The Queen will die this month.

If Prince William has millions of dollars, why doesn't he make a hair transplant ?

a reply to: Cinrad

HI - JUST WORKING FROM MEMORY :

IIRC - at the time of the french wars richard of yorks son was alledgedly a bastard - with therefore no legitmacy to the throne .

and the next in succession was cast aside for political reasons

the schism was reported at the time and various attempts to transpose " teh true king " back onto the throne were made - with no sucess and limited enthusiam

fat forward to 2010 - and tony robinson [ baldrick ] - made a very good BBC documentary about the entire tail - and tracked down the man who COULD have been king if things had gone differently

the bloke however has no interest in being monarch - and i think he is dead now anyway

so - so much for " teh coverup "

a reply to: ignorant_ape

the above is the outline of the tail - now my opinion :

we now have the house of windsor as " teh royal familiy "

and thats that

going back to the 14th century and attempting to re-instate " teh true king " is assanine .

we have got to this point - in no small part due to the royal line of succession that has put elizibeth R on the throne

an alternate monarchy - could have been better - or worse - there is no way of knowing

but changing the head of state because of 500 year old reasons - is insane

we either live with the windsors [ my prefered option ] or disolve the monarchy and become a republic

originally posted by: Ove38
If Prince William has millions of dollars, why doesn't he make a hair transplant ?

Obviously he is not vain, like men who have hair transplants!

a reply to: woogleuk

Where di you get those figures from. Check out how much the French palaces, without expensive incumbents, earn for France. Their palaces are open all the time and look fabulous because they aren't paying royals to idly enjoy their racing and jollies all the time.

Sure we have trimmed their opulence but they have only recently started to pay a bit of tax and there are still loop holes in the Cayman Islands etc that have been deliberately left open. Cameron also slips her the odd 40 million when she demands it. But in truth what little glimpses you get of them aren't worth their opulent lifestyles at the cost to the tax payers. They spend their money on themselves. They have not built the wonderful palaces that the French use as a huge tourism attraction which earns millions each and every year and have done for a very long time.

They aren't good value for money and never were. The Queens speech to the millionaires about working people paying taxes etc was the height of hypocrisy and shows up exactly what she and her penniless Greek side kick are. Ever wondered how much they bought with them when they first were put on the throne of England?

This is kind of weird. I got weird ideas of her dieing soon too.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I agree, there would be no reason to change to another family now as these guys have had 400 years of royal breeding and the Australian man hasn't. I bear no ill will to the Queen personally, I disagree with monarchy as an institution. Basically the idea behind monarchy is that the best people breed with the best people and thus produce even better people. This leads to the situation where people are born in to the job, the only qualification they have is that they were born in to that family. They are guaranteed an opulent lifestyle for life simply because they were born, supposedly of better breeding.

In a way that would be the justification to switch back to the other royal line, but like I said, that line has not been marrying into other royalty for 400 years and so are they the best stock? Now that the current royals have started marrying commoners they have actually done themselves out of a reason to exist.

Furthermore royalty exists because of the will of God. Does anyone actually believe that in England anymore? The Queen is supposed to be the ultimate defender of the faith in her realm. Is she doing it? Will Charles? He as new age as they come. Will Will I Am? No, so again the monarchy is irrelevant (I have a theory that Diana was killed because she was carrying Dodi's baby and would have brought it up as a Moslem as is required by Moslem law and that would have left the future head of the Anglican Church with a Moslem half brother).

Does the monarchy have any role anymore other than to stamp legislation? No, so again are irrelevant.

The only thing keeping them there is nostalgic sentiment. If these people were true philanthropists then they are rich enough to be so without the titles and state income. Do you think if they are relegated to the class of free British citizens and allowed to keep their millions they would still spend time opening hospitals and visiting orphanages?

But if she does actually die this month and accepts that as part of her job that she has to for the greater good, I will have a lot of respect for her memory. But I am only basing this idea on a tear and a card on a wreath.

a reply to: Cinrad

what if they cryo freeze her and put her in storage next to walt disney? not dead not alive lol

So far so good

a reply to: windword

Therein lies royalty's weakness. Do you think the Queen Mum's debt of 1 million quid which will never be paid nor the death duties either, which everyone else has to pay up makes her some type of hero to you? If you look at Elizabeth she loves gambling and the horses etc and although she switches off the lights at Buck house that's because she actually now had to pay for them.

Also how long do you think it will be before Kate Middleton comes in for the publicity the queen fears most that of extravagance at public expense. Kate recently spent 1 million quid on her gardens - now some might and the does include queenie think that extravagant - especially when she hasn't earned it and we have a number of brits living in poverty through no fault of their own.

William reminds us of Diana whose death we hated and most think of it as an assassination, to allow camilla to get her butt on the throne. With Diana in the background this would not have been an acceptable thing for someone supposedly the head of the church etc and it damaged the image of the royal family Charlie was an adulterer.

a reply to: Caver78

That was well said! ...and this from a Yank.

Hmm.... well that didnt turn out how I said.

a reply to: Cinrad

I will file this next to Atlantic rising, 2012 and the Nick winning... Anything.