it's simply the fact that writing books, and appearing on TV, provides an (independent) income?

    IOW, follow the money!
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    It won’t end well for them or the royal family.

    I agree - I think they have been monstered by the Press, but they don't help themselves - e.g., the best response to allegations of bullying is probably not 'This is a smear campaign by Buckingham Palace!'
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    It won’t end well for them or the royal family.

    I wonder if it's simply the fact that writing books, and appearing on TV, provides an (independent) income?

    IOW, follow the money!
    But do they need money? I'm sure it's been discussed here already but Harry at least must have a reasonable private income from his father and inheritance from his mother. They might have to cut their coats to fit the cloth a bit, and it wouldn't be the level of luxury that Harry's accustomed to, but wouldn't they and their family be able to live perfectly satisfactorily on what they have?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    I agree - I think they have been monstered by the Press, but they don't help themselves - e.g., the best response to allegations of bullying is probably not 'This is a smear campaign by Buckingham Palace!'
    Especially if you've ever met anyone who worked at said Palace you'd realise quite what a sieve-like organisation it is.

    <tangential anecdata>One of my flatmates while we were both young and single was a Tasmanian girl working her way round London, who'd had a number of fairly exciting jobs: temporary nanny for Lulu, working tables at Buckingham Palace. One party we had at the flat was notable for the arrival of a number of her former workmates, who happened to be staff from Buck House or similar, all clutching part bottles of various libations and much gossip. I've taken much gossip about the House of Windsor with bucket loads of salt ever since. That party we ended up with more booze than we started with.</tangent>
  • Nenya wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    It won’t end well for them or the royal family.

    I wonder if it's simply the fact that writing books, and appearing on TV, provides an (independent) income?

    IOW, follow the money!
    But do they need money? I'm sure it's been discussed here already but Harry at least must have a reasonable private income from his father and inheritance from his mother. They might have to cut their coats to fit the cloth a bit, and it wouldn't be the level of luxury that Harry's accustomed to, but wouldn't they and their family be able to live perfectly satisfactorily on what they have?

    Good question, but that's why I used the word *independent*. I just wondered if perhaps they're trying to re-invent themselves away from Windsor & Company, and actually have some money that they've earned themselves IYSWIM.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    They want to be celebrities, not royals. They can't live the celebrity lifestyle they want while constrained by royal protocol.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    They want to be celebrities, not royals. They can't live the celebrity lifestyle they want while constrained by royal protocol.

    To be fair I think Harry knows he will be a celebrity whatever he does, and wants to use his celebrity status to promote Good Causes he believes in.

    The problem is that to be an effective celebrity, he needs the media, which he viscerally hates because of what they did to his mother. Hence the constant oscillation between wanting the media to back off, and also wanting the media to tell 'his side' of the story.
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    edited March 4
    I just wondered if perhaps they're trying to re-invent themselves away from Windsor & Company, and actually have some money that they've earned themselves IYSWIM.
    There must be other ways for them to earn a bob or two. I gather the Queen gave Archie a waffle-maker for Christmas and I bet they'd rake in a tidy sum selling takeaway waffles "as cooked on the royally donated waffle-maker."
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    I think the best clue is that H&M invited Oprah Winfrey to their wedding, despite Meghan having met her once and Harry not at all; ditto George Clooney.

    Although Meghan's fellow Suits cast members were invited to the service they too didn't make it to the "friends only" evening do.
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    I think the best clue is that H&M invited Oprah Winfrey to their wedding, despite Meghan having met her once and Harry not at all; ditto George Clooney.
    I didn't know that. Very interesting indeed. It fits with wanting to be celebrities not royals.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Indeed. But in the UK we no longer have absolute monarchs. So the comparison ought to be with constitutional monarchs.
    Yes, but then a UK republic is unlikely to end up with an American-style presidency, so the other side of the comparison should probably be ceremonial presidents.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 4
    Ricardus wrote: »
    ... the constant oscillation between wanting the media to back off, and also wanting the media to tell 'his side' of the story.

    Just like Diana.
  • Boogie wrote: »

    Better the devil you know?

    Yes, I'm afraid so...but a smaller, slimmer monarchy would not be a Bad Thing - and if much of the ridiculous hype is done away with, so much the better.

    Agreed. I am no fan of the monarchy but becoming a republic would mean having a president which, looking at the US, would be far worse.

    Strongly disagree with your assessment of the US. Even the worst presidents have been much better than the worst absolute monarchs of European history.

    As they say in the States, Tell it to the Cherokee.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think that Harry and Meghan have had a raw deal within the Royal family and from the tabloids. I’m sure there is plenty of racism under the surface and I don’t blame them for getting away.

    But, like @Nenya, I don’t know why they are now courting the very publicity they said they were getting away from - writing books, appearing on TV etc.

    They want to be celebrities, not royals. They can't live the celebrity lifestyle they want while constrained by royal protocol.

    To be fair I think Harry knows he will be a celebrity whatever he does, and wants to use his celebrity status to promote Good Causes he believes in.

