Queen to step down in five years - says Royal source

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan
reply to post by monkeybus

 

Im not sure £330 million would get us a whole lot.

At least REX-Factor would be something to watch on the telly

It's a bit more than that my friend,

What people see in monarchy i will never understand... For one thing, they themselves dont live in the (disgusting) fairytale of wealth and riches they so admire, the monarchy doesn't even know of their existence. People in these families are elevated above the others for no apparent reason, even though they are just as human as any other with flesh and blood. I will say it bluntly, i myself have no pride knowing my country is still a kingdom, it's the most obvious and brutal example of clear seperation of rich and poor, and some even swallow this nonsense. It's a form of dictatorship, these guys will be in charge- Whether you like it or not.

These people dont outperform anyone, and what tasks they do: anyone can do better.

And it makes me vomit. Have fun with your ceremonial "puppets". Doesn't matter if your country goes to hell- They'll wave on the balcony either way.

reply to post by monkeybus


It's a flag that's partially on my forearm, and that some of my family members have served under.

So it's not just a flag to me.

It may have been their country first, but the white man developed it and made it great.

Off topic FTW.

reply to post by Mammoth


Your Post is correct up to a point,
They Are Quite Worthless, and always have been.

but if you go back into thousands of years, I heard that they where originally, Gypsies, fleeing from persercuition.

reply to post by WishForWings


It has, no meaning to me, I can Understand what you are saying to a point, and "the white man" Did make the country what it is today, But so did Exported criminals, who bred and multiplied, many many times.

reply to post by WishForWings

Yep, will agree to disagree in this thread, but if you feel like opening a separate thread on the matter, notify me & I shall gladly bring the noise

Originally posted by monkeybus
Thats if nothing happens to, Prince.Charles, in the meantime.

Bingo! someone who sees the bigger picture.

She is saying this, because she is scared that she will go the same way as Princess Dianna.(Killed)

I doubt it, I am a firm believer that she is not completely blameless in the matter.

Watch out for William. He's the one who's been "groomed" from birth.

Originally posted by Wotan

Dont you write a load of bollocks?

Long live the Queen!

And don't you opitimise the reason for "denying ignorance!"

Ask yourself: Why are we being told this, why now, why by this paper only etc, etc, etc......sheeesh!

It is a message we must understand from more than the obvious perspective.

Other newspapers and media will have things to say and more information will come to light. Theories will be plentiful and ONLY time will tell.

Do you seriously think you have understood the whole story?

Even a court jester (the express) knows more than the peasants (you).

Just the beginning....watch and listen to the Queen, Charles, William and everybody involved......that includes the court jester!

I don't know if you've noticed but the world is going through very important changes at the moment and this, to me, is/could be one of the biggest!

Sounds like the highest member of the "elite" knows something WE don't (yet). Her opinion of Charles, her son, hasn't been that great in recent years so why would she include him in the "bail-out"? Poor sod, he's got a hard time coming imo.

From the sunday Express:

The discussions came at the end of an extraordinary week in which the Queen went out of her way to praise Charles..........
............But courtiers say the key sentence in her speech went largely unnoticed although it was highly significant.

During 56 years and 230 days of tireless work, she has always made it clear privately that she had no wish to abdicate. But, according to Palace sources, her views have changed in recent times.

"RECENT TIMES"

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

"VIVE LA REVOLUTION"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From www.speedace.info...
Source

"It's a question of maturing into something one's got used to doing and accepting the fact that it's your fate, because I think continuity is very important. It is a job for life," she said.

"The Queen is contemptuous of monarchies that do pick and choose and do retire," said royal biographer Penny Junor. "One inherits after the other dies -- that's it."

nuff said.....we await her explanation!

[edit on 16/11/2008 by nerbot]

excuse the ignorance, since i don't make it a habit to follow the English crown. But i thought no matter what the crown would skip over Charles and and go to William. Someone more knowledgeable than me care to explain the line of succession of the crown to someone like me

edit to add: Also if the Queen steps down doesn't that end the line of Rule by the Royal family?

[edit on 11/16/2008 by Mercenary2007]

reply to post by Mercenary2007


No, Charles is next in line, it's just that Camilla won't be Queen.

Personally, I am a staunch monarchist and actually understand the constitutional role they play. QE2 decided not to be political, hence why people have got used to the Monarchy being a figurehead, but they still hold alot of power.

Her father before her had alot to do with the running of the country and the Armed Forces during WW2 and also massively helped boost morale for the common folk, people seem to forget this.

They also seem to think that the Royals are stuck up and don't care, but that is also not true. They have to be the single most charitable family in the country, running dozens of foundations and programmes to help the disadvantaged and raising huige funds to pay for it.

I know Infinite has a huge boner about being a "republican", but I would dearly love to see any of these "opinion polls" he quotes as being supportive of his position, even though nearly everyone I speak too is tacitly in support of the monarchy and many would like to see the Monarch stand up to Parliament, which is where the real bastards reside.

Don't forget we had a civil war between Parliament and the Crown, which Parliament won. But after the death of Cromwell, who was a worse dictator than any monarch let alone Charles I who he killed, the people overwhelming re-instated the monarchy.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


An Act of Parliament will be required.

Then the British government will have to notify the other Commonwealth realms (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) in order for those nations, who share the British Crown, to recognise the new Monarch or introduce a republic.

reply to post by infinite


To clarify, the Act of Parliament is only required because the rules of succession don't actually allow for abdication. Should the Queen die, the Charles is King without the fuss of getting the Parliamentarians to approve it.

Originally posted by WishForWings

Personally I think it's a waste of the English tax payers money, so the little princesses can have fancy dress parties and actually EARN their money like everyone else.

It costs the taxpayer £0.62 each a year, or thereabouts. To me, they're far better value for money than most politicians in that sense.

To put it into perspective, it costs me something like 220 x more just to have a TV licence.

Before those who live outside of the loyalist countries get in here...

I find there's allot of misunderstanding of what the monarchy is, especially in those who do not live in Great Britain, or it's loyalist counterparts.

The parliament wields power, it's a democratic system.

It's the same in Britain, as it is here in Canada. The queen is a figurehead, nothing more.

Basically, the old monarchy is kept around as a tribute to older times. They aren't in charge of the countries any more.

I quite often find myself having to explain this, especially to Americans for some reason.


In Canada, we keep the queen on our currency etc. simply because we are grateful for our independence. She holds no power over us, but we feel inclined to owe the monarchy thanks for giving us our independence without having to fight for it.

In Britain, it's a similar deal. Many old customs are kept around for nostalgic reference. Such as the queen meeting with the new prime minister to ratify his seat in power... if she were to say no... it wouldn't matter.
The queen is allot like a celebrity... we look up to her... but she's not in charge of us.


The pyramids are on US currency... but you don't bow down to the old Egyptian kings.
The founding fathers are on US currency as well... but clearly they don't hold power either... they're dead.

It's the same basic concept on loyalist currencies... we don't bow down to the monarchy, but it's kept there for nostalgic reference.

Why I have to explain this to Americans every time the topic is brought up, I'll never know. I would expect by now this is common knowledge worldwide... but the yanks just don't seem to get it.

Oh well.
It doesn't matter in the end. Prince Charles (king Charles) won't wield any governing power, so all this is is another celebrity.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by johnsky]

The way I see it, a country can be totalitarian with or without a Monarchy.. There are numerous supposed Democracies that trample the rights of the people.

IMO, Democracy allows only the Oligarchy and the industries that support them to attain power and dictate our laws.. As we see all over the World the Democracies are bending over backwards to award failed businesses, profit from wars, and support huge banks that never once gave a damn about the people whom they where supposed to serve.

Preaching about a Monarch being "above the law" and superior to anyone else is rather ignorant, when you look at the level of corruption that resides in the "democratic" government.

There's some good informative posts on this thread. Unfortunately, they may upset too many stereotypes and conspiracies to be accepted though.

I'll have to cut this post short as I've got to be up early in the morning as I've some chimney's to sweep before Dick Van Dyke comes round to give me elocution lessons.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
It costs the taxpayer £0.62 each a year, or thereabouts. To me, they're far better value for money than most politicians in that sense.

I could buy 2 Curly Whirlie's for 62p - I'd rather have my sweets than watch corgies fed on foi gras and a fantastic amount of back scratching.

What did the frenchies do with their old guilotine? We should see if we can get a good price on a used model.

reply to post by Now_Then


Look how wonderful France turned out, hey?

Gridlocked with beuracracy, strikes, hardly a full day spent at work and a failed economic model... Let's not even go into their catastrophic historical failures since the 1790's....

So much for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity...

I lose 62p down the back of my sofa and don't even notice it. The returns that the monarchy brings into the nation far outweigh the cost. I begrudge giving £1560 a year in council tax so that slack knickered teenage mums can not have to work and get a home, or so that those poor, hard-done by immigrants can be well looked after. Let's not even go into what my £800 a month income tax or £250 a month National Insurance doesn't get me....

reply to post by Now_Then

Would't it be more fun to go down the route the French did? Drum roll please

Monarch's are a dead weight to their society in my opinion. Times have changed and no one person should "rule" much less get paid big bucks to live in a castle and wave.

The French had the right idea.

Good post.


[edit on 16-11-2008 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by stumason

Thanks for th anwsers. The one thing i did know was Camilla could never become Queen.