StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lord Pounder wrote:Given the horse-woman charlie usually couples with a man is an improvement IMHO. Charlie will never be King anyway, his mother doesn't like him, Wills is the man for the job, what that job is i'm not sure.

So what does everyone think? Will the brits give up the monarchy?

Never. Since the royal family streamlined they've actually proven to be a good money spinner, they bring in a shit load of tourists and we get to sell the scandel about them to many overseas newspapers. However Tony would probably want to see the back of them.

We could always topple the Royal Family and put Dubya on the throne. Isn't he distantly related?

HemlockGrey wrote:We could always topple the Royal Family and put Dubya on the throne. Isn't he distantly related?

You probably shouldn't give him any ideas.

There's a lot of dodgy things been going on that (if true) should IMHO debar Charles from such exalted status relative to the rest of us:

One of these characters was allegedly paid off by Charles to make him (in HRH's own words) 'go away'. Presumably this was from Charles funds ie money taken from the British taxpayer

HRH's alleged lover is supposed to have commited rape on another member of the household. This may or may not be true, but by his actions HRH has been part of an attempt to cover it up.

There's the matter of the personal integrity. (Now he's cheating on his mistress!) HRH has been lying and even worse could be caught out lying. A pro-royal argument used to be that the royals set the standard for the rest of us.

There has been gross interference in the courts by the royals. Charles intervened in the trial of Dianas Butler when it looked as though some of the details of this incident might come out in the trial. The interference amounted to hearsay from Charles outside of the witness stand and not under oath.

Sea Skimmer wrote: It was a court that did it and quite legally

Legally so far. The second injunction has been successfully challenged by the Guardian newspaper. The same is likely to happen to the first.

HemlockGrey wrote:We could always topple the Royal Family and put Dubya on the throne. Isn't he distantly related?

Don't say that, not even in jest.

I hadn't heard what they were accussing him off till you just comfirmed it, I didn't really care, but I kinda got the suspicion that thats what they were on about when there was a headline saying "Tell us straight" or some such crap. But I still couldn't care less.

HemlockGrey wrote:We could always topple the Royal Family and put Dubya on the throne. Isn't he distantly related?

BEST IDEA EVAR!

Don't say that, not even in jest.

What the hell makes you think I'm jesting?

HemlockGrey wrote:

Don't say that, not even in jest.

What the hell makes you think I'm jesting?

Hell, threatening subjigation to dubya inspires me to become a republican terrorist.

I can get ya a great deal on some used AK47's Rye. A guy i know called Gerry is selling half a million of them, however the deal only lasts untill the end of November.

So what? I always thought the lot of them were gay anyway.

You know what? Unless there's something no one's told us about Camilla, he's almost certainly not gay, is he? He's not going out with the woman he cheated with while married to the most popular member of the Royal family since the Queen Mum for the look of the thing.

Secondly, the man accusing him is known to have sensationalist attention seeking issues. He is the same man who accused the assistant in question of rape.

Thirdly, who the fuck cares? It wouldn't be the first time Charles has cheated on his partner, and no one likes Camilla.

Fourthly, this could almost be a good thing if Charles was gay (which he isn't, see above), in that it would put to rest all the crap about gay bishops in the Anglican church. If the head of the Church was gay, then no one could be accused of causing schisms.

Supes, Charles is Prince of Wales. Not England. Please don't confuse the two countries again.

InnerBrat wrote:Supes, Charles is Prince of Wales. Not England. Please don't confuse the two countries again.

England, Wales, it's all the same. You could fit both of them in a midsized North American province or state with plenty of room to spare

*ducks and runs away*

InnerBrat wrote: the man accusing him is known to have sensationalist attention seeking issues. He is the same man who accused the assistant in question of rape.

The Prince's people certainly say so. But HRH has used his influence with the courts and his money (as supplied by me and the other British taxpayers) to see that the credibility of this witness hasn't been tested in court.

In the words of Frank Dreben:

Protecting the Queen's safety is a task that is gladly accepted by Police Squad. No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, as Americans we must be gracious and considerate hosts.

The Third Man wrote:The Prince's people certainly say so. But HRH has used his influence with the courts and his money (as supplied by me and the other British taxpayers) to see that the credibility of this witness hasn't been tested in court.

Because HM intervened and presented evidence to clear the defendant?

Since when was Charles' influence with the courts afecting his mother?

And before you start on how your taxes paid Charles' personal fortune, (mostly dating from before his family came to the throne) bear in mind that he pays far more tax in terms on revenue from his family's land and property that is donated straight to the government, as well as generating revenue from royalty-related tourism, than he receives in terms of Government allowances.

BoredShirtless wrote:You've probably heard by now the allegations that he was caught packing his assisstants fudge. Thoughts?

And yet no one has deliverd proof, befor or after the injunction..funny that.

Glocksman wrote:So that's the story that the BBC won't spell out?

Hmm....

The one thing I did admire about the Bolsheviks was how they dealt with their royals.

The only thing this story does is illustrate the total irrelevancy of the Royal Family in today's world. The monarchy should be abandoned.

I would imagine that a British republic would be a matter for the people of Britian and they have shown no great desire for that since the interregnum of Cromwell.

Admiral Valdemar wrote: Anyway, William will be heir to the throne, not Charles and he knows it.

Unless Charlie says he will not be king, he will be king the moment his mum drops dead, dats da rule. I have to say I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.

InnerBrat wrote: Because HM intervened and presented evidence to clear the defendant?

Evidence wasn't presented. Hearsay was presented. And it wasn't even presented in court where it could be examined.

It was presented suspiciously late - apparently the DofE 'just happened to remember' the Queens conversation and told Charles about it at the convenient moment when it appeared that Burrell was about to mention the sordid allegations in court. The actual act of 'disclosing' (a much more appropriate term than 'presenting') was of course not done by the Queen. It was done via Sir Michael Peat, who is Private Secretary to none other than Charles, and Fiona Shackleton, who is solicitor to Charles.

The money used to pay off Smith definitely did not come from HM. This came from the Prince of Wales Household.

The whole thing was an exercise by those with wealth and privilege to manipulate anyone and anything it took, up to and including the justice system, so that unpalatable allegations didn't get made public. I'm glad to see it has failed.

And before you start on how your taxes paid

Don't worry. I won't start. That's a whole other debate.

I'm just waiting to see if Prince harry ever gets to be King. That'll be a laugh.

Stuart Mackey wrote: I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.

If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.

InnerBrat wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.

If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.

Is this some weird precedent just to confuse people?

2000AD wrote:

InnerBrat wrote:If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.

Is this some weird precedent just to confuse people?

No, he just doesn't want to be Charles III. Charleses get beheaded.

It's happened before:
George VI was Prince Albert.
George VII will have been Prince Charles.