# Queen and Prince ?



## stone_dragone (May 8, 2007)

This question of mostly for our MT family in the UK, but anyone with the answer can chime in.

No disrespect intended for the Crown, but why isn't the Queen's husband the King?  Will Charles ever ascend to the throne? I ask purely out of curiosity and not out of sarcasm (which is the more common motivator for questions from me).


----------



## DavidCC (May 8, 2007)

the queen's husband is not the king because his family was not high enough in the royal bloodline.  So he is the Crown Prince.  When the queen dies, Charles the Prince of Wales will become King.  Or one of his sons if that is how they want to do it, he may pass it over.

I believe that Diana would have been queen, her family was high enough - her father was an Earl I think.


----------



## Kacey (May 8, 2007)

The Queen's husband is the royal consort (spouse of the reigning member of the royal family) but is not the king because he is not royal.

Prince Charles, if I understand it correctly, took himself out of the succession when he divorced Diana; his elder son is next in the succession.

A royal spouse _can_ be crowned along with the reigning monarch, but doesn't have to be.


----------



## CoryKS (May 8, 2007)

stone_dragone said:


> No disrespect intended for the Crown, but why isn't the Queen's husband the King?


 
Because he never had a watery tart hoist a scimitar at him, signifying by Divine Right that yadda yadda yadda...


----------



## Shaderon (May 8, 2007)

Actually I believe Charles is next in line, at least that's what we are led to believe here in Jolly ole England. Although Edward had to abdicate to marry HIS divorcee I believe that attitudes have changed and the fact that Charles has married a divorcee is seen as _normal_ these days and other things are changing with the royals as well.

I personally think Charles SHOULD abdicate in favour of his 1st born son, but it's not up to me I guess, it's up to the Queen who she passes her crown on to.

http://www.yougov.com/interactive/humphrysMain.asp?jID=3&aId=1752&sID=5&pID=&wId=0&UID=

As for the Prince Phillip question, only the heir to the throne can be crowned, if Phillip became King he would rule alongside the queen and he isnt' the actually heir, only the Spouse, he was a Captain not a Prince.

The Royal Website will give you more info on how the monarchy works.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp


----------



## CityChicken (May 8, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> Actually I believe Charles is next in line, at least that's what we are led to believe here in Jolly ole England. Although Edward had to abdicate to marry HIS divorcee I believe that attitudes have changed and the fact that Charles has married a divorcee is seen as _normal_ these days and other things are changing with the royals as well.
> 
> I personally think Charles SHOULD abdicate in favour of his 1st born son, but it's not up to me I guess, it's up to the Queen who she passes her crown on to.
> 
> ...



That is fascinating stuff.  I'm just an plain old American. ;-)  I did not know that a Roman Catholic cannot be the monarch nor can anyone in the line marry a Roman Catholic and they must uphold the Protestant traditions.  thanks for the info.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 8, 2007)

*Shaderon* beat me to it .

I used to be quite anti-monarchist in my youth but I've totally changed my tune since my late 'teens when I studied Politics as part of my Economics degree.  

Realising the role that the Royal Family plays in the political and diplomatic sphere (as well as handily moderating religious extremism) means that I am quite happy to raise my glass (of 15 year Laphroaig, tonight ... yum) with a toast of "The Queen!".


----------



## Shaderon (May 9, 2007)

*Raises a glass of Powers to your Laphroiaig*

I'm not sure what the reaction will be to Charles changing the title "Defender of the faith" to "Defender of the faith*s*" will be when he is crowned, but lets just hope that is helps his do his job in this aspect.   I didn't like it when it was first announced, but on reflection I think it's a wise move.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (May 9, 2007)

And on an interesting note, one of Charles' middle names is "Arthur."  His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George.  So, he could choose to become King Arthur the First when he is crowned (the King Arthur we read about is of legend with ties to truth, but never has been verified).
Several other kings chose their middle names upon coronation.  I doubt it would happen, but it is interesting trivia.

AoG


----------



## ArmorOfGod (May 9, 2007)

And, on another note, his current wife, Carmilla Parker Bowles, will NOT take the title of queen one day.  She will take the title of Her "Royal Highness The Princess Consort," which is similar to the queen's husband's title.

AoG


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 9, 2007)

stone_dragone said:


> This question of mostly for our MT family in the UK, but anyone with the answer can chime in.
> 
> No disrespect intended for the Crown, but why isn't the Queen's husband the King? Will Charles ever ascend to the throne? I ask purely out of curiosity and not out of sarcasm (which is the more common motivator for questions from me).


 
Why isn't Prince Phillip called king?  Because in royal circles there is a clear hierarchy and it is patriarchal.  Therefore a King ranks higher than a Queen.  So even though Phillip is from the Greek royal family he is The Royal consort because to call him King would rank him above Queen Elizabeth.

Charles is most definitely the heir to the throne, hence the Prince of Wales title.  He will ascend to the throne if he is alive.  However, the history of sons of ruling queens is preety dismal.  Their mothers seem to go on for ever and ever.  Victoria's son Edward only ruled for a dozen years or so before dying.  I expect Charles' situation to be very similar.  Ascends to the throne when he is 70 rules for 5 years, dies, William becomes king.

A couple of interesting points.  

Camilla has chosen not to take the title queen someday, though technically she could (the monarch will be a king).  The other is the relationships between these people.  

Because of Victoria's numerous children and her skill at marrying them off, almost all of the royal houses of Europe are now related.  And its not a distant relation either, Victoria reigned in the latter half of the nineteenth century.  The royal family of Greece (Phillip's family) is quite new and mostly springs from one of Victoria's daughters (I think) so Elizabeth and Phillip are cousins.

I do find royal relations in Europe very interesting.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 9, 2007)

_"Heir to the throne"_.  Geez sounds soooo cliche-ish doesn't it? You hear that in over 1000 movies revolving around a monarchy and now England is one of the few remaining countries with a powerful royal line. Yet the power isn't there as it was before, it's almost honorary as parlament makes the laws and all that... (correct or no?). 

Royalty... it was all a matter of who had the most money *way back* when, who had the most land and who declared himself KING and all others bowed to his will.  And that line has been sustained since... (though it may have been tainted by Scots...  ) 
Either way if they still went by who had the most money then JK Rowling would/could call herself Queen as she is reportedly richer than the present Royals now. Hmm, what a thought. You'd think she be a dutchess or something like that now considering the wealth she represents... or doesn't it work that way??


