The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 06-10-2005, 11:27 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 207
Lady Louise is not a princess because at the time of her parents marriage, Edward and Sophie DECIDED with the Queen's backing that children born to them would take the courtesy titles of an earl rather than the HRH title...which she would have been if Edward did not want to change the rules to ensure their children lead normal lives.

BTW....there was a story where the Queen did ask Anne if she wanted her children to be titled or not.......EVEN THOUGH THEIR FATHER REFUSED A PEERAGE....Anne still said no.

Letters of Patent may be changed by the Queen for specific purposes...they are not always set in stone and may be amended where needed.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 06-10-2005, 12:02 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
Does anyone know if when Princess Beatrice & Eugiene become of age will they have royal duties and be supported by the civil list or will they make carrers of their own and derrive income from that?
These days the Civil List is very much restricted, so they almost certainly won't be paid by it even if they do engage in public duties. It's possible that, as the current generation of royals ages and retires (I'm thinking of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Princess Alexandra here, as well as the Duke of Edinburgh and even the Queen - not retiring in her case, but cutting back on her engagements), they'll spend some time doing public duties if Prince Harry is unavailable through being in the Army and before Prince William has a family of his own who are able to take part in public life.

After a long period with an extended royal family including the Queen, Prince Philip, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, the Queen's children (and some of their spouses for the times they actually had spouses), the Gloucesters (including Princess Alice), the Kents (including Princess Marina until the late 1960s), and Princess Alexandra all engaged in public life, the royal family is shrinking quite dramatically now as the focus shifts to Charles and his two children and as the Gloucester and Kent families become seen more as members of the "old court" but the Queen's grandchildren aren't yet old enough to take on the duties. Since there seems to be less public demand for royals (as opposed to celebrities) to do public engagements, this may not be a bad thing.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-10-2005, 12:13 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
It may be just me who misunderstands this whole thing, but the Civil List? In reality? Doesn't it just support the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh? I've heard that the Queen pays it back for what she gets for the other royals.
It does nowadays, but up until the 1990s any royal who performed official duties was paid from the Civil List. After the antics of some of the younger royals and the extravagances and divorces, and after it became clear that the public wasn't happy about being expected to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire, one of the things that was done - along with having the Queen pay taxes - was to restrict the Civil List to the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Queen Mother. Other members of the royal family who perform public duties are now paid by the government but the Queen reimburses the government for those costs.

I always thought it was unfair that because of high-profile idiocies by the likes of the Duchess of York and Prince Edward (I'm thinking about the Royal Knockout debacle in particular), civil list income was withdrawn from people like the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alice, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra, who had spent decades devoted to pubic service and, in the case of the Duchess of Kent, had her health wrecked in the process. It seems like a rather sad case of punishing the wrong people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-10-2005, 01:29 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
I'm sorry, but I''m not sure if I get the point of some of your 'arguments'.
Quote:
Lady Louise is not a princess because at the time of her parents marriage, Edward and Sophie DECIDED with the Queen's backing that children born to them would take the courtesy titles of an earl rather than the HRH title...which she would have been if Edward did not want to change the rules to ensure their children lead normal lives.
Actually, the decision was made to control the size of the RF, as the issue of Edward are the children of a younger child of a sovereign. Sure Edward and Sophie may also have wanted for their children to lead "normal lives". And it was for the former reason that there was talk a few years ago of removing the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie upon their 18th birthday (or at the time of marriage).

Quote:
BTW....there was a story where the Queen did ask Anne if she wanted her children to be titled or not.......EVEN THOUGH THEIR FATHER REFUSED A PEERAGE....Anne still said no.
Why are you shouting in all caps? It doesn't make your argument any more valid. It is well known that the title was declined, however, in any case, a noble title doesn't make one a member of the royal family (which is what we're discussing, non?). It would have only made them members of the aristocracy. Angus Ogilvy also refused a title at the time of his marriage. not out of want for a 'normal life' per se, but rather because he is a member of an aristocratic family with a long history (the Earls of Arlie). His family advised him to do 'no such silly thing as to except a title'.

Quote:
Letters of Patent may be changed by the Queen for specific purposes...they are not always set in stone and may be amended where needed.

Your point? They can be amended, I guess, depending on the type of patent, however, AFAIK, it has been the convention to issue newLetters Patent with respect to titles and/or exceptions regarding titles. None of this matters, however, because it has nothing to do with the *fact* that, as of today, neither the children of Queen's daughter and cousins are members of the RF.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-10-2005, 01:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
His Lordship]Officially??

