Will Catherine be Queen?

[cessna152towser]

Cajunscot wrote:-

Some historians have argued that had London supported the Loyalist populations in the Southern colonies more than they did, the war might have ended differently.

George Square in Glasgow was named after King George III who was on the throne at the time it was laid out but despite the square containing many statues, including one of Queen Victoria, it is notable that there is no statue of King George III. This is because he was unpopular with the Glasgow tobacco merchants who held him responsible for the loss of the American colonies.

[Phil]

Correct me if I am wrong, put hasn't this thread strayed off topic more than a little?

It certailnly has but, then again, how much input can you really expect on the original subject? Now if the OP was starting a book on the odds for or against Catherine Middleton ever making it to becoming queen we would maybe have something a little more interesting to discuss. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip as the saying goes. And the Windsors have demonstrated a degree of dysfunction in their marital arrangements over the years as well. Uncle David put the cat among the pigeons back in the 30's with that escapade with Wallis Simpson, Charles, Andrew and Anne's marriages have all ended on the rocks so who knows? And I won't even mention the 'Grim Reaper'. How long is a piece of string might have been a suitable alternative for discussion or perhaps which came first - the chicken or the egg?.

[sailortats]

Phil, I have to agree with what you say. Actually I was enjoying the thread as it was progressing with one small exception.
I did not agree with your statement that the reason we "colonists" show such an interest in royalty is our facination with celebrities. Not an actual quote of course. But, I for one, and I am sure several others, have an actual interest in them and not because of their celebrity.
After all, it is a part of our history.
another Phil

[Phil]

Phil, I have to agree with what you say. Actually I was enjoying the thread as it was progressing with one small exception.
I did not agree with your statement that the reason we "colonists" show such an interest in royalty is our facination with celebrities. Not an actual quote of course. But, I for one, and I am sure several others, have an actual interest in them and not because of their celebrity.
After all, it is a part of our history.
another Phil

I don't think that I used the word "colonists" but I would be interested in the various reasons why people should be interested in British Royalty. History is an obvious reason and much of historical study is devoted to the various kings and queens over the last 1,000+ years. I have even heard it said that other nations regard Britain as a quaint anachronism in an almost pitying way, with its Royals and all the flummery that goes with them. It must seem a bit odd to someone in a more egalitarian society to see people bowing and scraping before an immensely privileged coterie of individuals whose only justification for existence is an accident of birth. And it does grate when they feel able to pronounce on subjects of which they have no more than a passing acquaintance and even less of an intellectual rigour. I don't think anyone could accuse them of achieving any degree of erudition but then who needs an education if you are stepping into the family firm?
Unfortunately nowadays the cult of celebrity does seem to be the more common reason
for the adulation that seems to accompany them and, of course, they will be very much aware of the importance of this adulation to their continued existence which, in reality, depends upon the whims of a capricious public.

[McClef]

Correct me if I am wrong, put hasn't this thread strayed off topic more than a little?

You are indeed correct as the events of 1776 et seq, whilst interesting, are little do to with the constitutional domestic arrangements in the UK today.

[Adam Elliott]

Names aren't everything, and neither is superstition, but isn't anyone a bit concerned for Catherine Wales, nee Middleton? Several English queens named Catherine have had a lives which ended poorly or were just sheer hell. :-/ Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard, Catherine of Braganza. Catherine of Valois and Catherine Parr seem to have done alright, but they had to become widows first. Have I missed anyone?

[McClef]

Yes Catherine de Medici was missed!

[Adam Elliott]

I hadn't even considered how French Catherine's fared . . . although they would have had their share of them too. :-) Yes, hers was not a happy family life.

[davidg]

It must seem a bit odd to someone in a more egalitarian society to see people bowing and scraping before an immensely privileged coterie of individuals whose only justification for existence is an accident of birth. And it does grate when they feel able to pronounce on subjects of which they have no more than a passing acquaintance and even less of an intellectual rigour. I don't think anyone could accuse them of achieving any degree of erudition but then who needs an education if you are stepping into the family firm?

I'm not sure you're being completely fair here. I am not a monarchist and would prefer a federal or republic type system but when I compare existing systems there is a lot to be defended in a monarchy. Consistency in a head of state, no political axe to grind and the power to make politicians think again being just a few of them. In a system where the head of state is elected there are usually as many who voted against him/her (if not more) than voted for. Scotland is a prime example where the Conservatives were rejected at the last general election but we still ended up with a Conservative Prime Minister and government (albeit modified ineffectually by Liberals who were also rejected in Scotland)

The present Queen is, I think, doing a good job. I also have reasonable confidence in her heir, but his brothers would not have the same confidence from me for the sort of reasons you mention so unless and until we get real democracy, and I'm not sure that actually exists, maybe I'll stick with monarchy as much as I do not really like it

[Phil]

The present Queen is, I think, doing a good job. I also have reasonable confidence in her heir, but his brothers would not have the same confidence from me for the sort of reasons you mention so unless and until we get real democracy, and I'm not sure that actually exists, maybe I'll stick with monarchy as much as I do not really like it

It sounds as though you are quite happy to settle for the lesser of two evils. I was not, however, trying to critique the situation as it exists here, rather trying to understand the fascination of non-British people in a system of unelected government by a hereditary monarchy that they themselves rejected over 200 years ago.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions but I would suggest not straying into the realm of politics which will only have the effect of stifling further discussion. I could, however, point you towards the Irish presidency which does seem to function in an exemplary fashion.