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 9, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> _"Heir to the throne"_. Geez sounds soooo cliche-ish doesn't it? You hear that in over 1000 movies revolving around a monarchy and now England is one of the few remaining countries with a powerful royal line. Yet the power isn't there as it was before, it's almost honorary as parlament makes the laws and all that... (correct or no?).
> 
> Royalty... it was all a matter of who had the most money *way back* when, who had the most land and who declared himself KING and all others bowed to his will. And that line has been sustained since... (though it may have been tainted by Scots...  )
> Either way if they still went by who had the most money then RK Rowling would/could call herself Queen as she is reportedly richer than the present Royals now. Hmm, what a thought. You'd think she be a dutchess or something like that now considering the wealth she represents... or doesn't it work that way??


 
Parliament in England has governed on behalf of the monarch since the Civil War (1642 - 1651), more or less.  

It is interesting to look at the situation of the monarchy in Britain throughout its history.  The early monarchy (Anglo-Saxon) did not have a clear patrimonial line of hereditary succession.  The king chose his heir from among the nobility with royal bloodlines.  This is how William the Conqueror was able to justify his usurping the throne.  The Normans introduced the more formal hereditary succession, the people got whatever was born.  Interestingly, the position of the monarch was not strong.  The barons and other nobles had much more power, mainly because they held more land than the king.  The king's personal holdings were often quite small.

The weak position of the monarchy was thrown into particular clarity during the reign of King John.  The result being Magna Carta, upon which most civil law in the western world is based.  From that time the fortunes of the monarch have fluctuated from strength like Henry VIII and Elizabeth I to weakness like Charles I.

After the Civil War the monarchy was more settled and still had great power.  The monarch dominated the House of Lords for a long time and thus controlled law-making.  By the time of Victoria, however, the situation had changed.  The monarch was not so influential in law-making.  Victoria was so well respected by parliament, however, that they generally did as she asked.  

Skip forward two monarchs and parliament essentially forces the king to abdicate to marry a divorcee (Edward, it turns out, was a Nazi sympathiser and may have been working for them in the Carribean).  A funny thing given Henry's original establishing of the Anglican Church to allow divorce and remarriage.

A lot of titles have been sold over the years.  As a noble family loses land to the govenrment other through business, they become poor but are still nobility.  More than one American has bought a title.  I suppose JK Rowling could buy one, but given the overwhekming success of Harry Potter she just has to wait.  She'll be given one soon I should think.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 29, 2022)

stone_dragone said:


> Will Charles ever ascend to the throne?


Well he has now. Congratulations Charles.


----------



## Gyakuto (Oct 30, 2022)

Such matters are not discussed in public by His Royal Highness’s subjects 😉

I thought it was simply down to the Royal bloodline. If you do not have considerable quantities of ‘House of Windsor‘ genes within your genome, you can never hold the title King /Queen. Camila is Queen consort, the Duchess of Cambridge (Prince William’s wife) will also be Queen consort.

There is a Netflix series called ‘The Crown’ which is constructed of _entirely_ fictitious dialogue based around actual historical events. Many people are unable to understand that it is a work of _fiction_…like the ‘Da Vinci Code’ or Eiji Yoshikawa’s ’Musashi’ and thus they allow ‘The Crown’ to misinform their opinions and attitudes towards our over-privileged, out-of-touch, stinkingly-rich Royal Family.

If you want a really good read about the world’s oldest Royal family (Japan) ,  check out ‘Princess Masako: Prisoner of the Chrysanthemum Throne’. They have the ‘men in black suits’, pulling all the strings, the U.K. has ‘The Palace’ 😳


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well he has now. Congratulations



That's nice.

The King is 'His Majesty' now, his wife whoever she was is Queen Consort as she's not Queen in her own right, it's a fancy way of saying she's married to the king. She's addressed as Your Majesty, and will be crowned alongside Charles in May.

William and Catherine formerly the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are now the Prince and Princess of Wales.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 30, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> That's nice.
> 
> The King is 'His Majesty' now, his wife whoever she was is Queen Consort as she's not Queen in her own right, it's a fancy way of saying she's married to the king. She's addressed as Your Majesty, and will be crowned alongside Charles in May.
> 
> William and Catherine formerly the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are now the Prince and Princess of Wales.


Well congratulations to them all. 

And my condolences, I know your country is dealing with a lot right now, lots of changes.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well congratulations to them all.
> 
> And my condolences, I know your country is dealing with a lot right now, lots of changes.


Thank you, I think we're actually sinking without trace. They say we are all in the same storm but some are in luxury yachts but most are on rafts made of lead.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 11, 2022)

Did you see The King having eggs thrown at him in York? He was _very_ nearly struck and the woman behind and to his right in a decorative military uniform (?King’s Lieutenant?) deftly used tai sabaki to twist out of the way of the incoming dairy products! I _was_ a bit surprised that she didn’t try and shield him with her body by stepping in the path of the ova…what if the assailant was about to throw _hard_ boiled eggs?😳


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Did you see The King having eggs thrown at him in York? He was _very_ nearly struck and the woman behind and to his right in a decorative military uniform (?King’s Lieutenant?) deftly used tai sabaki to twist out of the way of the incoming dairy products! I _was_ a bit surprised that she didn’t try and shield him with her body by stepping in the path of the ova…what if the assailant was about to throw _hard_ boiled eggs?😳


The lady in uniform is North Yorkshire's Lord Lieutenant Jo Ropner, the uniform is of the office, she's not military in any way and is not expected to defend the king. That's his bodyguard/ Equerry's job, he's known as 'The Hunk' having made ladies swoon all over the UK and further afield with his good looks and kilt. 😉
Jo lives up the road from my son and we know her through Guiding.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> That's nice.
> 
> The King is 'His Majesty' now, his wife whoever she was is Queen Consort as she's not Queen in her own right, it's a fancy way of saying she's married to the king. She's addressed as Your Majesty, and will be crowned alongside Charles in May.
> 
> William and Catherine formerly the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are now the Prince and Princess of Wales.


The wife of the King can be Queen (although not this time, due to past scandals). But the husband of a Queen cannot be King. I see it as a holdover from medieval patriarchal thinking. A King can have a Queen, and that's fine. But a Queen cannot have a King, because that would mean he outranked her.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 11, 2022)

Just because it’s ‘not her role’, it doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have attempted to protect her King just as we might defend a stranger on the street from attack with dairy products. If we lived in one of those countries where Kerfir or Skyr are freely available, the King could’ve been seriously stained and would need a new suit at the very least!