I take it you work or are related to Her Majesty?
No. Are you? Since you're the one arguing by assertion.In any case, I've studied the subject for years. Moreover, it has been much discussed on the various royalty boards over the years by well-known scholars on the subject. I would suggest you go through the archives of alt.talk.royalty for more commentary and analysis by them on the issue (if you're interestd, that is)

Quote:
LOL......I think we the people can be more snobbish and rigid about right and wrong, official or not official, than the royals.

Sorry Sean...they are all part of the extended royal family.
Nothing snobish about it. It's just stating a fact. In any case, that they are royal is your opinion, and it is obvious that there is no changing that, even though it is contradicted even by the royal house itself. See its official page. And, out of curiosity, since you hold Anne's children to be members of the RF, do you also hold that the Harwoods and all their proginy are members of the RF, too? What about the Fifes?

Quote:
So we have a matter of opinion...that's fine by me.

So the children may not have titular dignity....that does not make them royal.
A title doesn't necessarily make one royal.

Quote:
Little Marius is an exception as he was not born to anyone in the Royal Family but came by virtue of his mother's marriage to be a member of the King's family.
Here we agree. However, speaking for myself, I really worry about him as he gets older. It will be difficult for him to be emotionally difficult for him, and I hope he doesn't have a troubled adolesence or adulthood.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-10-2005, 02:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 207
Thank you for giving me some laughs today. I love it when people who do not know the aristocracy and royalty of Great Britain personally presume just because they studied them, are British, read the gossip sheets, etc. know them as if they know them personally like their mum and dads.



That is like me making comments on you without knowing you personally. I canít do it, as it is not fair to make assumptions.



Yes, I am related actually. My maternal grandfather is a duke who is a cousin to the queen and my mother is a friend of Princess Anne's. Out of respect for my grandparents, I will not publish here their dukedom.

I have met all the children of the Queen on a few occasions and have went to Eaton with many members of the aristocracy. I was a few years ahead of William though.



I think some people on here due to the length of time they have been posting and their "titles" under their monikers think they are experts.



I have never claimed to be such at all.



By the way, I went to Edward and Sophie's wedding and my mother has talked with Sophie about their decision not to have their children take the HRH....it was their choice and the Queen backed them on it as they felt it would release their children from some of the expectations that come along with that HRH.






They are distant cousins descended from the female line, and the Earl Of Harewood fell out of royal favor from court because he divorced and remarried. He even had to give up several of his patronages.



The male line descendents families from George V still count as royalty, are part of the royal family, and are very visible on certain royal occasions...all the Kents and all the Gloucesters.

Just because some are more visible than others in and around London does make one any less important.


Zara is a member and as such, she received her first patronage role not two years ago. She may not get money from the Civil List to live off of, but that is a moot point in this case.



Just because some have titles and some do not, does not make them any less a member of the royal family.



The same for HRH Prince Philip, he was born a Greek prince, to the son of a Greek king...just because he denounced his title and line to the throne of Greece to become a citizen of Britain, does not make him any less royal.



The definition of "Royal Family" is the Queen, Prince Philip, their four children, and William and Harry. Everyone else is still part of the royal family and is considered the lesser royals or junior members. The descriptions may be a little ambiguous in that respect.



Now, with that said, seeing as though you claim to be by your choice of words the expert here, I will let you know I respect your views and insight. They are well thought out.



But, I doubt there are many on here that knows personally the men and women in all the forums.



It is one thing to study, read, listen to the gossip, read the official websites, and it is quite another to know and grow up with these people.



Thank you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-10-2005, 02:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 207
And now...can we please go back to discussing the Civil List and extravagent Royal spending? The real purpose of this forum.

Does anyone in Britain know when the Keeper of Privy Purse will publish the breakdown of expenditures for 2005 for the Royals?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-10-2005, 03:55 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
It is one thing to study, read, listen to the gossip, read the official websites, and it is quite another to know and grow up with these people.
Equally, it's one thing to say these things on a discussion board and another thing to actually be what one claims to be. We've had an awful lot of personal friends and relations of the British royal family (and other royal families) wander through here in the past if they're to be believed. Bit surprising that they'd find this discussion board worth bothering about. Anybody can claim anything with the anonymity of a keyboard and monitor to assist them. And most of us have seen enough cases of people not being who they claim to be that we don't tend to take these claims at face value any more.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-10-2005, 04:11 PM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Going back to this topic... well, to be honest, I wouldn't define their expending as extravagant, but just as... royal.

