Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Queensman, Feb 10, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Yadder yadder yadder.....
.............and Ladies - don't forget us
I wouldn't wish the reponsibility on Wills at such a young age. I hope HM will live a long time yet
To start with Queensman HRH is not in a position to abdicate unless the Queen (God bless her) decides to retire, an unlikely scenario at the moment.
Secondly, and I'm quite prepared to accept that I will be at odds with the rest of the ARRSE members but I think your assessment of Charles (save his choice of women) is totally wrong. I think he is a decent bloke who deserves a fair go. Still if you want to believe everything you read in the Scum then crack on.
Here, here! I'm with you Birdie. Hurrah for HRH.
(And might I add Sir, if you need someone to take care of the dissenters, I'm just down the road! )
Im firmly nehind him. I think he is a solidly honest bloke who stands up for what he believes in (not veryone agrees with him though).
Long live the queen, and should we lose her, long live king charles.
William is too young and needs to serve his country before he becomes king.
so what happens if like many middle aged, upper middle class, economically secure and childless couples C&C decide to adopt!!!!!!!!
Could we have a future King?Queen from one of the colonies. Quick man the ramparts
Charles should take up his post as and when - and I believe it is his firm intention to do so.
What I could see happening is The Queen lasting another 10-15 years, at which point Charles would be a pensioner (unless TCB has changed the rules). William is likely to be happily married by the, and skipping a generation would have more merit than now.
Charles would still have 'baggage' (this not aimed at Camilla by the way)
Young King William & family would increase popularity of Monarchy
Charles would be a good advisor to his son
Charles could carry on his other good works
Imaging The Queen lasting as long as her mum (or longer) !! Here's hoping.
A cutting assessment of Prince Charles but don't forget that he was not the only one to stray from the path of matrimonial bliss. Princess Diana was no saint.
Prince Charles is next in line and we, a generally monarchist group, should support him because there will be enough people ready to hammer the man for marrying a woman he loves. Let him be King.
A greater fear than Prince Charles becoming King is that he is missed out and an awful accident befalls Prince William. Look at who's 3rd in line.
The House of Hewitt?
Idle Adjt (funny, I was one of those once too!)
What a dreadful thought - The House of Hewitt, gorblimey. But I suppose, at least they'd be English, rather than a strange deluded collection Germans with Jock pretensions. I was taken very firmly to task in an earlier thread for suggesting that the Nazi Prince was the spawn of our former donkey whalloping comrade-in-arms!
I still can't reconcile myself to the notion of their nuptials and see it as only fitting that it'll happen in a registry office in some High Street. Just about sums the whole thing up.
'Nice' to see racism, based wholly on elements of a British family's ancestry, reappearing in Current Affairs.
was it only me that swore an oath of allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and succesors?
Prince Charles = Heir
Oath of allegiance = loyalty to heir implied
Sun journalist = no loyalty to heir
trained soldier = loyalty quite important
are you getting this yet?
If you have mastered this simple puzzle, perhaps you could explain exactly what he has done wrong?
1. he has served in the armed forces and supported various forces charities and welfare throughout his adult life (nothing wrong here)
2. he has raised two sons, who it appears will follow him into the forces (they look quite promising too - again this seems ok)
3. his marriage split up (wow, big deal - I am sure this does not happen to many people at all!)
4. he has been happy with a partner for many years, he wishes to get married to her (good for you sir, I hope you are happy)
5. unlike you, after 22 years he will to the day he dies, be on duty. He will have to conduct himself accordingly. The odd slip (e.g. Prince Harry, Swastika) will be held against him, often unfairly (e.g. Prince Harry, Swastika).
anyone, got a point? Queensman, this suggests you are a royalist? If so a bit of support for her heir apparent would be nice...
If we start messing about with the line of succession in any way. We are playing directly into the Republicans arms, and would lead to the Absolution of the Monarchy, when the Queen dies.
Do you you really want someone like President Blair and First Lady Cherie flying the world in BlairForce One hiring out the British Army to the highest bidder (Thats holidays for them by the way - Not a pay rise for you)
I believe a Republic will cost us far more than the Royal Family do now....
So for me - Long live the Queen, and Charles in his turn.
As an Oz we have to look at:
The Crown protects us against the politicians
The policltians protect us against the Crown
Fine with Betty but at Referendum after may be different
I quite agree.
So choosing the head of state because he was born to it
fact he was already commiting adultery before he married di
plus he was quoted as saying I'll sod off to swizterland to ski if you ban foxhunting so hardly that loyal('')
though at least president blair can be sacked
Separate names with a comma.