Long live the Queen...no really

[magic452]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Yeah...she has reigned since Feb 52, quite some time and there is still no sign of handing the throne over to Charles.

I was 10 years old at the time and I can still remember our 4th. grade class all sitting around a brand new thing call a television and watching the coronation.
It was one of the earliest transcontinental TV broadcast.

Long live the Queen.

Magic

[Sailor Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.

[Castout]

I never knew the Queen was once young and hip

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?

[Reece]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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!!

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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

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

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

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

Sounds like the US Presidents.

[Herr-Berbunch]

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.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Good warlord, bad PM

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