Charles Succeeds in HArming Edward's Career
Loreen
highly successful 'Crown and Country' series which was about Royals who lived
dozens to hundreds to thousands of years ago.< Norina
Uh, I wouldn't call any of Edward's projects "fabulously popular and highly
successful."
I think another thread was discussing just how UNsuccessful his projects are
which is the real problem for him and Sophie.
Martha Tassi
> Uh, I wouldn't call any of Edward's projects "fabulously popular and
highly
> successful."
> I think another thread was discussing just how UNsuccessful his projects
are
> which is the real problem for him and Sophie.
>Loreen
===================
I don't understand how "Crown & Country" is not successful. It's
beautifully done and very interesting. This is the type of material that
should be shown in World History classes to keep interest high and make
those dead people come alive for the students.
-Martha
===================
Loreen
I was referring to the *commercial* success of his work.
I definitely agree that the program is interesting, especially for NON royalty
buffs.
Unfortunately, like any number of other very interesting productions, it
doesn't bring him lots of money or critical acclaim.
Loreen
>Edward's Career)
Isn't it *Ardent* Productions?
Cybernaut
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:Nnj47.21492$5Z5.7...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
Cybernaut
its a turd surely?
"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010715123301...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Loreen
Uh, no then I think it's called a "sleeper" or an "undervalued" work of art.
Norina
X-No-archive:yes
> >Prince Edward has now been ordered to cease making his fabulously popular and
> highly successful 'Crown and Country' series which was about Royals who lived
> dozens to hundreds to thousands of years ago.< Norina
>
> Uh, I wouldn't call any of Edward's projects "fabulously popular and highly
> successful."
Then you are obviously unaware of them.
> I think another thread was discussing just how UNsuccessful his projects are
> which is the real problem for him and Sophie.
I must differ because the Real Problem is Sophie's name-dropping to
bogus sheikhs and having it get out that her 'partner' had more on
offer than PR. Given the cocaine resources that partner spoke of,
their Profits should have been MUCH higher than reported.
Unsuccessful projects have no bearing whatsoever on Wales' insistance
that neither of his Brothers be allowed to enjoy their
talents...whether for profit or no. One could see why the Counte$$'s
"business" had to be curtailed..but as to Edward's film productions,
they are about the past and given the nod by HM, Queen Elizabeth
II...which is WHY , Her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh came to his
other offspring's defence. You see, Edward and Andrew can
Independently SHOW something positive for their Time on Earth....even
Wales' Trust was a handmedown like his Title.
Karen Horn
:
:
:> Uh, I wouldn't call any of Edward's projects "fabulously popular and
:
I agree, they are nicely done. I gather from the Telegraph article
the supposed "reason" was that Edward would supposedly have an
unfair advantage for the inevitable documentaries/shows/etc. which
will be done for the queen's 50th anniversary as queen. My question
is is this a "permanent ban" from his doing anything on a royal topic,
or just a temporary moratorium.
And yes, Charles should mind his own damn business and butt out re:
Andrew and Edward's careers. Neither has picked anything scandalous
as a life work [it's not as if either was out there pimping or taking
up the legal profession] and HE is the one who wants to push everyone
else off the civil list, never mind HIS rump will be amply cushioned
with monies from the duchy of Lancaster. Jeez, he wants them to
earn their own keep, and then he carps. the older he gets, the dingier
Charles gets. He talked to a few too many plants, evidently.
Karen
Loreen
>You see, Edward and Andrew can
>Independently SHOW something positive for their Time on Earth....even
>Wales' Trust was a handmedown like his Title.
Can I infer that you have it in for Charles?
Martha Tassi
"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Subject: Re: Argent Productions (was: Re: Charles Succeeds in HArming
> >Edward's Career)
>
> Isn't it *Ardent* Productions?
=====
Yes, you're right.
-Martha
=====
Martha Tassi
"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
========================
It doesn't bring him ANY success. The productions are beautiful and
interesting. Why aren't they profitable?
-Martha
Martha Tassi
> "Cybernaut" wrote in message
>If it doesn't acheive critical acclaim, money or both, then by definition
> its a turd surely?
>
==========
It's not, you are. Jim, don't you have anything better to do with your
time than antagonize people?
-Martha
==========
Susan Cohen
Susan T wrote:
> In article <20010715123509...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> owned...@aol.comnospam says...
> >Subject: Re: Argent Productions (was: Re: Charles Succeeds in HArming
> >Edward's Career)
>
> Isn't it *Ardent* Productions?
> ==============
> Yes, it is. It is also considered rude to point out typos.
