Long live the Queen...no really

Reece · 06-08-11, 10:48 PM

Charles should never be allowed to take the thrown because of the circumstances concerning Camilla, before, as well as the marriage itself.

Sailor Steve · 06-09-11, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reece

Charles should never be allowed to take the thrown because of the circumstances concerning Camilla, before, as well as the marriage itself.

Sorry, I would have thought those very circumstances would make him the perfect candidate.

Reece · 06-09-11, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Sorry, I would have thought those very circumstances would make him the perfect candidate.

That'll go down well!!

Sailor Steve · 06-09-11, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reece

That'll go down well!!

Well, it's just that when I first heard them questioning whether he should be king they talked about the divorce, and I thought, wait a minute, didn't the national church come about specifically so a king could get a divorce?

None of my business, and I really don't care, but I did find it curious.

Reece · 06-09-11, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Well, it's just that when I first heard them questioning whether he should be king they talked about the divorce, and I thought, wait a minute, didn't the national church come about specifically so a king could get a divorce?

None of my business, and I really don't care, but I did find it curious.

When he was married to Dianna he was having an affair with Camilla, then when Dianna was killed he shacked up with her and then married her, Camilla was also married at the time so marrying her is not really a good example (adultery) for a prince or future king to show/behave! My wife is still a British subject and she is furious with him and frankly I don't blame her!

Anthony W. · 06-09-11, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reece

When he was married to Dianna he was having an affair with Camilla, then when Dianna was killed he shacked up with her and then married her, Camilla was also married at the time so marrying her is not really a good example (adultery) for a prince or future king to show/behave! My wife is still a British subject and she is furious with him and frankly I don't blame her!

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.

06-09-11, 03:47 AM

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?

Sailor Steve · 06-09-11, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reece

When he was married to Dianna he was having an affair with Camilla, then when Dianna was killed he shacked up with her and then married her, Camilla was also married at the time so marrying her is not really a good example (adultery) for a prince or future king to show/behave! My wife is still a British subject and she is furious with him and frankly I don't blame her!

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.

Jimbuna · 06-09-11, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sidslotm

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,

The greatest among you will be a servant, Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

Herr-Berbunch · 06-09-11, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Well, it's just that when I first heard them questioning whether he should be king they talked about the divorce, and I thought, wait a minute, didn't the national church come about specifically so a king could get a divorce?

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.

06-09-11, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Sounds like the US Presidents

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

AVGWarhawk · 06-09-11, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Very true.

BossMark · 06-09-11, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Or tell the truth

Castout · 06-09-11, 03:47 AM

I never knew the Queen was once young and hip

06-08-11, 10:48 PM	#1
Reece CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Down Under Posts: 34,722 Downloads: 171 Uploads: 0	Charles should never be allowed to take the thrown because of the circumstances concerning Camilla, before, as well as the marriage itself. __________________ *Sub captains go down with their ship!*

06-09-11, 03:47 AM	#14
Castout Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 4,794 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 6	I never knew the Queen was once young and hip __________________ My blog: http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/

06-09-11, 03:47 AM	#7
Tribesman Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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?