Prince of Wales becomes oldest heir to the Throne for 300 years

[JLM]

a monarch stewards the money better than any politician would

Yep, I don't think there is any arguing that one! - BUT should politicians set the standard? -

yeah funny how no politician seems to want to do that...I'm sure it is for our own good though...we wouldn't understand the necessity for some of the expenses

Yep, I have to admit to being a little dense on that score!

I didn't say ban them from visiting, I said we should not pay the outrageous costs. They are welcome but better bring their own security or pay our RCMP and be ready to pay for their own hotels, transportation, food, etc.

Absolutely correct.................................the same as you would for guests invited into your own home!

 

[SLM]

Absolutely correct.................................the same as you would for guests invited into your own home!

You make people bring their own food when they visit you?8O

Not going to dinner at your house any time soon then.

 

[JLM]

You make people bring their own food when they visit you?8O

Not going to dinner at your house any time soon then.

Sorry for the Confusion, SLM. I thought Nick might twig in to the ridiculousness of the statement.

You make people bring their own food when they visit you?8O

Not going to dinner at your house any time soon then.

For you Sweetie, there would be Filet Mignon, Lobster and Caviar!

 

[SLM]

Sorry for the Confusion, SLM. I thought Nick might twig in to the ridiculousness of the statement.

I did tweak a bit that it might be sarcasm, lol, but I thought it was funny so I went for it.

For you Sweetie, there would be Filet Mignon, Lobster and Caviar!

Wow, I feel like a queen.

 

[Blackleaf]

You could make the argument that he 'saved the Monarchy', BL . Good topic. Britain had been 'ruled', so to speak, by a raving lunatic and then a drunk since at least 1770.
George III of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George III wasn't mad. He suffered from porphyria.

The American Revolt was triggered by an unenforceable tea monopoly and tax - put in place by Lord North to 'bail out his friends in the near Bankrupt East India company'.

'Oyyy, the Colonies won't mind, NAow"

It was triggered by Britons in their North American colonies who didn't want to pay the same taxes that Britons elsewhere had to pay.

. William IV offered to turn Buckingham palace into the British Parliament after fire gutted the old place.

Yeah. William IV didn't like Buckingham Palace, so he saw the burning to the ground of the old Houses of Parliament - situated in the Palace of Westminster, which is also a royal palace - in 1834 as an excuse to despose of Buckingham Palace by allowing parliament to sit in it.

However his offer was politely refused and the present Westminster Palace was built.

The 1834 fire was very popular - crowds gathered watching it, cheering it on as it burned down parliament.

1834 wasn't the only time the Houses of Parliament were destroyed by fire. It also happened in 1298 and 1512. The 1512 fire caused Henry VIII to move the royal family out to Whitehall Palace just a few hundred yards away.

 

[Christianna]

Do you think there's a little spitefulness in that family? -

I don't know about spite, but it wasn't that long ago Charles said something about getting tired of waiting. To me that smacked of wishing his mother dead.

 

[WLDB]

a monarch stewards the money better than any politician would

Their own money perhaps, which is the only money they have control over. Use of public money still requires some politician to sign off on it. That has been the case for centuries. They beheaded the last King who tried to get around that.

I don't know about spite, but it wasn't that long ago Charles said something about getting tired of waiting. To me that smacked of wishing his mother dead.

Not necessarily. He could be hoping for her to abdicate. That isnt without precedent.

What DOES it tell you when the streets of Canada are packed during a royal visit?

That a lot of people have an obsession with celebrity. People like that keep the tabloids and reality tv in business.

 

[Blackleaf]

The Queen won't abdicate. She vowed to serve her countries until she dies. And so she should. A monarch is a monarch for life.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Absolutely correct.................................the same as you would for guests invited into your own home!

Sometimes I lay on all the food, sometimes people will bring a salad or buns or dessert. That is quite different. I want to see those people and I go eat at theirs. Also I don't lay on $200/plate dinners and $1000/night hotels or $50,000/day in security.

The royals are a waste of time and money. They do nothing productive in society. They are normal people elevated to almost god-like status by idiots stupid enough to believe they have some genetic make-up that god ordained as superior to the rest of us. :roll:

It would be a happy day for me if they got ousted and had every asset stripped away and sold off and distributed to all citizens of the commonwealth which is where it all came from in the first place. Let them get real jobs or live on the dole like everyone else has to.

Sorry for the Confusion, SLM. I thought Nick might twig in to the ridiculousness of the statement.

I thought you might twig onto the ridiculousness of spending $1.5 million to host a couple of the most useless people on the planet when they could foot the bill themselves easier than I can buy a cup of coffee.

 

[tober]

Obama reigns at Americans' pleasure and not everyone is pleased. How is that any different?

Does Canada also ban Danish or Swedish or Japanese royalty from visiting Canada because of the cost? Or is it just your own royalty that you have a problem with?

The Pope is a monarch (and an absolute one at that) - will you protest a visit to Canada by him?

Do you really think that no royals will ever step foot in a Canadian republic (which Canadians will have to pay for, whereas they get their monarchy for free, because the British pay for it for them)?

And there's a reason the streets were absolutely packed when Wills and Kate visited, and it wasn't to throw dead cats and rotten vegetables at them.

What DOES it tell you when the streets of Canada are packed during a royal visit?

This sounds like a typical US misunderstanding of the constitutional position of Brit Royalty in Canada. The Queen is nothing but a figurehead and has no executive power at all. Her position is a constitutional fiction, the reality is that if her Canadian Parliament voted her to go to war with the Brits that would be her obligation. Of course that would never happen. If the relationship between us and the Brits deteriorated that badly we would simply toss the fiction out. In the meantime all of Canada is able to rally behind our Head of State at all times. Look at the horrible position the Yanks have created? After every election half of them hate their Head of State. That attitude has turned America into one of the angriest, most self destructive nations in the world.

 

[PoliticalNick]

It was triggered by Britons in their North American colonies who didn't want to pay the same taxes that Britons elsewhere had to pay.

You're both wrong. It was fought over currency. The British wanted to control the currency in the new world and so flooded it with counterfeit of the new currencies being use causing hyper-inflation. They did this because whoever controls the currency control's the population.

"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation." - James A. Garfield

 

[Blackleaf]

The British wanted to control the currency in the new world

And quite rightly. They were BRITISH colonies.

 

[tober]

Sometimes I lay on all the food, sometimes people will bring a salad or buns or dessert. That is quite different. I want to see those people and I go eat at theirs. Also I don't lay on $200/plate dinners and $1000/night hotels or $50,000/day in security.

The royals are a waste of time and money. They do nothing productive in society. They are normal people elevated to almost god-like status by idiots stupid enough to believe they have some genetic make-up that god ordained as superior to the rest of us. :roll:

It would be a happy day for me if they got ousted and had every asset stripped away and sold off and distributed to all citizens of the commonwealth which is where it all came from in the first place. Let them get real jobs or live on the dole like everyone else has to.


I thought you might twig onto the ridiculousness of spending $1.5 million to host a couple of the most useless people on the planet when they could foot the bill themselves easier than I can buy a cup of coffee.

Amen to all that. However there seems to be something about having a remote Head of State that is politically powerless that works for us. It seems to work for places like Scandinavia too.

 

[Blackleaf]

Amen to all that. However there seems to be something about having a remote Head of State that is politically powerless that works for us. It seems to work for places like Scandinavia too.

Do Scandinavians have a remote Head of State?

 

[darkbeaver]

It was triggered by Britons in their North American colonies who didn't want to pay the same taxes that Britons elsewhere had to pay.

No it wasn't.

 

[Blackleaf]

No it wasn't.

It was.

 

[tober]

Do Scandinavians have a remote Head of State?

Norway, Sweden and Denmark are all constitution monarchies. Canada is a constitutional monarchy with the added factor of a written Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter doesn't eliminate the common law, but it supersedes it in cases of conflict.

 

[Blackleaf]

Norway, Sweden and Denmark are all constitution monarchies. Canada is a constitutional monarchy with the added factor of a written Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter doesn't eliminate the common law, but it supersedes it in cases of conflict.

Do Norway, Sweden and Denmark - which consistently are ranked more democratic than Canada, and the most democratic nations in the world - not have similar charters?

 

[hunboldt]

You're both wrong. It was fought over currency. The British wanted to control the currency in the new world and so flooded it with counterfeit of the new currencies being use causing hyper-inflation. They did this because whoever controls the currency control's the population.

"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation." - James A. Garfield

Interesting point, and partly correct, however the hyper inflation was caused by the various colonial legislators floating strange currencies. Massachusetts reverted in 1750 to strictly specie.
Money in the American Colonies | Economic History Services

The Byast Court without delay,
Adjudg'd my Debt in Country Pay:
In Pipe staves, Corn, or Flesh of Boar,
Rare Cargo for the English Shoar.

The Mexican Dollar often 'oddly debased LOCALLY,' was the accepted unit of exchange until the Us mint was founded..

 

[JLM]

I don't know about spite, but it wasn't that long ago Charles said something about getting tired of waiting. To me that smacked of wishing his mother dead.

No, it's not the epitome of tactfulness, but I suppose he comes by it honestly, Philip can be a little crass! -

Their own money perhaps, which is the only money they have control over. Use of public money still requires some politician to sign off on it. That has been the case for centuries. They beheaded the last King who tried to get around that.

Who was that? Charlie I?