Well, even tho' I didn't notice, I would have assumed someone
got the name wrong, because both are actual words.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
Sacha wrote:
> I absolutely *love* this - it's hilarious - one of the best nonsenses
> I've ever read on agr!! The 21st Prince of Walesand future King of
> England has a handmedown title and fortune - gorgeous! ;-)))
Well, I can't tell who wrote the above post, but I have to ask when
she thinks the Prince's Trust was *established* & by *whom*....?
SusanC
>
> Presumably the woman doesn't think the British aristocracy, such as
> Spencer, don't also have 'handmedown' titles and fortunes? It's
> called 'inheritance'. Oh, dear...........
> --
> Sacha
> S. Devon
> www.garden.demon.co.uk
>
> (remove spam-trap)
Gill Webster
Sacha <sa...@nospamgarden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mgt3lt84couuooa2c...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:27:02 GMT, Susan T
> <cronep...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <Nnj47.21492$5Z5.7...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>,
> >mta...@Home.com says...
> >stuff we don't normally have access to. Brits may have other resources
> >and feel other producers could do it better.
>
>
> Someone else from Britain will correct me on this but I'm not really
> sure it's been shown here.
Yes it has - I've seen several on Sky. They were interesting and rather
well done, I thought.
Gill
Gill Webster
news:9ishk8$8ie$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> If it doesn't achieve critical acclaim, money or both, then by definition
> its a turd surely?
Not really - I've seen some Oscar winning films that left me bored to
tears. The same with huge box office money spinners that did not receive
awards. Critics are not God (perhaps someone should tell them..) and often
audiences disagree with cynical hacks who just try to make a name for
themselves by their disparaging comments. Sometimes something can be
really enjoyable, interesting and informative, but lots of people miss
out on seeing it, as the Critics pan it before it gets screened, and
instead of making their own judgements, people go for the programme with
more "stars" alongside the listing....
Gill
Mjdia
>> >>Independently SHOW something positive for their Time on Earth....even
>> >>Wales' Trust was a handmedown like his Title.
>> >
I don't understand why Charles is coming out against careers for senior royals,
and I hope he won't try to prevent his own sons from training for some kind of
career (besides the monarchy). Over the years I've read articles speculating
that one of Charles' problems is that he didn't have anything to do besides be
king in waiting. (He still is). If he had trained for a career he would have
had more outlets for his energy and intellect.
Susan Cohen
Mjdia wrote:
> I don't understand why Charles is coming out against careers for senior royals,
> and I hope he won't try to prevent his own sons from training for some kind of
> career (besides the monarchy). Over the years I've read articles speculating
> that one of Charles' problems is that he didn't have anything to do besides be
> king in waiting. (He still is). If he had trained for a career he would have
> had more outlets for his energy and intellect.
He's made a career out of being Prince of Wales.
The problems he's had in that area have been pretty much
of the press' making - making fun of him when he was ahead
of his time, etc.
His objections come in when senior royals take advantage -
or even *appear* to take advantage of their status to help
their businesses.
SusanC
yaffaDina1
But it is a very good job for a member of the royal family since one has the sense
that he knows more than an outsider and therefore we're getting 'more.'
yD
Loreen
>she thinks the Prince's Trust was *established* & by *whom*....?
>
>SusanC
The only part of the repost that I wrote was this
>Can I infer that you have it in for Charles?<
The rest was written by a poster calling him/herself "Norina"
Loreen
>> doesn't bring him lots of money or critical acclaim.
>
>But it is a very good job for a member of the royal family since one has the
>sense
>that he knows more than an outsider and therefore we're getting 'more.'
>yD
>
Writing a book would keep him away from the taint of Hollywood, though.
Tara O.
news:Nnj47.21492$5Z5.7...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
>
> beautifully done and very interesting. This is the type of material that
> should be shown in World History classes to keep interest high and make
> those dead people come alive for the students.
>
> -Martha
> ===================
Well I happen to like the C&C very much.
--
Tara O. (In some cultures what I do would be considered normal.)
Summer & Amie: http://www.geocities.com/tara29401/index.html
alt.tv.gilmore-girls FAQ:
http://www.geocities.com/tara29401/alt.tv.gilmore-girls_faq.htm
yaffaDina1
>
> What career would you suggest he train for? Whatever he does and
> wherever he works, the company would be considered to have an unfair
> advantage and that is *precisely* what is concerning so many people in
> England now and presumably, the prince himself. At one time when he
> was much younger it was suggested that he become the Governor of one
> or other of the Commonwealth countries but that was abandoned because
> it would have shown favouritism to the one chosen - and yes, the
> isssue was that sensitive. His only option was military service
> (which he chose) because he was working then for his mother and
> because it's a tradition in the royal family to serve your country in
> the armed forces.
