Good thing Charles believes there is some purpose to his life other than to become King. With Elizabeth's longevity, he would have become another George III had he thought otherwise.

He should ask his mom what his purpose in life is.

For a not-at-all-subtle treatment of the scenario of Charles becoming King and causing a constitutional crisis through not being able to keep his mouth shut, I highly recommend the House of Cards trilogy. That and Francis Urquhart is one of the greatest Machiavellian anti-heroes ever.

/You might very well think that
//I couldn't possibly comment

Churchill2004: For a not-at-all-subtle treatment of the scenario of Charles becoming King and causing a constitutional crisis through not being able to keep his mouth shut, I highly recommend the House of Cards trilogy. That and Francis Urquhart is one of the greatest Machiavellian anti-heroes ever.

/You might very well think that
//I couldn't possibly comment

I recommend "King Ralph."

Sun God: Churchill2004: For a not-at-all-subtle treatment of the scenario of Charles becoming King and causing a constitutional crisis through not being able to keep his mouth shut, I highly recommend the House of Cards trilogy. That and Francis Urquhart is one of the greatest Machiavellian anti-heroes ever.

/You might very well think that
//I couldn't possibly comment

I recommend "King Ralph."

Please tell me you're joking.

/that's like recommending "Delta Farce" to someone because they liked "Blackhawk Down"

Churchill2004: Sun God: Churchill2004: For a not-at-all-subtle treatment of the scenario of Charles becoming King and causing a constitutional crisis through not being able to keep his mouth shut, I highly recommend the House of Cards trilogy. That and Francis Urquhart is one of the greatest Machiavellian anti-heroes ever.

/You might very well think that
//I couldn't possibly comment

I recommend "King Ralph."

Please tell me you're joking.

/that's like recommending "Delta Farce" to someone because they liked "Blackhawk Down"

Of course I'm joking. Okay. Here it is. In King Ralph, a constitutional crisis happens because every member of the Royal house has been electrocuted. So some American Vegas entertainer becomes tutored by Peter O'Toole to become a reluctant King.

It's a funny and introspective movie.

Willie Willie Harry Stee
Harry Dick John Harry three;
One two three Neds, Richard two
Harrys four five six....then who?
Edwards four five, Dick the bad,
Harrys (twain), Ned six (the lad);
Mary, Bessie, James you ken,
Then Charlie, Charlie, James again...
Will and Mary, Anna Gloria,
Georges four, Will four Victoria;
Edward seven next, and then
Came George the fifth in nineteen ten;
Ned the eighth soon abdicated
Then George six was coronated;
After which Elizabeth
And that's all folks until her death.

teto85: He has served his purpose. Twice.

Hah, well, about that - let's just say "more than zero times", and leave it at that, eh?

If he wants to spend his money and convince his rich friends to spend money helping the environment. Good on ya!

I'll be doing my best to keep my cash away from his fund

Why do tourists even want to go to the UK? Bad food, rude people, warm beer. Apparently England has never heard of ice water.

Royalty is an interesting idea. As we move closer to royalty in the United States through our familiar dynasties, we seem to be reaching for the stability that such a system provides.

Maybe it isn't the best system, but there are certain advantages to it that we just can't get with trying to elect nincompoops every 2, 4, 6 years.

teto85: He has served his purpose. Twice.

I wouldn't get too hasty, there. I'm among those who believe Harry ain't exactly his.

BadAnalogyGuy: Royalty is an interesting idea. As we move closer to royalty in the United States through our familiar dynasties, we seem to be reaching for the stability that such a system provides.

Maybe it isn't the best system, but there are certain advantages to it that we just can't get with trying to elect nincompoops every 2, 4, 6 years.



I hear the kingfish are running today, good luck...

RevMercutio: teto85: He has served his purpose. Twice.

I wouldn't get too hasty, there. I'm among those who believe Harry ain't exactly his.

I'll go even further and say MI5 got their orders on Diana soon after Harry's DNA test results came back.

/adjusts aluminium bowler

Miss Stein: I'll go even further and say MI5 got their orders on Diana soon after Harry's DNA test results came back.


agrees, more or less

Miss Stein: RevMercutio: teto85: He has served his purpose. Twice.

I wouldn't get too hasty, there. I'm among those who believe Harry ain't exactly his.

I'll go even further and say MI5 got their orders on Diana soon after Harry's DNA test results came back.

/adjusts aluminium bowler

This kind of speculation makes me so upset. I don't know why you assholes want to sullly Diana's name. It's like you want to tear down the royal family because you are so jealous of their position in English society.

One day you'll get over your hatred and give up on trolling the royal family. I don't know if I will stick around until then, though. Assholes don't change their spots so easily.

Miss Stein: I'll go even further and say MI5 got their orders on Diana soon after Harry's DNA test results came back.

I very much doubt MI6 gives a damn about who Harry's father is. If you're going to pursue the assassination angle it's much more fruitful to consider whether the King's half-brother could be a Muslim(!!!1)

BadAnalogyGuy: Royalty is an interesting idea. As we move closer to royalty in the United States through our familiar dynasties, we seem to be reaching for the stability that such a system provides.

Maybe it isn't the best system, but there are certain advantages to it that we just can't get with trying to elect nincompoops every 2, 4, 6 years.

*familial*

And, I don't buy it. Yes, we have some enduring wealth in this country, and the Kennedy family has been kicking around in politics for far damned too long, but that does not royalty (or even aristocracy) make. While I will always be a strong proponent of a confiscatory estate tax (yep, you heard me), I simply don't believe we're anywhere near a codified aristocracy.

We also have no idea how our current batch of "nincompoops" will rank with the benefit of historical hindsight. I think Bush was an idiot, but most people at the time thought Jackson was an incompetent, warmongering, bastard. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that part of the ongoing story of America is that every generation thinks two things:

1. Politicians today are corrupt/philanderers/idiots and we need to (insert rampantly unlikely change, like "kicking them all out" or "changing the basic system of elections) to try to get back to when politicians were noble and good.
2. Children today are lazier/more entitled/less engaged than in the past, all because we don't beat them/we coddle them/school is too easy/something about video games.

Miss Stein:

I'll go even further and say MI5 got their orders on Diana soon after Harry's DNA test results came back.

/adjusts aluminium bowler

What did CHarles say to OJ?

"Now that's how it's done!"

BolshevikMuppet: BadAnalogyGuy: Royalty is an interesting idea. As we move closer to royalty in the United States through our familiar dynasties, we seem to be reaching for the stability that such a system provides.

Maybe it isn't the best system, but there are certain advantages to it that we just can't get with trying to elect nincompoops every 2, 4, 6 years.

*familial*

And, I don't buy it. Yes, we have some enduring wealth in this country, and the Kennedy family has been kicking around in politics for far damned too long, but that does not royalty (or even aristocracy) make. While I will always be a strong proponent of a confiscatory estate tax (yep, you heard me), I simply don't believe we're anywhere near a codified aristocracy.

We also have no idea how our current batch of "nincompoops" will rank with the benefit of historical hindsight. I think Bush was an idiot, but most people at the time thought Jackson was an incompetent, warmongering, bastard. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that part of the ongoing story of America is that every generation thinks two things:

1. Politicians today are corrupt/philanderers/idiots and we need to (insert rampantly unlikely change, like "kicking them all out" or "changing the basic system of elections) to try to get back to when politicians were noble and good.
2. Children today are lazier/more entitled/less engaged than in the past, all because we don't beat them/we coddle them/school is too easy/something about video games.

If we weren't so eager to re-elect members of the same family over and over, I would agree with you. But from JQ Adams back at the very start of our country's history all the way to the battle between Bush and Clinton repeated several times, this country has shown a deep seated need for a single power source, whether that be a person (Obama) or family (Bush, Clinton, Adams, Rockefeller, etc etc etc).

We don't need a single dynasty in this country, but a strong one, like the Kennedy's is something that the citizens crave. And although it goes against the founding principles of this country, it does provide a little bit of stability which caucasions sorely want.

Maybe he thinks He's a tampon.

Dubai Vol: Miss Stein:

/adjusts aluminium bowler

What did CHarles say to OJ?

"Now that's how it's done!"


OK, I lol'd
/but just a little

I have to stop clicking on Daily Mail links. The list of "news stories" in the sidebar makes me weep for the future of humanity.

The Daily Mail is basically TMZ as performed by the English upper-middle class

vossiewulf: A special purpose?

I've GOT a Special Purpose!!!! The Queen is gonna LOVE me!

Churchill2004: For a not-at-all-subtle treatment of the scenario of Charles becoming King and causing a constitutional crisis through not being able to keep his mouth shut, I highly recommend the House of Cards trilogy. That and Francis Urquhart is one of the greatest Machiavellian anti-heroes ever.

/You might very well think that
//I couldn't possibly comment

Came here for this, not leaving disappointed.

I'm not so sure he's given up on the tampon thing - he seems a bit uptight.

I find it interesting that he thinks he actually will be king at some point.

BadAnalogyGuy: We don't need a single dynasty in this country, but a strong one, like the Kennedy's is something that the citizens crave. And although it goes against the founding principles of this country, it does provide a little bit of stability mayonnaise sandwiches which caucasions sorely want.

/'cause white folks are different from me

I don't see what's so bad about this. Sure, Charles (hopefully) won't be king for a while yet but at least he feels he should do something useful and helpful. Feeling like you have purpose in life is a good thing and while the religious aspect might make some people uncomfortable it works for him because as king he'd also be head of the church. Let him try to do some good in the world. How can there be anything wrong with that?

\Harry is Charles's

It's actually not a secret destiny at all: To take the throne and then denounce the Anglican Church, revealing himself as a Muslim and establishing Islam as the state religion of the UK.

Here ya go: Link (new window)

darcibetha: I don't see what's so bad about this. Sure, Charles (hopefully) won't be king for a while yet but at least he feels he should do something useful and helpful.

I'll tell you what the problem is: he doesn't actually have any talent. People who feel they were "born with a purpose" are people with few abilities who think that one day, their purpose is going to become apparant and somehow, their abilities will shine when that day comes. Actually, they aren't especially talented.

In every other case, people with an exaggerated sense of self-worth aren't a problem. They don't get far in political parties, and if they inherit a business, people can always go elsewhere. In the case of the monarch, we have someone that the Prime Minister is expected to go visit on the basis of which womb he popped out of.

And based on what he's been up to, I think Michael Dobbs nailed exactly what he'd be like as a monarch. But I don't think he'll get booted out - the political system will just leak against him in a very big way, though to try to keep him under control.

His one contribution will be to help rid this country of the ridiculous monarchic system.

vossiewulf: A special purpose?

Showed up for the reference, but quickly realized I really don't want to contemplate the special purpose of Prince Charles

Tampon, no.

Yes:

I have to give a /nod to QE2, she has served for a long time and I reckon most ladies her age would sooner have a cup of tea in front of Coronation Street rather than open the bloody parliament...again....

Charlie can go to hell. I will neither bow nor sing the anthem for him. If he had any wisdom or insight in to how some people might view him he would STFU and pass to his untainted son.

Simple truth - he never loved Diana, he married her anyway, she gave him the "heir and a spare" and then he binned her. If he had left her alone then she would have gone on to live an unremarkable life, but at least she would have been alive. Did she do good things? Certainly. For the woefully ignorant seeing her shake hands with an AIDS patient was a very big deal. And I wouldn't have walked through that bloody mine field. Was it all worth dying for as the People's Princess? Debatable. Would have been nice if she was alive....

I lived in London for awhile, miserable weather, food and people. Great beer tho. When I asked about the whole monarchy thing it seemed to be a 50-50 split, for the royals or against, nor was this split along older or younger generations.
Could someone post photos of William and Harry here?

/Harry so not from Charlies demon seed....
//He's gonna be king
///Diana not so dumb....no windsor blood on the throne.....

This proves beyond all doubt that doucebaggery is not only hereditary but also in the blood of the national "character" of the Brits.