Those crazy royals...

[Don Corleone]

Okay, for the life of me, I'll never figure out the British royal family. My latest question....

Prince Andrew and Prince Edward are the 2nd and 3rd sons of Queen Elizabeth. Both were born to the reigning monarch, so both were known as "His Royal Highness, Prince so and so" from birth on.

But apparently Lizzie likes one a lot better than the other. Andrew's a Duke, while Edward is only an Earl (the Earl of Wessex to be precise... the last Earl of Wessex was poor old Harold Godwinson).

What's more, Andrew's kids are the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. However, event though she qualifies, Edward's daughter, Louise, is simply known as Lady Louise. Why'd she get the cold shoulder from the Queen? Is there doubt about her actual parentage?:dizzy2: And even if there is, why would the Queen be so harsh as to publicly confirm that rumor by shortchanging a girl who is supposed to be her granddaughter.

Another odd royal fact... only 5 of them have ever graduated from University!

[Don Corleone]

Sorry, you're all probably wondering what my obsession here is. I have a fundamental inability to grasp how an enlightened intelligent meritocracy (in theory) like the UK can continue to maintain vestigal institutions like peerage.

By virtue of their birth, the Princes William and Harry are not 'better' than I am. They very well may be better men, and may prove themselves to be worthy of increased responsiblity in life. But this will be because of the efforts they have put forth, not because of accidents of birth.

And honestly, I think I would fall off my barstool laughing the first time somebody ordered me to clear the bar because Harry and his mates wanted a beer and I wasn't good enough to be in the same room with him (and I do understand, it's his handlers, not him).

In any case, the one bit of it that doesn't make it seem like the ultimate affront to egalitariansim is the argument of inheritance. But then you get stories like this one, where the Queen decides one set of her grandaughters, those produced by a son she likes get those special priveleges. But another set, those sired by her less favored son, they don't get any such thing. I understand she very well may not live to be old enough to have to face such a day of reckoning, but as a human being, how does Lizzy intend to explain this to Louise? When her 7 year old granddaughter comes to her with tears in her eyes and says "Nana, aren't I a princess too?" is she just going to command the Queen's Guard to remove her from her royal presence?

Harsh lot, those royals...

[King Henry V]

Right, I'll try to answer these as best as I can.

The second son of the monarch is traditionally given the title of Duke of York and the third son the title of Duke of Gloucester. However, as the descendant of a previous Duke of Gloucester (the Queen's first cousin) still holds the title, Edward cannot be the Duke of Gloucester. Since he is the youngest son and therefore not all that important and because there aren't that many extinct duchies around (and I think the Queen is loathe to make new titles up). Therefore the old title of Earl of Wessex was resurrected from its thousand year sleep. Plus there was also the homosexual scandal surrounding Edward, which led him to be kicked out of the Royal Marines.

For the same reason, and since they are 5th and 6th in line to the throne, Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, because they could actually inherit the throne (whereas Edward and his child have a very very slim chance). Furthermore, Louise is the daughter of an Earl, not a Duke. This was also seen with the children of Princess Margaret, such as Lady Sarah Chatto.

Only five have graduated from university firstly because some are not all that bright, secondly because they don't really need to (no degree in Kingship unfortunately) and thirdly because I guess some don't fancy and would rather do other things.

The Royal Family are no more worthy than any other person, though the Queen has devoted a lifetime to the service of her country. However, they incarnate an institution going back 1500 years, a living vestige of the country's past, something which no country should forget. It is because we have a monarchy that Norman French is used in the ceremonies of Parliament, that the three lions (or leopards?) represent England, that we have had one of the most stable states in the world.

As for the Lady Louise, protocol is protocol, much like the Princess Anne, though the second eldest child, is preceded by all her brothers and their offspring in the succession line.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Sorry, you're all probably wondering what my obsession here is. I have a fundamental inability to grasp how an enlightened intelligent meritocracy (in theory) like the UK can continue to maintain vestigal institutions like peerage.