> It is NOT that he wants his younger brothers not to work, it is at
> *what* they work that is at issue and whether they appear to be taking
> an unfair advantage over others working in the same field. That is
> why, IMO, so many of our press are after Edward over Ardent
> Productions - he has an advantage vis a vis royalty and royal contacts
> that nobody else has. And I'm afraid that whatever the rest of the
> world may think of it, a lot of concern is being expressed in England
> about Edward and Sophie's gravy train. In the end, it could be King
> Charles III and his heirs who carry the can for that - it most
> certainly will NOT be the Duke of Edinburgh!
> --
> Sacha
> ================
> Sounds like catch-22.
>
> They can't work for somebody else's company because then that company
> has an advantage over others in the field, and they can't start their
> own company because they would be trading on who they are and getting an
> advantage over everybody else.
>
> They can't sit and do nothing because then they are lazy and have no
> right to live in the Palaces, their Civil List allotment is returned to
> the Treasury by the Queen yet certain segments of the media complain
> that the Queen gives them money to cover their expenses, etc.
>
> Maybe they should go abroad to work. (But not to any country that is a
> member of the Commonwealth, wouldn't do to be seen as playing
> favorites).
>
> Anybody from other countries out there? How do you deal with your
> "extra" Royals?
>
> --
> Crone Princess
>
> "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
There are plenty of administrative jobs in various charities -- not just the
showing up and opening that they do now, but real, actual sit at a desk all
day work! There are plenty of jobs within the workings of the royal family,
the various houses, etc. e.g. press office, public relations, stewardships
of the various estates. I think that there are, in fact, many jobs they
could do, the point is that they would have to actually DO it. Who does the
bulk of the admin. work for the Prince's Trust, for instance? Is there any
reason why Charles could not manage the Duchy of Cornwall, market his
products etc?
To keep saying there is nothing they can do which does not "take advantage"
of the position, a la Sophie is ridiculous. Sophie and her company could
work exclusively for the royal family and all they are involved in. Why
not!
William is going to study art history -- perfect job then would be the
training and working from the bottom up under the curator.
I think the problem is nothing less than the horror of actually committing
to a real job. Having to be somewhere every single day at the same time and
not being able to leave until a certain time, every single day. Oh horrors!
Working for a living is one thing, working for "the firm" surely is another
and why not!
Hey! William could have used his gap year to work in the stables, to work
in the kitchens of any of the homes and palaces. Why not? Learn a little
of how the other 9/10ths live and get a decent grasp of what is involved in
the running of the monarchy.
Come on, folks. There is work for them. All of them!
yD
Karen Horn
:>>You see, Edward and Andrew can
But realistically, there are very narrow career fields either can work
in without taking a lot of flack. William in particular won't
be able to go into the "business" end of anything. Royal duties WILL
be his main focus. Even if his grandmother "lives forever" people seem
to forget that maybe at 75+ the pace is getting harder for her to maintain
too. As I see it, once William finishes university, and maybe does a stint
in a service branch [NOT marines or army --- Marines is too damn dangerous
and the army gets sent to too many places where him being in it could
kick up animosity (yeah, right, William's gonna do a tour in Belfast-
never happen) --- so it virtually would have to be the Navy. But say
10 years from now [queen, if living would be 85] for damn sure most of
his life is going to be taken up with "duties." Harry, being the ONLY
"SPARE" - will not have many options either. Business is "out" for him
as well, as I can also see many duties falling to him to take up the
slack. I don't see him as being the academic "don type" either [What
is Freddy Kent going to do? -- that perhaps] -- and the clergy would
be "out" as well surely. It would most likely be a military career
for him too.
Karen
Karen Horn
: could do, the point is that they would have to actually DO it. Who does the
: bulk of the admin. work for the Prince's Trust, for instance? Is there any
: reason why Charles could not manage the Duchy of Cornwall, market his
: products etc?
Uh, just maybe, because it would require training he DOESN'T have? You
know, like "Marketing" a "business degree" something along those minimal
lines.
: William is going to study art history -- perfect job then would be the
: training and working from the bottom up under the curator.
: I think the problem is nothing less than the horror of actually committing
: to a real job. Having to be somewhere every single day at the same time and
: not being able to leave until a certain time, every single day. Oh horrors!
And yet when Prince Edward did work for ALW he was criticised for sometimes
having to go to state functions etc.
:
: Working for a living is one thing, working for "the firm" surely is another
: and why not!
: Hey! William could have used his gap year to work in the stables, to work
: in the kitchens of any of the homes and palaces. Why not? Learn a little
: of how the other 9/10ths live and get a decent grasp of what is involved in
: the running of the monarchy.
Maybe because he cleaned toilets in Argentina for a while? Just a guess.
I can't see it as being a "career goal" for him. I think an Old Etonian
can be put to better use for his life work.