By the way, I've never understood people's anger when they had to contribute for Windsor Castle restauration. It is not only the Queen's home, but also a national (and, I would say, world) heritage (and it's a state property, not the Queen's).

I would not have excluded the others royals from the Civil List. I agree that Princesses Beatrice and Eugene retain the HRH and that they perform official duties with money from the Civil List.

And I would give a new yatch to them. They were cruel towards the Queen and her family, because they enjoyed Britannia, especially, I think, Prince Philip, who loves sea and ships so much. I became even more angry when I discovered, very recently, that PM Major's plan was to substitute the old yatch with a smaller one. Unfortunately Blair came to the power that year...

It has been suggested to scrap the train too. I don't think it would be a good idea. Without it the Queen would be forced to sleep in hotels and to travel by elicopter or plane (would they be more cheap?). With the train she can save time by sleeping on it while travelling.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-10-2005, 04:15 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 207
Hi ElisaR,

Thank you for a return to the topic at hand. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 06-10-2005, 04:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
I'm glad I could make you laugh. FYI, you returned the favour, as I found your assertions rather sophmoric. And I don't read the gossip rags,btw.

Regardless, the individuals in question are members of the *Queen's* family and not the royal family. You are wrong if you think otherwise, no matter what your alleged connections are (which I highly doubt). And just because I'm not 'related' or work for them, doesn't mean that that I don't know them. I'm just not willing to argue by assertion by claiming to know X person. In my experience, nebulous assertions of 'knowing so and so-and so personally' is a cop-out argument when one can't back-up one's arguments with facts. You claim that the young Philips, Gloucesters, Kents, etc. are members of the royal family but have not backed-up your argument. But I shall leave you to your opinion (which I do respect, btw).

And, for the record, scholars very often*do* know more than the royals themselves. There are many royal scholars who post on these boards who are contacted on a regular basis by royals for geneological information etc. on their own families because it is their area of *specialty*. And there are members of the aristocracy who haven't got a clue as to who is who and how the whole system works. Once again, I would refer you to the archives of alt. talk. royalty for erudite discussions on these subjects.

Furthermore, the Earl of Harewood & family are _not_distant relatives. They are first cousins of Her Majesty. If you claim the Princess Royal's children are royal (female-line descendants) so why not the children and grandchildren of Princess Mary, who was also a Princess royal? Indeed, by your argument they should be even more royal because their father/grandfather was titled. And what about the Fife's? Royal or not? Do hold the children of the Earl of Ulster et al. to be royal as well?

Quote:
Just because some are more visible than others in and around London does make one any less important.


You actually believe that someone who is 20th in line for the throne is just as important as #1 & 2?


Finally, with regards to Phillip's renunciation, it wasn't valid in Greece.

Oh, and AFAIK, it's Eton and not "Eaton". Are they sticklers for proper grammar and punctuation, btw? ;-)


Quote:
Originally Posted by His Lordship
Thank you for giving me some laughs today. I love it when people who do not know the aristocracy and royalty of Great Britain personally presume just because they studied them, are British, read the gossip sheets, etc. know them as if they know them personally like their mum and dads.



That is like me making comments on you without knowing you personally. I canít do it, as it is not fair to make assumptions.



Yes, I am related actually. My maternal grandfather is a duke who is a cousin to the queen and my mother is a friend of Princess Anne's. Out of respect for my grandparents, I will not publish here their dukedom.

I have met all the children of the Queen on a few occasions and have went to Eaton with many members of the aristocracy. I was a few years ahead of William though.



I think some people on here due to the length of time they have been posting and their "titles" under their monikers think they are experts.



I have never claimed to be such at all.



By the way, I went to Edward and Sophie's wedding and my mother has talked with Sophie about their decision not to have their children take the HRH....it was their choice and the Queen backed them on it as they felt it would release their children from some of the expectations that come along with that HRH.






They are distant cousins descended from the female line, and the Earl Of Harewood fell out of royal favor from court because he divorced and remarried. He even had to give up several of his patronages.



The male line descendents families from George V still count as royalty, are part of the royal family, and are very visible on certain royal occasions...all the Kents and all the Gloucesters.


Zara is a member and as such, she received her first patronage role not two years ago. She may not get money from the Civil List to live off of, but that is a moot point in this case.



Just because some have titles and some do not, does not make them any less a member of the royal family.



The same for HRH Prince Philip, he was born a Greek prince, to the son of a Greek king...just because he denounced his title and line to the throne of Greece to become a citizen of Britain, does not make him any less royal.




The definition of "Royal Family" is the Queen, Prince Philip, their four children, and William and Harry. Everyone else is still part of the royal family and is considered the lesser royals or junior members. The descriptions may be a little ambiguous in that respect.



Now, with that said, seeing as though you claim to be by your choice of words the expert here, I will let you know I respect your views and insight. They are well thought out.



But, I doubt there are many on here that knows personally the men and women in all the forums.



It is one thing to study, read, listen to the gossip, read the official websites, and it is quite another to know and grow up with these people.



Thank you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 06-10-2005, 04:36 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
By the way, I've never understood people's anger when they had to contribute for Windsor Castle restauration. It is not only the Queen's home, but also a national (and, I would say, world) heritage (and it's a state property, not the Queen's).
I think people's anger was probably due to feelings that some of the royals were freeloaders and that they were tired of paying to keep people like Fergie in royal style while she went on ten holidays a year and consorted indiscreetly with rich Texans. Then there were all the feelings of anger against the royal establishment and blaming it for the breakdown of the Wales marriage and for making Diana unhappy (in those days she was seen as the innocent victim of the heartless monarchy somewhat more than nowadays), along with the feeling that in times when the country wasn't doing all that well and people weren't prospering, it wasn't right for the Queen to be paying no taxes and then expecting major contributions of taxpayer money to rebuild Windsor. Also, Buckingham Palace wasn't open to the public back then, so all the talk about how the royal residences really belong to the nation did start to ring rather false in the ears of the majority of the nation, who were never likely to set foot inside them. Someone (I forget if it was a member of the public in an interview or a journalist in an article) said something like, "when these buidling are still standing, they're hers; when they burn down, all of a sudden they're ours." I think that summed up public feeling quite well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 06-10-2005, 04:48 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
If people have personal problems with each other, please deal with them privately by e-mail or private message, not on the threads. Now please cool down and let's get this thread back on topic.

Thank you

Elspeth

Royal Forums administrator
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 06-10-2005, 05:15 PM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think people's anger was probably due to feelings that some of the royals were freeloaders and that they were tired of paying to keep people like Fergie in royal style while she went on ten holidays a year and consorted indiscreetly with rich Texans. Then there were all the feelings of anger against the royal establishment and blaming it for the breakdown of the Wales marriage and for making Diana unhappy (in those days she was seen as the innocent victim of the heartless monarchy somewhat more than nowadays), along with the feeling that in times when the country wasn't doing all that well and people weren't prospering, it wasn't right for the Queen to be paying no taxes and then expecting major contributions of taxpayer money to rebuild Windsor. Also, Buckingham Palace wasn't open to the public back then, so all the talk about how the royal residences really belong to the nation did start to ring rather false in the ears of the majority of the nation, who were never likely to set foot inside them. Someone (I forget if it was a member of the public in an interview or a journalist in an article) said something like, "when these buidling are still standing, they're hers; when they burn down, all of a sudden they're ours." I think that summed up public feeling quite well.
I wonder if the castle is insured now (provided that they found an insurance company who accepted to insure it).
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 06-10-2005, 05:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think people's anger was probably due to feelings that some of the royals were freeloaders and that they were tired of paying to keep people like Fergie in royal style while she went on ten holidays a year and consorted indiscreetly with rich Texans. Then there were all the feelings of anger against the royal establishment and blaming it for the breakdown of the Wales marriage and for making Diana unhappy (in those days she was seen as the innocent victim of the heartless monarchy somewhat more than nowadays), along with the feeling that in times when the country wasn't doing all that well and people weren't prospering, it wasn't right for the Queen to be paying no taxes and then expecting major contributions of taxpayer money to rebuild Windsor. Also, Buckingham Palace wasn't open to the public back then, so all the talk about how the royal residences really belong to the nation did start to ring rather false in the ears of the majority of the nation, who were never likely to set foot inside them. Someone (I forget if it was a member of the public in an interview or a journalist in an article) said something like, "when these buidling are still standing, they're hers; when they burn down, all of a sudden they're ours." I think that summed up public feeling quite well.
I agree. I too think it was the timing of the whole thing, too. So much had already happened with respect to the breakdown of Queen's childrens' marriages ('Fergie Gate', etc,), that I think the notion of paying for the renovations was the final 'straw'. In other words, IMO, people were already disenchanted, and this just further exacerbated that sentiment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 06-10-2005, 10:30 PM
florawindsor's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , China
Posts: 279
according to wikipedia, the sovereign, his/her children, and grandchildren from the male line are considered royal. his/her other family members are members of the extended royal family.

