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
 
2013-03-03 11:18:26 AM  
He'll never be King. He'll have a stroke before they lay the crown atop his head.
 
2013-03-03 11:20:14 AM  
You forgot about him ordering all the new "CR III" logos to replace the "ER II" logos.
 
2013-03-03 11:20:42 AM  
I'd like to see it go to Harry. He'd have some fun with it, Louis XIV style.
 
2013-03-03 11:21:04 AM  
So ERII has the shaits.
 
2013-03-03 11:21:42 AM  
It's a stomach flu. Nothing to see here. False deathwatch alarm.
 
2013-03-03 11:22:04 AM  
Don't over-react

/Her Majesty had a slight case of the Royal Trots
 
2013-03-03 11:22:42 AM  
First we are without a Pope and now the Queen is ill.
 
2013-03-03 11:22:57 AM  
The Queen is a robot.

I thought everyone already knew that.
 
2013-03-03 11:23:02 AM  
The Vatican seen whistling innocently in a tube station.
 
2013-03-03 11:23:09 AM  
Oh, she's not going anywhere yet. Which is good as she's a much better monarch than ol' Charles. William has a lot more hair to lose before Elizabeth goes and things move down the line.
 
2013-03-03 11:23:45 AM  
I thought Charles was out since he divorced the hottie, Diana, and married a horse?
 
2013-03-03 11:25:31 AM  
So who are the radio shows going to impersonate when calling the hospital for an update?
 
2013-03-03 11:26:42 AM  
The Queen has diarrhea.
 
2013-03-03 11:27:23 AM  
I wonder if they call it the "Cadbury squirts" over there.
 
2013-03-03 11:27:28 AM  
www.frugal-cafe.com
She's just got a tummy ache.

(Sadly wasted 'she's got the trots' joke as it wasn't Camilla.
 
2013-03-03 11:28:25 AM  
No Pope and the Defender of the Faith has the runs.
 
2013-03-03 11:28:43 AM  
Better use the Tears of Lys next time Charlie
 
2013-03-03 11:28:56 AM  
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?
 
2013-03-03 11:29:44 AM  
Queen Elizabeth is sinking.

Queen Elizabeth is sinking.

Man the lifeboats.

Be Calm.

Now my wife and I would like to get back to the Monty Python marathon.
 
2013-03-03 11:30:26 AM  

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?


Other than Charles himself?  Probably not.
 
2013-03-03 11:31:25 AM  
Well, she did go to hospital and it is notoriously easy to pick up some kind of nasty antibiotic resistant bug nowadays from those places.
 
2013-03-03 11:33:02 AM  

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?


Does it really matter? Parliament and PM rule the UK, not the monarchy
 
2013-03-03 11:33:11 AM  
Just had the gastro myself this week. 4 days of misery with stuff gushing out both ends at the same time. I'm sure she is not amused.
 
2013-03-03 11:34:07 AM  
Considering she probably has several doctors on staff the only reason she'd be sent to a hospital is if they thought it could turn bad quickly.
 
2013-03-03 11:34:15 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-03 11:35:17 AM  

Klivian: 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?

Does it really matter? Parliament and PM rule the UK, not the monarchy


By that logic the papacy also has no influence on the world whatsoever.
 
2013-03-03 11:36:41 AM  

Russ1642: Klivian: 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?

Does it really matter? Parliament and PM rule the UK, not the monarchy

By that logic the papacy also has no influence on the world whatsoever.


Yea, except no, not even close
 
2013-03-03 11:38:14 AM  

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?


God, save the Queen.
 
2013-03-03 11:38:34 AM  
She ain't no human being
 
2013-03-03 11:38:47 AM  
She's got another 40 in her. You have no idea how resiliently they designed that model.
 
2013-03-03 11:41:02 AM  
There is no way I want Charles to be my King.
 
2013-03-03 11:42:44 AM  
I think this is a great opportunity for a pair of Australian DeeJays to pull one of their whacky Zoo Crew antics.
 
2013-03-03 11:43:13 AM  
Well, a royal funeral might bring Pippa's behind to the forefront again
 
2013-03-03 11:43:21 AM  

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.


