Lovecraft Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 3 hours ago, bobsharp said: I think you have misunderstood my point, whatever the Royals know whether its about Andrew or Harry, they are never willingly going to admit anything. My logic was strictly that any information they gleaned was strictly for their own knowledge and use. Not the publics. They have not stayed where they are for all these years by being forth coming about Royal indiscretions. Gotcha. I agree, pretty much said the same in the post just before yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 If he gets the Governor General job it comes with a salary of about £170k plus houses, access to planes and staff. Canada would pay it I think. Don't think its meant to be available till about 2022 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 51 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said: If he gets the Governor General job it comes with a salary of about £170k plus houses, access to planes and staff. Canada would pay it I think. Don't think its meant to be available till about 2022 though. I think you are correct the present occupant is reasonably new. I also think it has now been established that a Canadian should be in the position. Nothing now stopping Harry if he loved the military life as has been rfeported joining the Canadian army, they are in Afghanistan and many other areas of need. I think though that is unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticJambo Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 no way they give the GG to Harry; canada is going more republic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 1 hour ago, ArcticJambo said: no way they give the GG to Harry; canada is going more republic! Even though the GG is a symbolic position, with almost no powers, if the job was handed to a foreigner like Harry, people would be asking "wtf?" The republic question is more interesting. While there is some feeling that getting rid of the monarchy is the way forward, people here tend to look at the political shambles in the USA and say, "Nah, let's stick with what we have." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 His Royal (assuming they don't take the title off him) Highness the ginger wuss is gong to wake up one morning and scream to himself WTF have I done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Internet Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Pretty sure he'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticJambo Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 19 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said: His Royal (assuming they don't take the title off him) Highness the ginger wuss is gong to wake up one morning and scream to himself WTF have I done. If he lives in Taranno, yes! Sorry ML, always found it a massive sprawling souless city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilnunb Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Queen and Harry supposedly meeting tomorrow. Hope she throws the wee runt in the dungeon never to be seen again. 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Presumably people wondering how the will manage to be financially stable are at it? I give it 3 months u till they are the prince and princess of the states whoring themselves out to anyone and everyone. The new posh and becks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Royals upsetting royals and royalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 'Megsit' to be the death of the royal family? Nicked from Iain McWhirter, Sunday Herald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, ArcticJambo said: If he lives in Taranno, yes! Sorry ML, always found it a massive sprawling souless city. Yeah, you're not alone in that opinion. It has become too big and too congested for me. I'm moving in a couple of months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 1 minute ago, DETTY29 said: 'Megsit' to be the death of the royal family? Nicked from Iain McWhirter, Sunday Herald. Why is it that the females who marry into the family get the blame? It used to be Diana who had the Windsor's knickers in a knot, now it's Meghan. Andrew's antics should have been the death of the royal family, but that has seemingly dropped off the front page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: Why is it that the females who marry into the family get the blame? It used to be Diana who had the Windsor's knickers in a knot, now it's Meghan. Andrew's antics should have been the death of the royal family, but that has seemingly dropped off the front page. Andrew's true british blue blood... . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 26 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: Why is it that the females who marry into the family get the blame? It used to be Diana who had the Windsor's knickers in a knot, now it's Meghan. Andrew's antics should have been the death of the royal family, but that has seemingly dropped off the front page. Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 There always seems to be a Royal in the gossip zone. In my time in London the stories being spun by men doing guards at St James Palace were things of legend about Princess Margaret, I never done that guard so could not confirm or deny their credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 The half blood prince should have a dna test. Even if it ain't Major Hewitt it sure as hell ain't Chuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Maple Leaf said: Why is it that the females who marry into the family get the blame? It used to be Diana who had the Windsor's knickers in a knot, now it's Meghan. Andrew's antics should have been the death of the royal family, but that has seemingly dropped off the front page. Diana was True blood Royalty straight from Charles Stuart II. The Windsor's are Pretenders from George the 59th in liner. That's why they hated her. Peasants! Or maybe they told Andrew to Bolt. Fergie knew! Edited January 12, 2020 by ri Alban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section Q Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 19 hours ago, ArcticJambo said: no way they give the GG to Harry; canada is going more republic! Charles was tipped as the GG of Australia back in the eighties. They're like cockroaches, and they'll survive no matter what...