My uni flatmates father was Lord Lieutenant of ?South Yorkshire? (he lived in Sheffield, anyway).


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Just because it’s ‘not her role’, it doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have attempted to protect her King just as we might defend a stranger on the street from attack with dairy products. If we lived in one of those countries where Kerfir or Skyr are freely available, the King could’ve been seriously stained and would need a new suit at the very least!


Oh, the HUMANITY of it all!


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Just because it’s ‘not her role’, it doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have attempted to protect her King just as we might defend a stranger on the street from attack with dairy products. If we lived in one of those countries where Kerfir or Skyr are freely available, the King could’ve been seriously stained and would need a new suit at the very least!
> 
> My uni flatmates father was Lord Lieutenant of ?South Yorkshire? (he lived in Sheffield, anyway).


I didn't say it wasn't her role, I said she wasn't expected to defend the king, she's not military, has no martial arts skill and would have been briefed to stay out of the way in the case of any attack etc as she could impede the professional bodyguards, that's the SOP. 

Sheffield is in the West Riding, which is what Yorkshire people call it even though the government changed it to South Yorkshire, we're in the North Riding.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 11, 2022)

You clearly haven’t slopped Kefriar down your front. It’s a pain to get out…especially the flavoured stuff!😑


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> The wife of the King can be Queen (although not this time, due to past scandals). But the husband of a Queen cannot be King. I see it as a holdover from medieval patriarchal thinking. A King can have a Queen, and that's fine. But a Queen cannot have a King, because that would mean he outranked her.


Camilla will be Queen Consort, she's being crowned along with Charles in May. Whoever Charles married would be Queen Consort same as William, Catherine will also be Queen Consort.
A Queens husband won't be king because he needs to know his place. If you think that's wrong wait until you see the rules for Catholics.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> You clearly haven’t slopped Kefriar down your front. It’s a pain to get out…especially the flavoured stuff!😑


I don't drink it but you'd be surprised what I've had thrown over me by so called peace demonstrators.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 11, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say it wasn't her role, I said she wasn't expected to defend the king, she's not military,


Why the military-style uniform then?



 
If I wore this out and about and an asteroid was found to be headed our way, what would people expect me to do? Yes…fly the space shuttle to it and destroy it with thermonuclear devices, but I’d be misleading them since I don’t have a shuttle driving license 😑

I never heard it called the West Riding in my 20 odd years in Sheffield, only South Yorkshire.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Why the military-style uniform then?
> View attachment 29292
> If I wore this out and about and an asteroid was found to be headed our way, what would people expect me to do? Yes…fly the space shuttle to it and destroy it with thermonuclear devices, but I’d be misleading them since I don’t have a shuttle driving license 😑
> 
> I never heard it called the West Riding in my 20 odd years in Sheffield, only South Yorkshire.


Eh lad thou's not heard of t'Ridings? Ridings of Yorkshire - Wikishire

It's a uniform, lots of people wear them, have you seen firefighter's dress uniforms? Or the Merchant Navy, some security companies, the Corps of Commissionaires, Coastguards, Prison Service and a lot more that are basically military uniforms (literally, they are sold on by the MoD) but the way you tell who is military and who isn't is to look at the insignia. You can't beat a good badge.

I don't think anyone would expect you to do anything with just a helmet on and there's no insignia to tell us what you are 😂


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 11, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Eh lad thou's not heard of t'Ridings? Ridings of Yorkshire - Wikishire


I have, but I thought it was part of London 🤔



Tez3 said:


> It's a uniform, lots of people wear them, have you seen firefighter's dress uniforms? Or the Merchant Navy, some security companies, the Corps of Commissionaires, Coastguards, Prison Service and a lot more that are basically military uniforms (literally, they are sold on by the MoD) but the way you tell who is military and who isn't is to look at the insignia. You can't beat a good badge.


Well it shouldn’t be allowed!


Tez3 said:


> I don't think anyone would expect you to do anything with just a helmet on and there's no insignia to tell us what you are 😂


It’s a Soviet abs the pressure suit in in my wardrobe…and putting it on made me realise just how claustrophobic I am!


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 11, 2022)




----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Camilla will be Queen Consort, she's being crowned along with Charles in May. Whoever Charles married would be Queen Consort same as William, Catherine will also be Queen Consort.


Historically, the wife of a King has often been Queen, or Queen consort. Because Queen is subservient to King.
No husband of a Queen has ever been King, nor King Consort. Phillip was styled Prince Consort, since he was a Prince by birth. The only two other male royal consorts in all of history were give Ducal titles.
It's just residual patriarchy.


Tez3 said:


> A Queens husband won't be king because he needs to know his place. If you think that's wrong wait until you see the rules for Catholics.


I'm familiar. Remember that though I am an American, both sides of my family are pure Scottish (one highland clan and one lowland, so you can imagine the internal conflicts!), and I grew up in Europe, mostly in the UK.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm familiar. Remember that though I am an American, both sides of my family are pure Scottish (one highland clan and one lowland, so you can imagine the internal conflicts!), and I grew up in Europe, mostly in the UK.


There were internal conflicts between ancestral high- and low landers in your family? Over things that happened hundreds of year ago? I was educated in Scotland and remember a banner slung over a balcony during ‘marching season, which admonished any English people reading it to ‘Remember Bannockburn - 1314’ and marvelled at the long memories of some people 😂

I’m not sure the idea of ‘pure Scottish’ really has any meaning (please watch the completely factually accurate ‘Braveheart’ documentary with Gel Mibson 😉).


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> I have, but I thought it was part of London 🤔
> Ridings of Yorkshire - Wikishire
> 
> Well it shouldn’t be allowed!
> ...


My very Yorkshire husband has just passed out at such heresy.

Military respirators have hopefully improved since I was in because they were horrible to wear.


Dirty Dog said:


> Historically, the wife of a King has often been Queen, or Queen consort. Because Queen is subservient to King.
> No husband of a Queen has ever been King, nor King Consort. Phillip was styled Prince Consort, since he was a Prince by birth. The only two other male royal consorts in all of history were give Ducal titles.
> It's just residual patriarchy.
> 
> I'm familiar. Remember that though I am an American, both sides of my family are pure Scottish (one highland clan and one lowland, so you can imagine the internal conflicts!), and I grew up in Europe, mostly in the UK.


Many people are thinking that Camilla will only be Queen Consort because of the divorces etc rather than the fact that whoever he married would be the Consort. I assume because they think "consort" is somehow a rude word. 😁

What surprised me on social media is the absolutely bonkers amount of Americans declaring Diana to be their queen and how they'll never accept Camilla and Charles. "Camilla will never be my Queen" many post, well no she won't. Diana had been raised to sainthood in the US and other countries, it's odd. They often assume that Charles runs the country now as in the past, he reigns but doesn't rule. 🙄


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 12, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> What surprised me on social media is the absolutely bonkers amount of Americans declaring Diana to be their queen and how they'll never accept Camilla and Charles. "Camilla will never be my Queen" many post, well no she won't. Diana had been raised to sainthood in the US and other countries, it's odd. They often assume that Charles runs the country now as in the past, he reigns but doesn't rule. 🙄


-I get the history between the UK and the US but never understood that weird obsession some here have with the British monarchy. They go absolutely bonkers over anything with the royal family. Part of that I suspect is from the news media's constant obsessing over them. The daily coverage here of the Queen Elizabeth's passing was excessive and then some. Sure mark the occasion, the historical perspective, report on the transition of roles/power, but then leave it alone, especially, as you pointed out, Charles reigns but doesn't rule.

-Another thing I think some here obsess over is the notion that European, at least in their mind, means fancy, or higher class. Pretty sure it's not some leftover loyalist mentality from the American Revolution, but they look around at their fellow countrymen here and think 'heathens!' lol Maybe it's just some sort of fantasy they have in their mind that takes over every now and then.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 12, 2022)

Darksoul said:


> -I get the history between the UK and the US but never understood that weird obsession some here have with the British monarchy. They go absolutely bonkers over anything with the royal family. Part of that I suspect is from the news media's constant obsessing over them. The daily coverage here of the Queen Elizabeth's passing was excessive and then some. Sure mark the occasion, the historical perspective, report on the transition of roles/power, but then leave it alone, especially, as you pointed out, Charles reigns but doesn't rule.
> 
> -Another thing I think some here obsess over is the notion that European, at least in their mind, means fancy, or higher class. Pretty sure it's not some leftover loyalist mentality from the American Revolution, but they look around at their fellow countrymen here and think 'heathens!' lol Maybe it's just some sort of fantasy they have in their mind that takes over every now and then.


There’s a relevant passage from Sir Terry Pratchett:

*Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.

It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.*


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There’s a relevant passage from Sir Terry Pratchett:
> 
> *Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.
> 
> It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.*


I love Sir Terry's writing, being a knight of course meant he was an aristocrat 😁
Constitutional monarchies do serve a purpose, it means the head of state is above politics (or at least keeps quiet about it, though it was known by subtle means the Queen did not approve of Brexit nor our current government) the police, Armed Forces and Civil Service swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch not a politician, makes it much harder to stage a coup using the Armed Forces etc. The oath perhaps surprisingly in this day and age is taken seriously. The Royal Family is a recognisable part of UK life, I think it will last for a long time yet. I suppose it's nice to have one recognisable stable institution in this day and age, it's not like we'll run out of heirs lol, that makes Harry's claim he's the spare redundant by the way. Charles had siblings in line to the throne just after William before Harry was born, they came directly after Harry when he was born so there were plenty of spares. There's at least 30 now in direct line, thousands most likely in indirect line. If any poster here has any British ancestry you could look up to see if you're in line too. 

People think the Royal Family cost a lot and are often surprised to know they all pay taxes just as we do. The Royal estates that are used by the family are administered by the government. 85% of the generated revenues goes directly to the government, while the remainder is used to help maintain the royal household. They cost us something like £2.75 each per year.

One thing many also don't understand is that The Crown is a fictional drama based on real people. It is not a true to life series, it is not a documentary. 😂


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Many people are thinking that Camilla will only be Queen Consort because of the divorces etc rather than the fact that whoever he married would be the Consort. I assume because they think "consort" is somehow a rude word. 😁


"Consort" rhymes with "Escort", so... 


Tez3 said:


> What surprised me on social media is the absolutely bonkers amount of Americans declaring Diana to be their queen and how they'll never accept Camilla and Charles. "Camilla will never be my Queen" many post, well no she won't.


Well she certainly will never be MY Queen! Because I'm not English... 


Tez3 said:


> Diana had been raised to sainthood in the US and other countries, it's odd.


True enough. Charles always struck me as being more than a little deficient in the characteristics that make a good husband and father, but Diana was certainly no angel. She was pretty and charismatic, which leads people to overlook her hypocritical, narcissistic and manipulative behaviours. Charles is neither, which doesn't help his public image.


Tez3 said:


> They often assume that Charles runs the country now as in the past, he reigns but doesn't rule. 🙄


I am not an anti-monarchist, but I do realize that the Royals, collectively, have just about enough authority to sneeze without asking permission. Influence, certainly, but no actual authority.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> I love Sir Terry's writing, being a knight of course meant he was an aristocrat 😁


Knights are members of the Gentry, not the Nobility, so I don't think most would consider them aristocrats.
He was damned funny though.


Tez3 said:


> Constitutional monarchies do serve a purpose, it means the head of state is above politics (or at least keeps quiet about it, though it was known by subtle means the Queen did not approve of Brexit nor our current government) the police, Armed Forces and Civil Service swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch not a politician, makes it much harder to stage a coup using the Armed Forces etc. The oath perhaps surprisingly in this day and age is taken seriously. The Royal Family is a recognisable part of UK life, I think it will last for a long time yet. I suppose it's nice to have one recognisable stable institution in this day and age, it's not like we'll run out of heirs lol, that makes Harry's claim he's the spare redundant by the way. Charles had siblings in line to the throne just after William before Harry was born, they came directly after Harry when he was born so there were plenty of spares. There's at least 30 now in direct line, thousands most likely in indirect line. If any poster here has any British ancestry you could look up to see if you're in line too.


As it happens, I am a direct descendant of the Chief of Clan Cochrane, the Honorable the Earl of Dondonald. I'm bound to be in the line somewhere. 


Tez3 said:


> People think the Royal Family cost a lot and are often surprised to know they all pay taxes just as we do. The Royal estates that are used by the family are administered by the government. 85% of the generated revenues goes directly to the government, while the remainder is used to help maintain the royal household. They cost us something like £2.75 each per year.


