Visiting one's 'realms' must be exhausting. Does anyone know which countries included in the realms today? Is India still counted as one? Maybe Northern Ireland?
Do the taxpayers support the entire royal family?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
British Royal Household vs Netflix Series "The Crown"
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Visiting one's 'realms' must be exhausting. Does anyone know which countries included in the realms today? Is India still counted as one? Maybe Northern Ireland?
Do the taxpayers support the entire royal family?
That all these people can get married with whoever they love.
It is a fact. Before Diana's death, there was this still outdated and merciless rule according to which the heir to the throne could marry aristocrats only. Royal dynasties, if possible.
I am speaking of the greatest reigning dynasties in Europe.
After Diana's tragedy, the monarchies felt guilty...and all that changed.
Charles III could get married with Camilla Shand.
King Felipe of Spain could get married with Letizia Ortiz
William could get married with Kate Middleton
and so on
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Largely because it is self driven. In the past some princes of Wales just spent money and enjoyed a life of luxury on the proceeds of the Duchy of Cornwall.
Charles during his time has taken on the Duchy, and grown it as a business and estate. As to be able to provide vast funds not only to fund himself but all his major charities. In particular the Princes Trust. Prior to Charles the Duchy did not pay taxes, however now it pays the sam taxes as any other Estate and business.
He has developed the job to be the driver of some of the largest charities in the country. And unlike most of the royals not just as a figure head. The job also entails standing in for the monarch in matters of state. And like the Queen he received daily state papers to read and comment on and or approve.
All this in addition to representing the monarch in almost daily events and preparing the necessary speeches.
The prince of Wales is not funded by the state, unlike other Royals.
King Charles has now passed the role and estate to his eldest son. It would seem to be a very good apprenticeship for any monarch. His predecessor Edward VIII was just a spender and ran down the Duchy of Cornwall estate. King George VI was never the Prince of Wales. Nor Was Queen Elizabeth.
The role has been largely defined by Charles. Hopefully his hard work and success will be continued by his son. There is no certainty that he will be up to it.
So is the task inherently "very difficult and demanding" or was his reimagining of the task what rendered it difficult and demanding?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
He has now set the standard, as had the Queen set a new standard for the monarch.
Much like Trump set a new standard for presidents, that I hope no one follows.
These top jobs provide a framework that allow for almost endless opportunities for fulfilment. Both good and bad.
Fortunately the constitution of the UK provides a framework guided by a tradition that our royal family supports in both action and spirit.
To do any of these jobs well is inherently difficult.
Because she didn't wear a seatbelt - that also says something about her.
Because she didn't wear a seatbelt - that also says something about her.
On the backseat there are no seatbelts...I guess.
When the tragedy took place, I remember very well.Because she didn't wear a seatbelt - that also says something about her.
It was the most shocking moment in my middle school years.
My English teacher crying, while teaching us to sing Candle in the wind, to homage her.
Which we did, at the Xmas pageant.
Many teachers used to cry talking about it.
I dare not even imagine what happened in Britain, if that's what happened here.
Well, she was well liked in the UK (perhaps even by most) and was seen to be the aggrieved party when they divorced - with Camilla being the evil one. Such that it has taken quite some time for Camilla to be rehabilitated in the minds of many. From all appearances, this seems to have taken place though, given the sympathy given to Prince Charles, now King Charles III, when the Queen died, and his obvious love for Camilla. Perhaps people have concluded - as many others might have done at the time - that personal relationships are other people's affairs and not to judge them.
No, there were, just not used apparently - and why she and friend died probably.
Here there has never been such narrative. I recall people saying that her mother forced him to marry an aristocrat...and so on.
But nothing about Camilla.
Presumably you have seen the TV interview where Diana mentioned 'three in the marriage' - alluding to Camilla. Who knows if Charles was 'persuaded' to marry Diana even though he probably didn't love her, and so as to provide future heirs.
After the King Edward-Wallis Simpson case, I think the situation remained unchanged until the eighties, I guess.
Am I wrong?
I don't know - not being a supporter of monarchies, so not that interested in their histories - but I try to just see individuals and the circumstances in which they find themselves. Monarchies have always tended to be a bit incestuous and self-maintaining - much like dictatorships.
Just think that Humbert II, the last king of Italy forbid his son to marry a commoner, Marina Doria.I don't know - not being a supporter of monarchies, so not that interested in their histories - but I try to just see individuals and the circumstances in which they find themselves. Monarchies have always tended to be a bit incestuous and self-maintaining - much like dictatorships.
And we are speaking of the Savoy, who lost the kingdom in 1946.
But he married her anyway because there was no throne any more to lose.
Just think that in Italy there have been tens of monarchies, duchies, principalities, there has always been the obligation to marry among royal dynasties, and only males could reign (Lex salica).
I think that this is the best portrayal of Elizabeth and Diana ever. In the history of cinema.
Netflix has chosen the best of the best.
She really sounds and looks like Elizabeth and she really sounds and looks like Diana.
Netflix has chosen the best of the best.
She really sounds and looks like Elizabeth and she really sounds and looks like Diana.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
For me it was just another day that I now have no memory of.
I have no idea why there was so much hysteria over the death of a couple of rich lovers. Even if she was an ex royal.
It solved quite a few potential problems for the monarchy.
Divorced people can marry whoever they love. People cried because she was a wonderful person. Noble on the inside too. Mr Al-Fayed was a gorgeous bachelor as well.
It was devastating, in my opinion. She didn't say goodbye to her own sons.
@Terrywoodenpic
I don't want to sound mean or something, but I think that it's not that bad that the Queen died before she had any chance to watch Season Five. It's the most important season because of what happened to Diana and because of the challenges that the Windsors faced.
That said, I think King Charles is modernizing the monarchy, and that's a good thing. He stands for the renovation after a very traditionalist era.
I don't want to sound mean or something, but I think that it's not that bad that the Queen died before she had any chance to watch Season Five. It's the most important season because of what happened to Diana and because of the challenges that the Windsors faced.
That said, I think King Charles is modernizing the monarchy, and that's a good thing. He stands for the renovation after a very traditionalist era.
Last edited: