Prince Charles - 'Don't think above your station'

People who read this left wing drivel should stick to wearing their woven peruvian hats and eating tofu.

Spineless, pathetic whingers the lot of them. If there is one sort of person I vehemently hate, it is a pathetic one.

Leave politics and social comment to the people who know best; the elite of society. These peasants are lucky that they are alive (through government handouts just to feed and clothe themselves), who the hell do they think they are presuming that a) they are entitled to voice an opinion, and b) that anyone in their right mind would listen, let alone take notice or action.

Merkin

Originally posted by Otts
FlyersFan - would you believe me if I said the United States never really got rid of the "monarchy"? Look at the trappings and ceremonial surrounding the presidency - the swearing-in ceremonies, parade, waving to people, evening ball... and of course the fact that Presidents who were/are considered part of a "dynasty" occupied power for a total of 43 years out of 215... .

I understand what you are looking at, but , no, I don't think we have
a monarchy. There are trappings and 'glitter' (to use your word), and
ceremony .... but because we honor the office of president, and we
honor those who are in public service doesn't equate with monarchy.
We can fire our politicians through impeachment or through not
reelecting them. Those poor folks in England are stuck with their
monarchy (until they decide not to give them any more of their tax
money and make them work for a living - like Edward and Sophi are
doing - right?)

Our presidents are in for four or eight years. Then they are out.
(as it should be). No monarchy there. George Washington was
offered to be King of America. He turned it down. I have to wonder
if Hillary would turn down being crowned Queen of America (until her
death - not reelection). Betchya many of the politicians would grab
the crown that Washington rightly didn't accept.

Originally posted by billybob
although he's an elitist silver-spooner, he has a point. i mean would you want the guy who can't even take a pizza order right to build a nuclear power plant.

What I didn't like about his comments was WHO he put as
the 'smart' people ... TV Personalities, etc. His idea
of who is 'smart' is silly. Also, what he said 'don't think
above your station' sounds like he is boxing people in.
If my station in life is a poor 'hood in London ... why can't
I aim at a University that teaches science? If I work hard
I can get there .... I shouldn't be stuck working as a
street cleaner just because of the 'class' my family is in.

That's what it sounds like.

Believe me, not as much money from our Taxes goes to the Royals as you may think. We pay for the upkeep of the Palaces etc, but they are the Counrties "Heirlooms" so to speak.
The Queen also pays Tax as well, did you know that? Can you imagine how much we rake in from a fortune like hers? I dont know but i bet its not chump change.
People really need to get away from the idea that the Queen is anything more than a National figure head, i hate to break it to you guys but we are no longer a Feudal society. The Queen has no real power. Sure our Armed forces swear an Oath to the Queen and her Heirs but what we are swearing is an Oath to our Country because that is what she represents to us, Queen and Country.

Originally posted by Janus
People pay respect to the institution of Monarchy,
they are supposed to represent all that is good
about the UK

Pay respect ... and a great deal of their tax money ....

The monarchy is supposed to represent all that is good
about the UK? Charles is an unrepentant adulterer.
His mother was a cold hearted 'mother' - and I use that
term lightly. His father is ... 'thinking above his station'.
(major twit!).

I think they fail in the 'representing all that is good' area.

Originally posted by Janus
The Queen also pays Tax as well, did you know that? Can you imagine how much we rake in from a fortune like hers? I dont know but i bet its not chump change.

Isn't she just giving back $$$ ? I mean ... her income is tax $$$
from ya'll ... so her 'paying tax' is really giving your tax money back.

It's up to the people of England if they want to continue to give major $$
to these people. I don't see the dollar value in it, but I guess the
people of England do.

She hardly gets a penny from "Tax". Most of her money comes from the family assets, such as the Duchy of Cornwall etc, and properties which she leases out in London, comes to about �12.5 million/annum.

Her "dollar value" as so elequoently put, is the massive amounts of Tourism and trade which she helps to generate, as well as being part of the British Cultural identity.

Yes, and there is some value in that she parades from charity to hospital to orphanage to social service agency, and she says, "Thank you."

There's nobody in this nation doing even that. Nobody gets a thank you.

IRS doesn't say Thank you. The (s)Election didn't say Thank you. The President says thank you by pursuing his own interests in more war and killing. Schools don't say, Thank you to their children; they say "Do this and do that."

I think it's a lovely gesture that she performs year-in-and-year-out. And so she's got a case of ego? Oh well. Look at her hats. They're a scream.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Janus
The Queen also pays Tax as well, did you know that? Can you imagine how much we rake in from a fortune like hers? I dont know but i bet its not chump change.

Isn't she just giving back $$$ ? I mean ... her income is tax $$$
from ya'll ... so her 'paying tax' is really giving your tax money back.

It's up to the people of England if they want to continue to give major $$
to these people. I don't see the dollar value in it, but I guess the
people of England do.

Thats why we live under a Monarchy and you live in a Republic because thats the way you and i llike it. Your Pres is, in a strange kind of way, a kind of elected King of sorts. He gets the same, more or less, respect from his people as we give our Kings and Queens.
The real difference is that where our Queen is there by birth and acts as a figure head without power. Your Pres is elected and has all the power. But really they both represent their countrys in similar ways by generating trade, promoting our respective countrys abroad etc with varying levels of succsess (sp).
But at the end of the day for us this is the way it has been from before memory and the way it will continue to be. The Queen is the Queen and i for one would fight to defend that, if this was during the Civil War in my Country i would be a Cavalier not a Roundhead, we tried to be a Republic once but we didnt like it.

The Queen is the Queen and i for one would fight to defend that, if this was during the Civil War in my Country i would be a Cavalier not a Roundhead, we tried to be a Republic once but we didnt like it

Amen to that Dude! Our Republic was led by a religious nutcase and his band of followers (sounds strangely familiar, not sure why ) and it failed within a decade or two.

Besides, our entire Military (and our culture, which is inherantly militaristic) is built around the Royal family (in traditions and stuff), so to do away with her would mean to do away with our own identity.

God Save the Queen!

Her children do not "qualify" to succeed her.

Maybe Edward VIII's offspring will have to come do the Queen's duty after her, eh?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by billybob
although he's an elitist silver-spooner, he has a point. i mean would you want the guy who can't even take a pizza order right to build a nuclear power plant.

What I didn't like about his comments was WHO he put as
the 'smart' people ... TV Personalities, etc.

His idea
of who is 'smart' is silly. Also, what he said 'don't think
above your station' sounds like he is boxing people in.
If my station in life is a poor 'hood in London ... why can't
I aim at a University that teaches science? If I work hard
I can get there .... I shouldn't be stuck working as a
street cleaner just because of the 'class' my family is in.

That's what it sounds like.

He's not saying you should be stuck in your class. He's saying if you want to get out you have to work. If you want to go to that uni, great, prove you're worthy of that uni place.
If you do nothing and whinge that nothing is done for you...

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

The world doesn't owe you, you owe it.

Okay. People should only work at what they're qualified to work at.

Having said this--with my [1993] BachelorSci/3.6gpa and my MastersArt/3.4 gpa [grade point averages on a scale of FOUR]--

WHAT DO I GET? Here in the States?

Zip. Your education qualifies you for nothing--here in the US now. Interesting jobs go overseas, to "save money" for corporations.

So, what do I DO to earn money? I iron peoples shirts and do their mending.

Do you think Prince Charles is aware---what it's like to be completely un-challenged, un-invited, un-needed and un-done?

Maybe he's becoming aware--eh--of that possibility and that danger?

Whatever the rights or wrongs of what Prince Charles said or didn't say (in fact it was in a confidential memo which was brought out into the open in an industrial tribunal), let's get a few points straightened out:

1. The Queen doesn't get any money from the Duchy of Cornwall. Prince Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, so it's his bailiwick (look it up). The Queen does get public money from the Privy Purse which is granted by Parliament and is accounted for to HM Treasury. However, this money mostly goes to pay for the trappings of Head of State, the private estates such as Sandringham, Balmoral, etc. are family owned and are not subsidised by the country - at least any more than any other working estate.

