Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

..... and many countries don't.

Many, indeed, do have a "divisive Head of State, hated and ridiculed by the majority and loved only by the presure group that put it there". Prime examples would be the USA and France, with the UK up there leading the way in all but name with the likes of Cameron and May and guaranteed to continue in the same way with either Johnson or Corbyn.

None of those, however, have "figureheads" as Heads of State who are "deeply unpopular partisan Politicians or Dictators". This is pure and utter tripe. Name any country where a "deeply unpopular partisan Politician or Dictator" is only a "figurehead". Any country at all.
Thailand has an unpopular king and he's just a figurehead apparently.
 
Consider what we would replace the Royals with! President Blair/Cameron/Geldof/Lineker/Miller/Stormzy/Sturgeon/Abbott/Corbyn/Clegg/insert mega rich millionaire or social media 'personality' and then add into the mix a gender quota, me too, race quota, LBGTQ, class etc - the guaranteed outcome would be a divisive Head of State, hated and ridiculed by the majority and loved only by the presure group that put it there.
I already have considered it as have many countries, and they have come up with perfectly adequate solutions to do the meeting and greeting, leaving the politics to the politicians.

Ireland and Australia* are prime examples, with Heads of State who are popular, respected, and who have also never put a foot wrong. There is no more reason to imagine that the likes of " Blair/ Cameron/ Geldof/ Lineker/ Miller/ Stormzy/ Sturgeon/ Abbott/ Corbyn/ Clegg/ insert mega rich millionaire or social media 'personality' and then add into the mix a gender quota, me too, race quota, LBGTQ, class" would be considered for the position of Head of State than the likes of Andrew. It's simply opening the field to more than a choice of one.
*: I include Australia deliberately as the Queen has, literally, never done anything as Head of State in Australia and the position is effectively held and carried out by the Governor General, acting when required (as in 1975) entirely without the Queen's knowledge or approval.
 
Thailand has an unpopular king and he's just a figurehead apparently.
So you keep saying.

I, on the other hand, never have and would never make such a suggestion which is patently untrue.

As I've said, repeatedly, not only is the Thai sysyem of royal succession totally different to the United Kingdom's so there are no possible grounds for any comparison but in my oft repeated view monarchies can be the best solution for some countries, even in the 21st century. The UK just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Your stupidity really knows no bounds, and if ever there was an example of why universal suffrage should never be allowed to take direct decisions you are it. There's no point in responding to this line of yours any further.
 
So you keep saying.

I, on the other hand, never have and would never make such a suggestion which is patently untrue.

As I've said, repeatedly, not only is the Thai sysyem of royal succession totally different to the United Kingdom's so there are no possible grounds for any comparison but in my oft repeated view monarchies can be the best solution for some countries, even in the 21st century. The UK just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Your stupidity really knows no bounds, and if ever there was an example of why universal suffrage should never be allowed to take direct decisions you are it. There's no point in responding to this line of yours any further.
Well yes its totally different, I dont think the Queens father murdered the previous king so he could take his place like they did in Thailand.


You are not a fan of universal suffrage either eh Jonny boy? Maybe leaders should just be appointed by whomever you approve.


The Thai royal family though, you agree they are a bunch of corrupt *******?
 
billions of dollars of business deals with the UK ... (snip) ... - The Old Royal Yacht was basically a massive honey trap which the Queen used hugely to the UKs benefit and generated Billions, creating jobs and wealth in the UK.
Really?

Name any billion dollar business deal the royal family have been responsible for or involved in, in any way, on or off the royal yacht. Any at all.

Or, if not billions, any major business deal they've been involved in ..... any at all.

..... bit of a foot in mouth job, that one, since the only member of the royal family involved in any such deals has been Andrew. Oh dear ......
 
They get money from the crown estate which is inherited. Are you suddenly against rich people inheriting wealth?
Your ignorance really does know no bounds.

The crown estate belongs to the monarch for the duration of their reign. Its not "inherited" as it's not theirs to do with as they please, as Edward VIII found out when he tried to sell parts of it off prior to and on abdicating.

I have no objection to "rich people inheriting wealth" - as long as they all pay the same taxes on it as everyone else. Few do, but that's a rather different subject.
Cameron the gobshite **** said the Queen raised an eyebrow, did that make him do something?
No he didn't. Clueless doesn't even begin to describe it.
If you bothered your arse to read the black spider letters, Charles was genuinely concerned about people who could be classed as vulnerable, which is why the Guardian stopped harping on about it when they became public.
..... and you're evidently as clueless about the black spider letters as anything else and have no idea what they were about.

Amongst them, for example, were letters to the Qatari royal family asking them to change their plans for the development of Chelsea Barracks as he didn't like them; the original firm of architects were fired as a result, replaced by The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment which he just happens to have founded, sponsor and be President of.

Far from the letters showing him as being "genuinely concerned about people who could be classed as vulnerable", he'd also written to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, complaining about the Human Rights Act and specifically criticising the introduction and use of Health and Safety at Work legislation which he described as "petty-minded litigiousness".
How exactly did either harm anyone in the UK?
"How exactly" ?

In the first case it cost the original firm a lucrative contract they'd earnt in open and fair competition, as the Qatari royal family instead gave the contract to a firm chosen arbitrarily by Charles.

In the second case, had the Lord Chancellor changed / been able to change the Human Rights Act and Health and Safety at Work legislation as Charles pressured him to, it woud have "harmed" all those in the UK who've benefited from their protection. Fortunately for them and for many "people who could be classed as vulnerable" the Lord Chancellor did not and could not change the legislation despite Charles' best (or worst) efforts.
 
Last edited:
If i may clarify, the British Monarchy is wrong as are some of the biggest republics in the world?
To clarify, "yes", that's my view.

The "British Monarchy", however much Brenda may have done nothing wrong by doing nothing at all, has outlived its usefulness, and any system of succession to the position of Head of State where it retains any influence is inheritently wrong if its based solely on primo genitur.

I'd suggest that the Princess Royal, for example, would make a far better Head of State than Charles - she works far harder, is far more intelligent and capable and is far more "woke", and is almost certainly far more respected and popular. She's also made her view of a monarchy very clear by refusing titles not only for both her husbands but all her children.

My criticism goes deeper than that, though, as it includes having 26 bishops and 92 hereditary peers, as well as an arbitrary selection of musicians, actors, generals and sportsmen, being directly responsible for running the country.

As for "some of the biggest republics in the world" being "wrong", I'd suggest that a democracy where two out of the last three elected presidents have lost the popular vote and where half a million in one state get as many elected senators as 40 million in another has hardly got it "right".
 
To clarify, "yes", that's my view.

The "British Monarchy", however much Brenda may have done nothing wrong by doing nothing at all, has outlived its usefulness, and any system of succession to the position of Head of State where it retains any influence is inheritently wrong if its based solely on primo genitur.

I'd suggest that the Princess Royal, for example, would make a far better Head of State than Charles - she works far harder, is far more intelligent and capable and is far more "woke", and is almost certainly far more respected and popular. She's also made her view of a monarchy very clear by refusing titles not only for both her husbands but all her children.

My criticism goes deeper than that, though, as it includes having 26 bishops and 92 hereditary peers, as well as an arbitrary selection of musicians, actors, generals and sportsmen, being directly responsible for running the country.

As for "some of the biggest republics in the world" being "wrong", I'd suggest that a democracy where two out of the last three elected presidents have lost the popular vote and where half a million in one state get as many elected senators as 40 million in another has hardly got it "right".
There are democratic reasons why presidents don't have to win the popular vote in USA. Surely Google told you that?

Maybe the countries around the world should just have who you deem suitable to be in charge.

Back to the Thai king, you seem to have an opinion on everything else, surely you have an opinion on him?
 
No, there are "reasons", but they're anachronistic not "democratic" ones. A working brain cell would tell you that.
They wouldnt want the 10 states with the biggest populations dictating to the 40 states wouldnt have anything to do with it?

Now about the Thai king, is he a bit of a **** or what?
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
They wouldnt want the 10 states with the biggest populations dictating to the 40 states wouldnt have anything to do with it?

Now about the Thai king, is he a bit of a **** or what?
It pains me, but you nailed it.
 
Bob, I'd suggest this and anything on Thailand is better suited to the "Living Abroad" forum and this is way off-topic, even for me, but in brief:
At a blind guess, you pay taxes in the UK because you have a government pension. Given that you are Australian, are you actually a British citizen?
I pay UK taxes on my government pension and any UK investments / income, like anyone else.

