The Queen to Address U.N. for 1st Time in Over 50 Years

Originally posted by grantbeed
That's what I thought too. Maybe she is thinking after 50 yrs it's a good time to talk before Prince william becomes King.

Could well be. For the first time in 27 years, Prince William has come over here and NZ on a visit that is obviously meant to increase his popularity.

reply to post by stumason


Could very well be. We have a weekly national magazine here in Canada and it's pretty impartial. Maclean's.

I read about the Monarchy's money and they aren't even able to do repairs for their estates. Big whoop to you and me but WAY different to the times of royalty.

reply to post by emmiem


Your own quote said "estimates that include the Crown Jewels...."

So how was I supposed to interpret that?

Whichever way you cut it, it boils down to jealousy. Just why should she be begrudged a fortune? What about all the other rich folk who have VASTLY bigger fortunes yet do very little charitable work? Don't also let the fact that she is the only person in the country to willingly pay Income Tax when she has no obligation too.

If it came down to a vote tomorrow between getting rid of the Monarchy or keeping it, they would win by a landslide. They are a much loved institution, no matter what some ill-informed republicans might think.

reply to post by intrepid


Nope, the Crown Estates manages repairs and the like, which is under control of the State.

I personally would not like to be a royal. It's all very well having all that dosh, but what can they do? every move they make is subject to scrutiny, it's not like they can live the life of other Billionaires with wild parties, orgies or whatever it is they get up too, these people are figureheads and are held to a blody high standard.

She will be there to announce that Galactus is coming...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by emmiem

 

Your own quote said "estimates that include the Crown Jewels...."

So how was I supposed to interpret that?

Nope. Read the quote again.

'Elizabeth is one of the wealthiest women in the world, with a net worth of $818 million in 2004, according to Forbes magazine. This is the result of a nest egg put aside for her by her father during his reign as king. Other estimates put her personal fortune at more than $4 billion, or as much as $16 billion if the Royal Collection -- which includes the crown jewels - is included. '
www.cbc.ca...

And I don't begrudge her any of her wealth whatever it may be, and have never said so. You seem to be assuming things in that respect. I am much more concerned that she has broken her Coronation Oath and signed our sovereignty away. It may turn out she is not the kindly, caring old lady as fondly thought of and portrayed.

I personally would not like to be a royal.

Nor would I, I don't think I could handle the public appearances and the annoyances of security detail. I remember reading a book that was written by a former London Metropolitan Police Royalty Protection Branch officer and it was a very interesting look at how they protect the Royal Family and their interactions with the public and the police officers that protect them. Apparently William and Harry were always trying to sneak away from their security details and go to night clubs and bars and whatnot.

I would never be allowed to pop in at Quiznos or Taco Bell. I would never be allowed to take a nice leisurely stroll through the downtown area or at the shopping mall. Not for me.

reply to post by emmiem


Signed British sovereignty away ?

Come on, fair's fair. Had the Queen refused to give Royal Assent to all these European treaties & ignored the wishes of the Parliament there would've been the worst British constitutional crisis since the 18th Century.

I think she's got her finger on the British pulse ok. They suffer the EU while it doesn't cause them too many problems ... at the first sign of major Euro grief the Brits will simply excuse themselves from the whole sorry enterprise.

I'm sure a civil servant somewhere has, tucked away in a dusty cupboard somewhere, the doomsday bill which provides the legal mechanism for British withdrawal from the EU and which can be rushed through Parliament in an afternoon.

The Queen might have a rare smile on her face as she signs that

Ok, sorry but I have to clear a few things up,

1) A monarch wouldnt go to the UN to announce abdication, it has to be dealt with by the house of commons in the UK

2) the law concerning who is next in line to the british throne is over 500 years old, it CANNOT skip prince charles.

Her Majesty's speach to the UN will be one of reflection, upon how much has changed and how much is still to do, as the longest serving head of state, and arguably the most respected, i'd imagine the recetion will be pretty special.


I am proud of the british monarchy, they rise above the politics, yet have the power to influence, Queen Elizabeth II makes me proud to the British

reply to post by stumason


well you have a better understanding than me thats for sure.thanks for the reply. imagine something happend to william mortality wise that would leave harry as air to the throne wich would lead to the question of his ligitamecy in the first place in my opinion. wich in my eyes could lead to the end of the monarchy all together, i personly dont belive he's charlses kid and im far from alone with that view. i also dont think charles will ever be king althoughe this is just my opinion and not a very informed one at that

reply to post by danielhanson420


The whole of Royal history is repleat with "illegitimate" children, so Harry's true paternity would probably be left alone unless one of the other Royals fancied their chances, and I doubt they would want to rock that boat.

reply to post by la2

the law concerning who is next in line to the british throne is over 500 years old, it CANNOT skip prince charles

I wonder if things would be different if Charles himself wanted William to be King next.

I mean, it makes sense with Charles being a bit old to take the job anyway.

reply to post by grantbeed


He could abdicate. The same thing happened in the 30's when Edward VIII gave up the throne.

reply to post by stumason


Hi Stu. Ok, I did'nt realise this had been done before. Maybe a good chance this could happen then.

thanks for all your input to this thread by the way. Good Stuff.

G.

I love the Queen dearly. I have often thought that the Royal Family needed a different strategy for governance such as the highest ranking member of the family rules in England. Then those in line to the throne live in various Commonwealth countries as monarch of those nations.

So, by way of example using the Royal Family as it is currently constituted, the Queen remains Queen of England and as High Queen of the Commonwealth. Charles and Camilla would rule as King & Queen of Canada. Prince William would become King of Scotland. Prince Harry as King of Australia.

I doubt many are interested in such an idea or the fluid way it would need to be employed, but I thought I'd throw in my tuppence into the fountain of speculation.

Whatever she has to say, it will be a momentous occasion.