• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Royal Wedding

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Never mind imminent UK election, international terrorism, millions in the third world starving to death...

No, the top story on UK news this evening is that Prince Charles is to marry Camilla the Horse. Now doesn't that just put the world right! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Naughty Nurse said:
Never mind imminent UK election, international terrorism, millions in the third world starving to death...

No, the top story on UK news this evening is that Prince Charles is to marry Camilla the Horse. Now doesn't that just put the world right! :rolleyes:
So, given that I don't have an understanding of how the whole royalty thing works- If he marries Camilla "The Horse" will she become Queen if he becomes King?
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Pacridge said:
So, given that I don't have an understanding of how the whole royalty thing works- If he marries Camilla "The Horse" will she become Queen if he becomes King?
No, apparently not!

After the wedding, she'll be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, and if he becomes King, she'll be The Princess Escort.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Naughty Nurse said:
No, apparently not!

After the wedding, she'll be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, and if he becomes King, she'll be The Princess Escort.
The Princess Escort? Now that's hilarious! In this country "Escort" is another term used for prostitute.

So, will the wedding be a major event in England? Or do you think it will be a quiet toned down thing?
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Pacridge said:
The Princess Escort? Now that's hilarious! In this country "Escort" is another term used for prostitute.

So, will the wedding be a major event in England? Or do you think it will be a quiet toned down thing?
OMG! My mistake! It's Princess Consort! Bit Freudian, perhaps?

It's going to be a small civil ceremony. As the future head of the Church of England it's felt by those who actually care about all this nonsense that he shouldn't marry in church as both he and the horse are divorced.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
HighSpeed said:
What power, if any, does a King,Queen, Prince or Princess have anyways?
Nothing can become law here until the Monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) signs it. In practice she has to sign anything that the government asks het to, so no real power as such.

However, the fact that we have an unelected Monarch as head of state leaves us also with the whole system of hereditary peerage, and an unelected second chamber of government (The House of Lords). Democratic?:rolleyes:

The fact that the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England means that we have a link between state and church, and we have bishops in the House of Lords, giving the church direct influence over the process of government.:(
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Naughty apparently the church of england leaders are getting together today to complain about the marriage or some other nonsensical comment that they have a habit of comming out with. its surprising how the British have not responded to a large degree to the marriage. i am against the monarchy along with a big proportion of the British public. it could be worse tony Blair for president (i think not).
it always makes me laugh that the queen is the head of the church of england but as soon as she crosses into Scotland she becomes a Presbyterian.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
globalvision said:
Naughty apparently the church of england leaders are getting together today to complain about the marriage or some other nonsensical comment that they have a habit of comming out with. its surprising how the British have not responded to a large degree to the marriage. i am against the monarchy along with a big proportion of the British public. it could be worse tony Blair for president (i think not).
it always makes me laugh that the queen is the head of the church of england but as soon as she crosses into Scotland she becomes a Presbyterian.
Well, the C of E leaders do tend to talk a lot of twoddle, don't they? I suspect that most people don't really give tuppence for what the Royals get up to anymore. And if Prince "Talk to the Plants" Charles had been allowed to marry The Horse in the first place we wouldn't be suffering this nonsense now!
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Naughty Nurse said:
Well, the C of E leaders do tend to talk a lot of twoddle, don't they? I suspect that most people don't really give tuppence for what the Royals get up to anymore. And if Prince "Talk to the Plants" Charles had been allowed to marry The Horse in the first place we wouldn't be suffering this nonsense now!
Yes. you wouldn't be suffering now and imagine how much less Diana would have suffered entirely. At least it sounds as if the rest of the worlds going to be spared a huge "event" that interrupts my re-runs of the "Simpson's" ,"That 70's Show" and my favorite- "Cops" Nothing better than watching some poor, drunken, shirtless slob get hauled out of his trailer screaming "But, but just tell her I love her man!"
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
Yes. you wouldn't be suffering now and imagine how much less Diana would have suffered entirely. At least it sounds as if the rest of the worlds going to be spared a huge "event" that interrupts my re-runs of the "Simpson's" ,"That 70's Show" and my favorite- "Cops" Nothing better than watching some poor, drunken, shirtless slob get hauled out of his trailer screaming "But, but just tell her I love her man!"
God bless the USA for the high culture it brings the world.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
God bless the USA for the high culture it brings the world.
Urethra, that is unkind, and you should say sorry.
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Naughty Nurse said:
Urethra, that is unkind, and you should say sorry.
No, that would be terribly insincere of me.

