Royal Wedding - do we get a day off?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the pub to see the garlic noshing surrender monkeys get a taste of English spunk.
Twats!!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Estados Unidos
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This photo says a lot, IMHO.
Charles & Camilla have cared for each other for a very long time. I wish them all the very best.
And for those who are hung up on the "looks" issue, Camilla was quite good-looking when she was younger. Although her looks may have faded somewhat with age (and who is immune from that?), Charles has the sense and depth to see her for who she is, not what she looks like.
Charles & Camilla have cared for each other for a very long time. I wish them all the very best.
And for those who are hung up on the "looks" issue, Camilla was quite good-looking when she was younger. Although her looks may have faded somewhat with age (and who is immune from that?), Charles has the sense and depth to see her for who she is, not what she looks like.
KENNYR,
Do you realise how ridiculous that statement of yours below is????
….”and he is setting a dangerous precedence with respect to a divorced person being remarried in the Church of England”…..
That is PRECISELY why the Church of England was set up in the first place for Christ sake! Why else do you think Henry V111 split from Rome, so that he could divorce and re-marry!
Do you realise how ridiculous that statement of yours below is????
….”and he is setting a dangerous precedence with respect to a divorced person being remarried in the Church of England”…..
That is PRECISELY why the Church of England was set up in the first place for Christ sake! Why else do you think Henry V111 split from Rome, so that he could divorce and re-marry!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gone are the days when Kings do kingly deeds.
He has waited 'enough' time for his Grandmother to have settled in her bed,once his mother becomes the next fresh plot he will abdicate handing over to a welcomed William.One who has spent all his life in dead mans shoes has never had a ounce of english in him.Fight for King and country becomes worthless under him...see him for what he really is.. worthless, spoilt and without morals.Republicians will push for change but the alternative doesn't sit well in the stomach.
I'm sure given todays research tools there must be a more worthy family to grace the throne...??
He has waited 'enough' time for his Grandmother to have settled in her bed,once his mother becomes the next fresh plot he will abdicate handing over to a welcomed William.One who has spent all his life in dead mans shoes has never had a ounce of english in him.Fight for King and country becomes worthless under him...see him for what he really is.. worthless, spoilt and without morals.Republicians will push for change but the alternative doesn't sit well in the stomach.
I'm sure given todays research tools there must be a more worthy family to grace the throne...??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst in some respect I agree and I am to an extent a republican, I cannot help but feel that if we were abolish the monarchy it would be a devil of a job getting it back. At the end of the day WHY do people want a republic and want to abolish the monarchy? Everyone loved the Queen Mum.....Her Madge the Queen is fab...we like her... The gorgeous Lady Di would have made a brill queen... So, maybe its a case of "wanting a monarchy - BUT not this lot".
Maybe we should reduce the burden on the country by getting rid of a few of the hangers on.
I read in this weekends paper that both Camilla's children will now get an allowance of £60,000 PA from Prince Charles....Scandalous, absolutely scandalous. Well the do-gooders will report that actually the money won't be coming from the public purse as the P.O.W doesn't get any and it will come from his personal coffers..WHAT .....What personal coffers. That bloke hasn't worked a day in his life. He hasn't earned a penny. The income he gets from the Duchy of Cornwall isn't his....it belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall and he just so happens to be wearing that hat at the moment....
So, lets not get rid of the Monarchy...lets keep it BUT lets get rid of the hangers on.... we should introduce an amendment to the monarchy laws stating that there is only allowed to be 4 of them. They can pick and choose which 4 that will be but the rest will have to get a job.
Maybe we should reduce the burden on the country by getting rid of a few of the hangers on.
I read in this weekends paper that both Camilla's children will now get an allowance of £60,000 PA from Prince Charles....Scandalous, absolutely scandalous. Well the do-gooders will report that actually the money won't be coming from the public purse as the P.O.W doesn't get any and it will come from his personal coffers..WHAT .....What personal coffers. That bloke hasn't worked a day in his life. He hasn't earned a penny. The income he gets from the Duchy of Cornwall isn't his....it belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall and he just so happens to be wearing that hat at the moment....
So, lets not get rid of the Monarchy...lets keep it BUT lets get rid of the hangers on.... we should introduce an amendment to the monarchy laws stating that there is only allowed to be 4 of them. They can pick and choose which 4 that will be but the rest will have to get a job.
Last edited by hyd3failure; 14th Feb 2005 at 12:24.
Right - that's all Highgrove products of my list if the profits are going to keep Scamilla's offspring enjoying £60K each...
Hmm - Sun Headline perhaps? "£120K SCAMILLA!
But please, please, NOT on page 3!
Hmm - Sun Headline perhaps? "£120K SCAMILLA!
But please, please, NOT on page 3!
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Feb 2005 at 16:24.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just had a quick look at my Commisioning Warrant, and every reference - from the introduction to the final command - is on behalf of, and in the name of, HM Queen Elizabeth II and not the Crown!
This potential changeover is unique in my lifetime, and I'm sure it is for the majority of Pruners
If, and when, Charlie boy becomes King, there will be a re-print to reflect the wording for King Charles III
So then, will all existing members of the Armed Forces at the time, have to swear a new allegiance to the King, and if so, how many present day objectors to the wedding and the constitutional issues - on these pages and elsewhere - will refuse and leave the Services ?
As I'm not as morally bankrupt as Charles, I would say no and have to go.
Love many, Trust a few, Vote now and join the queue!
This potential changeover is unique in my lifetime, and I'm sure it is for the majority of Pruners
If, and when, Charlie boy becomes King, there will be a re-print to reflect the wording for King Charles III
So then, will all existing members of the Armed Forces at the time, have to swear a new allegiance to the King, and if so, how many present day objectors to the wedding and the constitutional issues - on these pages and elsewhere - will refuse and leave the Services ?
As I'm not as morally bankrupt as Charles, I would say no and have to go.
Love many, Trust a few, Vote now and join the queue!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buoy15
You swore an oath to Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. Therefore your principled early exit is a non-stater on that count!
I see that you come from Ecosse, you could try arguing that your original oath was invalid as being made to a non-existant Sovereign. Elizabeth Windsor being the first Queen of Scots or of the United Kingdom of that name.
Apparently on her accession she made reference to a 'new Elizabethan age' and to her illustrious ancestor, Elizabeth I. As Ian Hamilton QC commented: "Descent from a virgin Queen, forsooth. There has been only one other descent like it in history!"
You swore an oath to Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. Therefore your principled early exit is a non-stater on that count!
I see that you come from Ecosse, you could try arguing that your original oath was invalid as being made to a non-existant Sovereign. Elizabeth Windsor being the first Queen of Scots or of the United Kingdom of that name.
Apparently on her accession she made reference to a 'new Elizabethan age' and to her illustrious ancestor, Elizabeth I. As Ian Hamilton QC commented: "Descent from a virgin Queen, forsooth. There has been only one other descent like it in history!"
Gentleman Aviator
And all the crowns on wings and button will have to change again ... so that boring old f*rts (moi?) can ponce around in "Queen's Wings".... plus ca change...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Teal
Yes, Quite.
You are referring to the attestation on joining, the wording of which will also be changed.
I suppose all those years ago. when I attested to "heirs and their successors", I never suspected that the next successor - who is only a few months younger than me - would emulate Henry VIII in most respects.
He has cleverly orchestrated the blessing of his mother, the government, and the leader of the Church of England, to secure his present and comfortable future.
How can he even compare with previous Kings of England?
Richard the Lionheart - No !
Charles 1st - No !
Edward VIII - No !
Even Cromwell had more Street Cred !!
Presently, as future King and Govenor (Desig) of the CofE, he sleeps peacefully at night, with taxpayers money, and no possibility of being sent to the Tower or eventually, the block at Whitehall
Oh, my Kingdom for a horse! Youv'e got one !
Yes, Quite.
You are referring to the attestation on joining, the wording of which will also be changed.
I suppose all those years ago. when I attested to "heirs and their successors", I never suspected that the next successor - who is only a few months younger than me - would emulate Henry VIII in most respects.
He has cleverly orchestrated the blessing of his mother, the government, and the leader of the Church of England, to secure his present and comfortable future.
How can he even compare with previous Kings of England?
Richard the Lionheart - No !
Charles 1st - No !
Edward VIII - No !
Even Cromwell had more Street Cred !!
Presently, as future King and Govenor (Desig) of the CofE, he sleeps peacefully at night, with taxpayers money, and no possibility of being sent to the Tower or eventually, the block at Whitehall
Oh, my Kingdom for a horse! Youv'e got one !
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of sanctimonious twaddle! For goodness' sake, guys, relax.
Our 'constitutional monarchy' may not be perfect, but cost is the last reason for wanting to get rid of it. Just electing a president would consume more cash than the Royal Family do in 5 years.
Surely, while there's no absolute right to happiness, everyone has the right to pursue happiness.
And, for all of you who rail against the head of the CofE being an adulterer - well, how about a bit of Christian charity? Hate the sin, love the sinner?
Love many, trust a few, Bouy15 you make me spew
Note to self - mote - eye - cnut!
Our 'constitutional monarchy' may not be perfect, but cost is the last reason for wanting to get rid of it. Just electing a president would consume more cash than the Royal Family do in 5 years.
Surely, while there's no absolute right to happiness, everyone has the right to pursue happiness.
And, for all of you who rail against the head of the CofE being an adulterer - well, how about a bit of Christian charity? Hate the sin, love the sinner?
Love many, trust a few, Bouy15 you make me spew
Note to self - mote - eye - cnut!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: still in the mess
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to the CofE issue, believe from the papers that it will be a civil ceremony, which will then be blessed..."in accordance with current Church guidelines".
Personally, I see know problem with it, and while it probably is not ideal for all parties involved (and the uninvolved parties on this thread) I can't see why it shouldn't go ahead. After all, the Queen has given thoe go ahead, and we've all sworn our allegiance..
Day off wouldn't go amiss though!
mai24
Personally, I see know problem with it, and while it probably is not ideal for all parties involved (and the uninvolved parties on this thread) I can't see why it shouldn't go ahead. After all, the Queen has given thoe go ahead, and we've all sworn our allegiance..
Day off wouldn't go amiss though!
mai24