Americans in particular don't get this. As I recall the structure, the entirety of the income from the Crown Estate is given to the government. The government then gives back (currently, but always subject to change) 15% to help support the Royals. They have income from other holdings as well, of course, but on those holdings they pay a tax rate of 100%.


Tez3 said:


> One thing many also don't understand is that The Crown is a fictional drama based on real people. It is not a true to life series, it is not a documentary. 😂


WHAT??????? What's next? Are you going to tell me that *Weird* isn't actually the real life history of Weird Al?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> There were internal conflicts between ancestral high- and low landers in your family? Over things that happened hundreds of year ago? I was educated in Scotland and remember a banner slung over a balcony during ‘marching season, which admonished any English people reading it to ‘Remember Bannockburn - 1314’ and marvelled at the long memories of some people 😂


Memories? Dude, it's genetic. The high-low land conflicts occur within a single person! There are times when you have an almost irresistible compulsion to steal sheep from yourself.


Gyakuto said:


> I’m not sure the idea of ‘pure Scottish’ really has any meaning


It doesn't, really. The whole England/Scotland/Ireland/France/Germany area is quite homogenous. I did a DNA test, and according to it, I am 96.3% E/S/I/F/G. 2.8% Spanish/Portuguese (wonder who visited?). And 0.6% Sub-Saharan African, from about 3000 years ago. I may literally be the whitest white guy in the world.


Gyakuto said:


> (please watch the completely factually accurate ‘Braveheart’ documentary with Gel Mibson 😉).


WHAT????? Are you joining @Tez3 in claiming Hollywood entertainment cannot be trusted??????

I do maintain that the fanny pack is the rest of the world trying to steal our sporran. And I look great in a kilt.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I do maintain that the fanny pack is the rest of the world trying to steal our sporran. And I look great in a kilt.



You should know better than to call it a fanny pack, that's considered rude. 😯

 Sir Terry is totally Ankh Morpork aristocracy 😁😁 he was far above those who got titles for landing grabbing, slept with the monarch, fought and schemes for the monarch etc. We do tend here to call everyone with a title an aristocrat, it's more of a class thing than a technicality. It's not usually done with respect apart from a few special people.

Charles is actually a warm man who feels more than most but has never been allowed to show emotions. His uncle Lord Mountbatten was a tyrant,  look up what he did in India, Phillip was no better. If you meet Charles in a small group he doesn't appear the same as he does on big occasions. I was at RAF Cranwell the same time as him for a few months. He's done a tremendous amount of charity work, the Prince's Trust is fantastic, I say work because has really thrown himself into many causes. I like him, it seems that his approval ratings have gone up here as people realise he's more than they thought.


----------



## granfire (Nov 12, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> You should know better than to call it a fanny pack, that's considered rude. 😯
> 
> Sir Terry is totally Ankh Morpork aristocracy 😁😁 he was far above those who got titles for landing grabbing, slept with the monarch, fought and schemes for the monarch etc. We do tend here to call everyone with a title an aristocrat, it's more of a class thing than a technicality. It's not usually done with respect apart from a few special people.
> 
> Charles is actually a warm man who feels more than most but has never been allowed to show emotions. His uncle Lord Mountbatten was a tyrant,  look up what he did in India, Phillip was no better. If you meet Charles in a small group he doesn't appear the same as he does on big occasions. I was at RAF Cranwell the same time as him for a few months. He's done a tremendous amount of charity work, the Prince's Trust is fantastic, I say work because has really thrown himself into many causes. I like him, it seems that his approval ratings have gone up here as people realise he's more than they thought.


I see Charles a little like Jimmy Carter. 
except of course Carter wasn't forced to marry a woman he had nothing in common with. 
Now the world has to rethink state presents. 
It used to be Horses would do. 
Now you better brush up on your heritage breeds and rare plants. 

(and yes, the royals are an industrial branch without which the UK would really be up the creek right now.)
It is a little difficult to understand that some countries do have an unpolitical head of state and an active head of government.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> You should know better than to call it a fanny pack, that's considered rude. 😯


Most of the audience here is American. It's a term they know. An awful lot have just been googling "sporran"...


Tez3 said:


> Charles is actually a warm man who feels more than most but has never been allowed to show emotions. His uncle Lord Mountbatten was a tyrant,  look up what he did in India, Phillip was no better. If you meet Charles in a small group he doesn't appear the same as he does on big occasions. I was at RAF Cranwell the same time as him for a few months. He's done a tremendous amount of charity work, the Prince's Trust is fantastic, I say work because has really thrown himself into many causes. I like him, it seems that his approval ratings have gone up here as people realise he's more than they thought.


I was referring mostly to his public image. His parenting skills seem pretty inadequate, but I put that down to the way he was raised. The stiff upper lip may be a tradition, but there really are  better ways.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There’s a relevant passage from Sir Terry Pratchett:
> 
> *Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.
> 
> It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.*



Sort of. Royalty do a very important job of protecting the constitution from our elected officials.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Most of the audience here is American. It's a term they know. An awful lot have just been googling "sporran"...
> 
> I was referring mostly to his public image. His parenting skills seem pretty inadequate, but I put that down to the way he was raised. The stiff upper lip may be a tradition, but there really are  better ways.


I think they should also Google what fanny means off here and they'd realise why we crack up laughing at them 😁

Charles by all accounts (his sons) is a very good father, determined I think to give them what he didn't have. His public outings with them always seemed warm. He's actually an emotional man, we watched him last night at the Festival of Remembrance, his face gives him away. You could also see the closeness between him and William by the way they look at each other. We'll see him again this morning at the Cenotaph. 
 Diana chose boarding school for them, he didnt. Charles was the first Royal to go to school, they'd all had governess and tutors before that. She'd promised them she's spend the last two weeks of school holidays with them but instead went to Paris. Diana damaged them by treating them as confidantes telling them all her problems, they were too young.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 13, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> I think they should also Google what fanny means off here and they'd realise why we crack up laughing at them 😁


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> View attachment 29299


 I don't know which is worse the UK slang version or the horror above! A truly horrendous person, how her husband never strangled her live on air I'll never know.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 13, 2022)

Fanny was a national treasure, too. Mind you, so was Jimmy Savile! 🤔


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Fanny was a national treasure, too. Mind you, so was Jimmy Savile! 🤔


 
So many people fawned over Savile, it was sickening. We still don't know how many people knew what he was up to, ugh. 😱😠


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 13, 2022)

