The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-02-2006, 07:42 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Why does the Queen of England hang on? Why can't she retire so Charles can be King?

I mean he's almost 58 for God's sake. Give him a few years of Kingship before he's a senior citizen.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-02-2006, 07:48 PM
Cunctator Cunctator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bowral, NSW, Australia
Posts: 10,163
I'd say that she feels that she has a duty to continue reigning while she is still healthy enough to do so. She's very good at the job, after all.

No doubt there's also the memory of the trauma/upheaval that Edward VIII's abdication inflicted on the country and the royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-02-2006, 08:18 PM
Crawlspace Crawlspace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Also, from what I understand, she's trying to break Queen Victoria's record for longest reign by a British monarch. Victoria lasted 63 years, Lizzy is at 54, so Charles will be otherwise employed for at least another 9 years. Kind of ironic that he'll start his real job right around the time most people are ready to retire.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-02-2006, 08:22 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 31,825
Charles is an embarassment. Tampon Boy. I don't want his ugly-ass face on my money.

I want Liz to hang on, break the record, and hand it straight to King William V.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-02-2006, 08:52 PM
GingerOfTheNorth GingerOfTheNorth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Ads at the bottom:

Original King James 1611
Local Elizabeth Florist
Elizabeth Finest Florist
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-02-2006, 09:39 PM
PastAllReason PastAllReason is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunctator
I'd say that she feels that she has a duty to continue reigning while she is still healthy enough to do so. She's very good at the job, after all.

No doubt there's also the memory of the trauma/upheaval that Edward VIII's abdication inflicted on the country and the royal family.
Obviously I don't know whether this is true or not, but I've heard in documentaries in the past that both Elizabeth and the Queen Mother harboured particularly strong sentiment against Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (the Duke and Duchess of Windsor) not only because of the suspected sympathizing with the Nazis but also because they blamed them for George VI having to accede to the throne the pressures of which shortened his life.

In any event, and for good or bad, Queen Elizabeth's commitment to duty seems to have been a constant theme through her life. On her 21st birthday she gave a radio broadcast to the Commonwealth which contained the following:
I can make my solemn act of dedication with a whole Empire listening. I should like to make that dedication now. It is very simple.

I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
I think there's every indication that she meant, and still means it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-02-2006, 10:25 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,273
Elizabeth II will never abdicate. She believes it's her god anointed duty to be queen. She's always placed her "duty" before everything else. She'll gradually give Charles more and more power and responsibilities until she is no longer pysically or mentally capable of exercising the functions of the sovereign; at which time Charles will be appointed Prince Regent (ala George IV). Given her familiy history and the fact that she gets the best medical care on the planet it's entirely possible that she'll live to be over 100. Charles will be in his 70s (or even 80s) when he ascends the throne. Personally I think the monarchy would be better of if he tripped over one of his mom's corgis and broke his neck allowing a 40-something William to ascend.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:21 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
Charles is an embarassment. Tampon Boy. I don't want his ugly-ass face on my money.

I want Liz to hang on, break the record, and hand it straight to King William V.
Seconded and moreover I don't want that horsefaced ugly Camilla Parker Bowels as queen.

Charlie boy can't be a full shilling fancying that old boot, face like a blind blacksmiths thumb she has.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-03-2006, 08:18 AM
Harmonious Discord Harmonious Discord is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
She doesn't have to worry too much about Charles asasinating her for the throne. Modern forensics and the current life saving equipment, mean he would see jail if he had the inkling. England won't be without leadership, if she becomes infebled, so the people don't fret about her destroying England. She has a huge base of population that adore and respect her, so why abdicate her position?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-03-2006, 08:25 AM
Manda JO Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 8,710
I think that if monarchy means anything at all (which is debatable), it ought not be abdicated except in extreme circumstances. It isn't what you do, it's who you are.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-03-2006, 08:38 AM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowder
Seconded and moreover I don't want that horsefaced ugly Camilla Parker Bowels as queen.
She wouldn't be queen automatically, just like Phillip is not king.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-03-2006, 08:52 AM
Angua Angua is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto
She wouldn't be queen automatically, just like Phillip is not king.
Yes, but that's slightly different.