    The problem is that to be an effective celebrity, he needs the media, which he viscerally hates because of what they did to his mother. Hence the constant oscillation between wanting the media to back off, and also wanting the media to tell 'his side' of the story.

    A bit like having your cake and eating it. Which isn't possible. He's doomed to disappointment, I'm afraid, if he thinks either 'celebrity' or 'publicity' can be more tightly controlled in the US by he and Meghan as a 'private' couple, than it could've been in the UK as an official royal couple. I think Meghan is perhaps the more savvy - and accomplished - of the two in terms of expectations and knowing how the US media circus works. Though, I'm sure Harry is completely in accord. Not being tied to the old fashioned ideas of The Firm (TM) would suit him very much. But I don't think he's ever going to experience the kind of freedom from unwanted media attention and public commentary that moving to America was intended to help facilitate. I hope things settle down for them and they're happy. While I'm not especially interested in them, I wish them well. But courting Oprah is pretty much a shot across the Windsor bows, isn't it? Not really the way to go for a quiet life.
  • A former schoolmate of mine (from the smelly paper mmill towns of eastern Ontario) ended up in Hollywood and built a fine career as the sidekick in a few sitcoms and police dramas. We had dinner a few years ago after a funeral, and he spoke to me of how his friends cohort was either those whom he knew before he got rolling, or in his professional circle, which then ends up sounding like a name-dropping excursion on Entertainment Tonight. It sounds like royal life, I noted-- that one ended up socializing with those who have a similar overwhelming experience and that one can never be certain if one can trust outsiders.

    His scheduling and activities were in the hands of his agent and his personal assistant, the way was smoothed for him, and his lunch with Ellen (e.g.) scheduled at a restaurant they had never heard of. He could never assume that anyone outside this monde was interested in him, or in opportunities etc. The money was nice, and so was California. (He was looking at moving back to BC where he was spending much of his time filming. Btw he generously picked up the tab, and left a 25% tip. Our Kingston, Ontario, server was very pleased.)

    This sounds like the world Harry has entered-- a sunnier version of that which he has left. As a Class A or A- celebrity, he will be in the same room as Oprah, etc. They will be friends, because while they might (and will) work together, they are equals in that small world.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 4
    Boogie wrote: »

    Better the devil you know?

    Yes, I'm afraid so...but a smaller, slimmer monarchy would not be a Bad Thing - and if much of the ridiculous hype is done away with, so much the better.

    Agreed. I am no fan of the monarchy but becoming a republic would mean having a president which, looking at the US, would be far worse.

    Strongly disagree with your assessment of the US. Even the worst presidents have been much better than the worst absolute monarchs of European history.

    As they say in the States, Tell it to the Cherokee.

    I never heard that, but I know what you are referring to--The Trail of Tears.


    And now the Buckingham staff is saying Meghan belittled them? I wonder if this is in reaction to the upcoming Oprah interview.
  • The then Princess Elizabeth was in the ATS and trained as a heavy-goods driver and mechanic. Princess Margaret was too young - she turned 15 just after VJ Day.

    Exactly - "trained." No evidence whatsoever that she served in any traumatic events - we must therefore assume, given the mythology that's built up around it, that it was a wonderful piece of spin.

    The fact that she learned the job of a mechanic properly is well proved by the number of occasions over the years when stricken motorists in Norfolk and Scotland have suddenly realised that the helpful lady was in fact the monarch.
    Evidence?

  • I was watching some of the reaction to Meghan's interview with Oprah and it got me thinking about something I have learned about the Royal Family from the Crown. I know the Crown isn't a historical documentary but I think this rings true.

    The Royal Family isn't like any ordinary family in which a person enters into it, or even raised within it, derives their personal support or esteem from it in a way that a regular family would. The Royal Family is there ultimately about supporting the Monarch, period. So, it's not going to be there to give anyone, Diana, Meghan, or etc, the support they need. Those members of the Royal Family would be told in a number of ways to stiffen their upper lip, bear it, or find counselling or support on their own, or leave.

    I'm not writing to say that this is psychologically healthy. Far from it, it is actually quite horrific and traumatizing, especially to people who join the Royals through marriage. At least if you are raised in the Royal Family, you learn to adjust it over your lifetime. I think anyone willing to consider entering the Royal Family should at least be given fair warning about this.,
  • The Royal Family is there ultimately about supporting the Monarch, period. So, it's not going to be there to give anyone, Diana, Meghan, or etc, the support they need.

    I think the first is true, but I'm not sure about the second. I think there's evidence of the Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex being offered advice and support from more experienced members of the family, but #1 is non-negotiable.

    You're right - it's never about Catherine or Meghan - it's about the Monarch. Your personal needs, desires, and opinions have to rank below the needs of the Monarchy.

    I'd imagine it might be easier to go along with this set of priorities when you're the Duchess of Cambridge (and destined to be the wife and mother of ruling monarchs) than when you're the Duchess of Sussex (and are told to shut up, and stand around being supportive for the rest of your life.)

    I don't find it psychologically horrifying at all - it seems quite straightforward and obvious. But I don't think the Duchess of Sussex really seemed to understand this, which might be a lack of communication between courtiers, for whom these things are as obvious as saying water is wet, and the Duchess, who seemed to see royalty as basically the same as celebrity. I'm not sure that the Duke of Sussex really grasped the distinction either.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »

    I am no fan of the monarchy but becoming a republic would mean having a president which, looking at the US, would be far worse.

    Not would, but could.
  • I don't find it psychologically horrifying at all - it seems quite straightforward and obvious. But I don't think the Duchess of Sussex really seemed to understand this, which might be a lack of communication between courtiers, for whom these things are as obvious as saying water is wet, and the Duchess, who seemed to see royalty as basically the same as celebrity. I'm not sure that the Duke of Sussex really grasped the distinction either.

    Maybe I was a bit too hyperbolic in my previous post, but I think it is at least problematic because for most of us regular folks, family is where we can derive our support and comfort. It's really hard for people who don't have a good relationship with their family to find support from their friends, it is especially hard I imagine for members of the Royal Family who spend most of their time supporting the monarch to not have their relational needs met.

    I think one could advocate retaining the monarchy, while trimming the Royal Family, so that only the monarch and his/her immediate heir and their spouses would have expected royal duties. The rest of the royal children would be expected to live their own lives and be given wide latitude to do whatever they want.

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited March 4
    Goodness that’s not too hyperbolic!
    Try living with Mr Alba...who might just about allow HRH to live in a modest detached house. The rest would need to a Get A Job, asap.

    Thing is, the extended royals are good for rolling out on occasions. Going on commemorative mugs and tea towels. But not much else.
    As for marrying into that very odd circle?
    You d need your head tested.

    Odd
    Distinctly odd
    And bound to end in tears.

    There are reasons why royalty tended to marry other royals. All that stuff doesn’t need to be explained.

    That said
    I d abolish the lot

    If they hope to survive, they will need to be very firmly pruned

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    So we seem to be drifting towards a Danish or Noewegian model, which is what the Prince of Wales wants.
    Has the PoW publicly said this, or is this a matter of reading-between-the-lines, or speculation? Just curious.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »

    Better the devil you know?

    Yes, I'm afraid so...but a smaller, slimmer monarchy would not be a Bad Thing - and if much of the ridiculous hype is done away with, so much the better.

    Agreed. I am no fan of the monarchy but becoming a republic would mean having a president which, looking at the US, would be far worse.

    Strongly disagree with your assessment of the US. Even the worst presidents have been much better than the worst absolute monarchs of European history.

    As they say in the States, Tell it to the Cherokee.

    I never heard that, but I know what you are referring to--The Trail of Tears.


    And now the Buckingham staff is saying Meghan belittled them? I wonder if this is in reaction to the upcoming Oprah interview.

    It would appear that the Palace were happy not to persue it but with Markle attacking 'The Firm' they have decided it's time for action.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Gracious, don’t we normally watch soaps for this sort of entertainment?
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Gracious, don’t we normally watch soaps for this sort of entertainment?

    Yes, in one way it's hilarious to see such a massive soap being played out. Presumably, there are some hidden meanings j
  • Sorry, hidden meanings jostling around, e.g., conservative vs liberal views of society, racism vs diversity, misogyny vs feminism, blah blah.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    So we seem to be drifting towards a Danish or Noewegian model, which is what the Prince of Wales wants.
    Has the PoW publicly said this, or is this a matter of reading-between-the-lines, or speculation? Just curious.

    He's been widely reported as wanting a slimmed-down monarchy for the past 20 years.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    TheOrganist: He's been widely reported as wanting a slimmed-down monarchy for the past 20 years.

    Starting the cull with his mother and father?
  • The "tragedy" for Charles is that although he has had a lot of ideas for "renewing the monarchy" his mother has been so long-lived that he is not going to get much of a chance to put his ideas into practice. It will be up to William to make significant changes (or not). I don't think he would ever want his mother dead, but if he had become King 20 years ago, I think we would see a very different monarchy now.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Charles is already making a lot of the big decisions behind the scenes - hence no rehabilitation for Andrew.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Cross-Pond.}

    I hope Charles does get a chance to be king, even if only for a day. From what I've seen in documentaries, he has some (IMHO) good ideas. I particularly like his organic farming and IIRC eco- and climate-friendly ideas.

    I've seen the TV film "Charles III" (Wikipedia). I know it's controversial. Do people (on the Ship or elsewhere) think the plot is likely?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Charles is already making a lot of the big decisions behind the scenes - hence no rehabilitation for Andrew.
    He wont go hungry

  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Charles is already making a lot of the big decisions behind the scenes - hence no rehabilitation for Andrew.
    He wont go hungry

    Ah, back to the pizza...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Like Edward VIII, I'm sure Charles III will pick up the crown better than can be expected.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    So we seem to be drifting towards a Danish or Noewegian model, which is what the Prince of Wales wants.
    Has the PoW publicly said this, or is this a matter of reading-between-the-lines, or speculation? Just curious.

    He's been widely reported as wanting a slimmed-down monarchy for the past 20 years.
    Thanks. If those news reports have made it across The Pond, I’ve missed them.

Sign In or Register to comment.