General Chat

Charles himself said the Royals should be slimmed down.
He probably didn't think his own son would be part of the 'slimming down', but if it suits Harry, why not?

What about Edward and Sophie Wessex taking on even more duties??

Sophie already does quite a lot both with Edward and on her own ........... she went to India last year on behalf of the Queen.

Anne already does a lot of engagements, though the media seem to rarely cover what she does.

Could Anne's husband get at least one of the military appointments? He was a Vice-Admiral in the navy before he retired.

Just a thought!

Kay, it will put a lot more pressure on William and Kate I think. Charles and Camilla Ann and Edward might take on some of it, but as the Queen steps back they already have enough to do and Charles is not exactly young.

It is what some people have wanted, a 'slimmed down' monarchy, but I think inevitably it will remove some of the attention that having a Royal patron brings to a number of charities.

More important .

Who will fill the boots to undertake what Harry got paid to do as a royal duty......whos going to do the military stuff at Sandhurst they havnt got a royal recruit left now.

Will they get Andrew out of moth balls. and to hell with public opinion?

;-)

BBC Radio 4 broadcasts quality stuff in the main & I enjoy some of its comical sketches too.

It is important to read as many sources as you can, but unfortunately a lot of people don't do that, and rely for their 'facts' on the dross poured out by the DM online ( can't speak for the paper copy don't buy it)the Sun etc.

To compare and contrast what you read and form a sensible idea of the truth you have to have an open mind to some extent at least, not just an open space where your brain should be.

I'm certain that Sylvia, being as I know an intelligent lady, does read widely.

I'm also certain that Harry has "marketable skills", in promoting, in organising, in leadership and much more besides.

Island ...........

I think what I saw in your post was what I said.


I could equally well have posted that "I saw on TV ......"


As for reading .......... Sharron's correct.

You read widely, check many more than 1 media outlet, and then try to come to some conclusion.

When 3 print media and 4 TV stations, in 2 different countries give the same information, then I think there might well be some truth to what people had seen or heard at a certain time in a certain place.


EDIT .............. I never look at print or TV media from the US

He is a people person Sharron I am sure he has marketable skills

I was just thinking that Prince Harry has now lost his military role and has no marketable skills.

So this applies to every rank then.

:-\ :-\ :-\

It is important to read more than one angle and to question all you read.

It depends on whether you want to fill your head with rubbish Sharron.
You know exactly what I meant.

Sylvia, not nasty at all or a dig so you can take that back.

"I read...…" all to often means just that - I read. Often media gossip with no truth in it. I'm sure this thread will not be the last to be peppered with "I read" followed by some nonsense which the poster so wants to believe.

Is reading not the way to gather knowledge?

Nobody is born with it.

Island .............

"I read .............."


Bit nasty, and as it is obviously a dig at me ..........

I also saw live shots on TV, including on some stations still considered the best in the world, such as BBC and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Station).


As far as cousins ..........

........ I was the 3rd youngest of 10 on my father's side, with the 2 youngest ones born after the war. We all knew each other, and I grew especially close to 5 of the older ones when we were adults.

I only knew of 1 cousin on my mother's side and only found out about the others when I began researching family history. There was some sort of division in that family but no-one is alive to tell me what or why.

If he met his cousins a dozen times a week he'd still be too young to remember that they were his "cousins", they would just be children and with respect you can meet those anywhere!

My first cousins were or are all older than me, one I have met twice as a child and adult, one only as an adult and one (now deceased) not at all. They kept in touch but we moved around as did they, no rift just different lives. On my father's side, my uncles 3 children I saw once, when I was about 10 before they emigrated. The other uncle's children I have seen only one of about 16 years ago, no rift there either.

My mum saw more of her cousins, but that was back in the 30s and because they holidayed together and met up at Christmas.

...and nowadays, there's 'Skype'.

Exactly Maggie. I didn't know any of my 18 cousins. I knew who they were but we didn't grow up together. No reason why blood should stick like glue.

"I read...….."

To be fair, not many people nowadays live 'just down the road' from their relatives.
I didn't know 2 cousins existed until I was 10!