The Royal Family

[RogerThornhill]

A personal memory of how the King's death affected me. I asked my mother why the King had died and she told me that he had died in his sleep, I immediately became convinced that the same fate awaited me and for a month or so I tried to keep myself awake at night. Eventually I told my mother what was worrying me and she reassured me that I would be OK.

[ShirlGirl]

You poor little boy! I'm not sure if anyone actually knew at the time that he had lung cancer.....? I don't recall being told it at the time, but when I eventually did know and that he had a been a heavy smoker, I then became worried about my Dad having the same fate...... which he did, also at a young age.

[Mark O]

While I do not believe or approve of the concept of the British Monarchy.....I think the Queen has done a great job in that role of a Monarch, she is a very sweet dignified lady with an unblemished record, as a current British Royal she is possibly unique in that way so I can respect her for that even though I do not subscribe to what she stands for!!.... but when she passes can we please just abolish the monarchy? I mean its run its course surely, if she goes another ten years or so thats fine but lets spend that time working out how to phase it out, is anyone looking forward to having King Charlie the buffoon? Even staunch Royalists ? C'mon..please! :

I fully respect your views on abolition Chris but I think if we went down the abolition route the rest of the world would wonder why, we're still seen as 'Mother' country to many nations, other countries would feel obliged to get rid of their monarchies also, as for having a President for great Britain he or she would only turn out to be a puppet one, the EU would call the shots, and would only be a matter of time before the EU President to literally be just that, one President to be head of a 'United states of Europe'.........no thank you, a one size fits all doesn't work, it never did, when Winston Churchill spoke of a United states of Europe he was actually referring to mainland Europe, Britain wasn't considered part of Europe back then, the EU is more flippin' trouble than it's worth.

I agree that Prince Charles is a bit of a buffoon, but he's keen on environmental issues, etc; plus he'll join in the spirit of things when visiting communities, like trying on the Rasta-hats lol.

Leave things as they are, the alternative is unthinkable, his reign wont be that long anyhow, the Queen may even outlive him, she's only 22 years older than her son, further along the line will be the future King William, he's no buffoon, it's never shouted about but he does his bit for the homeless, etc; a fine young man.

A link to an article about the Queen's succession...........

To Her Majesty, all my thoughts and prayers are with you, Mummie: The message the Queen Mother sent her daughter as she flew home to become Queen | Mail Online

[Tonch]

While I do not believe or approve of the concept of the British Monarchy.....I think the Queen has done a great job in that role of a Monarch, she is a very sweet dignified lady with an unblemished record, as a current British Royal she is possibly unique in that way so I can respect her for that even though I do not subscribe to what she stands for!!.... but when she passes can we please just abolish the monarchy? I mean its run its course surely, if she goes another ten years or so thats fine but lets spend that time working out how to phase it out, is anyone looking forward to having King Charlie the buffoon? Even staunch Royalists ? C'mon..please! :

Well said, absolutely spot on.

What I detest more than anything else on this topic is those pro-Monarchists who want to have their cake and eat it by leapfrogging certain heirs and cherry picking who they feel best equipped to pick up the baton. If you're FOR the monarchy so be it - rely on an accident of birth and take what history gives you as the next monarch. I'm thinking specifically of those who'd bypass Charles and cut straight to William (by the way, when Charles was William's age he was every bit as popular and arguably more so than William is now). Once you start meddling with that then you are moving the goalposts, and I reserve the right to do the same.... what if some of us prefer Harry? Or Zara? Or a different family altogether? How to decide these matters? A democratic vote, yes? in other words - a president. And if he/she is rubbish you have the option to vote them out and replace them.

Which just HAS to be better than relying on being blessed or lumbered with someone - perhaps for decades - as a result of some genetic lottery. Maybe all well and good in primeval times when leadership meant who could bellow loudest, galvanise a rabble and swing a broadsword....

But it's the 21st Century for heaven's sake!!!!!

[RogerThornhill]

You poor little boy! I'm not sure if anyone actually knew at the time that he had lung cancer.....? I don't recall being told it at the time, but when I eventually did know and that he had a been a heavy smoker, I then became worried about my Dad having the same fate...... which he did, also at a young age.

Those tobacco companies certainly have a lot to answer for. My mother told me that the King had been very ill and that he would have died anyway but I don't think that she would have mentioned cancer, in those days it wasn't spoken about as it is today.

[Edward G]

Interesting debate about tradition (monarchy and accession) versus modernity (democracy).
Reading through the political threads on here it's interesting to note that the supposed benefit that we all cherish of being able, under a democracy, to" have the option to vote them out and replace them" does not seem to lead to the kind of lasting satisfaction that it should - hence all the bitter sniping among some members about the merits and past performances of Labour v Tory v Lib Dems etc. My guess is that despite the obvious hazards of the "genetic lottery", as Tonch so elegantly describes it, more than enough people are ultimately happy enough keeping the heritage value of the Royal Family and the sense of permanencethat it brings, compared to the almost disposable shelf life of many political leaders, to keep it in place. The massive crowds at last years Royal Wedding and the likely huge level of public intererst in the Queen's Jubilee make arguments about the usefulness of the monarchy largey redundant. The Queen has seen off 16 prime ministers - not bad for an outdated institution.

[Steve Crook]

A personal memory of how the King's death affected me. I asked my mother why the King had died and she told me that he had died in his sleep, I immediately became convinced that the same fate awaited me and for a month or so I tried to keep myself awake at night. Eventually I told my mother what was worrying me and she reassured me that I would be OK.

At least he did better than hid dad (George V) who was killed by his doctor so that the death could be announced in The Times as was considered proper (before Murdoch took it over) and not in the tawdry evening papers

His doctor dosed him with a speedball (an injection of cocaine & morphine)

Steve

[Tonch]

At least he did better than hid dad (George V) who was killed by his doctor so that the death could be announced in The Times as was considered proper (before Murdoch took it over) and not in the tawdry evening papers

His doctor dosed him with a speedball (an injection of cocaine & morphine)

Steve

Really? My God that's come as a real eye opening shock to me!!

Not the actions of the doctor but the fact you haven't pinned the blame on The Daily Mail.

[ShirlGirl]

At least he did better than hid dad (George V) who was killed by his doctor so that the death could be announced in The Times as was considered proper (before Murdoch took it over) and not in the tawdry evening papers

His doctor dosed him with a speedball (an injection of cocaine & morphine)

Steve

I was going to say, maybe he did it to end his suffering, because you'd think they could have withheld announcing his death so that The Times got it instead of the evening papers, but then I found this in Wikipedia (if it's correct):

By 20 January, he was close to death. His physicians, led by Lord Dawson of Penn, issued a bulletin with words that became famous: "The King's life is moving peacefully towards its close." Dawson's private diary, unearthed after his death and made public in 1986, reveals that the King's last words, a mumbled "God damn you!", were addressed to his nurse when she gave him a sedative on the night of 20 January. Dawson wrote that he had ended the King's life by giving him a lethal injection of cocaine and morphine. Dawson noted he acted to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent strain on the family and so that the King's death at 11:55 pm could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals"

[Steve Crook]

I was going to say, maybe he did it to end his suffering, because you'd think they could have withheld announcing his death so that The Times got it instead of the evening papers, but then I found this in Wikipedia (if it's correct):

Check the citations. Is the British Medical Journal a respectable enough source?

Steve

[ShirlGirl]

Check the citations. Is the British Medical Journal a respectable enough source?

Steve

That'll do!

[Dame Starry]

Those tobacco companies certainly have a lot to answer for.

Why?

[Dame Starry]

Really? My God that's come as a real eye opening shock to me!!

Not the actions of the doctor but the fact you haven't pinned the blame on The Daily Mail.

Give him time.....he'll think of something now you've challenged him!

[Dame Starry]

At least he did better than hid dad (George V) who was killed by his doctor so that the death could be announced in The Times as was considered proper (before Murdoch took it over) and not in the tawdry evening papers

His doctor dosed him with a speedball (an injection of cocaine & morphine)

Steve

Wasn't it rumoured that the Queen Mum suffered a similar fate? Something to do with the Queen's Golden Jubilee IIRC.

[Mark O]

Wasn't it rumoured that the Queen Mum suffered a similar fate? Something to do with the Queen's Golden Jubilee IIRC.

I don't think so, the Queen Mother's death was an evening announcement, Easter Saturday 2002, the Queen and her cousin Margaret Rhodes spent most of the day at her bedside, I was watching an episode of Steptoe and son at the time and the screen went blank, some of the media said that the Queen mother and Princess Margaret (as with Queen Mary six weeks before the Coronation) 'willed' themselves away at the time they did so that their deaths wouldn't 'interrupt' the forthcoming celebrations, but to me that's a load of old nonsense, when your times up your times up, and there's bugger all you can do about it.

