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  
•       •       •

25668 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 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.
 
Displayed 50 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 »






Report