Link

Queen Victoria's uncle would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-03 11:44:19 AM  
I'd hate to be the groom of the stool when the queen has the trots.
 
2013-03-03 11:44:24 AM  
Gastroenteritis?  Time for the queen mum to lay off the chilli dogs.
 
2013-03-03 11:44:56 AM  

Klivian: Russ1642: Klivian: 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?

Does it really matter? Parliament and PM rule the UK, not the monarchy

By that logic the papacy also has no influence on the world whatsoever.

Yea, except no, not even close


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. If you think that Charles as king would have little to no influence you're simply deluded. Also he's crazy.
 
2013-03-03 11:45:17 AM  

bborchar: /Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?


I do. In recent years he's done much to call attention to the problems in the built environment. While I don't always agree with his views on the importance of traditional styles for building facades, he has given visibility to the issue of how we build our cities effects our health and how we end up interacting with each other. Most leaders couldn't care less about these issues except when one of their developer friends need inside access to build something crappy.

Regardless of who gets the throne next, I suspect many of Elizabeth's current realms will become republics within ten years of her death. For much of the world, she is the only commonwealth monarch they've known. The attachment is as much to her and it is to the crown. I don't see Charles or William inspiring that kind of loyalty.
 
2013-03-03 11:46:24 AM  
Hugo Chavez unimpressed
 
2013-03-03 11:47:00 AM  

WorldCitizen: Oh, she's not going anywhere yet. Which is good as she's a much better monarch than ol' Charles. William has a lot more hair to lose before Elizabeth goes and things move down the line.


Does the British monarchy even have enough power left for them to be a "good" or "bad" monarch?
 
2013-03-03 11:50:06 AM  
So it;'s true. A Royal Flush beats a pair of Douches.
 
2013-03-03 11:50:07 AM  

YouSaidWhat: Hugo Chavez unimpressed


Hugo Chavez is almost 30 years younger than her.

genewilderwillywonka.jpg
 
2013-03-03 11:51:12 AM  
This chick, as the official head-of-state-without-official-power she's basically the WalMart greeter for a whole country, right?
 
2013-03-03 11:53:13 AM  
It's probably time for Lizzy to think about letting Charlie have a go at king. He's no spring chicken himself, he's got 10, 15 years tops? Then it'll be time for little Willy to take over and we can all be excited at the coronation.

The longest reign of a British monarch is the 63 years, 216 days or 63 years 7 months and 3 days ofVictoria between 1837 and 1901. The second longest reign is that of the current monarch, Elizabeth II (since February 1952).

Really, Lizzy, you're trying for Vicki's record. Aren't you?
 
2013-03-03 11:53:56 AM  

NeoCortex42: WorldCitizen: Oh, she's not going anywhere yet. Which is good as she's a much better monarch than ol' Charles. William has a lot more hair to lose before Elizabeth goes and things move down the line.

Does the British monarchy even have enough power left for them to be a "good" or "bad" monarch?


Eh, the heads of state in many countries are largely ceremonial and symbolic. The UK monarchy is more of a cultural embodiment of the culture and history than active government. It's not required, but it's not a bad unifying symbol. Done well, it can enhance that sense of unity.
 
2013-03-03 11:54:05 AM  
Elton John will always be The Queen of England.
 
2013-03-03 11:54:10 AM  
Incontinentia......... Incontinentia Buttocks.
 
2013-03-03 11:54:49 AM  

AdrienVeidt: This chick, as the official head-of-state-without-official-power she's basically the WalMart greeter for a whole country, right?


I cracked up at "this chick,"--didn't have to read the rest
 
2013-03-03 11:55:32 AM  

Nothing To See Here: Elton John will always be The Queen of England.


i thought that was Freddie Mercury
 
2013-03-03 11:55:38 AM  
So we're playing a game of thrones are we?
 
2013-03-03 11:56:21 AM  
Probably no one in history who has ever been on more currency and coin.
 
2013-03-03 11:57:37 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: Gastroenteritis? Time for the queen mum to lay off the chilli dogs.


www.franksredhot.com

Or dial back on the condiments, at least.
(Queen Mum's been dead for 10 years, so I FTFY.)
 
2013-03-03 11:57:54 AM  
www.keepcalmstudio.com
 
2013-03-03 12:00:31 PM  

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
 
2013-03-03 12:02:17 PM  

Russ1642: Considering she probably has several doctors on staff the only reason she'd be sent to a hospital is if they thought it could turn bad quickly.


Or for IV fluids and observation, which I'm sure at her age would be necessary with a bad case of gastroenteritis.  Take no chances.
 
2013-03-03 12:02:48 PM  
So, this is why Charles has the long face . . .
 
2013-03-03 12:03:49 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: Nothing To See Here: Elton John will always be The Queen of England.

i thought that was Freddie Mercury


No, that would be this guy:
 
2013-03-03 12:04:04 PM  
1 parasite down, many to go...
 
2013-03-03 12:04:34 PM  
The British monarchy is a system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, and holds the now constitutional position of head of state. According to convention, the Queen's powers are exercised upon the advice of her prime minister. She does however possess certain reserve powers which she may exercise at her own discretion.

In the UK, the Queen (or King, when there is a male monarch) has numerous theoretical personal prerogatives. In practice, however, with the exception of the appointment of a prime minister, which is done with every prime minister, there are few circumstances in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional crisis. The monarch's personal prerogatives are:

- The refusal to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister.
- To appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing.
- The dismissal of a Prime Minister and his Government on the Monarch's own authority.
- The refusal of the Royal Assent.
- The refusal of the "Queen's Consent," where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues-including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia-or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament.

It has long been established in the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom that political power is ultimately exercised by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of which the Sovereign is a non-partisan component, along with the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Thus, as the modern British monarchy is a constitutional one, the Sovereign's role is in practice limited to non-partisan functions (such as being the fount of honour).

In practice, political power is exercised today through Parliament and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The sovereign also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the established Church of England. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister, as well as regular audiences with other members of the Cabinet. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's decisions.

/ but you already knew that, of course
 
2013-03-03 12:04:40 PM  
Unless I'm wrong doesn't she have the power to dismiss the parliaments of
20+ countries? I beleave she did it to Canuckastan a few years back
 
2013-03-03 12:05:32 PM  

LibertyHiller: Mr. Eugenides: Gastroenteritis? Time for the queen mum to lay off the chilli dogs.

[www.franksredhot.com image 266x171]

Or dial back on the condiments, at least.
(Queen Mum's been dead for 10 years, so I FTFY.)


Tack sa mycket, you are of course right. I will lay off the pickled herring on my next chilli dog.
 
2013-03-03 12:05:52 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


I know its the done thing to have a go at Charles (and lord knows he makes it easy) but the guy via the Princes Trust has helped more young people make something of themsleves than anything the last five or six governments have done. If he became king he would have to reign in his agenda a lot.
 
2013-03-03 12:07:01 PM  
Australians are probably busy making prank calls to suicidal nurses.
 
2013-03-03 12:07:30 PM  
www.nndb.com\
I meant this guy
 
2013-03-03 12:08:32 PM  
MontanaDave:

God, save the Queen.

And we're done here.
 
2013-03-03 12:10:06 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Don't worry, subby.  We got our best detective on it
 
2013-03-03 12:10:23 PM  
So who's going to be the watery tart to throw a sword at Chuck if the Queen dies?
 
2013-03-03 12:11:03 PM  

JosephFinn: 1 parasite down, many to go...


Okay.

Sure.

The royal family keeps 15% of the revenue generated by their estate holding, not to mention the absurd amounts of tourist shmuck bait cash they make off Yanks who come in to gawk at the beefeater hats.  They're pretty much a bargain.
 
2013-03-03 12:12:38 PM  
So basically, we're talking about a Royal Flush... just not this kind.

www.artpoker.net
 
2013-03-03 12:14:52 PM  

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.


William IV would like a word with you
 
2013-03-03 12:15:07 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-03 12:17:06 PM  
It might be a stabilizing factor in British politics that the Sovereign has her reserve powers.  She can just toss out a misbehaving Prime Minister to for e a new selection.  She can also veto a bill by withholding Royal Assent, but that's largely theoretical.

It's nice to have someone mostly beyond reproach who can smack the Legislative and Executive branches back in line from time to time.  Here, that's the Supreme Court.

/doesn't actually know much, so is talking out her butt
 
2013-03-03 12:18:43 PM  

Myria: It might be a stabilizing factor in British politics that the Sovereign has her reserve powers.  She can just toss out a misbehaving Prime Minister to for e a new selection.  She can also veto a bill by withholding Royal Assent, but that's largely theoretical.

It's nice to have someone mostly beyond reproach who can smack the Legislative and Executive branches back in line from time to time.  Here, that's the Supreme Court.

/doesn't actually know much, so is talking out her butt


To anybody that does know much: Has Elizabeth II ever made any significant use of her reserve powers during her reign?
 
2013-03-03 12:18:43 PM  
Did the Queen sneak out for some of those new Carne de Caballo burritos at Taco Bell?
 
2013-03-03 12:20:25 PM  

Norfolking Chance: 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

I know its the done thing to have a go at Charles (and lord knows he makes it easy) but the guy via the Princes Trust has helped more young people make something of themsleves than anything the last five or six governments have done. If he became king he would have to reign in his agenda a lot.

i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-03-03 12:22:13 PM  
"The 86-year-old queen took the throne in 1952."

That's one epic case of shiats!
 
2013-03-03 12:22:19 PM  
Its a big building with lots of beds and patients, but thats not whats important right now.
 
2013-03-03 12:22:21 PM  
King Chuck's "reign of terror" draws nigh... O_O
 
2013-03-03 12:22:38 PM  
Gawd is angry that the Popeadope quit
 
2013-03-03 12:24:10 PM  
Funny how the americans are commenting on the monarchy when they havent a clue
 
2013-03-03 12:26:01 PM  
Well, I think if this were repeated across the entire country, it'd probably be very messy...Colin?

i47.tinypic.com

/No word yet about the swong...
 
2013-03-03 12:26:27 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.



Fhack orf, I'm the Queen!

/zzzzoooommm
 
2013-03-03 12:27:22 PM  
images.mysupermarket.co.ukHorsemeat allergy?
 
2013-03-03 12:31:30 PM  

NeoCortex42: To anybody that does know much: Has Elizabeth II ever made any significant use of her reserve powers during her reign?


Yes, but not in the sense of going rogue. She 'chose' Douglas-Home as PM at the behest of a gravely ill Harold Macmillan. She also refused assent to a bill which would have modified her constitutional powers over the war in Iraq, that assent was withheld on the request of the then majority party in government.
 
2013-03-03 12:33:55 PM  

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..
 
2013-03-03 12:38:06 PM  

Infobahn: So ERII has the shaits.


But enough about Her Majesty's family...
 
2013-03-03 12:38:50 PM  

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


It be fair, most Canadians don't either. Being a dual citizen, I've heard some pretty dumb things from both sides of the border. Heck, there's an awful lot of Canadians who don't even get that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of Britain are two separate positions held by the same person rather than a single position with a different titles depending on where the person is standing. The only time most Canadians even give a flip about the Queen is when the Governor General does something at the request of a party that the person doesn't like.

/Prorouging Parliament is only evil when the other guy does it.
 
2013-03-03 12:39:21 PM  

SpdrJay: The Queen is a robot.

I thought everyone already knew that.


She ain't no human being.
 
2013-03-03 12:40:59 PM  
Could this be the underlying cause???

stuffpoint.com
 
2013-03-03 12:43:49 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Unless I'm wrong doesn't she have the power to dismiss the parliaments of
20+ countries? I beleave she did it to Canuckastan a few years back


Australia, in 1975.

The UK also was able to dissolve the government of one of their former colonies in the Carribean a few years back, and institute a transient government.  I think the island wasn't fully independent, though.
 
2013-03-03 12:45:53 PM  

Brick-House: So basically, we're talking about a Royal Flush... just not this kind.

[www.artpoker.net image 800x600]


There's a royal toilet attendant who absolutely HATES that joke.
 
2013-03-03 12:46:02 PM  
 
2013-03-03 12:46:39 PM  
Why did subby say "riding gear" when "saddle" would have been funnier?
 
2013-03-03 12:49:41 PM  

EngineerAU:
/Prorouging Parliament is only always evil when the other guy does it.

 
2013-03-03 12:52:24 PM  
the queen rules man!
 
2013-03-03 12:53:32 PM  
She is just laying back and thinking of England.
 
2013-03-03 12:53:58 PM  

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


images.hitfix.com
 
2013-03-03 12:54:10 PM  
Must be a really bad case of Gastroenteritis. She's been on the throne 60 years...
 
2013-03-03 12:55:48 PM  
I just don't want Charles on the money.

His face is unpleasant.
 
2013-03-03 12:55:50 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Russ1642: Considering she probably has several doctors on staff the only reason she'd be sent to a hospital is if they thought it could turn bad quickly.

Or for IV fluids and observation, which I'm sure at her age would be necessary with a bad case of gastroenteritis.  Take no chances.


Or they might just have some anti-nausea\anti-diarrhea drug at the hospital they prefer to administer there. Or they might feel she won't just STFU and sleep it off without being in a hospital. There's a thousand non-lethal reasons to stick her in the hospital, especially since she's eighty-six and the doctors probably want to make this relatively comfortable instead of the hell stomach flu usually is. I'm not really panicking either.
 
2013-03-03 12:57:35 PM  
They've brought in the best herpatologist to tend to her needs.


/obligatory lizard reference.
 
2013-03-03 12:57:54 PM  

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..


It's  ontariolightning. Hating on Americans is the only thing he lives for now.
 
2013-03-03 01:01:52 PM  

Gryphon: They've brought in the best herpatologist to tend to her needs.


/obligatory lizard reference.


I C K E  what you did there
 
2013-03-03 01:04:31 PM  
Hey Chuck, why the long face?

Don't like the man - as I think about it, I can't stand the idea of him and that horses ass he goes tripping around with.

What a sad pair to front a country.
Luckily, my disgust of them has no meaning to anyone.  whew!
 
2013-03-03 01:06:15 PM  
Direct political power? Not much, really. But here's someone who's had regular briefings with every Prime Minister since Churchill. How many other people can boast such a wealth of political experience?
 
2013-03-03 01:10:35 PM  

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.

And seriously folk, the Queen is not governing England. There's a Parliament, you know. She does provide candid advice to the PM on a weekly basis, with full knowledge of everything the government is doing and in a setting where she and the PM can talk completely candidly. That's indeed valuable to the government. And she can use her diplomatic forces for good- see her outreach to Ireland recently. But it's hardly anything like ordering the navy to bombard Amsterdam in contravention of the wishes of the elected government.
 
ows
2013-03-03 01:11:25 PM  
oh aye there, she just needs a good ol' fartin' right there in her ol' bum is all,
 
2013-03-03 01:13:35 PM  

Eutychus: Direct political power? Not much, really. But here's someone who's had regular briefings with every Prime Minister since Churchill. How many other people can boast such a wealth of political experience?


Candid, completely off the record conversations, and they go both ways. She's already up to date on even the top secret stuff before going into those meetings with the PM. That's a hell of an institutional memory. She's also the only remaining Head of State who served in WWII- as a mechanic and ambulance driver.

It does always amaze me how many people in these threads are completely befuddled by the concept of a constitutional monarchy.
 
2013-03-03 01:16:34 PM  

cptjeff: 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.


Some day in the future, King Willy's daughter will name herself Queen TurdFerguson and will wear a giant foam hat for a crown.

/nostradamus
 
2013-03-03 01:17:41 PM  
 
2013-03-03 01:27:47 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-03 01:27:50 PM  

EngineerAU: bborchar: /Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?

I do. In recent years he's done much to call attention to the problems in the built environment. While I don't always agree with his views on the importance of traditional styles for building facades, he has given visibility to the issue of how we build our cities effects our health and how we end up interacting with each other. Most leaders couldn't care less about these issues except when one of their developer friends need inside access to build something crappy.

Regardless of who gets the throne next, I suspect many of Elizabeth's current realms will become republics within ten years of her death. For much of the world, she is the only commonwealth monarch they've known. The attachment is as much to her and it is to the crown. I don't see Charles or William inspiring that kind of loyalty.


Charles no. William possibly, maybe not right now but an injection of youth is something that can't be overlooked as it relates to the overall big picture. His world tour certainly showed that he is popular in the commonwealths.
 
2013-03-03 01:32:16 PM  

cptjeff: 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.


Rumor has it he'll be George VII, just for the reasons you listed.

//god save the queen
 
2013-03-03 01:34:36 PM  

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".
 
2013-03-03 01:35:23 PM  

raptusregaliter: cptjeff: 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.

Rumor has it he'll be George VII, just for the reasons you listed.

//god save the queen


/shakes tiny fist
 
2013-03-03 01:45:12 PM  

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".


Have the bookies started taking bets on the gender and regal name of the royal fetus yet?
 
2013-03-03 01:46:06 PM  
 
2013-03-03 01:50:07 PM  

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


And that's the way we goddamn like it. There's a good reason we told you Limey bastards to GTFO.
 
2013-03-03 01:51:16 PM  

roflmaonow: It's a stomach flu.


i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-03 01:51:23 PM  

cptjeff: 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".

Have the bookies started taking bets on the gender and regal name of the royal fetus yet?


Paddy Power has a line on everything. They were on that action 15 minutes after the Palace announced the Duchess was up the spout.
 
2013-03-03 01:52:48 PM  
Boooo bad subby, bad use of news flash tag. Queenie has a stomach bug, no one dying today.
 
2013-03-03 02:03:58 PM  
Why bother. Just pass it on to his son, who is infinitely more popular and let him enjoy the long, successful rule that Charles never got to enjoy himself.
 
2013-03-03 02:05:52 PM  
In some distant future time, when QEII exits stage right, they should make HARRY the king. That'd be cool. It'd be like having Joe Biden as president.
 
2013-03-03 02:12:22 PM  

This space intentionally left blank.: I wonder if they call it the "Cadbury squirts" over there.


LOL.
 
2013-03-03 02:13:20 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-03 02:15:37 PM  

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.

And seriously folk, the Queen is not governing England. There's a Parliament, you know. She does provide candid advice to the PM on a weekly basis, with full knowledge of everything the government is doing and in a setting where she and the PM can talk completely candidly. That's indeed valuable to the government. And she can use her diplomatic forces for good- see her outreach to Ireland recently. But it's hardly anything like ordering the navy to bombard Amsterdam in contravention of the wishes of the elected government.


Ding-ding-ding-ding. Exactamundo. She's head of state, not head of government.
 
2013-03-03 02:17:55 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-03 02:21:00 PM  
Bring the Queen her brown corduroy pants . . .
 
2013-03-03 02:32:07 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.


Generally true, but the most recent breaks with that rule I can think of are Pope John Paul I and King Juan Carlos I. Must be a '70s thing.
 
2013-03-03 02:34:24 PM  
Prince Charles the patron saint of all basement dwellers.

1. no useful skills, doesn't work
2. lives off his mom's money and entitlement
3. lives in mom's house
4. stands to gain when she kicks off
5. a little strange with poor social skills
 
2013-03-03 02:37:30 PM  

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


Funny how Canada is still ruled by inbred halfwit hemophiliacs.
 
2013-03-03 02:46:50 PM  

LibertyHiller: 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.

Generally true, but the most recent breaks with that rule I can think of are Pope John Paul I and King Juan Carlos I. Must be a '70s thing.


Um. No.
 
2013-03-03 02:51:18 PM  

uber humper: Prince Charles the patron saint of all basement dwellers.

1. no useful skills, doesn't work
2. lives off his mom's money and entitlement
3. lives in mom's house
4. stands to gain when she kicks off
5. a little strange with poor social skills


What is his Fark handle™?
 
