Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:44 am
Prince Charles may never be King Charles - Telegraph
ForumGarden
Conversations for Life
https://forumgarden.com/forums/
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Page 1 of 1
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:53 am
I think it would be an intolerable interference in the royal succession if he were to be sidelined for any reason. There's no constitutional reason why Camilla should be crowned Queen, given the public disquiet, but thre's every constitutional reason why Charles should be crowned in he survives that long. One hopes it will be a long time in the future before anyone's called on to make such arrangements.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:54 am
Id like it to go straight to Prince WIlliam:D
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:01 am
In principle, I would agree with Spot. I'm not sure if he would inspire confidence given the view a lot of people seem to have of him.
Nonetheless, he actually stands for some good social ideals. That he holds this country dear to him is clear.
Nonetheless, he actually stands for some good social ideals. That he holds this country dear to him is clear.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:08 am
I for one admire the chap unconditionally, not that it's my place to say such a thing.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:37 am
spot;1052318 wrote: I think it would be an intolerable interference in the royal succession if he were to be sidelined for any reason. There's no constitutional reason why Camilla should be crowned Queen, given the public disquiet, but thre's every constitutional reason why Charles should be crowned in he survives that long. One hopes it will be a long time in the future before anyone's called on to make such arrangements.
I agree.
I agree.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:10 am
Chezzie;1052322 wrote: Id like it to go straight to Prince WIlliam:D
I like to think of myself as a Prince. Prince Nomad. :-6
I LiiiiiiKE IT !
I like to think of myself as a Prince. Prince Nomad. :-6
I LiiiiiiKE IT !
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:14 am
Interesting article. I don't really know much about Charles, except that I do not have any respect at all for him. His son would be a more uniting force and do more good that Charles could if ever to do.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:21 am
Chezzie;1052322 wrote: Id like it to go straight to Prince WIlliam:D
He's so hot!:-4
He's so hot!:-4
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:56 am
Nomad;1052624 wrote: I like to think of myself as a Prince. Prince Nomad. :-6
I LiiiiiiKE IT !
Nomad - the dark prince.... has a ring to it...:wah:
I LiiiiiiKE IT !
Nomad - the dark prince.... has a ring to it...:wah:
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:10 pm
OpenMind;1052305 wrote: Prince Charles may never be King Charles - Telegraph
I am in two minds on this one.
I am a huge admirer of the Queen and i find it sad that the dis-functional family all around her, let her down time and time again. The Queen is a fine example of loyalty, dedication and honour to her country. I can say the same about Charles. He has been a King in-waiting for many years. His dedication to his country is un-questionable, however, I do not believe he should be King.
I believe he forfeited the right to the throne the moment he went on live TV and admitted adultery.
There will be people who will argue that King's have had mistresses for centurie's and quote 'Lily Langtree', but i for one look for the up-holder of the Christian value's that he is suppossed to re-present.
I agree with Spot that there should be no side-lining him, but he needs to do the right thing himself and abdicate.
I will never ever accept Camilla as a queen. The only way i would accept Charles as King was if Camilla was titled a 'Consort' or similar title. Never HRH.
Besides, Camilla is so ugly, who the hell would buy a stamp??
I am in two minds on this one.
I am a huge admirer of the Queen and i find it sad that the dis-functional family all around her, let her down time and time again. The Queen is a fine example of loyalty, dedication and honour to her country. I can say the same about Charles. He has been a King in-waiting for many years. His dedication to his country is un-questionable, however, I do not believe he should be King.
I believe he forfeited the right to the throne the moment he went on live TV and admitted adultery.
There will be people who will argue that King's have had mistresses for centurie's and quote 'Lily Langtree', but i for one look for the up-holder of the Christian value's that he is suppossed to re-present.
I agree with Spot that there should be no side-lining him, but he needs to do the right thing himself and abdicate.
I will never ever accept Camilla as a queen. The only way i would accept Charles as King was if Camilla was titled a 'Consort' or similar title. Never HRH.
Besides, Camilla is so ugly, who the hell would buy a stamp??
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:26 pm
oscar;1052995 wrote: I am in two minds on this one.
