Blixo Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Now that we are all suitably detracted by the prospect of a “Royal” wedding. One has to ask will we be asking the Prince to explain his finances with the same vigour? Hmmm How quickly that dropped from the "news"? hot stone anyone?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGAF Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 I'm not that fussed about it really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 But you claim to be a spurs fan? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We don't want to be greedy - we already have God.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Just for Zephyr's sake, I think I should point out that the reason Camilla would be known as Duchess of Cornwall is that Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall. So I don't think the Cornish will be too surprised by her new title. I lived there for three years so I know whereof I speak. And they like Prince Charles. He visits frequently and takes an interest in Cornish issues. As for the tampon thing, no, I can't ever imagine the Queen having a similar conversation. But then, if she ever did, that would make her a lesbian. Which sort of creeps me out. Though I can see the headline now ... QUEEN'S SECRET TRYST WITH CHAMBERMAID! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 H, I know that Charles is the duke of Cornwall, what I'm saying is that most of the Cornish people I know don't accept the rule of England anyway, so CPB being the Duchess means nothing. Look to the Cornish National Anthem. Does it say .................. England we are beholden and faithful to you? ........................ No it doesn't. Just cos you lived there for a while doesn't mean you understand their Psyche. You are English! Tuff. get on with it. The Cornish are a free nation and should abrigate as soon as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 There is some interesting stuff at Wikipedia about Cornwall - including links to pages about calls for Cornish independence. And a page about the Duchy Of Cornwall. Many interesting similarities between Cornwall and The Isle of Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Just cos you lived there for a while doesn't mean you understand their Psyche. You are English! Tuff. get on with it. The Cornish are a free nation and should abrigate as soon as possible <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To be fair though, I would question how much you know of the Cornish Psyche. Hollandaise has lived there, unless you have lived there to I would say you probably don't know as much as she does. I don't, myself, know a great deal about the Cornish people. However there are probably some who take your view, therefore I don't think a referendum on the matter would be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minxie Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 There was a bit on the news this morning that said Charlie & Camilla are not getting married in Windsor Castle any more, they have to get married at the town hall registry office accross the road. Queenie isn't too happy about it apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skig Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 There was a bit on the news this morning that said Charlie & Camilla are not getting married in Windsor Castle any more, they have to get married at the town hall registry office accross the road. Queenie isn't too happy about it apparently. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Queenie was not happy when she found out that the common serfs (yes that means all of us) could get married in her castle, if it was licenced for big ears & horse face to legalise their relationship. The french had the right idea. Off with their heads!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Absolutely. The Queen retains respect because she is of another era and has never put a foot wrong. And because people vaguely remember her father and the war - and an age when people had respect, and a need for something passed down by God. Before the British flag became a symbol for football hooligans and trouble makers. Prince Charles, as King, will never be able to command universal respect. Because as nice and typical as he might be - we won't really know what he is for. His great uncle was required to abdicate for very much less than he is guilty of. Prince Charles is, like Diana, a victim of an awful system. And Diana was much posher, really, than Prince Charles. The current shenanigans exposes, IMO, the pointlessness both of constitutional royalty and of an established church. When you make - up the constitution, and the rules of the established church, as you go along. You can't shape these things to fit. Which exposes their pointlessness. And before anyone asks what we would replace them with: We don't need to replace them with anything. Britain, and the islands, doesn't need a head - of - state. We have laws, agreements and rules. The UK has a PM. And the IOM has Donald Gelling. For better or worse. We don't need a Royal family and no amount of reform would make them worth keeping. The very notion of constitutional and democratic Royalty is ridiculous. You either have an absolute monarchy - or you abolish them. They make no sense as Kings who have anything less than absolute power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 "We don't need a Royal family and no amount of reform would make them worth keeping. The very notion of constitutional and democratic Royalty is ridiculous. You either have an absolute monarchy - or you abolish them. They make no sense as Kings who have anything less than absolute power." I have to with respect disagree while hating the present scandalous shower of the House of Windsor. The very presence of a constitutional monarch is in fact a checking power to prevent absolute dictatorship. Margaret Thatcher and the Queen hated one another. The reason is that Thatcher thought she could do anything she wanted too. It is the Queen who blocked Thatcher privatising the Royal Mail many years ago. And whether we like it or not, the Queen can dismiss a parliament and order a general election. That is not just fact it is actual law. Of course Her Majesty makes various non-political appointments like even that of the Governor of the Isle of Man after being advised by politicians and seniour civil servants. But at the end of the day she makes the final decision. I would rather Queen Elizabeth II have that ultimate right rather than Blaire or any other here today, gone tomorrow, politician. And because of this is why the marriage of Charles to Camilla is very important. To be the King of England is a duty and honour to represent everything that is great about Britain and nothing that is bad. To be an icon to look up to for guidance and wisdom. Yes that is the job! In the absence of that, if we abolish the monarchy we will be left clearly with an Executive that can do what it wants and to hell with ordinary people. Prince Charles has taken the p**s out of just how important his postion, rather than his power is. May Diana rest in peace, bless her soul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 The very presence of a constitutional monarch is in fact a checking power to prevent absolute dictatorship. Hmmm. And, erm, what about elections? Bless our souls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 The very presence of a constitutional monarch is in fact a checking power to prevent absolute dictatorship. Hmmm. And, erm, what about elections? Bless our souls <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A good point! In the absence of a presidium/monarchy then the Executive could not call elections and rule absolutely. In Britain they have to call them. And it is pertinent to point out that the military swears loyalty to the crown and not the government. That is the difference. Unless of course you would choose to go down the road of the USA system where the President is elected but not impartial. I am not saying the queen is impartial but to be honest she is the best thing yet. As for her offspring then the whole lot of them in my view leave a lot to be desired. Charles, William, Harry, etc. Spoilt brats unfit to represent Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barby Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 The Engagement photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minxie Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I see on the news this morning that Charlie & Camilla have had to move their wedding to the Saturday as Tony Blair and the Arch Bishop will be attending the Pope's funeral on Friday and the Queen wants Charles to go as her representative as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.