Royal Watch - The Royal Family news and general discussion

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • He was only ever happy when he was in the military, enjoyed his time in Afghanistan until the press revealed where he was which fueled his press hatred

    The only thing useful that he seems to have done was found the Invictus games for wounded service personnel

    It's interesting however to note that despite al the negative comments whenever he and his wife appear in public the people adore them

    Only the fawning fools of the population.

  • It is they who keep the monarchy on the throne

    Not only them. Many of us think that the monarchy is good for tourism, soft diplomacy, our democratic system, etc and is cheaper than putting in place a federal system with a president.

    I do see it for what it is, and so I get the angst of those who want change, but what I see is that it works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. As for the 'extended' royals, the Queen is already on to it, and they will have to fund themselves in the future, as I understand it. Harry's gone already, of course (before he was pushed, one assumes).

  • I believe the Monarchy is good for this country.. I also believe that it has unfortunately become too extended. What needs to be done and Charles has already hinted that a massive clearing out in the case of minor royals should be undertaken. All we need is a Monarch and wife/husband and an Heir. All the other hangers on should get themselves a job and stop sponging on the UK public purse.

    The Voice of Reason

  • I think the Royal Family will survive and apart from some trimming it will remain at its core much as it is. The motto for Royals has always been to have an “heir and a spare”. Of course there is no restriction on how many children the King or Queen can have but once you have hit the target of a heir and spare anything else is a waste. We end up paying for much more than we need. If you ordered two loaves of bread but received four you would refuse to pay for the other two. Then you get their wives and families and the cousins etc.

    Yep the whole thing needs a trim but by natural wastage rather than culled. Retire the titles and aristocracy as the current incumbent dies.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • I also like that neat trick in the constitution that ensures that the monarch is head of the armed forces, which means that if ever a government acts against the interests of its own people by misdirecting the Army, Air Force or Navy, the Queen can override that and direct them accordingly. The forces are loyal to the monarch, not to government.

    Additionally, if Parliament tries to extend its time in government unconstitutionally, the monarch can order the army to turf them out.

    You can't have such safeguards with a presidential system. The US armed forces are answerable to the president, and with The Donald in charge, that is more than a small cause for concern!

  • No, the armed forces are controlled and unanswerable to the government (MOD) and the queen is just a figurehead or patron you could call her. The only regiment I believe she has ultimate control over is her own personal regiments the queens guard. The British armed forces in general, Navy, Army and Air Force and are loyal to the queen but loyalty is something else entirely and it's loyalty to the the queen where the armed forces may decide to go against the government and side with her. If there was ever a situation like that then the armed forces would fall apart as I suspect it would cause a huge divide with some siding with the queen and some siding with the government depending on the situation and ones own personal beliefs and loyalty to ones own friends and regiment. Cavalier or Roundhead?

  • No, the armed forces are controlled and unanswerable to the government (MOD) and the queen is just a figurehead or patron you could call her.

    That isn't correct, Norra. The Queen is the Commander-in-Chief and the Armed Forces pledge allegience to her.

    The government deals with the day to day stuff, including deployments, but if Her Maj stepped in for any reason, what she says goes.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander…sh_Armed_Forces

  • In Afghanistan, a young private was so fed up with being shot at that he decided to desert. He started running away from the front line and ran for 2 days. On the second day a staff car drew up beside the young private and an officer got out. The private was asked what he was doing and replied " I'm running away from all danger sir" !!! The officer said "Don't you know who I am, I'm Captain Wales, the Duke of Sussex". The private said " damn I didn't realize I had run that far Sir" ^^^^

    The Voice of Reason

  • Mmmm Maybe I'm wrong, not sure though. I think it's deeper than that otherwise the royals would still be in charge and Cromwell and government would have lost. As it where the royals where given the land and allowed to keep hold of a couple of regiments but if they had all the regiments then they could have just as easily retaliated to overthrow the government. She's a figurehead and the sovereign basically signs papers all day long with the illusion or pretext of being the one in control and it's their kingdom.

    The royals where put in their place back in the day and they have no real say in matters. If the sovereign wanted to go against the state then that will open up old wounds and we would have another civil war. The queen or sovereign as she stands for is like a bit of costume jewellery for the state. Good for tourism and putting on some religious exhibitions or ceremonies as they are called but that's about it.