By virtue of their birth, the Princes William and Harry are not 'better' than I am. They very well may be better men, and may prove themselves to be worthy of increased responsiblity in life. But this will be because of the efforts they have put forth, not because of accidents of birth.

And honestly, I think I would fall off my barstool laughing the first time somebody ordered me to clear the bar because Harry and his mates wanted a beer and I wasn't good enough to be in the same room with him (and I do understand, it's his handlers, not him).

In any case, the one bit of it that doesn't make it seem like the ultimate affront to egalitariansim is the argument of inheritance. But then you get stories like this one, where the Queen decides one set of her grandaughters, those produced by a son she likes get those special priveleges. But another set, those sired by her less favored son, they don't get any such thing. I understand she very well may not live to be old enough to have to face such a day of reckoning, but as a human being, how does Lizzy intend to explain this to Louise? When her 7 year old granddaughter comes to her with tears in her eyes and says "Nana, aren't I a princess too?" is she just going to command the Queen's Guard to remove her from her royal presence?

Harsh lot, those royals...

No argument from me there. Guillotine the lot of them, I say.

This should be in the backroom, though.

*waves his magic wand*

[Watchman]

I've always been in the opinion that it must be the very fundamentals of Teh Suck to be born a royal these days.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

This is what annoys me. Their very existence is an offense to egalitarian democracy, but they're so insipid as regards their position. If I were a royal, I'd be abusing it like there was no tomorrow. Palace orgies, driving coaches under the influence, fountains of Chateau La Tour, Corgi fighting, turning up to the Royal Ascot with a bevy of scantily clad buxom escorts, constant constitutional crises.

[HoreTore]

This is what annoys me. Their very existence is an offense to egalitarian democracy, but they're so insipid as regards their position. If I were a royal, I'd be abusing it like there was no tomorrow. Palace orgies, driving coaches under the influence, fountains of Chateau La Tour, Corgi fighting, turning up to the Royal Ascot with a bevy of scantily clad buxom escorts, constant constitutional crises.

There can only be one Carl Gustav of Sweden.

[Watchman]

This is what annoys me. Their very existence is an offense to egalitarian democracy, but they're so insipid as regards their position. If I were a royal, I'd be abusing it like there was no tomorrow. Palace orgies, driving coaches under the influence, fountains of Chateau La Tour, Corgi fighting, turning up to the Royal Ascot with a bevy of scantily clad buxom escorts, constant constitutional crises.AFAIK they get their food money from the national budgets and have jack all in terms of real political power, so alas that sort of thing must remain the province of two-bit Third World dictators, oil sheikhs and respected bigtime corporate executives. :shame:

[therother]

It is apparently the Queen's intention that Edward secede his father as Duke of Edinburgh, so he will be a Royal Duke soon enough. Lady Louise Windsor's official title is Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. Her parents chose to drop the HRH Princess stuff, ostensibly because it carries a fair amount of baggage with it. She can become a princess when she's old enough, if she so chooses.

[HoreTore]

and have jack all in terms of real political power

Not true, for example, the King of Norway is given the power of a dictator by our constitution. Ie. he can depose the PM, government and parliament as he pleases, and he can also appoint anyone he would like to take their place. He is also above the law, his person can never, ever be touched by the law. He also has complete control over our armed forces.

This kind of thing is quite common in monarchies nowadays. What keeps them in check, is the fact that they would be guillotined if they ever step out of order...

[Pannonian]

It is apparently the Queen's intention that Edward secede his father as Duke of Edinburgh

I'm pretty sure Phil the Greek will put up a good fight though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is what annoys me. Their very existence is an offense to egalitarian democracy, but they're so insipid as regards their position. If I were a royal, I'd be abusing it like there was no tomorrow. Palace orgies, driving coaches under the influence, fountains of Chateau La Tour, Corgi fighting, turning up to the Royal Ascot with a bevy of scantily clad buxom escorts, constant constitutional crises.

Since when were we an egalitarian democracy?

