I've met The Queen (six times) and the late Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, Princess Alice, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Marina, Prince Charles (twice), Princess Anne, Princess Michael, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (twice), Lady Diana (three times), as well as a few others I can't remember off the top of my head.
What does everyone think of the Red Sox trading CoCo Crisp to the Royals for Ramon Rodriquez?
Going into 2009 as a Yankee fan, I would watery at the mouth at their bullpen. I wanted the Yankees to do what they do best, destroy the middle relief pitchers. The Red Sox pen wasn't good, but now this allows them to use Coco's money on a RP liek cruz and have a pretty good pen in papelbon, cruz, ramirez, masterson and oki. I could see them getting Burnett too, just to keep him away from the yankees and form one hell of a rotation with beckett, burnett, lester, dic-K and a 5th starter. They're payroll would still only be 140 million.
Will Americans show interest in the visit of the royals?
I honestly don't know why the American media is so obsessed with them,most British people don't care.I would even go as far as saying I hate the royal family with all their posh crap.Do Americans actually think British people are like them? :S. But it's the same with Obama... He's constantly on the t.v when he has anything remotely to do with us,I mean why would we give a rusty fuck what Obama is up to?. The media is bizzare.
Jesus Christ here is some more stupid people,no you see you would like to think Obama controls us,but in reality he doesn't thought does he,ever heard of the E.U? if America was to fuck off Britain,Germany or France the whole lot of them would completely boycott the U.S and turn to the likes of Russia,China etc;. I'm not even going to bother getting into this,on this site there seems to be 4-5 users who constantly bash other countries for saying something against American,it is really pathetic.If the U.S controlled the U.K do you think we would still have the Falklands? you guys like to think you are,but nearly everyone you guys try to bully around ignores you its funny as hell.North Korea builds Nuclear weapons when the U.S tells them not to,Iran is building them when the U.S tells them not to,China is still devaluing their currency...when the U.S tells them not to.The U.K has still not extradited the Scottish hacker who hacked into NASA...when the U.S told us we had to.The United states controls practically no one,and you know why? because your leaders are not as stupid as SOME of the general public,they know that if they did try to bully a major European nation they would be completely fucked economically...do you know where most of U.S services go? that's right Europe and mainly the Big 3 I.E Germany,France and the U.K,I'm so pleased most Americans aren't like you two complete idiots.
Detoit at KC begins a 3 game series today. Can the Royals close the 3 game gap in the AL Central?
Well I'm going with my gut and assuming that the Royals can muster a few runs at home. Meche is totally due for a good outing. Greinke is a lock. Davies was sharp against the Cards and might have some momentum. The Royals bullpen has been questionable lately, but they have been saving Cruz and Farnsworth for something, I guess this series. Also the Royals have been good at home. As for the Tigers I fear them in this division and I think they are for real. But they are due for a few losses about now. I think the Tigers will win 88-94 games, depending on how they play in the 15 upcoming games against the Royals.
Does anyone think the Kansas City Royals will make the playoffs?
I will be thrilled if they go .500 this year. 81 wins after 69 last year would be a monumental improvement.
They still need a catcher than can hit. A good full time first baseman. A better all around shortstop. My opinion of Jose Guillen has not changed, IMO that was a 36 million dollar mistake(12M per) Emil Brown was better than Guillen.
And of course they could use a couple more pitchers, but then again who couldn't.
The Royals do have a lot of good young arms both with the team and in the minors.
Did ancient Egyptian royals sometimes marry their siblings?
In many societies, royals have married within their own family. As the representation of their god on earth, who else would be suitable was the thought in many cases. It's found around the world, but in most of those cultures it was NOT OK for anyone else to intermarry. Even then they knew that led to birth defects.
Is the beauty of baseball that on any given day a doormat like the Royals can shutdown the legendary Yankees?
Hats off to the Royals. Congrats to them. This Yankee Fan is willing to give credit where it's due.
To a certain user here considering that your favorite team players where also caught with roids i wouldn't be talking about teams using roids if i where you. Makes you sound very hypocritical.
How long before we will see teams like Pirates, Royals, and even the Indians get to playoffs?
As long as it takes for them to assemble talent and establish a winning tradition.