2. In terms of what's good value for money, I bet the USA wishes it got as much value for what it spends on the Presidency as we do over in the UK for what we spend on the Monarchy. As an interesting aside, the costs seem to go down the further up the scale one goes: On a recent visit to the Houses of Parliament, I was told that each member of the House of Lords (hereditary peers of the realm, life peers, law lords, bishops, etc.) costs about �50K per annum; each Member of Parliament (the elected house) costs around �420K per annum; each Member of the European Parliament costs around �1.2Million per annum

3. Back to basics. If we assume that a country has to have a head of state, you either have a dictator who siezes power and hangs onto it (not so bad as you might think, as most of the dynamic periods in human history have been under benign despots) or you vote for one (you might want a Bush or the other bloke, whoever he was or you might have President Beckham!) or you might go for a dynastic head of state whose whole upbringing has been aimed at producing someone who not only presses the flesh but also takes a keen interest and asks awkward questions of the government of the day. Prince Charles probably won't ever become King, as his mother's genes probably dictate that she'll live to a ripe old age (her own mother died at 102!) but most people don't realise that the Monarchy is in the gift of Parliament anyway, so if faced with an ageing Charles, MPs might actually favour William anyway. An interesting constitutional question when it comes - not for a while yet.

4. Back to the original point. If you want a real conspiracy. how about raising the question about what the Government was aiming to hide when senior Cabinet Ministers leap into action to blow up the "ideas above your station" story? It couldn't have been something like the worst truancy figures in years leaking out of the Department of Education could it?

I like your logic.

I seemed to smell something stinking in the background.

The whole story seems to have so little substance; one would think somebody has it out for Charles.

He's in a difficult spot, anywhich way you look at it.

Originally posted by Flange Gasket

There will be no justice in Britain until the rightfull celtic heir to the throne, Prince Micheal Stewart is recognised and coronated King of Scots...

Interestingly enough, Diana is descended from the House of Stewart, which means both her children are also Stewarts.

I'm an American and I know this.

I'm also a relative of his--technically--his aunt.

So?

That and a buck and a half will get me a cup of coffee somewhere.

Now, how's YOUR day?

Rainy here.

Interestingly enough, Diana is descended from the House of Stewart, which means both her children are also Stewart's.

Indeed she was, she was descended from one of his illegitimate offspring, not sure who tho as he had so many illegitimate Children. And there are quite a few other Noble and not so Noble Families that can trace themselves back to Charles Stewart, he was a self confessed serial adulterer.

we're all SO related?

I wonder what they will do now. None of them QUALIFY to rule.

Charles can't marry his girlfriend and be King.

Anne is married to a divorced man; but she's female so it doesn't matter.

Andrew is divorced; and his former wife [with whom he shares custody] is the equivalent of a divorced woman.

Edward is married currently; but his inclinations otherwise are well known.

Who will succeed Elizabeth II?

If they all do what my father did, they will all step aside; and a different house will take the throne.

Interesting possibility.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
we're all SO related?

I wonder what they will do now. None of them QUALIFY to rule.

Charles can't marry his girlfriend and be King.

Anne is married to a divorced man; but she's female so it doesn't matter.

Andrew is divorced; and his former wife [with whom he shares custody] is the equivalent of a divorced woman.

Edward is married currently; but his inclinations otherwise are well known.

Who will succeed Elizabeth II?

If they all do what my father did, they will all step aside; and a different house will take the throne.

Interesting possibility.

The rules governing succession are very complex, a lot of the go back to Elizabeth I. I really couldn't tell you how the rule about the Crown Prince/Princess not being able to marry a divorc�e came about, maybe someone else can shed a little light on that for us. But there are other rules that apply to the succession like the Crown Prince/Princess is not allowed under constitutional law to marry a Catholic. I believe that goes back to Elizabethan times when we were surrounded by Catholic Countries like Spain who were hell bent on our destruction. But for us to change the way our Royal Constitution works would be a little bit like the US changing theirs to allow Arnold the Terminator to run for President, it wouldn't happen and there would be stiff resistance to it.

I believe that William will succeed the Queen as Charles will be an old man by the time the Queen dies and may step down to allow him to Marry Camilla.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Janus]