2013-03-03 02:53:00 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.


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.
 
2013-03-03 02:54:42 PM  
1. She's not in imminent danger of dying.
2. It's just a stomach bug.
3. She's 86 and the Queen of England, so they will put her in the hospital to be better safe than sorry.
4. I think she's going to live to be 100.
5. Charles will be George VII, after his grandfather. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I doubt he'd choose Arthur. I could see Philip happening. No way in Hell there will a Charles III in England, ever.
6. Aren't babies slightly more likely to be girls? Bet on girl then.
 
2013-03-03 02:57:18 PM  
img.spokeo.com
 
2013-03-03 02:57:23 PM  

DoctorCal: LibertyHiller: 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.

Generally true, but the most recent breaks with that rule I can think of are Pope John Paul I and King Juan Carlos I. Must be a '70s thing.

Um. No.


Yeah, when John Paul I was Pope, he was just "Pope John Paul" wasn't he? And he was only Pope for a month, so no one probably thinks about that.
 
2013-03-03 02:57:44 PM  

The Downfall: 1. She's not in imminent danger of dying.
2. It's just a stomach bug.
3. She's 86 and the Queen of England, so they will put her in the hospital to be better safe than sorry.
4. I think she's going to live to be 100.
5. Charles will be George VII, after his grandfather. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I doubt he'd choose Arthur. I could see Philip happening. No way in Hell there will a Charles III in England, ever.
6. Aren't babies slightly more likely to be girls? Bet on girl then.


7. She doesn't want to go on the cart.
 
2013-03-03 03:00:16 PM  
Actually the sideline store about telepathic rats was more interesting and newsworthy.
 
2013-03-03 03:02:18 PM  

DoctorCal: LibertyHiller: 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.

Generally true, but the most recent breaks with that rule I can think of are Pope John Paul I and King Juan Carlos I. Must be a '70s thing.

Um. No.


Um. Yeah.

img.timeinc.net

The Downfall: Yeah, when John Paul I was Pope, he was just "Pope John Paul" wasn't he? And he was only Pope for a month, so no one probably thinks about that.


See above.
 
2013-03-03 03:12:28 PM  

LibertyHiller: DoctorCal: LibertyHiller: 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.

Generally true, but the most recent breaks with that rule I can think of are Pope John Paul I and King Juan Carlos I. Must be a '70s thing.

Um. No.

Um. Yeah.

[img.timeinc.net image 400x527]

The Downfall: Yeah, when John Paul I was Pope, he was just "Pope John Paul" wasn't he? And he was only Pope for a month, so no one probably thinks about that.

See above.


Well, my apologies, then. That's really odd to me; my recollection as a lifelong Catholic up to that time (when I was 15) was that we only referred to him as John Paul.
 
2013-03-03 03:13:47 PM  
Is it Lupus?
 
2013-03-03 03:16:17 PM  
 
2013-03-03 03:18:47 PM  

Hassan Ben Sobr: [tescolasagne.jpg]


Farkin' British cuisine.  Even their lasagne looks like a damned shepherd's pie.
 
2013-03-03 03:24:10 PM  

EngineerAU: Regardless of who gets the throne next, I suspect many of Elizabeth's current realms will become republics within ten years of her death. For much of the world, she is the only commonwealth monarch they've known. The attachment is as much to her and it is to the crown. I don't see Charles or William inspiring that kind of loyalty.


Granted, I have an outsider's perspective (I'm American) but I've always had this feeling that England et al. will become republics after Elizabeth's death - they don't respect any of her successors enough to take them seriously.
 
2013-03-03 03:24:14 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Don't over-react

/Her Majesty had a slight case of the Royal Trots


lulz

Is she riding Camilla to and from the loo?
 
2013-03-03 03:30:46 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Why bother. Just pass it on to his son, who is infinitely more popular and let him enjoy the long, successful rule that Charles never got to enjoy himself.


