Mailwatch(ed) Forum

So, what's the general feeling about Brenda post-Phil? While my own thoughts on the royal family are much the same as I think about religion - not fussed either way but I wouldn't ridicule anyone who's a strong supporter - my cynical head thinks whoever took that solo photo of her in the chapel yesterday has probably ensured the future of the monarchy for another couple of decades at least.

I'm hoping that a pissed-off populace will soon realise that Daily M*il columnists do not get to choose the line of succession and that realisation will lead to knock-on effects throughout society. There are debates to be had.

The Red Arrow wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:44 pm I'm hoping that a pissed-off populace will soon realise that Daily M*il columnists do not get to choose the line of succession and that realisation will lead to knock-on effects throughout society. There are debates to be had.

As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.

The only thing that should happen to Daily Mail columnists is that they get fed into industrial shredders feet-first. However, it'd be embarrassing explaining to a hire company that the reason it's jammed is because someone's pelvis is stuck in it.

Like the OP, I'm unfussed about the Monarchy and wouldn't ridicule a loyal supporter, although I do think the Civil List could do with a pruning. That photo of the Queen sat alone, the TV pictures of her head bowed so much her chin must have been resting on her chest will resonate with a lot of people; a mate of mine however does want Charles to abdicate in favour of his son as he views Charles as regressive and rather prone to meddling; he thinks a public that's still hung up on Diana Spencer will never accept him and Camilla on the throne, but would be more ready to accept William and Catherine.

davidjay wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:00 pm As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.

However, I understand the Monarchy has now set aside primogeniture post-Charles (or George VII as he'll be known).

Boiler wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:24 pm

davidjay wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:00 pm As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.

However, I understand the Monarchy has now set aside primogeniture post-Charles (or George VII as he'll be known).

I think they've moved form male-preference primogeniture to true primogeniture.
I'm no great follower of all the minor ones, but I don't think this has potential to make a difference for at least 3 generations, since all the relevant firstborns are male (let me know if I'm wrong).

As ever, the ardent monarchists and constitutional "experts" like Singen Stevas - there';s another twat who needs a proper hobby - will tie themselves in knots.
* The queen cannot retire and hand on the crown, since she has an "insoluble covenant with god".
* We don't want Charles inheriting the throne because we don't like him.
* OK Andrew's next.
* No, not like that!
* Edward?
* Too effeminate!
* Anne?
* Too masculine!
See where all this choice lands you.

As for taking on a new name, George is an odd choice.
Charles obviously has unfortunate catholic overtones which would have the above mentioned Baron Fawsley (a left footer himself) spinning in his constitutional expert mausoleum.
After all you have to respect the outdated, but traditional "No Catholics or Nonconformists" rule that safeguards the bloodline.
(Aside, ever wondered why they couldn't match Charles up with an available continental princess?)

That aside, changing name has a rather Papal feel to it.
But in George you're reflecting a potentially insane Lutheran, as opposed to a beheaded Catholic.

Such odd laws and traditions, these Royalists

Reasonably common.

Victoria - Christened Alexandrina
Edward VII - Christened Albert
George VI - also Albert

Charles III would not be an auspicious name...

davidjay wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:00 pm

The Red Arrow wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:44 pm I'm hoping that a pissed-off populace will soon realise that Daily M*il columnists do not get to choose the line of succession and that realisation will lead to knock-on effects throughout society. There are debates to be had.

As the queen gets increasingly frail, speculation will inevitably mount as to her successor and the Stand Aside Charles faction will get louder, ignoring the fact that a hereditary monarchy is just that and you can't cast aside a thousand years of protocol because the heir apparent talks to the trees.

I think it was Dara O'Brian whom once said "It's a monarchy, you don't get to choose who your head of state is! If you want to choose, become a Republic!"

William will be a fun name for a king as well. And with Arthur, Phillip and Louis as the alternatives there's not much option.

davidjay wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:38 pm William will be a fun name for a king as well. And with Arthur Phillip and Louis as the alternatives there's not much option.

William will go down well with one half of Glasgow, while reminding the other of a horse botherer who filled the court with his "young friends".

As for Charlie's nom do roi:
How about Frank (as in Spencer), Woodrow (A hand of friendship to our American cousins), or Kenneth (A nod to the Celtic fringes).

Tampon Charlie could take the name Mohammad, and watch the gammons heads asplode

davidjay wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:38 pm William will be a fun name for a king as well. And with Arthu,r Phillip and Louis as the alternatives there's not much option.

We had a King Louis I, (VII of France) but he's never mentioned. 1216-17. AKA Louis of France, but his invasion and occupation of half of England (and acceptance by the barons) has been erased.

Wiki wrote:In 1215, the English barons rebelled against the unpopular King John in the First Barons' War. The barons offered the throne to Prince Louis, who landed unopposed on the Isle of Thanet in eastern Kent, England, at the head of an army on 21 May 1216. There was little resistance when the prince entered London, and he was proclaimed King Louis I of England at Old St Paul's Cathedral with great pomp and celebration in the presence of all of London. Even though he was not crowned, many nobles, as well as King Alexander II of Scotland on behalf of his English possessions, gathered to give homage.
On 14 June 1216, Louis captured Winchester and soon controlled over half of the English kingdom.

Louis was also Lord Mountbatten's name. (Prince Louis of Battenberg).

Alan. King Alan.

You know it makes sense.

King Alan I of Brittany, 897-907. 'Alan the Great'.


Or

https://www.amazon.co.uk/King-Alan-1st- ... 1800319908

Albert, Freddie and BB are the only three kings you need, groovers.

Very correct.

The Red Arrow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:24 am Albert, Freddie and BB are the only three kings you need, groovers.

I'd prefer to be holding Spades, Hearts, Clubs and Diamonds.

Ratings, baby!

Prince Philip’s funeral watched by 13 million beating Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview
THE BBC has beaten ITV when it comes to broadcasting the royals as it has emerged two million more UK viewers tuned into Prince Philip's funeral compared to Harry and Meghan's interview with Oprah Winfrey earlier this year.
By Rebecca Miller
PUBLISHED: 15:54, Sun, Apr 18, 2021 | UPDATED: 17:35, Sun, Apr 18, 2021

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-ra ... -interview

The Red Arrow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:26 pm Ratings, baby!

Prince Philip’s funeral watched by 13 million beating Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview
THE BBC has beaten ITV when it comes to broadcasting the royals as it has emerged two million more UK viewers tuned into Prince Philip's funeral compared to Harry and Meghan's interview with Oprah Winfrey earlier this year.
By Rebecca Miller
PUBLISHED: 15:54, Sun, Apr 18, 2021 | UPDATED: 17:35, Sun, Apr 18, 2021

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-ra ... -interview

So the Express is saying we prefer our Royalty dead?
That's a bit traitorish for a red-top.
What would Fred Basset say?