Karen
JFlexer
"Gill Webster" <gill.w...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3bz47.48276$B56.10...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Sacha <sa...@nospamgarden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:mgt3lt84couuooa2c...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:27:02 GMT, Susan T
> > <cronep...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <Nnj47.21492$5Z5.7...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>,
> > >mta...@Home.com says...
> > >
> > >
>
> > Someone else from Britain will correct me on this but I'm not really
> > sure it's been shown here.
> > --
> > Sacha
> > S. Devon
> > www.garden.demon.co.uk
> >
> > (remove spam-trap)
>
> Yes it has - I've seen several on Sky. They were interesting and rather
> well done, I thought.
>
> Gill
>
I have seen quite a few episodes as well. My only complaint is that I don't
feel there is enought time in a single episode to really develop the topic.
It plays on public television, which may be another reason for limited
success. Public TV just doesn't get a high percentage of viewer.
Now, if HBO picked up the series... Maybe Ardent would make some money...
Jeffrey
Karen Horn
:
: Not quite true about the Army thing, Karen. The last rumour was that
: he'd go into the Welsh Guards but I think we can be certain he
: wouldn't be sent to Northern Ireland.
Am I mistaken or don't they "rotate" there too? Wouldn't that be
hard on him?
: Freddy Kent is one of the most
: junior of the junior royals so he will be expected to work for his
: living *most* certainly,
Well, in his case, of course not, I wasn't implying that he would/should
take on duties, I just mentioned him in passing because I thought
for him an academic career was a possiblity, since he is reputed to
be fairly brainy.
: just as Lord Linley has done, who is not
: considered to be 'royal'.
Right. He was lucky that woodworking "found him." He's so far removed
he COULD go into business. But even notice here, it's not "big business"
like the City. For which, I think he might have taken some flack, should
he have been so inclined. Linley and his sister's age pretty much "protect"
them from being called into much or any service. The occasional state dinner
when Charles is king I should think would about do it. When Linley &
Sarah would be of the appropriate "Ribbon cutting age" in Charles's time
as monarch [most likely] Charles will have his sons and brothers and sister
to do all that stuff. William, will only have the one brother when his
time comes. [And possibly children, of course, but not of an age, most
likely, where THEY will be ready to cope full time with all the ribbon cutting
stuff.]
: It's unlikely Fred will do any royal duties
: just as Zara and Mark Phillips don't and may never do. And they are
: senior to him as the Queen's grand children.
In the case of Zara and Peter, it wouldn't surprise me if they did
the occasional ribbon cutting thing as the "older" relatively minor
royals as the Duke&Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra, and the
Kents "retire." They did those things _because_ so many places wanted
royal patronage and they were 1st cousins to the queen. Given all those
minor royals will eventual get too old to do things and eventually die,
the younger generation is going to pick up the slack in time. So unless
William has a raft of children [didn't I read in the Telegraph not
long ago that something like only 4% of British families have 3 or more
children?] I can quite see William's 1st cousins eventually doing some
charities too. Not for some time yet, but eventually!
William doesn't have 3 siblings as Charles does to rely on to do scut work
in future.
If Charles and Diana had had more kids, then yes, I'd say Zara & Peter
not doing anything would be most likely. I'm not so sure though.
The reason, partly, why the queen's cousins were pressed into service
was because she only had Margaret as her only sibling---and her then
two children were years and years away from being of "ribbon cutting"
use. William is in an analogous position to the present queen I think
regards getting some of his cousins to pick up the slack. He and Harry
will NOT be able to carry the whole load. --- Not if all the charities
who are now getting the aid of "butts in seats" from royal or near royal
patronage.
Karen
yaffaDina1
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:58:11 -0400, yaffaDina1
> <yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>ueen gives them money to cover their expenses, etc.
>
>
> >
> >There are plenty of administrative jobs in various charities -- not just the
> >showing up and opening that they do now, but real, actual sit at a desk all
> >day work!
>
> Yes, there are and that's a route that has been suggested for the
> Countess but then there will be accusations that the 'chosen' charity
> has an advantage over all the others.
Of course there will. So what! RSPCA or NSPCC, Red Cross are all 'good' causes.
>
> > There are plenty of jobs within the workings of the royal family,
> >the various houses, etc. e.g. press office, public relations, stewardships
> >of the various estates.
>
> Well, one of the problems with that, is that those are not prestigious
> 'son of the Queen' type jobs, are they?
Well, I think knowing the nuts and bolts of the running of the machinery and
taking care of one's own business surely can't be criticised.
> And would those who are
> currently the stewards and know where every nut and bolt goes, be
> happy to be supplanted by the Queen's son just because he *is* the
> Queen's son. I think that would cause a much bigger stink. And I
> don't think you can turn the Queen's children into a sort of glorified
> National Trust ticket collector!
