Queen to Charles "I Will NOt Abdicate
Susan Roger
abdicating after her Golden Jubilee and called an emergency meeting of The
Way Ahead Group. This was done right before Christmas and it was made
clear she was still in charge of things. According to a royal courtier, the
Queen believes Charles's aides are secretly planning for her retirement.
Even though Charles has denied any desire for his mother to abdicate in his
favor. The source went on to say that the Queen realizes she is getting
older but she made a vow and will never break it. Of course her workload
will gradually get lighter and Charles will take on those duties but it will
never go any further than that as long as she is alive. Besides that, she
is said to be determined to beat Queen Victoria's record of 63 years on the
throne. So it seems the Queen is still looking to be Queen for at least
another 14 years......and good for her if she does it!! Susie
truebrit
Susan Roger wrote in message <3a54b...@newsa.ev1.net>...
>>. So it seems the Queen is still looking to be Queen for at least
>another 14 years......and good for her if she does it!! Susie
Way to go Elizabeth ll
Long live the Queen!
Mrs H
>
yaffaDina1
truebrit wrote:
I wonder if Charles will encourage William (and Harry) to have careers.
Even if he became king tomorrow, there would be a lot of years before
William would become King. Surely Charles would not want his son to be
as rootless (re a job) as he has been.
yD
Susan Roger
"yaffaDina1" <yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3A54CC7D...@netscape.net...
What are the rules for being "next in line"...He was in the armed
forces..Isn't that a job? Could he have been career military like Andrew???
Or had a regular job?? Susie
Susan Roger
"Sacha" <sa...@nospamgarden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a75fe3d...@news.demon.co.uk...
> briefly touched on this matter. It's something that is raised over
> and over and over again and truly, has been for simply years.
> However, on this programme what was said is what we Britons all know -
> the Queen took a solemn vow at her Coronation and abdication is not
> part of that vow. It is not part of our constitution. Our monarchs
> reign for life.
> And just in case anyone is tempted to cite Edward 8, he was never
> crowned, he took no oath.
> One might as well ask if a Pope will abdicate. Sacha
***********************************
The oath is pretty clear and it seems to me the Queen has every intention of
holding up her side of the bargain...But my question is this...if Brits all
know and understand the nature of the oath then why is it being rehashed
over and over and over again by the press??? Susie
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
> --
> Sacha
> S. Devon
> www.garden.demon.co.uk
>
> (remove spam-trap)
Fialca
(Sacha) wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:36:45 -0600, "Susan Roger" <sro...@ev1.net>
>wrote:
>
>A few nights ago there was a programme on our British telly which
>briefly touched on this matter. It's something that is raised over
>and over and over again and truly, has been for simply years.
>However, on this programme what was said is what we Britons all know -
>the Queen took a solemn vow at her Coronation and abdication is not
>part of that vow. It is not part of our constitution. Our monarchs
>reign for life.
>And just in case anyone is tempted to cite Edward 8, he was never
>crowned, he took no oath.
>One might as well ask if a Pope will abdicate.
From todays news and announcements by the surgeon who operated on his
broken leg, it might be better if the Pope did. He looks frailer and
sounds more incoherent on each public occasion the press records.
As for HM - well, let's just hope she doesn't get something that
reduces her capability (not likely with her genetics is it?). British
history has examples of incapable monarchs being usurped by regents,
and yes, there was an abdication of a crowned king - one of the
Plantagenets I think.
>--
>Sacha
>S. Devon
>www.garden.demon.co.uk
>
>(remove spam-trap)
Fialca
recook77
IMO, it would make sense to allow William & Harry to pursue careers. There
are *more* than enough royals performing royal duties at this point.
William & Harry should be allowed the option of being able to take jobs
while doing ribbon-snipping and hand-shaking on a part-time basis. It
really would not be realistic to expect Wills to spend years waiting for his
father and grandmother to pass on.
--
"God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but he's
always on time."
Curtis Mayfield
1942-1999
>
RCLOVELY
>know and understand the nature of the oath then why is it being rehashed
>over and over and over again by the press??? Susie
Slow news day?
RC
Susan Cohen
Susan Roger wrote:
> The oath is pretty clear and it seems to me the Queen has every intention of
> holding up her side of the bargain...But my question is this...if Brits all
> know and understand the nature of the oath then why is it being rehashed
> over and over and over again by the press??? Susie
> ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
This is rhetorical, right? :-)
SusanC
Fialca
Yep, well look at the genes in the first place. And then look at the
ability. And then look at the qualifications. What are these royals
fit to do? Serve in the armed forces? This is the usual avenue.
What about something else? What? Lets think about that .....
1. A career in advertising - I don't think so.
2. A career in public relations - same as 1. above.
3. A career in the Church? - not on.
4. A career in the diplomatic service? Where?
Something gentle and innocuous like photography has been tried. A
degree in Art History might give William an opportunity to catalogue
and research the Royal's art collections. Who knows?
None of the above suggestions are meant to be flippant. But think,
people, what sort of career, can a royal undertake?
Fialca
yaffaDina1
I *was* thinking of something other than the armed forces, that's kind of a
neccessity isn't it? Rather, the possibility of a job that captures the
interest -- a bit more long time than cataloging and researching the royal
art collections, though that might be a good start for a career in art
history, one of the auction houses for instance, though I can see regular
conflicts of interest being a bit of a problem. Teaching at under- or
graduate level? There's lots of administrative work in charities; a law
degree could lead to a wide range of non-adversarial positions. Publishing?
yD
Susan Roger
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3A555BEB...@his.com...
Of course it was rhetorical.:)...It seems to me the press would like to have
everyone believe there is a "power struggle" between Buckingham Palace and
St James's...that mother and son are feuding.....It seems to me ridiculous
for the press to try to make it look like the Queen has a choice to retire
and go off to enjoy herself when most sane people know she took an oath for
life and has every intention of following through....Susie
dutch_...@my-deja.com
fia...@fcmail.com (Fialca) wrote:
> None of the above suggestions are meant to be flippant. But think,
> people, what sort of career, can a royal undertake?
I know that the dutch Royal House is very different from the british,
but two of Beatrix's sons have managed to accomplish a career. Prince
Johan-Friso for example is now working for Goldman-Saks in London.
But with degrees in engineering and economics and a business degree
from INSEAD he is a lot better equipped for 'real life' than william
studying art-history.
Wendy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
yaffaDina1
> Whatever he does, he still has to be careful not to tread on the toes
> of one company while working for another. So......if he worked for
> e.g. Sothebys art department, Phillips and Christies would be miffed
> because Sothebys would have an 'edge'. Look at the remarks about
> Sophie Wessex working for various companies and 'trading' on her royal
> connections, despite the fact that this was her job before her
> marriage and that she clearly indicated that she intended to continue
> with it.
> William may well have the same problem with any charity he worked for
> - it would immediately gain an advantage over all other charities,
> ditto law firms, teaching in a university or college means its lists
> would immediately be overwhelmed (look at the recent rush to register
> at St Andrew's). It's not as easy as it seems to us.
> I suspect that's why joining the services is such an obvious and
> indeed, safe option. Whichever regiment it is, the officers and men
> in it work for the Queen and she isn't outshone or put out by her
> grandson!
> --
> Sacha
> ====================
> If everybody thought about the jobs they themselves have had and tried
> to imagine a member of the Royal Family, complete with personal
> protection officers, working along side of them, they might have a
> better idea of the difficulties involved with William or Harry getting a
> "real" job.
>
> The havoc their presence would put on whichever company that hired them,
> the increased security checks OTHER workers would have to endure, the
> bad feelings involved when the Royal was allowed extra days off even
> without pay, because they had to attend some important dinner or
> ceremony, etc, criticism that they were taking a job away from somebody
> who needed the paycheck, etc.
>
> What is so awful about them doing what Anne and Charles and others are
> doing right now?
>
>
> --
> Crone Princess
>
> "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
What's so "awful" is the lack of dedication, involvement and general caring that a
'regular' job entails. It's too easy to get complacent, to get used to holidays
and vacations every couple of weeks, and, in the end, not too much actual
responsibility for oneself in just showing up. Yes, yes, I know they have to go
places and do things, but the routine of day to day must do is surely character
building in the best sense of the words.
The point about bodyguards etc. is fine, as far as it goes. How many does one
need? Where do the bodyguards put themselves when the object is pleasure, at a
party, for instance, and one assumes bodyguards do not sit at the table in a night
club or on the side of the bed when, ahem, a third party would not be welcome.
So, if the bodyguards can, and obviously do, be somewhere else on these kinds of
occasions, why not when a job in an office is the situation. And if he can go to
university, why can't he take a job?
yD
recook77
news:MPG.14bffca3b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <3A562A0B...@netscape.net>, yaffa...@netscape.net
> says...
(snip)
> --------------
> Each Royal has at least one along with them when they are out and about.
> And while they do not sit at the same table in a nightclub, they do keep
> their charge within sight. As far as sitting by their bedside, when
> they retire into their own homes, in other words, into an environment
> that is supposedly secure, where the other people in the dwelling can be
> presumed not to be a threat to them, of course the PPO is not glued to
> their side.
>
> I understand what you are saying about day to day routine, but even if
> they DID get a regular job, would they really have the day to day
> routine? They would be in and out, a day off here to meet this
> ambassador, another day off there because King so-and-so was making a
> State visit.
>
> William is still over four years away from finishing up at uni, Prince
> Harry even further away from completing his schooling. By that time,
> the Queen Mum will probably have died.
The Queen Mum? Dying? Ha! :)
Prince Philip will be 84, the
> Queen will be 78. They will be cutting down on their appearances and
> somebody will have to take up the slack. I think it safe to assume that
> Princess Margaret is now out of the picture.
Given the history of good health and longevity in that family, I think we'll
still see QEII and Phillip around. As for Pss. Margaret, it was my
understanding that she's been out of the picture for years.
>
> Charles will be 56, Anne, 54. These two will probably be assigned what
> the Queen and Philip no longer do, meaning SOMEBODY will have to take up
> what they have to drop.
I don't think we'll see QEII or Phillip giving up many duties. QEII is
*very* committed to her responsibilities, and she'll probably be shaking
hands, cutting ribbons, and entertaining foreign heads of state until she
pops her clogs.
Phillip is another story. One possible scenario is that he'll make some
racist remark and will be persuaded to retire.
>
> Prince Andrew is taking over many of the Duke of Kent's responsibilities
> (he has just turned 65), and the Duchess of Kent's schedule is so
> curtailed that Tim O'Donovan, the man who tabulates numbers of official
> duties, and reports them to the Times, no longer mentions her.
Prince Andrew is still in good health and will be for several years. The
Gloucesters and Pss. Alexandra are still active. Sounds like there are
*more* than enough people out there performing royal duties. Perhaps
William could be encouraged to find a particular role or niche that he
enjoys and build on that.
Why has the Duchess of Kent cut back on her schedule, BTW?
His Jadedness
>*more* than enough people out there performing royal duties.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time for all royals to ease back on their
"duties". Maybe, in fact, gradually phase out all duties except those performed
by the monarch and heir -and even limit those to certain national occasion.
This would allow the younger royals to really plan on a private life and a real
career as time goes by.
--
His Jadedness, Andy;
http://members.aol.com/agh3rd/index.htm
"Nec petita nec cupita approbatio tua"
recook77
news:20010105232612...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> >Sounds like there are
> >*more* than enough people out there performing royal duties.
>
> Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time for all royals to ease back on their
> "duties". Maybe, in fact, gradually phase out all duties except those
performed
> by the monarch and heir -and even limit those to certain national
occasion.
> This would allow the younger royals to really plan on a private life and a
real
> career as time goes by.
>
>
appearances for charity--and there are plenty of nonroyals who are patrons
of assorted organizations.
Doesn't the Netherlands already have such a system?
recook77
>
> >Sounds like there are
> >*more* than enough people out there performing royal duties.
>
> Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time for all royals to ease back on their
> "duties". Maybe, in fact, gradually phase out all duties except those
performed
> by the monarch and heir -and even limit those to certain national
occasion.
> This would allow the younger royals to really plan on a private life and
a real
> career as time goes by.
> Comparing the 1990's to the 1980's, there was an increase in the amount
> of duties performed, perhaps in response to the public's complaint about
> getting value for the Civil List. Some of this increase COULD be
> because certain events which in the past would not have been mentioned
> in the court circular, now are. (A certain dinner for 16, where 4 of
> the 16 were the host, his "companion", her son, and the son's
> girlfriend, comes to mind.)
>
> I can't see how a curtailment of duties would significantly reduce the
> Civil List payments, since so much of it goes to staff salaries. There
> would be a big hue and cry if the RF had to let staff go because without
> the civil list payments, and just living on whatever they could earn
> from a job, they could no longer afford to keep their staff.
Which staff? Are you talking about household servants? Palace protection?
Private secretaries?
>
> Even if the Royals who were no longer performing duties were evicted
> from Kensington, Buckingham, and/or St James's Palace, nothing would
> really be saved because those places would still have to be maintained.
> Many taxpayers think the Civil List is a salary and the Royals just
> pocket the money and spend it on a lavish lifestyle.
