The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 08-16-2005, 02:17 AM
BeccaLynn07's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,237
Currently, the no is still leading 185 to the 156 yes votes.
__________________

  #162  
Old 08-16-2005, 03:19 AM
segolen's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: EU, Bulgaria
Posts: 255
193 no
160 yes
so far
__________________

  #163  
Old 08-16-2005, 04:37 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: LR, United States
Posts: 72
I'm suprised that she allowed this because she was really restrictive with Charles and the criteria for his future bride. Does anyone know whether she is going to change the law so that if William had a daughter she would be eligible to rule?
  #164  
Old 08-16-2005, 04:45 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirsada
I'm suprised that she allowed this because she was really restrictive with Charles and the criteria for his future bride. Does anyone know whether she is going to change the law so that if William had a daughter she would be eligible to rule?
Nothing prevents a daughter of William from reigning, just like nothing impeded the accession of Elizabeth in 1952... except a brother, or a Catholic husband, or converting to Catholicism.
  #165  
Old 08-16-2005, 11:12 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 780
Maybe William and Kate can live like they feel until William has some official responsabilities such as becoming Prince of Wales. Higher responsabilities can often mean that the rules get more strict. It happens when someone is elected to a post of high responsibilities and has to declare all his/her sources of revenu and put the management of his/her companies into a trust for example. It happened to the last General Governer of Canada, Madame Adrienne Clarkson, when she was nominated six years ago.

From the newspaper «LE DEVOIR» of August15, 2005; «Pour obtenir les clés de Rideau Hall, Adrienne Clarkson avait dû convoler en justes noces au préalable avec John Ralston Saul, son conjoint de longue date. Libérée du soupçon de «vivre dans le péché»,...»
Roughly translated: «Before getting the keys of Rideau Hall, Adrienne Clarkson had to marry John Ralston Raul, her longtime companion. Free of any suspicion of living in sins,...»
  #166  
Old 08-16-2005, 11:19 AM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirsada
I'm suprised that she allowed this because she was really restrictive with Charles and the criteria for his future bride. Does anyone know whether she is going to change the law so that if William had a daughter she would be eligible to rule?
I think you meant in the case that William's first child was a daughter?

I think the Queen has realized that some traditions have been harmful to her family and times are changing. To some extent, she's probably already become accustomed to the idea, with Edward living with Sophie and Peter and Zara living with their partners.
  #167  
Old 08-16-2005, 11:21 AM
Britters's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DC, United States
Posts: 879
I don't see what the big deal with them living together is... I understand that she shouldn't be allowed to live in Clarence House rent free at the tax payers expenses, but more people seem to be more upset by the fact that the couple are being allowed to live with one another period. They have lived together for 3 years now, why is everyone so surprised that they wish to carry on this arrangement?
__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It's a magic everyone needs to experience!
  #168  
Old 08-16-2005, 11:34 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britters
I don't see what the big deal with them living together is... I understand that she shouldn't be allowed to live in Clarence House rent free at the tax payers expenses, but more people seem to be more upset by the fact that the couple are being allowed to live with one another period. They have lived together for 3 years now, why is everyone so surprised that they wish to carry on this arrangement?
Excellent point Britters!!
  #169  
Old 08-16-2005, 01:30 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Where There's a Bill, There's No Way

