Charles & Camilla!!!

[BADDOG]

Those of you in the U.K. may know that old Charlie and that tart Camilla are to be married well I hope that they both bugger off some where else as soon as the deed is done, preferably Mars where we won't have to pay for them or hear anything else about this adulterer and his "tart"!!!!

You may gather from this post I am no big fan of either of them and having met Charles once I can say he seems to be as barmy as people say he is!!!!

Regards

[Steve]

i dislike both tbh but i have nothing against them being happy together and getting married. i'm a little suprised that the bishop guy blessed the marrage :/ , i'm expecting some booing at the wedding lol there is gonna be a lot of ppl not wishing them well

i just hope he doesn't become king.

[Lakie]

yeah sadly i was infected with the news aswell, someone correct me if im wrong but when charles beomes king he becomes head of the church of england, camilla becomes queen, the church of england i understand dosent support or promote divorces, charles divorced diana and i think camilla has had a divorce in her time. Might have to renane the church to the Church of Hypocrites. Especially if they get divorced before he becomes king.

There are suggestions here that for charles to become king, the marriage has to be recognized by that shining example of beurocracy at work the parliament and that they may not and question the role of the monarchy....

Look up Michael Abney Hastings in google and youll find some interesting information.

[Steve]

it was made official that Camilla will not be Queen ever.
Camilla will be Duchess of Cornwall iirc (and not princess of wales like diana)

[BOne]

forgive my ignorance....but im guessing your speaking of the soon to be royal family seems like you guys are going through wild changes in the UK

[BADDOG]

I have to be honest and say most folks I know couldn't give a bloody toss about this pair and there is no way Camilla the tart would be acceptable as "queen".

If he wants to marry her he should stand down better yet roll on the republic and we can do away with this nonsense!

Regards

[Lakie]

I have a theroy, australias population is about 20,000,000 in total, australia has a massive amount of bauxite, coal, iron ore, copper, tin, gold, silver, uranium, nickel, tungsten, mineral sands, lead, zinc, diamonds, natural gas and petroleum. This has to be worth something.

I figure that if we take the current situation one step further and the US buys australia out as is and make it the actual 51st state of the US, for 10 billion dollars (realistically very cheap), that represents 50 million for each resident, 200 million per family if you take the 2 adults 2 kids method. Those that dont want to live in the new 51st state can move wherever they want and live as kings. It would work becuase the majority that would stay in Australia would suddently have all this money, so the US would get most of it back anyway and it would do wonders for the economy. Citizens would go for it as well, its just the extended principle of "Bloods thicker than water, but moneys thicker again"

Same principle could be applied in the UK with a bit of thought (probably woundt need to sell to the US totally - there are other ways), plus if the uk became a republic i think the royals would donate most of their posessions to the new republic anyway.

[KU43]

and after the u.s. took it's FAIR share in taxes you could take whats left, add 99 cents and buy a cup coffee, thats not including tax on the coffee.account reciviable tax, building permit tax, capital gains tax, cdl license tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, court fines, dog license tax, federal income tax, federal unemployment tax, fishing license tax, food license tax, fule permit tax, gasoline tax (84%), hunting tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, IRS interest charges, IRS penalties, liquor tax, local income tax, luxury tax, marriage license tax, medicare tax, property tax, real estate tax, septic permit tax, service charge tax, social security tax, road usage tax, sales tax, toll booth tax, school tax, state unemployment tax telephone federal excise tax, tetephone universal service fee tax. telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes, telephone minmum usage tax, telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax, telephone state and local tax, telephone usage charge tax, toll bridge tax, traffic fines, trailer registration tax, utility taxes, vehicle registration tax, vehicle sales tax, watercraft registration tax, wel;l permit tax, and workmans compensation tax, just to name a few

[.Simon.]

im a bit young to understand all this stuff but my opinion is simular to steve's. if they are happy together then good luck but she doesn't deserve to be queen. and he is breaking religion followings by marrying again :S

[BADDOG]

I have nothing against these people having some personal happiness as such but, considering that both of them betrayed their respective "loved" ones I wonder if either of them deserves any happiness?

Regards

[Mr. T]

If Camilla was 'Chucks' longtime honey, I don't understand why he married Diana in the first place. That whole 'affair' was always a mystery to me. But then, a lot of the royalty stuff is a mystery to most of us yanks...

[BADDOG]

It's a mystery to us over here to bro and lord alone knows why we put up with any of them, maybe it's because unlike you over in the States we don't have a proper constitution and a bill of rights.

It's about time we did and became citizens instead of "subjects"!

Regards

[Mr. T]

Yeah, the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights" are good things. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you suspect, our politicians trample on them constantly, especially the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms). It's laughable how each politician has to raise his/her right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution, then turn around and make laws that blatantly fly in the face of it. Most people pay no attention to politics and don't give a rat's ass what happens - UNLESS it directly effects them. And then it's too late.

Yeah, our system is great - on paper, but it's slowly going south. Political correctness, left wing liberals turning more and more to socialism and government control, no border control and Mexico slowly taking over without firing a shot, and on and on. So, while I still love this place, I'm really getting sick and tired of what's happening to our political system. The politicians no longer do what's best for the country, they do what's best for their political party - and we voters be damned. Great...

[zza1pqx]

Mr T makes a valid point. Republicanism is not a guarantee of social and politcal integrity.
In fact in the case of our current ruling party, if a labour President got in over a labour majority parliment then this country would be further up the **** creek than it is now.
In his time in power Blair has spent a LOT of time making damned sure that whatever powers our head of state and her associates wield have been totaly circumvented so that he weilds presidential powers without a proper system in place to keep him in check.
In this current environment the UK is in no way ready for a republican system.
Unless the politicians can prove it would provide a system of measured consideration in matters pertaining to the state then I would oppose it vehemently. I suspect the countries rightwing opinion formers would as well.

If Charles becomes king then Camillas title would be The Princess Consort to reflect her standing as being married to a divorced king.
Charles would indeed become head of the Chrich of England but lets not get ourselves bogged down with ridiculous rhetoric over THAT principle.
Henry the Eighth set up the Church of Englnad precisely so that he could divorce and remarry with impunity.
I concur that Elizabeth the 1st intergrated more wholesome Lutherian values once she got hold of the real power but seriously? I can't stand people moaning about the 'morals' of such a position being taken up by King Charles III.
In my job we ask everyones religion when they walk through the door. The majority have none, next is Muslim, then Catholic. Usually our population demographic shows less than 1% of people genuinley believe, spiritually, in the Church of England as a holy institution and in a debate that has its roots in a drive toward democracy a figure like that HAS to be taken in the terms that moraly the Church of England has NO sway in the countries spirtual process and so renders that argument, in my opinion, defunct.

Prince Charles said many years ago (before the troubles with Diana Princess of Wales became apparant), that he would like to scrap the part of his coronation vows that says he would become 'defender of the faith' to instead read simply, defender of faith.
In other words he wanted his role of Head of State to reflect the fact the the United Kingdom with its long history of forced multi-culturalism should at last be recognised universally as a place where all people are free to worship their gods with the same freedoms and rights as everyone else. Again in a debate that offers open minded democratic statesmanship, you must be clear that it is only Charles lone voice that has resonated this much common sense over the Head of Church issue in decades.

The royal family wield no real power and this countries government has shown no ability to be ready for a presidential politic. For whatever reason Charles followed his head and not his heart into a marriage that was doomed fromt he start.
What that means is that he spent a large majority of his adult life simply being human. And depressed.
I take this news as being exactly what it is. Good news for him and his partner but of little consequence, politicaly, socialy or spirtualy.
So lets just let them enjoy their later years with smiles on their faces and squeaky springs in their beds.

The royal family, by inviting select people to 'tea at the palace' have ensured a fanatastic amount of business investment in this country and a royal visit has been shown time and time again to be of more value than political diplomats in smoothing international tensions. The figures are available if you are prepared to study our recent history in depth.

Never forget that Prince Charles, Camilla, Diana, William et al are no more than humans that make the same mistakes as everyone else.
More than that though, they are all friends of the British people whatever their creed, race or religion
Charles has no vested interest in political sponsorship, vote mongering or doing whatever is best for his political party - and voters be damned.
He simply wants to have a crack at sitting in the big chair and representing Britains best interests with whatever influence he can offer in service of us.

Should Charles be King given this latest news?
Damn right he should. If politicians Damn him because of his history then they Damn a huge amount of us for living with similar mistakes and emotional upheaval.
If they succeed in drumming him away from the throne then the PC Liberals who use social experimentation and the overt criminalisation of free thought as their political tool will have conclusively and exhaustively won.

I know for a fact even BADDOG doesn't want that!

[BADDOG]

As always ZZA you make some very important and effective comments on the current debate about (to me) these totally irrelevant people.

However if Britain is up "**** creek" under Tony Blair then the rot set in under Thatcher who ruled by "presidential" decree too until her own party (doing what they do so well) stabbed her in the back and only when she had done irreperable damage to the United Kingdom, damage I may add from which we will never recover as short term apparent wealth means nothing with out the ability to produce goods the world actually wants.

We have no shipbuilding, coal, not much steel production and we have to supply our armed forces with shoddy equipment to "save" money this is as a direct result of Thatchers lunatic ideas which Tony has taken to heart only to well!

As for the monarchy? It no longer as with religion has the loyalty or confidence of the majority particularly the young if my own sons and their friends are anything to go by.

True there was a great party a while back for the Queen but the majority of those attending were from London and the home counties and where I live people were much more interested in how to get through their working day, or finding work to give a damn about the Queens "party!"

The "royals" are an anachronism and have no place in the Britain, for as long as it remains Britain, of the 21st century far better we get a proper constitution that truly represents the people and all of the people than the oudated system we have now.

I want to be a citizen not a bloody "subject", I want to see a real democracy and not an oligarchy where birth right gives access to power and wealth instead of merit!

It may not happen for many years to come but I truly beleive that a republic can and will be a step towards a much more representative government for the people of this country.

Regards

[Fixxxer]

Originally posted by BB/Mike*MFA*
the church of england i understand dosent support or promote divorces, charles divorced diana

Originally posted by Klu7ch
and he is breaking religion followings by marrying again :S

Originally posted by zza1pqx

If Charles becomes king then Camillas title would be The Princess Consort to reflect her standing as being married to a divorced king.

All 3 of these quotes (I would say POSTS but I cant because ZZA1PQX makes sense apart from the line ive quoted)

All 3 of these quotes need to be retracted. "TILL DEATH DO US PART" is the line, and Diana died if you people remember, so Charles is a WIDOWER not a [edited out] divorcee. So no, Charles isnt betraying the church of england, or whatever other mindless bull**** you [edited out] will dream up next.
I'm sure the majority of people who "dont want charles as king" cant even justify it properly either, probably "Don't like him" rofl.

I for one have no problems with him marrying her OR becoming King, I guess I'm different to the sheep who follow everyone else who believes a 20 year old is a better candidate for head of state ROFL...I'm surprised none of you have mentioned the apparent conspiracy theory over DIANA's death, maybe Charles planned the whole thing! LOL ! I'm sure he's more than capable according to most of your opinions of him (which by the way are unjustified and believed for all the WRONG reasons.)

I will now no doubt receive a collection of replies with phrases ranging from "STFU" to "You suck" etc, and if your opionion opposes mine, then I'm willing to accept these opinions so long as theyre justified. And please don't just whine on at me for "Being a noob" or w/e because any neutral can see I have backed up my opinion clearly, I hope you are capable of doing the same.

Mike Edit:Edted out language

[Hellfighter]

Originally posted by BB/Mike*MFA*
I have a theroy, australias population is about 20,000,000 in total, australia has a massive amount of bauxite, coal, iron ore, copper, tin, gold, silver, uranium, nickel, tungsten, mineral sands, lead, zinc, diamonds, natural gas and petroleum. This has to be worth something.

I figure that if we take the current situation one step further and the US buys australia out as is and make it the actual 51st state of the US, for 10 billion dollars (realistically very cheap), that represents 50 million for each resident, 200 million per family if you take the 2 adults 2 kids method. Those that dont want to live in the new 51st state can move wherever they want and live as kings. It would work becuase the majority that would stay in Australia would suddently have all this money, so the US would get most of it back anyway and it would do wonders for the economy. Citizens would go for it as well, its just the extended principle of "Bloods thicker than water, but moneys thicker again"

Same principle could be applied in the UK with a bit of thought (probably woundt need to sell to the US totally - there are other ways), plus if the uk became a republic i think the royals would donate most of their posessions to the new republic anyway.

if the USA buy AUS i really think the people would go bannana in a heart beat. never will happen the good people of AUS would never stand for it. i do under were you coming from using it as a sample but in the real world think they go nut so.

[Hellfighter]

Originally posted by Fixxxer
All 3 of these quotes (I would say POSTS but I cant because ZZA1PQX makes sense apart from the line ive quoted)

All 3 of these quotes need to be retracted. "TILL DEATH DO US PART" is the line, and Diana died if you people remember, so Charles is a WIDOWER not a **f*cking** divorcée. So no, Charles isn't betraying the church of england, or whatever other mindless bull**** you halfwits will dream up next.
I'm sure the majority of people who "don't want Charles as king" cant even justify it properly either, probably "Don't like him" rofl.

I for one have no problems with him marrying her OR becoming King, I guess I'm different to the sheep who follow everyone else who believes a 20 year old is a better candidate for head of state ROFL...I'm surprised none of you have mentioned the apparent conspiracy theory over Diana's death, maybe Charles planned the whole thing! LOL ! I'm sure he's more than capable according to most of your opinions of him (which by the way are unjustified and believed for all the WRONG reasons.)

I will now no doubt receive a collection of replies with phrases ranging from "STFU" to "You suck" etc, and if your opinion opposes mine, then I'm willing to accept these opinions so long as they're justified. And please don't just whine on at me for "Being a noob" or w/e because any neutral can see I have backed up my opinion clearly, I hope you are capable of doing the same.

Ref;
Fixxxer
Member

Registered: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 1

I Understand your new here and all but please!!!
Keep it clean!!! No use of the F-Word at all here!!!
===========================================
Personally i really don't care if he marry a whore or a dinner cooker, not counting he going marry his nanny he hire to work for him DA? maybe he could never find a good women to marry? At lease he hire one as a spare wife to jump in to take up the slack lol

Now that was the smartest move i ever seen a husband do keep a spare one handy.

[Lakie]

never will happen the good people of AUS would never stand for it

Im not so sure, i wouldnt want to be put under american control as much as the next aussie, but 50 million would change my mind. Admittedly id be on the first plane to Europe or Canada or something.

And fixxer, charles and diana divorced in August of 1996 a year before diana died

I have no objections about Charles becoming King, infact i hope he does someday, currently Australia wont become a republic because there is to much respeect for Elizabeth II, even in my 18 years shes been to Adelaide on numerous occasions and to Australia many more. Charles dosent have the respect here, so if charles becomes king chances are that an aussie republic would be a very real possibility

[Hellfighter]

BB/Mike*MFA*
GJ editing his post