The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 05-29-2012, 08:45 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,861
There will be support as long as people see sense in the monarchy. My guess is that if it goes one day, it will be the last monarchy of all to go.

People respect QEII because she has been around for such a long time, more than a lifetime, most people dont know any different. With Charles, it will be different. Society has moved on, people will see a difference for the better or worse between Charles & QEII and while his mother was never really questioned, Charles will be. Its a result of open society who doesnt take anything for god given.

From Charles onwards, people will look for the benefit. If people feel that he and his successors do a good job they will stay, if they dont, they will be abolished eventually. My guess is that with the Brits it will take another century or two until they do go because the institution will fit less and less into the modern idea of society & leadership, other countries will see their monarchy go in our lifetime already.

There is no question for me that Charles, William & William's offspring will reign.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 05-29-2012, 04:53 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
I'm currently watching a programme on ITV called Prince Charles: The Restoration Prince. Anyone who's ever had the slightest doubt about Charles needs to watch it. The man is an inspiration.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 05-29-2012, 07:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,673
Edward VII was denied the opportunities Charles has been given on the orders of his mother. He did actually carve out a role for himself and did what he could to raise issues with the governments of the day - e.g. he served on the housing commission that made a report to parliament to improve the housing of the very poor but when the subsequent bill reached the House of Lords he was advised that he couldn't vote on it because that would be seen as the royal family trying to influence the government - he knew that if he voted for the bill it would pass but if he didn't it would fail but he followed the advice, didn't vote and the bill failed. He was very upset.

He would have loved to have had the support of his monarch to serve his nation more during his waiting years. The Queen we have today learnt from the mistake her great-grandmother made and gave her son the leeway to get involved in a range of activities. Victoria would have preferred Bertie to basically live at home and never do anything but he did quite a lot of good and would have liked to do more.

As King he did a lot of good as well - particularly promoting the military to be prepared for war, and his wife was involved in organising army nurses, along with his foreign affair achievements of setting up the situation whereby the Entente Cordiale could be negotiated - not that he was involved in the negotiations but he made it possible. He was far more in tune with the needs of his people than people often think as King.

Yes he lived the life of a rich man but he also wanted to help the poor - but unlike Charles didn't really get the opportunities because first both his parents and then just his mother denied him those chances e.g. he wanted to serve in the army but no he could only spend about 12 weeks doing training - Charles served fully in the navy.

Edward VIII - is a different person - he had the opportunities denied his grandfather but he chose to waste them in many ways.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 05-30-2012, 08:05 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 511
Yes I think Edward VII tends to be disregarded as the fat man who loved his luxery and because of his short reign. And honestly how could anyone compete with his mothers image. George V and VI were 'fortunate' in that they had a war to prove themselves patriotically. And by that time QV reign was a distant memory. Charles will have the same problem, a short reign after a popular and long serving Queen. However he has already made a name for himself. A good one in my opinion.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-16-2012, 07:46 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
British satisfaction with the Queen is at record high after Jubilee as 90 per cent think she's doing her job well

Quote:
The Queen is enjoying record levels of public approval following her Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Nine out of ten Britons are happy with the way she is doing her job, a survey shows. This is the highest rating she has received since 1992, when the question was first asked, according to the latest Ipsos Mori poll. The Queen’s leadership means the Monarchy itself has also retained support, with 77 per cent favouring Britain remaining a monarchy and only 15 per cent preferring a republic. Prince Charles is also enjoying his highest ever satisfaction ratings with eight in ten (78 per cent) satisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prince of Wales.
I know not a single politician in history who ever enjoyed approval rating of 90%.
In fact, since the support of Monarch in general is just below 80%, it would mean that most of the republicans feel Her Majesty is doing her job well.

Great to see the overwhelming majority (nearly 80%) supports Prince Charles as well; he most certainly deserves it. What with his approval rating and his son's, the future of the British Monarch appears to be quite safe.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-16-2012, 08:31 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
Certainly no elected politician could get near those approval ratings.