Quote:
Originally Posted by Britters
I understand that she shouldn't be allowed to live in Clarence House rent free at the tax payers expenses, but more people seem to be more upset by the fact that the couple are being allowed to live with one another period. They have lived together for 3 years now, why is everyone so surprised that they wish to carry on this arrangement?
The problem IMO is that (if that rumor is true, which is still to be proved) she would live in a Royal property. You suggest she would pay a rent, but I don't think so. The Kents pay £64 a week for their apartments in K Palace and are beeing bashed by the press as parasites. If it is expected from her to pay market price, it will be out of price. A mere 2 bedroom flat in this area of London cost several hundred pounds a week, upmarket flats go for several thousand bucks a week, so an apartment in a Royal Palace would go for a of a 5 digits bill a week. Her parents may be OK financially but they are not billionaires, have other kids and I don't think they will pay for her rent. So basically, if she moves in, ether she won't pay anything, or she will pay a bargain price.
Another point is CH is not paid by Charles' income from the Duchy of Cornwall nor by William's inheritance. It's payed by taxpayers. Charles was criticised when Camz moved in because she was not an official member of the family but still enjoyed the Palace and all its staff paid the tax payers.
It would be silly for Kate to expose herself to such criticism. The popular press is nearly lobbying for William to marry her and she is sold as Saint Kate. It would be cleverer for her to have her own apartment and accomplish something in her life by her own, rather then depending on Will at such an early stage of their relationship.
  #170  
Old 08-16-2005, 07:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirsada
I'm suprised that she allowed this because she was really restrictive with Charles and the criteria for his future bride. Does anyone know whether she is going to change the law so that if William had a daughter she would be eligible to rule?
Times change. Perhaps the Queen feels it is better, given the history of her children's marriages, to accept the situation as being better than forcing her grandson to marry someone he doesn't really love for the sake of the throne.

The issue of a first-born daughter taking precedence over a subsequent son in terms of succession to the throne has reportedly been discussed by the "Way Ahead" group of senior royals and their advisors over the years. Since Parliament would have to change the laws of succession, the Queen would have to consult with the Prime Minister to determine whether the majority party is willing to introduce legislation. In my opinion, this is unlikely to happen unless William marries and has a first-born daughter. That would be the opportunity to address the issue.

The controversy with allowing Kate to live openly with William at Clarence House is two-fold. One is the obvious issue of a non-royal receiving the benefit of royal life and protection paid by the British taxpayers without a marriage. The second is the controversy of allowing a future Head of the Church of England to openly "live in sin" in the view of religious conservatives.

We will have to wait and see how this all comes out. No decision has been announced by the Palace or Clarence House, so I would assume the Queen is taking advice on the matter.
  #171  
Old 08-16-2005, 11:13 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 152
Quote:
The issue of a first-born daughter taking precedence over a subsequent son in terms of succession to the throne has reportedly been discussed by the "Way Ahead" group of senior royals and their advisors over the years.
I think it was already dealt with during the upheaval that resulted with the Charles and DIana divorce; she agreed to pay taxes, decommission the Britannia, and end the precedence men had over females in the succession.

Quote:
The controversy with allowing Kate to live openly with William at Clarence House is two-fold. One is the obvious issue of a non-royal receiving the benefit of royal life and protection paid by the British taxpayers without a marriage. The second is the controversy of allowing a future Head of the Church of England to openly "live in sin" in the view of religious conservatives.
Exactly. Furthermore I mentioned on another board that Kate seems determined to pin him down as much as possible. By moving into Clarence House she also gives Will more power over her. She will have to put up with anything, since she's living there at his sufferance. If she has her own place, if they bicker she can afford to say "Go to Hell" and she won't be under his control more. As for William, a separate establishment will allow him much needed space and privacy. If he wants to invite female friends over for an evening then he will be able to without Kate possibly spying on him or freaking out.

Quote:
The Kents pay £64 a week for their apartments in K Palace and are beeing bashed by the press as parasites.
Which in a sense is unfair since they ARE relatives of the Queen herself. I think Charles needs to stop letting them guilt trip him and firmly put his foot down. William is behaving more like a regular spoiled rich kid and needs to seriously begin fulfilling duties and setting an example. He's graduated and now is time for him to start performing in ceremonies and working.
  #172  
Old 08-17-2005, 12:18 AM
segolen's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: EU, Bulgaria
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
Her parents may be OK financially but they are not billionaires, have other kids and I don't think they will pay for her rent. So basically, if she moves in, ether she won't pay anything, or she will pay a bargain price.
Another point is CH is not paid by Charles' income from the Duchy of Cornwall nor by William's inheritance. It's payed by taxpayers. Charles was criticised when Camz moved in because she was not an official member of the family but still enjoyed the Palace and all its staff paid the tax payers.
It would be silly for Kate to expose herself to such criticism. relationship.
you made a good point.
...and besides the rent, Wills would have to “ cover” all of the housekeeping expenses around her. Not that he has to, but I can not imagine Kate living with him and he gets the housekeeping help from the maids, but Kate not. Obviously she would get it as well. As we know, the housekeepers are paid of the tax-money as well
  #173  
Old 08-17-2005, 12:23 AM
segolen's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: EU, Bulgaria
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
It would be cleverer for her to have her own apartment and accomplish something in her life by her own, rather then depending on Will at such an early stage of their relationship.
...
And being independent would keep Wills more interested in her. Unfortunately she does not get it.
  #174  
Old 08-17-2005, 12:27 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by segolen
...
And being independent would keep Wills more interested in her. Unfortunately she does not get it.
I will say that is a valid point. The only thing is that we don't know what is truly going on. We will never know.
  #175  
Old 08-17-2005, 12:30 AM
segolen's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: EU, Bulgaria
Posts: 255
I hope we will. What ‘s going on between Kate and Wills is not very hard to follow. So many eyes are watching them…” grin”…
  #176  
Old 08-17-2005, 12:38 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
The Kents may be paying the Queen 64 sterling, but Her Majesty is paying $165,000 annually to the Exchequer for their apartment in Kensington Palace. She agreed to do so until 2007, at that time the Kents must either pay it themselves or find another home. I think their house in the country is for sale for $6 million?
  #177  
Old 08-17-2005, 12:40 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
The issue of a first-born daughter ascending the throne over a son has not been addressed by Parliament and the old rules still apply.
  #178  
Old 08-17-2005, 01:18 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 6
I've been following the thread and wondering, from all the posts which suggest that William is too young to marry and should "sow some wild oats" but which also say that as future head of the church he should set the moral tone for society to follow, is it more moral to have sexual relations with a variety of women whom the future king has no intention of marrying, or have mistresses before or after marriage, than to live with one who might possibly be the future wife and for whom he feels sincere love?
  #179  
Old 08-17-2005, 09:39 AM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 618
There would be other possibilities. For example having a sexual relationship with ONE woman (who at present is Kate), but without living together (but she could live with him sometimes as a guest - I think it's different - BUT having TWO rooms OFFICIALLY).
Or - this would be the best one - having no sexual relationships at all. But perhaps this is too demanding for some people.

In any case, the reason because I don't like the idea of them living "officially" together as husband and wife is that this would be a clear statement from them: marriage is not needed. I don't think this is the right message.
__________________
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
  #180  
Old 08-17-2005, 09:54 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphiya
I've been following the thread and wondering, from all the posts which suggest that William is too young to marry and should "sow some wild oats" but which also say that as future head of the church he should set the moral tone for society to follow,
Hi sapphiya, I was the one who suggested William is too young and should sow some wild oats but I haven't suggested that he set a moral tone and other than being a basically decent human being and treating people with respect.

The problem with Kate Middleton is the public is putting pressure on a marriage and in this day and age they're too young. Royal watchers have commented that at William's age, Charles had undertaken a lot more official duties than William has. He is taking on the mantle of royal responsibility much slower than his father did. Living together would put more pressure on them to marry and not less and that's not good until William gets a feel for his role. If they are not suited for each other, it will be harder for her to pull out if she lives with him than if they live apart.

Being the heir to the throne puts a lot more pressure on getting married than for the average Joe. Adding the stress of living together just doubles the pressure.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
prince william, relationships


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
Royals Living In Australia Margrethe II Royal Life and Lifestyle 20 09-14-2014 10:25 PM
Royals Living In The U.S. HRHAmy Royal Life and Lifestyle 72 06-09-2014 05:05 AM
The Public's Expectations of Kate as William's Girlfriend JOY! Prince Harry and Prince William 554 12-31-2006 11:45 AM




Popular Tags
albania andrew scott cooper ascot 2016 best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit birthday brunei carl philip coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge dutch fashion poll history jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince charles princess charlene princess marie princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit fashion and style princess sofia princess victoria celebrates her 39th birthday princess victorias daytime fashion queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen mathilde in jordan queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queenmother queen rania queen rania dresses queen rania fashion queen silvia september 2016 state visit state visit to spain succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises