Princess Charlene of Monaco is pregnant!

Princess Charlene of Monaco is pregnant!

Princess Charlene

Princess Charlene of Monaco, wife of Prince Albert II of Monaco, is expecting the couple’s first child. She is due at the end of the year. The couple married on July 1, 2011.

The official press release reads: “Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene of Monaco have the immense joy of announcing they are expecting a happy event. The baby is due at the end of the year.”

They also made an announcement on Twitter:

I’ve been wondering when Charlene was going to announce a pregnancy. She’s been talking having children in the last few interviews she’s done. Now Albert will finally have a legitimate heir. He has two illegitimate children that I know of, an American daughter and a son who lives in France. I can’t wait to see Charlene’s pregnancy style.

Congratulations to the couple!

Links: Daily Mail. Huffington Post.

91 thoughts on “Princess Charlene of Monaco is pregnant!

  1. yes I am so happy for char, she has finally put all her jealous hater in their place, shes one of my favourite royals

      1. BitchyShoes you make a good point. For all practical purposes PA and PC (I really don’t know much about them and their roles) would be equivalent to QE and PP, their heir and future spouse would be equivalent to PC and Camilla. Who would be the equivalent to PW and Kate? Why do you expect Kate’s appearances to be the same as the Monarch’s wife? I don’t believe their is anyone else in Kate’s situation. IMO she is trying to work with this unusual situation, however I do believe she can do more. Granted she doesn’t help things by not wearing weights in her hem and being an awful public speaker.

        1. I’m sorry but I don’t understand your comment at all. I was making a remark about the OP always slagging Kate, yet saying Charlene can do no wrong and anyone who says anything else is a jealous hater. I thought it very ironic.

          1. Thank you, KMR. I actually don’t mind Charlene, and hope she can break free after she produces the heir (I guess that means I believe she tried to escape before they got married), whether it’s legally or just living her own life without Al. Although I think if they divorce, Albert gets the children?

        2. There is no European royal equivalent of Will and Kate–all other 3rd-in-lines are children.

          1. IMO this is why PW/Kate seem to be all over the place. Their role hasn’t been completely defined. I think PW is looking for away for him and Kate to go back to a private life.

          2. There is a historic Precedent. George V and his Queen Mary during Victoria’s reign. Clearly George thought long and hard what he might do for his reign because many of the traditions he started are still bieng followed today.

          3. @Acquitaine: That’s true, but of the current crop of 3rds-in-line of the other European houses, there is no equivalent.

            Also, I’m wondering if George and Mary really are a precedent in so far as public engagements go. I’m bringing it up because at one point I heard/read somewhere that there was no precedent for a Prince of Wales to do public engagements, and Charles had to really define a role for himself because it hadn’t been defined in that sense before. Did the royals do public engagements the way we think of them now, when George and Mary were 3rd-in-line?

        3. The heir-to-the-heir argument continues to make no sense to me. HM (or Charles for that matter) could pass any day now and all of a sudden, you have a completely unprepared William as POW.

          1) They are setting their own work schedule, that has been confirmed by the Palace on record multiple times. They aren’t being required to hold back and not outshine anyone (as if they could at this point).

          2) There are many others further down the line who work far more than these two. No one seems to be claiming that they’re trying to upstage anyone, they are doing their duty to Queen and country. Most of those folks are beyond retirement age and some are experiencing significant health issues. They’d probably like the opportunity to scale-back their duties and hand some over to Bill and Kate Middleton. Trouble is, W&K refuse to step up and accept their royal role.

          3) They are in their thirties, they aren’t children. Regardless of where he is in the line, it is far past time for these two to commit to their royal roles and get to work doing royal work. Their job in this world is to do their utmost to make the lives of the people of the UK and Commonwealth better. NOT to sit home watching TOWIE or pretending to fly helicopters.

          4) If they are this non-existent thing as “part-time royals” (there is no such thing) then they should NOT receive full-time royal benefits. No 57-room entire side of Kensington Palace rehabbed on the taxpayers. No taxpayer funded security if they choose to leave the UK for vacation, etc. They leave the country for vacation, it has to be paid for by his inheritance (which also comes from the taxpayers). No more Duchy of Cornwall paying for her clothing (and Charles getting reimbursed for it through taxpayer money). Simply put, no full-time duties, no full-time royal benefits.

          1. Thanks, My2Pence. I agree with your assessment and never understood the argument of “2nd in line” or “heir to the heir”. Why would this excuse PW doing and thereby learning about royal duties?

