• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prince Charles Laments The Rising 'Cost-Of-Living' While Literally Sitting On A Golden Throne—And Twitter Cannot

I have a feeling that Charles isnt going to be very popular when he finally becomes king.

It's a tough act to follow as Elizabeth has been such a steady hand for the better part of a century.
 
Yes, it's bad optics, but the Brits love that shit. I Suspect they keep the royal family around just for this kinda stuff.
It is up to the Brits whether to keep them around or not. While on one hand it probably costs a pretty pound to keep them, they also bring in lots of tourist dollars and jobs.
 
The House of Commons is part of the history of the UK.
Moaning about how fancy it is is like moaning that the US should sell The White House to help pay the national Debt.

It is what it is.

If you do plan to sell The White House I'll start the bidding at £200.
 
A super-special person from a super-special family to guide us all. What could be more offensive to everyone.
Anyone who is being called VIP is coming darn close.
 
Can we say "Bad Optics"?

This inbred twit will soon be king. Maybe he


Say you're a leader charged with giving a speech about the economy and ever-rising cost of living making the people of your country's life ever more difficult.

Would you ever choose to do so while bedecked in jewels and sitting atop a golden throne?

It may seem an utterly absurd choice to us, but that's precisely what happened in the U.K. when Prince Charles filled in for his mother Queen Elizabeth II and gave an address to the country from the House of Lords.





I'm not a royalist, but he's just reading what the government has written. Not his words or thoughts.
 
William appeared at the Liverpool/Chelsea Cup Final today to present the Cup to the winners. He was booed by the crowd.
 
William appeared at the Liverpool/Chelsea Cup Final today to present the Cup to the winners. He was booed by the crowd.
That's a surprise, I thought he was popular. What was the reason? Anyone know?
 
You clearly posted Trump in an institution.

Because, again, he was the PRESIDENT of the United STATES.

And used the president’s powers to protect war criminals.

But it sounds like you should be addressing this in the other thread instead of trying to wreck this one.
 
One man =/= An institution.

......very clearly wrong, as literally shown by the fact that English monarchy is based around the concept of one person representing the institution.
 
Can we say "Bad Optics"?

This inbred twit will soon be king. Maybe he


Say you're a leader charged with giving a speech about the economy and ever-rising cost of living making the people of your country's life ever more difficult.

Would you ever choose to do so while bedecked in jewels and sitting atop a golden throne?

It may seem an utterly absurd choice to us, but that's precisely what happened in the U.K. when Prince Charles filled in for his mother Queen Elizabeth II and gave an address to the country from the House of Lords.




At least he and Donald have that in common, both have golden thrones, no doubt some of Donny's pontifications before he was banned from twitter were edicts made from his golden throne.

At least Charles doesn't have to flush his golden throne 10 to 15 times to get his shit to go down!

Woo Hoo!
 
Fail more.

It is fun to watch.

Again, the British monarchy is based on the concept that one person—i.e the King, Queen, whoever— represents the entire institution.

No amount of whining can change that.
 
Trump was a British monarch?

Since when?

Your argument the entire time has been one person doesn’t represent an institution.

As shown by the British monarchy, that is completely untrue. One person can and often does represent an institution.
 
Your argument the entire time has been one person doesn’t represent an institution.

As shown by the British monarchy, that is completely untrue. One person can and often does represent an institution.

So, Trump wasn't a British monarch.

Got it.

You just keep grasping.
 
Yeah I wasn't a Di fan either. I thought I was the only person who felt that way so have kept my mouth shut for 30 years.
I was indifferent to Di, but I must admit when my late wife and I sat and watched that August night when we started getting the reports that she had died in that lunatic car crash I cried along with my wife at the whole tragedy of it all.

I didn't cry then nearly as hard as I did on 9/11, but it still brought me to tears for some reason.
 
So, Trump wasn't a British monarch.

Got it.

You just keep grasping.

I never said he was bud.

I said the existence of the British monarchy shows that one person very much can and do represent an institution,

Duh.

You just keep embarrassing yourself.
 
I never said he was bud.

I said the existence of the British monarchy shows that one person very much can and do represent an institution,

Duh.

You just keep embarrassing yourself.

So you bring up the British monarch thing while discussing someone who never was a British monarch......

Got it.
 
That's a surprise, I thought he was popular. What was the reason? Anyone know?
Royalist sentiment is firmly attached to the Queen for her long service, but the offspring (With the notable exception of Anne) are pretty much just soap opera characters.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom