Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prince William created Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
The British Monarchy ^ | 29th April 2011

Posted on 04/29/2011 12:22:43 AM PDT by naturalman1975

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS ISSUED BY THE PRESS SECRETARY TO THE QUEEN

The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.

Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.

Background:

DUKEDOM: Cambridge:

In 1706 George Augustus (subsequently George II) the only son of George Ludwig, Elector of Hanover (subsequently George I of Great Britain) was created with other titles Duke of Cambridge. On the accession of his father to the throne in 1714 he also became Duke of Cornwall and was created Prince of Wales. On his own accession to the throne in 1727 the Dukedom of Cambridge merged with The Crown and ceased.

Cambridge was previously a Royal Dukedom and four sons of James, Duke of York (afterwards James II) who died in infancy were all created Duke of Cambridge. As an Earldom Cambridge was a medieval Royal title. Edward IV was Duke of York and Earl of Cambridge till proclaimed King of England in 1461 when his titles merged with The Crown.

His father and grandfather both Richard Plantagenet were both Earls of Cambridge and the latter was also Duke of York. Edmund of Langley, 5th son of Edward III and great-grandfather of Edward IV, was created Earl of Cambridge in 1362 and Duke of York in 1385.

The Dukedom of Cambridge created in 1801 became extinct on the death of the 2nd Duke of Cambridge in 1904. Cambridge existed as a Marquessate from 1917 when it was conferred on Queen Mary’s brother till 1981 when the 2nd Marquess died and the title became extinct.

EARLDOM: Strathearn

Strathearn has had Royal connections since Robert Stewart, High Steward of Scotland, was created Earl of Strathearn in 1357. In 1371 he succeeded his Uncle as King of Scotland becoming Robert II and the Earldom merged with The Crown Robert II created his 5th son David, Earl of Strathearn in 1371. Subsequently in 1427 the 6th son of Robert II was created Earl of Strathearn.

In 1766 George III’s younger brother Prince Henry Frederick was created Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn. He died without issue in 1790 and in 1799 Queen Victoria’s father was created Duke of Kent and Strathearn. These Dukedoms became extinct on his death in 1820. Finally, Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, 3rd son of Queen Victoria was created Duke of Connaught and Strathearn in 1874. He died in 1942 and was succeeded by his grandson who died the following year 1943 since when Strathearn as a title has been extinct.

BARONY: Carrickfergus:

An Irish Viscountcy of Chichester of Carrickfergus now held by the Marquess of Donegall was created in 1625 but Carrickfergus alone only existed as a title between 1841 and 1883. The 3rd Marquess of Donegall was created Baron Ennishowen and Carrickfergus, of Ennishowen, co: Donegal and Carrickfergus, co: Antrim. He died in 1883 being succeeded by his brother and the Barony became extinct.

Carrickfergus is County Antrim’s oldest town. The word means Rock of Fergus and as an urban settlement it predates Belfast. It is on the north shore of Belfast Lough and is the site of Carrickfergus Castle which dates from circa 1180 and is one of the best preserved Castles in Ireland.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: carrickfergus; ireland; princesscatherine; princewilliam; royals; strathearn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
This means that Kate will become Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Cambridge, rather than being Her Royal Highness, Princess William of Wales - of course, she will be referred to as Princess Kate, by the media, just as William's mother was constantly referred to in error as Princess Diana, or Princess Di.

I am in London for the wedding, and while I am a monarchist (and being of joint British-Australian citizenship), I am allowed to be, I know a lot of people are following this even if they personally would not support such a system. The atmosphere here is electric.

1 posted on 04/29/2011 12:22:48 AM PDT by naturalman1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales.


2 posted on 04/29/2011 12:35:12 AM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Which one of ‘em becomes the holder of the Sacred Chalice of Rixx ?


3 posted on 04/29/2011 12:39:56 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Baron Carrickfergus.????

LOL

That is a great title if you say it loud....s l o w l y....


4 posted on 04/29/2011 12:45:58 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

So Diana was NOT a Princess officially?


5 posted on 04/29/2011 12:47:13 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
All Fruit
6 posted on 04/29/2011 12:48:25 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (How is allowing an Army Doctor be prosecuted and sent to prison "good for the country"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Baron Carrickfergus is the only title I’m impressed by


7 posted on 04/29/2011 12:50:29 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - "works better if you're already smart")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

She was Her Royal Highness, Diana, The Princess of Wales, but not Princess Diana.