I am a huge admirer of the Queen and i find it sad that the dis-functional family all around her, let her down time and time again. The Queen is a fine example of loyalty, dedication and honour to her country. I can say the same about Charles. He has been a King in-waiting for many years. His dedication to his country is un-questionable, however, I do not believe he should be King.
I believe he forfeited the right to the throne the moment he went on live TV and admitted adultery.
There will be people who will argue that King's have had mistresses for centurie's and quote 'Lily Langtree', but i for one look for the up-holder of the Christian value's that he is suppossed to re-present.
I agree with Spot that there should be no side-lining him, but he needs to do the right thing himself and abdicate.
I will never ever accept Camilla as a queen. The only way i would accept Charles as King was if Camilla was titled a 'Consort' or similar title. Never HRH.
Besides, Camilla is so ugly, who the hell would buy a stamp??
His great uncle abdicated for less. Then again he was determined to marry someone he loved so maybe that was to hid credit.
I am a huge admirer of the Queen and i find it sad that the dis-functional family all around her, let her down time and time again. The Queen is a fine example of loyalty, dedication and honour to her country. I can say the same about Charles. He has been a King in-waiting for many years. His dedication to his country is un-questionable, however, I do not believe he should be King.
I believe he forfeited the right to the throne the moment he went on live TV and admitted adultery.
There will be people who will argue that King's have had mistresses for centurie's and quote 'Lily Langtree', but i for one look for the up-holder of the Christian value's that he is suppossed to re-present.
I agree with Spot that there should be no side-lining him, but he needs to do the right thing himself and abdicate.
I will never ever accept Camilla as a queen. The only way i would accept Charles as King was if Camilla was titled a 'Consort' or similar title. Never HRH.
Besides, Camilla is so ugly, who the hell would buy a stamp??
His great uncle abdicated for less. Then again he was determined to marry someone he loved so maybe that was to hid credit.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:33 pm
oscar;1052995 wrote: I am in two minds on this one.
I am a huge admirer of the Queen and i find it sad that the dis-functional family all around her, let her down time and time again. The Queen is a fine example of loyalty, dedication and honour to her country. I can say the same about Charles. He has been a King in-waiting for many years. His dedication to his country is un-questionable, however, I do not believe he should be King.
I believe he forfeited the right to the throne the moment he went on live TV and admitted adultery.
There will be people who will argue that King's have had mistresses for centurie's and quote 'Lily Langtree', but i for one look for the up-holder of the Christian value's that he is suppossed to re-present.
I agree with Spot that there should be no side-lining him, but he needs to do the right thing himself and abdicate.
I will never ever accept Camilla as a queen. The only way i would accept Charles as King was if Camilla was titled a 'Consort' or similar title. Never HRH.
Besides, Camilla is so ugly, who the hell would buy a stamp??
I disagree.
I am a huge admirer of the Queen and i find it sad that the dis-functional family all around her, let her down time and time again. The Queen is a fine example of loyalty, dedication and honour to her country. I can say the same about Charles. He has been a King in-waiting for many years. His dedication to his country is un-questionable, however, I do not believe he should be King.
I believe he forfeited the right to the throne the moment he went on live TV and admitted adultery.
There will be people who will argue that King's have had mistresses for centurie's and quote 'Lily Langtree', but i for one look for the up-holder of the Christian value's that he is suppossed to re-present.
I agree with Spot that there should be no side-lining him, but he needs to do the right thing himself and abdicate.
I will never ever accept Camilla as a queen. The only way i would accept Charles as King was if Camilla was titled a 'Consort' or similar title. Never HRH.
Besides, Camilla is so ugly, who the hell would buy a stamp??
I disagree.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:37 pm
gmc;1053099 wrote: His great uncle abdicated for less. Then again he was determined to marry someone he loved so maybe that was to hid credit.
It was to Edward 8th's credit that he abdicated and his loyalty to Wallis Simpson to his dying day showed that it was true love. Having said that, i do believe Edward could have been a good King. The difference with him was that Wallis was his ONLY choice. If Charles always had a relationship with Camilla, one he was not willing to sacrifice even when he married Diana, then that shows an un-believable selfishness. Although i always believed that Charles had great affecrion for Diana, the truth was, he was committed to Camilla. Therefore he used Diana as a breeding stock mare purely to supply the Royal family with his heir. The reason he did not simply stick with Camilla was because it would be impractable for her to produce an heir for him, having already been married to 'Parker- Bowles' and having already had children. An Heir to the throne can not have step-siblings.