Buckingham Palace is already open for tourism, correct? And what about
Kensington and St. James? Those palaces already belong to the state, not
the royal family, from what I understand. And how could you forcibly evict
them? I'm just curious.
>
> It will be interesting to watch the Court Circular this year and see if
> the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are being phased out. That would
> leave the Gloucesters (he's 56, she's 54) as the only working Royals not
> descended from QEII. (Margaret and the Queen Mum are virtually out of
> the picture.)
One question I've always had on my mind is this: the Duke of Gloucester was
required to perform royal duties upon the deaths of his brother and father.
Required by *whom*? Is there anything specified about the number of royals
required to carry out ribbon cutting and hand shaking?
>
> That leaves the Queen and Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward,
> Edward's wife Sophie. Seven Royals, nine if you add in the Gloucesters,
> and in the next generation, there are only William and Harry, and
> Beatrice and Eugenie. William, the oldest, is at least 6 years away
> from being available for any meaningful amount on appearances.
Sophie doesn't perform any royal duties. She accompanies her husband on his
engagements.
>
> I think attrition is already dealing with the number of people out there
> ribbon cutting, and the number of scissors needed will continue to
> dwindle, since only William and Harry's children will be Royal.
> Beatrice and Eugenie will be considered fringe Royals as soon as William
> marries and has a child.
What of Edward and Sophie's children (if they have any)? Will they have
titles?
Candide
full control and title of the "Crown Estates" and let him/her manage
their own finances and pay for things such as upkeep and family. This
would work out quite well since for quite some time the Crown Estates
take in much more than is paid back via the Civil List to HM. It's
amazing how many persons wishing to scrap the CL take little account of
just how much money HM's estates generate.
The Czars of Russia did not have a civil list,all expenses for the
Czar,and the Imperial family were paid by the Czar out of his own purse.
Well ok he did *own* quite a lot of Russia including all those diamond
mines,not also forgetting he got labor on his estates cheaply.
FWIW it was because of the arrangement of the Romanov finances that the
title Grand Duke/Duchess was restricted to only children and grand
children of the Czar. Under the terms then Grand Dukes got an annuity
from the Czar,Grand Duchess got a dowry upon marriage. So it was
important to restrict just "who" was a Grand Duke/Duchess to prevent a
huge drain on the Czar's purse.
Of course because of this we now no longer have any Grand Dukes or
Duchesses since those who escaped the revolution are now dead,and since
Nicholas II was the last Czar there were no future sovereigns of Russia
to have children able to assume the title.
--
Candide
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+__+_
"On doit se regarder soi-même un fort long temps,
Avant que de songer à condamner les gens"
(Molière)
(We should look long and carefully at ourselves before we pass judgement
on
others).
"Croneprincess" <cronep...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.14c13c204...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > =====================
> > Comparing the 1990's to the 1980's, there was an increase in the
amount
> > of duties performed, perhaps in response to the public's complaint
about
> > getting value for the Civil List. Some of this increase COULD be
> > because certain events which in the past would not have been
mentioned
> > in the court circular, now are. (A certain dinner for 16, where 4
of
> > the 16 were the host, his "companion", her son, and the son's
> > girlfriend, comes to mind.)
> >
> > I can't see how a curtailment of duties would significantly reduce
the
> > Civil List payments, since so much of it goes to staff salaries.
There
> > would be a big hue and cry if the RF had to let staff go because
without
> > the civil list payments, and just living on whatever they could
earn
> > from a job, they could no longer afford to keep their staff. Crone
Princess
> ======================
>
> Which staff? Are you talking about household servants? Palace
protection?
> Private secretaries?
>
> Here is a url which show where some of the Civil List money is going.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/00/7/5/nque05b.jpeg
>
>
> This url gives the background of the Civil List and can answer some of
> your questions as to which salaries are paid.
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/civillst.htm
>
> This url shows who gets what, apart from the Queen:
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/fiother.htm
>
> Another url about the monarchy spending
>
>
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4101017,00.htm
> l
>
> >
> > Even if the Royals who were no longer performing duties were
evicted
> > from Kensington, Buckingham, and/or St James's Palace, nothing
would
> > really be saved because those places would still have to be
maintained.
> > Many taxpayers think the Civil List is a salary and the Royals just
> > pocket the money and spend it on a lavish lifestyle. Crone
Princess
> ==================
>
> Buckingham Palace is already open for tourism, correct? And what
about
> Kensington and St. James? Those palaces already belong to the state,
not
> the royal family, from what I understand. And how could you forcibly
evict
> them? I'm just curious. recook77
> ===================
> Portions of the palaces are open for tourism part of the year. As to
> how the Royals could be evicted, you would have to ask Mo Mowlan and
> those who think it a good idea. People who support a republic believe
> that abolishing the monarchy will cost less money because they could
> sell off many of the palaces and/or open them up as museums which
people
> would pay to see.
