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.

RGoss99 said:

I note that you are still into misquotes, in this case adding the Word "really".

I didn't.

The ABC news site did that.

I did not write the article.

I just posted it.

Are we **REALLY** doing this again?

Also, why the hell would any sane person want to stay in that circus?!

And, as private citizens - they could now sue any publication that makes up crap about them, right?

It is still a misquote no matter who added the Word. But when you post it without comment you own it.

RGoss99 said:

It is still a misquote no matter who added the Word. But when you post it without comment you own it.

I would normally agree with you - post a link to a bad article and you own it.

In this case, you're being slightly unfair since the only reason the link and headline were included were to say "really, do we have to go through all of this"?

there really is no "all this", she is being her passive-aggressive self. I made my point, I accept the fact that she does not agree, but can´t explain why she does nsot agree, e.g. end of story, so if by all this ypu an extended OT thread diversion, it is over until she, and this is not likely, can justify her actions .. so without someing new, my secetary who usually see these things before I do will simply mark it "G=G+1 which deletes, and there will be no "we" to go through anything.