*Have a nice day now, enjoy your extra fries, missing you already, hope you find Jesus* (Spoken with very sincere Mississippi twang)
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
No, that would be terribly insincere of me.

*Have a nice day now, enjoy your extra fries, missing you already, hope you find Jesus* (Spoken with very sincere Mississippi twang)
:rofl Urethra, you are terrible, but you make me laugh!
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
Are you a guy?
And are you single??? :D
Yes, I'm a guy. Are you? If not you're barking up the wrong tree, honey!
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
I was watching Jay Leno last night and he brought up an interesting point. Ever notice how you never see Carmella and Dame Edna in the same place at the same time?
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Pacridge said:
I was watching Jay Leno last night and he brought up an interesting point. Ever notice how you never see Carmella and Dame Edna in the same place at the same time?
The Horse could really be Dame Edna? :rofl

Thanks, that's brightened up my evening!
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OBJECTION: to President Bush entertaining Prince Charles

Attention Americans! Who are your true friends? Not the Windsors!

President Bush's close encounter of the 3rd Reich kind with Prince Charles Windsor at the White House

I PROTEST most strongly against the visit to the White House of Prince Charles and wife Camilla to be entertained by President Bush and his wife. (When? - this Wednesday I think)



BBC News said:
BBC: Whirlwind US tour for Royal pair

Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall will visit New York, Washington and San Francisco during their first joint overseas tour.



In Washington they will lunch and dine with President George Bush
What are my reasons for objecting to this?

I am a republican and a democrat.

(My politics should not be equated exactly with the US Republican and Democrat parties - I am not a US citizen - I am Scottish, living in Scotland - and so I’m not a member of either party, although I am part of the world-wide group of supporters of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.)

In other words, politically I support the establishment and maintenance of democratic republics everywhere in the world.



That means, for example, I support the democratic republic of the United States of America, wishing to see the USA thrive and standing together with it, shoulder to shoulder, to take on all enemies of democracy, freedom and republican government - such as Al Qaeda in the war on terrorism.

In principle, I support the overthrow of undemocratic regimes of one kind or another - monarchies such as Saudi Arabia or the United Kingdom, Stalinist dictatorships, as in North Korea, the former Saddam Hussein regime or theocratic dictatorships as in Iran.

I have a particular interest in opposing the United Kingdom - its Queen Elizabeth and its heir apparent Prince Charles - as that is the undemocratic regime which denies me, as a Scot and a Briton, of my democratic rights. It’s the UK state which oppresses and subjugates me and takes away my freedom.

Now the UK, down through the years, has been compelled by popular political struggle to allow certain pseudo-democratic changes to the regime - such as not-really-free-and-fair elections and not-really-just courts pretending to apply the rule of law, while actually imposing arbitrary justice.

For those engaged in high-profile protests and extra-parliamentary democratic politics, a rule of judicial terror is imposed to back up the terror of the police imposed on the streets.

The UK state is a terror state and Queen Elizabeth is the world’s most dangerous terrorist – primarily because she and her family not only oversee their terror state but they manage to co-opt royalist-sympathizer politicians to give their kingdom a veneer of pseudo-democratic respectability.

So that makes Prince Charles the second most dangerous terrorist in the world – so why is President Bush inviting terrorists to the White House when he is supposed to be fighting a war on terror?

The UK is perhaps a half-way house between an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia and a proper democracy like the United States.

So half-a-loaf is better than none. But as a principled republican I am not settling for anything short of a democratic republic - no Kingdom for me, thanks all the same.

