Her Majesty's Undignified Trappings

[Flosshilde]

In your opinion.

Many would think precisely the opposite; but then you will simply dismiss them as idiotic Daily Mail reading philistines whose opinions count for nothing.

[BBMmk2]

I know it's your Christmas today but have you been at the Brandy Butter already ?

Alas no!

[MrGongGong]

In your opinion.

Many would think precisely the opposite; but then you will simply dismiss them as idiotic Daily Mail reading philistines whose opinions count for nothing.

YES IN MY OPINION which I don't expect you to share ................

[JFLL]

Perhaps not - but you weren't being asked, actually...

Sorry, my dear chap, spoke out of turn …

[Sydney Grew]

Her Majesty, for whom I have harboured the utmost respect and admiration since our encounter in 1952, is always going on about "service" - and I wondered what exactly that means. It cannot simply be the attending of functions and the meeting of people. So part of it must be the bearing of offspring. . . . must it not?

I still remember what a surprise it was when, with Charles and Anne quite grown up, she quite suddenly bore two more. I wonder what the intended purpose of those latter two was or is.

[Flosshilde]

Would have Anne been next in line if Charles had popped his clogs? Perhaps Andy was a 'spare' ( )

[Serial_Apologist]

Would have Anne been next in line if Charles had popped his clogs? Perhaps Andy was a 'spare' ( )

If Andy and Edward hadn't come along, Anne would have been next in line to Charles. The non-birth-control method of royal progeniture was put into operation, obviously.

[Flosshilde]

I thought she would have been, but wasn't certain. I suppose the answer to Syd's question is that Andy & Eddy serve no discernable purpose (Andy can't even be said to bring joy to his parents' hearts), but were obviously simply the by-products of a night (two nights, rather) of connubial bliss.