Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Satisfying smackdown of Prince Charles
American Thinker ^ | 2/8/2014 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on 02/08/2014 8:11:46 AM PST by rktman

Recently His Royal Highness committed a major faux pas by injecting himself into the political debate, and he has been called out by the one man with the intellectual AND social standing to do so. And a major plus is that he has the wit to perform this necessary task with devastating effectiveness. As many readers may have already guessed, that man is Christopher Monckton, also known more formally as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a man in possession of his own herald of high nobility.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Agriculture; Humor; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: algorism; christophermonckton; didiots; ecowackos; globalwarminghoax; jughead; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: yldstrk

Didn’t Diana also say Chas was unfit to be king OR that he would never be king?
For being ‘paranoid loon’ she was correct in a lot of her statements..


21 posted on 02/08/2014 9:28:46 AM PST by BigIsleGal (Wake Me Up When the Stupid Wears Off)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Moncton's letter might remind one of Burke's 1775 "Speech on Conciliation. . ." which, when delivered to the British Parliament, on some points, might have been seen as both impertinent and challenging.
22 posted on 02/08/2014 9:30:38 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Inbreeding has consequences. It’s pretty much a given that Prince Charley is a blithering idiot.


23 posted on 02/08/2014 9:39:12 AM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Charlies problem was that he couldn't keep the “Royal Scepter” in the “Royal Knickers”
24 posted on 02/08/2014 9:50:40 AM PST by Rumplemeyer (The GOP should stand its ground - and fix Bayonets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: onyx
He’s an idiot when it comes to Global Warming

Needed clarification.

25 posted on 02/08/2014 10:19:27 AM PST by Focault's Pendulum (I live in NJ....' Nuff said!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Yes, of course it goes from Charles to William. :p

But could it go Elizabeth to Wills, or Elizabeth to Andrew?

"The British Constitution requires that succession passes to the oldest heir, male before female, of the reigning monarch. If there is no direct heir, the line passes through brothers or sisters of the Monarch, but excludes anyone who is Catholic or married to a Catholic."

In any case, it's really not worth wasting time pondering as Elizabeth would never renounce Charles and Charles will outlive Elizabeth.

It would be great if he abdicated to Wills shortly after being crowned though. The Brits may tolerate Wills and Kate and baby George... but how long will they be interested in supporting the crown while it rests on the heads of Charles and Camilla? Heh!

The real question is, will Charles stubbornly hold on to the throne even if he knows he is unpopular and it threatens the future of the monarchy? He just might! What do you think?

26 posted on 02/08/2014 10:21:53 AM PST by Casie (democrats destroy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Casie

There would have to be Royal dying going on for Andrew to succeed. I think that he is currently 5th.

The Act of Succession has changed, birth order from the Sovereign is the only criteria, gender no longer matters.


27 posted on 02/08/2014 10:42:20 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Casie

Joe Biden vs the Prince: Both stupid but the Prince has no personality and is dry and boring where as Joe, the clown at least makes us laugh. Funny stupid seems better than boring stupid to me. LOL


28 posted on 02/08/2014 10:59:14 AM PST by fish hawk (no tyrant can remain in power without the consent and cooperation of his victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onyx

From what I’ve read elsewhere, he’s equally ill informed about Islam.


29 posted on 02/08/2014 11:28:40 AM PST by Wicket (1 Peter 3:15 , Romans 5:5-8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Whatever the supermarket tabloid headlines say, wouldn't changing the succession require an act of Parliament? Actually acts of Parliaments -- UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

Up Chuck!

30 posted on 02/08/2014 11:56:38 AM PST by omega4412
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
he has a low opinion of Prince Charles’s ability to govern England effectively.

I thought kings and queens stopped governing a long time ago and that it's been Parliament. I remember reading bios of Duke of Windsor, his dad George, etc. and at that time the royals were supposed to stay out of politics altogether.

What exactly do the royals do but cutting ribbon ceremonies and appearances?

31 posted on 02/08/2014 12:33:47 PM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

UK just last year passed a law making succession by absolute primogeniture rather than male preference primogeniture.

IOW, whether a person is male or female will no longer play a role in succession.


32 posted on 02/08/2014 1:37:16 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Excluding Charles from the throne would require an Act of Parliament.


33 posted on 02/08/2014 1:38:42 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Certainly true, in fact exactly the point that I made in Post #26


34 posted on 02/08/2014 1:45:56 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Those remarks were rankly party-political

That is of course the whole problem. Those holding Charles' view on this subject believe the issue is settled and so beyond party politics. It's like claiming belief in or opposition to the law of gravity is a party politics issue.

In fact, most liberals believe that all liberal views are not partisan political issues, they're just the way all decent people think. Only positions opposing them are considered partisan in nature.

This POV is, for most of them, entirely genuine. They really believe it.

35 posted on 02/08/2014 1:46:40 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Shouldn’t they just go back to drawing a sword from a stone?


36 posted on 02/08/2014 3:28:46 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Those remarks were rankly party-political
That is of course the whole problem. Those holding Charles' view on this subject believe the issue is settled and so beyond party politics. It's like claiming belief in or opposition to the law of gravity is a party politics issue.

In fact, most liberals believe that all liberal views are not partisan political issues, they're just the way all decent people think. Only positions opposing them are considered partisan in nature.

This POV is, for most of them, entirely genuine. They really believe it.

Why wouldn’t they believe it? They are in the middle of a mutual admiration society; everyone they know agrees with them, and they agree with everyone they know. Going along and getting along with the propaganda media is their religion.

37 posted on 02/08/2014 6:52:39 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ("Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Bookmark
38 posted on 02/08/2014 9:52:24 PM PST by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rktman
If the future king thinks he can feather his nest by pandering to the Liberal elements in Great Britain.... he may be in for a cold shower.
39 posted on 02/10/2014 5:45:27 AM PST by SMARTY ("When you blame others, you give up your power to change." Robert Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

I think they call it “stark raving bonkers” over there.


40 posted on 02/10/2014 6:02:03 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme),unemployment will necessarily skyrocket! Despite the % dropping. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson