[Cody Dawg]

Link here.

Okay, so Charles is marrying a divorcee. The divorcee who is supposedly the cause of the end of his marriage to Princess Diana and, perhaps, indirectly responsible for her premature death.

I think it's in poor taste and he should let Prince William be next in line for the crown.

Yes, I know he's divorced also, but marrying the lover whom he had affairs with that caused so much tragedy is questionable.

Anyone else?

[turtle777]

I fully agree.

Prince William should be next in line to marry Camilla Parker Bowles.
The heck, someone's gotta do it, for the kingdom's sake...

-t

[MacGorilla]

She wont be Queen when he gets the throne. She'll be Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Consort.

[Eug Wanker]

Personally I don't think the monarchy should exist at all, regardless of whom they marry. But that's just me.

perhaps, indirectly responsible for her premature death

Uh, no.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The divorcee who is supposedly the cause of the end of his marriage to Princess Diana and, perhaps, indirectly responsible for her premature death.

I know I should just ignore this, but I am dying to hear why Camilla Bowles is in any way responsible for Diana's death.

[DeathToWindows]

Yeah, in the interests of decorum and the state, he should abdicate...

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I think it's in poor taste and he should let Prince William be next in line for the crown.

We […] the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by lavar78:
I know I should just ignore this, but I am dying to hear why Camilla Bowles is in any way responsible for Diana's death.

You know... just like if you kick a pebble, and it hits a frog, and that frog jumps, and scares a little girl, and that girl turns around and pushes a door that bumps a jar of honey that shatters on the floor, where bees comes and sting a passerby who is allergic to bee stings and dies...

Don't you see, You killed the person.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
You know... just like if you kick a pebble, and it hits a frog, and that frog jumps, and scares a little girl, and that girl turns around and pushes a door that bumps a jar of honey that shatters on the floor, where bees comes and sting a passerby who is allergic to bee stings and dies...

Don't you see, You killed the person.

Consequentialism!

(I've been dying to use that word ever since tuesday's philosophy class)

[wdlove]

It is up to Prince Charles to decide.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The divorcee who is supposedly the cause of the end of his marriage to Princess Diana and, perhaps, indirectly responsible for her premature death.

Weird. I thought it was the silly cow's decision to get into a car with a drunk driver and then play games with the paparazzi that did it. Think about that - the then most photographed women in the World scared of a few paparazzi cameras?

Leave the hippie alone!

[Millennium]

I don't think anyone here would attempt to argue for the morality of Charles' affair with Camilla, but to blame Diana's death on it is grossly unfair. The two events are related tangentially at most.

Charles has broken no laws of which I'm aware, and the fact that he owned up to his actions demonstrates an integrity which is rare in modern politics. Outside of this he has done little to demonstrate leadership qualities, but given how little actual leading the monarchy has done for the past few generations (mostly by design, rather than any fault of the monarchy itself) this does not present terribly much of a problem. He has waited seven years since Diana's death -a respectable amount of time, and powerful in a symbolic sense- to do this.

I am not a fan of monarchy, but I fail to see what in all of this deprives him of what this system deems his right to rule.

[Superchicken]

Poor Chuck... never marry a women who's more likeable than you... and then screw around on her with a horse faced woman.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Seems to me the britsh monarchy pretty much paved the way for modern divorce back when a certain king decided he needed a new wife, and tossed the church on its ear. I can't imagine that there's any hurdle they can't leap and not keep on kingin' and queenin'.

[analogika]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
We […] the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

This is true, but the President Cult (including the first family, the lifestyle, and far too much private info) practised in the US (rather than a cult of democracy) is the purest form of monarchy envy.

-s*

[Millennium]

Originally posted by analogika:
This is true, but the President Cult (including the first family, the lifestyle, and far too much private info) practised in the US (rather than a cult of democracy) is the purest form of monarchy envy.

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by 'President Cult'?

[Cody Dawg]

Since everyone's asking I'll state my opinion.



Charles had an affair, while married to Diana, with Camilla Parker Bowles. This caused great distress to Diana including an eating disorder, depression, rejection, and much personal anguish. He admitted this. He was even having this affair while she was pregnant with Harry. That's disgusting in my book.

Does anyone think this is "okay?"

I don't.

I think he's a pig, personally.

So, yeah, I think he IS responsible for her death in a small unrelated way. He did not care about Diana. If he had he wouldn't have had a long running affair with another woman while married, period, and her fate would have been changed and yeah, I think she'd still be here.

End of story.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by 'President Cult'?

I mean the focus on not the politics, but the person, the family, the religion, the lifestyle, the sex life.

-s*

[olePigeon]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd have problems marying a woman with the last name of Bowels.

[chris v]

The idea of monarchy and royalty should be extinct. They should all abdicate and get real jobs.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
He was even having this affair while she was pregnant with Harry. That's disgusting in my book.

Does anyone think this is "okay?"

Prince Harry is most probably not the son of Diana and Charles, but of Diana and Major James Hewit who she had an affair with at the time.

[d4nth3m4n]

this thread bothers me, i think i need a drink.

[willed]

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
this thread bothers me, i think i need a drink.

Sod it. Let's have a beer.

[Cody Dawg]

The Prince Harry & James Hewitt connection is ridiculous.



I'm sure that Harry is the product of a liaison between Diane and Dame Edna.

[Face Ache]

I think the future king of England should learn to keep it in his pants.

I don't get the impression he wants to be king anyway.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Charles had an affair, while married to Diana, with Camilla Parker Bowles. This caused great distress to Diana including an eating disorder, depression, rejection, and much personal anguish. He admitted this. He was even having this affair while she was pregnant with Harry. That's disgusting in my book.

Does anyone think this is "okay?"

I don't.

I think he's a pig, personally.

So, yeah, I think he IS responsible for her death in a small unrelated way. He did not care about Diana. If he had he wouldn't have had a long running affair with another woman while married, period, and her fate would have been changed and yeah, I think she'd still be here.

End of story.

Cody Dawg, your arguments are the best! I have a difficult time following your logic, but at least I'm always amused. I especially liked the part in bold. Thanks for the laugh!

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The Prince Harry & James Hewitt connection is ridiculous.

Yeah, 'coz they don't look anything like each other. Not one bit.

[hagheid]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yeah, 'coz they don't look anything like each other. Not one bit.

Harry: This squinting twit has inherited his Father's looks & his Mother's intellect.

Charlie: Everyone knows that Hewitt 'had it in for him'

Comeilla: Waking up in the morning with that nag beside you somehow reminds me of a scene from the Godfather.

Mince William: Cottager in waiting......end of the line ..hopefully?

[OB1]

Yes, he should abdicate. Like most of the Windsor's, he's vile. I can't see our Royal family disappearing any time soon, so a young king, one who is well liked (unlike his father) would be a good thing I think.

[nath]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by 'President Cult'?

p.s. this should be in the Politics forum.

[moonmonkey]

Abdicate, regurgitate more like.

talk about a downgrade.

I don't think his dope smoking nazi sons would do a better job.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by nath:
p.s. this should be in the Politics forum.

why?

[sugar_coated]

Everyone is human, including the royalty.

[nath]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
why?

OP: "I think it's in poor taste and he should let Prince William be next in line for the crown."


This is a political contention. The Queen/King is Head of State in the UK.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by nath:
OP: "I think it's in poor taste and he should let Prince William be next in line for the crown."


This is a political contention. The Queen/King is Head of State in the UK.

And

Anguilla, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Ascension Island, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Australia and New Zealand.

Jesus, who died and put them in charge?



EDIT: just realised; the previous occupants.

[nath]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
And

Anguilla, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Ascension Island, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Australia and New Zealand.

Jesus, who died and put them in charge?



EDIT: just realised; the previous occupants.

Ironically if there is any serious objection to him marrying Camilla, it will probably come from the Commonwealth, as did resistance to the Church's revised position on homosexuality.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by nath:
Ironically if there is any serious objection to him marrying Camilla, it will probably come from the Commonwealth, as did resistance to the Church's revised position on homosexuality.

Who in the commonwealth objected to homershexuals in the Church?

What specific Church had the problem?

[iCol]

First of all, no, this should not be in the politics forum, the Monarchy is not a political institution. They have no political alleigance, and are not even supposed to have a political 'stance', the Monarchy, in the role of the head of state, is supposed to be an observer of 'her' people, to make sure everyone is A-OK.

Heh.

The Charles and Camilla thing. Well, come on, does this guy not deserve to be happy with the woman he loves? Should he not marry that woman? Afterall, he is only human. Charles and Diana were doomed before they even married, it was more or less an arranged marriage to save the face of the Monarchy. I don't think Charles and Diana ever really loved each other anyway, they were just pushed into the same boat, and tried to make the best of it. However, this didn't work for long. Diana reportedly had numerous affairs, and acted appalingly. My uncle worked close to the Royals in Sandringham (I am not going to mention his position), he repeatedly told stories of Diana being an 'attention seeker', and was not happy unless everyone was in awe of her. Which they usually were, she was a beautiful woman, she was also increadibly intelligent, and an excellent spokesperson. It's just a shame she was insane. She threw herself down the main staircase of Sandringham on more than one occasion, once while pregnant with Harry.

Charles made mistakes too. Before he married he was something of a playboy. One of the reasons his advisors pushed him into marrying. The Monarchy did not want the heir to the throne being seen cavorting with a different woman in every tabloid. I beleive Charles when he says the affair with Camilla was born through the breakdown of his marriage with Diana. He needed a confidant, someone to talk to, and it just so happened that this old friend was there to help him through some rough patches. He fell in love with her. Simple. The kind of thing that happens to normal people every day. Nothing to be ashamed of. Think of it this way, if you parents seperated, would you want them to both remain single the rest of your life? Or would you want them to be happy?

Many mistakes were made concerning Charles, Diana and Camilla. But these were the kind of mistakes that can, and do, happen to any one of us. So why judge? Charles and Camilla should be free to marry.

However, the question of Charles abdicating due to him marrying a divorcee. This is going to pose serious questions for how the Monarchy in Britain works. It is in dire need of updating. It is absolutely rediculous this day and age that a prince cannot become King due to the fact he is divorced, and is marrying a divorcee. 1/3 of all marriages end in divorce today. If the Monarchy want to be representative of your average Briton, then this needs to change. I don't beleive she should become Queen, but Prince Consort is probably a good choise, much like Prince Philip is the Queens Consort, and not the King.

When all said and done I personally feel that the Monarchy in Britain is justified. They actually make the country money for one, the Queens personal estate, the 'Crown Estate' (the land, business' and investments she personally owns - this excludes Buckingham Palace and Windsor as these are owned by the state) makes around £300 million a year, which the Queen donates to the British Government. The Government pay the Monarchy approximately £60 million in the form of the civil list per year. So, infact, the Government makes a £240 million annual profit from the monarchy, not including the revenue they generate in the form of tourism. Also, alot has to be said for our cultural heritage. In todays high-tech modern world having a constant, something traditional, in the form of our Monarchy can only help but give us something to retain our national image. Brussels wants to take away so much of our individuality in EU legistlation, why not keep the few things that make us different?

I am sorry to write an essay here...

Col

[nath]

Originally posted by iCol:
First of all, no, this should not be in the politics forum, the Monarchy is not a political institution. They have no political alleigance, and are not even supposed to have a political 'stance', the Monarchy, in the role of the head of state, is supposed to be an observer of 'her' people, to make sure everyone is A-OK.

The OP was making a contention on the future of the British Head of State. It doesn't get more political than that. Whether or not any monarch makes their political views known in public is completely irrelevant to whether or not this thread was initiated by a political contention. I think you are mistakenly interpreting 'Political' to mean 'party political'.

Originally posted by iCol:
The Charles and Camilla thing. Well, come on, does this guy not deserve to be happy with the woman he loves? Should he not marry that woman? Afterall, he is only human. Charles and Diana were doomed before they even married, it was more or less an arranged marriage to save the face of the Monarchy. I don't think Charles and Diana ever really loved each other anyway, they were just pushed into the same boat, and tried to make the best of it. However, this didn't work for long. Diana reportedly had numerous affairs, and acted appalingly. My uncle worked close to the Royals in Sandringham (I am not going to mention his position), he repeatedly told stories of Diana being an 'attention seeker', and was not happy unless everyone was in awe of her. Which they usually were, she was a beautiful woman, she was also increadibly intelligent, and an excellent spokesperson. It's just a shame she was insane. She threw herself down the main staircase of Sandringham on more than one occasion, once while pregnant with Harry.

Charles made mistakes too. Before he married he was something of a playboy. One of the reasons his advisors pushed him into marrying. The Monarchy did not want the heir to the throne being seen cavorting with a different woman in every tabloid. I beleive Charles when he says the affair with Camilla was born through the breakdown of his marriage with Diana. He needed a confidant, someone to talk to, and it just so happened that this old friend was there to help him through some rough patches. He fell in love with her. Simple. The kind of thing that happens to normal people every day. Nothing to be ashamed of. Think of it this way, if you parents seperated, would you want them to both remain single the rest of your life? Or would you want them to be happy?

Many mistakes were made concerning Charles, Diana and Camilla. But these were the kind of mistakes that can, and do, happen to any one of us. So why judge? Charles and Camilla should be free to marry.

However, the question of Charles abdicating due to him marrying a divorcee. This is going to pose serious questions for how the Monarchy in Britain works. It is in dire need of updating. It is absolutely rediculous this day and age that a prince cannot become King due to the fact he is divorced, and is marrying a divorcee. 1/3 of all marriages end in divorce today. If the Monarchy want to be representative of your average Briton, then this needs to change. I don't beleive she should become Queen, but Prince Consort is probably a good choise, much like Prince Philip is the Queens Consort, and not the King.

When all said and done I personally feel that the Monarchy in Britain is justified. They actually make the country money for one, the Queens personal estate, the 'Crown Estate' (the land, business' and investments she personally owns - this excludes Buckingham Palace and Windsor as these are owned by the state) makes around £300 million a year, which the Queen donates to the British Government. The Government pay the Monarchy approximately £60 million in the form of the civil list per year. So, infact, the Government makes a £240 million annual profit from the monarchy, not including the revenue they generate in the form of tourism. Also, alot has to be said for our cultural heritage. In todays high-tech modern world having a constant, something traditional, in the form of our Monarchy can only help but give us something to retain our national image. Brussels wants to take away so much of our individuality in EU legistlation, why not keep the few things that make us different?

I am sorry to write an essay here...

Col

Don't be sorry! But have the self-awareness to realise that you have just made numerous political points which can be contended and debated, e.g.

- "The monarchy is in dire need of updating"
- "the Monarchy in Britain is justified"
- Various disputable figures concerning royal income


EDIT: I should say that I agree with most of your points!

[nath]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Who in the commonwealth objected to homershexuals in the Church?

What specific Church had the problem?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3053366.stm

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The Prince Harry & James Hewitt connection is ridiculous.

Yeah, and accusing Prince Charles of being responsible for Diana's death isn't.

Diana had an affair with Hewitt the time she fell pregnant with Harry. If you're shagging two men at the same time you kinda taking your chances, no?

[RonnieoftheRose]

I used to be like that, poor Diana and bad Charles. The reality turned out to be quite different. Charles was in love with Camilla before he met Diana. Their marriage was one of convenience. Naturally they wouldn't last and once Diana got her divorce and lost much of her income she earned her money working for others, some who used her such as...well, better not to talk about it. Prince Charles had nothing to do with her death. He's too humble and childlike to do something like that. He paints, he comments on architecture, he works for charities, and he says if he becomes King that he will change the title from 'Defender of the Faith' to 'Defender of Faiths'. The only criticism I can level at him is that he hunts. But then the government is outlawing that. On the flipside Charles is against GM crops and is a conservationist.

I'm against pure monarchies but not against a consititutional monarchy with a democratic government as it exists in the UK and some other European nations. The nobility accentuates and preserves the nation's heritage and culture. I also like the idea one can earn titles such as Sir, Lord, Baron et al. I know two men who have been knighted.

In the US it's not that different. Wealthy families act like dignitaries (some with no dignity at all) yet publically deny their priveleged status. Some people really believe GW worked hard to get where he is.

[Skip Breakfast]

Disestablishing the monarchy could provide funding for cancer research, or perhaps, a new G5 tower for yours truly.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Skip Breakfast:
Disestablishing the monarchy could provide funding for cancer research, or perhaps, a new G5 tower for yours truly.

Which bit of "the monarchy makes money for us" paragraph in iCol's post did you not read?

[im_noahselby]

So let me get this straight. When Charles marries Camilla, she will not be called: Princess Camilla?.

I don't understand why everyone loves to hate Camilla Parker Bowles. Everyone I know seems to think she is a witch and that doesn't seem fair to me. I think it's good that Charles is moving on with his life.

Noah

[Skip Breakfast]

I was merely being a smartass Sherwin.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Skip Breakfast:
I was merely being a smartass Sherwin.

So was I.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
So let me get this straight. When Charles marries Camilla, she will not be called: Princess Camilla?.

Don't think so.

[analogika]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
So let me get this straight. When Charles marries Camilla, she will not be called: Princess Camilla?.

yep.

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

IIRC.

[nredman]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Poor Chuck... never marry a women who's more likeable than you... and then screw around on her with a horse faced woman.

horse faced? did you hear that on the news...i did