It isn't that easy.  She cannot just ignore the Act of Settlement, which sets out the order of succession (thought they are in the process of tweaking it, just not in that way). If she abdicated, as it is set up now, she also removes all her descendants from the succession - and if Charles abdicated, he would be removing not only himself, but William, Harry, and Little Royal Fetus.  Even if she or Charles were to try and abdicate, Parliament has to approve it.  We breezily suggest skipping, excluding, and/or disinheriting royals with merry abandon, but there is actually a fark-ton of established law and precedent that would make it a colossal pain in the ass to actually do.

Oh, and for the "Charles is so unpopular the monarchy will fall the instant the crown hits his head" crowd:  Charles is the personal Lord and Savior to the most ardent anti-monarchist compared to the popular disgust with George IV, and yet the Brits not only let him reign, they gave him an extensive beta-test before slapping the Orb and Sceptre in his hand.  They also got rid of the monarchy, only to bring it back - they are pretty much wedded to it now
 
2013-03-03 04:15:13 PM  

phalamir: Lost Thought 00: Why bother. Just pass it on to his son, who is infinitely more popular and let him enjoy the long, successful rule that Charles never got to enjoy himself.

It isn't that easy.  She cannot just ignore the Act of Settlement, which sets out the order of succession (thought they are in the process of tweaking it, just not in that way). If she abdicated, as it is set up now, she also removes all her descendants from the succession - and if Charles abdicated, he would be removing not only himself, but William, Harry, and Little Royal Fetus.  Even if she or Charles were to try and abdicate, Parliament has to approve it.  We breezily suggest skipping, excluding, and/or disinheriting royals with merry abandon, but there is actually a fark-ton of established law and precedent that would make it a colossal pain in the ass to actually do.

Oh, and for the "Charles is so unpopular the monarchy will fall the instant the crown hits his head" crowd:  Charles is the personal Lord and Savior to the most ardent anti-monarchist compared to the popular disgust with George IV, and yet the Brits not only let him reign, they gave him an extensive beta-test before slapping the Orb and Sceptre in his hand.  They also got rid of the monarchy, only to bring it back - they are pretty much wedded to it now


An abdication by her or Charles would not remove their decendants from succession. It only did so with Edward VII because he had none, so it passed to his brother. He couldn't abdicate, have a kid, and then have the kid grow up and claim the throne. Abdication gives the crown to whoever is next in line.
 
2013-03-03 04:20:10 PM  

The Downfall: 1. She's not in imminent danger of dying.
2. It's just a stomach bug.
3. She's 86 and the Queen of England, so they will put her in the hospital to be better safe than sorry.
4. I think she's going to live to be 100.
5. Charles will be George VII, after his grandfather. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I doubt he'd choose Arthur. I could see Philip happening. No way in Hell there will a Charles III in England, ever.
6. Aren't babies slightly more likely to be girls? Bet on girl then.


Well the queens mom lived to like 100 or more, as did Queen Victoria before that, so the queen making 100 is a distinct possibility.

Also as to the babies, a man averages about 50/50 throughout his life, but the younger you are the more likely you are to have a son.
 
2013-03-03 04:24:00 PM  

GreatPenguin: EngineerAU: Regardless of who gets the throne next, I suspect many of Elizabeth's current realms will become republics within ten years of her death. For much of the world, she is the only commonwealth monarch they've known. The attachment is as much to her and it is to the crown. I don't see Charles or William inspiring that kind of loyalty.

Granted, I have an outsider's perspective (I'm American) but I've always had this feeling that England et al. will become republics after Elizabeth's death - they don't respect any of her successors enough to take them seriously.


I think predictions for republicanism are generally overrated since the monarchy doesn't really matter all that much and it's more trouble to change it than to leave it as it is.  Most countries that are leaning toward becoming a republic are doing it for political reasons, not personal.  I think it'd take a real asshole of a king to induce most countries to bother trying to become a republic.

However, assuming there are countries that remain subjects of Elizabeth just for Elizabeth's sake, you should not overlook the effect of Kate.  The same people who want to be Elizabeth's subjects are going to want to be Kate's subjects someday.
 
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 188 of 188 comments

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


Report