If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Prince Charles anxiously awaiting news of his mum, tells Camilla to get her best riding gear ready for a big ceremony   (cnn.com) divider line 188
    More: News  
•       •       •

25671 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2013 at 11:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-03 04:41:19 PM  
How undignified of her.
 
2013-03-03 04:55:25 PM  

strangeluck: Boooo bad subby, bad use of news flash tag. Queenie has a stomach bug, no one dying today.


It is not the newsflash tag, it is the "News" tag. The admin changed it from the original tag that was submitted.
 
2013-03-03 05:23:34 PM  

Gawdzila: How undignified of her.


She's British.  It's not like she matters
 
2013-03-03 05:31:53 PM  
Charles probably can't wait for that old haggis to die. If it weren't for her he wouldn't have married that two-timing trailer trash slut Dianna
 
2013-03-03 05:38:32 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Russ1642: Hell, even in Canada we see her face on our currency, her representatives are part of our government, and you still pledge allegiance to the queen to become a citizen.

Just as in the UK, law-making power is exercised by parliament rather than by the Queen. Comparing the power of the monarch to that of the pope is ludicrous, particularly given that a monarch hasn't refused assent for a parliamentary act since 1707.

The biggest impact of Charles as monarch is likely to be an increased focus on the environment, he obviously has the ear of the most politically powerful in the land, not to mention a hugely influential PR position*, and a very focal agenda.

*much like Jimmy Savile**

**only different, please don't send me to the tower


The Governor General of Australia, who is the Queen's representative in Australia, fired the democratically elected government in 1975. And then installed their political opponents to office.

So that would suggest that the monarchy does have the ability to impact politics in a big way.
 
2013-03-03 05:45:34 PM  

8Fingers: Charles probably can't wait for that old haggis to die. If it weren't for her he wouldn't have married that two-timing trailer trash slut Dianna


He was cheating on Princess Diana well before she cheated on him. And he was cheating on Diana with Camilla. Turnabout is far play as far as I'm concerned.
 
2013-03-03 05:49:16 PM  

bborchar: Always found it interesting that the British say "in hospital" as a state of being instead of "in the hospital".  Completely off-topic, though.

/Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?


Neigh
 
2013-03-03 05:57:40 PM  

Oldiron_79: Well the queens mom lived to like 100 or more, as did Queen Victoria before that,


Wat?

Ol' Vic was 81 when she kicked off, a few months shy of 82.
 
2013-03-03 05:58:02 PM  
Who gives a shiat? Besides the queen, obviously.
 
2013-03-03 06:08:25 PM  

kg2095: The Governor General of Australia, who is the Queen's representative in Australia, fired the democratically elected government in 1975. And then installed their political opponents to office.

So that would suggest that the monarchy does have the ability to impact politics in a big way.


The Queen publicly disavowed interest in or responsibility for the actions of the Governor-General. Constitutionally he's Governor-General in Council, acting on the advice of parliamentary ministers.
 
2013-03-03 06:11:12 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: 8Fingers: Charles probably can't wait for that old haggis to die. If it weren't for her he wouldn't have married that two-timing trailer trash slut Dianna

He was cheating on Princess Diana well before she cheated on him. And he was cheating on Diana with Camilla. Turnabout is far play as far as I'm concerned.


Maybe you don't understand british roralty works. He was never expected to be faithful to her. The males are expected to marry who the crown says is fit to marry. The females are expected to consider it a privaledge and honor to marry into the family. What he did was normal. What she did was worth a beheading. And guess what???????????
 
2013-03-03 06:31:05 PM  

cptjeff: Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.

All that is beside the point- the English monarchy claims to derive from King Arthur. Mythical or not, the monarchy has traditionally held that he existed and trace their linage to him, so Charles, should he choose to go supreme troll, would be Arthur II.


Not true. The Beefeater who led our tour of the Tower of London last year tossed out the question of what Charles would be if he took the name King Arthur. Someone fell for the bait and gave the same answer as you, but the Beefeater pointed out that Arthur was only a legend, likely a composite of several historical figures. And in any event, the line was held to have started with William the Conqueror. For proof, look through the list of kings before William; you'll see Edward the Confessor, who died the year William invaded. There's another Edward about 100 years earlier. Yet Edward Longshanks is held to be King Edward I.
 
2013-03-03 06:33:32 PM  
The numbering starts with William, but doesn't the line of kings itself start with Egbert of Wessex. I remembering reading that Elizabeth was 36th or 38th in the line of succession from Egbert.
 
2013-03-03 06:34:26 PM  
Sorry for the awful grammar in my post above.
 
2013-03-03 06:40:31 PM  

Savage Belief: I thought Charles was out since he divorced the hottie, Diana, and married a horse?


Any change to the royal succession requires the unanimous consent of all countries where Elizabeth II is queen.  There are 16 such countries.
 
2013-03-03 06:40:52 PM  

raptusregaliter: Wat?