In any case, rather a royal family than a presidant. The problem with peerages is Liz doesn't strip and award them, the whole system has become a bit stagnant, it doesn't have to be. If I were King the first thing I'd do is hand out Earldoms to all the top military brass, Richard Branson can be a Count, Alan Sugar gets a nice Barony with attached estates.

My best mate Ross can be Duke of Lancaster, etc, etc.

Stops the inbreeding as well.

:2thumbsup:

[Ianofsmeg16]

But apparently Lizzie likes one a lot better than the other. Andrew's a Duke, while Edward is only an Earl (the Earl of Wessex to be precise... the last Earl of Wessex was poor old Harold Godwinson).


but being the Earl of Wessex isnt exactly second rate to be a duke

The Earl of Wessex was, if i'm correct, the 2nd most powerful man in Saxon england

so in all honesty, cannot be called 'only' an earl :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

This kind of thing is quite common in monarchies nowadays. What keeps them in check, is the fact that they would be guillotined if they ever step out of order...Pretty much the same thing, no ? I talked about real, not nominal power after all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not true, for example, the King of Norway is given the power of a dictator by our constitution. Ie. he can depose the PM, government and parliament as he pleases, and he can also appoint anyone he would like to take their place. He is also above the law, his person can never, ever be touched by the law. He also has complete control over our armed forces.

This kind of thing is quite common in monarchies nowadays. What keeps them in check, is the fact that they would be guillotined if they ever step out of order...

Same in Britain. I wonder if Liz can still order the axe for treason.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I say you guillotine the lot of them. Just try it, it's very refreshing. And you can always import a fresh random family again to raise to the thrown in case of any regrets. There's lots of unemployed East European nobility nowadays too, should you be tired of krauts.


It is because we have a monarchy [...] that we have had one of the most stable states in the world.I think it is the reverse - stable states have kept their monarchies. Monarchies are by no means stable by virtue of being a monarchy. They are simply stable when the country is stable.

[Watchman]

Back when monarchs used to have real power, it also tended to occasionally happen inheritance got sorted out the Darwinian way mit Blud und Stahl as it were...

There's a lot of loose nobility, imperial lineages included, bouncing around these days mind you, so it's not like finding replacements was in principle difficult. On the other hand, most of them have honest day jobs and are probably sensible enough people to not want anything to do with a post as crappy as the English throne. The mere thought of the British press alone should scare off all but the most foolhardy - or foolish...

[Slyspy]

Sorry, you're all probably wondering what my obsession here is. I have a fundamental inability to grasp how an enlightened intelligent meritocracy (in theory) like the UK can continue to maintain vestigal institutions like peerage.

We distrust politicians?

Edit:

At least you can remove a monarch through revolt and the guillotine. Do that and you become an enlightened nation. Do the same to your elected representive and people look at you funny!

[InsaneApache]

Look at it this way. Who would you rather have as your head of state?

Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

or

George Winthrope Bush.

No contest. :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Didn't the latter have the epithet "the Shrub" at some point though ? That sound sort of regal-y...

[Spetulhu]

There's a lot of loose nobility, imperial lineages included, bouncing around these days mind you, so it's not like finding replacements was in principle difficult.

I've never quite grasped how someone can call himself a Prince etc when the country his ancestors ruled no longer exists or nobility has been discarded. There's a lot of these European titles of a place that no longer exists or we lost power over. A particularly silly example is Finnish "nobility", still using titles awarded by the rulers of Sweden and Russia once upon a time. :laugh4:

[Watchman]

A fair few of them aren't tied to a particular estate AFAIK, so... and they were never all that realm-specific anyway, given how an aristocrat or a family of them could own variously sized plots all around the damn subcontinent.

[doc_bean]

Another odd royal fact... only 5 of them have ever graduated from University!

Man, the British are lucky to have their royal family, now, being stuck with ours, that's a nightmare.

The Crown Prince 'bought' his high school degree.

Want proof ? he graduated from a Dutch language high school while he couldn't speak Dutch (not a single decent phrase) until he was well into his twenties. He's also gotten a military degree and rank. I've heard stories (not those published in the papers) from people who had to 'babysit' him, serious military personnel.

[King Henry V]

I think it is the reverse - stable states have kept their monarchies. Monarchies are by no means stable by virtue of being a monarchy. They are simply stable when the country is stable.
Sorry, what I mean to say was that the monarchy is a reminder that England has had one of the most stable states in the world.

[English assassin]

Sorry, you're all probably wondering what my obsession here is. I have a fundamental inability to grasp how an enlightened intelligent meritocracy (in theory) like the UK can continue to maintain vestigal institutions like peerage.

Oh, that's easy. Sure, we could chop their heads off like the French (who, btw, were merely plaigarising an idea we had first in 1649) but where is the fun in that? One swipe and its over. Ye gods, they might even make a moving speech from the scaffold and get some sympathy. No, no, far better to watch as the worlds of the royals and reality TV show media wannabes become ever more indistinguishable, inch by painful inch. Death by a thousand cuts. Besides, can you imagine how funny it is that Charlie thinks his ideas are worth listening to because of who he is? Come on "What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?" was pure comic gold. And don't get me started on homeopathy or organic vegetables.


If I were a royal, I'd be abusing it like there was no tomorrow. Palace orgies, driving coaches under the influence, fountains of Chateau La Tour, Corgi fighting, turning up to the Royal Ascot with a bevy of scantily clad buxom escorts, constant constitutional crises.

So, basically, you'd be Prince Andrew then? :2thumbsup:

[lars573]

Sorry, you're all probably wondering what my obsession here is. I have a fundamental inability to grasp how an enlightened intelligent meritocracy (in theory) like the UK can continue to maintain vestigal institutions like peerage.
Well Britian is the only western european nation that still gives it's titled nobility a role in government. Mighty nice of them. You don't see France's, Italy's, or Germany's Barons, Counts, and Dukes (who make no mistake do still exit) being handed government seats by virtue of their title. No they have to be elected just like the commoners. In fact a few years ago I was reading about a French senator who was decended from Napoleon, who was also a Prince. Though he didn't like to go by his title, being a republican and all.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In fact a few years ago I was reading about a French senator who was decended from Napoleon, who was also a Prince. Though he didn't like to go by his title, being a republican and all.Charles Napoléon, or Napoleon VII. He ran during last month's elections for Bayrou's party. You can check out what a present-day Napoleon looks like in this video
(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x221tk_charles-napoleon)

[lars573]

I think that's the guy. :bow: So he was/is in the French Senate then?

[Pannonian]

Oh, that's easy. Sure, we could chop their heads off like the French (who, btw, were merely plaigarising an idea we had first in 1649) but where is the fun in that? One swipe and its over. Ye gods, they might even make a moving speech from the scaffold and get some sympathy. No, no, far better to watch as the worlds of the royals and reality TV show media wannabes become ever more indistinguishable, inch by painful inch. Death by a thousand cuts. Besides, can you imagine how funny it is that Charlie thinks his ideas are worth listening to because of who he is? Come on "What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?" was pure comic gold. And don't get me started on homeopathy or organic vegetables.

We could always repeat what we did to Eddie the Second, who reputedly had a rather interesting and unusual demise.

[Mikeus Caesar]

have jack all in terms of real political power

Well actually, i'm not sure if it's true, but iirc, Lizzy has the power to do what she wants, such as break the law, on account of them being her laws. She can also take full control of the armed forces and what-not.

Obviously she never does, but she could if she wanted. Although it would be a question of 'would anyone support her?'

[Louis VI the Fat]

Look at it this way. Who would you rather have as your head of state?

Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

or

George Winthrope Bush.But what if the choice is Bush or Charles?


Off-topic:

I think that's the guy. :bow: So he was/is in the French Senate then?No, he lost miserably and ran with his tail between his legs back to Corsica. :laugh4:

It was for the national assembly BTW. The Senate is not directly elected.