I'm sure lots of dictators could've produced 'surveys' showing 100% public approval.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-16-2012, 08:41 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,354
The approval of the monarchy is geniune.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-16-2012, 10:07 AM
American Dane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York and Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
British satisfaction with the Queen is at record high after Jubilee as 90 per cent think she's doing her job well



I know not a single politician in history who ever enjoyed approval rating of 90%.
In fact, since the support of Monarch in general is just below 80%, it would mean that most of the republicans feel Her Majesty is doing her job well.

Great to see the overwhelming majority (nearly 80%) supports Prince Charles as well; he most certainly deserves it. What with his approval rating and his son's, the future of the British Monarch appears to be quite safe.
Bush Jr.'s approval rating a month after 9/11 was 92%:
The Washington Post - Behind the Numbers

Several presidents have reached over 80%. Even Nixon, the most reviled US President of all time, had (at one point) an approval of 67%.

Generally high approval ratings occur after major events, in this case, the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Not that it isn't warranted, but this poll is no more reputable or accurate than any other poll...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-16-2012, 04:36 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
90% approval is, to me, entirely in line with what I have experienced personally in terms of the public's feelings towards the Queen. People talk about her being respected and admired, which she undoubtedly is; but I think people underestimate the extent to which she is truly loved.

Much more significant in these numbers is the approval for Charles. This is very encouraging for those of us who want the monarchy to succeed well into the 21st Century.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-02-2012, 07:08 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
Diamond Jubilee and 'Kate effect' lead to record support for the monarchy, poll shows - Telegraph

Queen satisfaction level among UK public is at record high as 90 per cent think she's doing her job well | Mail Online


The poll is a few months old but is consistent with similar polls. Britain will remain a Monarchy for generations to come
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:23 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
I'm watching the England vs Brazil match being played at the moment, and during the entire match I've heard God Save the Queen sung, a good 5 or 6 times with rapturous applause to follow.

I'm surprised, I know it's football but it makes me smile.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-06-2013, 07:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,673
Go to an Ashes Test in Australia and you will hear it regularly as well from the Barmy Army towards the Aussies with one major word difference - not God Save 'OUR' Queen but God Save 'YOUR' Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-01-2013, 07:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 617
Not sure exactly where to put this:

New poll reveals two thirds of Brits think the Queen does a wonderful job but 80 per cent would like to see more of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

75 per cent say the Queen is doing a brilliant job of leading the country
Two thirds say she should consider lightening her load but not retire
The extra help should come from the Duke of Cambridge say 80 per cent
One in 10 look to the royals for guidance in morals and manners


Read more: New poll reveals two thirds of Brits think the Queen does a wonderful job but 80 per cent would like to see more of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:49 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 30
There's a reason I call myself "DEMOCRATNMONOCOLE". I am fascinated by the Royal Family and the Queen and particularly how so many people seem to revere them. With respect, I'm especially fascinated by how sycophants like The Telegraph hold such reverence for the Royal Family that they can apparently do no wrong, especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Remember thirty years that people were saying the same thing of Charles and Diana. The dashing naval "hero" (actual heroes do things, not wear uniforms and fly unauthorized helicopter flights past Birkhall House {look it up}) and his "Fairy Tale" princess bride. The real Forces member at the time was the Prince Andrew, as now it's Prince Harry. But alas as usual, the older brother gets 90% of the attention. Read as well what was said of the Prince of Wales: "He entertained lavishly and lived a life of dissipation". That was said of the Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, shortly before he became King after his mother, Queen Victoria had reigned for sixty-three years. So is said now of the Prince of Wales, with Clarence House, Highgrove, Birkhall, etc.
I am both a Democrat and an avid monarchist. However I find this untoward worship unhealthly. Their "job" is to wave to crowds, tour schools and hospitals, cut ribbons and review military parades. For that, they live a nearly unmatched life of privilege and luxury, not because they worked their tails off for thirty years, not because they invested right but merely because they were born to it (with the exception of Catherine, who despite giving the apperance of being a very bright young woman with her 2:1 Honours degree from St. Andrews, seems to have had no true ambition but wait for William to marry her). Before she became pregnant and suffered from morning sickness, for which I have sympathy for her (particularly the dreadfulness of the nurse's suicide that followed), what did she do on a day-to-day basis? For most days, the Court Circular listed her as performing no "royal duties" at all. What did she do? Have lunch with her mother and sister? Shop on Regent Street? Read at the Anglesey cottage. Catch a football match on TV. Are ANY of you seriously going to try to tell me with a straight face that this is a strenuous life for a healthly 31-year-old university-educated person? If so please learn the difference between fantasy and reality. The only one of the Royal Family that really is worth value for money is Her Majesty. She has to reguarly meet with the Prime Minister, other Secretaries of State, read and sign paperwork from every Cabinet department every day and carry out her own schedule of making small talk with business owners or actors or politicians. What did the Duchess do a few weeks ago? Sing songs around a camp fire with the Scouts? Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me that that's serious work? If so, please grow up. Also keep in mind that I am an American and we did fight two wars to be free of this nonsense (though as a historian I am quite aware that King George III was only following ministerial advice in prosecuting the war, thank you VERY much).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:57 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,645
" I am both a Democrat and an avid monarchist"