I could accept Camilla more, had Charles not have married Diana nor any other woman and waited for Camilla to divorce.
It was to Edward 8th's credit that he abdicated and his loyalty to Wallis Simpson to his dying day showed that it was true love. Having said that, i do believe Edward could have been a good King. The difference with him was that Wallis was his ONLY choice. If Charles always had a relationship with Camilla, one he was not willing to sacrifice even when he married Diana, then that shows an un-believable selfishness. Although i always believed that Charles had great affecrion for Diana, the truth was, he was committed to Camilla. Therefore he used Diana as a breeding stock mare purely to supply the Royal family with his heir. The reason he did not simply stick with Camilla was because it would be impractable for her to produce an heir for him, having already been married to 'Parker- Bowles' and having already had children. An Heir to the throne can not have step-siblings.
I could accept Camilla more, had Charles not have married Diana nor any other woman and waited for Camilla to divorce.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:52 pm
Who the f@ck of any of you know anything about Prince Charles? Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not?
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:00 pm
OpenMind;1053135 wrote: Who the f@ck of any of you know anything about Prince Charles? Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not?
We are not, we only try to give our own persol beliefs but none of us are professionals. I have only written my own personal thoughts.
We are not, we only try to give our own persol beliefs but none of us are professionals. I have only written my own personal thoughts.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:49 pm
Charles has been waiting so long and is the next in sucession, so rightfully he should be the next King. His older son will succeed him when it is his time to.
Camilla can't help the way she looks any more that I can help the way I look. Her title would be consort, not HRH.
The results of the tragic marriage of Charles and Diana are the two fine sons they had together. We should be proud of both young men.
Camilla can't help the way she looks any more that I can help the way I look. Her title would be consort, not HRH.
The results of the tragic marriage of Charles and Diana are the two fine sons they had together. We should be proud of both young men.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:23 pm
along-for-the-ride;1053181 wrote: Charles has been waiting so long and is the next in sucession, so rightfully he should be the next King. His older son will succeed him when it is his time to.
Camilla can't help the way she looks any more that I can help the way I look. Her title would be consort, not HRH.
The results of the tragic marriage of Charles and Diana are the two fine sons they had together. We should be proud of both young men.
The truth concerning the princes William and Harry will be for future generations to discern.
What has always intrigued me is what it was like for them to grow up. Can't always have been easy.
Camilla can't help the way she looks any more that I can help the way I look. Her title would be consort, not HRH.
The results of the tragic marriage of Charles and Diana are the two fine sons they had together. We should be proud of both young men.
The truth concerning the princes William and Harry will be for future generations to discern.
What has always intrigued me is what it was like for them to grow up. Can't always have been easy.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:41 am
OpenMind;1053135 wrote: Who the f@ck of any of you know anything about Prince Charles? Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not?
We live in a free country and can say what we damn well like about the royal family or anyone else we feel like. That is no thanks to any king or queen. We have a monarchy at the whim of the people and the bastards had better not forget it. If you don't like it tough ****.
It' s an amazing tribute to the gullibility of people that somehow the descendants of medieval warlords have us persuaded we need them at all and that there are even idiots that think we have no right to comment.
We live in a free country and can say what we damn well like about the royal family or anyone else we feel like. That is no thanks to any king or queen. We have a monarchy at the whim of the people and the bastards had better not forget it. If you don't like it tough ****.
It' s an amazing tribute to the gullibility of people that somehow the descendants of medieval warlords have us persuaded we need them at all and that there are even idiots that think we have no right to comment.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:46 am
gmc;1053653 wrote: We live in a free country and can say what we damn well like about the royal family or anyone else we feel like. That is no thanks to any king or queen. We have a monarchy at the whim of the people and the bastards had better not forget it. If you don't like it tough ****.
It' s an amazing tribute to the gullibility of people that somehow the descendants of medieval warlords have us persuaded we need them at all and that there are even idiots that think we have no right to comment.
That doesn't even answer my question. And I did not say no one has a right to comment. My thoughts on the prince were given earlier and have nothing to do with his heritage or whether I believe we need them or not.
