Big RR wrote:Undistinguished? What does royalty do that is distinguished? Yes, the pageantry and tourist attraction is a part, but it's a bit like playing Mickey Mouse at Disneyland (or Miss America). ... "
Good idea. They could call it "Britneyland" and hire a stable of actors to play each of the parts in costumes with giant heads.
Well he stands quite close to Camilla from time to time....
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I imagine itcan be dangerous in war zones where people are shooting at you; not sure about the danger in providingI domestic helicopter ambulance service, but it is a job.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
He saves lives in a job that puts his at risk a whole lot more than most folks' jobs, and he could choose not to work beyond Princely crap but he doesn't - so he earns my respect, a heck of a lot more than folks who sit behind a desk all day.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Big RR wrote:No doubt there are crashes; but I would bet cars are statistically worse.
OFFS Big RR. You want him to be a race car driver so you can agree it's risky? I bet he travels in a car to and from work - so he's got the same risk as you plus zooming around in the sky helping people.
Just admit something for once. He puts himself at risk, just like medics/firefighters/etc.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Big RR wrote:No doubt there are crashes; but I would bet cars are statistically worse.
OFFS Big RR. You want him to be a race car driver so you can agree it's risky? I bet he travels in a car to and from work - so he's got the same risk as you plus zooming around in the sky helping people.
Just admit something for once. He puts himself at risk, just like medics/firefighters/etc.
sure he is at some risk, but I don't see it the same as police or firefighters, probably about the same as medics. FWIW, I don't think airline pilots put themselves at that much risk either, but there clearly is some risk. As I said, I do think he deserves some respect for working at all when many in similar positions do not.
CRackpot--true, but I'd bet the average helicopter is far better maintained and serviced than the average car, resulting in far less mechanical failure.
I don't follow them much, but what kind of life risking work does William do? I thought he worked in finance
I imagine it can be dangerous in war zones where people are shooting at you; not sure about the danger in providing domestic helicopter ambulance service, but it is a job
No doubt there are crashes; but I would bet cars are statistically worse.
sure he is at some risk, but I don't see it the same as police or firefighters, probably about the same as medics
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Lord Jim wrote:His brother flew chopper missions in Afghanistan...
And his uncle Andrew flew helicopter missions in The Falklands during that war...
But what's acceptable for the spare isn't always acceptable for the heir...
Jim--I think you're right, but then those who are involved with the monarchy take succession seriously, so I wonder if he even had a choice to put himself at risk in combat like that. I'd bet the military would simply not permit it, even if he volunteered.
Cmon BigRR - the nanny state mandates that level of inspection
Wills seems to be a decent sort for an intensely privileged young'un but time will tell. Who knows what the "pressure" of ruling will do.
I cannOT imagine the Queen bypassing Charles for William. She is as traditional as it gets, and she believes in duty. Should that ever be the plan, my guess is Charles would give up his PoW title, and it would go to William. So there is a step or two we would all observe first.
Finally - Andrew - still as yummy as ever Too bad he has such deplorable taste in women.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Meade--if you don't like what I post you can just refrain from commenting; it's much easier than getting your panties in a bunch and looking up silly photos. But do what you want. That photo certainly put me in my place.
Guin--I agree on the first three points (except I don't know if Charles would ever voluntarily step down); no comment on the fourth.
Guinevere wrote:
I cannOT imagine the Queen bypassing Charles for William. She is as traditional as it gets, and she believes in duty. Should that ever be the plan, my guess is Charles would give up his PoW title, and it would go to William. So there is a step or two we would all observe first.
.
The queen is very traditional, but she is also very dedicated to the monarchy and I am sure she is aware of the home grown opposition the British monarchy. There are people in Britain that would love to have a wedge issue they could use to weaken support for the king and eventually bring in a republic. Would she want to give the anti-monarchy people that tool when all she to is to put a better king on the throne. I am sure she love her son, but does she love her country more?
I think she was taught by her grandmother to love her country and do her duty above all else.
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.
Lib, in polls I've seen recently support for the Monarchy is fairly high, (it's rebounded significantly since the level it fell to in the aftermath of Diana's death) so there really no need to try something like you suggest. In fact now most of the public would oppose it:
For the first time in 10 years opinion has now also swung in favour of the crown passing directly to Charles (53 per cent), while only 31 per cent now want Prince William to inherit the throne straight from his grandmother.
This demonstrates a real surge in popularity for the Prince of Wales since on the Duke of Cambridge's wedding day in 2011 only 38 per cent were in favour of Charles as King, while 44 per cent wanted William to succeed.
In any event the Queen has no direct power over who succeeds her. She could certainly have influence if she told Charles that she would prefer that he defer to William, (something I'm sure she would never do publicly) but there's been no indication that she even feels that's something he should do.
One thing that has been made clear is that whatever happens, The Bowles Woman will never have the title "Queen"....
Too bad he has such deplorable taste in women.