    All the time the royals have some money and land along with the freedom to move around where they want they are happy to remain loyal to the government. The most she can do is show her disapproval of something with a dirty look or say a few words to show her disapproval but it's kind of 'we must not upset the apple-cart' type behaviour or it could end up in a case of 'off with her head' which in modern terms could be the redundancy of the royal family, no more money for you, now go and live in a council flat and pay bills or no the tax payer is not going to fund all the rewiring of the electrics in the palace. She probably has a few cleverly select words to say on some matters with her weekly meeting with the PM or is it "would you like another cup of Earl Grey dear or shall we get on with signing some of these papers now". LOL

  • "William calls on society to grasp the chance to end homelessness"

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/william-calls-…-210000152.html

    Easy to say when you have three homes of your own

    Kensington Palace, a pad on the Sandringham Estate and another on the Balmoral Estate

    Surely you are not saying that wealthy people should not be able to draw attention to their concerns about those less well off than themselves?

    People tend to listen to them, so what they say matters.

    If they said nowt, you'd say they were uncaring.

  • Surely you are not saying that wealthy people shoiuld not draw attention to their concerns about those less well off than themselves?


    People tend to listen to them, so what they say matters.


    If they said nowt, you'd say they were uncaring.

    Diana made a point of highlighting homelessness, she took William (and possibly Harry?) to Shelter. Didn't make any difference

    We would need to provide much more social housing and end short term tenancies

  • Diana made a point of highlighting homelessness, she took William (and possibly Harry?) to Shelter. Didn't make any difference

    We would need to provide much more social housing and end short term tenancies

    Well, I think it's good he's shown an interest, and like Diana with land mines, maybe it won't end there.

    If the Royal Family dealt with issues that were of concern to ordinary people, they would become more, not less relevant, so I say good on him.

  • From Hero to Zero

    HAZ BEEN Prince Harry’s popularity plummets and many Brits see him as liability for monarchy, poll finds

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12163783/…y-for-monarchy/

    The sun has been banging on about Harry for ages now and what a wimp he is, so I'm not surprised by this poll, yet the paper keeps writing stories about him though...:whistling:

  • I like William, yes he's a rich snob and does not really know what it's like to live like the common person but what he does have is empathy. He has empathy for the common people like his mother did so he does his best to try and understand and I do believe he has the peoples best interests at heart. He will make a good king one day and I hope that Charles will advocate (is that the right word) and pass the reign down to him. I don't think Charles will though and I fear that as William grows older he might turn more into his father and lose some of the qualities he inherited from his mother.

  • I like William, yes he's a rich snob and does not really know what it's like to live like the common person but what he does have is empathy. He has empathy for the common people like his mother did so he does his best to try and understand and I do believe he has the peoples best interests at heart. He will make a good king one day and I hope that Charles will advocate (is that the right word) and pass the reign down to him. I don't think Charles will though and I fear that as William grows older he might turn more into his father and lose some of the qualities he inherited from his mother.

    I think abdicate was the word you were looking for

    No chance, he apparently has inherited his grandfathers temper and when confronted by stepping aside for William he flies into a temper, stamps his feet and yells "I will be king"

  • abdicate

    verb (used without object), ab·di·cat·ed, ab·di·cat·ing.

    to renounce or relinquish a throne, right, power, claim, responsibility, or the like, especially in a formal manner: The aging founder of the firm decided to abdicate.

    verb (used with object), ab·di·cat·ed, ab·di·cat·ing.

    to give up or renounce (authority, duties, an office, etc.), especially in a voluntary, public, or formal manner: King Edward VIII of England abdicated the throne in 1936.


    William looks more and more like his father everyday. He certainly has the Winsor look unlike Harry who is the Black sheep of the family only he's Ginger LOL

  • Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are being ridiculed as their dog’s name is slang for “penis” in Romanian.

    Pals of the former royal couple said they christened their Labrador Pula after the currency in Botswana, where they dated.

    But Romanians are slating the pair as it means something a lot more crass in their language. One Romanian Twitter user said: “Surely someone in their group would have Googled Pula to ensure it wasn’t Romanian for penis?”

    Another critic of the name tweeted: “Quite a shock to see it in print…!!!” Harry, 35, and Meghan, 39, adopted their black Labrador in 2018 just after they got married but refused to publicly disclose its name.

    Now in new book Finding Freedom: Harry And Meghan And The Making Of A Modern Royal Family – said to have been written with the couple’s cooperation – it was revealed the pet’s name was Pula.

    Sounds like a bit of a cock up to me. ^^

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!