[ShirlGirl]

Why?

I think that was just a "passing remark", DS. I'm sure you'll find something about it in a dedicated smoking thread somewhere. No point in going over old ground again and again!

[faginsgirl]

Well said, absolutely spot on.

What I detest more than anything else on this topic is those pro-Monarchists who want to have their cake and eat it by leapfrogging certain heirs and cherry picking who they feel best equipped to pick up the baton. If you're FOR the monarchy so be it - rely on an accident of birth and take what history gives you as the next monarch. I'm thinking specifically of those who'd bypass Charles and cut straight to William (by the way, when Charles was William's age he was every bit as popular and arguably more so than William is now). Once you start meddling with that then you are moving the goalposts, and I reserve the right to do the same.... what if some of us prefer Harry? Or Zara? Or a different family altogether? How to decide these matters? A democratic vote, yes? in other words - a president. And if he/she is rubbish you have the option to vote them out and replace them.

Which just HAS to be better than relying on being blessed or lumbered with someone - perhaps for decades - as a result of some genetic lottery. Maybe all well and good in primeval times when leadership meant who could bellow loudest, galvanise a rabble and swing a broadsword....

But it's the 21st Century for heaven's sake!!!!!

Not sure why we would want to skip Charles and have William and his anorexic/bored `look at me although I`m pretending not to be bothered` wife anyway . If anyone has to be on the throne lets have Charles, at least he spoke out about what he thought about the riots, which is more than the Queen did. If she can`t be bothered anymore , she should retire.

I just wonder when Williams sprog will appear. Another mouth to feed!

[faginsgirl]

Our Tax money well spent I`d say

[julian_craster]

[julian_craster]

Well, 'Uncle Gary' should know all about this ......didn't he offer to sell a stash of cocaine to the News of the World undercover reporter ?

Duchess of Cambridge turns to her uncle for advice on addiction

Daily Telegraph
By Tim Walker
19 Feb 2012
Duchess of Cambridge turns to her uncle for advice on addiction - Telegraph




Gary Goldsmith and The Duchess of Cambridge





'Colourful' Uncle Gary (NOW photo)


The Duchess of Cambridge's informed approach to her charity, Action on Addiction, owes much to Gary Goldsmith, her 'colourful' (?) uncle.

The Duchess of Cambridge had every reason to smile as she made her Valentine’s Day visit to Liverpool to talk to recovering alcoholics at the Brink, a “dry” bar in the city centre that is linked to her charity, Action on Addicton.

Mandrake hears that Gary Goldsmith, her multi-millionaire uncle who was three years ago filmed by an undercover reporter apparently taking cocaine and bragging about his royal connections, has “cleaned up his act.” What is more, he has promised to offer her help and advice for her work for the charity.

“Gary was never mentioned in any of the official statements about Kate’s decision to be a patron of Action on Addiction, but she saw the toll that addiction took on him, and it obviously played a role in her decision to get involved,” a friend of Goldsmith tells me. “She has been in touch with him a lot about the charity and she hopes that he will be accompanying her to some events for it before too long.”

Goldsmith, 46, the younger brother of Kate Middleton’s mother, Carole, would not comment when I raised the issue with him, and a spokesman for the Duchess told me he did not wish to discuss her “private relations with her family.” Nick Barton, the chief executive of Action on Addiction, says, however, that Prince William’s wife, when she had invited him to St James’s Palace in November to discuss addiction, seemed to have from the outset an intimate knowledge of the issues involved.

“She didn’t mention her uncle, but this was clearly a cause close to her heart,” he adds. “We hadn’t approached her to be a patron of the charity, and, while we are obviously delighted to have her as ours, it was she who picked us, rather than the other way around.”

Goldsmith, who sold his recruitment business Computer Futures for £275million in 2005, played host to Prince William and Kate Middleton at his villa in Ibiza for a week the following year. He was a guest at their wedding, arriving at Westminster Abbey in a £280,000 bright-blue Rolls Royce Phantom convertible.

In a News of the World “sting,” he was recorded saying he had access to Buckingham Palace. “I’ve got my own rooms, the Goldsmith Wing,” he said. “I’m going to be the Duke of Slough”.