>
> Crone Princess
> ==================
> >
> > It will be interesting to watch the Court Circular this year and
see if
> > the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are being phased out. That
would
> > leave the Gloucesters (he's 56, she's 54) as the only working
Royals not
> > descended from QEII. (Margaret and the Queen Mum are virtually out
of
> > the picture.) Crone Princess
> ==================
>
> One question I've always had on my mind is this: the Duke of
Gloucester was
> required to perform royal duties upon the deaths of his brother and
father.
> Required by *whom*? Is there anything specified about the number of
royals
> required to carry out ribbon cutting and hand shaking?
> recook77
> ================
> The Civil List specifically names who will receive what. I have no
idea
> who decides which Royals are named to the civil list. I do know that
in
> the time of Queen Victoria, each of her children was given a civil
list
> annuity, even those daughters who married and lived in foreign
> countries.
> I think the idea of all the Royals going out and opening hospitals and
> cutting ribbons came about after WWII, when Britain was rebuilding.
I'm
> not saying that prior to George VI, Royals didn't do this sort of
thing,
> I believe Edward VII started it on the advice of one of the PM's since
> Queen Victoria wouldn't involve him in handling the contents of the
> boxes or give him anything else meaningful to do.
>
> Crone Princess
> ==================
>
> > That leaves the Queen and Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward,
> > Edward's wife Sophie. Seven Royals, nine if you add in the
Gloucesters,
> > and in the next generation, there are only William and Harry, and
> > Beatrice and Eugenie. William, the oldest, is at least 6 years
away
> > from being available for any meaningful amount on appearances.
>
> Crone Princess
> ==============
>
> Sophie doesn't perform any royal duties. She accompanies her husband
on his
> engagements.
> recook77
> ================
> Sophie has performed a few on her own, although she is not on the
Civil
> List. She was asked to entertain Queen Rania during Jordan's State
> Visit, but that visit had to be postponed at Jordan's request.
>
> Diana and Sarah were also not on the Civil List, and Diana at first
did
> not go out on her own, rather she accompanied Charles, yet she was
> "credited" with performing duties in the Court Circular. Sarah and
> Andrew also made tours together, though Sarah had to do much on her
own
> since Andrew was in the Navy.
>
> Crone Princess
> ====================
>
> > I think attrition is already dealing with the number of people out
there
> > ribbon cutting, and the number of scissors needed will continue to
> > dwindle, since only William and Harry's children will be Royal.
> > Beatrice and Eugenie will be considered fringe Royals as soon as
William
> > marries and has a child.
> Crone Princess
> ===========
>
> What of Edward and Sophie's children (if they have any)? Will they
have
> titles?
> recook77
> ===========
> At the time Edward and Sophie married, they were reported to have
> requested that their children receive no titles. According to the
> Letters Patent issued on Oct 30, 1917, by George V, Edward's children
> would be HRH Prince and HRH Princess. The monarch would have to issue
> new Letters Patent to change that.
Fialca
wrote:
Isnt she the one who had a Depression some years ago - and converted
to being RC soon afterward? She used to appear at Wimbledon for the
All England Tennis Champs. Not sure about last time. I think her
hubby, the Duke, was there tho.
Fialca
Susan Cohen
Croneprincess wrote:
> What is Charles's reasons for slimming down the RF? Is it because HE
> doesn't want to foot the bill for Anne, Andrew and Edward when he is
> King?
Funny, my first thought was to cut down on all the nonsense
that trails the RF.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
Candide wrote:
> This whole matter could be solved quite simply. Give the sovereign back
> full control and title of the "Crown Estates" and let him/her manage
> their own finances and pay for things such as upkeep and family. This
> would work out quite well since for quite some time the Crown Estates
> take in much more than is paid back via the Civil List to HM.
Hee-hee! You beat me to it! I was thinking of this, myself!
> It's
> amazing how many persons wishing to scrap the CL take little account of
> just how much money HM's estates generate.
Yup!
Susan
His Jadedness
>feeling it would entirely wrong to 'throw on the scrapheap' members of
>the family who have done sterling work, often unsung, for some time.
>--
>Sacha
I agree with the Queen. Let those presently performing royal duties continue
but bring no more -other than William - online. Natural attrition will do the
rest.
yaffaDina1
> But why assume a lack of dedication etc? The PoW and Princess Anne
> spend an enormous amount of time doing their 'jobs'. Because it isn't
> a job you or I would have, why should it be regarded as less fruitful,
> less worthy?
> I know people who do voluntary work who are utterly dedicated to it, I
> expect you do, too. Because they don't *have* to work, because their
> charity work is unpaid, do you regard it as less worthy or important
> than yours?
> If Prince Charles lives as long as his mother has now lived, his son
> is not going to be King for many, many years. There is *nothing* to
> stop him being dedicated to his career; what is being discussed is
> what *type* of career he might have that won't cause him and his
> employers or the RF any problems.
> And The Prince of Wales and The Princess Royal are very dedicated to
> what they do now. They spend a lot of time at it and they do it well.
> Why should that be regarded as less than a job? Because they don't
> have a job description or a wage packet at the end of the week? Is
> that the problem?
>
> > It's too easy to get complacent, to get used to holidays
> >and vacations every couple of weeks, and, in the end, not too much actual
> >responsibility for oneself in just showing up. Yes, yes, I know they have to go
> >places and do things, but the routine of day to day must do is surely character
> >building in the best sense of the words.
>
> But where did anyone suggest that a regular job wouldn't involve
> showing up on time and commitment? Nobody said he would be taking
> vacations every couple of weeks - Sue said that he might need to take
> time out for royal *work*, not personal fun.
> The implication surely, is that royal duties would interfere with the
> regular job, not personal leisure or pleasure. And do you really,
> truly suggest that the Queen's life lacks routine or daily 'must do'?
> *WHY* is it that people assume only 9-5 or 4-8 or 8-12 at an office,
> in a hospital, down a coalmine is the *only* way to work?
>
> >The point about bodyguards etc. is fine, as far as it goes. How many does one
> >need? Where do the bodyguards put themselves when the object is pleasure, at a
> >party, for instance, and one assumes bodyguards do not sit at the table in a night
> >club or on the side of the bed when, ahem, a third party would not be welcome.
> >So, if the bodyguards can, and obviously do, be somewhere else on these kinds of
> >occasions, why not when a job in an office is the situation. And if he can go to
> >university, why can't he take a job?
>
> Nobody is saying he can't take a job. We're discussing what *type* of
> job he can take. It seems to be that the real constraint is whether
> or not somebody or some firm, benefits financially or by publicity
> through his involvement. Should he wish to be e.g. a doctor I doubt
> anyone is going to beef because he chooses St Thomas's over Guy's.
> What we all hope - I think - is that he can fulfil himself as he
> wishes but at the same time, an eye does have to be given to how he
> goes about that. It may well be that he can't take a job that shows
> any form of partiality for e.g. one company, country, charity over any
> other.
> --
> Sacha
> S. Devon
> www.garden.demon.co.uk
>
> (remove spam-trap)
Another reason I wondered about charles encouraging William to take a job -- is also to
do with Charles himself. Most of what I've read about him, including those favorable
to him, suggest a certain lack of stickwithitness, which to me implies a rootlessness,
which is what I wondered about Charles helping William not to have (perhaps MY job
should include a quick course in grammar, sorry). My question, in other words, was
based on my perception of how Charles has lived his adult life. I'm by no means
suggesting that volunteer work is automatically less disciplined than a 9-5 job, but in
Charles' and Williams's positions perhaps something a bit more 'must do' for the sake
of the person(ality) and character. Charles, by any definition, is far from a mature
adult as most of us know and recognize the species.
yD
yaffaDina1
Wow Andy! Is it just me or did you say something sensible? :) (IOW I agree with
this idea.)
yD
His Jadedness
>with
>this idea.)
>yD
My dear,
I always say something sensible- you just don't always listen. <G>
yaffaDina1
Don't get carried away, dear. But to be soo sensible so early in the year --
well, I look forward to reading more.
love
yD
His Jadedness
I've been cleverly avoiding those silly men in white coats for over 50 yrs. I
doubt they'll ever catch me!
>But to be soo sensible so early in the year --
I - unlike most - stayed home and was a *very* good boy New Year's Eve... at
least that's whay I'm told!
>well, I look forward to reading more.
>love
>yD
Susan Cohen
yaffaDina1 wrote:
> Charles, by any definition, is far from a mature
> adult as most of us know and recognize the species.
> yD
Well, I completely disagree, based on lack of evidence.
Susan