# Message to the Queen



## Eddy Edson (Jan 14, 2022)

As somebody who was named after him, texted HM on behalf of self & others similarly situated to formally request that Prince Andrew also be stripped of "Andrew".

If she doesn't respond, I will officially change my name to "Slim Eddy".

That is all.


----------



## rebrascora (Jan 14, 2022)

He could do the same as the singer "Prince" and change his name to the "Member of the royal household formerly known as Prince Andrew" as oppose to "The artist formerly known as Prince"

I am sure he has a selection of other forenames that could be used to enable him to disassociate from any connection to you Eddy, but I also think "Slim Eddy" suits you, so go for it!


----------



## trophywench (Jan 14, 2022)

Er, I think one of his other forenames is also Edward .... yup, Andrew  Albert Christian Edward.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jan 14, 2022)

trophywench said:


> Er, I think one of his other forenames is also Edward .... yup, Andrew  Albert Christian Edward.


Dammit.

I'm going demand that his name be changed to Wayne.


----------



## nonethewiser (Jan 14, 2022)

Innocent until proven guilty, but lets face it this guy has done himself no favours, ducking & diving hiding behind his mum who has now removed some of his titles, if he is so innocent then man up & go to America & put his defence forward, that's all he has to do.

Another thing, if he pays woman off then that is a act of guilt, that's what Micheal Jackson did with those kids.

Slim Eddy sounds good.


----------



## Northerner (Jan 14, 2022)

Eddy Edson said:


> Dammit.
> 
> I'm going demand that his name be changed to Wayne.


Kerr?


----------



## rebrascora (Jan 14, 2022)

Northerner said:


> Kerr?



Maybe if he had stuck to that he wouldn't be in this mess!   

We are going to get into bother with the mods!


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 16, 2022)

Eddy Edson said:


> As somebody who was named after him, texted HM on behalf of self & others similarly situated to formally request that Prince Andrew also be stripped of "Andrew".
> 
> If she doesn't respond, I will officially change my name to "Slim Eddy".
> 
> That is all.


Poor feller. Stabbed in the back by his Mam when he hasn't even been found Guilty let alone even tried! Apparently the auld Queen has also ordered William V not to fly his whole family around in his helicopter in case there's a crash and Harry, Henry IX,  becomes the Heir. Australia is the youngest Monarchy only founded in 1987 ?


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jan 16, 2022)

Burylancs said:


> .Australia is the youngest Monarchy only founded in 1987 ?


Where does that come from??


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 16, 2022)

Eddy Edson said:


> Where does that come from??


The Australia Act of 1986 when Australia formally declared independence from Britain at the instigation of Bob Hawke. Upto then the Head of State of Australia was the Monarch of Great Britain. That was changed to the Monarch of Australia . A new Monarchy and  Liz got a new title  - 'Queen of Australia'. Of course there's a pedantic  legal dispute about who the actual 'Head of State' is - the Governor General or the Queen.





Eddy Edson said:


> As somebody who was named after him, texted HM on behalf of self & others similarly situated to formally request that Prince Andrew also be stripped of "Andrew".
> 
> If she doesn't respond, I will officially change my name to "Slim Eddy".
> 
> That is all.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jan 16, 2022)

Burylancs said:


> The Australia Act of 1986 when Australia formally declared independence from Britain at the instigation of Bob Hawke. Upto then the Head of State of Australia was the Monarch of Great Britain. That was changed to the Monarch of Australia . A new Monarchy and  Liz got a new title  - 'Queen of Australia'. Of course there's a pedantic  legal dispute about who the actual 'Head of State' is - the Governor General or the Queen.


Oh right.

One thing I've wondered about is if in due course Charles automatically gets to be King of Australia or if some decision has to be made. Could we wake up one morning and find that the govt has made Rupert Murdoch king, or sold it off to Elon Musk?


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 16, 2022)

Eddy Edson said:


> Oh right.
> 
> One thing I've wondered about is if in due course Charles automatically gets to be King of Australia or if some decision has to be made. Could we wake up one morning and find that the govt has made Rupert Murdoch king, or sold it off to Elon Musk?