          2. We have to remember that Willy is like his mother Diana, a histrionic mentally ill woman who was obsessed with her own image and believed she could do no wrong and the public would support her. We already have a precedent for Willy; the Princess Margaret, the Queen’s deceased sister. She was effectively no. 2 in the line of succession from 1936 (when she was actually no.2) to 1969, when Charles turned 21. She carried out a full range of public duties representing first her father then her sister. She was glamorous, photographed constantly and in the newspapers all the time. But she also WORKED, from the age of 20 when she carried out a tour of Switzerland, France and Italy. From the way I see it, Willy’s already had three grace periods. The first was when he went to St. Andrews to study geography, which is perfectly acceptable, since it’s his right to have a college education (would have been nicer if it had included constitutional law, history and politics like members of other royal families). This was when there was an ‘agreement’ between the Royal Family and the press to leave Willy alone. Then he went into the armed forces, to prepare for his role some day as Commander-in-Chief. He went through Sandhurst and then began a series of secondments to other forces to get a taste of it. He carried out his first official public engagement in January 2010, representing the Queen in New Zealand. He was 27. The Princess Margaret by contrast, had carried out her first public engagement at her grandparents’ Silver Jubilee in 1935. She was 5. Then Willy began his three-year commitment to the RAF, carrying out an odd public duty here and there. His grandparents and cousins aged. He married and continued to demand privacy and time. The public was content for some idiotic reason to let him continue this ludicrous and unprecedented arrangement. After his grandmother’s Diamond Jubilee (in which he and his wife played a relatively minor role and still got most of the attention) he finished his commitment to the armed forces. The calls for him and his wife to begin full-time duties began. Instead she got pregnant and violently ill. Once the child was safely delivered, there was a huge fuss over nappies and play time and who was watching whom. They absconded late in the year to Bucklebury to avoid the waiting paying public and their public duties. When Willy’s term in the RAF was up, he panicked. “Oh shit. I’m almost 32. They expect me to go to more bloody cocktail parties. Can’t they see I need to live my life free of these idiotic restrictions? I’m not a Prince. I just play one for everyone’s amusement. I’m a police officer, so I can guard Mummy. Or wait, maybe I’m a soldier, even though I’ve never fired my gun at an enemy. No, I’m going to be a farmer. Yep, I’m going to be a farmer. There must be some training I can do. Where’s the catalog for Cambridge, the school I couldn’t get into. Katie, get… oh Lord she’s buying more shoes on-line. What will Papa say? Never mind you silly bloody fool. I’ll get it myself. You know… I should have a servant do this for me. But no, no, I’m normal. I can get a course catalog myself. Now… what should I do. Oh, what’s the first thing alphabetically. Agriculture. Oh good. Yes, I’ll become a Gentleman Farmer, just like George III, whoever he was. Everyone would think it’s so charming. I’ll enroll tomorrow. Well thank God! Now my destiny is set. None of this Kinging nonsense for me! Though… that was such hard work getting that catalog. I think it’s time I go somewhere warm. Hmm… the Maldives look good this time of year. Katiekins! Trip!” “A trip?! A trip?! Oh goody goody! Where’s my suntan lotion?” “What about your clothes dear?” “Forget them!” “What about Georgie?” “Oh yeah, him. Uh, call Mummy and Daddy. I’m sure they won’t mind watching him. We’ve got to get to the Maldives before all the good five-star resorts are gone!”

        4. CrazyAMG: May i point out that Queen Mary was in exactly Kate’s position during Queen Victoria’s reign. Queen Victoria died 6years after David [the King who later abdicated] was born. David’s current equivalent would be WK’s George.

          This isn’t a situation without Precedent.

          1. No it’s only the second time in modern British history that there have been three kings-in-waiting. Though Willy and Waity aren’t exactly George and Mary of Teck.

          2. Seth: a precedent is a precedent. meaning it’s happened before and WK aren’t unique in their position.

            And i agree that they aren’t a patch on George or Mary.

          3. Thank you. Having an I.Q. of 150 and having passed the American eighth grade, I DO know what precedent is. πŸ™‚

          4. Seth, I see you enjoy semantic arguments, that to me obscure the point under discussion.

    1. Much of the criticism of Kate Middleton stems from her laziness and her inability to perform her scant job duties well. It is not hate, it is criticism. IMO Charlene works hard and represents her country well. Yes, I think she’s doing a better job than Middleton.

      1. Seth I am in a public place reading your post. I can’t contain my laughter and getting unpleasant stares. LOL!!!! Thanks for the historical prospective on PM. PW isn’t as dedicated to the throne.

          1. Acquitaine- To quote Lady Thatcher “No!” “No!” and “NO!” It is owned by the Crown. The Sovereign is the physical embodiment of the Crown. Therefore the Crown Estate belonged to the reigning monarch and was used to defray the cost of civil government until 1760, when George III surrendered the lands to the government of the day in exchange for a fixed sum of money called a Civil List. You are welcome.

          2. Seth: you might want to check your history about the crown estates or better still, look at the BRF’s own estate website.

        1. I have a question. If the Monarch has an agreement with the government to use revenue from the crown estate to run the government and in return the Monarch receives an allowance, how is it that the tax payers feels that the Monarch should be accountable to them? This is just a question so please don’t annihilate me in responses.

