Queen Elizabeth II - Could She/Would She Leave Her Reign to Prince William

First topic message reminder :

   This is just something I've kicked around since Princess Diana's time and I've wondered about the feasibility of this; so I thought I'd just put it out here   Whether it's something that could be/should be/would never happen ...I'm curious!

And Prince William & Kate were just on the NBC News - traveling to Canada.
So vote and leave a comment - I won't expect this to change anything at Buckingham Palace!

I'm gonna go to Texas one day and arrive on a horse and ask people if they know Ben Reilly.
I'll be the girl steeaking past at 100 mph cos I can't stop the thing

eddie wrote:I'm gonna go to Texas one day and arrive on a horse and ask people if they know Ben Reilly.
I'll be the girl steeaking past at 100 mph cos I can't stop the thing

Everybody here knows me! They've even given me an affectionate nickname, "That Fucking Democrat."

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm gonna go to Texas one day and arrive on a horse and ask people if they know Ben Reilly.
I'll be the girl steeaking past at 100 mph cos I can't stop the thing

Everybody here knows me! They've even given me an affectionate nickname, "That Fucking Democrat."

I can think of a better one for you.

Ben Reilly wrote:WHO GIVES A SHIT???

Exactly!   It's really going to make a difference to people's lives - not!

sassy wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:WHO GIVES A SHIT???

Exactly!   It's really going to make a difference to people's lives - not!

     Well, this AMERICAN 'gave a shit' ...hence the reason I started the poll - did the topic.    

     

Wha' hoppened?

It makes me laugh when people bother to post in a thread just to say they don't give a shit.

Nutt'n, just people letting off some 'steam', I hope!

But it's been an eye opener for the rumors about Harry and how many members on here took those rumors to heart.  WOW, I never really paid much attention since the 'ginger hair' color was so strong in the Spencer side of the blood line.

Original Quill wrote:Wha' hoppened?

Ben said in large red letters that he didn't "give a shit" about the thread, (I'm secretly hoping he did it to prove a point), and sassy agreed, but 4ever didn't report Ben, or moan, or say that he derailed her thread, like she would have had it been Tommy or Nicko or rags or me or Vic or Horatio or Syl......

That's what happened.


Oh. And the Queen is still on the throne and, unlike Ben, even though I'm no royalist, I thought it was an interesting question and poll.

You asked a question - don't give a shit is an aswer.

Stop whining.

sassy wrote:You asked a question - don't give a shit is an aswer.

Stop whining.

Who are you replying to?

Syl wrote:It makes me laugh when people bother to post in a thread just to say they don't give a shit.

Oh, you've missed quite a few of the 'Parachute Packers' ...they just drop in to dribble their comments about 'ME' and how they FEEL, while proclaiming "I really could care less about YOU - you just ramble on and no one knows what your on about"! 

And you wonder why my tally count for awarding red negatives is so high   they must be looking for some kind of reward!

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:It makes me laugh when people bother to post in a thread just to say they don't give a shit.

Oh, you've missed quite a few of the 'Parachute Packers' ...they just drop in to dribble their comments about 'ME' and how they FEEL, while proclaiming "I really could care less about YOU - you just ramble on and no one knows what your on about"! 

And you wonder why my tally count for awarding red negatives is so high   they must be looking for some kind of reward!

Parachute packers??
As I see it you often do the same to others.....so it's really tit for tat.
I am saying this as an individual poster so before you start with the hyena mob again think on.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Wha' hoppened?

Ben said in large red letters that he didn't "give a shit" about the thread, (I'm secretly hoping he did it to prove a point), and sassy agreed, but 4ever didn't report Ben, or moan, or say that he derailed her thread, like she would have had it been Tommy or Nicko or rags or me or Vic or Horatio or Syl......

That's what happened.


Oh. And the Queen is still on the throne and, unlike Ben, even though I'm no royalist, I thought it was an interesting question and poll.

I think I am sometimes guilty of that tbf....but I always think a good thread is like a good conversation, it meanders a bit and includes other stuff.
Feel free (anyone) to point out if ever I am taking a thread off topic rather than reporting it....I will possibly agree.