The citizens of the US would not, most of them, want to live or come home to anything other than a democratic republic in the USA - why should they?

Americans want to elect their President and not have a King or Queen forced upon them as head of state.

And similarly, you must not expect me to agree to anything less than a democratic republic - why should I?

It is Queen Elizabeth that is the ceremonial head or figurehead of the UK state (Prince Charles expects to take over that role when the Queen dies though) - but a figurehead is an important person who can do an enormous amount of damage to the democracy of a country.

The power to be a figurehead is a central power.

A figurehead is not as insignificant a thing as you might think.

The royalists are insisting that the Queen is to remain the figurehead. A figurehead is a decisive role because the figurehead person serves to approve the status quo - here, rubber-stamping the UK royalist, fascist, police state and implicitly, the death, destruction, disaster and missed-opportunities that it imposes.

Obviously, the Prime Minister is a key officer in the UK state and the Queen rubber-stamps what the PM does or doesn’t do as well.

Likewise, the First Minister of Scotland is rubber-stamped, indiscriminately.

Moving to a republic would afford the people an opportunity to replace a hellish rubber-stamp with the political context to commence sorely needed action to liberate us from the fascists who are making lives hell - fascist police, judges and other assorted UK royalist, fascist state officials.

Some people advance the theory that the UK Prime Minister is an acting head of state. Does the Prime Minister then have the power to have the fascist police and judiciary urgently replaced en masse and - if they wouldn’t go quietly - shot as required, by calling in the military?

The UK police and judiciary as presently constituted, form the core of the national enemies within and removing them and reconstituting the forces of the state according to democratic principles will be quite a task.

I would question that the PM could easily do that, even with the consent of the House of Commons (There is no such consent presently, nor willingness by the PM, sadly. Sort of banning fox-hunting was as much as elected royalists could manage.).

I mean, it is wishful thinking to think that the PM does now have the power to do the necessary but there is presently no evidence that the PM has that power under the UK’s constitution from hell.

(If there were compelling evidence such as, for example, the dead body of the Queen then of course one would have to reconsider then the powers of the PM in the new context.

Thus Oliver Cromwell, leading as evidence the dead body of King Charles I, who had his head chopped off, could fairly claim to have head of state powers.)

The House of Lords, royalist lawyers, courts and the Queen’s officers themselves would presumably challenge such head of state powers in a Prime Minister.

Certainly the UK royalist, fascist police state would oppose the First Minister of Scotland presently having similar head of state powers to end royalist fascism in Scotland. (Take a look at the Scotland Act.)

We need heads of states to act against the UK royalist fascists as soon as possible and arguing for republics for the nations and the overthrow of the monarchy is the context in which those heads of states would emerge.

Just voting for royalist candidates, from royalist parties - Scottish Nationalist, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UK Independence, Green and so on - just electing Members of Parliaments who must give allegiance to the Queen - won’t do.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OBJECTION: to President Bush entertaining Prince Charles

British Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries should be welcomed to the USA


So while I am pleased to see Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visiting the USA and meeting with President Bush or Secretary of State Rice, I take a different view with regard to members of the UK royal family being given a similar such preferential and high-profile welcome.

Welcoming Prince Charles to the White House will be understood from Scotland and Britain as President Bush accepting the role of the monarchy in Scotland and Britain - being seen to stand with the royalist, fascist police state of the United Kingdom - rather than clearly siding with the democratic rights of the people of Scotland and Britain.

In short, Prince Charles is my enemy and I don’t want anyone to be seen being friends with my enemy.

There is a clear choice for the USA government - to support democracy throughout the world - which I thought was President Bush’s and Secretary Rice’s policy - and be loved for that stance - as I love Condi Rice.

Or the USA government could go back to the discredited old policy of supporting regimes that deny proper democracy to their people - and whether President Bush means to or not, when he meets with Prince Charles, it’s going to look like he has decided to support the UK regime and not the democratic rights of the British people.

President Bush spoke some fine words about spreading democracy during his inaugural speech and some of the people of the world must have believed in what he said - hoped that he meant what he said.

But now many Scottish and British republicans are going to feel betrayed by President Bush and particularly by Condi Rice in whom I have so much faith.

Many of us really expected better from Condi and I am hoping that at the last minute she can avoid getting herself tangled up with Prince Charles’s visit to the White House and avoid meeting Charles at any time while he‘s in the USA.

Prince Charles at the White House is going to look like a stab in the back to most republican lovers of freedom and fighters for freedom living in the many countries - Britain, Canada, Australia and so on - where we are not allowed to elect a President but instead get Queen Elizabeth, like it or not.

It’s also going to look like President Bush is saying to the Scots, Britons, Canadians, Australians and the rest something like

President Bush said:

Hey you lot over there - Scots, Britons, Canadians, Australians - you lot are not good enough to elect your own president - you are stuck with the Windsor Queens and Kings to come!

W likes Prince Charles - so get used to the idea that King Charles will be your next head of state - forget any idea of electing a President of Britain or a President of Scotland or your own President. All that stuff I said about spreading democracy and freedom - I didn’t mean it - tough!
The welcome of Prince Charles to the White House will be humiliating and insulting to many Scottish and British republicans - as that is what I am, and that is how I now feel - humiliated and insulted.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OBJECTION: to President Bush entertaining Prince Charles

On what I meant by “a close encounter of the third reich kind”. That is a phrase I used on my website to equate the meetings with royalty with that of the Queen’s Uncle Edward when he met with Hitler.

Scottish National Standard Bearer website said:
Blair: the shoulder of a hypocrite

Close Encounters Of The Third Reich Kind

Bush and Blair say they are standing shoulder-to-shoulder to win the war on terrorism - fair enough, and we should certainly fight and win that war.

However, the said President, Prime Minister, their advisors and their predecessors, who got us into this mess, don't have much of an understanding of how to get us out.
Fortunately, one senior Bush cabinet member understands more than most - US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Consider U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair's hypocrisy when he says he is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States of America in fighting the war on terrorism.

In addition, he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the world's number one terrorist - Queen Elizabeth.



The Queen is a friend and backer of like-minded Royalty, dictators and tyrants ruling many of the Arab or Islamic states - good recruiting territory for Bin Laden.



These local despots encourage and fund their local heroes waging terrorism abroad in order to distract them from figuring out that they'd be better off fighting for genuine freedom and democracy at home.

We can take Blair seriously when and if he ever starts a prosecution in Parliament of Queen Elizabeth and her family for treason against Britain and its allies.

Remember in the 1930s, British appeasement of Hitler and the Queen's Uncle Edward Entertaining Nazis? (Q.U.E.E.N.) Like uncle like niece.



The treacherous United Kingdom Royal family conspiring with Adolf Hitler to betray Britain, Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OBJECTION: to President Bush entertaining Prince Charles

Who are the USA’s staunch allies in the war on terror - it is British democrats and republicans like myself!



We are the USA’s staunchest allies! Not Prince Charles!


The Windsor royal family is nobody’s ally unless they agree with their undemocratic monarchist privileges. If they could, the British imperialist-monarchists would go back to ruling America as a British colony - they’d make Americans their subjects if they could. Taxation but no representation.

Prince Charles has already got his hands on Canada. But does he expect to become King of the Royal United States of America?

No. Prince Charles is greedy enough but his advisors are not stupid enough to think that he can take the USA as well.

But entertaining this Prince IS akin to surrendering vast portions of the English speaking world over to the royalist terrorists.

Realistically, the visit for Prince Charles is more to do with keeping power where the Windsors have it already.

If the royals are friendly with the most powerful republican in the world - the President of the USA - then Prince Charles is expecting that the President will give no support or encouragement to republicans wishing to oust the Windsors from realm countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and so on.

But allowing the monarchists to rule does have consequences in the USA itself.

The 9/11 attacks and other terrorist attacks have originated from royalist countries - Saudi Arabia mainly but terrorist websites and organisations have been allowed free reign for years under the royalists here.