"Also keep in mind that I am an American and we did fight two wars to be free of this nonsense "

these appear to be contradictory statements. In what way are you a monarchist? Nothing you have written supports that view.

You shouldn't get confused between the facts and what papers write, especially papers such as the Daily Mail.

Catherine is not a full-time working royal. This was made clear when they got married. Her Majesty The Queen agreed and approves of this approach. And there is no cause to condemn any woman who decides that supporting her husband is her job. Many women do it - making a home and raising children are their job. If they can afford it - why not?

But she does undertake royal duties and these will increase over time. As agreed with HMQ.

If you want to just have a rant and criticise, then is a separate thread for that.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-03-2013, 01:50 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
There's a reason I call myself "DEMOCRATNMONOCOLE". I am fascinated by the Royal Family and the Queen and particularly how so many people seem to revere them. With respect, I'm especially fascinated by how sycophants like The Telegraph hold such reverence for the Royal Family that they can apparently do no wrong, especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Remember thirty years that people were saying the same thing of Charles and Diana. The dashing naval "hero" (actual heroes do things, not wear uniforms and fly unauthorized helicopter flights past Birkhall House {look it up}) and his "Fairy Tale" princess bride. The real Forces member at the time was the Prince Andrew, as now it's Prince Harry. But alas as usual, the older brother gets 90% of the attention. Read as well what was said of the Prince of Wales: "He entertained lavishly and lived a life of dissipation". That was said of the Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, shortly before he became King after his mother, Queen Victoria had reigned for sixty-three years. So is said now of the Prince of Wales, with Clarence House, Highgrove, Birkhall, etc.
I do not see either Charles or Camilla living a life of "dissipation". Charles may have access as Prince of Wales to a lot of "lavishness" and several residences but if you look deeper into these places, you'll notice that a lot of official functions and royal engagements are hosted at Clarence House with either the Prince of Wales or the Duchess of Cornwall (or both) hosting. Actually his Highgrove property is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall but over the years, Charles has put a lot of work into his gardens and landscaping and from that grew his interests in sustainable farming and healthy eating. Hence was born the Duchy Originals. Does Charles profit from it? Not at all.

"We donate our profits to The Prince’s Charities Foundation, which was founded by HRH The Prince of Wales in 1979. The Prince established the Foundation to enable him to help support a variety of charitable causes and projects." The history of Duchy Originals, its commitment to charity and our producers


Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
I am both a Democrat and an avid monarchist. However I find this untoward worship unhealthly. Their "job" is to wave to crowds, tour schools and hospitals, cut ribbons and review military parades.
TBH, when I first came to TRF, if asked, I would have stated that this is also what I perceived the "job" of the BRF to be. Following what they do day to day, their interests and involvement with different organizations, their accomplishments and what they hope to accomplish, I have to say that what I thought was wrong. Charles is the hardest working royal in the family with Anne a close second behind him. There is so much information on these forums of the differences they are making and trying to make that over time I think we do get a clearer picture of how invaluable to the people the work that the BRF does is to the people.

Hang around a bit. Read what these people actually do with their lives. Ask questions. There's a lot of learning to be had here. My latest was reading about the different ceremonial rituals that go with the State Opening of Parliament. I never realized that they searched the cellar of the Palace of Westminster or that a member of the House of Commons was held "hostage" at Buckingham Palace until the Queen returned.