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section Q Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 5 hours ago, DETTY29 said: Andrew's true british blue blood... . Rumour was he looked like the Queen's private secretary back in the late fifties. Check him out and he looks like none of his siblings....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Internet Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychedelicropcircle Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Think this should be solved via some 16th century royal justice, Will to have Harry lifted & thrown in the Tower of London, then for a future public execution to be arranged, whipping his jinger bonce off & put on a spike at the gates of Buckingham Palace! It’s no like he’s his real bro eh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticJambo Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 7 hours ago, Maple Leaf said: Yeah, you're not alone in that opinion. It has become too big and too congested for me. I'm moving in a couple of months. Good man; staying in Ontario or moving to more temperate climes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been here before Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 7 hours ago, DETTY29 said: 'Megsit' to be the death of the royal family? Nicked from Iain McWhirter, Sunday Herald. Im thinking Iains a wee bit slow on tje uptake with that one... On 08/01/2020 at 22:54, been here before said: Megxit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, ri Alban said: Diana was True blood Royalty straight from Charles Stuart II. The Windsor's are Pretenders from George the 59th in liner. That's why they hated her. Peasants! Or maybe they told Andrew to Bolt. Fergie knew! Diana, was, strictly never of true royal blood, she was however a descendant of Charles II, that much is true, but only through the royal barsteward Charles Lennox who Charles II fathered with his mistress the Duchess of Portsmouth, Louise de Kerouaille and as a consequence the child would have never been recognized as being of 'royal birth'. Charles Lennox was just one of numerous barstewards Charles II fathered by at least 7 known mistresses and maybe as many as 14 and quite probably more if you include one night stands, so to speak. In other words there are quite probably hundreds if not thousands of descendants of Charles II alive today as it's unclear just how many children Charles II fathered, 20+ would be a good guess, but there are possibly, nay probably many many more. The Windsor's far from being 'pretenders' are by the act of settlement of 1701 the legitimate heirs to the throne. This act of parliament was basically thus, in the event of Queen Anne dying without an heir, the throne could not be inherited by a Catholic, thus ruling out the 50+ Catholic claimants to the throne, this is the 50+ you mention, well they became ineligible and their claim to the throne ceased in 1701. Long story short, the act of settlement was hoped never to be enacted, it was merely an insurance policy to make sure that Britain would be ruled by a Protestant. Queen Anne had 5 children but they all died before her and it therefore meant that the highest ranking Protestant heir to the throne was the Electress Sophia of Hanover but she died in June 1714 two months before Anne and then when Anne died on the 1st August 1714, it was Sophia's son George who then became George I King of Great Britain. His mother the Electress Sophia was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart the oldest sister of Charles II, therefore she was a direct blood descendant of Mary Queen of Scots, which means George I was also a direct blood ancestor of Mary Queen of Scots, therefore needless to say Queen Elizabeth II is also a direct blood ancestor of Mary Queen of Scots. But it doesn't end there, because Queen Elizabeth II through her mother's Bowes-Lyon lineage is also a descendant of Robert the Bruce. Meaning that not only is there a Stuart decsendant sitting on the throne there is also a Bruce decsendant as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwindonJambo Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 7 hours ago, bobsharp said: There always seems to be a Royal in the gossip zone. In my time in London the stories being spun by men doing guards at St James Palace were things of legend about Princess Margaret, I never done that guard so could not confirm or deny their credibility. Seemingly she was quite the party girl in the 60s with Mick Jagger a strongly rumoured conquest. They remained friends until her death. They really are a self indulgent, overprivileged dysfunctional shower and I for one am embarrassed that we keep them in their obscenely opulent lives. Comparably sized European countries i.e. Germany, Italy and France, binned their own Royal Families years ago and and manage fine without them. I honestly believe the tourists would still visit. I respect the Queen's sense of duty. Once she passed, that should be the end of the UK RF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Monty Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Have to laugh at all these posters, who will be raging from cradle to death. You are British, whether you like it, or not. Scotland voted NO!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Monty Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Yes. Scotland voted NO. So... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwindonJambo Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Del Monty said: Yes. Scotland voted NO. So... What on Earth has that got to do with the Royal Family? I support the UK (though understand those who don't) but have no time for the Royals. My stance is not rare. Edited January 13, 2020 by SwindonJambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 5 hours ago, ArcticJambo said: Good man; staying in Ontario or moving to more temperate climes? 100 km west .... Guelph, Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 7 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Diana, was, strictly never of true royal blood, she was however a descendant of Charles II, that much is true, but only through the royal barsteward Charles Lennox who Charles II fathered with his mistress the Duchess of Portsmouth, Louise de Kerouaille and as a consequence the child would have never been recognized as being of 'royal birth'. Charles Lennox was just one of numerous barstewards Charles II fathered by at least 7 known mistresses and maybe as many as 14 and quite probably more if you include one night stands, so to speak. In other words there are quite probably hundreds if not thousands of descendants of Charles II alive today as it's unclear just how many children Charles II fathered, 20+ would be a good guess, but there are possibly, nay probably many many more. The Windsor's far from being 'pretenders' are by the act of settlement of 1701 the legitimate heirs to the throne. This act of parliament was basically thus, in the event of Queen Anne dying without an heir, the throne could not be inherited by a Catholic, thus ruling out the 50+ Catholic claimants to the throne, this is the 50+ you mention, well they became ineligible and their claim to the throne ceased in 1701. Long story short, the act of settlement was hoped never to be enacted, it was merely an insurance policy to make sure that Britain would be ruled by a Protestant. Queen Anne had 5 children but they all died before her and it therefore meant that the highest ranking Protestant heir to the throne was the Electress Sophia of Hanover but she died in June 1714 two months before Anne and then when Anne died on the 1st August 1714, it was Sophia's son George who then became George I King of Great Britain. His mother the Electress Sophia was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart the oldest sister of Charles II, therefore she was a direct blood descendant of Mary Queen of Scots, which means George I was also a direct blood ancestor of Mary Queen of Scots, therefore needless to say Queen Elizabeth II is also a direct blood ancestor of Mary Queen of Scots. But it doesn't end there, because Queen Elizabeth II through her mother's Bowes-Lyon lineage is also a descendant of Robert the Bruce. Meaning that not only is there a Stuart decsendant sitting on the throne there is also a Bruce decsendant as well. They're all related, FFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Australia burns and this is the main news. Pathetic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 7 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Diana, was, strictly never of true royal blood, she was however a descendant of Charles II, that much is true, but only through the royal barsteward Charles Lennox who Charles II fathered with his mistress the Duchess of Portsmouth, Louise de Kerouaille and as a consequence the child would have never been recognized as being of 'royal birth'. Charles Lennox was just one of numerous barstewards Charles II fathered by at least 7 known mistresses and maybe as many as 14 and quite probably more if you include one night stands, so to speak. In other words there are quite probably hundreds if not thousands of descendants of Charles II alive today as it's unclear just how many children Charles II fathered, 20+ would be a good guess, but there are possibly, nay probably many many more. The Windsor's far from being 'pretenders' are by the act of settlement of 1701 the legitimate heirs to the throne. This act of parliament was basically thus, in the event of Queen Anne dying without an heir, the throne could not be inherited by a Catholic, thus ruling out the 50+ Catholic claimants to the throne, this is the 50+ you mention, well they became ineligible and their claim to the throne ceased in 1701. Long story short, the act of settlement was hoped never to be enacted, it was merely an insurance policy to make sure that Britain would be ruled by a Protestant. Queen Anne had 5 children but they all died before her and it therefore meant that the highest ranking Protestant heir to the throne was the Electress Sophia of Hanover but she died in June 1714 two months before Anne and then when Anne died on the 1st August 1714, it was Sophia's son George who then became George I King of Great Britain. His mother the Electress Sophia was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart the oldest sister of Charles II, therefore she was a direct blood descendant of Mary Queen of Scots, which means George I was also a direct blood ancestor of Mary Queen of Scots, therefore needless to say Queen Elizabeth II is also a direct blood ancestor of Mary Queen of Scots. But it doesn't end there, because Queen Elizabeth II through her mother's Bowes-Lyon lineage is also a descendant of Robert the Bruce. Meaning that not only is there a Stuart decsendant sitting on the throne there is also a Bruce decsendant as well. Act of settlement? 1701? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 5 hours ago, Del Monty said: Have to laugh at all these posters, who will be raging from cradle to death. You are British, whether you like it, or not. Scotland voted NO!!! There's plenty of threads discussing this topic. No away and take the pressure off your knees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwindonJambo Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 43 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Australia burns and this is the main news. Pathetic! 