It's not that Tony Blair or even the Queen wanted the USA attacked - far from it - it is more a question of gross incompetence (as in the Titanic sinking) which comes about when the country is so badly run by the royalists that good people are locked up or leave the country in disgust.

The point is to be the best we can in the war on terror - so it would be better to move the Windsor realm countries to republics as soon as possible.

Prince Charles is not the USA’s ally - he is the enemy of American democracy and republicanism. He’s not an ally in the war on terror – in fact, he is a terrorist himself.

Don’t welcome Prince Charles - snub him!

I am NOT calling for a snub of America’s closest ally.

Prince Charles is NOT your (America’s) closest ally!

Britain IS your close ally!



The British people ARE your close allies!

British republicans ARE your closest allies – and a lot closer allies than British royalists!

A snub of Prince Charles is NOT a snub of Britain!

A snub of Prince Charles IS a snub of monarchy!

A snub of monarchy is NOT a snub of Britain!

The British royalists keep referring to Great Britain and Northern Ireland as “the United Kingdom” but the Kingdom - the UK state - cannot always be relied upon as America’s useful ally. The royalists running the Kingdom are too incompetent and undemocratic always to be relied upon by anyone – a British Republic would be a better and more reliable ally, as would a Scottish Republic.

The British people are generally good, loyal allies of America - many of whom are republicans but, of us all, it is the British republicans who are most enthusiastically allied to the American republic, the best and most loyal allies of America.

Don’t trust the Kingdom! Trust the people!

By entertaining Prince Charles, President Bush IS snubbing America’s closest allies - British republicans!

So my post is NOT a compliment to Bush - that is true. It is a protest!

It is a protest BY one of America’s closest allies - a British republican - a protest that we British republicans are being snubbed by this welcome of Prince Charles to the White House.

We British republicans are loyal to our fellow American republicans - we simply expect the same loyalty back - and we don’t want to be betrayed by an American president entertaining our enemy – the enemy of British republicans – Prince Charles!
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OBJECTION: to President Bush entertaining Prince Charles

Declaration of Independence. Tribute to signers said:


They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they? Twenty-four
were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were
farmers and large plantation owners and the others held
respectible positions; men of means, well educated. However,
they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full
well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Five signers were captured by the British
as traitors, and tortured before they died.
-----------------------------------
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
-----------------------------------
Two lost their sons serving in the
Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.
-----------------------------------
Nine fought and died from wounds
or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
-----------------------------------
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution.
These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians.
They were soft-spoken men of means and education.
They had security, but they valued liberty more.

Please take a few moments while enjoying your 4th of July
holiday and silently give thanks to these patriots for
many gave the ultimate price, their lives, for freedom.

http://www.ecards-gallery.com/fourt...ation-of-independence-tribute-to-signers.html
But it wasn't British democrats or British republicans who wanted to deny America its independence. No democrat or republican would ever wish to do that.

It must have been King George III, Queen Elizabeth's and Prince Charles's predecessor, who fought against American independence with the help presumably of other British imperialist-monarchists - Queen, Princes, Princesses, Dukes and Duchesses, His Majesty's Government, the King's royalist army and all the other royalist hangers-on.



and Prince Charles has too much in common with King George III to be deserving of a welcome at the White House.



King George III was America's enemy. And Prince Charles is America's enemy too.

Ancestry isn't the problem. It is the undemocratic rule of Kings that they share and makes them the enemies of America and all who love freedom.
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thats all very nice...but I would say the UK is democratic. I am a royalist insofar as i believe we should maintian the monarchy for tradition, but I am also a democrat...I believe supreme power in the UK should be vested in Parliament, and to all intents and purposes it is. Undemocratic rule of Kings? All Queenie does is sign a bit of paper when parliament tells her to, and parliament is democratically elected. Nope, the UK is democratic enough for me...cept for the lack of some sort of Bill of Rightsy type thing...but thats a whole other argument.
 
Top Bottom