Isn't Elton John next in line to be Queen?

From what I hear, Elton is number 23 in line to become Queen. Dame Edna is number 16 and someone called Brenda is number 56 in line. So who knows it might be Elton!

LOL Queen Brenda.

The Palace is already correcting the use of Miss Middleton's name from Kate to the more preferred Katherine. No nicknames allowed. King Hank VIII or Queen Betty nah...

Quote
praline

Quote
teleblaster


I have nothing against two "young" people falling in love. Teenage magazines are full of it. What I object to is a media frenzy over a ludicrously rich individual who is supposed to be my lord and master and who will now go on to breed future lords and masters.

I do think Keith is cool and have done for many, many years. That's why I visit this site - the Stones. Maybe I should start buying "Hello" or whatever.

He's not. I'm not English but I understand the Royal Family has no political power - they're rich without doing nothing, true, as hundreds of people all over Britian, including Keith's family.

Sorry, but Keith's family have money because Keith earned it. And he a Stone, which is what this site is about. Keith is not aristocracy / landed gentry. There is a difference, I can assure you. I'm sure there are plenty royalist sites on which to gush about royal weddings.

And I'm not English either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 11:40 by teleblaster.

Quote
teleblaster

Quote
praline

Quote
teleblaster


I have nothing against two "young" people falling in love. Teenage magazines are full of it. What I object to is a media frenzy over a ludicrously rich individual who is supposed to be my lord and master and who will now go on to breed future lords and masters.

I do think Keith is cool and have done for many, many years. That's why I visit this site - the Stones. Maybe I should start buying "Hello" or whatever.

He's not. I'm not English but I understand the Royal Family has no political power - they're rich without doing nothing, true, as hundreds of people all over Britian, including Keith's family.

Sorry, but Keith's family have money because Keith earned it. And he a Stone, which is what this site is about. Keith is not aristocracy / landed gentry. There is a difference, I can assure you. I'm sure there are plenty royalist sites on which to gush about royal weddings.

And I'm not English either.

Of course Keith is part of the aristocracy... when he writes a book he goes to the IVY club with limousines and chauffeur having dinner with the editor and then goes back to his 5* presidential suite. That's not because you wear a skull ring and shades that you are "no aristocracy".

Keith earnt his money, sure - his children did not, and Theodora or Marlon, as Prince Willian or Harry, will never have any financial problem. It is unfair in both cases, not only in the later.

Quote
praline

Quote
teleblaster

Quote
praline

Quote
teleblaster


I have nothing against two "young" people falling in love. Teenage magazines are full of it. What I object to is a media frenzy over a ludicrously rich individual who is supposed to be my lord and master and who will now go on to breed future lords and masters.

I do think Keith is cool and have done for many, many years. That's why I visit this site - the Stones. Maybe I should start buying "Hello" or whatever.

He's not. I'm not English but I understand the Royal Family has no political power - they're rich without doing nothing, true, as hundreds of people all over Britian, including Keith's family.

Sorry, but Keith's family have money because Keith earned it. And he a Stone, which is what this site is about. Keith is not aristocracy / landed gentry. There is a difference, I can assure you. I'm sure there are plenty royalist sites on which to gush about royal weddings.

And I'm not English either.

Of course Keith is part of the aristocracy... when he writes a book he goes to the IVY club with limousines and chauffeur having dinner with the editor and then goes back to his 5* presidential suite. That's not because you wear a skull ring and shades that you are "no aristocracy".

Keith earnt his money, sure - his children did not, and Theodora or Marlon, as Prince Willian or Harry, will never have any financial problem. It is unfair in both cases, not only in the later.

The difference is that my taxes don't support the Stones or their offspring. They do for the Royals.

I thought you werent English. The taxes argument is a valid one, but the Royal Family cost every year(69p per person) what useless wars here and there cost in a day.

I'm a Scot, so not English, but a UK taxpayer nonetheless. I agree wholeheartedly about the senseless wars and I do protest against them.

Quote
praline
I thought you werent English. The taxes argument is a valid one, but the Royal Family cost every year(69p per person) what useless wars here and there cost in a day.

A good point, in the end a small sacrifice for centuries of tradition and custom. It is afterall part of your country's identity.

These upper-class discussions are refreshing to me. I remember a french mutualist philosopher and politician who said: Property is theft! But now we are getting too political, aren't we? His name was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, by the way.

I personnally dont care about being too political, where is the problem ? Is is allowed to disagree on the forum, except when this is over a political matter ?

I noticed this tendency where people behave exactly like the "bourgeois" they despise: bourgeois wouldnt hear any discussion over sex. Same thing happening now, replace sex with politic. "Oh, shocking !!"

At least we will have Prince Charles as the first King of the 21st century. And Queen Camilla?

Royal blood? Please discuss.

Serious question here:

If Elizabeth is Queen, why is not Philip considered "King?"

Serious answer. He`s a sexist, embarassing old piss artist. A diplomatic timebomb waiting to happen.

Still waiting for a serious answer....

Study genetics. Perhaps he doesn`t have the Royal code. Serious answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 23:00 by belld.

OK, belld, you made your thoughts concerning Philip known.

I suppose I could look it up on the 'net but I was hoping someone, preferably an Englishman, would answer my question in a more factual way than an opinionated one.

Here are some answers I found:

Among monarchy titles, King is the highest and has the most authority, at least
when monarchs had authority. That being said, a King can make his wife a Queen,
which is a lower rung on the ladder, but a Queen cannot make a King, because
that would give him more authority over the Queen, who is the successor to
throne, when her husband is not. It all goes back to the days of class status
and the policy of having all inherited by the first born male, royal or
otherwise. That policy is still there, but at a much lesser degree.

It is important to distinguish between the King as sovereign (i.e. ruler) and the title of King.

Philip is not the sovereign because he is not King by royal blood but only married (consort) to the Queen, who was heir to the throne.

However, this does not mean that he cannot be styled "King Consort" as was Philip II of Spain (husband of Mary I of England), William III of Orange (husband of Mary II of England) or Henry, King of Scots (husband to Mary, Queen of Scots). The reason he is not styled King Consort, but merely Prince Consort, is that he is a foreigner and such a move would have proved unpopular. This is the same reason why Queen Victoria's husband was Prince consort rather than King consort.

Hello, I'm not an Englishman but am still a proud UK citizen but that does not necessarily mean embracing what is basically the medieval(and before) concept of royal blood. I don't think the genome project has identified the DNA that endows the superiority to rule. Despite the media manipulation more us may have that view than you realise. We may make an exception to 'Sir Mick' however.
Raise a glass to Sir Keith.

Oddly enough, I always liked The Prince of Wales, the "tampon incident" put me off for a while, but he seems well-spoken and has some class. That old lady (the Queen) is to aloof, for my taste at least. Perhaps not for her English subjects? The kids are, of course, spoiled little brats, "like kids are now...".

Quote
Edith Grove
Serious question here:

If Elizabeth is Queen, why is not Philip considered "King?"

The monarch's spouse isnt a King or Queen, technically.

The King's wife is a 'Queen Consort'.

Prince Philip is only married to the Queen, so he wouldnt be 'King'.

Quote
The Sicilian
Here are some answers I found:

Among monarchy titles, King is the highest and has the most authority, at least
when monarchs had authority. That being said, a King can make his wife a Queen,
which is a lower rung on the ladder, but a Queen cannot make a King, because
that would give him more authority over the Queen, who is the successor to
throne, when her husband is not. It all goes back to the days of class status
and the policy of having all inherited by the first born male, royal or
otherwise. That policy is still there, but at a much lesser degree.

It is important to distinguish between the King as sovereign (i.e. ruler) and the title of King.

Philip is not the sovereign because he is not King by royal blood but only married (consort) to the Queen, who was heir to the throne.

However, this does not mean that he cannot be styled "King Consort" as was Philip II of Spain (husband of Mary I of England), William III of Orange (husband of Mary II of England) or Henry, King of Scots (husband to Mary, Queen of Scots). The reason he is not styled King Consort, but merely Prince Consort, is that he is a foreigner and such a move would have proved unpopular. This is the same reason why Queen Victoria's husband was Prince consort rather than King consort.

Thats rubbish. Besides, they're all 'foreigners', if we're being technical about it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 03:11 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Thats rubbish. Besides, they're all 'foreigners', if we're being technical about it.

right--are they still Hanovers, as was George III?

The British Royal family has been German since George I in 1714. The House of Hanover (1714-1901) was succeeded by the wonderfully English-sounding House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha on the accession of Edward VII (son of Queen Victoria). The UK branch of the family changed their name to the somewhat less Germanic name of 'Windsor' in 1917, during WW1.

All monarchs since 1066 have had foreign bloodlines, generally French, Dutch and German.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 03:40 by Gazza.

Gazza: So you mean that Queen Silvia of Sweden or Queen Sonja of Norway aren't queens but Queen Concsorts? That is simply not true. The first part of Sicilian's post is right. Queen Margrethe II of Denmark's spouse is Prince Consort of Denmark (the same arrangement as in Great Britain).

Quote
Stoneage
Gazza: So you mean that Queen Silvia of Sweden or Queen Sonja of Norway aren't queens but Queen Concsorts? That is simply not true. The first part of Sicilian's post is right. Queen Margrethe II of Denmark's spouse is Prince Consort of Denmark (the same arrangement as in Great Britain).

I was only referring to the British Royal family.

However, assuming the system in the countries you refer to is the same as ours, as Norway and Sweden have Kings, their wives would be 'Queen Consort' as they're not the offspring of the previous monarch. Whilst they may be referred to as 'Queen Silvia' or 'Queen Sonja', they're not 'Queen Regnants'. They're 'Queen Consorts' by marriage, not 'Queen' by bloodline. There's a difference.

In the event that the King dies before his wife, the crown doesnt pass to his spouse as she's not 'Queen' but to the eldest eligible child.

Its the same scenario when the monarch is female and her husband is a 'Prince Consort'.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 04:50 by Gazza.

Headline news!!! Prince William seen without Kate at Blackpool football ground.Out on a stag weekend in Englands tinseltown! Five pages of posts so far! Gotta be about 40 pages by the time of the wedding in about 8 months.Keep them posts a comin'!!! ><