She held her title as Princess via her husband - she was not a Princess in her own right, as Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, Princess Beatrice, or Princess Eugenie were or are.

After their divorce, she was given special permission to continue using the title ‘Princess of Wales’ out of respect for her position as mother of a future King, but she lost the ‘Royal Highness’.

I have to go or I will be late and that would not do!


8 posted on 04/29/2011 12:51:45 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

I’m glad someone is keeping up with all of this because I’m certainly not.


9 posted on 04/29/2011 12:56:32 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Thank you for the explanation... Give the Royal ‘couple’ best wishes from US.


10 posted on 04/29/2011 12:58:21 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

bfl


11 posted on 04/29/2011 1:05:04 AM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Which one of ‘em becomes the holder of the Sacred Chalice of Rixx ?

Probably going to have to pull a sword out of something or other and fight something big and bad with it to get the Sacred Chalice of Rixx.
Then you have to contend with a bunch of mind reading Betazoids all pi$$ed off :^)

12 posted on 04/29/2011 1:05:21 AM PDT by The Cajun (Palin, Bachmann, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Rush, Hannity......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
I have studied the monarchy from William I the Norman to Elizabeth II from the House of Windsor. I have no problem with this form of government it has lasted quite a long time. It looks as though Elizabeth is setting in motion the necessary things to turn over the running of the Empire within a year or so to William. Elizabeth II has served the Empire with grace, charm, class, and political savvy.
13 posted on 04/29/2011 1:07:51 AM PDT by skimask
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skimask

it will not go to Charles?


14 posted on 04/29/2011 1:10:34 AM PDT by Anti-Hillary (Pretty soon everything in this country will be "free", except it's people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

All that fuss over a moldy clay pot...


15 posted on 04/29/2011 1:22:24 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skimask

Why would she do that ? I thought she was looking forward to surpassing Victoria’s 63+ year reign, which occurs in 2015.


16 posted on 04/29/2011 1:27:25 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

“Baron Carrickfergus is the only title I’m impressed by”

I wonder if they’ll be neighbors of the Earl of Snuffaluffagus. :)


17 posted on 04/29/2011 1:35:54 AM PDT by Sporke (USS-Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

I feel sorry for Kate. She has such a happy countenance while he seems so dour.

Hope she has some great gal pals so she can have some fun times in her life.


18 posted on 04/29/2011 1:36:55 AM PDT by Carley ( TYPICAL STREET THUG, NASTY BULLY, THAT'S OUR PRESIDENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skimask
It looks as though Elizabeth is setting in motion the necessary things to turn over the running of the Empire within a year or so to William.

No it doesn't. It's just to avoid calling Kate Princess William.

From the wiki:

Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson at Westminster Abbey on 23 July 1986, the same day the Queen created him Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, and Baron Killyleagh

On his wedding day, the Queen conferred on Prince Edward the titles of Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn.

19 posted on 04/29/2011 1:38:17 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.- H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

This is off topic, but I’m watching the wedding just to see if Mr. Bean will ruin things. :)


20 posted on 04/29/2011 1:39:22 AM PDT by Sporke (USS-Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Any inside info on the snub of Blair?

And snubbing Fergie, sheesh. Given the ugly behaviour of Charles you would think the Queen could get her nose out of the air long enough to show some forgiveness.

I love the idea of the royal family, I just wish they weren’t so harsh to their own.


21 posted on 04/29/2011 1:40:42 AM PDT by Carley ( TYPICAL STREET THUG, NASTY BULLY, THAT'S OUR PRESIDENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carley

A trying lot, are they. Strange doings when Edward VIII gave up the throne to marry “the woman I love” in 1938 or so. It was said that the former monarch was conducting himself as a common English butler waiting on her hand and foot.


22 posted on 04/29/2011 2:17:23 AM PDT by tenthirteen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

Charles is unfit to be King. His marriage to Dianna proved that. Elizabeth knows this too. When Elizabeth steps down Charles will abdicate the Crown which, by default, will confer to William as King. I also think that Charles has no desire to be King.


23 posted on 04/29/2011 2:19:44 AM PDT by skimask
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

“you don’t vote for kings...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI&feature=youtube_gdata_player


24 posted on 04/29/2011 3:36:30 AM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

“you don’t vote for kings...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI&feature=youtube_gdata_player


25 posted on 04/29/2011 3:39:47 AM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

With all considered, the marriage is an indication that my favorite Harry may become Prince of Whales, although it is not certain and not beyond his reach to become Henry X if his brother and his family so decide to put some vigor back into the royal house.

