Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 21   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: British Royal News 2020.  (Read 33492 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
thecrownjewelthief

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 247

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 951





Ignore
« Reply #180 on: January 19, 2020, 09:07:27 PM »

It’s so tone deaf (again) to bring Andrew along, knowing he’ll be photographed, after a week like this one. If she hasn’t learned by this age she never will. Bring ANYONE else in the family.

I doubt Charles is looking forward to his mother’s passing, but I bet he’s excited to finally do things his way and exile Andrew once and for all when he’s in charge.
Logged
Konradin

Small Member
****

Reputation: 115

Offline Offline

Argentina Argentina

Posts: 457


“Après moi le déluge”




Ignore
« Reply #181 on: January 19, 2020, 10:02:10 PM »

Please research the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act.  There you will see the yes a similar act would indeed cover the heirs to titles being removed by the new act.

For James, Louise, and Camilla’s stuff that was all done by choice.  Camilla’s choice to avoid public outrage if she used HRH The Princess of Wales.   The Wessex parents choice to read the writing on the wall and make it very clear that their kids would be raised to be independent.  

Parliament only gets involved for the removal of peerages nothing else.  The Queen can make changes to HRH Prince/Princess as she sees fit by either issuing new Letters Patent or simply letting her royal will be know.  

I know this is confusing, especially with the press screaming "take their titles", but sadly when you look at the process and history in the UK you quickly learn that it's a complicated process and therefore removal of peerages seems unlikely at this time...parliament is a bit busy right now.  
What do you mean by «writing on the wall»? Are you implying they were ahead of their times in doing so? If that is the case, you are right; I know this is not their main area so I'll keep it simple. It took them a while to conceive those kids and the road to achieve it wasn't smooth, both Sophie and Louise were in danger of dying on her 1st delivery, same goes to James, she even broke in tears if one event at remembering how scared she was both for her daughter and herself. After that, their decision to keep their lives as simple as possible, especially given what being a royal means, was taken accordingly. Anne did the same if we think about it. She really was ahead of time.

That's just HRH Prince Henry, the Duke of Sussex introducing himself as "Call me Harry"...

I think as much, unless deprived by Parliament, this is pretty much the Wessex's way with their children without actually meaning it; they tried to be royals that work and we all know what a mess that turned up, plus, I believe them to be more sensible than the O/T ones, that said, I really hope I'm wrong, truly, for HM's sake.

Part of me loves the idea that this is HM trolling H&M - "look I'll even smile and be seen with Andrew -  now I've sorted you two out"

TBH this could have been avoided if Andrew had arrived in a different car ahead of HM so yes, they both went to church and likely sat next to each other, but we wouldn't have seen the two together.

I suspect HM is trying to show its business as usual and perhaps is even trying to show her strength (or her feeling of strength) by being seen with Andrew.


Trotting Andrew out right now is self defeating. The focus is finally off him and he should stay hidden.  At least for the foreseeable future.

I would think it would be more productive for her to be seen with Charles or William, to put the focus on the next generation.
With her daughter's upcoming wedding? Yeah, sure, I don't see that happening.   The media, and so will we, will be speculating whether he attends or not, and Fergie, and the rest of the family. You get married and everyone is going to be discussing anything but you. So no, unless Bea chooses a very quiet wedding like Ella's, I don't see the chance of him being out of the spotlight. Even if she does, every reporter and photographer will be searching for a picture, which is a pity, you are getting married and all everyone cares is whether your dad will be convicted or not.  No
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 10:09:53 PM by Konradin » Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 806

Offline Offline

Posts: 3266





Ignore
« Reply #182 on: January 19, 2020, 10:56:47 PM »

By "writing on the wall" I meant that they (Edward and Sophie) may very well had realised that the monarchy would never again be at a point that would allow nieces/nephews/cousins of a Sovereign to be working royals.  They announced their no HRH decision on their wedding day in 1999...a lord knows the 90s weren't kind to the BRF.  No of course it was their intent (Edward and Sophie) to maintain their private business and not be working royals so the decision on their children's titles aligned nicely with that.  I'm an Ed and Sophie sugar so chose to believe that they were genuinely ahead of their time even if they didn't realise it at the time.

Anne was less ahead as neither Antony Armstrong-Jones nor Angus Ogilvy were peers from their weddings.  Yes Antony was later (just ahead of David's birth) created a peer but to me that's different.  Anne and Mark chose against accepting a peerage (which would have given their kids titles) is good but for me it's on a slightly different level. 
Logged
anastasia beaverhausen

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 966

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3683





Ignore
« Reply #183 on: January 19, 2020, 10:57:42 PM »

Please research the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act.  There you will see the yes a similar act would indeed cover the heirs to titles being removed by the new act.

For James, Louise, and Camilla’s stuff that was all done by choice.  Camilla’s choice to avoid public outrage if she used HRH The Princess of Wales.   The Wessex parents choice to read the writing on the wall and make it very clear that their kids would be raised to be independent.  

Parliament only gets involved for the removal of peerages nothing else.  The Queen can make changes to HRH Prince/Princess as she sees fit by either issuing new Letters Patent or simply letting her royal will be know.  

I know this is confusing, especially with the press screaming "take their titles", but sadly when you look at the process and history in the UK you quickly learn that it's a complicated process and therefore removal of peerages seems unlikely at this time...parliament is a bit busy right now.  
What do you mean by «writing on the wall»? Are you implying they were ahead of their times in doing so? If that is the case, you are right; I know this is not their main area so I'll keep it simple. It took them a while to conceive those kids and the road to achieve it wasn't smooth, both Sophie and Louise were in danger of dying on her 1st delivery, same goes to James, she even broke in tears if one event at remembering how scared she was both for her daughter and herself. After that, their decision to keep their lives as simple as possible, especially given what being a royal means, was taken accordingly. Anne did the same if we think about it. She really was ahead of time.

That's just HRH Prince Henry, the Duke of Sussex introducing himself as "Call me Harry"...

I think as much, unless deprived by Parliament, this is pretty much the Wessex's way with their children without actually meaning it; they tried to be royals that work and we all know what a mess that turned up, plus, I believe them to be more sensible than the O/T ones, that said, I really hope I'm wrong, truly, for HM's sake.

Part of me loves the idea that this is HM trolling H&M - "look I'll even smile and be seen with Andrew -  now I've sorted you two out"

TBH this could have been avoided if Andrew had arrived in a different car ahead of HM so yes, they both went to church and likely sat next to each other, but we wouldn't have seen the two together.

I suspect HM is trying to show its business as usual and perhaps is even trying to show her strength (or her feeling of strength) by being seen with Andrew.


Trotting Andrew out right now is self defeating. The focus is finally off him and he should stay hidden.  At least for the foreseeable future.

I would think it would be more productive for her to be seen with Charles or William, to put the focus on the next generation.
With her daughter's upcoming wedding? Yeah, sure, I don't see that happening.   The media, and so will we, will be speculating whether he attends or not, and Fergie, and the rest of the family. You get married and everyone is going to be discussing anything but you. So no, unless Bea chooses a very quiet wedding like Ella's, I don't see the chance of him being out of the spotlight. Even if she does, every reporter and photographer will be searching for a picture, which is a pity, you are getting married and all everyone cares is whether your dad will be convicted or not.  No

‘Writing on the wall” normally means that there are some obvious signs that things are about to go badly.  If you see the writing on the wall, you make adjustments to better your position.

Whose daughter’s upcoming wedding?  If you mean Fergie, I was actually talking about the queen in my post. And I do believe Bea’s wedding will be a much quieter affair than her sister’s was.  The BRF is arrogant but I don’t think they’re crazy.  

Logged
Konradin

Small Member
****

Reputation: 115

Offline Offline

Argentina Argentina

Posts: 457


“Après moi le déluge”




Ignore
« Reply #184 on: January 19, 2020, 11:08:11 PM »

By "writing on the wall" I meant that they (Edward and Sophie) may very well had realised that the monarchy would never again be at a point that would allow nieces/nephews/cousins of a Sovereign to be working royals.  They announced their no HRH decision on their wedding day in 1999...a lord knows the 90s weren't kind to the BRF.  No of course it was their intent (Edward and Sophie) to maintain their private business and not be working royals so the decision on their children's titles aligned nicely with that.  I'm an Ed and Sophie sugar so chose to believe that they were genuinely ahead of their time even if they didn't realise it at the time.

