View Full Version : King William the V
InsaneApache
06-09-2006, 09:58
Looks like 'ol Charlie boy was given duff advice from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton (http://www.dca.gov.uk/dept/changprog/member_falconer.htm) about the legality of his marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles and it now emerges that this illegal act could have reprecussions on his succession to the throne.
THE marriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles was illegal, according to government advice given at the time of his divorce from Diana, Princess of Wales, The Times has learnt.
A document released under the Freedom of Information Act shows that John Major’s Government insisted a decade ago that the Royal Family would be forbidden from marrying in register offices.
The advice flatly contradicts the opinion given by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to Parliament once the Prince announced his engagement last year. The Lord Chancellor omitted to point out that he was overturning recent guidance.
Lawyers and constitutional experts are now accusing ministers of placing in doubt the validity of the Prince’s marriage at Windsor Guildhall in April 2005 and his succession as King.
Charlie is me darlin' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2217999,00.html)
Good. I don't like him. He's a moron. Williams much more photogenic and a likable sort. :inquisitive: :deal: :sunny:
'The King is dead, long live the King'.
English assassin
06-09-2006, 10:01
Pah. If he wants to be king, ship him to St Kilda, and let him be king of three tumbledown cottages and 25,000,000, seabirds.
InsaneApache
06-09-2006, 10:06
or Gillingham.....:laugh4:
English assassin
06-09-2006, 10:51
or Gillingham.....:laugh4:
Gillingham is more of an anarchist republic, but if he's useful enough with a Stanley knife I dare say he could make himself "king"...
doc_bean
06-09-2006, 11:00
You can't pick your kings, that's the whole point :oops:
English assassin
06-09-2006, 12:00
We picked William of Orange and Mary II.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-09-2006, 12:08
Didn't Henry VIII cause immense amounts of trouble and create the Church of England so that he could basically marry whoever he wanted?
These royals are pathetic nowadays.
ZombieFriedNuts
06-09-2006, 12:12
So whose next in line then
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-09-2006, 12:38
No one, this is all piffle. The marriage is legal, even the Arch Bishop of Cantabury agrees it is. This is just sensationalism and its exactly why I stopped reading the Times.
As to him being a moron, no, he's not. He has a lot of good ideas, the Prince's trust, for example. The people who don't like him are usually like that because they worship Diana, she was the moron and its not his fault the Queen had her killed.
If Charles really was as stupid and unpleasent as everyone says don't you think he would disown Harry and dump him on James Hewitt. As it is I think he endures all the snipes and jibes rather well.
Byzantine Mercenary
06-09-2006, 12:43
what so harrys james hewits son?
i realy dont think the queen would have diana killed what good would it do?
InsaneApache
06-09-2006, 13:03
No one, this is all piffle. The marriage is legal, even the Arch Bishop of Cantabury agrees it is. This is just sensationalism and its exactly why I stopped reading the Times.
As to him being a moron, no, he's not. He has a lot of good ideas, the Prince's trust, for example. The people who don't like him are usually like that because they worship Diana, she was the moron and its not his fault the Queen had her killed.
If Charles really was as stupid and unpleasent as everyone says don't you think he would disown Harry and dump him on James Hewitt. As it is I think he endures all the snipes and jibes rather well.
Well I thought she was a manipulative old bag and they deserved each other. Charlie is a moron, he thinks the little oiks are getting above their station, especially the coloured ones. But hey, if you like him so much you could always apply for the job of holding his todger whilst he empties his bladder....:laugh4:
Kralizec
06-09-2006, 16:12
He's uncharismatic, but could you give us a few examples of why you think he's a moron?
I'm glad our own crown prince isn't such an asshat...
English assassin
06-09-2006, 17:15
Well, he thinks that the NHS should spend money on homeopathy rather than real drugs that work. He thinks nanobots will turn the whole world to grey goo. He thinks people these days should know their place and jolly well stay in it. He wants to be the "defender of faith" (which, unless I am missing something, means he regards credulous belief as a good thing in itself, without even the redeeming grace of thinking that your particular faith is correct). He's on record as wanting to be one of Camilla's sanitary products.
Most of all, he seems to think the world should give a flying **** about his opinions.
InsaneApache
06-09-2006, 17:53
Cheers EA I couldn't have put it better myself.
rotorgun
06-09-2006, 18:03
Since the times of the Tudor King, Henry VIII, what's a little matter such as a divorce got to do with anything? A future King should pretty much do as he pleases anyhow.
rory_20_uk
06-09-2006, 18:10
Weasles such as the Prime Minister should be of no importance to what our future monarch does.
If there is a problem, it is up to the PM to alter the laws. That's what he's there for.
Charles has his own views. Whether I agree with them all or not is unimportant. He doesn't change them for every fad that passes through the rather empty mind of the average voter. I think he will be a commendable Monarch.
~:smoking:
InsaneApache
06-09-2006, 21:02
Since the times of the Tudor King, Henry VIII, what's a little matter such as a divorce got to do with anything? A future King should pretty much do as he pleases anyhow.
errr...no. That's why we had a revoultion and hacked off the head from Charles I (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html) just to point out to our rulers that things had changed.
As for the inference that Harry is a bastard, well as far as I'm concerned the bloke has my respect for demanding that he stays with his unit, (therefore mates), when are deployed in Afghanistan.
Edited for broken link
rotorgun
06-10-2006, 00:43
errr...no. That's why we had a revoultion and hacked off the head from Charles I (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html) just to point out to our rulers that things had changed.
As for the inference that Harry is a bastard, well as far as I'm concerned the bloke has my respect for demanding that he stays with his unit, (therefore mates), when are deployed in Afghanistan.
Edited for broken link
As for the first, yes that's true, but I was referring to matters more domestic rather than political. The fact that marriage back then was also so highly politically charged has some bearing on your statement.
As to the second, I don't recall inferring that the good Prince Harry is a bastard. I am also very impressed by any officer, royal or not, that maintains loyalty for his military unit. I would gladly serve under such a man, unlike the current President of the United States, whom I would not willingly follow to a rock fight. You and your countrymen should be justifiably proud.
Duke of Gloucester
06-10-2006, 07:33
A future King should pretty much do as he pleases anyhow.
Maybe we should make Magna Carta day a bank holiday.
I am also very impressed by any officer, royal or not, that maintains loyalty for his military unit.
He is following a family tradition. His uncle and grandfather both saw active service.
“why we had a revoultion and hacked off the head from Charles I”: That was the nice Revolution. Because the first King the English killed was with a red poker in…:inquisitive:
Duke of Gloucester
06-10-2006, 11:25
He was killed by was his wife (who was French).
ShadesPanther
06-10-2006, 11:39
He was killed by was his wife (who was French).
Yes, but he got a red poker in...:inquisitive:
“He was killed by was his wife (who was French).” And her lover (who was Englih):inquisitive:
Justiciar
06-10-2006, 17:20
He was killed by was his wife (who was French).
Not quite. He lived on for quite a while despite the myth of his death put about by Mortimer and maintained by Edward, iirc.
Red Peasant
06-10-2006, 17:31
Well, he thinks that the NHS should spend money on homeopathy rather than real drugs that work. He thinks nanobots will turn the whole world to grey goo. He thinks people these days should know their place and jolly well stay in it. He wants to be the "defender of faith" (which, unless I am missing something, means he regards credulous belief as a good thing in itself, without even the redeeming grace of thinking that your particular faith is correct). He's on record as wanting to be one of Camilla's sanitary products.
Most of all, he seems to think the world should give a flying **** about his opinions.
Hear, hear! But these are also reasons why a minority of Brits hanker for a strong and potty leader to tell them what to do, even if it is totally bonkers!
Duke of Gloucester
06-10-2006, 18:33
Not quite. He lived on for quite a while despite the myth of his death put about by Mortimer and maintained by Edward, iirc.
Well he is burried in Gloucester cathedral, so I expect he was dead before that. I doubt Edward III was involved in any deception. He executed Mortimer, locked his mother up and rebuilt the cathedral.
Justiciar
06-10-2006, 20:04
I doubt one book is much to go on, but it makes sense in it's claims. Mortimer put about the claim that Edward II was dead without acctually killing him so that Edward III (then under his power) would be crowned as his puppet. It was a claim that Edward himself would have stuck to after he got his arse on the throne, since if his father were still alive he could easily be kicked out of power. The idea isn't that Edward helped create the lie, but that he made good use of it after Mortimer was removed.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-11-2006, 00:11
Well, he thinks that the NHS should spend money on homeopathy rather than real drugs that work. He thinks nanobots will turn the whole world to grey goo. He thinks people these days should know their place and jolly well stay in it. He wants to be the "defender of faith" (which, unless I am missing something, means he regards credulous belief as a good thing in itself, without even the redeeming grace of thinking that your particular faith is correct). He's on record as wanting to be one of Camilla's sanitary products.
Most of all, he seems to think the world should give a flying **** about his opinions.
Wow, bitter. He also thinks being Green is good, that we should preserve the countryside and that the 60's was a black era for architechture and town planning.
Nanobots turn the world to goo? Well it could happen, given the record with new technology the human race has I wouldn't be surprised, I wouldn't want the little buggers in me if they went wrong.
He wants to be "Defender of the Faith" Well given that he's a Christian, his mum wants the same, and the faith needs defending I'd say good on him.
Remember, he used to be viewed the same as William is now. Had the Queen let him marry Camilla he'd probably look a lot better now. As is Diana was the one who had all the affairs. To my knowledge, aside from some telephone conversations after he and Ms Spencer hit the rocks he was faithful.
He's in favour of a Badger Cull and that puts him above Blair and everybody else in my books.
InsaneApache
06-11-2006, 00:22
Wow, bitter. He also thinks being Green is good, that we should preserve the countryside and that the 60's was a black era for architechture and town planning.
Nanobots turn the world to goo? Well it could happen, given the record with new technology the human race has I wouldn't be surprised, I wouldn't want the little buggers in me if they went wrong.
He wants to be "Defender of the Faith" Well given that he's a Christian, his mum wants the same, and the faith needs defending I'd say good on him.
Remember, he used to be viewed the same as William is now. Had the Queen let him marry Camilla he'd probably look a lot better now. As is Diana was the one who had all the affairs. To my knowledge, aside from some telephone conversations after he and Ms Spencer hit the rocks he was faithful.
He's in favour of a Badger Cull and that puts him above Blair and everybody else in my books.
Sorry Mate he conned his first wife, just so that she bagat him some sons. He used her. All the time he was longing to be Camillas tampon....and you think this idiot is King material?:inquisitive:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-11-2006, 03:44
Sorry Mate he conned his first wife, just so that she bagat him some sons. He used her. All the time he was longing to be Camillas tampon....and you think this idiot is King material?:inquisitive:
I'd guess he's earned his red wings of honour many times over, he's got a taste for it.
Could be worse, he could want to be...... eh, it's just ceremonial really though isn't it? (God, that reads like John Prescott)
I almost wish he were his dad, at least when Phillip comes out with "interesting stuff" it tends to be controversial (and therefore gets people all worked up) rather than just weird.
I do appreciate his concern with rural matters though, maybe he could be king of the farmers or something.
Edit: but who doesn't love a strange non-malevolent monarch?
Edit2: if this makes no sense then I blame the rum.
doc_bean
06-11-2006, 11:26
Sorry Mate he conned his first wife, just so that she bagat him some sons. He used her. All the time he was longing to be Camillas tampon....and you think this idiot is King material?:inquisitive:
He told her before the wedding he didn't love her, she should have walked out. He was honest at least. Diana wanted to a little princess and Charlie needed some sons, the whole marriage was a fraud for both sides.
Who was the one that actually started going public about their bad marriage (and having known affairs) ? i don't remember :embarassed:
rory_20_uk
06-11-2006, 17:54
Have a look at the previous monarchs. Or previous presidents / leaders of state. No, Charles is not a saint. He's never said that he was, never has denied wrongdoing and has followed the ridiculous rules that govern his private life.
He would be a better king than many and worse than a few.
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-11-2006, 22:54
He told her before the wedding he didn't love her, she should have walked out. He was honest at least. Diana wanted to a little princess and Charlie needed some sons, the whole marriage was a fraud for both sides.
Who was the one that actually started going public about their bad marriage (and having known affairs) ? i don't remember :embarassed:
Exactly, he was perfectly honest. The Spencers are well known social climbers, she knew the score and if she didn't her family did.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.