and royals who carry public duties receive Parliamentary Annuity(don't know if it's the same with civil list income).
Quote:
The Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1993, at the same time it was announced that only the Queen, Prince Philip, and the Queen Mother would receive civil list payments in the future.However, civil list payments to the other royals were not abolished. Instead payments to them continued and the Queen pays an equivalent sum back to the Treasury. This was thought to be a technical arrangement to cover administrative and legal difficulties of stopping the payments. But the Queen saves about £536,000 a year in income tax by setting off the money she pays back to the Treasury against her own tax bill
something i don't understand is, how the Queen pays back the civil list payments for other royals, how does she get all the money?
__________________
i'm not from an english speaking country, plz forgive me if i made any stupid mistakes in my post

Life is mostly froth and bubbles Two things stand like stone
Kindness in others' trouble Courage in your own
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 06-10-2005, 10:36 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
I assume she pays it out of savings from her Civil List income or out of her personal finances. I'm not sure if the source of that money is made public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 06-10-2005, 11:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
Apparently, national treasures in the UK cannot be insured, because none of them are -- not even now.

The Queen gets the money to fund the other royals from her income from the Duchy of Lancaster, and her stock portfolio. Because a decision was made to not increase the amount the Queen gets from the Civil List for another 10 years (until 2010 or 2011, IIRC), the surplus built up because of Major's miscalculation of the rate of inflation will be used to cover future shortfalls in official spending.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 06-11-2005, 08:07 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Annus Horribilis

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisaR
By the way, I've never understood people's anger when they had to contribute for Windsor Castle restoration. It is not only the Queen's home, but also a national (and, I would say, world) heritage (and it's a state property, not the Queen's).
For Queen Elizabeth the year 1992 was one of the darkest periods of her long reign.

In March the separation of the Duke and Duchess of York was announced. Later in the year the infamous "toe-sucking" photos were published.
In April The Princess Royal and Capt Mark Phillips were divorced.
In November the Queen watched as part of her favourite home, Windsor Castle, was engulfed in fire. Photos from that day show her distraught, one of the few displays of raw emotion we have seen from her.

Public and media patience with the Royal Family had worn a bit thin by this stage; as a result there was reaction against the assumption that the taxpayer would foot the repair bill.

To complete this dreadful year, in December the separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales was announced.

In late November the Queen gave a speech at the Guildhall in which she said "1992 is not a year I shall look back on with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis." She had a heavy cold at the time, and her muffled voice gave her comments more poignancy.

But, on a positive note, the Queen would have been greatly reassured by the outpouring of respect and admiration from the British people (and many others) shown during the Golden Jubilee in 2002.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 06-11-2005, 07:53 PM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
For Queen Elizabeth the year 1992 was one of the darkest periods of her long reign.

In March the separation of the Duke and Duchess of York was announced. Later in the year the infamous "toe-sucking" photos were published.
In April The Princess Royal and Capt Mark Phillips were divorced.
In November the Queen watched as part of her favourite home, Windsor Castle, was engulfed in fire. Photos from that day show her distraught, one of the few displays of raw emotion we have seen from her.

Public and media patience with the Royal Family had worn a bit thin by this stage; as a result there was reaction against the assumption that the taxpayer would foot the repair bill.

To complete this dreadful year, in December the separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales was announced.

In late November the Queen gave a speech at the Guildhall in which she said "1992 is not a year I shall look back on with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis." She had a heavy cold at the time, and her muffled voice gave her comments more poignancy.

But, on a positive note, the Queen would have been greatly reassured by the outpouring of respect and admiration from the British people (and many others) shown during the Golden Jubilee in 2002.
.

I know that the fire came after a series of royal scandals. However, the fire wasn't their fault. For this reason I think that people could have been a little more sympathetic.





Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly9480
Apparently, national treasures in the UK cannot be insured, because none of them are -- not even now.
Well, this is a serious problem.
__________________

__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wealth of the Luxembourg Grand Ducal Family hillary_nugent Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg 83 12-16-2014 03:50 PM
Royal Wealth and Finances Smartie2091 British Royals 867 12-08-2014 08:20 PM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 69 12-04-2014 08:44 PM
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 111 10-12-2014 05:39 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]