Will Prince Charles ever ascend to the throne?

DEFTLEFTHAND

The guy is nearly 70 years of age and is still waiting. What's with the Queen and Prince Philip, can you imagine being 70 and still having both your parents alive.

I think he should step aside when the time comes and allow William to take over. King William of Windsor followed by his son King George VII.

Pawwed Rig

The reality is that due to better health care and a lack of guillotines anymore that the king queen will most likely always be an OAP. I think Charles will be a great king for us.

Didas

I heard he's running for election when Higgins finishes in 2018...

Tom Mann Centuria

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The reality is that due to better health care and a lack of guillotines anymore that the king queen will most likely always be an OAP. I think Charles will be a great king for us.

Charles is nearing 70 so pretty unlikely William will be an oap by the time he gets a crack at being head of the spongers. Charles would have to get to over 100.

matchthis

More of a tayto man myself if I'm being honest

DEFTLEFTHAND

I think the Queen Mother lived to 102.

What do they feed these people in Buck Palace?

Tom Mann Centuria

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I think the Queen Mother lived to 102.

What do they feed these people in Buck Palace?

Gawd bless er

The best food, living conditions, health care, unlimited resources and never having to work might give them a slight edge on the rest of us.

larchill

It's hardly worth his while now!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Gawd bless er

The best food, living conditions, health care, unlimited resources and never having to work might give them a slight edge on the rest of us.

The Queen Mum loved her jar and smoked cigarettes all her life though.

I think there is some sort genetic influence in the Windsor Family. They're going 'Live Foreveeeer', as Noel Gallagher says.

Why would he use the upstairs toilets?

xabi

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The reality is that due to better health care and a lack of guillotines anymore that the king queen will most likely always be an OAP. I think Charles will be a great king for us.

Why would he be great for us? Or maybe you're British?

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The guy is nearly 70 years of age and is still waiting. What's with the Queen and Prince Philip, can you imagine being 70 and still having both your parents alive.

I think he should step aside when the time comes and allow William to take over. King William of Windsor followed by his son King George VII.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I think the Queen Mother lived to 102.

What do they feed these people in Buck Palace?

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The Queen Mum loved her jar and smoked cigarettes all her life though.

I think there is some sort genetic influence in the Windsor Family. They're going 'Live Foreveeeer', as Noel Gallagher says.

Even as trolling goes your interest in, and admiration of, the blood-based, blood-soaked, profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish, anti-democratic British monarchy is always disturbing.

knucklehead6

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even as trolling goes your interest in, and admiration of, the blood-soaked, profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish British monarchy is always touching.

And there we have it folks. The Irish version of Godwinning a thread

DEFTLEFTHAND

*Almost

martinedwards

Regardless of opinions of the British monarchy, Charles has been in training for the job all his life.

There is no way he'll pass on the job

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Even as trolling goes your interest in, and admiration of, the blood-soaked, profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish British monarchy is always touching.

I didn't know QEII or even the House of Windsor was "profoundly anti-Catholic", what has she said or done? Didn't her granddaughter, Anne's daughter, marry a Catholic?

knucklehead6

knucklehead6 wrote: »

And there we have it folks. The Irish version of Godwinning a thread

You don't seem to know what godwinning a thread means. You can't, for instance, "godwin" a thread that's about the Nazis. But you clearly don't like your sectarian, Irish-hating cult being criticised so I'm glad to oblige.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The monarchy actually had nothing to do with vast 'bloodshed'caused by the British Empire as they improved every facet of living in wild lands during the colinisation period.

The Magna Carta, the unofficial constitution of England. The formation of a Parliament in later years of 'Commoners' who were democractically elected by the people.

Teyla Emmagan

Best health care in the world. They do seem to have good genes to be fair. And Prince Philip only married in and he's incredible for 95.

There are plenty of people who have hardly worked a day in their lives who die much younger so I don't know how much of a factor that is. Must be great to never have to stress about money though.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't know QEII or even the House of Windsor was "profoundly anti-Catholic", what has she said or done?

Well, perhaps you should read a few current British laws and ask yourself questions like: would your one be on the British throne if, say, she had become a Roman Catholic?

Go for it and tell us about this non-sectarian British monarchy.

mrsdewinter

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The monarchy actually had nothing to do with vast 'bloodshed'caused by the British Empire as they improved every facet of living in wild lands during the colinisation period.

The Magna Carta, the unofficial constitution of England. The formation of a Parliament in later years of 'Commoners' who were democractically elected by the people.

If the royal family had nothing to do with the bloodshed because it is in fact only the symbolic head of the British nation, why should it get the credit for improving the lives of subjects in colonised lands?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't know QEII or even the House of Windsor was "profoundly anti-Catholic", what has she said or done?[/QUpossi

Well, perhaps you to read a few current British laws and ask yourself questions like: would your one be on the British throne if, say, she had become a Roman Catholic?

Go for it and tell us about this non-sectarian British monarchy.

Oh yes Prods to the core. That dates back from Henry VIII leaving the 'One True Faith' when the Pope of the day would not grant him an annulment for one of his marriages.

That rule has only been revised in very recent times. Now days a member of the House of Winsdor can marry a Catholic.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, perhaps you to read a few current British laws and ask yourself questions like: would your one be on the British throne if, say, she had become a Roman Catholic?

Go for it and tell us about this non-sectarian British monarchy.

Well, obviously, she didn't make the law...but you know that.

In fact, during her reign the centuries old ban on Monarchs marrying Catholics was ended.

It sounds like you haven't read much yourself.

Go for it and tell us how QEII is "profoundly anti-Catholic".

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The monarchy actually had nothing to do with vast 'bloodshed'caused by the British Empire as they improved every facet of living in wild lands during the colinisation period.

Oh go away with your silly games.

Anass Rhammer

Deedsie wrote: »

Just curious, is there not a British website to discuss these things? The majority of Irish people have zero interest in Monarchies. Ireland (Republic of)

You would probably get more interest from their subjects on the matter.

Loads of interest in this....Did you not see all the threads about the Presidental race in America? England are our closest neighbours and biggest trading partners. To suggest we would have no interest in what happens with their monarchy is just ludicrous.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh go away with your silly games.

That's the truth. Take off the green tinted spectacles and study history with an objective mindset.

Fleawuss

Has Charlie a better chance of being King than Gerry Adams has of being Taoiseach.

In related news an ugly fcuking dog just made a big **** on a dustbin across the road.


PS I forget AH isn't a news dump.:pac:

mansize

Unless he dies before his mother, then yes.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, obviously, she didn't make the law

Ah, the "good Nazi" defence: the institution may be iniquitous but he/she personally was not even if they benefit directly from it. Although you appear to be denying the explicit legal reality of anti-Catholicism upon which the British monarchy, and the British state, rests today in 2016. Nothing much anybody can do about that denial in the face of reality, though.

Deleted User wrote: »

In fact, during her reign the centuries old ban on Monarchs marrying Catholics was ended....Go for it and tell us how QEII is "profoundly anti-Catholic".

Oh, so now she's responsible for initiating legislation. Very good then. You mean that legislation in 2013, 60 years after she became Queen of England? 60 years - yes, she sounds positively brimming in love for Catholics. And the same 2013 legislation which reiterated, clearly, that Catholics could not become head of the British state? Curious how you missed that part of your lovebombing of your supposedly non-sectarian British monarchy.

Act of Settlement 1701

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

DEFTLEFTHAND

None of us here have ever seen a Coronation ceremony.

I'm looking forward to it. I think they have something called the 'Vigil of the Princes' on the night before the deceased Monarch's burial. Kinda of like a Wake here in Ireland

All the monarchs sons guard the coffin all night long.

Once the deceased monarch is in the ground the heir will ascend to the throne in a magnificent ceremony of typical British pomp and pageantry.

andekwarhola

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even as trolling goes your interest in, and admiration of, the blood-based, blood-soaked, profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish, anti-democratic British monarchy is always disturbing.

Getting you to run to a thread and self destruct is about as easy as dangling a thread in front of my cat.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, the "good Nazi" defence: the institution may be iniquitous but he/she personally was not even if they benefit directly from it. Although you appear to be denying the explicit legal reality of anti-Catholicism upon which the British monarchy, and the British state, rests today in 2016. Nothing much anybody can do about that denial in the face of reality, though.

Oh, so now she's responsible for initiating legislation. Very good then. You mean that legislation in 2013, 60 years after she became Queen of England? 60 years - yes, she sounds positively brimming in love for Catholics. And the same 2013 legislation which reiterated, clearly, that Catholics could not become head of the British state? Curious how you missed that part of your lovebombing of your supposedly non-sectarian British monarchy.

Act of Settlement 1701

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Look, clearly you can't answer the question put to you twice, have you anything to demonstrate that QEII is herself "profoundly anti-Catholic". The whole "well the Nazis and the Institution and the Nazis and the direct benefit and so on...oh and the Nazis" is a bit laughable. As is your assertion that merely pointing to the huge hole in your argument is "love bombing the Monarchy"

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Look, clearly you can't answer the question put to you twice, have you anything to demonstrate that QEII is herself "profoundly anti-Catholic". The whole "well the Nazis and the Institution and the Nazis and the direct benefit and so on...oh and the Nazis" is a bit laughable. As is your assertion that merely pointing to the huge hole in your argument is "love bombing the Monarchy"

You're the one having difficulty here with your "the British monarchy isn't sectarian" silliness. It appears you're just finding out the legal reality now and you're trying to make the best of it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Her majesty addressing the Irish at Dublin Castle in 2011. Mam even incorporates a bit of the Irish language into her speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKz-6vn_i00

Just a lovely elderly woman giving the most significant political speech in Ireland since Pearse at the graveside of Rossa.

This is why we're great friends now. God Save The Queen.

We mean it man.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Her majesty addressing the Irish at Dublin Castle in 2011. Mam even incorporates a bit of the Irish language into her speech.

She missed a great chance to say something profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish.

Dirty Dingus McGee

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Her majesty addressing the Irish at Dublin Castle in 2011. Mam even incorporates a bit of the Irish language into her speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKz-6vn_i00

Just a lovely elderly woman giving the most significant political speech in Ireland since Pearse at the graveside of Rossa.

This is why we're great friends now. God Save The Queen.

We mean it man.

Pull yourself together will you.

The budget announcement each year is a million times more significant than anything she said which had absolutely zero affect on anything in this country.

knucklehead6

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't seem to know what godwinning a thread means. You can't, for instance, "godwin" a thread that's about the Nazis. But you clearly don't like your sectarian, Irish-hating cult being criticised so I'm glad to oblige.

Eh....Pardon?

What Nazi's are you talking about?

Pickpocket

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I think the Queen Mother lived to 102.

What do they feed these people in Buck Palace?

German's have one of the highest live expectancies in Europe.

Pickpocket

xabi wrote: »

Why would he be great for us? Or maybe you're British?

How do you do it, Holmes?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Pickpocket wrote: »

German's have one of the highest live expectancies in Europe.

Yes but they're Krauts.

The Hun, the auld enemy

Royal relations are greatly exagerrated.

Atoms for Peace

Deleted User wrote: »

She missed a great chance to say something profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish.

She left that to the experts in FG.:D

Pickpocket

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes but they're Krauts.

The Hun, the auld enemy

Royal relations are greatly exagerrated.

There's a great scene in Netflix's The Crown where George V's mother (QEII's grandmother) is speaking German inside Buckingham Palace.

knucklehead6

Pickpocket wrote: »

There's a great scene in Netflix's The Crown where George V's mother (QEII's grandmother) is speaking German inside Buckingham Palace.

I've been meaning to watch that. Is it any good?

Lovely atmosphere in here.

looksee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Pull yourself together will you.

The budget announcement each year is a million times more significant than anything she said which had absolutely zero affect on anything in this country.

In fact it made a good deal of difference to Brits living in Ireland (you know, a bit like a lot of Irish live in the UK). Attitudes changed and there was considerably less casual anti-Brit sentiment being tossed around. Of course there will always be a few here trolling about stuff they have no real experience or knowledge of, but in general her visit made a significant difference.

mahoganygas

Deleted User wrote:

She missed a great chance to say something profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish.

I'm just surprised she wasn't blood-soaked.

I think it's difficult for these knuckle draggers to continue with the line 'British people are anti-Catholic, blood thirsty, undemocratic, warmongerers.'

It's much easier to find an enemy in a head of state. Less likely to offend British people that way.

andekwarhola

andekwarhola wrote: »

Getting you to run to a thread and self destruct is about as easy as dangling a thread in front of my cat.

Not as entertaining as some of your posts, especially the one where you declared to us, in all seriousness, that you'd only give your seat up to a pregnant woman if she could prove it.

Mod: Banned

mahoganygas

mahoganygas wrote: »

I'm just surprised she wasn't blood-soaked...

Like Carrie at the end of...well...Carrie...

knucklehead6

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not as entertaining as some of your posts, especially the one where you declared to us, in all seriousness, that you'd only give your seat up to a pregnant woman if she could prove it.

You DO know that post searching is the first sign of defeat in a thread, don't you? May as well wave the white flag mate.

knucklehead6

knucklehead6 wrote: »

You DO know that post searching is the first sign of defeat in a thread, don't you? May as well wave the white flag mate.

You do know saying 'mate' is the first sign of defeat in life?

knucklehead6

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You do know saying 'mate' is the first sign of defeat in life?

Is it mate?