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

Skip to comments.

Love-struck Prince William eyes move to US: reports
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | May 5, 2003 | AFP

Posted on 05/05/2003 1:58:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Prince William, son of the late Princess Diana and heir to the British throne Prince Charles, wants to move to the United States after he finishes university in Scotland, a London newspaper said yesterday.

Meanwhile, newspapers also reported that William, 21 next month, has fallen in love with a female flatmate.

William "is determined to hold on to his privacy and believes living in the States gives him the best opportunity," a royal source told the Sunday Mirror tabloid.

A courtier said William, a student of art history at St Andrews University, wants to take either a post-graduate degree at a US college or a job with a US art auction house or gallery.

The courtier said New York was William's preferred choice of destination once he finishes university in Scotland in the summer of 2005.

"Various options are being discussed. It would be for a year or perhaps two... Like his mother, he wants his independence and is convinced the States will offer that to him," the courtier said.

The news came as British tabloids reported that William was dating fellow St Andrews' student Kate Middleton, 20.

Papers said William fell for the brunette after watching her at a university fashion show where she modelled a revealing lace dress.

"Wills thinks Kate is absolutely gorgeous," a friend of the pair was quoted as saying in The Mail on Sunday.

"They have a lot in common and they get on very well. They both love art and travelling and Kate has become a real confidante. They are certainly very close, but she's very discreet about William and he's very coy about her," the friend said.

Tabloids carried pictures of Kate and William being tactile while watching a university rugby match together on Saturday.

But Kate's father, company director Michael Middleton, said his daughter, who shares a flat with William and another male and female student, were "just good friends".

"We are very amused at the thought of being in-laws to Prince William, but I don't think it is going to happen," he told the Sunday Mirror.

Meanwhile, The People tabloid said William was planning a marathon drinking session with friends to celebrate his 21st birthday next month, after turning down the chance to have a big birthday concert in the grounds of Buckingham Palace.

AFP


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: royalcello
Well, this conservative republican loathes monarchy. The oldest welfare system in the world was the noble classes living like leeches off the blood of the people. I am glad we had the vision to get rid of monarchy and establish a Republic.

The royal family of England to me represents nothing more than a bunch of welfare recipients living on the dole and the taxes of the British public.

101 posted on 05/05/2003 11:18:55 AM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #102 Removed by Moderator

Comment #103 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
Perhaps there would be more support from the wealthy if taxes were cut, but I get angry when Republicans focus on eliminating arts funding while basically leaving the rest of the Big Government apparatus intact. And government support of the arts is a long-established tradition in Western Civilization which has nothing to do with liberalism. I'm not thrilled with a lot of the choices the NEA has made either, but I'm not willing to take a chance on speculation that the free market and private donations will provide.

Back to the other topic, while the U.S. may have been founded as a constitutional republic, today for all practical purposes it is a democracy, if only because most Americans see it that way. American paleoconservatives have argued convincingly that the original republic of the Founders ended in 1861.
104 posted on 05/05/2003 11:24:22 AM PDT by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: royalcello
The system that America enjoys is based on checks and balances.

The elected officials didn't suddenly decide to run for the presidency with no prior experiences. The Ross Perot's are treated like an amusing sideshow and even then candidates like Perot and Forbes have proven themselves in the politics of business. America's Business is Business was already a famous quote. America's politicians start as mayors, congressmen or even a Attorney General.

Even if we had a Clinton that decided he wanted to be a King, if a bullet didn't find him in the next hour, Congress and the Senate would start legal proceedings.

105 posted on 05/05/2003 11:29:06 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
a bunch of welfare recipients living on the dole and the taxes of the British public.

That's simply not true. The money paid into the Treasury from the Crown Estates exceeds the money provided by Parliament for the Queen's expenses, so the idea that the Royal Family "live off the taxpayers" is nothing more than a myth. In addition, the Queen performs functions which are essential to any government, whether it is a monarchy or a republic. (Most republics have both a President and a Prime Minister.) Members of the royal family do invaluable work for charity and British trade. They have difficult jobs and are well compensated for them--that's not welfare. The real division between monarchists and republicans is how the head of state should be selected, not how much money to spend. Presidents are not necessarily cheaper, and in my opinion the ceremony, pageantry, excitement, tradition, and continuity provided by monarchy are more than worth any expense.

106 posted on 05/05/2003 11:33:23 AM PDT by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

Comment #107 Removed by Moderator

Comment #108 Removed by Moderator

Comment #109 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
Somehow I doubt that the management of the Cleveland Orchestra would agree with that. And even if you're right, there's a certain prestige that comes with government support that a wealthy individual can't provide, and I believe the arts are entitled to that. The government is the only entity that represents the United States as a whole, and the message needs to be sent that the arts are important enough to receive that kind of recognition.
110 posted on 05/05/2003 11:53:40 AM PDT by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

Comment #111 Removed by Moderator

Comment #112 Removed by Moderator

To: B-Chan
When I say I am a monarchist I mean that I support a sacramental, feudal, absolute monarchy, not a parliamentary monarchy with a figurehead Crown.

