crookesey Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 This may shock Harry, but I couldn’t care a carrot, he still represents a regime that I and many more have no time for. He’s reported to be worth $60million, the lucky sod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 19 minutes ago, crookesey said: This may shock Harry, but I couldn’t care a carrot, he still represents a regime that I and many more have no time for. He’s reported to be worth $60million, the lucky sod. ............. And still not satisfied ..... the greedy sods both of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackydog Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 6 hours ago, trastrick said: There were those who sympathized with Harry, and before that, his mother, Diane, and even before that, Edward V111, who just wanted to escape the confines of the Royal family and the inability to live "a normal life". Not so. Edward VIII wanted to marry that Simpson trollop and remain king. However he was aware that he would not get government support to marry a (still married) divorcee, so abdicated. More recently, Liz2 gave permission for Charlie to marry divorcee (choosing my words carefully here) Camilla Shand. Not a lot was different really except the times. Both kings reportedly had affairs with married women, before their accession to king. One got approval the other didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 2 minutes ago, blackydog said: Not so. Edward VIII wanted to marry that Simpson trollop and remain king. However he was aware that he would not get government support to marry a (still married) divorcee, so abdicated. More recently, Liz2 gave permission for Charlie to marry divorcee (choosing my words carefully here) Camilla Shand. Not a lot was different really except the times. Both kings reportedly had affairs with married women, before their accession to king. One got approval the other didn't. To quote my late and beloved grandfather. The royal family sleep with each other all year round and share the kids out at Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 All the same you got to credit the ones that stayed in the Royal Household (I would call it a prison) and spent their lives going through the required rigmarole every day. I'm not sure just how "luxurious" a life like that would be, even if I didn't have to pay for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRESLEY Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 Respect goes to the Kings who died in battle not these leach ornaments these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 13 minutes ago, PRESLEY said: Respect goes to the Kings who died in battle not these leach ornaments these days. So that’s 815 years since the last one then, 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackydog Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 14 minutes ago, trastrick said: All the same you got to credit the ones that stayed in the Royal Household (I would call it a prison) and spent their lives going through the required rigmarole every day. I'm not sure just how "luxurious" a life like that would be, even if I didn't have to pay for it! There are many arguments pro and against the royals themselves. I find they are a corrupt and secretive organisation, of which self preservation is the utmost goal. That is my view of the incumbents. However, we also have the different (but related) argument of monarchy and hereditary succession. Whatever you think of the current mob, put that aside and ask yourself - is this a proper and correct way to select a Head of State? Is it good for the country, indeed is it good for the person? If you accept monarchy but are an atheist, how do you reconcile having a Head of State chosen by God? Have they shown throughout modern history, that the current method of choosing a Head of State has been successful? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRESLEY Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 3 minutes ago, crookesey said: So that’s 815 years since the last one then, 😉 Yes they are well over due, big ears needs to get his suit of amour ready, thats if he can get his helmet over his ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, blackydog said: There are many arguments pro and against the royals themselves. I find they are a corrupt and secretive organisation, of which self preservation is the utmost goal. That is my view of the incumbents. However, we also have the different (but related) argument of monarchy and hereditary succession. Whatever you think of the current mob, put that aside and ask yourself - is this a proper and correct way to select a Head of State? Is it good for the country, indeed is it good for the person? If you accept monarchy but are an atheist, how do you reconcile having a Head of State chosen by God? Have they shown throughout modern history, that the current method of choosing a Head of State has been successful? I think not. Nothing wrong with a democracy changing their Head of State, but putting a politician in it’s place is just substituting one bunch of flawed human beings for t’ other! You could finish up with a Boris, or God help you, a Trump! Edited January 3, 2023 by trastrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now