I'm for Prince William

Michael Thorton, a veteran observer of the Royal Family, has published in the today's DM on line, a very interesting article on the succeeding matter for the throne of England, asking Prince of Wales to make himself apart in favour of his son Prince William, taking example from his great-uncle Edward VIII.
Well, let me say that I agree with Thorton's point of view; and despite the comments of bird of ill omen bishop Broadbent, who has declared the wedding between Prince William and Miss Kate Middlengton will last only for seven year, I wish the regal pair to reign over, together, at least, as long as His grandparents have done.
Read more on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1331083/emailArticle.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331626/emailArticle.html

The Charme of Discretion

You don't hear to talk so much of Her, though she's the second born of Queen Elisabeth (and she looks like the Queen quiet a lot indeed).
Despite af this silence around Her figure, she's may be the most royal in the Royal Family (after Her mother).
We are talking of Her Royal Highness Princess Anne who have made of Her discretion and reserveness quiet a status of high charme.

Read more on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1302639/emailArticle.html

Love is a mistery

I might be considered a simple man or may be a romantic one but, not desireing to be involved in the legal matter, if Prince Charles and Camilla could or not to get married in a civil ceremony (as it seems even too difficult for the apex functionaries:see the following DM's service) but I still remain surprised why the prince of Cornwall could spend his love with the present Duchess, while married with His died legal wife, Princess Diana.

I know love is blind, but I keep asking myself why He didn't get married with Camilla instead, if was in love with her?

I can only answer myself that love keeps being a great mistery!

To know more

by Simon Walters and Ian Gallagher on DM on line

The Government was accused of a cover-up last night after it was ruled that the legal advice that enabled Prince Charles to marry the Duchess of Cornwall must remain secret until after his death.
Doubts about the legality of the wedding have long persisted, with some constitutional experts arguing that legislation prevented the couple from taking part in a civil ceremony.
In the latest development, it was decided to withhold details of the legal advice because of its constitutional ‘sensitivity and significance’. Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked a Freedom of Information request to make public the advice given to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer before he gave the wedding the go-ahead.

Controversy: Charles and Camilla after their civil ceremony in 2005. Doubts about the legality of the wedding have long persisted
Now, in a 19-page ruling, the Information Commissioner has refused an appeal against the decision.
The couple married five years ago after Lord Falconer overruled claims that members of the Royal Family were banned from marrying in a register office.
He told The Mail on Sunday at the time that Parliament clearly intended that ‘members of the Royal Family could, if they wished, get married in a civil ceremony’.
Lord Falconer repeated this assurance to Parliament six weeks before the marriage at Windsor Guildhall on April 9, 2005.
But his critics argued at the time that Charles was barred from marrying in a register office by two statutes - the Marriage Act of 1836, which specifically prohibited Royals from marrying in register offices, and the 1949 Marriage Act which, according to every Government until Tony Blair became Prime Minister, left the position unchanged.Lord Falconer rejected previous views, however, as ‘too cautious’.
Last night campaigning Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said of the new ruling: ‘It is an odd decision. We have a right to know on what basis this is being covered up, as indeed does Prince Charles.’

A Home Office memo of 1948 says it is ‘desirable’ that the ban on civil weddings for Royals is kept in force in the following year’s legislation.
It is reinforced by a second memo which states: ‘The present time would seem ill-chosen for any alteration affecting Royal marriages. On the whole, it would seem best to leave things as they are.’
There is further evidence from parliamentary and Lambeth Palace archives. A letter written by the parliamentary lawyer responsible for drawing up the 1949 Act says that the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, promised that it involved no changes to any marriage laws - including the Royals.
'We have a right to know on what basis this is being covered up'
Officials who acted on behalf of Archbishop Fisher said the Church of England had nothing to worry about from the 1949 Act because it ‘does not depart from previous practice’.
Last night Mr Jones said: ‘The country wishes Charles and Camilla well. He will become King and she will be at his side, whatever her title is. But deeper principles are at stake.
‘Blair and Falconer should have changed the 1949 Act by amending it, as the Tories offered to do. Instead, they took the decision to rewrite history in secret to save time and possible embarrassment to the Royal Family.’
The Justice Ministry does not emerge unscathed from the Commissioner’s findings. He reprimands it for breaking the statutory deadlines on answering Freedom of Information complaints.
A Clarence House official said Charles had taken legal advice from four different sources five years ago and all agreed his remarriage in a civil ceremony was legal.
Mr Jones said: ‘Charles and Camilla have a marriage certificate to prove it. The question is whether Falconer abused his powers to allow it.’
In his interview with The Mail on Sunday before the wedding, Lord Falconer said he believed the wedding would be legal based on the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages.
He claimed it overturned the 1836 Marriage Act which banned Royals from marrying in civil ceremonies.
‘The language of the 1949 Act is clearly intended to allow Royals to take part in civil weddings,’ he said.

