Eugenie’s wedding

Gilly, you suggested an ex politician for president, no names yet

I think you’ll find I said “ perhaps an ex politician , perhaps not “

Sorry I know you would like me to put a few names forward to be laughed at, mocked, or pulled apart but I’m not going to. We’re stuck with her maj for a while yet closely followed by Charlie anyway . So it’ll be up to the next generation to decide . Anyone on the scene today will be either long gone or far too old.

I dont think it will fall to Charles actually.

Why batty?

mmm not sure,cant put my finger on it exactly.

Only two ways batty, he dies before his mother or he surrenders his birthright.

Yes gilly any names you put forward would probably be shot down. Because there is nobody who springs to mind.

I’ve thought about it myself and I’m not a royalist. But you seem to have very little idea if you think just shaking hands and cutting ribbons is all their job description entails. In the end I’ve come to the conclusion that we are better off with the royals than without and that I wouldn’t like their job.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6085571/JANET-STREET-PORTER-Younger-Royals-exotic-holidays-costing-taxpayer-millions.html

Interesting piece by JSP on how the young royals cost the tax payers £ millions in security for their exotic holidays.

Thank you for not shouting anyway OldMeg. If you read my last post you will note that I said it was indeed pointless nominating anyone at all as her maj will be followed by Charlie no matter what. (That’s unless Charlie gives it all up for Willie that is). I just hope our grandchildren see sense and get rid.

I agree with JSP, I have said for many a year that Harry is lazy. I notice she doesn’t critcise William , reminds me of something which was said many years ago about queenie and her sister when they were young princesses

‘Thank God Elizabeth was born first.

It was the same with Charles and Andrew, Charles was boring, Andrew was handsome and fun. We can say ‘thank God Charles was born first.

Perhaps if Margaret & Andrew had been the heirs and not the spares they would have behaved differently? Same with William and Harry. The heir to the throne is expected to act with a bit more decorum.

Intrigued by the question of who would make a good non political President, I did a google search of 'most popular personalities and found these:

David Attenbourgh
Philip Schofield
Princess Ann
David Tennant
Judi Dench
Richard Branson.

NB not my personal choice, just people that most of the public like/admire. Of course these 'nominees' will all be well past it by the time we were voting for a president, but may represent the type of people who would be in the running.

Moving on from Granny23s post, imagine if we had to choose which royal to make the next king or queen. So say the list of succession down to maybe 30 and we could pick whoever we like....

Andrew handsome? Philip Schofield or Richard Branson as head of state?

I think I must live on a different planet.

Granny23, Anne was the second born, Queenie’s father was second born. And after Edward tried several jobs which didn’t go well he has kept his head down.

Your list was interesting, with the exception of Branson all celebrities .

Gillybob The old system in Scotland, called Tanistry, was exactly that, except the nobles only (not the commoners) chose the successor from the 10 closest related candidates. Often they passed over the nearest heir if they were still a child or not 'fighting fit' in some way, choosing instead someone who was best fitted to lead and commanded most support.

Nowadays Princess Anne would undoubtedly be the Peoples Choice (especially in Scotland) rather than Charles.

I’d go with David Attenborough but sadly he’s too old ?

Anne is out then, she is 13th in line

Assuming you could choose from more than 10 then I guess Anne would be my choice too. Not because I particularly like her but because maybe she's the best of a bad bunch. I definitely wouldn't go for Charles, I think a lot of people have long memories of how badly he treat Diana.

Her Maj could outlive Attenborough so pointless going for him.

There's always queen Mary of Berry...... on second thoughts nah, far too old.

Let’s not go down the St.Diana track please, I really do have a problem with people who manipulate

Me too Annie another one here who doesn’t buy into the St Diana myth.

Who said she was a saint or even a street? Not me.

But marrying someone you neither love or want to be with just to provide an heir is quite a low down dirty trick. Then having an affair with the woman you really wanted to marry but were too afraid of mummy or grandma is not nice either.

Personally I think Diana saved the rf .

Personally I think Diana damaged the royal family , how can anyone believe the humiliation queenie suffered was a good thing. Sorry Diana lovers but she couldn’t keep her knickers up when there was a man around . Charles had an affair with Camilla, Diana with Barry Manakee, Hewitt, Oliver Hoar, Will Carling . Those who came after the divorce fair enough . Anyway this isn’t about Diana.

Ooops, I forgot James Gilby and the squidgy tapes

Haven't the aristocracy always behaved thus gilly? They won't be disappearing in my lifetime (unfortunately) as there is overwhelming support for the RF. 69% are monarchists according to YouGov poll at time of Harry's wedding. (77% of over 55s and 57% 18-24s) Other stats are that Anne is the 6th popular Royal after the queen, conservative voters are more likely to be monarchists, and the overwhelming difference in supporters of monarchy is that they are more likely to support nuclear weapons! Oh and there is less support in Scotland but they are still 53% in favour. Not definitive I know but interesting.

We'll have to agree to disagree then Annie.

On the day of their engagement with the cameras and press around them Charles made it plain he wasn't marrying Diana for love. It's just a shame she got caught up in the whole thing and went on to marry the fairytale rather than a man who really loved her. From what i have read, It was clear that Charles was seeing Camilla (his true love) and rubbing Diana's face in it well before she resorted to taking a lover. Charles married Diana for one reason only and that was to produce the heir he needed from good breeding stock. Poor girl never stood a chance.

I also think that Diana gave the rf a chance to show a softer, human side rather than the stiff, cold fish side they were used to.

....and to be very shallow, she was far too young and beautiful to marry an ugly old wart like Charles.

But that's just my opinion.