Can't blame a man for chasing tail. It all makes me think that he knows he won't get the throne because of his brother.

I never knew the Queen was once young and hip :O:

Reece, havn't the British royals got a long and distingiuished history of shagging anything with a pulse?
Come to think of it isn't the current Prime Minister a descendant of a royals bastard?

Don't know but it doesn't surprise me!!:doh::yep:

You are probably right but I couldn't care about a bunch of toffs and even less about david cameron :down:

^Possibly the reason why the only British PM who was any good was he half American one...

:O:

Why on earth do people think he was a good PM?
OK he had some good moments and did get some lucky breaks, but on the whole he was a right pillock throughout his political career and made some really disasterous interventions as PM.

Sounds like the US Presidents. :DL

I've often wondered this myself, Edward, and his hussy Mrs Simpson couldn't get married whist he was King and leader of the Church of England because she was divorced, and yet Henry VIII created CofE purely so he could get divorced/remarried (beheading still wasn't frowned upon!). A point I often bring up with my wife, who teaches both history and religous studies*, and it really winds her up.

*She likes it to be called Philosophy and Ethics nowadays as kids have an immediate revulsion to anything religous but have an open mind for a topic title they've never heard of before. And there are fewer and fewer reference to religion.

Good warlord, bad PM :yep:

But people forget about his life before and after WWII, and just concentrate of the fact he was a member of the victorious side! And do note how quickly he was removed from office - and then how quickly he was back again :03:

In truth it sounds like politicians, apart from the last bit as some never get to a position where they can make intervensions.

Gotta be wor Neville :O:

Very true.

Or tell the truth

Actually I was thinking about his time before and after WWII as well. He has to be one of the most accomplished government leaders in recent history. He was the UK's First Lord of the Admiralty, Secretary for War and Air and other cabinet posts, he commanded a battalion in WWI (his fourth war in the Army BTW) and he won the Nobel Prize in Literature of all things!

Oh and he defeated the Muslim Messiah too...

Churchill was all in all quite awesome.

I've always been of the personal opinion that the British electorate sh!t on him at the wars end but that is possibly because I saw him as the only person able to lead our country during those often desparate times.

Yes! He is what the country/world needed at that time. Churchill is on my list of people I admire.

Churchill and Roosevelt the giants of freedom, two men able to put their Country before personel interests and desires, where would we be without them, in Uboats, :hmmm:

The greatest among you will be a servant, Jesus.

All true, and I don't blame you either. I suppose he sees himself as the suffering hero, denied his true love and forced into a pretend marriage. On the other hand Tribesman has a point as well, which was mine. Henry VIII did all those things as well, and the moral goaltender in all this was created just so he could do exactly that.

Again, I'm not really taking sides. I just find human nature fascinating, both the tendency to go against moral codes and the tendency to create them in the first place. If the King or Queen truly did still rule England, what kind of ruler would any of them make? I sure don't know. Here we don't hold with absolute idiot rulers. We have to choose between our idiot rulers, then kick them out every chance we get. Are we really better? No, just a different sort of lunacy.

Two crackin and tought provocative posts :rock: