and Her Heirs and Successors.
The insults in this message board are deplorable. Expected, but deplorable.
Still, we have the right to make our comments so there is mine, defending Her Majesty as I swore I would do.
An ex-commissioned officer of the British Army.
Bring on the backlash.
Sir,
I share your respect for Her Majesty. I cannot say the same for her eldest son after what happened during his first marriage. I think he acted deplorably and with dishonor. What are your attitudes toward Charles, Prince of Wales?
Thank you,
An ex-non commissioned officer in the US Navy.
I thank you for your fine comments.
HRH Prince Charles? An impossible legacy to follow, not just because of HM The Queen's outstanding one, not just because he will simply not have the amount of time to achieve what she has, but also because he cannot command the love and respect of what will be his subjects. He did, as you say, act deplorably and without honour.
I was no great fan of Princess Diana, but Prince Charles put his wants and needs ahead of what was good for the country. That is not conduct becoming of a monarch.
I feel that had - even though she has sworn not to do - HM had abdicated say, 20 years ago to make way for the Prince of Wales, it may have made some difference to him and might have caused him to focus on becoming kingly. The murder in 1979 of his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, took away a person of great influence on him. However, Charles was… 30 by this time? Surely time to have been standing on his own two feet!
He is liked, but that is not enough.
I was no great fan of Princess Diana, but Prince Charles put his wants and needs ahead of what was good for the country. That is not conduct becoming of a monarch.Agreed. Long live His Majesty King William V share
I am not English, and not one of the subjects of the Queen but i do understand from responsibility and self sacrifice that comes with duty and thus also feel very strongly against the negative comments made against the Royal family. It is the oldest unbroken line in europe and in the world, and if not for it's ancient history and legacy, i think people could respect it solely for it's dignified Queen Elizabeth the second for her outstanding character, true humility and wisdom as well as her uncorrupt example of how we, in these times of peril when our faith and humanity are being tested, ought to behave. She is not just a model for her people but for the world.
She is not just a model for her people but for the world.I share, for the most part, your respectful attitudes toward the Queen. Her eldest son is another matter entirely. share
God bless the Queen
[deleted]
"It is the oldest unbroken line in europe and in the world, and if not for it's ancient history and legacy,..."
Nerd.
sharehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
Yes, let's not show a bit of education for fear of being called a "nerd"! So, what's it like peaking in high school.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
how ironic though the line is german....
shareThe idea of the royal family being German goes back to when Victoria married Albert. But the bloodlines have changed enormously since then, due to the marriages the 1st-in-line's made. Alexandra (Danish), Mary (German and English), The Queen Mother (English and Scottish), Prince Phillip (Greek and Danish), Diana (English), and Kate Middleton (English and Welsh). This "German" dig goes back to WWI when England and Germany were at war is outdated and now inaccurate.
sharewell the line is german. and they started out german.
sax coburg gotha renamed to windsor.
Yes, due to Queen Victoria marrying Prince Albert of Saxe Coberg Gotha. Like many women, she took his last name upon marriage, and since she was the Queen, it became the name of her royal house. But my point about bloodlines is accurate. While Albert brought in the German blood, many other married-ins brought in lots of English blood. This German slur is outdated and inaccurate.
shareQueen Victoria herself was half german.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Victoria_of_Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
I'd check my facts before spouting nonsense like this.
I think she has tremendous style and class. Hopefully she will make William King, and the Monarchy will continue to be a respected establishment.
shareGod save the Queen (Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia).
And good luck to Prince Charles. He has a harder row to hoe than he ought to have had, and in my opinion it's mostly his own fault. But he still needs to succeed for the sake of the monarchy.
Long live our Queen, God bless her forever.
shareAnd good luck to Prince Charles. He has a harder row to hoe than he ought to have had, and in my opinion it's mostly his own fault. But he still needs to succeed for the sake of the monarchy.
There are those inside the Palace and out, myself among them, who say "God Save the Queen" and really mean it. Perhaps they are worried about what comes next.share
-Dickie Arbiter, long time royal aide
like it matters who will cut ribbons...gimme a break.
shareI agree with you. God Bless All The Royal Family including Charles. I never was a fan of Diana and always felt that she caused a lot of trouble
shareI respect the Queen. Some people say, "Why should I care about someone who was never elected, never did anything to deserve her mantle?" Well, she was born into it. Not her choice. But in the 26 years before she took over her father's position she gained a ton of experience. She had to. Much in the same way William I am sure has learned a lot about what it takes to be a future King. As far as I am concerned, the Queen is the most experienced political figure in the world. That alone should have you respect her. She was Queen when Winston Churchill was Prime Minister. To think she doesn't have any experience or deserves to be where she is now is silly. She's earned it for sure
shareNo, no one should respect anyone for being born into a position. We don't know what experience the Queen has (other than the reality of meeting PMs every week for meeting which the public - who pay for them - are not privy to). You don't know what the Queen learned or was taught before her father's death and you don't know what William has learned, because we know virtually nothing about what 'training' (if any) they are given. Furthermore, we're constantly told they're above politics and take no active role in government, so why the meetings with the PM and what good would any 'experience' (other than diplomacy) do them? If the Queen simply has an 'advisory' role, the question remains - what right has she to advise a person who was actually elected? And why are *we* the people of Britain not allowed to know what advice she gives so that we can decide whether or not it's worth having?
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
She's been an exceptional monarch.
