2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

A point of history - the UK has only existed for a few hundred years; there has been no more than a handful of monarchs in that time, certainly not dozens. 

 

But there was a time when kings were leaders; they were bold, strong, noble, showing wisdom and intellect. Their role was to protect their kingdom and its people from harm.  Which of these traits do you think Charles possesses?

 

We do not need a pampered dandy to sit at the top table by accident of birth. Our taxes and our countries' resources should be used to better the lives of all people, not a very small but very expensive and very exclusive family of incredibly mediocre individuals. 

You seem to know very little of Englands history. 

The handful you refer to of monarchs is over 60 of kings and Queens. 

The few hundred years you refer is over 1000 years. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, transam said:

England, Scotland and Wales have had King's for many centuries, as you well know, your problem is you envy their position, or you are an SNP follower..........????........................????

They were people of wealth and owed or posessed land by one way or another and become powerful leaders. 

lots of land own by England's monarchy has to be handed down somewhere. 

1 minute ago, Kwasaki said:

They were people of wealth and owed or posessed land by one way or another and become powerful leaders. 

lots of land own by England's monarchy has to be handed down somewhere. 

The Church also owns a huge amount of land...

7 minutes ago, transam said:

The Church also owns a huge amount of land...

Yes and the King is the head of the church and land worth over 2 Billion.

History quotes are :- When the Victorians ordered a rare census of landowners, they found that just 4,000 lords and gents owned half the country. 

I owned about 800sqM once. ????

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Yes and the King is the head of the church and land worth over 2 Billion.

History quotes are :- When the Victorians ordered a rare census of landowners, they found that just 4,000 lords and gents owned half the country. 

I owned about 800sqM once. ????

My house in London was actually built on what was the orchard of one of the monarch's residences, but don't tell RR............

1 minute ago, transam said:

My house in London was actually built on what was the orchard of one of the monarch's residences, but don't tell RR............

Well they did sell it to you otherwise London dungeon.

1 minute ago, Kwasaki said:

Well they did sell it to you otherwise London dungeon.

No, it was quite a way from there.....

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

You seem to know very little of Englands history. 

The handful you refer to of monarchs is over 60 of kings and Queens. 

The few hundred years you refer is over 1000 years. 

 

 

I never mentioned England in my post - why do you suppose that England is, in any way, relevant to my point? 

30 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I never mentioned England in my post - why do you suppose that England is, in any way, relevant to my point? 

What point, that you don't like King's and Queen's.....?   ????

9 minutes ago, transam said:

What point, that you don't like King's and Queen's.....?   ????

No, my point being that your statement that the UK has had dozens of monarchs is incorrect. Nowhere did I mention England, so I asked Kwasaki why he did.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

No, my point being that your statement that the UK has had dozens of monarchs is incorrect. Nowhere did I mention England, so I asked Kwasaki why he did.

But they had, every area of England, Wales and Scotland had its King...

England, Wales and Scotland are part of the UK..

England even had a Scottish King at one time.

 

What you are trying to say is that the UK has only had a King/Queen for a couple of hundred years, which is nonsense...

Have a read....

https://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.asp

 

2 hours ago, Skallywag said:

"King Charles is 'evicting Harry and Meghan" .

You cannot evict people who do not live in the house or even the same country.   

House is in England, and Harry/Meghan live in California!  555

Whoever has their name on the title deed can do what they want, BTW 

Bloody hell, these tossers act like they have a right to things just because of their heritage!  55555

If you travel temporarily are you then a non resident? Meghan is American, they have a legal right to reside in both countries. 

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

You seem to know very little of Englands history. 

The handful you refer to of monarchs is over 60 of kings and Queens. 

The few hundred years you refer is over 1000 years. 

 

 

Tell us how many centuries this direct lineage has been the monarchy. Harry has as many rights as his siblings. Charles will be the last monarch.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

I never mentioned England in my post - why do you suppose that England is, in any way, relevant to my point? 

Well you're better start your own POV thread, I thought this thread began King Charles who I believe is the English King.

The First Kings to be as Kings began 4000 years ago. 

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Tell us how many centuries this direct lineage has been the monarchy. Harry has as many rights as his siblings. Charles will be the last monarch.

Direct line has been since George the first 1714, unfortunately spoke almost no English, bloody immigrant ????

31 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

No, my point being that your statement that the UK has had dozens of monarchs is incorrect. Nowhere did I mention England, so I asked Kwasaki why he did.

UK has had over 5 dozen monarchs. You're wrong again but won't admit it. 

On 3/2/2023 at 10:52 PM, Credo said:

I am pretty much a Harry fan and to a lesser extent a Harry & Megan fan.  Harry is a Prince and he is a member of the royal family.  He now resides in the US, but given his connections to the UK, he will no doubt have reason to spend time in the UK.  I fully understand that Frogmore is probably a much larger and more elaborate home than he needs.  I am sure they can find some adequate, smaller place that would afford him and his family a place to stay when they visit.   He still needs to be in a secure location, and that would probably be on the royal property.  

 

I do wonder why Edward, who is not married and has no minor children, needs such an elaborate place to live.  I don't recall the exact reference in the book, but there was a place where he made a remark about a sex-offending member of the family ranked higher than a Spare.   

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward,_Earl_of_Wessex

 

Born    10 March 1964 (age 58)
Buckingham Palace, London, England
Spouse    Sophie Rhys-Jones (m. 1999)
Issue    
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn

 

According to Wikipedia, Prince Edward has been married to his wife, Sophie, since 1999. Their wedding took place on 19 June 1999 in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle.

 

Edward and Sophie have two children: Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, born prematurely on 8 November 2003 due to a sudden placental abruption;[40] and James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn, born on 17 December 2007. The family's country residence is Bagshot Park; their office and official London residence is at Buckingham Palace.

 

I think that you may have the wrong Prince in mind. Perhaps you were thinking of Prince Andrew.

 

Residences
As Andrew and Sarah shared custody of their two daughters, the family continued to live at Sunninghill Park (built near Windsor Great Park for the couple in 1990) until Andrew moved to the Royal Lodge in 2004. In 2007, Sarah moved into Dolphin House in Englefield Green, less than a mile from the Royal Lodge.[60] In 2008, a fire at Dolphin House[60] resulted in Sarah moving into Royal Lodge, again sharing a house with Andrew.[61] Andrew's lease of Royal Lodge is for 75 years, with the Crown Estate as landlord, at a cost of a single £1 million premium and a commitment to spend £7.5 million on refurbishment.[62] In March 2023, it was reported that Andrew had been offered Frogmore Cottage after his nephew Prince Harry was requested to vacate the residence.[63] The offer came amid reports that Andrew could no longer afford the Royal Lodge's running costs as he was about to lose his annual grant.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Tell us how many centuries this direct lineage has been the monarchy. Harry has as many rights as his siblings. Charles will be the last monarch.

Lineage has nothing to do with how many kings and queens, monarchy has there been in England. 

Transam was right when he said there had been dozens and it was challenged as incorrect. 

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

UK has had over 5 dozen monarchs. You're wrong again but won't admit it. 

The UK came into existence in 1801. Since that time there have been, I believe, 11 monarchs. There were, indeed, kings and queens of the precedent countries but to call them monarchs of the UK is incorrect.

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Lineage has nothing to do with how many kings and queens, monarchy has there been in England. 

Transam was right when he said there had been dozens and it was challenged as incorrect. 

Transam did not say that England has had dozens of kings and queens. If he had done, wouldn't be having this discussion. 

My challenge to him was correct because the statement he actually made was incorrect.

I have no idea where you come from but maybe you should read a bit about England, the origins of the United Kingdom and what constitutes the British isles. If you did, it might save you from making so many of these belligerently incorrect posts.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

The UK came into existence in 1801. Since that time there have been, I believe, 11 monarchs. There were, indeed, kings and queens of the precedent countries but to call them monarchs of the UK is incorrect.

This is getting silly why don't your read my post again.

The sausage factory of riveting news will be churning out story after story trying to get some purchase on popularity in what's become a waste of oxygen and money ???? 

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Transam did not say that England has had dozens of kings and queens. If he had done, wouldn't be having this discussion. 

My challenge to him was correct because the statement he actually made was incorrect.

I have no idea where you come from but maybe you should read a bit about England, the origins of the United Kingdom and what constitutes the British isles. If you did, it might save you from making so many of these belligerently incorrect posts.

My Kings of England post is correct better complain to the Enclopedia Britannica.

45 minutes ago, transam said:

What you are trying to say is that the UK has only had a King/Queen for a couple of hundred years, which is nonsense...

Have a read....

https://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.asp

The UK was founded in 1801. How could a state which didn't even exist prior to that have a royal lineage dating back earlier? 

 

Repeat after me:

On 1 January 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland merged, which resulted in the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the secession of southern Ireland in the 1920s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs

Just now, Kwasaki said:

My Kings of England post is correct better complain to the Enclopedia Britannica.

Again, for the love of god, I never mentioned England anywhere until you tipped up when you replied to me with this unnecessarily caustic but factually incorrect post.

 

3 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

You seem to know very little of Englands history. 

The handful you refer to of monarchs is over 60 of kings and Queens. 

The few hundred years you refer is over 1000 years. 

Whilst there have, no doubt, been dozens of kings and queens of England, they are/were irrelevant to my posts because we were discussing the United Kingdom. I suggest you learn the difference between England and the UK. 

On 3/3/2023 at 9:57 PM, Credo said:

I suggest you read the book.  He doesn't play the victim.  He is straightforward and honest about his misdeeds.   He served his queen and country with dignity and honor.  

So did I for 25 years, as did millions of other ex servicemen and women.

 

The difference is that very few of us were spoilt brats that never wrote about our experiences, but simply got on with our lives, some successful and others not quite so lucky.

 

Harry came out of the Army as a captain with a pension, he also had his salary from the Civil List and probably an allowance as a Privy Councillor.

 

He also had his share of his mother's estate. He has more than the average UK citizen can dream of in their lifetime, yet he still attacks his family.

 

Hence the reason why I believe he is nothing but a spoilt, self entitled brat.

 

The latest claim I have heard, though not from the MSM News, but here, https://www.musicmundial.com/en/2023/03/02/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-officially-declare-their-bankruptcy/

 

You can take it as the truth or not.

 

The financial situation of the prince Harry and Meghan Markle is not as great as one might think, and it is actually giving them a hard time. This has been revealed by a British royal biographer who also revealed the couple’s excessive spendings that led them to the broke status in the first place.

The British biographer Tom Bower has been in charge of this case for quite some time, and he finally gathered enough information to make the report through the Express newsletter. According to him, the couple has spent a significant amount of money on luxury items, services and a fancy lifestyle, despite the fact that their income is not high enough to cover those spendings.

 

She thought that the prince had hundreds of millions if not billions, and now they are in trouble. She wants to ride Cadillacs and have private jets available all the time. They are now desperately gathering funds for this sort of spendings”, Bower spoke about the expensive lifestyle they have.

As of now, none of them have spoken about the matter in public, though they have had mentioned in the past that they were in desperate need for higher incomes.

 

What do you think about this? Was this preventable?

 

Again IMHO it was preventable with just 2 words.

 

Why?

 

and

 

No.

 

https://www.musicmundial.com/en/2023/03/04/prince-harry-desperately-asks-his-father-for-money-after-going-bankrupt/

 

However, the King would not agree with that position, and he is not willing to support his son financially again. The betrayal and all the attacks he has made against the crown, would be enough reasons for King Charles III not to give in to the wishes of his youngest son.

For his part, Prince Harry will not give up, and will seek a way for the British royal family to help him financially and thus be able to continue living peacefully with Meghan Markle and their two children.

 

However IMHO bankrupt to me, means that you actually have nothing and that your debts outweigh your assets.

 

 

On 3/3/2023 at 9:57 PM, norfolkandchance said:

To some of us they will always be Veterans. Charles, Andrew, Edward, William and Harry.

So are all the other millions of nameless ex servicemen and women who never had the chance or the privilege of the Royal name.

 

Many of them are still buried where they fell or in graveyards in foreign lands.

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So are all the other millions of nameless ex servicemen and women who never had the chance or the privilege of the Royal name.

 

Many of them are still buried where they fell or in graveyards in foreign lands.

If there alive they are Veterans. Sorry, I can't provide a list of names.

6 minutes ago, norfolkandchance said:

If there alive they are Veterans. Sorry, I can't provide a list of names.

All of my entry (39th) at RAF Cosford during 1960 and 1961, some 450 odd are Veterans as are the previous and following entries, not to mention the Army and Navy guys.

 

Sadly like you, I also cannot provide a list of names as there are so many, and very few were privileged like Harry.

I also served. 69-91. Last 2 tours on 31 and 617. Lost 2 colleagues from 27 over the skies of Iraq. So stop harking on about numbers.