It' s an amazing tribute to the gullibility of people that somehow the descendants of medieval warlords have us persuaded we need them at all and that there are even idiots that think we have no right to comment.
That doesn't even answer my question. And I did not say no one has a right to comment. My thoughts on the prince were given earlier and have nothing to do with his heritage or whether I believe we need them or not.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:49 am
OpenMind;1053694 wrote: That doesn't even answer my question. And I did not say no one has a right to comment. My thoughts on the prince were given earlier and have nothing to do with his heritage or whether I believe we need them or not.
You asked Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not?
The answer is any one of us. This is a free county and we are all equally entitled to an opinion and to express it. Whether it is an informed opinion or not is completely irrelevant.
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
You asked Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not?
The answer is any one of us. This is a free county and we are all equally entitled to an opinion and to express it. Whether it is an informed opinion or not is completely irrelevant.
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:56 am
gmc;1053969 wrote: You asked
The answer is any one of us. This is a free county and we are all equally entitled to an opinion and to express it. Whether it is an informed opinion or not is completely irrelevant.
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
Your interpretation is very free. A dissertation has a different meaning to comments in my dictionary.
The answer is any one of us. This is a free county and we are all equally entitled to an opinion and to express it. Whether it is an informed opinion or not is completely irrelevant.
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
Your interpretation is very free. A dissertation has a different meaning to comments in my dictionary.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:18 am
I think King Chuck has a nice ring to it.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:56 am
OpenMind;1053978 wrote: Your interpretation is very free. A dissertation has a different meaning to comments in my dictionary.
OK since you prefer semantic pedantry. The answer is still the same. Any one of us can write a big long essay if we feel so inclined. It's a free country and that is n thanks to any member of the monarchy.
If you don't feel you should be allowed or are not worthy enough that is your problem.
OK since you prefer semantic pedantry. The answer is still the same. Any one of us can write a big long essay if we feel so inclined. It's a free country and that is n thanks to any member of the monarchy.
If you don't feel you should be allowed or are not worthy enough that is your problem.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:38 am
Great, GMC. Now we've got one point straightened out, perhaps you can tell me why you insist on these statements:
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
and:
If you don't feel you should be allowed or are not worthy enough that is your problem.
I have made all the comments or statements that I want to make. That I have made no more is a choice not based on my self-worth.
I will agree that in hindsight, my statement here - Who the f@ck of any of you know anything about Prince Charles? Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not? - was rather strong and disproportionate. I am happy to apologise to anyone who was offended by it.
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
and:
If you don't feel you should be allowed or are not worthy enough that is your problem.
I have made all the comments or statements that I want to make. That I have made no more is a choice not based on my self-worth.
I will agree that in hindsight, my statement here - Who the f@ck of any of you know anything about Prince Charles? Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not? - was rather strong and disproportionate. I am happy to apologise to anyone who was offended by it.
Will he, won't he? Do you want him to be?
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:40 pm
OpenMind;1054195 wrote: Great, GMC. Now we've got one point straightened out, perhaps you can tell me why you insist on these statements:
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
and:
If you don't feel you should be allowed or are not worthy enough that is your problem.
I have made all the comments or statements that I want to make. That I have made no more is a choice not based on my self-worth.
I will agree that in hindsight, my statement here - Who the f@ck of any of you know anything about Prince Charles? Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not? - was rather strong and disproportionate. I am happy to apologise to anyone who was offended by it.
I wasn't offended by it. I just disagreed passionately with the implication that we didn't have the right to pass judgement. What is there to get offended about? Even the odd individual that tries to antagonise I just ignore.
If you think you have no right to comment that's your choice too.
and:
If you don't feel you should be allowed or are not worthy enough that is your problem.
I have made all the comments or statements that I want to make. That I have made no more is a choice not based on my self-worth.
I will agree that in hindsight, my statement here - Who the f@ck of any of you know anything about Prince Charles? Who among you are in a position to give a proper dissertation about whether he is fit to rule or not? - was rather strong and disproportionate. I am happy to apologise to anyone who was offended by it.
I wasn't offended by it. I just disagreed passionately with the implication that we didn't have the right to pass judgement. What is there to get offended about? Even the odd individual that tries to antagonise I just ignore.