The point is that no-one would be supplanted. Those currently employed as
stewards would do the teaching, there are various routes from the bottom up that
could be followed.
>
> > I think that there are, in fact, many jobs they
> >could do, the point is that they would have to actually DO it. Who does the
> >bulk of the admin. work for the Prince's Trust, for instance? Is there any
> >reason why Charles could not manage the Duchy of Cornwall, market his
> >products etc?
>
> It's a very large business, yD. And no, I don't think he could do it
> and fulfil his duties as PoW. It touches on so many different fields
> and while there may be one controlling office to which all have to
> account, I really don't think one single person could run rented
> farms, rents, food production, a plant nursery, just to mention some
> of the ones *I* know about!
Well, perhaps it is too late for Charles but is there any reason why William
should not learn what will eventually be his business. And I was not by any
means suggested that one person do everything, but surely it could only be to the
good if William and Harry, but perhaps especially William, learned what exactly
it is like to go to work every day whether he liked it or not.
>
> >To keep saying there is nothing they can do which does not "take advantage"
> >of the position, a la Sophie is ridiculous. Sophie and her company could
> >work exclusively for the royal family and all they are involved in. Why
> >not!
>
> Doing what?
There are lots of public relations problems she could work on :)
>
> >William is going to study art history -- perfect job then would be the
> >training and working from the bottom up under the curator.
> >I think the problem is nothing less than the horror of actually committing
> >to a real job. Having to be somewhere every single day at the same time and
> >not being able to leave until a certain time, every single day. Oh horrors!
>
> No, I think in William's case, he has to start performing royal duties
> at some point. Impossible with a 9-5 job.
Perhaps then it is time to consider the 'real' value of some of these royal
duties. At the moment the term covers a lot of what appears to be social, fun
stuff -- evenings out: opera, film openings, meeting the Spice Girls -- just
showing up may, as you say, put bums in the seats, and money in the plate, but I
don't think that this sort of life has done too much for Prince Charles, do you?
The kind of thing I'm thinking of means no accusations of sponging of the
taxpayers (rightly or wrongly), no ciriticisms of being wasters, no suspicion of
favoritism with regard to getting business but *does* (or would, rather) show
that here is a group of people who live in the same world as her/his subjects and
can therefore speak from knowledge rather than making a speech and moving on to
make another.
yD
Martha Tassi
> > I don't understand how "Crown & Country" is not successful. It's
> > beautifully done and very interesting. This is the type of material
that
> > should be shown in World History classes to keep interest high and make
> > those dead people come alive for the students.
> >
> > -Martha
> > ===================
>
> Well I happen to like the C&C very much.
>
>
> --
> Tara O.
=======
Yes, that's what I was saying.
-Martha
=======
Susan Cohen
Loreen wrote:
> >Well, I can't tell who wrote the above post, but I have to ask when
> >she thinks the Prince's Trust was *established* & by *whom*....?
> >
> >SusanC
>
> The only part of the repost that I wrote was this
>
> >Can I infer that you have it in for Charles?<
Oh, I know you wrote that - the attribution was there.
> The rest was written by a poster calling him/herself "Norina"
Ah.
SusanC
the Fleming
<3bz47.48276$B56.10...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
Ah. We don't have Sky. We saw a few on BBC, although that's quite a while
ago now. And I agree with Gill's opinion on them.
the Fleming
Tara O.
> >
> > Well I happen to like the C&C very much.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tara O.
>
> =======
> Yes, that's what I was saying.
>
> -Martha
> =======
Just thought I'd give you a case in point ;-)
yaffaDina1
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:38:20 -0400, yaffaDina1
> <yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Sacha wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:58:11 -0400, yaffaDina1
> >> <yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> >> >There are plenty of administrative jobs in various charities -- not just the
> >> >showing up and opening that they do now, but real, actual sit at a desk all
> >> >day work!
> >>
> >> Yes, there are and that's a route that has been suggested for the
> >> Countess but then there will be accusations that the 'chosen' charity
> >> has an advantage over all the others.
> >
> >Of course there will. So what! RSPCA or NSPCC, Red Cross are all 'good' causes.
>
> I'm not sure if I've expressed myself clearly. If she chooses to work
> for the RSPCA (for example) the NSPCC might feel severely miffed that
> they don't have the extra pulling power the RSPCA does! So - serious
> offence will be given to the charities themselves, those who support
> them, those who were *thinking* of supporting them but now switch
> their allegiance to (or from) the 'Sophie charity'.
Then surely this could be a case where the interests of the person concerned (not
necessarily Sophie) could be taken into account. And yes, some will undoubtedly give
to one cause more than any other, but all of us do that anyway. And I am not talking
about simple sponsorship or openings or whatever but administrative work.
> >> > There are plenty of jobs within the workings of the royal family,
> >> >the various houses, etc. e.g. press office, public relations, stewardships
> >> >of the various estates.
> >>
> >> Well, one of the problems with that, is that those are not prestigious
> >> 'son of the Queen' type jobs, are they?
> >
> >Well, I think knowing the nuts and bolts of the running of the machinery and
> >taking care of one's own business surely can't be criticised.
> >
> >
> >> And would those who are
> >> currently the stewards and know where every nut and bolt goes, be
> >> happy to be supplanted by the Queen's son just because he *is* the
> >> Queen's son. I think that would cause a much bigger stink. And I
> >> don't think you can turn the Queen's children into a sort of glorified
> >> National Trust ticket collector!
> >
> >The point is that no-one would be supplanted. Those currently employed as
> >stewards would do the teaching, there are various routes from the bottom up that
> >could be followed.
>
> Of course they'd be supplanted! They were expecting to get the top
> jobs themselves if there was going to be any upward mobility! Good
> GRIEF!
I'm talking about the various departments and areas involved in the running of ANY
business. Just like the boss's son starting at the bottom. And if we're talking
about William, well, obviously, he would not be taking control of anything.
> >> > I think that there are, in fact, many jobs they
> >> >could do, the point is that they would have to actually DO it. Who does the
> >> >bulk of the admin. work for the Prince's Trust, for instance? Is there any
> >> >reason why Charles could not manage the Duchy of Cornwall, market his
> >> >products etc?
> >>
> >> It's a very large business, yD. And no, I don't think he could do it
> >> and fulfil his duties as PoW. It touches on so many different fields
> >> and while there may be one controlling office to which all have to
> >> account, I really don't think one single person could run rented
> >> farms, rents, food production, a plant nursery, just to mention some
> >> of the ones *I* know about!
> >
> >Well, perhaps it is too late for Charles but is there any reason why William
> >should not learn what will eventually be his business. And I was not by any
> >means suggested that one person do everything, but surely it could only be to the
> >good if William and Harry, but perhaps especially William, learned what exactly
> >it is like to go to work every day whether he liked it or not.
>
> The Duchy of Cornwall is not Charles or William's personal business.
> It's the funding of the all Princes of Wales.
Yes, I know, I was assuming William would be PoW one day.
> While any of them might
> take a serious interest in the business, its expansion, its products
> etc in his time, I think it's probably rather important that no single
> one of them has it under his personal control because it IS the
> inheritance of the next PoW!!
>
> >> >To keep saying there is nothing they can do which does not "take advantage"
> >> >of the position, a la Sophie is ridiculous. Sophie and her company could
> >> >work exclusively for the royal family and all they are involved in. Why
> >> >not!
> >>
> >> Doing what?
> >
> >There are lots of public relations problems she could work on :)
> >
> >>
> >> >William is going to study art history -- perfect job then would be the
> >> >training and working from the bottom up under the curator.
> >> >I think the problem is nothing less than the horror of actually committing
> >> >to a real job. Having to be somewhere every single day at the same time and
> >> >not being able to leave until a certain time, every single day. Oh horrors!
> >>
> >> No, I think in William's case, he has to start performing royal duties
> >> at some point. Impossible with a 9-5 job.
> >
> >Perhaps then it is time to consider the 'real' value of some of these royal
> >duties. At the moment the term covers a lot of what appears to be social, fun
> >stuff -- evenings out: opera, film openings, meeting the Spice Girls -- just
> >showing up may, as you say, put bums in the seats, and money in the plate, but I
> >don't think that this sort of life has done too much for Prince Charles, do you?
>
> Look at the Prince's Trust *alone* (never mind the other things) and
> tell me that's all this PoW is good for.
As I understand it, and I accept that I may be misinformed, Charles has something of a
history of jumping around from interest to interest, and I don't think it has been to
his benefit character-wise. Obviously it has not hurt his career prospects :)
>
> >The kind of thing I'm thinking of means no accusations of sponging of the
> >taxpayers (rightly or wrongly), no ciriticisms of being wasters, no suspicion of
> >favoritism with regard to getting business but *does* (or would, rather) show
> >that here is a group of people who live in the same world as her/his subjects and
> >can therefore speak from knowledge rather than making a speech and moving on to
> >make another.
> >yD
> >
>
> And that is *precisely* what is being looked at and worked on at the
> moment. But the fact remains that whatever they do someone is going
> to cry 'foul'.
But that is no reason not to do everything one can to make sure that the next
generation, if you will, does not have a better grounding in what's what.
yD
Gill Webster
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:17:37 +0100, "Gill Webster"
> <gill.w...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sacha <sa...@nospamgarden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:mgt3lt84couuooa2c...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Someone else from Britain will correct me on this but I'm not really
> >> sure it's been shown here.
> >> --
> >> Sacha
> >> S. Devon
> >> www.garden.demon.co.uk
> >>
> >> (remove spam-trap)
> >
> >Yes it has - I've seen several on Sky. They were interesting and rather
> >well done, I thought.
> >
> >Gill
> >
> be poor telly watchers. An American friend has asked me if I saw the
> latest Billy Connolly series and I'm ashamed to admit we missed it!
> ;-(
It was a couple of months ago last time I saw it advertised. I think it is
usually on the History Channel.
Gill
Wendy
<cronep...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Other countries don't seem to have this problem. I'd like to here from
>people from the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc and know how
>they handle this problem.
Queen Beatrix has three sons, but only one gets an income from the
state. It would be impossible for crown-prince Willem-Alexander to
work at a 'normal' job, exactly because of the favoritism you mention.
The two younger sons need to provide their own income, both of them
work outside of the Netherlands (both in London). I think this is very
deliberately so, because as the son of the queen it would be
impossible to function 'normally 'in holland I think. Their background
will not be such an issue in GB.
The sons of princess Margriet have a lot more distance to the throne
and all work in holland as far as i know. One is a manger for Philips,
one has his own IT company and one is working for a big bank. The
youngest is still at university.
When it come to Edward working for a charity, if he can work for free
maybe but if he needs a salary it will cause problems. All that
charity money going to a prince, it will not look good.
There is also another factor for royals with jobs. Normal jobs are
hard to combine with royal duties, taking days off for foreign visits
or another opening off some other royal function will cause problems
with any boss. Those bosses want to see you at your desk, working full
hours (at least mine does).
Because of the difficulty of combining a royal life and a working
life, the two younger sons of Beatrix only attend two state occasions:
the opening of parliament and the Queen's official birthday
Loreen
Line Is It Anyway?"
Absolutely hilarious!
felix
"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
WLIIT is one of the funniest television shows I've ever seen - the original
British one, that is. The US version isn't quite as good. Comedy Central
used to show it every evening at 8, I was glued to the telly, and made
video-d quite a few episodes. I sent one to a friend who was really down in
the dumps - she told me that she hadn't laughed so hard in months.
Judy
Mjdia
It would be pretty sad if those two boys had talents and abilities they weren't
allowed to develop and use because they can't be allowed to work. If they have
no talent, I suppose it won't matter. But what if one or both has a talent for
and interest in computers, the law, museum work, science, plumbing or farming
or some other potential career?
brit
> > > Speaking of British productions, I just caught the end of a show
called
> > "Who's
> > > Line Is It Anyway?"
> > >
> > > Absolutely hilarious!
> >
> ________
>
> We've only just gotten "Father Ted"!
>
> On a bright note Black Adder has returned !!!!
>
> Candide
>
> Anyone seen The Royle family...? Please don't tell me you found this
crude, rude, disgusting program 'funny'!!!
brit
Karen Horn
: On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:19:31 GMT, Susan T
Yeah, but no offense but how many "Events" would a monarch need to
handle in the Netherlands. The populations isn't anywhere near the
UKs.
I'm sure it works well over there, but you don't need all the people
to carry out functions that the UK has.
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: It would be pretty sad if those two boys had talents and abilities they weren't
: allowed to develop and use because they can't be allowed to work. If they have
: no talent, I suppose it won't matter. But what if one or both has a talent for
: and interest in computers, the law, museum work, science, plumbing or farming
: or some other potential career?
well, as a "life long work" in the case of Wills it's "tough titties."
Though being a prince in line for the throne does seem to have a few "minor"
compensations like: fabulous wealth, having your laundry done for you,
and never, ever having to wondering if you will lead a boring life.
Harry "as gentleman farmer" would "work" but he seems to have a dare devil
streak in him. ANY of the professions you mentioned aren't the sort which
you can go off and leave for chunks of time though.
Karen
Loreen
>the dumps - she told me that she hadn't laughed so hard in months.
>
>Judy
>
Well this afternoon I was watching it with my two teenage sons, and I tell ya,
I practically fell off my chair laughing.
Gill Webster
Candide <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:IC357.14567$l%.5356216@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
> X-No-archive: yes
>
>
>
> "felix" <felix.at....@home.dotcom> wrote in message
> news:P%257.61664$B5.13...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >
> > "Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> > news:20010717165256...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> > > Speaking of British productions, I just caught the end of a show
called
> > "Who's
> > > Line Is It Anyway?"
> > >
> > > Absolutely hilarious!
> >
>
> We've only just gotten "Father Ted"!
>
> On a bright note Black Adder has returned !!!!
>
> Candide
>
>
Which series of Blackadder? My menfolk love "...Goes Forth" (WWI) but I
always cry at the end of the last episode.