The Crown has been for the last several decades completely irrelevant to the health of the country and its people. If they do not assert their power very soon, it will result in the complete dissolution of their position and Buckingham Palace will be nothing but a crumbling relic.


26 posted on 04/29/2011 3:45:48 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

A question for you. Do these titles confer any real power on the holder?

For example, William is now the Duke of Cambridge. What does that imply? Does William now have any control over Cambridge? Does he have a veto power on who becomes the next mayor of Cambridge?

Or is “Duke of Cambridge” nothing more than an empty honorary title?


27 posted on 04/29/2011 4:03:51 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I carrying this lantern, you ask. I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

I’ve been to Carrickfergus. Very scenic.


28 posted on 04/29/2011 4:04:00 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Tornado relief: http://www.baptistsonmission.org/Projects/North-Carolina/Tornado)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skimask

Charles said in a splashy magazine article about 10-15 years ago that should he become king he will disolve the monarchy. This was before Diana died. In the article he said he doesn’t want to be king, he wants to putter on his land and grow things.


29 posted on 04/29/2011 4:34:19 AM PDT by Vor Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Great song about Carrickfergus, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVDXm8wBnpo

Lamh Foistenach Abu!
30 posted on 04/29/2011 4:37:00 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Surprised the debacle of 30 years ago didn’t dampen the fervor for this nonsense.


31 posted on 04/29/2011 4:52:43 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Surprised the debacle of 30 years ago didn’t dampen the fervor for this nonsense.


32 posted on 04/29/2011 4:52:55 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Nice work if you can get it.


33 posted on 04/29/2011 4:54:24 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Prince of Whales? LOL
34 posted on 04/29/2011 5:04:04 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Prince of Whales? LOL
35 posted on 04/29/2011 5:04:04 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carley
Any inside info on the snub of Blair?

If I had any inside information, I wouldn't really be able to share it. My personal opinion is that it is being seriously overstated. This was not a state occasion, and there was no reason for former Prime Ministers to be invited. It should not be assumed to be a snub.

Yes, Baroness Thatcher and Sir John Major were both invited - but they were invited as Knights of the Garter - members of the very small order of Knights that constitutes the highest order of chivalry (Blair is believed to have declined a Knighthood, Brown may not have been offered one yet - he hasn't been out of office very long). All the Garter Knights were invited. Further, Sir John was appointed as William's legal guardian after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. He has a significant personal relationship with William for that reason.

Some people are suggesting William does not personally like Tony Blair, because of issues relating to the aftermath of his mother's death. I have no knowledge on that score.

And snubbing Fergie, sheesh. Given the ugly behaviour of Charles you would think the Queen could get her nose out of the air long enough to show some forgiveness.

I have heard - and this only what I have heard - that Sarah, Duchess of York asked that no invitation be issued. She is aware that her recent behaviour has caused some embarassment to the Royal Family, and to the Duke of York, and did not want controversy to detract from her nephew's wedding. Again, this is only what I have heard.

36 posted on 04/29/2011 5:13:24 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: skimask
While I believe the Prince of Wales has mixed feelings about the idea of being King, I know that he has even more mixed feelings about the idea of William being required to take the Crown any sooner than is necessary. He wants William to have as much of a chance of a life of his own, for as long as he possibly can. For that reason, I think the suggestion that the Prince of Wales would abdicate unless he is so old as to be infirm at the time of his ascension, very unlikely. He will not do that to his son.
37 posted on 04/29/2011 5:16:48 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: skimask; fieldmarshaldj

Her Majesty swore an oath to God, to serve her people as Queen until the day she dies. She is deeply religious, and she takes an oath seriously. The only circumstance, I believe, in which she would consider abdication is if she became incapable of discharging her duties as Queen.


38 posted on 04/29/2011 5:19:08 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
With all considered, the marriage is an indication that my favorite Harry may become Prince of Whales, although it is not certain and not beyond his reach to become Henry X if his brother and his family so decide to put some vigor back into the royal house.

Harry could only become Prince of Wales if his brother dies before their father. Even if William becomes King without yet having a son or daughter, Harry would only be Heir Presumptive - and only the Heir Apparent can be Prince of Wales.

If he does somehow become King - which is not absolutely impossible - he is at the moment, third in line - he would be Henry IX - the last Henry was still Henry VIII.