There is no nobility anymore in France, but there are still noble titles. Confusing as that may sound, they are, if I understand their legal status correctly, part of your name. Luckily enough, titles are not protected - I could call myself Louis, marquis de Fat. Titles don't give you any priviliges anymore - not directly they don't. Indirectly, few people fail to be impressed by the glamour of a hereditary title. :wall:
De Gaulle, VGE, Mitterand are all descendants of nobility in some way or the other, Sarkozy is of Hungarian nobility. Only Chirac wasn't. Socially, presenting yourself as 'Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Fatesquieu' simply makes for a more impressive introduction than 'Louis le Gros'.
Also, for wont of an indigenous royal family, there is an excessive fixation on foreign monarchies, especially the British.

[Watchman]

We once almost became a monarchy. Had the crown made and all. But then Germany lost World War One, the matter was quietly buried in a ditch, and the Prince of Hessen could legitimately quit trying to learn a nasty northern pagan language. (The current heir of the line is incidentally a fashion photographer in New York, and when he was once invited over barely agreed to stand in the same picture with the crown. Absolutely refused to touch it though; can't blame the man, the thing's ugly and kitschy.)

[Don Corleone]

We once almost became a monarchy. Had the crown made and all. But then Germany lost World War One, the matter was quietly buried in a ditch, and the Prince of Hessen could legitimately quit trying to learn a nasty northern pagan language. (The current heir of the line is incidentally a fashion photographer in New York, and when he was once invited over barely agreed to stand in the same picture with the crown. Absolutely refused to touch it though; can't blame the man, the thing's ugly and kitschy.)

Yeah, but Finnish women are hot. And in the words of the immortal Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the King".

[Watchman]

Yeah, but Finnish women are hot.That's news to me.

[Don Corleone]

That's news to me.

Well they are where I spend most of my time in Finland, Oulu and Turku. Can't vouch for Helsinki (and I've only spent a little bit of time in Espoo).

[Watchman]

Strange. Perhaps it is then as Martin Kellerman observed in Rocky - Scandinavians are so used to pretty women their standards are skewed.

[Don Corleone]

Strange. Perhaps it is then as Martin Kellerman observed in Rocky - Scandinavians are so used to pretty women their standards are skewed.

Not just Scandanavian. I find Finnish women to be much more attractive than Swedish/Norwegian women. Finnish women have a much softer look about them. Yes, Swedish/Norwegian women are much more striking, but they have a very hard look about them. Not attractive to me at all.

Also, I've got a thing for exotic. Not many other women in the world look like Finns.

[Watchman]

...do you have a thing for beer bellies or something ? :inquisitive: 'Cause I'm starting to have a hard time matching your description up to daily empirical evidence from Eyeball Mk.I...

[lars573]

Off-topic:
No, he lost miserably and ran with his tail between his legs back to Corsica. :laugh4:

It was for the national assembly BTW. The Senate is not directly elected.

There is no nobility anymore in France, but there are still noble titles. Confusing as that may sound, they are, if I understand their legal status correctly, part of your name. Luckily enough, titles are not protected - I could call myself Louis, marquis de Fat. Titles don't give you any priviliges anymore - not directly they don't. Indirectly, few people fail to be impressed by the glamour of a hereditary title. :wall:
De Gaulle, VGE, Mitterand are all descendants of nobility in some way or the other, Sarkozy is of Hungarian nobility. Only Chirac wasn't. Socially, presenting yourself as 'Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Fatesquieu' simply makes for a more impressive introduction than 'Louis le Gros'.
Also, for wont of an indigenous royal family, there is an excessive fixation on foreign monarchies, especially the British.
But they still can use them. IIRC the early Weimar republic stripped all the German nobility of their titles. Then gave them back. And Sweden also stripped all the nobles of their titles. So while you could find some extinct Baron/Count's title and start using it for yourself, you could use it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Norway also stripped her nobility of their titles.

Bit unfair really, rather like confiscating the family silver.:thumbsdown:

[HoreTore]

Norway also stripped her nobility of their titles.

Bit unfair really, rather like confiscating the family silver.:thumbsdown:

Nah, the Danes stripped them from us. That's a little bit different :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Långe leve nordiske samarbetet ? :laugh4: