British queen's grandson could lose succession rights: reports

[Suzie]

British queen's grandson could lose succession rights: reports (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070803/en_afp/britainroyalsreligion;_ylt=Alxt4GnVFp5gjCsrAdt6xXU DW7oF)
AFP - Fri Aug 3, 3:41 PM ET Sent 163 times LONDON (AFP) - Queen Elizabeth II's eldest grandchild could lose his place in the line of succession to the British throne if he marries his Catholic fiancee, newspapers reported Friday.

[DoctorDoom]

It's a hundred years past the time for the UK to throw out the national welfare family and the entire royalty system. They're a burden that is totally unjustifiable.

[DesertFox]

British queen's grandson could lose succession rights

Goody! I can get in line in his place!

[Maggie_T]

It's a hundred years past the time for the UK to throw out the national welfare family and the entire royalty system. They're a burden that is totally unjustifiable.

Agreed.

Monarchies are completely obsolete. Especially if you consider that these days, their power is merely symbolic.

Nowadays, monarchs merely exist to attract tourists, who, given the present high incidence of ignorance among them, regardless of their nationality, think the queen is some sort of Mickey Mouse. "Where's the queen? ... When can we see the queen?" :rolleyes:

A waste, IMHO.

[Trovalor]

Any clue how much money is wasted pampering that lot on an annual basis?

I can't help thinking of King Ralph whenever I hear something about "The Royal Family". That movie was as much of a comedy as the fact they still cater the Queen.

[DoctorDoom]

Welcome to FC, Trovalor!

[Maggie_T]

Any clue how much money is wasted pampering that lot on an annual basis?

I can't help thinking of King Ralph whenever I hear something about "The Royal Family". That movie was as much of a comedy as the fact they still cater the Queen.


LOL. Trov, I remember that film. It was hysterical. :biggrin:

And let me add my welcome to the Doc's. :wave:

[Trovalor]

Thanks for the warm welcome :D. Great to be among people who share similar ideals (with exception to the occasional Lib who comes here to pour gas on the fire).

[DoctorDoom]

We generally suffer with halfway decent libs (a rare variant even so). We need the raw meat to gnaw on once in a while. :evilgrin:

[PrezLeefun]

Welcome Trovalor!
As for the Prince....marry her anyway.

[Beowulf]

It's a hundred years past the time for the UK to throw out the national welfare family and the entire royalty system. They're a burden that is totally unjustifiable.

That pretty much sums it up, Doc. The Royal family is nothing more than figure heads with no real power that are a drain to the British taxpayer.

[CzechPrince]

The British have chosen to keep them though, because it's part of their history and culture. I applaud the Brits for hanging onto it.

[DoctorDoom]

The British have chosen to keep them though, because it's part of their history and culture. I applaud the Brits for hanging onto it.I agree. And the US should have hung on to slavery and killing indians, which were part of our history and culture.

Royalty is by nature parasitic. One does not continue to allow parasites to feed just because they have been with us for centuries.

[UnkHiram]

Doc

Hey NOW! I resemble that "Killin Indians" remark. Keep in mind, I am heavily armed and more than willing to shoot back.

Personally, I could not care less about the English royal family if I Tried. Keep them, dump them ----- who cares.

[DoctorDoom]

Don't make no never mind ta me whether the Brits want to feed, clothe and house those royal leeches. I ain't payin' fer 'em.

Wanna bet that if they need medical care, there's no waiting for the NHS?

[ThomasMore]

Any clue how much money is wasted pampering that lot on an annual basis?

I can't help thinking of King Ralph whenever I hear something about "The Royal Family". That movie was as much of a comedy as the fact they still cater the Queen.

Welcome, Trovalor!

I see you are from North Central Wisconsin. My work frequently used to take me into Mosinee and Rhinelander. Where abouts are you from?

[CzechPrince]

I agree. And the US should have hung on to slavery and killing indians, which were part of our history and culture.

I don't think that's a decent comparison, but, to each their own.

Royalty is by nature parasitic. One does not continue to allow parasites to feed just because they have been with us for centuries.

If you were British, you might think otherwise. It's been a major element in this history and development of their country, as well as a source of national identity. Of course no one wants to be ruled by a monarch, but that part of their history is important to them and they have chosen to keep it.

Whether or not they are supported by tax dollars or simply cut off from it and are essentially privatized, I admire them for keeping that part of their history alive, especially with what is going on in Britain in this day and age.

[DoctorDoom]

I don't think that's a decent comparison, but, to each their own.If you will be so kind as to forward your objections, in triplicate, on this special paper ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/TP.jpg

... I will be sure to give them the all the attention that they merit.

If you were British, you might think otherwise. It's been a major element in this history and development of their country, as well as a source of national identity. And when one looks over the history of British royalty, one finds little that would evoke pride. Arrogance, contempt, domination, oppression, feudalism—yep, that's a history that I would certainly want to preserve.

Of course no one wants to be ruled by a monarch but that part of their history is important to them and they have chosen to keep it. The sentence contradicts itself. If "no one wants to be ruled by a monarch", then who are they who "have chosen to keep it"?

Whether or not they are supported by tax dollars or simply cut off from it and are essentially privatized, I admire them for keeping that part of their history alive, especially with what is going on in Britain in this day and age.I'm sure that when the Brits see that large part of their paychecks disappearing into the black hole of taxation, and waiting months for "free" medical services, they really do appreciate the royal welfare leeches.

[CzechPrince]

If you will be so kind as to forward your objections, in triplicate, on this special paper ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/TP.jpg

... I will be sure to give them the all the attention that they merit.

And as usual, you cannot post anything without having to act like a jackass.

And when one looks over the history of British royalty, one finds little that would evoke pride. Arrogance, contempt, domination, oppression, feudalism—yep, that's a history that I would certainly want to preserve.

And I'm sure many British would point out strong, patriotic, and proud moments in the history of their monarchy.

The sentence contradicts itself. If "no one wants to be ruled by a monarch", then who are they who "have chosen to keep it"? It wasn't a contradiction, at least on purpose. My point being is while they are no longer ruled by it, obvi, the symbolism and national identity of the British monarchy is still very much alive there. Again, you've admitted (correct me If I am wrong) to never leaving this country. If you went to England, were from there, interacted with people from there, you might see where I am coming from.

I'm sure that when the Brits see that large part of their paychecks disappearing into the black hole of taxation, and waiting months for "free" medical services, they really do appreciate the royal welfare leeches.Again, I'm sure the monarchy would survive fine on it's own even if the taxpayers did not support them, and I am not saying they should support them. My point is, is that they have never opted to stop supporting them and their is a reason for that. This has nothing to do with the NHS, and I haven never supported or championed socialist health care.