          1. The whole funding scheme for the monarchy is complex and is just that; a scheme. Originally, the monarch paid for the entire civil government out of their personal fortune, which was essentially the public Treasury. When George III came to the throne in 1760, the cost of government (especially the Seven Years’ War, etc.) was becoming very great. So the Ministers of the Crown and the King made an agreement that the King would surrender the Crown Estate to the government in exchange for a fixed sum of money for the Royal Family. Over the years it became known as the Civil List and covered all public expenses of the monarchy and the Royal Family. In addition, the Sovereign has control of the Duchy of Lancaster, which evolved from holdings throughout Lancashire which became part of the Sovereign’s holdings in 1399 when Henry of Bolingbroke deposed Richard II of England and became Henry IV (a semi-fictional Bolingbroke is portrayed in the grim but excellent Richard II by William Shakespeare). In 1760, when George III and Parliament negotiated the Civil List, they kept the Duchy of Lancaster separate and distinct from the Crown Estate. It has provided private income for the monarch ever since. As Charles is Duke of Cornwall (which is actually what makes him heir apparent to the throne under a royal charter of 1337 of King Edward III), the Duchy of Cornwall provides him income. Both Duchies are largely property holding companies. This is why the Prince Andrew cozies up to wealthy despots so often; he has some money, mostly inheritances from the Queen Mother and his mother, but not nearly the level of income as his elder brother and his elder son. There were also Grants-in-Aid from departments for transport and security costs. Actually since 2013, there is no Civil List. The monies that provided the Civil List were becoming exhausted, so a new funding scheme called the Sovereign Support Grant was enacted and is currently in force. Essentially 15% of the revenue of the Crown Estate is given each year to the Queen to use as she sees fit to support the Family. As for why the taxpayers feel the Queen is accountable to them, I have no earthly idea. The public does pay the costs of Metropolitan Police and Army protection for the royals, but since they are self-funding now otherwise, I really don’t understand it. I think the problem is most people are insanely jealous of what they see as the royals’ lavish lifestyle and are insanely ignorant. People have no clue how things work and few want to take the time to learn (all this stuff fascinates me, I enjoy reading and retaining vast quantities of information, much of it impracticable on a day-to-day basis but oh well). I think part of it is that there is a representative democracy in the UK, with the House of Commons, specifically the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, so people feel like the Queen should be accountable to them as well. Personally if it were me, I’d take the Crown Estate back and tell people to stuff a sock in it. Monarchy is inherently unequal and unfair. If people don’t like it, then President Clegg can welcome Kings and Queens and despots to Chevening when William Hague doesn’t need it.

          2. Actually the crown estate is (for lack of a better term) public property now. It is owned by the state, and the Queen gets 15% of the income (I think it’s 15%, two years after it is earned. So in 2014, she got 15% of 2012 income I think is how it works.

            Also, the houses she lives in (other than those she personally owns which are Balmoral and Sandringham) are funded by the public as well. There are organizations in place which run them. I don’t know all the details on those, but the Queen does not personally pay the upkeep on Buckingham Palace.

          3. Actually BitchyShoes, that’s not entirely accurate. While the Queen doesn’t technically pay the upkeep on Buckingham Palace, that’s what the Sovereign Grant is for. There is a huge backlog of work. Since she does have substantial wealth from the Duchy of Lancaster, it would probably make taxpayers in the UK more supportive of a restoration and maintenance program if she paid for part of it. I’m not saying she should, but if she really wants it done…

          4. Seth: the crown estate has never ever belonged to the monarch.

            It was set aside to run the instrument of government which happened to include the royal household in a despotic monarchy.

            British peasants are unique unlike their European counterparts in that they didn’t have to pay taxes unless absolutely necessary because the instrument of government was covered which included armies when needed and their Royal family. No French Monarchy style system where the peasants are taxed to the bone to pay for the government and the monarchy.

            Over time, it was never going to cover everything, plus successive monarchs often misused the funds in various ways. I think only Henry VII died with a surplus and was known as a miser simply for managing the estates well.

            Taxes, beyond import tax on some goods eg tea, as a concept were never meant to be permanent things eg Income tax was set up specifically to pay for Nelson’s Napoleonic wars. a one time deal that was subsequently repeated twice before parliament decided it was a nice to have and even then long after the wars were over.

            George III found the estates in alot of debt and completely unmanageable. It was a win win solution for him to essentially hand over the management to parliamanent and stop the never ending begging bowl to parliament to raise taxes so he could pay bills accrued by the government – which still viewed the royal household as part of it.

            the crown estate in modern times continues to pay for government as well as public services such as police, NHS, Army etc as they did then.

            The Monarchy is receiving 15% because she is part the instrument of government. Her extended family are not our heads of state, and that’s where the resentment comes in. No matter the fancy words attached to it, it is public money. And it is used by the extended family in indirect/direct ways

            William lives rent free in an apartment that would cost a fair packet on the open market, but because he is destined to be head of state, eventually, we are supposed to accept that. i’m sure if we could vote for the head of state the resentment would not be so bad. No one resents the fact that the PM has a magnificent, fully staffed country residence as a comparison. And if he pisses us off, we can vote him out. We do not have that choice – there is a law on the books that prevents this very thing.

    1. I wonder if Charlene is happy that her father is talking like this to the media. I wouldn’t be happy if my parent went around blabbing my personal details like that to people. I mean, damn, a pregnancy is personal, let her announce details on her own time.

      1. Unless she is about 6 weeks along (which she could be, I don’t know), you cannot tell whether someone it expecting a multiple birth or not. Often, it is seen by ultrasound (US), and usually well after the 6 week mark, around 10-12 wks. Baby’s gender may possibly be determined by the same method, about 98% of the time, around 18-20 wks (depends on baby’s position). That is how you can call BS on alot of these rumors about Kate and Charlene being pregnant with twin girls. (Not sure about the girl issue with Charlene, but it probably will come up soon.) So unless a woman is about 4.5-5 months pregnant, there is no way to confirm all these things together.

        1. All I’ve read is that she’s at least 3 months. Maybe Daddy Warbucks is making a guess because they did IVF? If I was married to that guy, my preference would certainly be for artificial help!

          1. What I mentioned above still holds for IVF. With IVF, they implant multiple fertilized eggs, but not all of them attach to the uterine lining – i.e. true pregnancy. I understand it is possible to “design a baby” – within limits, such as 4 female fertilized eggs + 4 male fertilized eggs, but it is impossible to determine whilch and how many will take to the lining. Then, it is still a wait to confirm the multiple pregnancy by US (minimum 6 wks) and gender (the 18-20 wks mentioned above). Good thought though about the IVF.

  2. Something is very strange to me about her relationship with Albert. DM’s story about her fleeing before the wedding, the unhappiness she seemed to be displaying at the wedding and his stern expressions, his love child with his mistress who gave interviews, it’s all just bizarre to me. I feel like she probably didn’t want to marry him, but perhaps that’s totally off.

    1. What little I have seen of her, I would have to agree. She is extremely elegant and really seems to try hard in her role. However, I do get an impression she is not happy. I could be totally off, but something seems wrong. Albert is a dick, right along the lines of William. I cannot believe Al’s issues with his illegitimate children/former mistresses. I think his entire family is complete Eurotrash, honestly. But Charlene, I like what I see so far.

      1. Albert is totally skeezy. I, too, get the feeling that Charlene isn’t totally happy with him. At least, that’s the vibe I get from pictures of them together.

        1. At least Will doesn’t have a bunch of illegitimate kids running around (that we know of anyway).

  3. @yep , my critiscm for kate is her lack of work ethic, inappropriate clothes, and her and ma stalking and manipulating will for a ring, yes since marriage what has she done NOTHING except, shop, decorate, vacation, and running to her mum at every turn, while the taxpayers foot the bill for security, yes she is a waste of space, and yes charlene is more of a woman, than that child (they are now employing a minder for her butt) seriously? No words!

  4. Adam, I hope you are joking? Bill & lazy do need nannies for themselves, not for Prince George ( just kidding! )

  5. Seth – I wanted to ask you a ? to the long post above. Do you think some of the sentiment of the British and Commonwealth people towards the royalty stems from ANY percentage of taxed paid going straight to the monarch? Also, do you think some of the sentiment is also a long, left-over vestige resulting from the fall of numerous monarchies within Europe around WW1?

    1. I have a few questions as well. Great overview by the way.
      1) Can HM dissolve this agreement with the British Government
      2)If so what impact if any on the British Economy ( do you no how much revenue is generated annually from the Crown Estate)
      3) Is this information taught in the education system. IMO the more tax payers understand that the RF is self sufficient and is actually giving money to the tax payers the less confusion (if I understand your post correctly)

      1. Well for one thing thank you for reading my long rants. πŸ™‚ I don’t think it would be in the Queen or the Royal Family’s best interest to dissolve the current Sovereign Support Grant. They are receiving more money pound-for-pound this fiscal year than last, and more last year than the year before, under the old Civil List system.
        The Civil List was frozen from 1990-2010. Essentially the revenues of the Crown Estate (a property holding corporation that owns the property on Regent Street, Ascot racecourse etc.) grew year after year. The profit from the Crown Estate in 2012 was Β£240.2 million. The government deducted Β£7.9 million for the Queen’s official expenses and put the remaining Β£232.3 million in the Treasury for general use. In addition the members of the Family who received Parliamentary annuities for their official duties, had those annuities repaid by the Queen out of her private Duchy of Lancaster funds. There is a very clear delineation in royal finances between public and private expenditures and property. The family doesn’t own Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace, Kensington Palace or St. James Palace, any more than President Obama could say he owns the White House and Camp David or David Cameron could say he owns 10 Downing Street. They are official residences provided by the nation for their leaders’ use and financed in part or in whole by the nation, as they should be. However the Queen is reportedly using her own money to repair Buckingham Palace and some of the other palaces, which have serious maintenance issues due to the funding short fall, according to a Parliamentary report earlier this year. For example, the boilers in Buckingham Palace are 60 years old and could break down at any time. Frogmore House in Windsor Great Park, containing the nation’s mausoleum for Queen Victoria and Prince Albert is literally crumpling. With the Sovereign Support Grant, the funding for the monarchy is now in bulk, so the Queen and her senior staffers can designate funds as they feel necessary. However there was a false report in the papers earlier this year that the Queen was down to her last Β£1 million. That’s very clever propaganda but is absolute rubbish. In the 1990s, the Queen and her courtiers managed very nicely to cut expenses and maintain a strong portfolio, which led to a Β£35 million reserve fund, which was carried over and used as a de facto Civil List to defray expenses during the 2000s. That reserve fund has been drawn down to Β£1 million by this year. But HM is in no way close to poverty, though some of her summer employees might be. The Royal Family is more or less self-sufficient is the short answer to all this gobbly gook that I wrote above, yes. The Prince of Wales uses the capital profits of the Duchy of Cornwall (Β£19 million in 2013) to fund himself, Camilla, Willy, Waity, Georgie and Harry. The taxpayer only pays for their security, transport and official functions (which still is quite a tidy sum). The Prince of Wales has Clarence House in London, which is quite a nice modern, comfortable home, Highgrove is his private country residence in Gloucestershire that the Duchy of Cornwall bought before Charles and Diana got married. He has Birkhall in Scotland, adjacent to Balmoral, which he uses in the summer and for New Year’s Eve. He also has a residence in Cornwall owned by the Duchy and one on the Isles of Scilly. His siblings have to make due with either residences on loan to them from the Crown Estate or use the bulk of their inheritances from the Queen Mother or the Queen to buy their own residences. Sorry for the rant, but obviously I like the topic. πŸ™‚
        The impact on the British economy is a multi-billion pound benefit for the tourists that visit Britain to see the palaces and are deluded enough to think that they may meet a member of the Royal Family.

        1. Seth all of your post today have been excellent and educational! I have always respected HM, now I do so even more. She is very gracious in the truth. I don’t understand why a percentage of the revenue from the Crown Estate isn’t allocated to the up keep of palaces. She should not have to pay for that since the tax payers and the government benefit from the revenue generated from these historical sites. One can only hope that PW is ready for the top job when it comes his way. The tax payers need him to be successful in that role! I must not forget that as the Prince of Wales he would be managing a multi-million pound purse…oh my! Thanks again Seth!

          1. You’re welcome. I doubt Willy is ready for anything, which is why he continues to try finding something else to do. But even though he would be the exo officio manager of the Duchy of Cornwall, I believe there is an entire team of managers and consultants responsible for the day-to-day management. I know there is a separate Attorney General, Keeper of Records and Solicitor General. The Duchy of Lancaster has a Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor. The Chancellor is a part-time Cabinet officer who is a sinecure office, most recently combined with the Leader of the House of Lords or Minister without Portfolio. The Vice Chancellor actually does much of the day-to-day running of the Duchy. So there’s little danger that Willy will screw up the Duchies too badly.

        2. Well, well – very good Seth! I see you are putting your degree to good use, unlike a couple others we all know (W&K). So this helps to explain at least in part WHY Willnot & Kannot don’t take on a lot of Royal Duties. Why should they if daddy Wales pays for everything. Totally reminds me of an explanation I heard years ago about how children who grew up with moneyed parents tend to grow up spoiled, and in an effort to deal with their boredom in their late teens/young adult years, will (try to) take on a job, just to inject something different into their lives. But they never stay with it, because they only want the experience, they don’t want to commit to any work, especially anything long term. The results are just not worth it to them.
          If I’m understanding all you are explaining, even though the RF obtains money like a corporation, complete with subsidies and tax breaks, they don’t have any real obligation to their country because they also are a private family. That is what is truly unique about the RF! And no, they are not just like us.

    2. I don’t think so. I do know that in a lot of the Commonwealth countries (such as Canada, Jamaica, etc.), a substantial number of people don’t know the Queen is head of state. In Canada, Australia, etc. for example, wide majorities routinely call the Governor-General (the Queen’s representative) the head of state. Others consider the Prime Minister head of state. I suspect several of the Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica) will seriously consider leaving the Commonwealth and becoming republics after the Queen dies. My bet would be on Australia. It’s one of the reasons the Queen dispatched Willy and Waity with Georgie, to shore up support. As for the money part, the other Commonwealth realms only pay monies to the Royal Family in support of their official duties in that country. For example when Willy and Waity went to Australia and New Zealand, their police protection, accommodations, etc. were paid for by the Australian and Kiwi taxpayers. They don’t pay a penny for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Royal Mews, etc. Only the direct expenditures needed for the royals to function during their tours in the countries. I suspect the Governors-General and their families eat up a portion of taxpayer money for their homes, transport, security, etc. I don’t know about the First World War bit. I think there’s been growing republicanism and democratization in the world since the Cold War and the Queen is very conscious of the perceived burden that the Family put on the UK. It’s why occasionally the Palace press office puts out statements about how the Queen is funded by 62 pence or whatever for each taxpayer; the Royal Household tries to show they run a “value for money monarchy”, whatever the HELL that’s supposed to mean. Oh yes. Real value flying Willy around in a helicopter so he can feed his masculine sense of ego as an action hero or some rubbish. And you’re absolutely welcome. Any time.

      1. I’m Canadian and I wouldn’t be surprised if after the Queen is gone that Canada becomes a republic. There isn’t as much focus on becoming a republic as it seems there is in Australia and New Zealand – however it’s there.

        I remember there was a documentary called “After Elizabeth,” talking about what Canada would do afterwards. I can’t speak for everybody of course, but it seems like no one wants to do anything while the Queen is alive, but afterwards, who knows.

        In general, I think it will be interesting to see what happens with many of the Commonwealth countries after the Queen is gone.

        1. As you’re Canadian, I would presume you would know. But I don’t think it really would matter too much one way or another.

          1. just curious, what are you referring to when you say that you “don’t think it really would matter to much one way or another?”

          2. I mean that opinion polls of Canadians, show that majorities think the Governor-General, or the Prime Minister, is head of state. Queen Elizabeth II is still Queen of Canada. But to me personally (I’m American, not Canadian) it doesn’t seem to matter to most Canadians if there is a monarch in Canada or not; based on the polls I’ve seen, they either think the Governor-General is head of state, or the Prime Minister, or don’t want a monarchy at all. The only reason anyone is saying right now in Canada that they want a monarchy is they want Willy to take over instead of Bonnie Prince Charlie. I don’t know if that’ll happen or not. But it doesn’t seem to make a difference to many Canadians who reigns over them. Just my opinion. πŸ™‚

      2. Seth: everything you wrote is correct except for the fact that the crown estates have never ever belonged to the royal family. the portion they recieve is akin to a public grant or someone on benefit would receive if they applied to the appropriate council.

        the figure bandied about in pennies that supposedly each person pays is rubbish because it excludes all the other indirect costs paid for by other depts eg transport and security as well as tax rebates and favourable tax status. they take the final figure and divide it by every single living human in the UK when really they should divide by the people who pay taxes only.

        And the Queen had the civil list frozen for several good reasons one being that she’d never paid tax AT ALL despite everything her country was going through and only their was a very bad recession in 1990. When Windsor Castle partially burnt due to the Windsor fire and she turned to the govt to pay for the repairs, she was forced to start paying some tax and also forced to open BP and other palaces to make the monarchy self -reliant.

        As long as her private money isn’t touched, she’s happy let the palaces crumble. i only have some sympathy for her when i think that her management of the estates will be blown when William and Kate are top dog. They are both spendthrifts extraordinaire!!!

        1. One of the reasons the Civil List was frozen was b/c it was a Labour government, just as over the question of what to do when Britannia needed replacement. John Major would consider a new yacht. Labour said nothing about it. When Labour won, they announced the yacht was being decommissioned and not replaced. As for letting the palaces crumble, I would like to know where you get this from. She is a ‘small c’ conservative, more comfortable with practice than theory. She considers Windsor Castle home. If it starts to crumble (and it does need repairs), I think she would be a little bit upset, since she sees her role as to conserve the monarchy as much as possible and keep up as many of the traditions as are sensible to keep. True Sandringham and Balmoral are her private estates and paid for out of her Duchy of Lancaster funds, but to say “she’s happy {to} let the palaces crumble” is rubbish unless you can cite evidence otherwise.

          1. Hey BitchyShoes, As far as the palaces in disrepair, why doesn’t she (or rather, her minders) negotiate the 90% discount rumor has that they have been getting for things such as car leases? Then, replacing the heating at BP would only cost 5,000 – 10,000 Sterling and lots of free advertising along with the Royal Warrant to whichever company gets the contract. Would work for them, too bad regular people (i.e. the working slobs) can’t get deals like that.

          2. Seth: wrong about the government. Civil list was frozen and she was forced to pay taxes during a tory government. Tories were in power from 1979-1997.

            I have lived in England for the better part of my life, so i know what i’m talking about AND have lived through the headlines.

            All through the 80s there were major grumbles about her not paying tax and yet getting money via the civil list. When they froze the civil list as a sop to the grumblers, it wasn’t thought a far enough measure and by the time of the windsor fire it was a hurricane of dissenting voices. That fire was the excuse the government needed to force her to pay tax and to put together a plan that managed the palaces and to rebuild Windsor. I wish i’d kept the cuttings as it’s impossible to find online anything prior 1999 because it went down like a lead balloon when she went to the Tory government for funds to rebuild Windsor. And then talk turned to the fact that her yacht was reaching it’s decommissioning date and one or 2 politicians tried to suggest that she receive a new one……..boy did that also go down like a lead balloon. And the decision was made that she would not be given a new one when the old one was decommissioned. that decision was publicised during Major’s time [Tory government] though the decommissioning happened during Tony Blair’s labour government.

            Being forced to open the palaces and to pay taxes is the reason we are able to see any of the treasures therein AND that was a huge deal the first time they were opened to the public.

          3. Acquataine – I do remember what you are talking about. All that with Windsor Palace occurred in 1992, and together with Charles & Diana’s separation along with I believe the separation of Andrew & Sarah – the Queen declared 1992 her “annus horribilus” (horrible year – not sure if I got the Latin right).

  6. If the RF really holds no obligation to the people, why is it that government officials, military, etc take an oath, it is to Queen (or King) and country?

          1. Sorry – I have to bug you again. So, if in the oath taken by government officials, military, judges, etc pledges their allegiance first to the monarch, then to country, doesn’t that automatically skew things in favor of the monarchy, i.e. whatever is in the best interest of the monarchy, then the country, then the people? How can anything be guaranteed to be beneficial to all if the monarch and their interests ALWAYS come first? If I remember correctly, Britain works under a constitutional monarchy, so they really are not a democracy. I find this concerning. This means the financial interests of the monarchy come before anyone else, their health comes before anyone else, their security, their land rights, ability to obtain food, medicines, supplies, etc.
            As an example, with the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana, Dodi AlFayed, and Henri Paul, along with the severe injuries sustained by Trevor Rees-Jones, the judges led the inquest in such a way that IF anybody in the RF was involved, the court was purposely led away or denied from entering any evidence against them, essentially b*stardizing any hope for the truth to come out (again, supposing there was evidence against them)? The entire system is a scheme, set up something like trickle down economics where the monarchy is by law to ALWAYS benefit, above and beyond anyone or anything else. Stinks, IMO. And thanks once again in advance for your response.

          2. Well I would say that at this point it is tradition. The Crown is the legal embodiment of the government but that is all. The Queen and the Royal Family are supposed to be symbols of continuity, stability and patriotism. “Do your duty for Queen and country.” You notice that the Queen comes before the country. She would be like the flag in the United States, which comes before any person, is never dipped to any earthly being (this was a point of contention in the 1908 London Olympics, when the US flag bearer refused to dip the flag to the Queen’s great-grandfather King Edward VII) and has a place of reverence in most Americans’ minds. Yes, I did just compare the Queen to a piece of cloth. Once upon a time, in medieval and Renaissance Europe, the Sovereign was the state; in France, Louis XIV said essentially “I am the state”. The Sovereign technically owned everything and everyone. Over the centuries their power weakened to the benefit of Parliament, to the point where by Queen Victoria’s time, the monarchy was a symbol of stability, continuity and family values. The Sovereign reigns but does not rule. Though she could declare war on Greenland if she wanted to, create everyone in the United Kingdom an Earl and Countess and issue a million new stamps, she would probably not be reigning for much longer if she did so without the Prime Minister or another minister’s advice. The Royal Family is like the entertainment now. I don’t like to call her a rubber stamp, but she pretty much is. King Edward VIII tried to get more involved in affairs of state. It was one of the secondary reasons he abdicated. Of course the principal reason was that he wanted to marry a twice divorcee with two living husbands, something we hardly blink at today. In 1936 most Britons were SHOCKED and appalled.

  7. I must say this discussion is fascinating! Don’t get me wrong I love talking about the other issues concerning Kate and the RF but this discussion is intriguing! So here is my question how are you defining the term “Crown” as in the Crown Estate. Is it the Government or the Monarch?

    1. I just reviewed website. Based on what I read Seth is 100% correct. Unless the The Crown Estate is publishing inaccurate information.

      1. Thank you! It’s nice to know what I’ve read is correct. I wrote that post from memory, so I had to kind of wing it. πŸ™‚

      2. CrazyAMG: The Crown Estate website states very clearly that it isn’t the personal property of HM. Which is what i am saying. Seth says several times in their posts that it is or was the personal property of the royal family with implication that HM [or the family can take it back should they choose to and after the appropriate laws have been passed.

        The Crown Estate dates back to Norman times and as the Crown and government were one and the same [as i have stated in my posts], it appeared that the Estates were the property of royal family.

        the Crown Estates do what they always did. Pay for the government and treasury [which in some cases can be the same thing].

        If we remove the royals and have a different type of head of state eg a president, they’d be supported by the Crown Estates. That is my point.

        I don’t argue with the nitty gritty of how they work as Seth has explained them, merely their genus and what their relation to the royal family.

  8. when is the DM going to stop trashying european princess to uplift duchass, now leitizia is the latest victim, leti will never and does not look or dress like wasty, she classy elegant and beautiful, leti has a masters degree worked in journalism before meeting felipe, they are just jealous because she will make a better queen than wasty, (who i hope will never be queen) shes unsuitable from straight to finish!

    1. Ugh, I read that. So annoying. Why they keep saying Leti is just like Kate is beyond me. Leti was there first, if anything Kate is copying Leti’s style (and Leti does it better). And Kate is nothing like Leti in terms of education and work.

  9. Acquitaine sorry for the delay. I had to review all post made by you and Seth. I reviewed the The Crown Estates website again. I focused on the FAQ in particular questions 1) Who owns the Crown Estate? and 2) How did the Crown Estate come into being? Based on the answers to those to questions I still feel that Seth is 100% accurate. I also feel that both of you maybe in agreement with your comments but have two different points of reference as it relates to time ie What is now called the Crown Estate before and after CEA of 1961. So I think you are 100% correct as well. There is also the possibity that I am 100% wrong which means……:)

    1. I took a look at the Crown Estate website, too, and what struck me is that whale carcasses washing up on the foreshore must be common enough occurrence to address it in the FAQs. I had no idea.

    2. CrazyAMG: From the CRown Estates website/our history page:

      Although the ownership of some property can be traced back to Edward the Confessor, the estate as a whole essentially dates from 1066.

      From the FAQ:

      The Crown Lands would be managed on *behalf of the Government* and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury

      The 1961 Crown Estates act simply replaced the previous Crown Lands Act as well as amending and updating the ways in which the Crown Estate could be governed including a name change from Crown Lands to Crown Estate.

      The Crown Estates website concerns itself only with provisions made to incorporate it and ignores it’s previous incarnations particularly those before George III made his deal with the parliament of the day to manage the estate. It makes no mention of the time between the Norman times and when George III handed over to the government.

      However, the missing details are constantly referenced in most, if not all, history books that talk at length about British government during that period right up to the crucial moment George III handed over.

      I leave you with what the BRF’s official website has to say on the matter:

      The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest. The Crown Estate is *not the personal property of the Monarch*. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.

      ps: the last part hasn’t been updated yet because we know the 15% profits are now earmarked as the Sovereign grant.

      The Crown Estates’ website talks about the current, nee after the 1961 act, use of the profits and how the estate is run in general.

      I don’t disagree with Seth in those terms. What i do disagree with, is the genus of the estate and who owns it.

      To me, whether it is called the Crown Estate or Crown lands or whatever incarnation it was called prior to George III handing it over, it is all the same. different names for the same thing. Both The Crown Estate and the BRF website agree with me on this point since they both point out that it goes back to Norman times per my original point to Seth.

      And if you go back to Norman times, it’s history is easily traced through it’s various incarnations to it’s current one.

      The one thing that hasn’t changed is it’s purpose, even with the introduction of the civil list/sovereign grant.

  10. well, when is this comparisons of kate and european princess going to stop, comparing leti and kate, really? They tried but failed miserably, leti is an accomplished woman, before marriage, is more attractive than waity (despite being 10 years older) and works hard, she aint a doormat nor a trophy wive those are the best straits of this middleton woman!

  11. If I may interject- regarding the crown estates question. One thing I’ve learned growing up in the US, but going to graduate school in Europe, sometimes historical details become skewed for multiple reasons – usually due to difficulties in translation (and I’m not just talking language, but in understanding how systems work between people/places/things), but also due to historical misunderstanding, cultural influences, nationalism, and even propaganda.
    Another example of this would be the famous breaking of the Enigma Code. (I am only bringing this up as an example- not to bring up any hard feelings). The British often claim they were the ones to break it, when in fact, 3 Polish cryptologists broke the code in 1932 – even before Hitler came to power. For whatever reason, the Polish aspect was kept hidden for a very long time. In Poland, if the question of who broke the code came up – the 3 Polish names would be the answered. In the States, usually it is stated the British broke the code. I’m not sure nowadays what the British claim. When I was there, they said the British broke it. So my whole spiel on this is that sometimes, it depends on the perspective of who and what you are trying to discuss.

    For anyone interested, I am posting a link for the Enigma Code issue I am speaking about.

    1. I’m pretty sure the British claim to have broken the code, seeing as the Palace announced that Kate would be visiting Bletchley Park on June 18 where they claim to have broken the code.

      1. Yes, I know the British claim to have broken the code – since WW2. Of course, the Germans added some upgrades between 1932 and 1945, for which the Poles and British worked together at Bletchley Park to crack completely (on account of the upgrades) during the war. However, for decades the Polish contribution was never mentioned, despite the original code having been cracked by the Poles in 1932. This also correlated with the fact the Poles were uninvited to participate in Victory Day Parades – “so as not to upset Stalin.” (BTW: a HUGE, HUGE slap in the face to Poland, where people tend to forget where WW2 started.) Poland never wanted Nazism & few people know the Communism was outlawed in Poland prior to WW2. It would be nice if at the upcoming commemorations Polish acknowledgements were finally made. We shall see.

  12. I agree med4kmd. I am not an expert in this area. I learned a lot from the exchange of information. Seth and Acquitaine both didn’t excellent supporting their position.

  13. What in the world is wrong with billy & katie? They left the stage like it was on fire! The wimp could have done a better job with the speech, honestly they could have done better job if they stayed home. How very rude! Who ever thought the clueless couple should be part this ceremony, have their head checked. Do they not realized the veterans made a tremenous sacrifice so can have freedom!

    1. Halia, I think you hit alot of the Lazy Duo’s main problem. No! They do not/cannot/ and don’t want to understand ANYONE else’s issues, problems, sacrifices – no matter how large or small. I don’t think they understand just how important this 70th D-day anniversary is probably one of the very last chances to speak with a surviving serviceman who was there. Most outings to them are simply photo ops and an opportunity to get gifts/flowers/presents for themseves (PG and Lupo included). They know very well how to take, but don’t know much how to give- even of themselves.

  14. Thanks Med4kmd i am glad i am alone in my opinion! When this hopeless duo went to the distillery i could not help notice how they both chugged down the whiskey very quickly! No manners & no finnese not even sipping slowly at all! Waity said she’s very glad not to be pregnant, so she can drink alcohol. I cannot believe this stupid & worthless person. Kate is a disgrace to decent and responsible women everywhere!

Comments are closed.

Back To Top