I had the misfortune to ‘work’ with ‘Jimmy Sir-vile’ twice: once at Stoke Mandeville Hospital where he had offices and then, years later at the LGI where he also had offices for some reason. He asked if he could bring several 14-15yr olds down to the clinical skills centre where I and a few others would show them how to take blood, do CPR, defibrillate etc. They turned up as did he looking weird as he always did and the kids look a bit puzzled as they’d never heard of this bizarre bloke in a tracksuit (it was the early naughties). Sir-Vile went around each young person, shook the hands of the boys with a, “Now then, now then young man” but the girls….he lifted their hands to his face and kissed their hands very slowly and salaciously while trying to maintain eye contact. 🤢🤮 It was awful and I wanted to charge up the defib and zap him across his temples! <shudder>


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 13, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> I think they should also Google what fanny means off here and they'd realise why we crack up laughing at them 😁


It's not all that different to what it means here. And most people here laugh at fanny packs, if not necessarily for the name. I have one with (among other things) a concealed holster that I sometimes wear. I just prefer to call it a sporran.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Nov 23, 2022)

So when Charles first became king I saw him shaking hands with all these people, many no doubt were commoners, and he wasn't wearing gloves. I had heard somewhere that one of the rules of the royal family is to not make direct contact with anybody who is not royalty so therefore if somebody was of the royal family and they were to shake hands with you, if you were not royalty yourself they would wear gloves. That could be wrong but I did hear that somewhere.


----------



## granfire (Nov 23, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> So when Charles first became king I saw him shaking hands with all these people, many no doubt were commoners, and he wasn't wearing gloves. I had heard somewhere that one of the rules of the royal family is to not make direct contact with anybody who is not royalty so therefore if somebody was of the royal family and they were to shake hands with you, if you were not royalty yourself they would wear gloves. That could be wrong but I did hear that somewhere.


I am sure you heard it somewhere. 
However, being king he can change the rules for one. 
He is also of a different generation than his mother who was slightly younger than my Grandmother. She would never leave the house without gloves. Ever. And she was by no means a queen. 

I think Diana was often enough pictured shaking hands with the masses bare handed. 

One other reason why the Royals are such an industrial asset not only for the UK but also for the world: So many people who 'know' just what the royals can and cannot do, say, wear....


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 23, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> So when Charles first became king I saw him shaking hands with all these people, many no doubt were commoners, and he wasn't wearing gloves. I had heard somewhere that one of the rules of the royal family is to not make direct contact with anybody who is not royalty so therefore if somebody was of the royal family and they were to shake hands with you, if you were not royalty yourself they would wear gloves. That could be wrong but I did hear that somewhere.


I heard that Elvis is alive and well, and helping aliens abduct people somewhere in the western US.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 24, 2022)

granfire said:


> I am sure you heard it somewhere.
> However, being king he can change the rules for one.
> He is also of a different generation than his mother who was slightly younger than my Grandmother. She would never leave the house without gloves. Ever. And she was by no means a queen.
> 
> ...


The touch from royalty was once believed to cure many ills-  tuberculous, cervical lymphadenitis (scrofula or the King's Evil), rheumatism, convulsions, fevers, blindness, goitre and other ailments. From Elizabeth I, the touch was only applied to people suffering from scrofula and people would _pay_ for the privilege! Queen Elizabeth II seemed to wear her dress gloves when she was out and about meeting the ‘great unwashed’ but I think this was just for convenience. King Charles III appears to have some medical condition that makes his fingers swell up. He‘s referred to his ‘sausage fingers‘ a few times a few times.

Having worked with the public (in a medical capacity), I would personally wear a _full_ biohazard suit when dealing with them again. They are _filthy _and the thought of touching them <shudders>🤢…there isn’t enough hand sanitiser in the the whole world.

I once had a ‘meet and greet’ with Edward Van Halen. _He_ wore gloves to shake our hands and there was a hand written sign next to him which said, ‘Please Do Not Squeeze Eddie’s Hand’ 😄😂


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 24, 2022)

granfire said:


> I am sure you heard it somewhere.
> However, being king he can change the rules for one.
> He is also of a different generation than his mother who was slightly younger than my Grandmother. She would never leave the house without gloves. Ever. And she was by no means a queen.
> 
> ...


Wearing gloves when out was a real thing, all ladies did it as well as wearing a hat. Men always wore hats too. It all stopped in the sixties really when Swinging Britain started, Barnaby Street, The Beatles, Twiggy etc.

I do wish people would stop saying the Royal Family can't do this or that, etc. It's a modern organisation, pays taxes and has enough young people in it and working for it to keep it relevant.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 24, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Wearing gloves when out was a real thing, all ladies did it as well as wearing a hat. Men always wore hats too. It all stopped in the sixties really when Swinging Britain started, Barnaby Street, The Beatles, Twiggy etc.


I look a berk when I wear a hat. But now I’m very ‘thin on top’ and advancing age has dulled my self-consciousness, I wear one when it’s cold or raining….a cool Skandi take on the flat cap to hint at my northern origins! Gloves? only when it’s icy which is rare in Devon.



Tez3 said:


> I do wish people would stop saying the Royal Family can't do this or that, etc. It's a modern organisation, pays taxes and has enough young people in it and working for it to keep it relevant.


‘Modern’? ’Relevant’? Not sure I agree with those ideas. The Royal family will likely disappear in a few generations thanks to the pervasive  influence of the media and the behaviour of Charles, Andrew and Edward were the start of it’s inexorable decline.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 24, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> I look a berk when I wear a hat. But now I’m very ‘thin on top’ and advancing age has dulled my self-consciousness, I wear one when it’s cold or raining….a cool Skandi take on the flat cap to hint at my northern origins! Gloves? only when it’s icy which is rare in Devon.
> 
> 
> ‘Modern’? ’Relevant’? Not sure I agree with those ideas. The Royal family will likely disappear in a few generations thanks to the pervasive  influence of the media and the behaviour of Charles, Andrew and Edward were the start of it’s inexorable decline.


Talking to young people, I'm a Guide leader, I've found they do like the Royal Family and see it continuing. They see William as the future king and love Catherine, they're the ones that make it modern and relevant. We also see the Countess of Wessex a lot, she's our President, her daughter is a Guide too, she's much loved, a very caring lady. Charles and his brothers are largely ignored as they are 'old'. The girls do seem to discount the media far more than adults do which is reassuring.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 24, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> I look a berk when I wear a hat.


You know who rocks a fedora? Our own @Bill Mattocks.


Gyakuto said:


> But now I’m very ‘thin on top’


If you look really close at my avatar, you can see that I have gotten just the tiniest bit thin on top too. You'd barely notice if I didn't point it out.


Gyakuto said:


> and advancing age has dulled my self-consciousness, I wear one when it’s cold or raining….a cool Skandi take on the flat cap to hint at my northern origins!


I go full on ski cap. But it's a different environment here.


Gyakuto said:


> Gloves? only when it’s icy which is rare in Devon.


I'm in Colorado. That's pretty much from now until March or April.


Gyakuto said:


> ‘Modern’? ’Relevant’? Not sure I agree with those ideas. The Royal family will likely disappear in a few generations thanks to the pervasive  influence of the media and the behaviour of Charles, Andrew and Edward were the start of it’s inexorable decline.


Going down this path will end with the thread locked as political... Zero stars, do not recommend.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 24, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Talking to young people, I'm a Guide leader, I've found they do like the Royal Family and see it continuing. They see William as the future king and love Catherine, they're the ones that make it modern and relevant. We also see the Countess of Wessex a lot, she's our President, her daughter is a Guide too, she's much loved, a very caring lady. Charles and his brothers are largely ignored as they are 'old'. The girls do seem to discount the media far more than adults do which is reassuring.


Girl guides aren’t normal kids, Tez3. They’re predominantly middle class kids with middle-classed parent’s attitudes. Kid’s from the ghettos of Manchester etc don‘t care about the Royals…why would they be….they are so far removed from them and their impoverished lives.

William and Kate are cool, but the others can take a running jump!


----------



## PhotonGuy (Nov 24, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I heard that Elvis is alive and well, and helping aliens abduct people somewhere in the western US.


So funny I forgot to laugh.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Nov 24, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> I do wish people would stop saying the Royal Family can't do this or that, etc. It's a modern organisation, pays taxes and has enough young people in it and working for it to keep it relevant.


Alright well its just something I heard about people in the royal family how they're not supposed to make direct physical contact with people who aren't royalty, if that's wrong then I stand corrected.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 24, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright well its just something I heard about people in the royal family how they're not supposed to make direct physical contact with people who aren't royalty, if that's wrong then I stand corrected.


I'm not sure why you'd believe it in this day and age, there's mountains of media coverage of them interacting with non Royals. Charles, William and Harry as well as Edward and Andrew have all served in the military, doing proper job alongside non Royals. Despite what people think of Andrew now, in the Falklands War he saved a lot of lives, he was a hero, put his life on the line to rescue soldiers and sailors.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 24, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Despite what people think of Andrew now, in the Falklands War he saved a lot of lives, he was a hero, put his life on the line to rescue soldiers and sailors.


sometimes, later, heinous crimes can negate any previous, virtuous acts. We don’t have to look too far back, to a certain character who was a decorated WWI soldier 🤢🤮


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 24, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Girl guides aren’t normal kids, Tez3. They’re predominantly middle class kids with middle-classed parent’s attitudes. Kid’s from the ghettos of Manchester etc don‘t care about the Royals…why would they be….they are so far removed from them and their impoverished lives.
> 
> William and Kate are cool, but the others can take a running jump!


I'm sorry but you are very, very wrong. We have Guides in the poorest parts of the inner cities, we have Guides in cities, towns and in the country, we have Guiding in hospital and prisons for the prisoner's children. It's actually never been for middle class children, that's a myth spread by haters of female achievers, it's disgusting. I assume you actually know nothing about us at all, and you certainly don't know anything about girls and what they think about.
We campaign, we change things, we teach and learn, we are girl led. You are really insulting us with your comments, you insult girls who come from poor backgrounds too insinuating they wouldn't fit in an organisation that is for them, they learn so much in Guiding, confidence, self esteem, teamwork as well as practical skills. They get the chance to travel, here and abroad ( we all fund raise) they learn to lead, take decisions and challenge themselves as well as society. They campaign on issues that concern them, violence against females, sanitary product availability here and abroad, female equality, climate change, internet safety for females etc. They make lifelong friends,  they are amazing. I'm insulted too that you think I'd pander to group of middle class kids rather than work with my sisters to improve women and girls lives here and around the world, well ten million of us can't be wrong.









						The history of changing girls' lives
					

Girlguiding has a long history of empowering girls and young women to be their best



					www.girlguiding.org.uk
				












						Campaigns led by girls
					

Girls like you are a powerful force for change. You can lead campaigns to improve the lives of all girls and young people



					www.girlguiding.org.uk
				












						Our Educational Framework
					

We help girls to reach their full potential by promoting six areas of girls' and young women's development



					www.girlguiding.org.uk
				




This started a few years ago and is ongoing, 








						What we’re going to do
					

The things we’re going to change to make sure everyone has a positive, fair experience with us.



					www.girlguiding.org.uk
				












						WAGGGS
					

World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts




					www.wagggs.org


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 24, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> sometimes, later, heinous crimes can negate any previous, virtuous acts. We don’t have to look too far back, to a certain character who was a decorated WWI soldier 🤢🤮


 I've no idea who you mean.

Having sex with a girl over the age of consent who had been groomed to throw herself at you is not a heinous crime. Andrew 's crime was that his balls did the thinking, he was deliberately flattered, coaxed and pandered to by Epstein because he wanted to blackmail him, he was like a spider in his web collecting information on people he could then use to his benefit. Andrew is not that bright and thought it was his charm and wit the girl was attracted to, not that she'd be used by Epstein to use him. People like to pull others down, the higher the better, hounds baying for blood. Andrew is a bloody fool but he committed no other crime than being an idiot, by lying instead of just saying he was stupid. However it's conveniently hidden all the others used in the same way as well as those such as ex Presidents who were best mates with Epstein. Still it keeps the people happy hating him, hating Camilla, worshipping Diana and posting hate posts on social media.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 24, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> So funny I forgot to laugh.


Maybe the aliens can pick you up and adjust your sense of humor.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Girl guides aren’t normal kids, Tez3. They’re predominantly middle class kids with middle-classed parent’s attitudes. Kid’s from the ghettos of Manchester etc don‘t care about the Royals…why would they be….they are so far removed from them and their impoverished lives.
> 
> William and Kate are cool, but the others can take a running jump!