I have dual nationality, British and Australian, from birth.
You’ve been an expat in Thailand for decades and that’s where you’re life is centred. You emigrated
You can't emigrate if you can't immigrate. You can't immigrate to Thailand.
Which begs the question:have you voted in the current General Election? And if so, on what moral grounds have you done so?
I've never voted in a General Election anywhere, and never been eligible to. One of the wonders of the British "democratic" system. The only time I've been eligible to vote and have was in the referendum on joining the EEC (I was at school at the time).
Bottom line, you have chosen to reside in a country in which the Queen is not the head of state and where you don’t hold citizenship. Why do you criticise the constitutional monarchy of the two nations you have left when you have chosen to live in absolute monarchy which also harbours a military dictatorship?
Dear God, you're even less well informed than stacker. Thailand is not an "absolute monarchy" but a constitutional one, and has been since 1932.

None of that had any bearing on my choice to live here any more than the colour of the flag or that "Thailand" starts with a "T". As I've said before. Twice. If your choice to live in Australia was based on the Queen being Queen of Australia, even though she's not Head of State, then that's your choice.

Back on topic ..... what surprises me a bit (but not too much) isn't the hypocrisy of the royal family but of some here. They're happy to jump on the outrage bus and bash Andrew as a "nonce" for allegedly indulging with a willing 18 year old, while eulogising the more senior royals and the sanctity of the monarchy as an institution. Totally ignoring that Andrew was second in line for 22 years, that the first in line was openly dating a 16 year old when he was in his 30's, and Philip was grooming a 13 year old Brenda when he was already serving in the RN. Not a lot of thought or consistency there .....
 
Back on topic ..... what surprises me a bit (but not too much) isn't the hypocrisy of the royal family but of some here. They're happy to jump on the outrage bus and bash Andrew as a "nonce" for allegedly indulging with a willing 18 year old, while eulogising the more senior royals and the sanctity of the monarchy as an institution. Totally ignoring that Andrew was second in line for 22 years, that the first in line was openly dating a 16 year old when he was in his 30's, and Philip was grooming a 13 year old Brenda when he was already serving in the RN. Not a lot of thought or consistency there .....
Have you got a link for Charles openly dating a 16 year old?
Also Phil the Greek is less than 6 years older than his wife and there is no evidence at all that he was grooming her for anything.

The previous King of Thailand on the other hand seemed to be fine with his country being a homing beacon for nonces around the world.
 
Ummm .... he married her. It's rather well documented. When she's 13 and you're 18 / 19 that's a pretty significant 6 years. Again, it's rather well documented.
That’s not true though is it? She was 16 when they met, didn’t see him again for two years and married at 20 having only met him a dozen or so times.

There has never been a suggestion that he nailed her before they married. Given the stupidity that he has to marry a virgin, it’s probably likely that he didn’t. If you think about it logically, the requirement for Charles to marry a virgin of noble blood pretty much forced him to go young.

Andy, meanwhile, was free to chose anyone and could choose a dirty scutter who liked it up the Arrse and did ATM. Which is probably why he married a fat old ginger.
 
Ummm .... he married her. It's rather well documented.
Funnily enough, I cant find it anywhere on Google, Id hate for people to think you are lying, any chance of a link?

When she's 13 and you're 18 / 19 that's a pretty significant 6 years. Again, it's rather well documented.
And once again, it isnt really, by "well documented" do you mean someone said something on the internet?
All I can find is that they wrote to each other at that age.
 
No, there are "reasons", but they're anachronistic not "democratic" ones. A working brain cell would tell you that.
Er.

No. Lots of different models of ‘democracy’. Including the electoral college system the Americans use.

Neither our or the US system uses the ‘popular vote’ as an electoral system.
 
That’s not true though is it? She was 16 when they met, didn’t see him again for two years and married at 20 having only met him a dozen or so times.
Actually it is, Bob, unpalatable and even distasteful though it may be. She was 14 when they first met, when he was dating her sister, although they didn't date until she was 16 and her sister had well and truly binned him. ..... and they met plenty of times, even publicly, before they married. No idea where you dreamt up "a dozen or so".
There has never been a suggestion that he nailed her before they married. Given the stupidity that he has to marry a virgin, it’s probably likely that he didn’t. If you think about it logically, the requirement for Charles to marry a virgin of noble blood pretty much forced him to go young.
There has never been a suggestion that he didn't, either!

..... and where have you dreamt up this requirement that he haf to "marry a virgin of noble blood" from, Bob? Pure fantasy. All she has to be is CofE, nothing else.

Edit: to pre-empt any bleat about times change, etc, he could have married Camilla Shand the first time around. While she was certainly part of his "set" she didn't meet either of your criteria.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top