No I think the stipulation is that the King or Queen of Australia has to be the heir of Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover, who died a few weeks before becoming Queen of the UK in June 1714. Although the bits about not being a Catholic or married to a Catholic has been dropped in both countries as has the Male Primogeniture. You've got an Heir and four spares and Harry is redundant ( as is  Andy).  





Eddy Edson said:


> Oh right.
> 
> One thing I've wondered about is if in due course Charles automatically gets to be King of Australia or if some decision has to be made. Could we wake up one morning and find that the govt has made Rupert Murdoch king, or sold it off to Elon Musk?


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jan 16, 2022)

Burylancs said:


> No I think the stipulation is that the King or Queen of Australia has to be the heir of Sophia of the Palatinate, Electress of Hanover, who died a few weeks before becoming Queen of the UK in June 1714. Although the bits about not being a Catholic or married to a Catholic has been dropped in both countries as has the Male Primogeniture. You've got an Heir and four spares and Harry is redundant ( as is  Andy).


I wonder what will happen though. I can't imagine why anybody would be enthusiastic about the heir or any of the spares, but then again people vote for Scott Morrison so what would I know.


----------



## mikeyB (Jan 19, 2022)

I simply don’t understand why just being born gets you the opportunity to be head of state, and never have to earn a living or get a paid job. And, indeed, to be head of the Church of England, a religion invented by an ancestor. All paid for out of our tax.  It’s all ludicrous in the 21st century, it’s a complete fantasy.

 The Russians  had the right idea of the monarchy, relatives of our monarchy, but refused by our king for asylum in England. That king was the son of a King who travelled round Europe bonking anything with two legs and wore a dress.  Yet we still think of this family to be head of our state. By right. Really?

Even more amazing is why any other country should consider the Queen has head of state is beyond me. When she pops her clogs, that should be an end of it.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jan 19, 2022)

mikeyB said:


> I simply don’t understand why just being born gets you the opportunity to be head of state, and never have to earn a living or get a paid job. And, indeed, to be head of the Church of England, a religion invented by an ancestor. All paid for out of our tax.  It’s all ludicrous in the 21st century, it’s a complete fantasy.
> 
> The Russians  had the right idea of the monarchy, relatives of our monarchy, but refused by our king for asylum in England. That king was the son of a King who travelled round Europe bonking anything with two legs and wore a dress.  Yet we still think of this family to be head of our state. By right. Really?
> 
> Even more amazing is why any other country should consider the Queen has head of state is beyond me. When she pops her clogs, that should be an end of it.


In Oz, it's some mixture of sentiment, indifference / not fixing what doesn't seem broke and lack of an attractive alternative.

The last referendum on the subject proposed a head of state selected by politicians or something & who wants another layer of crappy politicians burdening the country?

Most people probably regard the PM as the de facto head of state with the queen and GG as decoration, and are more or less OK with that. Even if you think of the current PM as eg a hollow morally & intellectually cretinous stooge fronting a coterie of hucksters thugs & loons, it doesn't seem like sticking some other bod in above him would necessarily do much good & might do more harm. People with longer memories say "What about 1975?" but many people probably think the outcome then was actually OK given how loopy that Labor government was, even if they don't say it out loud, and in any case might not some president act even more anti-democratically? At .least the queen/GG hardly ever actually do anything.

On the other hand, I find it hard to think that so many people would regard Charles as "decorative" & the republican movement is certainly trying to lumber into gear again now. Maybe they will come up with some attractive alternative.


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 19, 2022)

mikeyB said:


> I simply don’t understand why just being born gets you the opportunity to be head of state, and never have to earn a living or get a paid job. And, indeed, to be head of the Church of England, a religion invented by an ancestor. All paid for out of our tax.  It’s all ludicrous in the 21st century, it’s a complete fantasy.
> 
> The Russians  had the right idea of the monarchy, relatives of our monarchy, but refused by our king for asylum in England. That king was the son of a King who travelled round Europe bonking anything with two legs and wore a dress.  Yet we still think of this family to be head of our state. By right. Really?
> 
> Even more amazing is why any other country should consider the Queen has head of state is beyond me. When she pops her clogs, that should be an end of it.


most people see the Royals as harmless Showbiz Celebs. And are wary of a President Blair, President Boris or President Salmond etc Cromwell gave Republics a bad name in Britain. We had to bring back an enfeebled King as a suitable compromise. And we've spent millions training Charley for the job, let him have it for a few years. But he was threatening to call himself George VII. Why ?


----------



## trophywench (Jan 19, 2022)

It's that last sentence which rather IS the point, isn't it? - attractive alternate.

Charles has said he'd be known as another George and it is one of his names so OK but as anything with the 'ER' monogram  on it would have to be changed anyway, does it really matter?  Or is it something to do with when they dropped all the Schleswig Holstein thing and started calling themselves Windsor?


----------



## mikeyB (Jan 19, 2022)

That would be Saxe-Coburg Gotha they changed their names from. Don’t forget, Queen Victoria’s first language in the nursery was German. And married her first cousin, Albert. Another branch of the family were the Battenbergs, who simply translated their name to Mountbatten, Prince Philips family. So Prince Charles’ surname Is Mountbatten Windsor. He will be the first monarch not to have married a cousin; I think he was told to introduce a bit of genetic diversity.


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 19, 2022)

mikeyB said:


> That would be Saxe-Coburg Gotha they changed their names from. Don’t forget, Queen Victoria’s first language in the nursery was German. And married her first cousin, Albert. Another branch of the family were the Battenbergs, who simply translated their name to Mountbatten, Prince Philips family. So Prince Charles’ surname Is Mountbatten Windsor. He will be the first monarch not to have married a cousin; I think he was told to introduce a bit of genetic diversity.


I think Charles surname is Windsor. The 1960 ruling said descendants of Queen and Philip should be Mountbatten-Windsor ( like Archie, Earl of Dumbarton) except for people with HRH titles who remained Windsor to preserve Name of the Royal House. Charles could also use the name 'Wales' if he wanted as his lads did at Sandhurst.


----------



## Roym75 (Jan 20, 2022)

trophywench said:


> It's that last sentence which rather IS the point, isn't it? - attractive alternate.
> 
> Charles has said he'd be known as another George and it is one of his names so OK but as anything with the 'ER' monogram  on it would have to be changed anyway, does it really matter?  Or is it something to do with when they dropped all the Schleswig Holstein thing and started calling themselves Windsor?


After the present resident of the throne called herself QE2(there hasn't been QE1 of the UK)Bonnie Prince Charlie was rumoured to have been crowned at Holyrood and its rumoured there would be a legal challenge if auld chuck wanted to use his own name


----------



## travellor (Jan 20, 2022)

Roym75 said:


> After the present resident of the throne called herself QE2(there hasn't been QE1 of the UK)Bonnie Prince Charlie was rumoured to have been crowned at Holyrood and its rumoured there would be a legal challenge if auld chuck wanted to use his own name



There wasn't a United Kingdom in her day, that came around 100 years later.
Before Bonnie Prince Charlie was born though.

But one thing to respect about Kings and Queens, that got their hands dirty keeping their jobs.


----------



## Roym75 (Jan 20, 2022)

travellor said:


> There wasn't a United Kingdom in her day, that came around 100 years later.
> Before Bonnie Prince Charlie was born though.
> 
> But one thing to respect about Kings and Queens, that got their hands dirty keeping their jobs.


That's the point QE2 can only be the Queen of England


----------



## trophywench (Jan 20, 2022)

Well sorry, I didn't actually follow the news then since I was only 2.

The people who now own Scone castle say that as long as the ruler of Scotland is crowned sitting on the stone of scone, they can be proclaimed as king/queen of Scotland, otherwise they can't.  My understanding is that the stone was at that time lodged in Westminster Cathedral and that the current encumbent was sitting on it at the relevant time.  Obviously I didn't witness this although my mom and dad had invested in a telly so they could.  Since then, the stone has been returned to Holyrood, cos I vaguely remember the news about that.


----------



## mikeyB (Jan 20, 2022)

Roym75 said:


> That's the point QE2 can only be the Queen of England


Strictly speaking , Elizabeth is Queen Elizabeth 2 of England and Queen Elizabeth 1st of Scotland. Wales and Ireland have never had a king or Queen independently so she’s QE 2 there.


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 20, 2022)

mikeyB said:


> Strictly speaking , Elizabeth is Queen Elizabeth 2 of England and Queen Elizabeth 1st of Scotland. Wales and Ireland have never had a king or Queen independently so she’s QE 2 there.


That's untrue about Ireland. Henry VIII recreated the Kingdom of Ireland in 1536 and it had Kings and Queens between 1536 and 1800 when it was forced into the UK.


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 20, 2022)

trophywench said:


> Well sorry, I didn't actually follow the news then since I was only 2.
> 
> The people who now own Scone castle say that as long as the ruler of Scotland is crowned sitting on the stone of scone, they can be proclaimed as king/queen of Scotland, otherwise they can't.  My understanding is that the stone was at that time lodged in Westminster Cathedral and that the current encumbent was sitting on it at the relevant time.  Obviously I didn't witness this although my mom and dad had invested in a telly so they could.  Since then, the stone has been returned to Holyrood, cos I vaguely remember the news about that.


The stone of scone has never been in Westminster Cathedral ! And a Monarch has rarely, if ever set foot in the popish place !


----------



## stonefree (Jan 20, 2022)

Charles Edward Stuart was the Young Pretender his father was the Old Pretender  James Edward Stuart,
James lasted about 20 years after 1745 the Jacobite  Rebellion
Pope Clement the Thirteenth had recognised James as King of England, Scotland, and Ireland as "James III and VIII" but did not give Charles the same recognition. 
BP Charlie would not have been crowned,
 Current day Lizzie, 
At school we were taught Queen Lizzie the First of Scotland and Queen Lizzie the Second of England a clear distinction
Incidentally the QE2's name cause a stramash , as no one consider the name when the ship was being built , and firstly the name was said to be after the QE1, and then the name was change from Roman Numerals to Common Numerals 
Then always being referred to QE2

IMO       Mark Twain had the correct assessment of Monarchy


----------



## mikeyB (Jan 20, 2022)

Burylancs said:


> That's untrue about Ireland. Henry VIII recreated the Kingdom of Ireland in 1536 and it had Kings and Queens between 1536 and 1800 when it was forced into the UK.


You missed the word “independently”.


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 20, 2022)

mikeyB said:


> You missed the word “independently”.


Heh,heh ....next you'll be saying Scotland's not independent. I remember Alex Salmond on Question Time correcting someone and telling them that Scotland was an independent country, always has been, but the SNP just wanted to end the Act of Union. Nowadays the SNP seems to have dumbed it down to seeking 'independence'. The Referendum should have been a Separation Referendum.


----------



## Burylancs (Jan 20, 2022)

stonefree said:


> Charles Edward Stuart was the Young Pretender his father was the Old Pretender  James Edward Stuart,
> James lasted about 20 years after 1745 the Jacobite  Rebellion
> Pope Clement the Thirteenth had recognised James as King of England, Scotland, and Ireland as "James III and VIII" but did not give Charles the same recognition.
> BP Charlie would not have been crowned,
> ...


And after Bonnie Prince Charley died of alcoholism his brother, Cardinal Henry Stewart was recognised as Jacobite King. But he was on his uppers so George III kindly gave him a pension !


----------



## trophywench (Jan 20, 2022)

Burylancs said:


> The stone of scone has never been in Westminster Cathedral ! And a Monarch has rarely, if ever set foot in the popish place !


I meant W Abbey and I'm pretty sure you must have realised that.


----------

