Charles accuses Britons of 'torturing' him over Camilla affair: paper (Poor baby alert)

AFP ^ | 2/26/2005

[Riddley]

I think you really mean we could care less about the royal twits.

You started the thread bud.

[Grut]

I think you really mean we could care less about the royal twits.

Well, yes; but even if they were interesting, it still wouldn't be any of our business.

[shubi]

Don't call me bud, bub.

[Alia]

I am serious: It is part of the problem ongoing in England -- Between the Church and the State. The folks yet still in support of the Monarchy continue to get their heads handed to 'em. And those I know in this country and in England are furious over Camille's elevated "status".

Of course, in 1994, When the Church of England basically adopted "quotas" within the church .. and then the looting of Windsor Castle, etc. There's been quite a bit of trouble brewing in England.

The real problem is royals are about as noble as snakes.

and that's what's got the old traditionalists shrieking over the Camille Matter. However, the rail by those who careless and would rather adopt multi-culti rule, are those who are in "compassion" and agreement with Camille's "elevated" status.

[Alia]

I am serious: It is part of the problem ongoing in England -- Between the Church and the State. The folks yet still in support of the Monarchy continue to get their heads handed to 'em. And those I know in this country and in England are furious over Camille's elevated "status".

Of course, in 1994, When the Church of England basically adopted "quotas" within the church .. and then the looting of Windsor Castle, etc. There's been quite a bit of trouble brewing in England.

The real problem is royals are about as noble as snakes.

and that's what's got the old traditionalists shrieking over the Camille Matter. However, the rail by those who careless and would rather adopt multi-culti rule, are those who are in "compassion" and agreement with Camille's "elevated" status.

[Maceman]

I think you really mean we could care less about the royal twits.

Actually, he means that we couldn't.

[Caipirabob]

I'm not a big fan of Charles by any means, but this "quote" sounds so unlikely that I have to wonder if it was completely fabricated.

Fair skepticism from a thoughtful FReeper.

I will say I've seen several articles along the same line as this one in just the past two days, though.

If we aren't able to claim anything productive from the Royals, at least they serve to distract us from true freak shows, such as Micheal Jackson.

[Oztrich Boy]

Shoulda Made Camille, Lady or Dame of "somethingham" but to accord her the type of title she's been accorded in this marriage?

Actually it's long been an English custom that the wife takes the husband's name or title upon marriage (Yeah, I know - Sexist, Patriarchal - but that's the way it's been done for centuries)

Camilla could take the title "Princess of Wales", but the great British public and the gutter press still retains an affection for the scheming neurotic, self-absorbed promiscuous dingbat who last had that title.
Hence Duchess of Cornwall, as she is marrying Charles, Duke of Cornwall.

[Tunehead54]

Who/What determines who will be King?

---

Is it up to the Queen - What if she dies without designating an heir? Could she specify Tunehead54 as the next king? Just curious ... ;-)

[MadIvan]

Is it up to the Queen - What if she dies without designating an heir? Could she specify Tunehead54 as the next king? Just curious ... ;-)

It's ultimately up to Parliament. The monarchy has been subordinate to the will of Parliament since the Restoration of Charles II.

I don't want Charles as King.

Regards, Ivan

[Oztrich Boy]

The monarchy has been subordinate to the will of Parliament since the Restoration of Charles II.

Before then. The execution of Charles I - big clue

[Alia]

Actually it's long been an English custom that the wife takes the husband's name or title upon marriage (Yeah, I know - Sexist, Patriarchal - but that's the way it's been done for centuries)

No, no! It's only "sexist and patriarchal" if there's no noble title involved. lol

Right now my mind is sleepy, else, I'd be giving you the names of others who held a different-through-marriage title and because a divorce had been involved on either part. But don't you find it odd, a bit, that he the prince, would have to give her a Duchess title? Dukes are usually younger brothers, aren't they. And while I can understand the Prince holding simultaneous titles, Prince and Duke; I was relieved the Family hadn't gone so far as to give her the title of "princess". Perhaps this is what all the fuss is about? Or perhaps some are upset that since an adulterous affair is implied, that she even got title of Duchess?

[Alia]

You don't wish to see, Mr. Multi-Culti-&-Mr.-We Love-and-Donate-to-Muslim-Causes, King?

You're a good man, MadIvan.

[Alouette]

the heir to the throne went on to complain bitterly that he was being "tortured" by people over his relationship

Well Chuckie me lad, your good old royal predecessors (I was about to say "ancestors" then realized the Tudors went extinct) 'Enery the Ayth and 'is oldest gal, Bluidy Mary, chopped off 'eads and burnt 'eretics at the stake, while at the same time 'angin' drawrin' an quarterin' the commonfolk for grins.

[Riddley]

OK pal.

[Riddley]

It's ultimately up to Parliament. The monarchy has been subordinate to the will of Parliament since the Restoration of Charles II. I don't want Charles as King.

Ivan, let me say first off that I'm English and a republican. That said, how do you as a monarchist decide to pick and choose which person becomes monarch. Surely if you believe in the hereditary principle as a bedrock of our nation and the reason we have had stable government for 1000 years, it doesn't make sense to pick and choose in the succession.

[RichInOC]

"I already told you I don't know anything about any f***ing setup, you can torture me all you want."
"Torture you? That's a good idea. I like that."

[MadIvan]

I'm a monarchist with exceptions...if a monarch is so unsuitable that he or she is totally incapable of performing the role, then it is the duty of the people, as expressed through Parliament, to see that person does not take the throne. The most recent example was Edward VIII - recent documents show that his choice in bride was far too close to Nazi Germany for it to be allowed.

Regards, Ivan

[Riddley]

I'm a monarchist with exceptions

To me that's too vague a principle to base a nation upon.

[MadIvan]

To me that's too vague a principle to base a nation upon.

It's how we've been functioning since Charles I's head got cut off. It seems to work: we're not constantly changing governments like the Continent, and the political order is relatively stable, but not so stable as to not have flexibility should there be a disaster or war.

Regards, Ivan