100% agree. Not that it remotely matters in that context but he’s 6th in line to the throne so in no way a constitutional crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah O Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 5 hours ago, Del Monty said: Have to laugh at all these posters, who will be raging from cradle to death. You are British, whether you like it, or not. Scotland voted NO!!! This is a discussion about the monarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 31 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said: 100% agree. Not that it remotely matters in that context but he’s 6th in line to the throne so in no way a constitutional crisis. Just a lad who loves/adores his wife. Gossip magazine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 2 hours ago, ri Alban said: They're all related, FFS. We're all Jock Tamson's bairns. 1 hour ago, ri Alban said: Act of settlement? 1701? I'll save you having to goggle it. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/actofsettlement/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Crisis talks today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlimOzturk Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Why is this such a big deal to the royal family he doesnt want to perform royal duties what difference does it really make? If it was charles or William I would under the panick but harry is hardly essential to the running of the organisation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 26 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: We're all Jock Tamson's bairns. I'll save you having to goggle it. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/actofsettlement/ No I know what it is, but when was the UK formed again. It was an English law. Well you know the rest. Different threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, SwindonJambo said: 100% agree. Not that it remotely matters in that context but he’s 6th in line to the throne so in no way a constitutional crisis. 7 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said: Why is this such a big deal to the royal family he doesnt want to perform royal duties what difference does it really make? If it was charles or William I would under the panick but harry is hardly essential to the running of the organisation Apparently preparing to 'tell all' if he doesn't get his own way so it might end up that way. Then again we all known that Trump and Johnson don't give a shit about anyone but themselves but still manage to get elected as men of the people. Suppose it depends whose side Mark Zuchenberg takes, or pays him the most. Edited January 13, 2020 by DETTY29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said: Why is this such a big deal to the royal family he doesnt want to perform royal duties what difference does it really make? If it was charles or William I would under the panick but harry is hardly essential to the running of the organisation Exactly. They can nominate another parasite to carry out his jollies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, ri Alban said: No I know what it is, but when was the UK formed again. It was an English law. Well you know the rest. Different threads. It may have been passed in 1701 but it became UK law in 1707 whilst Queen Anne was still on the throne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said: Why is this such a big deal to the royal family he doesnt want to perform royal duties what difference does it really make? If it was charles or William I would under the panick but harry is hardly essential to the running of the organisation My take on why it's such a big deal is this. They don't want to perform any Royal duties but will they still get money from the Sovereign list (the taxpayer), personally they shouldn't. They say they want to be financially independant, but they currently receive 95% of their income from Charles, will that continue. Then there is the question of their royal titles, I believe they want to keep them whilst being outside of the 'firm', and we know why, because having a royal title will add a few extra 0's to any paycheck. And lets not forget security, Harry & Meghan want the UK tax payer to pay for their security both here and in Canada. My personal feeling is, that you can't be half in half out, you are either fully in or fully out and if it's out you don't get a penny from the tax payer and if you want security you pay for that yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 25 minutes ago, DETTY29 said: Apparently preparing to 'tell all' if he doesn't get his own way so it might end up that way. Then again we all known that Trump and Johnson don't give a shit about anyone but themselves but still manage to get elected as men of the people. Suppose it depends whose side Mark Zuchenberg takes, or pays him the most. And now its Megan on Oprah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: My take on why it's such a big deal is this. They don't want to perform any Royal duties but will they still get money from the Sovereign list (the taxpayer), personally they shouldn't. They say they want to be financially independant, but they currently receive 95% of their income from Charles, will that continue. Then there is the question of their royal titles, I believe they want to keep them whilst being outside of the 'firm', and we know why, because having a royal title will add a few extra 0's to any paycheck. And lets not forget security, Harry & Meghan want the UK tax payer to pay for their security both here and in Canada. My personal feeling is, that you can't be half in half out, you are either fully in or fully out and if it's out you don't get a penny from the tax payer and if you want security you pay for that yourself. Yes, but there has to be a period of transition or negotiation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 41 minutes ago, DETTY29 said: Yes, but there has to be a period of transition or negotiation. And that's also on the agenda of things to be discussed today, seemingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: It may have been passed in 1701 but it became UK law in 1707 whilst Queen Anne was still on the throne. I know this, but... Don't want to ruin the thread, so let's leave it there, bud. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.