Buckingham Palace announcement: Staff 'summoned to emergency meeting’ on Queen and Philip

I wouldn't say Charles is unpopular but he also isn't very well liked either. As much as people want William to be the next king, It will be Charles. But if anyone can wrangle something out of the nothing, it's the Royal Family.

People won't riot but they won't be best pleased with it. Royalists will wave and wait to see him for 5 hours by a fence in the cold and the rest will just get on with their day.

After time he will be accepted. As for Camilla. She won't get near the throne. Ever. She isn't well liked at all.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah she was an asshole too so what?

a reply to: Sapphire

A monarchs rule usually ends with them dying in the throne.
That's the way it goes.
Charles is next in line. When he dies it will be Williams turn.
and when he dies his son George will be king.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Ok and what's your point?

My point is Charles sucks, no one wants him. Most Britains despise him and would gladly replace him with William.

Do you disagree?

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: skalla

Yeah, the popular studs here are proof of that one. Men rule the world, i almost forgot.

And yet here you are cheering on a hereditary system of wealth, influence and power that has never had anything to do with sharing and caring. Their women were routinely traded to foreign princes for alliances and to act as breeding machines. Fancy that.

a reply to: Sapphire

No there wouldn't be. He is the next legal heir to the throne. Being King is not a popularity contest.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: bastion

There was talk of it several years ago where Royal pundits were hypothesising that the Crown may skip a generation if Charles decides to abdicate but nothing came of it and all talk of it has vanished. There's neither the time or the want for reform in that matter

There would be no need of a reform - Charles can abdicate as soon as he is King - if that is how the script goes. But he is next in line - if he dies it will go straight to William.

Actually, the Prince of Wales could give up his right to the throne now. The likelihood of that happening, however, is very low given how HM would probably react.

originally posted by: skalla

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: skalla

Yeah, the popular studs here are proof of that one. Men rule the world, i almost forgot.

And yet here you are cheering on a hereditary system of wealth, influence and power that has never had anything to do with sharing and caring. Their women were routinely traded to foreign princes for alliances and to act as breeding machines. Fancy that.

According to everyone here, that has nothing to do with reality. Royalty doesn't give a @# if you like them or not or what your opinion is of them. They do what they want. I'm failing to understand what you're trying to say here in this regard to, reality. Women have been breeding machines for well. Forever. What's your point? Men rule the world, and always have. I think this is the first time in history where Women have had a voice. Does that offend you?

a reply to: Sapphire

Yes I disagree.
I don't think the people of the UK hate him either. But that doesn't even matter.
The people don't have a choice.

Having been privy to the meeting I can tell you that the Queen announced that all the royal staff will not be getting a pay rise again and the bottle of sherry christmas present will not be forthcoming this year because the corgis have got to have new tartan coats for their christmas walk.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Facts please. People i know in the UK don't prefer Charlie as their King. They prefer Diana's Son, William as their King. If you don't know that, then you've been living under a rock.

a reply to: crayzeed

Thank you i appreciate your humour lol.

I personally doubt Charles would abdicate with the Queen alive, but more as a monarchy traditions mother-to-son succession thing than a power thing.
When she dies, I bet he hightails it off in a cloud of dust and hands everything over to William so fast he makes Superman dizzy.

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: gortex

No , there won't.

Unless you're a psychic

Well you sure as hell seem to think you are with your riots "prediction", so I'd lay off the attitude about others' opinions on the subject if I were you. Those in glass houses (halfway around the world, at that) and such.

The Queen's pregnant and Philip didn't do it so there's a staff meeting to question each of them before blaming Charles or his brother Andrew!

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: Sillyolme

Facts please. People i know in the UK don't prefer Charlie as their King. They prefer Diana's Son, William as their King. If you don't know that, then you've been living under a rock.

Would prefer the non royal Harry any day!!!!

Interesting, and not exactly unfeasible

Rainbows
Jane

The queen is getting older, maybe she is having health related issues. There are people to take over. It's about time I suppose.

why mention these scumbags?
i HATE kings and queens. scumbag families profitting on war.

any news about them is glorifying the myth of 'royality'

originally posted by: angelchemuel

Interesting, and not exactly unfeasible

Rainbows
Jane

I can picture King Charles appearing at the House of Commons.

May and Corbyn would have fits.

According to the Daily Star - another British tabloid - the staff at Buckingham and Kensington Palace were briefed on Prince Harry's engagement:

A meeting was held at the Queen’s household yesterday (Friday) to confirm the big news to Buckingham and Kensington Palace staff, a Royal source has told us. The Queen was at the meeting as the staff were told Harry and his Suits actress girlfriend – who have been dating for 17 months – are planning a “non-traditional wedding”. But the source has told Daily Star Online the engagement is not going to be publicly announced just yet, as Harry and Meghan concentrate on planning their future.

The supposed "source" also said:

The source added: “I honestly thought today was the day (of the announcement to the public), but they are a very private couple.

Lastly, the second meeting was held to announce HM's plans to spend more time at Windsor Castle:

The meeting about Harry and Meghan was said to have been held in the afternoon, following another “big meeting” the same morning that focused on the Queen’s plans to spend more time at Windsor Castle. Our source told us it was "unbelievable as we have never had two big meetings in one day".

Here's what I think about this nonsense:

First of all, the above topics - Prince Harry's engagement and HM's plans on where to stay are NOT emergencies. So why did the other "news" outlet claim the meetings were of an urgent nature?

Prince William's engagement, to my knowledge, was not preceded by "emergency" meetings.

The health of HM the Queen and Prince Philip has been of concern during the past year. HM was ill last Christmas for a couple of weeks. As for Prince Philp, he appeared to be leaning on the wall for support during the Remembrance Sunday services.

I was trying to figure out the reason for these non-urgent urgent meetings. Like, perhaps something happened to HM or Prince Philip. Or perhaps the Prince of Wales decided he didn't want to be Monarch. That would be unlikely, however, while the Queen is alive.

I'd like to know who the "source" is. As far as I know, every Royal employee is required to sign confidentiality agreements. If this is a true source then that agreement was broken.

If it was not, then this was cooked up by the tabloid press to sell papers/increase ratings.

If I knew this wasn't a real emergency I never would have started this thread.