The title "King" is greater in rank than the title "Queen", so if Philip was referred to as King Philip, then the assumption would be that Philip is the sovereign and not the Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-03-2006, 09:00 AM
Malacandra Malacandra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto
She wouldn't be queen automatically, just like Phillip is not king.
Amazingly, this appears not to be the case. The wife of a King is always Queen (Consort). But the husband of a Queen (Regnant) is not a King but a Prince. Oh, and Phil The Bubble spells it with only one l.

When a King croaks, his surviving wife is still called Queen as a courtesy title, as with "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother", George VI's widow. So the country can have two or more Queens at once.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-03-2006, 09:47 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Tho I have no dog in this fight, I feel she's being somewhat of a greedy bitch, and should give her boy a shot.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-03-2006, 10:49 AM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malacandra
Amazingly, this appears not to be the case. The wife of a King is always Queen (Consort).
Interesting. I thought it had to be granted the way Philip's title would have to be. I wonder if Philip ever asked...

Per Wikipedia, (the ever-reliable source) Cammie will be known as HRH the Princess Consort upon Charles' ascension.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-03-2006, 11:35 AM
kelly5078 kelly5078 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
The queen had a great bod when she was young; very nice to see in old footage. Other than that, I couldn't care less about her.

However, aside from the fact that Charles is pretty old (and always was, as far as I can tell) this thread is disturbingly similar to the whiny ones about how the boomers are in the young people's way.

All of you piss off. As long as I'm breathing, I'm can do what I damn well please. Same goes for HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:32 PM
chappachula chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
hey, Queen Elizabeth actually has something that very few leaders have: genuine integrety.
She is totally dedicated to doing her job as well as possible. And doing it for the benefit of her country. She's never done anything scandalous, because, well...she has principles, and lives up to them.

She probably knows that after her reign, the whole institution of the monarchy will collapse. England's next kings and queens will be treated like Hollywood stars,--good for gossipping about ,but not taken seriously as national leaders.

But then, there's not much need for a monarchy in the 21st century anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:41 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua
Yes, but that's slightly different.

The title "King" is greater in rank than the title "Queen", so if Philip was referred to as King Philip, then the assumption would be that Philip is the sovereign and not the Queen.
A woman who is queen by virtue of being married to a king is a queen-consort. A man can be king-consort, but this is rare in modern times. When Mary I married the future Phillip II of Spain he was styled "King of England", but Mary I remained the sovereign and he lost his position after she died.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:19 PM
Bytegeist Bytegeist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
Charles is an embarassment. Tampon Boy. I don't want his ugly-ass face on my [ Canadian ] money.
If it's any consolation, I understand he'll probably be titled "George VII" instead. I bet the Archbishop of Canterbury is practicing the name even now, over and over, to make sure he doesn't flub it on Coronation Day.

Oh sure, a few "Tampon Boy I" bills are bound to be printed by accident, but they'll quickly be grabbed up by collectors and leave circulation.

Besides which, don't you people put loons on your coinage anyway? So what's the fuss?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:25 PM
Sunspace Sunspace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 26,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bytegeist
Besides which, don't you people put loons on your coinage anyway? So what's the fuss?
Yes, but the loon has a melodious call which floats across the water!
__________________
Rigardu, kaj vi ekvidos.
Look, and you will begin to see.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:13 PM
Belrix Belrix is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
What's the likelyhood that they'll skip Chuckie altogether and ascend William to throne?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:25 PM
Terminus Est Terminus Est is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The tropics
Posts: 5,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto
Interesting. I thought it had to be granted the way Philip's title would have to be. I wonder if Philip ever asked...

Per Wikipedia, (the ever-reliable source) Cammie will be known as HRH the Princess Consort upon Charles' ascension.
The Master speaks on Prince Philip's title:
Quote:
Eventually Albert was named prince consort. The title became so thoroughly identified with him that Prince Philip hasn't dared to assume it, and he remains an ordinary old prince.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:26 PM
Bippy the Beardless Bippy the Beardless is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I get the impression that Charles realy isn't up to the job. And Queen is waiting till Wiliam can take over. The reason for this feeling is the very small number of official and important activities that Charles is given. He rarely seems to get the Embasadorial role, just left to argue about architecture and play with his organic farming and Prince's trust.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:31 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 21,982
Other than looks, doesn't William take after his father more than his mother? I thought he's more like Charles in personality than Diana. Am I wrong about that?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:57 PM
Hippy Hollow Hippy Hollow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Dear Lord, what's with all of the Charles hate? Yes, he's been involved in some embarrassing scandals but he has been the dutiful son, served in the Royal Navy, and has been tirelessly campaigning for conservation, pandas, good architecture... and he raised two sons after the tragic death of his ex-wife (and no, I don't want to hear how he was involved in Di's death). I was going to say "two fine sons," but that's up for debate.

I think he'd be a fine king once Lizzie 2 leaves this mortal coil, but he probably won't have long. For some reason I see him more likely abdicating for William.

William does look like his mum but he has that same Mountbatten-ness about him... the hands behind the back, the mannerisms...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-03-2006, 05:28 PM
Frank Frank is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 17,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious Discord
She doesn't have to worry too much about Charles asasinating her for the throne. Modern forensics and the current life saving equipment, mean he would see jail if he had the inkling.
Couldn't he pardon himself?

When the Crown Prince in Nepal wiped out his entire family a few years back, he was king for the two days he lived in hospital. I remember wondering who could do anything about the crime had he survived to reign.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-03-2006, 05:33 PM
Cunctator Cunctator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bowral, NSW, Australia
Posts: 10,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belrix
What's the likelyhood that they'll skip Chuckie altogether and ascend William to throne?
Zero I'd say. Charles has been waiting all his life to become King. I can't see him giving up that right. And he'd have to agree to being passed over in the succession in favour of his son.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-03-2006, 09:39 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank
Couldn't he pardon himself?

When the Crown Prince in Nepal wiped out his entire family a few years back, he was king for the two days he lived in hospital. I remember wondering who could do anything about the crime had he survived to reign.
Well if the Queen survived the murder attempt Charles wouldn't be able to do anything. Parliament would very quicky pass an act removing him from the succesion. If she died then Charles would be deposed just like Charles II was. All parliament need do is pass an act declaring that Charles is no longet king and that the throne devolves to William. Charles doesn't even need to sign the bill. Three or five Lords Commision will assent in his name (Victoria was the last monarch to sign a bill in person.).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-03-2006, 11:16 PM
Rysto Rysto is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867
(Victoria was the last monarch to sign a bill in person.).
What about the Canada Act, 1982?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-03-2006, 11:24 PM
Lama Pacos Lama Pacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Honestly, it blows my mind that Britain retains its royal system. I know we Americans are probably doing worse in terms of actual freedom nowadays, but the symbolism of the monarchy seems so glaringly anti-democratic that it really just amazes me that it's allowed to stick around.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-03-2006, 11:30 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rysto
What about the Canada Act, 1982?
Okay no British monarch has signed a bill in person, but Canadian monarchs have.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-04-2006, 12:57 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,442
Why does the Queen of England hang on? Why can't she retire so Charles can be King?

She could retire, but no female monarch of Britain ever has, so why should she be the first?

Who in the world would want Charles as king? (Not quite as bad as his racist old man, but he still comes across as petulant and vindictive in the stories I've read on him.)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-04-2006, 02:07 AM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belrix
What's the likelyhood that they'll skip Chuckie altogether and ascend William to throne?

Unless Charles himself steps down and abdicates, absolutely none.

People used to say the same thing about Queen Victoria-that she should have stepped aside and let her son be king, that Prince Albert Edward would make a terrible king. But Edward VII was a very popular and capable monarch. You never know-Charles might surprise us.


Lama Pacos-you are aware that Britain is not the only monarchy, right? Off the top of my head, there's Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-04-2006, 02:57 AM
Eliahna Eliahna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 6,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippy Hollow
William does look like his mum but he has that same Mountbatten-ness about him... the hands behind the back, the mannerisms...
William may look like his mother, but he sure has a good dose of Prince Philip's genes too. This photo of a young Philip could almost be mistaken for his grandson.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-04-2006, 03:35 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia
Lama Pacos-you are aware that Britain is not the only monarchy, right? Off the top of my head, there's Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
And in Spain there's similar conversations now and then. The bets basically go two ways:

A - Queen Sofia will tell her husband to be a good ol' boy and abdicate once she's got Leti all trained up, but not before.

B - Like hell she will.

For some reason, it didn't really come up until we got the Crown Prince married off...

(Yes, the King is Juan Carlos and the Consort is Sofia, but anybody who's wondered about who's got the brains there says it's her).
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-04-2006, 03:51 AM
Baffle Baffle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
The Queen of England is her government's most experienced advisor, who's had an entire lifetime to practice the art of statesmanship. (Stateswomanship? Is there a gender-neutral term?)

The existence of at least one permanent advisor, experienced, knowledgeable and apolitical, is a very good idea that should be emulated elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-04-2006, 04:04 AM
Horatio Hellpop Horatio Hellpop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jinan, China
Posts: 7,705
I think there's a misconception in this thread about the nature of royalty. Elizabeth isn't the Queen because she earned the job or because she won a contest. She didn't make herself a monarch, God did. Nothing she does can interfere with His will. Charles can sit back and enjoy the ride. If he ever ascends the throne, it will only be because God wills it.

It's not a meritocracy and it doesn't go to the person who most deserves it. The process of succession is as removed from such notions as is possible. It's that way on purpose. Royals don't have impressive personal qualities, they have bloodlines to other royals in antiquity.

If the subjects got to pick the new monarch, the job would probably go to someone like David Beckham or Eric Clapton. The ruled aren't wise enough to choose properly, so they're not part of the process. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that that's how it is.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-04-2006, 05:55 AM
Sparrow Sparrow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
She can't retire, any more than your mother or father could retire from being your parent. She's Queen till she dies. She just IS.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-04-2006, 06:06 AM
Pushkin Pushkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
I want Liz to hang on, break the record, and hand it straight to King William V.
Great, another King William...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-04-2006, 06:16 AM
Rilchiam Rilchiam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowder
Seconded and moreover I don't want that horsefaced ugly Camilla Parker Bowels as queen.

Charlie boy can't be a full shilling fancying that old boot, face like a blind blacksmiths thumb she has.
No doubt you know more about her than I do, so perhaps she has an unpleasant personality, but I see nothing wrong with her appearance. Plus which, Diana really wasn't all that. Do I recall correctly that she applied to a modeling agency, before she met Chuck, and was turned down? At any rate, it was her charm (not to mention the best stylists and so forth) that made her so revered, not her intrinsic looks. Does Camilla look that much worse than the average female Briton her age? I'd wager she looks better than some, at least.

krokodil: So you don't vote for kings, is that it?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-04-2006, 06:18 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
She can't retire, any more than your mother or father could retire from being your parent. She's Queen till she dies. She just IS.
They can't retire but they can abdicate; it's extremely rare, though.

Charles the I of Castille, V of Navarra, I of Aragon, V of Germany and lots of other numbers from other places did, about two years before his death. But he was almost immobilized by gout and wanted to have time to meditate and pray before the reaper arrived.

There's cases in Spanish history of kings being forced to abdicate by parliament, kings being declared uncapable by parliament (Sancho el Craso of Navarra was one of them: he was so fat he couldn't even walk, once he got his weight down to normal size he got the throne back but with the caveat that if he started inflating again off you go "and this time it's forever"), kings abdicating but being told by parliament that they weren't accepting it...

Who needs soap operas when you have history books.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-04-2006, 07:00 AM
Diceman Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
[QUOTE=KrokodilIf the subjects got to pick the new monarch, the job would probably go to someone like David Beckham or Eric Clapton. The ruled aren't wise enough to choose properly, so they're not part of the process. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that that's how it is.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I'm starting to think you guys may be onto something over there. In 2004, our country had to choose between George W. "Warmonger" Bush and John "Spineless Ameoba" Kelly. Talk about a choice that shakes your faith in democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-04-2006, 09:10 AM
Bytegeist Bytegeist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman
Hey, I'm starting to think you guys may be onto something over there. In 2004, our country had to choose between George W. "Warmonger" Bush and John "Spineless Ameoba" Kelly. Talk about a choice that shakes your faith in democracy.
You might have taken a look at John "Volunteered for Vietnam" Kerry, who was also on the ballot that year. I'll admit neither of those two guys you mention sound very appealing.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-04-2006, 09:24 AM
Rysto Rysto is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867
Okay no British monarch has signed a bill in person, but Canadian monarchs have.
The Canada Act was an Act of British Parliament. But the article is unclear whether the Queen signed the Canada Act or the Constitution Act(the corresponding bill in Canada) or both.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-04-2006, 09:28 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pushkin
Great, another King William...

Yes indeed but I belive he hates all things Orange
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-04-2006, 09:35 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 31,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lama Pacos
Honestly, it blows my mind that Britain retains its royal system. I know we Americans are probably doing worse in terms of actual freedom nowadays, but the symbolism of the monarchy seems so glaringly anti-democratic that it really just amazes me that it's allowed to stick around.
It's only anti-democratic if your political system was founded upon rejection of monarchy in favour of democracy. In the case of England/the UK, democracy developed as a partner to monarchy. Republicanism is not the only form of democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-04-2006, 09:39 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilchiam
No doubt you know more about her than I do, so perhaps she has an unpleasant personality, but I see nothing wrong with her appearance. Plus which, Diana really wasn't all that. Do I recall correctly that she applied to a modeling agency, before she met Chuck, and was turned down? At any rate, it was her charm (not to mention the best stylists and so forth) that made her so revered, not her intrinsic looks. Does Camilla look that much worse than the average female Briton her age? I'd wager she looks better than some, at least.

krokodil: So you don't vote for kings, is that it?
[Rilchiam]
Unpleasant? she shagged Charlie boy knowing full well he was married.

Admittedly Diana wasn't the most beautiful woman on earth by any stretch of the imagination but she had something with CPB hasn't.
CPB looks FAR worse than the average female never mind Briton.

Strewth, gimme a break here, she's an ugly bastard for sure.


You don't perchance fancy her do you
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-04-2006, 10:07 AM
Lama Pacos Lama Pacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
It's only anti-democratic if your political system was founded upon rejection of monarchy in favour of democracy. In the case of England/the UK, democracy developed as a partner to monarchy. Republicanism is not the only form of democracy.
I'm not actively comparing the British monarchy to America's model-- God knows we're fucked up enough. I just feel that the symbolism of monarchy is shockingly anti-populistic for what is otherwise a fairly egalitarian society.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-04-2006, 10:22 AM
OneCentStamp OneCentStamp is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 7,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastAllReason
On her 21st birthday she gave a radio broadcast to the Commonwealth which contained the following:
I can make my solemn act of dedication with a whole Empire listening. I should like to make that dedication now. It is very simple.

I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
I think there's every indication that she meant, and still means it.
And more importantly, on the day she delivered that address, she was the finest woman on the face of the damned planet. I saw footage of her doing the broadcast, and she was so freaking beautiful. And not beautiful in a "I have a team of people making six figures to keep me looking this good" Princess Diana way. She just looked healthy, intelligent, young and earnest. And had a killer body, as has been noted.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-04-2006, 12:26 PM
SnakesCatLady SnakesCatLady is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
I've seen a photograph of HRH Queen Elizabeth's coronation portrait, and she was very beautiful.

I don't consider Camilla attractive at all - she's ugly and I don't like the fact that she destroyed Charles' marriage. But I never considered old what's her name - the one Edward abdicated for - to be attractive either.

I'm not British and don't remember the details, but when Charles married old horse-face wasn't it made very clear that she would never be named Queen?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.