All of this makes me realize even more why the Queen will never even consider abdication and that should it be deemed necessary, Charles is more than ready to step in as Regent.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-03-2013, 01:51 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 30
I would be delighted to explain the apparent contradiction. First of all they are and that is the entire point of calling myself democratNmonocole (I wanted to write and but they wouldn't let me). When I mean democrat I mean Democrat as in the Democratic Party of the United States. Monocole because as I wrote, I became fascinated by the Royal Family (starting with King George VI) about seven years ago. I was having stomach problems which have since become chronic and read the Wikipedia article on His late Majesty. I found that he was like me a shy, stammering chronically ill young man. This led to my reading more and more about the Royal Family. While I'm not sure if I can prove my level of knowledge to your satisification, I am very sure that I know more about the modern British Royal Family than 9 out of 10 people on an American street corner (I can assure you as well this is not conceit). I gnash my teeth every time I hear an American anchor call the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge "Prince William and Kate Middleton". Catherine no longer is Kate Middleton. She is Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, or Catherine Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor (according to all evidence). I intially became fascinated because I was trying to figure out how these people (who in their habits, education, intellect, etc. are very ordinary) have become so adultered by the masses that every appearance of them, for no matter what reason, was chronicled in minute detail. I also discovered that Her Most Gracious Majesty (which is her formal style) is theorized to have the same Briggs-Myers personality type as I (Guardian-Inspector). Interestingly according to her admission her favorite (and first) American President, Harry Truman (and a favorite of mine as well) also shares this same personality type with Her Majesty and I. Over the years I have collected and read books, articles, etc. and since the Royal Wedding, my admiration for the Queen has only deepened. It is very interesting to me that the admittingly republican argument that I may have made in my previous entry is so vehmently attacked on this forum (not unexpected I might add--it's the ROYAL Forum for a good reason). Yet of the circles I'm in, in the United States, this argument is treated as fact. I'm the only member of my family to get up before 5:30 the morning of the Royal Wedding. At the supposedly Diamond Jubliee celebration I attended this summer, the Queen and the idea of royalty was mocked and derided to such a degree that I left early, deeply upset and angered. (I was perhaps most angered that only I stopped what I was doing and stood to attention at the playing of the National Anthem). You have no idea the amount of derision I get from family members and friends for following and studying the royals as much as I do (which I will admit is principally for relaxation and guilty pleasure, such as others would read Danielle Steel novels). As for William and Catherine, I have no admiration for them because they have yet to actually do much and prove that they are up to being senior royals (their tours of Canada and the Far East aside). I loathe Diana, Princess of Wales for having insisted that her children be treated normally because I believe this has given William a complex of being able to use his royal status when it suits him and ditch it when it does not. He claims he wants to be treated like any other Search and Rescue pilot, yet no other Search and Rescue pilot has armed police guarding them around the clock. No other Search and Rescue pilot is allowed to take the liberties he is. No other Search and Rescue pilot can go to Keningston Palace or ring up the Queen for tea. He's doing (and allowed to be doing) what I call pretending to be normal and it irritates me to no end. He's not normal and never can be. He's His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, son of the Prince of Wales, grandson of Her Majesty the Queen. He's 30 years old. The Queen was reigning for nearly five years by that age. To me he's acted like he's had Peter Pan syndrome, not wanting to grow up. And frankly despite what people say about the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen wanting to still be very active and involved, they are 91 and 86. My 90 year-old grandmother spends most nights in front of the television, not carrying out 3 or 4 engagements a day. To me, since the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are adults and have by my view, had three or four years after university to muck around doing as they please, it's time for them to become full-time royals. According to what I've read in multiple sources, there are MORE organizations wanting royal patronage, not less, there are MORE requests for royal visits, not less, 80% of the public want to see much more of both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, yet there are fewer royals to go around. The Duke of Kent carries out far more engagements than either of them and he's just had a stroke. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester carry out more engagements than either of them combined. Princess Alexandra the Honourable Lady Oglivy carries out more engagements than either of them. Yet none of these people have a small legion of police protection officers (I know the Protection Squad say there is no threat, but with the advent of the Internet, ANY relative of the Queen's unfortunately can be at grave risk). If you only read the papers, there would seem to be no other royals BUT the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and yet they actually aren't doing much in the way of engagements, which according to the Queen Mother was how royals earn their keep because they can't earn a living. Even more disconcerting to me is how much attention Pippa Middleton gets, when she's only a relative of a minor member of the Royal Family (yet she evidently warranted public police protection on more than one occasion which I'm not sure she is entitled to by law).
Well anyway I hope you have a clearer idea of why I hold the admittedly contradictory views that I do.
Best regards,
DemocratnMonocole
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-03-2013, 01:56 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,159
Perhaps the mods could move this tangent to a more suitable thread? We're getting off the subject of the Queen and would she abdicate.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-03-2013, 02:08 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 30
Osipi I am very much aware of all the royals do. Most Americans are not and deride them for it. I know Clarence House belongs to the country (on an unrelated note, of the Prince of Wales' homes, he actually technically only owns Highgrove, as Birkhall, though considered "private" is actually part of Balmoral, and Llwynywermod and Tamarissk are owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, not the Prince of Wales himself). I know the Prince of Wales is the hardest working royal, though the Princess Royal's Wikipedia page (and the Duke of Edinburgh's actually) say that she is the hardest working royal (I've tried to alter them several times but some WikiNazi keeps coming along, undoing it and protecting the page). I know the amount of work that the Earl and Countess of Wessex do that is unnoticed. The Duchess of Cambridge steps out to get her hair done and there's a five-minute piece on "TODAY". The Earl and Countess of Wessex successfully started the Commonwealth tour for the Diamond Jubliee (and had a likely exhausting time) and the papers say nothing because they barely know the Earl and Countess exist (which Edward and Sophie actually prefer when it suits them). But it's not like they are policemen or firefighters or school teachers. One of my favorite quotes of the Duke of Edinburgh (because it shows what a cantankerous sod and amusing old boy he is), is when he was touring a factory with the Queen and said "Well it doesn't look as though much work goes on in this factory", which had been closed so he could ceremonially open it! It's making small talk, meeting people around the country and Commonwealth, touring rest homes, schools, universities, reviewing military parades, writing letters, attending dinners, theater openings, etc. Any one can do this. It doesn't require special talent that only the Duke of Edinburgh or the Duchess of Cambridge has to pull a cord to unveil a plaque. If you believe that, I sincerely hope you get a grip. I would carry out three engagements a day, six days a week, for forty-eight weeks if I was in their position. Why? Because listening to someone drone on and on really isn't hard. And being given millions of pounds of taxpayer money is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-03-2013, 02:11 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
Catherine no longer is Kate Middleton. She is Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, or Catherine Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor (according to all evidence).
That is something you will have to put up with, forever, or until she becomes Queen Catherine. Camilla is still Camilla Parker Bowles, Diana will always be Princess Diana and Sophie is often referred to as simply Sophie Rhys Jones. The press don't understand the titles and how they work.



Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
To me, since the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are adults and have by my view, had three or four years after university to muck around doing as they please, it's time for them to become full-time royals.
You do realise that to come out with the grades that both Catherine and William did, there was little time to muck around. Even if their chosen degrees were in "easy" subjects.


Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
Princess Alexandra the Honourable Lady Oglivy carries out more engagements than either of them.
As of the 26th March according to the calculations done by another member in this thread. Princess Alexandra has done no engagements this year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
Even more disconcerting to me is how much attention Pippa Middleton gets, when she's only a relative of a minor member of the Royal Family (yet she evidently warranted public police protection on more than one occasion which I'm not sure she is entitled to by law).

She's the sister of the future Queen, a woman who is featured in the newspaper and magazines every single day. She is wife to the second in line to the throne, Catherine is not a minor member of the royal family. Could you please give us a source which confirms that she was given public police protection on more than one occasion?

Catherine and William deserves as much time as they can together, before being plunged in a life of service to a job a wouldn't wish on the devil. I personally believe they should have stayed out of the limelight entirely, or become full time royals from the wedding. The inbetween doesn't satisfy anyone. However they have made their choice, both are now classed as part time royals, and whilst 80% of the people who answered this poll want to see more of them, doesn't mean we're going do when there's no real need.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
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





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery 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 ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:43 AM.

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]