Ol' Vic was 81 when she kicked off, a few months shy of 82.


To be fair 81 was really old in 1901
 
2013-03-03 07:20:53 PM  

Infobahn: So ERII has the shaits.


The shiERIIts!
 
2013-03-03 07:22:03 PM  

T.M.S.: Her death will be the end of what little respect the monarchy has left. People get the concept of the Queen of England being a sweet old lady who in an almost quaint way "rules" Great Britain. We know she was once tough just like Victoria many years earlier. But our perception of their power is about identical and seen as a distant memory.
All most people know about Kings of England is they are usually holding a bloody sword and shouting for a way out of their self inflicted predicament. That or being pilloried by the groom-of-the-stool in some Merchant Ivory movie. No tough guy images come up to contemporary people for HRH.

You can put a crown on Charles, Henry, the royal butler or Vinnie Jones but all anyone will do is burst out laughing.



Your opinion is douchey.
 
2013-03-03 07:23:57 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.


It's my understanding that they already had a King Arthur.
 
2013-03-03 07:30:08 PM  

highwayrun: Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.

It's my understanding that they already had a King Arthur.


King Arthur is one of my favorite subjects. Do we want to get into this?
 
2013-03-03 07:40:16 PM  

FarkinNortherner: kg2095: The Governor General of Australia, who is the Queen's representative in Australia, fired the democratically elected government in 1975. And then installed their political opponents to office.

So that would suggest that the monarchy does have the ability to impact politics in a big way.

The Queen publicly disavowed interest in or responsibility for the actions of the Governor-General. Constitutionally he's Governor-General in Council, acting on the advice of parliamentary ministers.


The Governor-General in Aust, IIRC has pretty much the same powers as the Queen - seeing as he/she is the Queen's of Australia's representative on-site, as it were. The Oz govt at the end of 1975 was in a shambles, unable to pass supply bills, etc etc, and no matter whose fault that was, an election was the only real solution - but the Prime minister was too stubborn to admit it, especially as he knew he was going to be well and truly rolled out the door. The Gov-Gen has the reserve power to dismiss the government, but protocol and precedent required him to warn the PM first - a sort of "final warning" to grow up and act responsibly, i.e. call an election. Had he done so (warned the PM first), the PM would have been on the phone to the Queen quick-smart to have the Gov-Gen replaced immediately. So the Gov-Gen sacked the PM and government, and installed the leader of the opposition as caretaker PM. It wasn't an altogether pleasant situation, but it did result in an election a couple of months later, and I think the alternatives would have been worse. There's no point getting all high and mighty about dismissing a democratically elected government, when that government is itself acting against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Whitlam and labour were a spent force as a government, only they wouldn't do the right thing and resign, call an election, and let the voters decide.
 
2013-03-03 07:48:58 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: I'd like to see it go to Harry. He'd have some fun with it, Louis XIV style.


Fully agree.
 
2013-03-03 07:59:01 PM  

highwayrun: Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.

It's my understanding that they already had a King Arthur.


King Arthur, Camelot, Lancelot and Guinevere.....they're myths.
 
2013-03-03 08:13:06 PM  

Coco LaFemme: highwayrun: Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.

It's my understanding that they already had a King Arthur.

King Arthur, Camelot, Lancelot and Guinevere.....they're myths.


Well...that's not entirely true.

They're legends which are likely based (at least on Arthur's part) on several people who actually existed. Yes, a lot of myths have been folded into the stories, too, but a lot of scholars believe there is at least some truth to them, somewhere.

Take the Battle of Mount Badon, for instance. It is always ascribed to Arthur, and the stories say he led the British to victory. Scholars agree that it was a real battle, but they don't agree on where it was fought, when it was fought, who fought in it, and who won. Right there, if you identify the victorious commander, you have, in some senses, found the real Arthur.
 
2013-03-03 08:26:28 PM  

cptjeff: Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.

All that is beside the point- the English monarchy claims to derive from King Arthur. Mythical or not, the monarchy has traditionally held that he existed and trace their linage to him, so Charles, should he choose to go supreme troll, would be Arthur II.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-03 08:27:50 PM  

pounddawg: First we are without a Pope and now the Queen is ill.


And since Colonel Sanders is long dead, the grip of triumvirate will finally be broken! Viva la resistance!
 
2013-03-03 08:49:26 PM  

towatchoverme: My ultimate CSB:
I was at a reception with Prince Charles.  My girlfriend was chatting with him and brought me into the conversation.
She: we were just talking about writing. The prince was saying he employs five speech writers.  Towatchoverme here is a writer.
Me: Are they very good?
Charles: Well, no.  I think it's very difficult to find someone to think one's thoughts after one, as it were.
Me: oh yes. It's a lot like a marriage.  Very hard to find a good one.
*Girlfriend shoots me a panicked look.  The enormity of what I've said and who I've said it to begins to dawn. Visions of the Tower of London float before me.*
 Me: ... Or at least that's what Ted Sorensen used to say, who was Kennedy's speechwriter.
 Charles waits a beat ... takes a sip of gin and tonic ... points at me, with a pink finger, and with a hint of a grin says: ... Well played.