Our founder. Agnes Baden-Powell | Home









						Opening the vaults: How Girl Guides Contributed to War Efforts
					

Girl Guides of Canada–Guides du Canada (GGC) members made significant contributions to Canada’s war efforts during the twentieth century. Our national archives collection offers a glimpse int…




					girlguidescanblog.ca
				













						How the Girl Guides knitted, nursed and dug for victory
					

Girl Guiding during the Second World War was vital to the survival of the country and the international war effort.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				













						Girl guiding and the RAF | Royal Air Force
					

Photo credit: Girl Guides of Canada archives.  Girl Guides contribute to buy two air ambulances, 1940. The RAF have a long and fascinating history with many inspiring and brave Girl Guides,




					www.raf.mod.uk
				




"Another form of wartime Guiding should be mentioned - Guiding in Concentration Camps, both in Europe and in the far east.  In the far east in particular, many British children had lived in colonies and protectorates whilst their parents were working there, and when these colonies were suddenly invaded, all British adults and children were captured and taken to special camps, to stay there for the duration of the war.  Others, whose parents were based 'up-country' doing mission work, were captured at their boarding schools when war broke out, and were imprisoned together with their teachers, often not knowing whether their parents were captured or still free.  In the camps the teachers tried to occupy the children's endless free time, both with schooling, and often with Guide and Scout groups.  These special units sometimes had members from many nations, and a programme of activities and challenges based on a merger of the different countries' programmes, adapted to circumstances - the 'half-day's hike' for first class might involve an appropriate number of laps of the camp perimeter, before the candidate could use the special stock of twigs to make a miniature model of a cooking fire, and describe just how she would light the twigs with an imaginary match and cook the imaginary food on an imaginary full-size version of the model she had built.  The ingenuity and bravery of the Guiders, who worked so hard to keep the children's spirits up day after day and year after year, despite the starvation conditions and the debilitating illnesses which were often rife in the camps, should not be forgotten. "

"Guides were told that it was time to start preparing an army of volunteers, ready to go into Europe as soon as war ended, to 'win the peace'.  This, at a time when it was by no means certain that Britain would even win the war . . .

This idea, or ideal, suggested by the Guides themselves, became the GIS, or Guide International Service.  Soon applications were being received from Rangers and Young Guiders who wanted to serve on the teams, and commando-style selection weekends were held, with the applicants being challenged to cope with difficult situations and unexpected problems on no sleep and little food, hauling their kit cross-country along muddy tracks on trek carts.  Those who were not old enough to apply for selection to the teams were challenged too - the chosen teams would need funds, both to buy equipment, and to provide the living expenses for the volunteers who would be leaving homes and jobs in order to serve on the teams for many months at a time.  So the GIS fund was established and fundraising began.  The first team set out in July 1944 to Greece.  They tried to learn some of the language during the days on the voyage there, and once they arrived they found themselves involved in providing healthcare and supplying clothing rations to villagers in remote areas, often travelling on foot over mountain passes, the clothing bundles being carried on pack mules.  They were soon spotted by local Guides, who saw and recognised the trefoil badge on the sleeve of the army tunics the volunteers wore, and these local Guides became involved in supporting the work as helpers and interpreters.  A hospital unit, complete with medicines and a mobile laboratory, headed into the Netherlands on the day it was liberated, and soon set up a fully functioning hospital to diagnose and treat infectious diseases, working through the major typhoid epidemic, and then setting up maternity hospitals and feeding stations for the starving.  Later a group went into the Belsen concentration camp to help with food and nutrition, and deal with the repatriation of 'displaced persons' who were now free but needed help to find homes to go to and a means of setting up in work.  A further group of volunteers, from Australia, headed to Malaya to fight tropical diseases and help locals who had suffered following the invasion there.  The work of the GIS continued until 1950, long after other relief organisations had had to pull out for want of funds, and despite the ongoing shortages and rationing in Britain.  Throughout these years the work of the teams was entirely supported by the ongoing fundraising efforts and donations from individual Guides, Patrols and units.  As well as relief work, trainings were run in europe by the GIS volunteers to help restart Guiding in the countries where it had had to lie dormant"





						Leslie's Guiding History Site
					

Information on the history of UK Guiding - Rainbow, Brownie, Guide, Ranger/Senior Section, Guider, Trefoil Guild.



					lesliesguidinghistory.webs.com
				





I could post what Girl Guides/Scouts do in every country but I'll stick with this.








						What Do Girl Guides Do? - Girl Guides Victoria
					

Are you curious about what it is that Girl Guides actually DO? Click to read more and find out about the Australian Guiding Program, badges, and...




					www.guidesvic.org.au
				












						5 Girl Scouts Projects Around the World That Empower Girls and Women - Goodnet
					

The World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts mission is to enable girls and young women to develop their full potential as world citizens.




					www.goodnet.org
				












						Including all
					

Girlguiding is committed to being an inclusive organisation that is accessible to all girls and young women



					www.girlguiding.org.uk
				





Our campaigns are successful, one reason why some people choose to malign us.
In 2014 girls decided that they wanted to challenge the representation of women in the media by supporting the No More Page 3 campaign. With the weight of Girlguiding members behind it, the campaign succeeded in persuading The Sun newspaper to remove topless women from Page 3.









						Home - 2022 report
					






					girlguiding.foleon.com
				





I've been in Guiding since I joined as a Brownie, from 7 so that's over 60 years, not one unit I was in, and there's been a few even when I was a child, has been middle class, always working class and girls never much money, we had second hand uniforms and saved for our subs. The girls still do that now. Don't look down on them because you are mistaken about who they are, it demeans all the hard work they do when you assume they're given everything on a plate.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Nov 27, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure why you'd believe it in this day and age, there's mountains of media coverage of them interacting with non Royals. Charles, William and Harry as well as Edward and Andrew have all served in the military, doing proper job alongside non Royals. Despite what people think of Andrew now, in the Falklands War he saved a lot of lives, he was a hero, put his life on the line to rescue soldiers and sailors.


Because I don't watch the Royal family that much on the media and I've certainly never paid much attention to details, not before the last few months when, due to recent events, the Royal family has become a huge focus. Before that though I didn't really watch or follow the Royal family, in the media or otherwise.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Nov 27, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> sometimes, later, heinous crimes can negate any previous, virtuous acts. We don’t have to look too far back, to a certain character who was a decorated WWI soldier 🤢🤮


It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation but only a moment to ruin it.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 27, 2022)

PhotonGuy said:


> It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation but only a moment to ruin it.


Still have no idea of who the World War 1 soldier is though.


----------