Syl wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

Oh, you've missed quite a few of the 'Parachute Packers' ...they just drop in to dribble their comments about 'ME' and how they FEEL, while proclaiming "I really could care less about YOU - you just ramble on and no one knows what your on about"! 

And you wonder why my tally count for awarding red negatives is so high   they must be looking for some kind of reward!

Parachute packers??
As I see it you often do the same to others.....so it's really tit for tat.
I am saying this as an individual poster so before you start with the hyena mob again think on.

Oh, I do dear 'official counter of the red bars' ...I do
And I've given as often as I've been attacked; my age doesn't impede my learning ability! 
That's why the number I've awarded is closely offset by the number the 'Parachute Packer Club' drops in to award me ...took me some time to figure out why this place had such a childish toy but since it's an amusing entertainment for the kiddo's - I'll PLAY! 

Syl, I'm always doing it, we all do.
That wasn't my point.

Ben clearly said he didn't give a shit about the topic and that's okay - free speech and all that - but it always depends upon who does things doesn't it?

Anyway it matters not. Like I said, I thought it a good thread.

I reckon the queen will go on to be about 150 though. She's drinking virgin blood or summat!

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

Parachute packers??
As I see it you often do the same to others.....so it's really tit for tat.
I am saying this as an individual poster so before you start with the hyena mob again think on.

Oh, I do dear 'official counter of the red bars' ...I do :twisted:
And I've given as often as I've been attacked; my age doesn't impede my learning ability! 
That's why the number I've awarded is closely offset by the number the 'Parachute Packer Club' drops in to award me ...took me some time to figure out why this place had such a childish toy but since it's an amusing entertainment for the kiddo's - I'll PLAY! 

eddie wrote:Syl, I'm always doing it, we all do.
That wasn't my point.

Ben clearly said he didn't give a shit about the topic and that's okay - free speech and all that - but it always depends upon who does things doesn't it?

Anyway it matters not. Like I said, I thought it a good thread.

I reckon the queen will go on to be about 150 though. She's drinking virgin blood or summat!

It is a good thread....and she (the Queen) is absolutely brilliant at her job and always has been.
Having said that, rather than pass on the crown to Charles or anyone else, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the lot of them when she dies.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl, I'm always doing it, we all do.
That wasn't my point.

Ben clearly said he didn't give a shit about the topic and that's okay - free speech and all that - but it always depends upon who does things doesn't it?

Anyway it matters not. Like I said, I thought it a good thread.

I reckon the queen will go on to be about 150 though. She's drinking virgin blood or summat!

It is a good thread....and she (the Queen) is absolutely brilliant at her job and always has been.
Having said that, rather than pass on the crown to Charles or anyone else, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the lot of them when she dies.

Why do you say that? Do you think we'd be better off without them?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

It is a good thread....and she (the Queen) is absolutely brilliant at her job and always has been.
Having said that, rather than pass on the crown to Charles or anyone else, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the lot of them when she dies.

Why do you say that? Do you think we'd be better off without them?

I do....too many hangers on, plus I think they are empty figureheads now.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl, I'm always doing it, we all do.
That wasn't my point.

Ben clearly said he didn't give a shit about the topic and that's okay - free speech and all that - but it always depends upon who does things doesn't it?

Anyway it matters not. Like I said, I thought it a good thread.

I reckon the queen will go on to be about 150 though. She's drinking virgin blood or summat!

It is a good thread....and she (the Queen) is absolutely brilliant at her job and always has been.
Having said that, rather than pass on the crown to Charles or anyone else, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the lot of them when she dies.

I agree with that. The idea of a Royal family in that format belongs in a bygone era.

It'll never happen. There would be a public outcry!

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:
Why do you say that? Do you think we'd be better off without them?

I do....too many hangers on, plus I think they are empty figureheads now.

Excellent point, Syl; while I don't have a finger on the pulse - nor can I speak for all of Canada ...there is a huge contention of Canadians that are tired of the weight that the country bears in supporting/sustaining the CROWN because of all the 'growing hierarchy family members' that this entails. 
I've read the same intense feelings from WYWolfie and Veya as well. 
The resources and financial burden to maintain all of those historical sights are mammoth {sassy had a great topic >  http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10341-if-the-queen-cant-pay-the-bills-why-not-sell-a-palace-or-two?highlight=cost+of+the+Queen+estates  } and I've had one some where else as well.
The point being, as the Crown grows in family members the costly upkeep for the current ancient buildings is exceeding the current budget - the family members have expectations for pomp & circumstances {public image} and all of that has come to bear upon the people of the United Kingdom ...at a very steep cost!

The Queen and the Duke have certainly given value for money, as have 2 of their 4 offspring, but the cosseted lifestyle of the rest of them, plus their children and all the distant hangers on....well it's outdated and costly, and tbh, does anyone really look up to such a dysfunctional extended family as "the Royals" anymore?

We could still have pomp and ceremony when needed (it's part of the UK tradition and draws in millions of visitors) without the expense of the Royals.

Syl wrote:The Queen and the Duke have certainly given value for money, as have 2 of their 4 offspring, but the cosseted lifestyle of the rest of them, plus their children and all the distant hangers on....well it's outdated and costly, and tbh, does anyone really look up to such a dysfunctional extended family as "the Royals" anymore?

We could still have pomp and ceremony when needed (it's part of the UK tradition and draws in millions of visitors) without the expense of the Royals.

I became interested in the 'cost per buildings' back when our economy was going down the GWB tenure tubes and our recession was hitting our Federal Funding for the Parks programs; they over see the vast Historical Registered locations nation wide.

Without those annual budget funding's the annual maintenance to keep all of those buildings/parks & recreational sites/access roads in our national parks/employees payroll ...so many on those registers get their monthly budgets sliced and the long range necessary 'big ticket' repairs get put off for another year!  Some locations have been 'put off' so long that the disrepair forced the National Register to just close the historical sight due to possible danger to the employee working there and the general public. 

Seems that there are issues past/present/future in England's historic listing sights too.  Where's the limit - Where's the money to repair - Where's the tough choice to say - ENOUGH?

Syl wrote:
The Queen and the Duke have certainly given value for money, as have 2 of their 4 offspring, but the cosseted lifestyle of the rest of them, plus their children and all the distant hangers on....well it's outdated and costly, and tbh, does anyone really look up to such a dysfunctional extended family as "the Royals" anymore?

We could still have pomp and ceremony when needed (it's part of the UK tradition and draws in millions of visitors) without the expense of the Royals.

I don't know.  Look at France.  Sure, there are the buildings and historical places, but the loss of the royal line has diminished all of French history.  

Hell, people don't even know that notre dame does not mean the virgin mother, but the Magdalena.  The reason why is they have lost sight of the history of the Merovingian and Carolingian stories, whereas people regularly follow LIz II back through all the twists and turns to the Normans.  There's a lot to be valued there.

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:The Queen and the Duke have certainly given value for money, as have 2 of their 4 offspring, but the cosseted lifestyle of the rest of them, plus their children and all the distant hangers on....well it's outdated and costly, and tbh, does anyone really look up to such a dysfunctional extended family as "the Royals" anymore?

We could still have pomp and ceremony when needed (it's part of the UK tradition and draws in millions of visitors) without the expense of the Royals.

I became interested in the 'cost per buildings' back when our economy was going down the GWB tenure tubes and our recession was hitting our Federal Funding for the Parks programs; they over see the vast Historical Registered locations nation wide.

Without those annual budget funding's the annual maintenance to keep all of those buildings/parks & recreational sites/access roads in our national parks/employees payroll ...so many on those registers get their monthly budgets sliced and the long range necessary 'big ticket' repairs get put off for another year!  Some locations have been 'put off' so long that the disrepair forced the National Register to just close the historical sight due to possible danger to the employee working there and the general public. 