Flashback: The legality of the wedding was questioned in The Mail On Sunday on February 20, 2005
He rejected the argument that the provision in the 1949 Act that nothing in it should affect ‘any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family’ was intended to continue the ban on Royals having civil weddings.
He said it was merely a reference to other Royal customs, such as there being no need for Royals to post banns before getting married or obtaining a licence.
‘Unlike the 1836 Act, the 1949 Act does not say Royals cannot marry in a civil ceremony. In 1949, Parliament clearly intended that members of the Royal Family could, if they wished, get married in a civil ceremony.’
He said the fact that Section 45 of the 1836 Act was not repealed in 1949 was irrelevant. ‘People who dispute this interpretation may not have had time to think it through fully,’ he said. ‘We have been very thorough and are confident we have got it right.’
Lord Falconer’s claim that Charles was protected by the Human Rights Act was also contentious.
He said the Act required legislation to be interpreted ‘wherever possible’ in a way that was compatible with the right to marry without discrimination.
In 2008 a senior Ministry of Justice official told Mr Jones that secret information relating to Lord Falconer’s decision had been found in Government files.
But it could not be revealed because it was against the public interest - and could lead to the legality of the Government’s decision being challenged in court.
The Justice Department told him: ‘The disclosure of legal advice has a high potential to prejudice the Government’s ability to defend its legal interests by unfairly exposing its legal position to challenge.
‘We recognise that there is a public interest in citizens knowing that decisions of this nature have been taken with the benefit of sound legal advice. However, in the circumstances of this case, the public interest does not outweigh the opposing public interest in maintaining the current convention.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265095/Charles--Camilla-marriage-Legal-advice-sealed-Princes-death.html#ixzz0kltQId8S

Royals on their own!

May be because they lost the last world war; or might be for desire of fame; or, who knows?, for need of money; whatever can be the reason, the Italian royals Savoia started working very hard in order to pay their own fees.

The youngest heir of the family became a very busy TV showman!

Of course we don't mean British Royals should do the same!

At least they didn't escape during the war nor they involved their country in an insane dictatorship!

Anyway we prefer the Italian royals being showmen (of course if they are able to play with!)

Read more on the DM online By Stephen Wright

"Scotland Yard chief Sir Paul Stephenson has expressed concerns about the costs of protecting Princess Eugenie and other 'B-list' royals

Britain's top policeman has expressed concerns about the cost to the taxpayer of protecting Princess Eugenie and other 'B-list' royals.

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson is looking at how best to use resources at his cash-strapped force.

One area of concern is the cost of armed, round-the-clock protection for the 19-year-old princess - a renowned party animal - during her first year at Newcastle University.

Insiders estimate it at £250,000 a year - including salaries, accommodation, living and travel expenses.

Sir Paul is involved in a fierce dispute with ministers over the estimated £50million a year cost of protecting 22 members of the Royal Family.

He has told Home Secretary Alan Johnson the Government should pay the full amount rather than the £30million it currently provides.

Dai Davies, a respected former head of the Yard's Royalty Protection Squad, said some officers had expressed their doubts about the need for Eugenie to have full-time armed bodyguards.

He said: 'I am not aware of any evidence of any threat to her. If there isn’t a threat, it would appear to be a pointless exercise. It’s difficult to see the justification in security terms for providing such protection 24/7.'

Policing arrangements for Prince Andrew’s children have come under intense scrutiny in recent years.
The attempted mugging of Eugenie while she was travelling in Cambodia in May 2009 during her gap year highlighted the role of her protection officers.

They were able to defend her because they had accompanied her during her trip.
Critics pointed out, however, that it was Eugenie’s decision to go backpacking that attracted the threat. She was not targeted because she was a royal and therefore should not get VIP treatment from the Yard, they add.

A number of cynics have also questioned how details of the mugging were leaked to a national newspaper, which duly splashed her 'ordeal', just weeks after the row over her security arrangements first blew up.


At Newcastle, Eugenie is said to be living in a £96-a-week hall of residence, and is in the first year of a three-year course combining English, art history and politics.
Her protection officers are based in a nearby flat rather than a luxury hotel, which is where they normally stay when following the globe-trotting, party loving princess around the world.

Her older sister, Beatrice, 21, also enjoys full-time protection. She is living in a four-bedroom apartment in St James’s Palace while studying history at Goldsmiths, University of London.
The decision to continue to provide Beatrice and Eugenie with 24-hour guards is said to stem from a secret deal agreed between their father, Andrew, and a senior Scotland Yard officer when his former wife Sarah, the Duchess of York, was pregnant with Beatrice in 1988.
During a private meeting, the prince is said to have forcefully requested that Scotland Yard provide lifelong armed protection to his children because he feared they might one day be targeted in a terrorist or violent attack. The unidentified senior officer is said to have agreed.
Eugenie's older sister, Beatrice, enjoys full-time protection, as does their father, Prince Andrew

Insiders claim that Prince Andrew regards his daughters' having Yard bodyguards as being good for their 'status'.

The funding issue is particularly acute because the Met, like other forces, is planning to cut frontline officers.

The tight security round Prince Andrew's daughters is in marked contrast to the protection provided to Princess Anne's daughter Zara.

Though she is a professional horsewoman with a higher profile than her cousins, neither she nor her brother Peter are routinely guarded.

Buckingham Palace and Scotland Yard refuse to comment on security. "



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257866/Scotland-Yard-chiefs-fury-royal-security-Princess-Eugenie-B-list-royals.html#ixzz0iDvmFQfN