Like Saudi Arabia?

I'm just curious, but can you explain why, if our system is inferior, our society and nation is so much superior to all others in any given objective measurable category (wealth, military power, creation of new ideas and techs, opportunities afforded the average person etc)?

I also don't believe people are created equal- this is demonstrably and obviously not true- but I don't believe it is even mathematically tenable in the long run to suppose that by NOT choosing the best among us as a leader in favor of a hereditary bloodline system we will produce a stronger society in the end.

113 posted on 05/05/2003 12:12:39 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
At the federal level, I believe this includes education, transportation, energy, commerce, agriculture, etc.

The difference is that these are all things that Americans generally recognize are important. Sadly, this is not the case with the arts. My position is simply that symphony orchestras, etc. deserve to survive whether the general public cares or not.

114 posted on 05/05/2003 12:15:06 PM PDT by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
There's all the difference in the world between welfare handouts and ensuring the survival of Western culture in the form of classical music.
115 posted on 05/05/2003 12:17:35 PM PDT by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
No, not like Saudi Arabia. B-Chan is talking about a traditional Christian monarchy, which unfortunately hasn't existed anywhere in the world since the downfall of the Hapsburg monarchy in 1918.
116 posted on 05/05/2003 12:18:33 PM PDT by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
I know what you mean, but the idea that those folks in Britain could actually be running the country is sort of a joke, don't you think?

Yes. They've tried it. It was a disaster. Ask any Irishman or Catholic.

Sacramental? Yeah, right!

A king is at least beholden to God. King Mob thinks it is God. Look no further than France, 1789 for proof.

117 posted on 05/05/2003 12:57:49 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
God established only one Kingdom.

God set Judges to rule over His people here on earth. It was the people who cried out for a King....another case of 'be careful what you ask for'.

118 posted on 05/05/2003 1:24:40 PM PDT by Krodg (We have the ability because the leader in command knows who's in control....God Bless America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76; Goetz_von_Berlichingen
Which probably bears out Max Weber's theory as to why the countries of northern and western Europe—England, Holland, Germany, etc.—prospered and outstripped the "Old Europe" of that time which remained Catholic.

Really? What about Catholic Bavaria? Catholic Austria? Catholic Spain? Catholic France? Catholic Italy? Catholic Portugal? The last time I checked these nations were pretty prosperous -- and the problems they do have are neither a result of their Catholic religious heritage nor unique to non-Protestant societies.

Catholic Europe has had no monopoly on being backward: "backwards" Catholic Spain and Portugal conquered the world while the "advanced" Protestant English were busy chopping off Thomas Moore's head.

The Protestant principle of the "priesthood of believers"...

This is not a uniquely Protestant doctrine.

...carries with it the inherent implication that all of us are created equal and that the divine dignity of being made in His image extends to all people.

False dichotomy. The Catholic Church has continuously affirmed the eternal truth that all men are created equal in the eyes of God and that the divine dignity of being made in His image extends to all people. No organization on earth has promoted the idea of the intrinsic equality and dignity of the human being under God than has the Catholic Church. It was the utilitarian Protestant ethic that gave us sweatshop labor, Marxism, and the general idea of people as disposable economic production units ("proletarians", or the capitalist corollary "human resources"), not to mention abortion, euthanisia, and the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice instead of the filthy abomination that it is. The Catholic ethic of the common weal is all that stands between the weakest and most helpless among us and the Soylent Green processing plant.

However, while championing the equal dignity of the individual human life as a creation of God, Catholic social teaching emphatically does not promote the Protestant and humanistic notion that all men are equal in ability as well. Common sense teaches us that some people are born athletes, some are born intellectuals, and some are born leaders -- and that this charisma tends to run in families. (Look no further than the White House for a prime example). In addition, traditional Christianity teaches that God establishes some men in authority over others. In fact, the very idea upon which the "reformation" was based -- the atomstic individualism of Martin Luther -- goes against the explicit teaching of both Our Lord and St. Paul, who says in the thirteenth chapter of his epistle to the Romans

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.

Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I see nothing in the Apostle's letter indicating that Christians have the right to rebel, revolt, or rule themselves in matters of church or state. On the contrary: both the Apostle and Our Lord teach us by word and deed that supplication to extant authority is the way of the Cross.

The Protestant worship of atomistic individualism, rebellion against authority, and the deified pagan goddess of Liberty may be psychologically satisfying to those of us raised in the post-"enlightement" age of secular humanism, but let us not fool ourselves that such affection has anything in common with traditional and orthodox Christianity; after all, it was individualism and rebellion that earned the human race the "liberty" of choosing to go to Hell.

119 posted on 05/05/2003 1:44:08 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 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