I love the Elizabethan series and the Regency ones best.
(One small quote from any B/A script in this household results in a full
cast performance of the rest of the episode, verbatim!!)
Gill
Susan Cohen
Gill Webster wrote:
> Which series of Blackadder? My menfolk love "...Goes Forth" (WWI) but I
> always cry at the end of the last episode.
> I love the Elizabethan series and the Regency ones best.
Us, too!
> (One small quote from any B/A script in this household results in a full
> cast performance of the rest of the episode, verbatim!!)
I've had *parties* like this....
Now, who's got the CD set? (My hand goes up first)
It's got not only the Cavalier Special (where Stephen Fry does
a *nasty* Prince Charles take-off) but the Victorian Xmas show
*&* the latest millenium special!
Susan
Candide
"Gill Webster" <gill.w...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:wra57.63145$B56.12...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
>
> Which series of Blackadder? My menfolk love "...Goes Forth" (WWI) but I
> always cry at the end of the last episode.
> I love the Elizabethan series and the Regency ones best.
Our local PBS start's with the beginning (first series) and then runs through
them all. ATM we're at the "Regency" BlackAdder where he's butler to the Regent
Prince of Wales.
The last series is quite sad, and I believe it's because of it's recent
history,and the fact that we've all learned about the Great War at school.
When we see BlackAdder and Captain Darling (love that name!) go over the hill
for "The Big Push" while the top brass stay well behind the lines having red
wine and tea,we know pretty much that is almost what happened. Such a senseless
waste of youth it was! Entire villages lost complete generations in one battle
(if one can call being mowed down by machine gun fire a proper battle),
On the lighter notes there's always jokes about or to Captain Darling!!!! When
ever BlackAdder says "Yes Darling" I fall off my chair!
>
> (One small quote from any B/A script in this household results in a full
> cast performance of the rest of the episode, verbatim!!)
>
> Gill
Whoo-Hoo! Sounds like fun!!!!!
Candide
Candide
"Sacha" <sa...@nospamgarden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ceaalt0rjajklq145...@4ax.com...
> >We've only just gotten "Father Ted"!
> >
> >On a bright note Black Adder has returned !!!!
> >
> >Candide
> >
>
> I couldn't stand 'Father Ted' (sad the leading man died so young) but
> I loved Black Adder - affectionately known as Slackbladder by many!
> ;-)
> --
Do you mean the one that plays "Father Ted" or "Father Doogle"? It must be the
Father Ted actor since IIRC when our local PBS was airing episodes for members
to vote for (it was a choice for this particular time slot between Father Ted,
A Fine Romance, Are You Being Served,and a Dawn French thingy (some sort of
Twilight Zone type program).
Anyway the young actor that played Father Doogle was featured in a clip asking
for member support for the station. The announcer went on to speak about the
program, how it was a hit in Britaian and Ireland,but was cut short due to the
Father Ted actor dying.
I found the first episode somewhat interesting,and the young priest Doogle with
is youthful naiveté interesting,but there really are too many stereotypes IMHO
of Irish priests, especially the old,drunk,lecherous one who calls everyone a
"Gobsite"(sp?)
Father Ted comes on right after my two favourite Britcoms (As Time Goes By,Last
of the Summer Wine) and right before BlackAdder, so I'm usually comfortably
ensconced with snacks and such in front of the TV,so I watch it because,well
you know!!! *LOL*
Candide
the Fleming
We always made a point of avoiding it. Same with 'A League of Gentlemen'...
the Fleming
Norina
X-No-archive:yes
Thumbs down to 'Father Ted'...thumbs up to 'Ballykissangel'...they
lost one of their main actors...he died in Real Life...he was doing a
new series with Patsy from EastEnders and 'Rickaaaaaaay' fame! ;)
Norina
the Fleming
>
>Do you mean the one that plays "Father Ted" or "Father Doogle"? It must be
the
>Father Ted actor since IIRC when our local PBS was airing episodes for
members
>to vote for (it was a choice for this particular time slot between Father
Ted,
>A Fine Romance, Are You Being Served,and a Dawn French thingy (some sort of
>Twilight Zone type program).
>
>Anyway the young actor that played Father Doogle was featured in a clip
asking
>for member support for the station. The announcer went on to speak about
the
>program, how it was a hit in Britaian and Ireland,but was cut short due to
the
>Father Ted actor dying.
The chap who plays Father Dougal (can't remember the actor's name, now) has
since starred in 2 or 3 series of 'My Hero', which we found hilariously
funny. Maybe not quite of 'As Time Goes By' or 'BallyK' calibre, but funny
nonetheless. :o) It'll be interesting to see whether there'll be another
series of that, given how the last one finished.
the Fleming