Look, we can all complain how we wish teams like the Pirates or Royals were doing good instead of the same old Yankees/ Red Sox. But the truth is that any team, with proper scouting, competent management, and just a general knowledge of what it takes to win baseball games can succeed regardless of how low their payroll is. Take the San Diego Padres, for example. Their payroll is almost as low as Pittsburgh's, yet they almost won the West this year!
Have Kyle Farnsworth and Trey Hillman been sent from the future to finally destroy the Royals?
Kyle Farnsworth is actually a terminator from the year 2029 of the ruins of Chicago. Intelligent machines, who happen to be Chicago White Sox fans, control the post-apocalyptic Earth, and are determined to exterminate the human race by crushing the 2009 Kansas City Royals.
It was only known recently, after giving up a homerun on April 19th, 2009, that Kyle was a cyborg from the future. The machine's only mistake was that prior to last night's game, Kyle asked the entire Texas Ranger team if they were "Sarah Connor." This slip has given the Kansas City Royals the chance to mitagate the damage that he has currently done by inserting ANYONE else from the bullpen instead.
Trey Hillman, on the other hand, is not from the future nor a cyborg. The reason for the mistakes is that he plays players on the "shiny star" system. Each player's locker, prior to the game, is inspected by manager Trey Hillman. Each locker is graded from one to five stars. "I like to burn lavender candles and use Clorox Green Works before each game as clean my locker," commented John Buck, "I've gotten 4 stars every day since the Cleveland Indian series." "Yeah, John Buck and Kyle Farnsworth have definitely earned their spot," Hillman remarked, "Their lockers look absolutely wonderful. It's my pleasure to let them be in the starting lineup or come in during integral relief periods because on the work they've done... in the locker room."
where do they Kansas City Royals stay in Oakland when playing there?
I dont think you would get autographs at the hotel but one time I stayed in a hotel down the street from where the Lightning play and the Ottawa Senators where staying there so my guess is the closest/ nicest hotel to the park.
How far is it to go from a Royals game to a Cardinal's game?
Oh yeah, you can do this. It does depend on how much time you have. It would be a real hectic weekend (Cards game Fri. night, travel Sat., Royals game Sat. night or Sun., bus or train back Sun. night) but you COULD do it, I think. Definitely you could do it if you have more time than that.
You can take Megabus for $2.50 roundtrip if you know your dates in advance and are able to get online and buy the tickets when they first release a new group of dates. Otherwise it will cost somewhere around $25 to $30 each way probably. I took this from St. Louis to Minneapolis and it was great. See www.megabus.com. It's an express bus, not one that stops at every exit along I-70.
Amtrak costs just $26 one way, and there are a couple of trains each day, though the last one leaves KC at 4, so that would be hard to make if you caught a Sunday game in KC (maybe you could do a Sat. night game in KC). The Royals play on the outskirts of KC, so you'd have to take a cab or bus out there (see www.kcata.org; looks like they have express buses from downtown out to the ballpark), whereas in St. Louis the stadium is in easy walking distance of the new bus/train station.
Have fun. The thought of baseball brings warmth to this cold December day.
In view of the poor economy, will the UK royals now start raising racing dogs instead of racing horses?
Never that ducky, never that. We royals do not need to economize - only the commoners do that. Hence the royal wedding. The bride was a commoner, so they economized. The Royal Ascot cannot be economized.
What was the Royals' record with Mike Sweeney in the lineup in 2007?
You can look it up if you like
Mike Sweeney - Game Log
http://www.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=123041 >game log
Compare Sweeney's game log with the Royals "schedule". >Click on "schedule" then go month by month, it shows the results of every game played this year.
Do most royals think themselves divinely chosen for royals works?
I think it depends on the Royal but the Queen definitely believes that God has given her this duty to perform and that her coronation was making an oath to him that she would perform her duty and hence she entered kind of marriage with the state. I have no idea what their views on evolution are.
Is there an episode of gangland featuring the simon city royals?
This is all the info I could find. Hope it helps. Go to this site.
gang associates shot dead in Gangland Slayings ... GANGLAND channel ... left a new comment on your post "Simon City Royals gang leader Thomasa Parker (1) ...
* Have a Good Day *
~ Don ~
Do the Royals have to best young team and in MLB what pitcher takes the loss?
Royals will not be contending for a pennant until 2015 or so. They are young, yes, and good sure, but Detriot, Texas, and LA Angels are stacked, not to mention the Yanks and Rays.