Anne was less ahead as neither Antony Armstrong-Jones nor Angus Ogilvy were peers from their weddings.  Yes Antony was later (just ahead of David's birth) created a peer but to me that's different.  Anne and Mark chose against accepting a peerage (which would have given their kids titles) is good but for me it's on a slightly different level.  
It does not dimishes her value. It is well known HM offered to create them peers and was refused by Anne. That decision made their lives much simpler. And yes, regarding E & S, I chose to believe as much. They very mch read the mood was against the royal back then, plus, he was a third season with no chance of becoming king in the foreseable future, even their wedding was a quiet affair compared to the previous ones, and after their huge faux-pas, everything is now forgiven. Honestly, I'd even go as far as to say that Sophie is HM favourite daughter in law, even with hindsight.

Thanks for explaining what that means, Anastasia Beaverhausen, English is not my mother language.  Star I mean Bea's upcoming wedding, even if there is no date yet, it is going to happen this year, no?  Secret
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 11:18:15 PM by Konradin » Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 806

Offline Offline

Posts: 3266





Ignore
« Reply #185 on: January 19, 2020, 11:37:38 PM »

By "writing on the wall" I meant that they (Edward and Sophie) may very well had realised that the monarchy would never again be at a point that would allow nieces/nephews/cousins of a Sovereign to be working royals.  They announced their no HRH decision on their wedding day in 1999...a lord knows the 90s weren't kind to the BRF.  No of course it was their intent (Edward and Sophie) to maintain their private business and not be working royals so the decision on their children's titles aligned nicely with that.  I'm an Ed and Sophie sugar so chose to believe that they were genuinely ahead of their time even if they didn't realise it at the time.

Anne was less ahead as neither Antony Armstrong-Jones nor Angus Ogilvy were peers from their weddings.  Yes Antony was later (just ahead of David's birth) created a peer but to me that's different.  Anne and Mark chose against accepting a peerage (which would have given their kids titles) is good but for me it's on a slightly different level.  
It does not dimishes her value. It is well known HM offered to create them peers and was refused by Anne. That decision made their lives much simpler. And yes, regarding E & S, I chose to believe as much. They very mch read the mood was against the royal back then, plus, he was a third season with no chance of becoming king in the foreseable future, even their wedding was a quiet affair compared to the previous ones, and after their huge faux-pas, everything is now forgiven. Honestly, I'd even go as far as to say that Sophie is HM favourite daughter in law, even with hindsight.

Thanks for explaining what that means, Anastasia Beaverhausen, English is not my mother language.  Star I mean Bea's upcoming wedding, even if there is no date yet, it is going to happen this year, no?  Secret

I didn’t mean to diminish her value I just don’t see it as, I guess, amazing as other people might.  Her children were never going to be HRH (at least that was the standard) or working for the royal family.  Declining a peerage reads more as just her personality than some amazing forethought or special significance or whatever people inflate it to be these days.
Logged
Konradin

Small Member
****

Reputation: 115

Offline Offline

Argentina Argentina

Posts: 457


“Après moi le déluge”




Ignore
« Reply #186 on: January 19, 2020, 11:51:03 PM »

You are absolutely right; sorry, after years of no seeing the point of her I came to be one of Anne's fan, I know, quite a volte-face but still... 
Logged
HolgerDanske
Banned
Banned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 11

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 64





Ignore
« Reply #187 on: January 20, 2020, 02:12:51 AM »

So, 3 senior members have "stepped back" ??
These three continue to enjoy the styles, titles and privileges associated with being HRH, (whether they USE it or not).
Nothing has changed except they have all the perks and none of the work Ranting
Logged
MoMo

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 8

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 23





Ignore
« Reply #188 on: January 20, 2020, 03:29:56 AM »

So, 3 senior members have "stepped back" ??
These three continue to enjoy the styles, titles and privileges associated with being HRH, (whether they USE it or not).
Nothing has changed except they have all the perks and none of the work Ranting

Which, I think, is totally the goal of the one couple.  All the perks with none of the drudgery. 
Logged
Principessa

