Posted on 12/12/2009 4:02:00 PM PST by naturalman1975
I saw a Tabloid at the Supermarket today that said Prince Charles has some tragic illness, and is dying. I assumed it was just the usual Tabloid fodder. Of course, with this news about William- now I am wondering....
From the Mail: Prince of Hypoctites:
Please tell Charles not to worry about AGW because, it isn’t. Suggest to him that he should wax and tune his skis and head for Cloisters.
It won't happen in Australia quickly either.
The Queen is more popular than the Prince of Wales, and there is probably a slight majority of support overall for a Republic in Australia even now. But to change the Australian constitution to allow for a Republic, one single model proposed at referendum has to get majority support. And that's not likely to happen in anything approaching the near future. There's at least three competing models, none of which can get more than about 30% support.
This is why the 1999 referendum didn't come close to making Australia a republic.
The process might be less convoluted in some other parts of the Commonwealth - but for Australia, it's not going to be a fast process at all.
Yeah I saw it toooo
Was the Globe or the Star magazine
It is.
Are you aware that the current Queen's Coronation was filmed in its entirety, in colour, and is available on DVD? The production values probably weren't as good as they would be today, but it is still spectacular.
Say what you will, there are only a handful of political leaders on both sides of the pond who have had children in harm's way.
Thanks for your take on this. I expect that you are probably right.
Frankly, there’s no predicting what will happen. The Monarchy has been very useful to England in the modern age, even after British Kings and Queens gradually lost their power and pretty much had to do what the Prime Minister told them to do. Even the ceremonial role seems to be diminishing, although that certainly is not the fault of Queen Elizabeth, who has done an absolutely splendid job ever since she succeeded to the throne.
You need a head of state in a parliamentary system, and it’s arguable that it’s better to have a king than a president, to avoid confusing the roles of president and prime minister.
But frankly, it’s rather hard to predict what way the UK is heading, or even whether it will survive much longer under the socialist leadership of its politicians and the influx of huge numbers of immigrants, many of which are Muslims.
Meantime, this step certainly makes sense. And, since I have English relations, and because I have always taken a lot of interest in England, I hope these forebodings are unfounded. After all, our the US is on the edge of disaster, too.
Just out of curiosity, how does a friend of Prince Charles all the way over is Australia get involved at Free Republic?
Marital infidelity disqualifies him from that description, I'm afraid.
I often wonder what his sons think.
I wish him well. I'm not sure Charles wants to be king.
I heard one of the reasons why Charles was not allowed to married was that she couldn’t have kids?? Is that true??
The only one of Liz's kids who amounted to anything, IMHO.
OFF TOPIC:
Prince Harry seemed to have a bit of gumption and the jihadis didn’t like him.
#
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/621016/Prince-Harrys-war-over.html
“Prince Harry’s war over
Young royal WON’T be going back to Afghanistan”
By Robert Jobson, Royal Editor, 28/11/2009
SNIPPET: “PRINCE HARRY’S dream of a return to front-line duty in Afghanistan has been dashed.
Army top brass say sending the prince to war is now “virtually impossible”.
Taliban infiltration of the Afghan police force would make it impossible to keep the prince’s presence secret, putting Harry and his comrades in danger.
DREAMS: Harry in combat zone
One military source told us: “Getting Harry back on the front line is certainly not a priority right now. The situation there is extremely volatile and an operation involving the third in line to the throne would require a lot of planning and secrecy.”
Another high-ranking Whitehall source told us: “The negatives of his redeployment far outway the positives. It is not on the agenda.”
Harry, a lieutenant in the Blues and Royals, is currently taking military helicopter training. In 2007, he spent ten weeks as a forward air controller directing jets dropping bombs on Taliban positions in Helmand province.
When Harry was in Afghanistan he was treated like any other soldier. He was forced to dive for cover once as a rocket exploded just 50 yards away from him.”
Her Majesty looks great for 83, as does Prince Philip at 88!
And I got hooked.
I greatly admire the United States. I regard Australia's alliance and friendship with the US as very important, and I'm very interested in what is happening in the US.
Rather like passing on the family farm. Or firm. ;-)That’s the suggestion we heard from Purdue about the farm changing hands — give the younger generation a chunk of the operation to call their own.
I doubt it - because she had two children, Tom and Laura, during her marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles, which came after her relationship with the Prince of Wales (The Prince is Tom's Godfather). I suppose there might have been concerns that later proved to be unjustified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.