Seems that there are issues past/present/future in England's historic listing sights too.  Where's the limit - Where's the money to repair - Where's the tough choice to say - ENOUGH?

I think people will one day say ENOUGH, probably not in my lifetime though.

I also think that Diana, who the royals believed would be their downfall, has actually been their saviour and given them an extended stay, her and Charles offspring have brought the royal family into the 21st century.....though I don't think even they will be enough to stop the decline.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
The Queen and the Duke have certainly given value for money, as have 2 of their 4 offspring, but the cosseted lifestyle of the rest of them, plus their children and all the distant hangers on....well it's outdated and costly, and tbh, does anyone really look up to such a dysfunctional extended family as "the Royals" anymore?

We could still have pomp and ceremony when needed (it's part of the UK tradition and draws in millions of visitors) without the expense of the Royals.

I don't know.  Look at France.  Sure, there are the buildings and historical places, but the loss of the royal line has diminished all of French history.  

Hell, people don't even know that notre dame does not mean the virgin mother, but the Magdalena.  The reason why is they have lost sight of the history of the Merovingian and Carolingian histories, whereas people regularly follow LIz II back through all the twists and turns to the Normans.  There's a lot to be valued there.

Well maybe one day their will be a referendum.....keep them or get rid.
The last referendum was won by the sensible folk of the UK....so I have high hopes the next one will be also.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know.  Look at France.  Sure, there are the buildings and historical places, but the loss of the royal line has diminished all of French history.  

Hell, people don't even know that notre dame does not mean the virgin mother, but the Magdalena.  The reason why is they have lost sight of the history of the Merovingian and Carolingian histories, whereas people regularly follow LIz II back through all the twists and turns to the Normans.  There's a lot to be valued there.

Well maybe one day their will be a referendum.....keep them or get rid.
The last referendum was won by the sensible folk of  the UK....so I have high hopes the next one will be also.

The Queen earns millions a year alone from her cut of the Duchy of Lancaster. She also gets an income from a Sovereign Grant. Apparently, she pays voluntary income tax and I'm sure her expenditure is vast and she creates work for many but I don't think her existence is justified to be honest. Not against those figures.

4EVER2 wrote:   This is just something I've kicked around since Princess Diana's time and I've wondered about the feasibility of this; so I thought I'd just put it out here   Whether it's something that could be/should be/would never happen ...I'm curious!

And Prince William & Kate were just on the NBC News - traveling to Canada.
So vote and leave a comment - I won't expect this to change anything at Buckingham Palace!

it's the monarchy not x factor, charles is the next king end of.
the only way it will go to william is if charles dies before the queen.
I personally hope she will reign for another 60 years at least

Handy Andy wrote:I think a better question is "should she"?.
Chuck was possibly complicit in Diana's  death. If she wasn't murdered by Mi5 at Phils command, his unloading of his loins into  his lover certainly drove Di to look elsewhere for her orgasms.

diana died because al fayad's driver was drunk and her security were useless.
she should never have been allowed in the car in the first place.

Handy Andy wrote:

eddie wrote:You didn't get picked up on your "Diana murder conspiracy" comment HA.
Would be a different story had Tommy said it.

Anyhoo, I think the queen needs to step down and hand the crown over to William.

Not so sure it is a conspiracy  theory though,Eds.
A lot of the event is still shrouded in mystery.
Most compelling is the motive,pregnant by a Muslim, opportunity, in a contained area, and the cover up,the 60 min delay in admitting Di to hospital  and she was disembowrlled and embalmed within an hour of being pronounced dead.
I will give the establishment  credit for covering it up well if they were involved, but there is enough good circumstantial evidence to ask serious questions.

to subscribe to that theory is incredibly wacist.

If the queen lived another 60 years the new King would most likely be...

Syl wrote:If the queen lived another 60 years    the new King would most likely be...

you are assuming that all the windsors are not equally long lived.
sadly I think we may have less than a decade of this great Elizabethan era left, but I am hoping she will beat her mum

Ben Reilly wrote:

Quite.

Ben Reilly wrote:

You think we should kneecap them?