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1636

Offline Offline

Netherlands Netherlands

Posts: 22019


I am the Queen




Ignore
« Reply #189 on: January 20, 2020, 11:13:15 AM »



First sighting of Bessie and Drew together in public, since a while?
Logged
Nappyolean

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 18

Offline Offline

France France

Posts: 37





Ignore
« Reply #190 on: January 20, 2020, 11:33:08 AM »

We have seen more of Liz and Drew together these past few months then we have ever seen them. I think they are trying to normalize photos of Andrew being out and about so getting a shot of him at Bea’s wedding won’t be a big deal. If he hides for months, then comes out just at her wedding, the whole wedding will be about “finally Andrew shows his face”. As we all know, QE2 doesn’t do “random”. Andrew is there for a reason.
Logged
Future Crayon

Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2667

Online Online

Posts: 10959


FutureCrayonNotRoyal




Ignore
« Reply #191 on: January 20, 2020, 11:47:54 AM »

The BRF: unrepresentative, unaccountable, undemocratic, untransparent, and now? An international embarrassment.

Honestly Liz, you can spend every waking minute with your 'rock' Andy, but these public displays of support are nauseating.

Even if we set aside the Epstein stuff   (a big IF), we still have Andy using a public trade role to personally get wealthy, connections with despots and oligarchs, the gun runner at Eugenie's wedding (dwarves are so passe), the complete lack of common sense and a complete lack of remorse.

Hanging out with Andy says more about the queen's values than any rumours of a Netflix series. This guy has filled his wallet while a full time working royal. Kick him to the curb. Be consistent.
Logged

Poorly thought out foundation coming soon, exact launch date tbc
luvcharles

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 856

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2400





Ignore
« Reply #192 on: January 20, 2020, 12:17:43 PM »

I must have missed Andrew's corruption trial. When was that?

In the UK they have a very important legal principle - innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of LAW.

When Andrew is charged with a crime (he hasn't been yet), tried and found guilty then those names can be used but otherwise they are simply based on rumour and innuendo.

Unfortunately the British media doesn't have a good track record when it comes to exposing 'big names', in recent times, with many high profile names they have 'exposed' later proven to be not guilty of the alleged crimes. The VIP pedophile ring is just one that put the British media into a feeding frenzy - only to have it exposed as a complete fraud with the accuser now in prison for his lies (and being a pedophile himself).
Logged
CurleySharon

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 3

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 10





Ignore
« Reply #193 on: January 20, 2020, 12:56:39 PM »

I must have missed Andrew's corruption trial. When was that?

In the UK they have a very important legal principle - innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of LAW.

When Andrew is charged with a crime (he hasn't been yet), tried and found guilty then those names can be used but otherwise they are simply based on rumour and innuendo.

Unfortunately the British media doesn't have a good track record when it comes to exposing 'big names', in recent times, with many high profile names they have 'exposed' later proven to be not guilty of the alleged crimes. The VIP pedophile ring is just one that put the British media into a feeding frenzy - only to have it exposed as a complete fraud with the accuser now in prison for his lies (and being a pedophile himself).

I agree, innocent until proven guilty. He has not even been charged with anything.
Logged
Konradin

Small Member
****

Reputation: 115

Offline Offline

Argentina Argentina

Posts: 457


“Après moi le déluge”




Ignore
« Reply #194 on: January 20, 2020, 02:28:41 PM »

I must have missed Andrew's corruption trial. When was that?

In the UK they have a very important legal principle - innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of LAW.

When Andrew is charged with a crime (he hasn't been yet), tried and found guilty then those names can be used but otherwise they are simply based on rumour and innuendo.

Unfortunately the British media doesn't have a good track record when it comes to exposing 'big names', in recent times, with many high profile names they have 'exposed' later proven to be not guilty of the alleged crimes. The VIP pedophile ring is just one that put the British media into a feeding frenzy - only to have it exposed as a complete fraud with the accuser now in prison for his lies (and being a pedophile himself).

I agree, innocent until proven guilty. He has not even been charged with anything.
Unfortunately, Andrew has a reputation before that, his dealings with weapons and all were a bit shady to say the least... Naturally, you are right, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 21   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: