Post Punk Kitchen Forum

All hail, DianaSteve!

Did you all see how the DJs from Australia tricked the hospital by pretending to be the Queen and getting Kate's status? It wasn't even a good impression!

this is *the best*

what happens if the Queen passes, then Prince Charles passes, and something happens to Prince Willz and the baby is like 2?
would Kate be queen?
would the baby be defacto king/queen?
would crazy asparagus Harry get promoted?

royalty is confusing!

I think I heard on the news this morning that they are going to change that as well, and it will be included in the same legislation, so the next monarch can be a girl AND marry a Catholic!

So it turns out that all that divorcing, annulling, beheading, and Reforming business was for naught; go figure!

Once the baby is born, no matter what, s/he will be third in line to the throne, so if Queenie, Charles and Wills all snuff it, s/he would be queen/king. Kate has no constitutional role at all, and her future title Queen is just an honorific title reflecting that she is married to the King (if they are still married when he inherits the throne). If the baby succeeded to the throne before the age of majority (18), there would be a Regent who would rule in their name until they reached adulthood. It would be likely to be Harry, who is currently third in line, but drops down to fourth when the baby is born, or perhaps Andrew who is currently fourth and will drop down to fifth.

The only way Harry would be king would be if his grandmother, father, brother and niece/nephew all died or abdicated. Mind you, If there were a Dynasty-style wipe out of the Royals, that's not an impossible prospect.

Or if he figures out a way to turn the clock back to the 15th century so he can go all Richard III on their collective asparagus!

Or does a William of Orange and sweeps to power on the back of a popular and bloodless revolution. Hmm.

Either of these could work, but the first one would be much more entertaining!

I hate your mustache, Christopher Meloni!

Dezzie, do you get the feeling that our sense of silly celebrity gossip diverges a bit from the OP's intention?

I haven't the least idea what you mean! (Seriously: what's sillier or more shallow - or more famous, for that matter - than a royal pregnancy?!)

I'm going to admit some stupidity because I really don't mean to offend but I'm curious, what does the royal family have to do with the government anymore, they don't actually have any power, right?

My first instinct would be to get rid of the concept of royalty but I can understand tradition or at least separate them completely from the government. I guess I don't understand why legislation would have to be passed, I think Queen Elizabeth would just say "this is my family, kate's baby will be the next in line".

i have the same question but was afraid to ask. ;-)
they seem to have some sort of governmental power or else why would people use the word "rule"
that's the part that confuses me since obviously England has a whole seperate government now and yet it seems to be more than just a title.


ive always gotten the impression that Harry has no desire to be king. i mean he's known his entire life he aint gonna be king so what does he care? party it up! ;-)

Quite.


it's largely ceremonial. And not just confined to the UK.


England doesn't have its own government. Unless you mean how the UK government is largely Tories voted in by England... in which case, aye ok then.

If it is largely ceremonial then why have it at all? Unless there was some sort of agreement when the switchover occurred that this is how it'd be indefinitely? Or just most people like it and have no reason to change it?

$$$$$$tourism$$$$$$

Oh, hell, you don't have to convince me! Ship the benefit scroungers right off the island and i'd be overjoyed! I'm sure America would take them in!

Because no one ever visits France, right?!

You keep voting people off the island :) No I'm just curious because I don't quite understand it.

Tons of Americans are royal watchers. That stuff sells pretty big over here in certain quarters and certainly helps drive tourism. If the royal family went away, British tourism would certainly take a hit of some kind.

I'm not making this up--I'm much too lazy to look up sources, but their value to tourism has been quantified and it's not insignificant. Not to mention all the tchotchke crepe that people buy.

I will swap the royal family for mumbles, that is fine. I'm sure he'd look damn fine in a tiara.

Now that would definitely drive up tourism.

I'm sure mumbles would look great in a tiara.

I think the tourism thing doesn't add up because I can imagine that the 'upkeep' of the royal family must be pretty large unless they are somehow self funding or partially?

Ok, I dug up a half asparagus link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... onomy.html

Plus, lots of people arguing over this topic.

The Queen has a constitutional role - she is technically the independent final arbiter of law making. Even if a new law is voted through the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It doesn't come into force until she gives her consent. In practice, she automatically does, but it is supposed to protect us from political extremism. I don't know if she also fulfils this role in the other Commonwealth countries of which she is also Queen.

She also acts as an independent advisor to the Prime Minister - and frankly, since she has worked with every Prime Minister since Winston Churchill, there's no-one in the UK with more political experience than her.

Is she value for money? Prolly. Are her extended family and their life of unimaginable privilege at the tax payer's expense value for money? Absolutely not.