A loss is given to the pitcher who was pitching at the point when the other team took the lead for good. If the runner who scored the lead run was an inherited runner from another pitcher then that previous pitcher gets the loss.
Are Swedish royals still required to be members of the Church of Sweden?
The Head of State (the king) is required to be a member of the Church of Sweden, but not the other members of his or her family, unless they want to stay in line of succession to the throne.
Just to avoid confusion: what Sthlm writes below is technically correct, but doesn't contradict my answer above. The formulation about the "pure, evangelical faith", etc, in the constitution, is actually usually interpreted as "being a member of the Church of Sweden". See for example http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/tcrot/km/2008/motioner/Mot%202008_030.shtml
And the next line in the constitution, after the quoted passage, mentions what happens if anyone in the royal family abandons the pure Lutheran faith, namely, he or she is excluded from the line of succession.
So, in short, my original answer above sums it all up.
And as a matter of curiosity, I might mention that several of the Swedish kings, especially during the 19th century, actually were married to queens that were practicing Roman Catholics.
Is Zach Greinke going to lead the Royals to the ALCS against the Yankees?
That question made me laugh. Were not the Yanks like 40 games ahead of the Royals last year and who says the Dodgers are a lock. The dodgers are like the yanks when Torre could not control them just like he cant control or manage the dodgers.
They choked this year.
It will be the Yanks and St. Louis next year and the yanks will win about 110 games,
Are the Kansas City Royals going to surprise everyone and win the AL Central this season?
they have an overall good young team but i think its going to get tougher as the season goes on because the twins and the chisox are always strong contenders. (Although the Twinkies are starting off slow.. which you probably would never know judging by how they beat the angels last night to a pulp! siiiiigh)
Will the Kansas city royals be a better baseball team than last year in the 2008 baseball season?
Yeah, they will be a better team. World Series, though, thats asking a little much. If they finish the year with a .500 record, that'll be a vast improvement. They've got a lot of young guys on the team that are going to be really good. Gordon and Butler both got adjusted to major league pitching last year and really started hitting well the last couple months. They've got solid veteran leadership from Grudz and an underrated middle infield with him and Pena, Jr. They've got a few more pieces they need to add to be a real contender - more depth in the rotation and a power hitting 1st baseman (or anybody with a lot of power for that matter) are immediate concerns that I see. Anyways, yes they'll be an improved team.
It doesn't have anything to do with being royal, as such. It is the sash (correctly called "riband") of the Order of the Garter, the senior order of knighthood in Britain. Most orders of knighthood have such a riband, in the colour of the order, which is worn with formal evening dress.
The Queen and several other members of the royal family are Kinghts of the Garter, and so you see them wearing it. But most of the members of the Order are not royal. Margaret Thatcher is one, for example.
Where did the Royals live before Buckingham Palace was built?
Buckingham House was the city residence of the Dukes of Buckingham. Before it was acquired by King George IV, the Royal Family lived at Windsor Castle. George III spent the last twenty years of his life as a prisoner of his mad doctors there, and even in his early career he favored Windsor. For obvious reasons George IV preferred other digs Buying Buckingham House gave him another excuse to spend vast sums of money rebuilding and redecorating, as he had already done at Carlton House and would do at the Brighton Pavilion.
Known as Farmer George, Geroge III loved to practice agriculture and animal husbandry on the Windsor farms. When he had to go to London for a Court (at St. James' Palace), he would usually ride back the same evening (a distance of 20 miles) to be able to sleep at Windson with his wife.
What is the point for having only royals be with royals in the United kingdom?
In fact, such a rule never really existed in the UK. The first commoner to marry a British king did so back in the 15th century. Four of Henry VIII's wives were non-royals. Queen Victoria approved the marriage of her daughter Louise to a non-royal duke, and her grandson, George V, made it officially clear that British royals did not have to marry other royals. His daughter and two of his sons (not counting the Duke of Windsor, who was a special case) did not have royally-born spouses.
But there were some European families in which this rule existed, and the idea was more or less to protect the "purity" (if there was such a thing) of royal blood. The Russians insisted that the heir to the throne could marry only a member of a reigning royal house, though other, lesser members of the family were not really bound by this rule, unless they were very close to the throne in the line of succession. In Sweden, until very recently, the heir to the throne was not allowed to marry someone who wasn't a member of a royal family, even if she didn't hold the title of "princess". (Being a member of an extended royal family and perhaps holding the title of "Lady" was acceptable.) As the recent wedding of the Crown Princess of Sweden demonstrates, that rule has gone by the wayside.
It was thought shocking when the Crown Prince of Japan married a commoner back in 1959, instead of a member of one of the old Japanese princely or at least noble families, but his own son married another commoner in 1993.
Most of the heirs to thrones in Europe are now married to people who were not born royal or even noble.
But again, the idea in the past was to keep royal blood from being "diluted" by non-royal blood and to preserve respect for the very concept of royalty.
How should they pick a Kansas City Royals player for the All-Star game?
Zack Greinke is the only starter close.
David DeJesus is putting up Fukudome numbers, not that it says much for all-star numbers.
Joakim Soria is a good closer.
Take your pick.
Will the UK royal family become more like the Danish royals as time passes?
Eventually, I think that the British royals will become less like royals and more like commoners. Just take a look at William, he doesn't seem to embody the traditional style of monarchy like his grandmother, he will probably modernise the monarchy to the point where buckingham palace will turn into 10 downing street. If you watched the Baftas, did you notice that he just blended in with the movie stars instead of standing out? oh well....
Who will the royals acquire as their new pitcher this off season?
What I have heard is the Rays are interested in dealing James Shields to the Royals in exchage for a couple of high level prospects. Lorenzo Cain and Mike Montgomery would be a possibility.
I would not trade Wil Myers or Jake Odorizzi
Even after bringing a bunch of rookies up last year(Hosmer, Moustakas, Perez, Giavotella, Holland, Crow, etc) the Royals are still loaded with prospects. Along with Myers and Odorizzi, you have Bubba Starling(18YO) the #1 HS player in the country, Elier Hernandez(16YO) the #1 player in the IPL(Internation Prospects League), and Cheslor Cuthbert(18YO) A ball >So trading away a couple of major league ready prospects like Cain and Montgomery would not cripple the Royals future.
The Royals want to keep Bruce Chen, so long as the price and length of contract make sense.
The 2003 Royals opened the season 9-0.
The best seasonal winning percentage through 30-April for any Royals team was in 1978, when they were at .737 (14-5).
The most wins the team has had in April is 16, in both 1989 (16-8, .667) and 2003 (16-7, .696). The Royals also went 1-0 in March 2003, giving them a 17-7 (.708) record on 30-April.
It does depend how many Royals are present and what countries they are from.
If a lot of Royals are present (for state occasions, jubilee celebrations, official birthdays, etc), it is more than likely all of them converse in English - the accepted international language.
If a smaller number of Royals is present and they all know each other, they'll speak the language all of them are best versed in, or the language of the host country (if they all know it).
In other words, not very different to how most people from different countries, Royal or not, communicate.
What kind of power do the British royals have, and where do they get their wealth?
You're broadly right. The British Royal family generally have few legal roles apart from the Queen herself, although they are immune from various laws like planning permission (local government has to authorise that any building work is safe, but the royal family can do what they like).
The Queen is in name the Head of State, the head of the armed forces and the head of the Church of England. In practice she is not allowed to actually exercise any authority or even display any preferences. The cost of keeping the whole royal family is estimated as £41.5m (about $70m?) per year, although this is not all as cash paid directly to them (only £7.9m) - a lot of it goes as money spent upkeeping the various estates. In addition there is the cost of security provided by the police and the army, which is not published.
However, this money is offset against money paid to the treasury in income tax, capital gains tax (in the UK, if you buy property cheap, and it goes up in value and you sell it expensively, this difference is subject to capital gains tax), and in earnings from various estates they own - these earnings are paid to the state in exchange for the £7.9m mentioned above. The Royal family own an enormous amount of land. One set of land alone, the Crown Estates, is worth £6.2 billion, and makes profits of around £200m per year which are paid to the state, which alone heavily outweighs the cost of the Royal family. In addition there are the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster which are probably worth another £1bn.
From our point of view, financially, it benefits us to have these holdings associated with the state rather than a private business, as a lot more money flows back into the state than it would do otherwise. Most of their wealth is based on stuff they inherited, or proceeds from the estates, or businesses based on the estates. Prince Charles owns a company that makes biscuits (Duchy Originals). They're quite nice!
Politically, the point of keeping the Queen as Head of state is to provide some sort of counterbalance, albeit even only theoretical, to the Prime Minister. Most countries have two houses of government and a Head of State; the US has the House, the Senate and the President. The British Prime Minister controls the House of Commons (roughly equivalent to the House); the House of Lords (even more roughly equivalent to the Senate) is much weaker than the Commons; so he actually has much more direct authority than the President of the US, so it's important that there is some counterbalance. The British PM cannot actually seize power as a dictator because technically the army belongs to the Queen and she has the authority to dissolve parliament. The Queen cannot seize power because it would cause a revolution.
This situation has basically evolved over the last 350 years or so because, as revolutions happened all across Europe and various Kings and Queens were beheaded, the British Monarchy looked at it and thought, we would rather give power back a bit at a time, than suffer a revolution and lose it all. The ball was started by our own Civil War, 1642-1651, followed mainly by a period of dictatorship, until we re-established a monarchy that had to listen to parliament in 1660. This gradual constraining of the monarchy has continued right up until 1992 when they started paying income tax.
So - what's the benefit of keeping them? People have different opinions and it kind of comes down to taste. From my point of view the finances are pretty even or actually profitable for the country. For me it's a matter of style. For me, there is no other person in the world whose title is as impressive as the King or Queen of England. For sheer grandeur and symbolism nothing can touch it. The President of the United Stated comes second - but to be honest, he's only going to be there for eight years, and there is a reasonable prospect that one day Sarah Palin could have that title.
I think history and symbolism are important, especially in trying to create a nation; trying to make millions of people who don't know each other unite under the same banner. That is why America has worked so hard to elevate the idea of the President to an almost religious status. If you have something that's richly symbolic and you throw it away it's hard to build it up again.
I'm not especially into these particular people. I'm sure they're no better or worse than a lot of other people. But the idea of the monarchy is so central to the idea of what it means to be British, that, at a time when we're struggling for an idea of national identity as it is, it would be too destructive to rip it out. And they don't actually do any harm or cost any money.
What is the main thing that must change for the Royals to be successful?
The main thing has already been done.
They hired a new GM. That is the first step.
I feel your pain.
As a Tiger fan, I suffered through 2003.
Dave Dombrowski was hired as The Tiger's new President in 2001, and in 2002 fired Randy Smith as GM, and took over those duties.
Since then, he has re-stocked our farm system and made some good trades and signings.
You just have to keep the faith. These kind of things take 4-5 years to come together.
The Tigers did it, I know KC can do too!
Are the Royals supposed to be doing anything about the UK Riots?
The British monarchy is only good for a couple things..
1) The Queen keeps the Prime Minister in check if need be. Royalty doesn't run the country... That's what parliament is for. She has the authority to oust him/ her when the sh/t hits the fan --as long as she wants to-- most likely with the request from the majority...again parliament and maybe from citizens if the sht is thick enough. (Has never happened to my knowledge). A last minute safety net, if you ask me.
2) Royalty has been around since... well, who knows, a long time and nowadays it's mainly for show and ceremony.
Personally I believe now would be the perfect time for law-abiding citizens to propose a license to carry bill... Guns aren't outlawed completely. Shotguns are available, however, after a series of permits and taxations, etc.. It's hell to acquire one, so I hear. The police are horrible over there.
If you were to call the police because you were getting robbed, the only way they're going to show up soon is if you threaten to use deadly force (or any type of force). The police don't really do anything for your standard Joe.. They are more worried about breaking up the fight or preventing ANYONE from being hurt, including the perpertrator. Actually, I'm not even sure you can threaten to use deadly force. (It might be against the law for owning a firearm).
The chief of police (I think)-- somebody okayed water cannons, but lets be for real... These rioters, they could give 2 shtz about innocent lives. Their objective is to destroy/ loot/ burn/ harm others to get their message across.
A nice machine gun or two would do a fine job, I believe, though it's just a personal suggestion.
I'm an American though, so my 2 cents are worthless.
Why do the royals get the job as head of state without letting others have a chance?
Dear John, That is what a monarchy is. It saves money by not having elections and stops the embarrassment of having to admit to, having the likes of a, George Dubya Bush as president and running the country.