I can't understand the antipathy towards Charles, however. Sure, he made a mistake but he's human; his critics expect him to be like Christ (then they'd still find fault). As an avid history buff and anglophile, compared to other Royals (and Kings of England!) Charles' behavior vis 'a vis mistresses has been almost exemplary
--compared to an average human being he's in company with at least 50% of humanity who have strayed from their marriage vows.
Every time I see that clip of Diana complaining about 'you see, there were 3 of us in that marriage' I want to correct her math to 'there were 4 (or 5, or...X) of us in that marriage'.
Diana wanted the father of her children (to bring up Harry here would only strengthen my point) to hang for his peccadilloes while desiring a blind eye to be turned to her own. Very transparent, very sad... and still it worked!
[deleted]
I share your thoughts about the Queen. May she reign another twenty years.
. . . compared to other Royals (and Kings of England!) Charles' behavior vis 'a vis mistresses has been almost exemplaryHow did he do that?
(to bring up Harry here would only strengthen my point)Charles was shown to be Harry's father by DNA evidence when Diana was still alive. Besides, Diana met Hewitt in 1986, two years after Harry was born. People trying to sell newspapers and magazines made a big deal about superficial resemblances that can be common among many unrelated people and suggested Diana and Hewitt met three years earlier. Overwhelming evidence shows the altered timeline to be false.
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory]
" (to bring up Harry here would only strengthen my point)
Charles was shown to be Harry's father by DNA evidence when Diana was still alive. Besides, Diana met Hewitt in 1986, two years after Harry was born. People trying to sell newspapers and magazines made a big deal about superficial resemblances that can be common among many unrelated people and suggested Diana and Hewitt met three years earlier. Overwhelming evidence shows the altered timeline to be false.
If Charles had been the faithful husband he swore to be before God and his Queen, the entire topic would be a moot point.
You know, I AGREE with you... Charles SHOULD have been a faithful husband. No question. But he is human.
Look, I can forgive my ex for screwing around
--and with his own brother's wife, no less!--
so, IMO at least, I'd really have to be be foolish not to forgive Charles
AND Diana
for their peccadilloes.
Just be honest about it. That's what I care about.
And yes, I know that DNA has shown Harry is not Hewitt's son -- but there is still that whispered scuttlebutt... unfortunate but true.
And Hewitt is a fool, IMO. Nor is he anything approaching a gentleman. Taking advantage of Diana, her name and her reputation esp. after she can no longer defend herself against his bull$*t
and all for his own notoriety!
is nothing less than utterly shameful.
Please don't ask me "How did he do that?", it's a bit insulting to both our intelligences: I'm sure you're quite familiar with the almost countless bastards of the many Kings of England throughout time; of course many weren't even hidden but given Earldoms, Duchies (proper term?), etc. and set up for their, and their descendants life.
Of course I'm speaking historically.
So to say that *comparatively* Prince Charles has almost been exemplary
--viewed through the prism of history-- isn't untrue
although admittedly way below expectations in this present time.
[deleted]
With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about Harry's DNA test. There was NEVER a test. Harry volunteered to take one, but the monarch would not hear of it. According to one of her former assistants, she opened one of the newspapers comparing the photos of Harry and James Hewitt and said, "My God, could it be true?" Then she caught herself and said, "No, no, of course not." This former assistant says they were afraid Harry might NOT belong to Charles; then what would happen? It would be a bitter, possibly mortal, blow for the monarchy. Charles is known to have objected to such a test on the grounds that he considered himself to be Harry's father and such a test would not matter, no matter what the results. I believe this to be a proper and admirable attitude.
I personally believe that Charles is Harry's father and that James Hewitt is a bloody liar.
With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about Harry's DNA test.I went back through my sources and you're right. The only book I have that goes into it is "After Diana," by Christopher Anderson and he echoes what you said.
[deleted]
I can't understand the antipathy towards Charles, however. Sure, he made a mistake but he's human; his critics expect him to be like Christ (then they'd still find fault). As an avid history buff and anglophile, compared to other Royals (and Kings of England!) Charles' behavior vis 'a vis mistresses has been almost exemplary
^^^^Exactly!!!
Monarchs don't serve much purpose today except as a symbolic ideal and as thus, must live a life most people can paradoxically look up to and relate to.
Monarchs used to exist due to DIVINE RIGHT.
NOwadays, the monarchy merely exists because the population tolerates them. The existence of advanced media also does not help things for the monarchy. With them not serving much purpose (celebrities and millionaires do great charities too, so what makes THEIR charities special?), they only have their symbolic image to capitalize on.
As such, they have no choice but to act according to popular opinion or what the popular opinion expects them to be.
So if people hold CHarles to a stricter moral code, it really comes as no surprise.
They don't have any other job except to do so!
An exceptional monarch? The monarch is Head of State, yes? Can you kindly list her achievements in that role - what will future generations look back on as the crowning moments of her reign; what inspiring speeches of hers will they quote and what specific examples of her moments of exceptional national leadership will they cite?
Let's face it, the Queen has been exceptional at being unremarkable, not causing scandals and protecting her family's interests.
As for Charles, he's going to be the Head of the Church of England. He's not only an adulterer, but was proud to be (claiming that he did not intend to be the first Prince of Wales without a mistress). AFAIK, '50% of the humanity' are not in the position he's going to be in. That he can't live up to this role just shows how stupid it is to rely on someone being born to it.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
Thank you for your words sir. I am not English but I have a love for history and a love for your monarch. She is grace and class as far as I am concerned. I was luckily enough to have seen her in person the first time I was in London and I will treasure it forever. May she reign for many more years!!!
share