Prince Charles? - Page 8

songbird · ‎03-21-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@songbird wrote:
@willomenia wrote:
Camilla is as royal as Kate, which means not at all. Kate is really a commoner as well. Charles deserves to be the next king, he's prepared his whole life for this.
Camilla is the ninth cousin once removed to Charles. She is the direct descendant of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England. By Blood she's part of the Royal family.

Kate is not royal or part of the aristocracy She is a Commoner, Diana on the other hand was a Spencer aristocracy. Winston Churchill (the 1st one...Duke of Marlborough is her ancester.) He only had daughters. To keep the name from dying out, they became Spencer Churchill. Diana is a traditional name for many of the Spencer women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

What has always cracked me up about the Brits is that they think their accomplishments and status are based in large part on what their dead relatives did! Anyone else see the flaw in that thinking? LOL

The Brits see it. They tolorate the royals because of the tourist dollars. Supposedly that allows the royal family to stay in fake power. Just for show. The monarchy has long lost any real power. It's an elaborate show that brings in money. But it also drains the public money.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@songbird wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@songbird wrote:
@willomenia wrote:
Camilla is as royal as Kate, which means not at all. Kate is really a commoner as well. Charles deserves to be the next king, he's prepared his whole life for this.
Camilla is the ninth cousin once removed to Charles. She is the direct descendant of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England. By Blood she's part of the Royal family.

Kate is not royal or part of the aristocracy She is a Commoner, Diana on the other hand was a Spencer aristocracy. Winston Churchill (the 1st one...Duke of Marlborough is her ancester.) He only had daughters. To keep the name from dying out, they became Spencer Churchill. Diana is a traditional name for many of the Spencer women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

What has always cracked me up about the Brits is that they think their accomplishments and status are based in large part on what their dead relatives did! Anyone else see the flaw in that thinking? LOL
The Brits see it. They tolorate the royals because of the tourist dollars. Supposedly that allows the royal family to stay in fake power. Just for show. The monarchy has long lost any real power. It's an elaborate show that brings in money. But it also drains the public money.

*****************************

No, it doesn't drain the public. There are numerous records online of financial reports that the public share is incredibly small but the return they get from activities by the Royal family is huge.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

Calls for the U.K. to abolish the monarchy and become a republic are ever-present, but they tend to tick up during big, royal-centric events. Still, about 80 percent of Britons approve of the monarchy fairly consistently.

And that may be for good reason -- there's at least some evidence that the monarchy brings in heaps of tourism revenue.

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year.

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .

Tourism is the third-biggest industry in the U.K., the tourism board claims, and supports about 2.6 million jobs -- or about one in 12.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money...

cherry · ‎03-09-2010

I think the monarchy is a sound system. PMS come and go , but the crown is always there. People can depend on some stability. The Queen has letters written to her by her subjects, asking for assistance, in police matters etc. She knows who to get to investigate these conditions, and claims

People know she is there to help

Kachina624 · ‎03-10-2010

@cherry wrote:
I have a friend in London, she was the biggest Diana fan there was. She has told me Camilla is a very charming woman, and Di's boy like her very much.

@cherry I've heard Charles and Camilla are a real hoot, give great parties, etc.

New Mexico☀️Land Of Enchantment

goldensrbest · ‎03-10-2010

I happen to think william would make a good king, but it may be best for him,and his family if that is way down the road.

When you lose some one you L~O~V~E, that Memory of them, becomes a TREASURE.

YorkieonmyPillow · ‎01-13-2013

I admire HRH Queen Elizabeth enormously because her entire life has been devoted to duty. She is exemplary in her role as Queen and also in her private life.

I also admire Prince Charles.

stevieb · ‎03-10-2010

There might be some dip in revenue, but I suspect the fabulous and historical locations tourists most visit in the UK would still see action with or without the royals. After all, it isn't as if the queen invites visitors to tea when they drop in to visit...

In my pantry with my cupcakes...

Silver Lining · ‎04-16-2010

@cherry wrote:
I have a friend in London, she was the biggest Diana fan there was. She has told me Camilla is a very charming woman, and Di's boy like her very much

I have lots of British relatives who say the same thing. I think Americans enjoy thinking Dianna was some kind of sainted victim when that is not at all true.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Silver Lining wrote:
@cherry wrote:
I have a friend in London, she was the biggest Diana fan there was. She has told me Camilla is a very charming woman, and Di's boy like her very much

I have lots of British relatives who say the same thing. I think Americans enjoy thinking Dianna was some kind of sainted victim when that is not at all true.

********************************

@Silver Lining

Diana was barely twenty when she married Charles. She was in love with him by all reports and believed he loved her.

In reality, Charles did not love her, he loved Camilla. He married Diana to be his broodmare.

False pretenses, and she was young enough to believe it.

That made her a victim.