For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
pralineQuote
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.
Quote
teleblasterQuote
pralineQuote
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.
Quote
pralineQuote
teleblasterQuote
pralineQuote
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
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.
Quote
Edith Grove
Serious question here:
If Elizabeth is Queen, why is not Philip considered "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.
Quote
Gazza
Thats rubbish. Besides, they're all 'foreigners', if we're being technical about it.
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).