Jolly good.
 
2013-03-03 10:10:36 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-03 10:31:34 PM  

ontariolightning: There is no way I want Charles to be my King.


Maybe you move a few miles south and out of the 18th century, then.
 
2013-03-04 12:21:54 AM  

cptjeff: Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.

All that is beside the point- the English monarchy claims to derive from King Arthur. Mythical or not, the monarchy has traditionally held that he existed and trace their linage to him, so Charles, should he choose to go supreme troll, would be Arthur II.


Arthur was supposedly a king of the Britons -- the people today called Welsh.  Henry VII claimed descent from a bastard child of a Welsh prince.  He had that in mind when he named his first child Arthur.

Arthur, Prince of Wales might have become a real King Arthur, but he died of a sudden illness and left Catherine of Aragon a widow at 16 years old.  And his brother the Duke of York had to quit the seminary and prepare to become king.

You know which king he was.
 
2013-03-04 12:51:53 AM  

WeenerGord: ontariolightning: Funny how the americans are commenting on the monarchy when they havent a clue

Funny how ass hats all over the world biatch about Americans when they haven't a clue,  or an apostrophe..


Or a basic knowledge of the Queen's English.

"American" is always capitalized, you dolt.

/The Queen and Royal Family are the only reason anyone gives two shiats about your little island. Best take good care of them.
 
2013-03-04 01:07:37 AM  

camtheman: They're legends which are likely based (at least on Arthur's part) on several people who actually existed. Yes, a lot of myths have been folded into the stories, too, but a lot of scholars believe there is at least some truth to them, somewhere.

Take the Battle of Mount Badon, for instance. It is always ascribed to Arthur, and the stories say he led the British to victory. Scholars agree that it was a real battle, but they don't agree on where it was fought, when it was fought, who fought in it, and who won. Right there, if you identify the victorious commander, you have, in some senses, found the real Arthur.


Not really true. There were no "British" to lead to victory. There were Britons, ancestors of the Welsh, but even England didn't exist as a country, but was composed of a number of realms.
 
2013-03-04 01:27:17 AM  
King Charles/George VII, William the whatever?? A King Faruq is the future,


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-04 02:08:26 AM  
highwayrun:

It's my understanding that they already had a King Arthur.

Is that the one in the can?
 
2013-03-04 02:28:57 AM  

FizixJunkee: highwayrun:

It's my understanding that they already had a King Arthur.

Is that the one in the can?


Dunno. I know this king died on the can

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-04 02:35:54 AM  

Moderator: strangeluck: Boooo bad subby, bad use of news flash tag. Queenie has a stomach bug, no one dying today.

It is not the newsflash tag, it is the "News" tag. The admin changed it from the original tag that was submitted.


Yes, I do know that. Back when I started using Fark in 05, we still had the ability to choose between "News" and "Newsflash," I wish the "News" option had been left in, so we could submit stuff that's important, but not Newsflash worthy.

But the point I was making through mocking, was that the submitter originally submitted this as a Newsflash, when it clearly wasn't a big deal.
 
2013-03-04 01:23:57 PM  
So, not so much?

steppingawayfromtheedge.typepad.com
 
2013-03-04 04:43:36 PM  
Ok, so remember that BBC show Hustle? Where they go after the tabloid gutter-rat with a story about the Queen being replaced after she was killed in the Blitz? (I think it was the Queen Mum now that I think of it, but I was thinking QE2 when I started this)

So I'm looking for a picture from that or some other source taking that as credible to make a joke, and instead, I come across the UK version of Birthers. For those of you arguing what the hell the Queen has to do with the everyday running of the country, check out this big ole bucket o'crazy:

FTFA:

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.

The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect. To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times, which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.


Did you catch that? QE2 made a contract to uphold "the laws of God", but the laws of God prohibit any man-made laws, which means as soon as she approved a piece of legislation, she broke the contract. The result is that she should be stripped of her authority as monarch. Here comes the crazy - since she broke her contract, there can be no criminal prosecutions without a new monarch, because all criminal cases are Regina v. Douchebag, and since the Queen isn't the Queen, there can't be any criminal prosecutions on her behalf. You really have to read the whole thing, because it goes even further off the rails from there - for instance, did you know that the oath that lawyers and judges in England take is the B.A.R. - the British Accreditation Registry? And that all American, Canadian, and Australian lawyers who are members of the bar and take an oath to that effect also report to the Queen, because B.A.R. must mean exactly that and the Queen is the head of the B.A.R.? Yeah, this is some goooooooood stuff - the kind of sovereign citizen derp that you just can't stop herping.
 
Displayed 38 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report