The Crown has been for the last several decades completely irrelevant to the health of the country and its people. If they do not assert their power very soon, it will result in the complete dissolution of their position and Buckingham Palace will be nothing but a crumbling relic.

The Crown is only supposed to assert its powers in particular situations of Constitutional crisis. None of these have arisen in recent years - if, for example, Gordon Brown, had decided not to resign after last years election, the Queen would have been compelled to act - but he did what he was supposed to do, so that was unnecessary. When the British system is functioning the way it is meant to, the Monarch is not meant to intervene.

39 posted on 04/29/2011 5:24:11 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

You caught that... very good...

I wondered when someone might get it... the Royal Family has gelded themselves so horribly, none of it has any meaning any more, so being the Duck of Corn Wall is just as effective a title as any other...


40 posted on 04/29/2011 5:25:46 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

There was a Henry IX who made a claim... from Scotland...


41 posted on 04/29/2011 5:27:56 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
A question for you. Do these titles confer any real power on the holder?

No. Until recently, it did give a person the right to sit in the House of Lords (the upper House of the British Parliament) but 'reforms' under Blair's Labor government removed that right. The members of the House of Lords are now nearly all 'Life Peers' chosen by the government for life, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes... well, let's not go there.

For example, William is now the Duke of Cambridge. What does that imply? Does William now have any control over Cambridge? Does he have a veto power on who becomes the next mayor of Cambridge?

No. There are a couple of titles in Britain that still convey some powers for historical reason, but only a few. Most are simply traditional honours.

Or is “Duke of Cambridge” nothing more than an empty honorary title?

It can't be called an honourary title, because that term actually has another meaning (ie, Generals Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, etc, Admiral Nimitz, and quite a few other senior US officers before and since were all honourary Knights - Britain honoured them for their service as allies, but US law meant they could not, of course, bear foreign titles), but it is symbolic, rather than meaning anything concrete.

42 posted on 04/29/2011 5:30:45 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
The Crown is only supposed to assert its powers in particular situations of Constitutional crisis. None of these have arisen in recent years...

I would say the situation requires the monarchy to act, parliament is doing nothing about the Islamic invasion of Britain and the lawlessness.

Britain has become a Monty Python script... and it isn't funny anymore...

43 posted on 04/29/2011 5:32:19 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Henry Benedict Stuart did style himself Henry IX, but he was never acknowledged in any way (even the Catholic Church would not acknowledge him, though they did acknowledge his father and brother, and he was a Cardinal), and so he would not affect the numbering of actual monarchs.


44 posted on 04/29/2011 5:36:02 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
I would say the situation requires the monarchy to act, parliament is doing nothing about the Islamic invasion of Britain and the lawlessness.

Even if that was true (and personally, I don't believe it is), the Crown would still not have the power to intervene. Parliament is supposed to deal with those issues. The Monarch can only interfere with Parliament in certain particular cases.

The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn - even if she shared your concerns, all she can do is tell the Prime Minister in private that they shared them.

This is British constitutional law and convention, and the Monarch must follow it. She cannot interfere just because she thinks there's a problem.

45 posted on 04/29/2011 5:39:25 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Not to mention the Duke of Paducah...


46 posted on 04/29/2011 5:41:21 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Eh ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Vor Lady
Charles said in a splashy magazine article about 10-15 years ago that should he become king he will disolve the monarchy.

The Prince of Wales has never said any such thing. If a magazine article said he did, it was lying.

Besides anything else, he would not have the power to do that. A King of the United Kingdom can abdicate - in which case somebody else would become King (William, if Charles abdicated). He cannot dissolve the monarchy. Parliament has that power - the King does not.

47 posted on 04/29/2011 5:41:52 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

I have been watching this beautiful wedding. It was stunning.

My only question is why FOX sent that crude clod, Shempherd Smith over their to mock and behave like a hilljack.


48 posted on 04/29/2011 5:46:05 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

They might both be deposed shortly, either by Britons themselves, Muslims or the E.U... by their own inactions...


49 posted on 04/29/2011 5:49:20 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
The Prince of Wales has never said any such thing. If a magazine article said he did, it was lying.

I'm still hunting for the article, but I did read that. It was an interview with him; IIRC it was an organic gardening magazine. He did say that he would disolve the monarchy because it had outlived its purpose. The main focus of the article was on HRH's green views of things and his farming practices. The monarchy quote may have been a throw away, but it was in the piece. I'll send the link once I find it; like I said, it was 10-15 years ago.

50 posted on 04/29/2011 5:49:39 AM PDT by Vor Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson