Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
4897 messages in 209 discussions
Latest 4/21/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
5074 messages in 124 discussions
Latest 9:35 AM by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest 4:12 AM by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest Sep-25 by NISSY (NISSY2)
820 messages in 15 discussions
Latest Sep-22 by ElDotardo
America had its Royal family and thankfully circumstances interfered and it was short-lived. When Jackie and John-John died so, too, did the 'line'.
I'm not sure they ever attempted to function as "Royals".
Dedicating their lives to "causes", those things tending to bring people together.
Your cartoon looks like it makes a Good point. Unfortunately it is so small that I can´t read the text.
Two points, Meghan´s origins were L.A. but her career has been pretty international.
Harry on the other hand, with or without "Royal" assistence is independently wealthy whether he Works or not.
1. When the previous wealthy Earl Spancer died, his estate was divided by three, VC Althorp (the present Earl), Elder daughter, and Diana (of which 1/6 went to Harry).
2. Most of the world´s "princes" are pennyless, unless they are sovereign as with Monaco) ae dependent on the monarch or duke with an actual title. In the case of the U.K. they officially come of age uppon marriage, at which point they are given a title which includes an income (Spain is an exception because when the infantas got married they got titles - Palma and Lugo) but still have to work to earn their own living). However Crown princes (Spain-Asturias, England - Cornwall), are born with independent trust funds, as the two sons of Charles, also get trust funds out of the Cornwall estate, which Charles manages, independent of the queen and parliament. So this is another source of income for Harry.
3. When he married, he was made a duke, also with an income, but in this case it only amounts to 5% which is dependent on the goodwill of the queen and parliament.
4. Then there are varios royal gifts such as property, some of which are permanent, and others such as suites in palaces are dependent on the queen´s Good Will (probably involved in the current negotians..
So basicly, if Meghan and Harry never do any work producing an income, they can easily live off the wealth they already have collectively. But there is another added source, that does not involve work, they can sell or rent heir name recognition, which is already happening (in other words "inluence peddling") with their web site.
I don´t know why Canada, perhaps they are thinking about the future considering both the U.K. with Brexit, and the U.S. with Trump, are unlikely in the near future to be good places to live.
Of course Jackie aspired to be a Royal. That was evident when she wore that crown upon her head.
There is a contingency here that sincerely believed that at last America would have its Royal family and Jackie made it her business to accommodate.
Royals everywhere are essentially Parasites...obnoxious parasites.
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor began what is a 'changing of the guard' in the British Empire or what's left of it.
so we agree that Harry is doing a good thing by his disassociation. evn though he will be living of the results of centuries of previous paracites. HJowever I disagree with your Windsors starting it. This aspect of the feudal system predates the 20c by hundreds of years. Here in Spain we got a new non royal Duke of Alba (2014), he has many titles, 9 of them dukes of some place, what is significant is that he is the Duke of Berwick and has a valid claim to the English crown which Parliament does not recognize. The surname is "Fitz James Stuart, his coat of arms is a clue. When his grandfather was Franco´s spanish ambassador to the U.K. during WWII, his income included money from the Stuart family in Scotland. Harry, has an income equal to 1/6 the estate of his maternal grandfather. The surname can give you a hint, Spencer is a shortened version of Despencer, actually a job description for one who was job was "spender" e.g. a contractor for the king, rewarded by Henry VIII with titles and lands which Princess Dianna´s sister and brother, and Diana´s sons are still living off of.
Adding: were you aware that what is now Pennsylvania, was a royal gift to te Penn family in lieu of the king´s paying a royal debt to William Penn´s father. Even after the American revolution, the Penn family had an income from "its" royal gift. After the American revolution Pennsylvania, bought out the family´s assets in that state.
So the royals are not the only parasites, as there are lot of aristocrats living of royal gifts of property the royals did not morally own in the first place. In the previous post take a look at the shield While i Spain, this guy is the duke of Alba, but the order of the quarterings is by importance: England, France, Scotland, Ireland, and then Alba. There is one difference between Spanish titles and English. The English included land and territrial power. In Spain there is no income connected to the ttles which were granted to what were essentially public servants for services rendered - Spain never had a House of Lords, as a result the various territorial entities were controled by governors appointed by the kings at their pleasure, and never became hereditary. After the conquest of England by William I, based on rank and favoritism he paid off his troops with baronies, taken from Saxon franklins, but the original next rank up, earls, were at his pleasure - it was only later that the earls got the power of effectively passing them on (for a price), to their kids. I can´t think of the date when the first earl became hereditary, but it did not tke long after the conquest. BTW in case you are thinking of the other noble ranks, these arrived later. In the case of Viscounts, the kings di not trust their Earls, so they coreated an alternate power the "shisre reeve" but these evolved into hereditary viscounts. the title Marques came very late and was given to earls whose territores necessitated more independence (Welsh and Scottish borders). All dukes were originally younger sons of the monarch, startig with Cornwall to the oldest son. Until Henry VIIi all dukes were royal. All nonroyal duchies wre pay offs wit a dunasty change Plantegenet > Tudor, Stuart > Hanover (All Scottish dukes were StuartEarls, who became Protestant, and supported Hanover). Note that since chortly after WWII, no peerages were granted above the level of baron, usually for some public service, not necessarily for the monarchy. While the class system will be around for a long time, the hereditary titles will gradually disappear under the system of male primogenitur. Example if Diana was an only child, she would have inherited from her father, passing title to her eldes son, who if he became king, the title would go into some title bank, and disappear, unless granted to an unrelated person as a new grant, and not territorial and no heritable wealth involved.
I note that you are still into misquotes, in this case adding the Word "really".
The ABC news site did that.
I did not write the article.
I just posted it.
Are we **REALLY** doing this again?