Fogbow

I don't know diddly squat about the royals. I have never heard the spoken voices of either Harry or Meghan. I haven't looked at enough photos to have a clue as to the color of her skin. I couldn't pick her out of a lineup. I avoid the royals like the plague, and ask that ol' Wifehorn change the subject when she starts discussing her admittedly encyclopedic knowledge of the gossip.

But I do understand the comment that if you wish to be left alone, you don't write a tell-all book and give it huge promotion. I was in a Barnes & Noble yesterday and there was a table full of Spare, right in the middle of the store such that you really couldn't avoid seeing it.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:05 pm This talk of "invalidating" King Charles' coronation, whatever that means, made me think of a question.

While I don't believe that Charles affair with Camilla while he was still married to Diana is a crime, it was bad optics for a future King.

Given that the Church of England was (to quote an Irish former boss of mine) "founded on the balls of Henry the Eighth" the personal peccadilloes of Chas III are hardly disabling! Perhaps compulsory?

I defer to the constitutionalists on parliament versus king but I suspect the ordinary courts are our of bounds as criminal cases are titles "R. v. Somebody" (R = rex, formerly regina). A case of "R. v. R." might be tricksy. But I know nothing of any law.

Charles II had three mistresses while married to his his wife, so I think people who "tut tut" about Charles and Camilla can fuck right off. Especially if they think it makes his Coronation invalid for some reason known only to the stick inhabiting their Asses.

Also, there is the rather famous case of Edward II whom his wife executed though application of a red hot poker shoved up his ass. Partially due to his 20 year habit of being friendly with hunky men.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:13 pm I can see why people would take different views on Harry. My own take, based on what I saw from quite a ways away, was that in his youth he didn't look like someone I'd want to know, through no fault of his own, but that the military changed him completely into someone I liked and respected.

As for Meghan--I am appalled by the amount of shade that is thrown on her here and around the world for what seem to me to be foolish reasons. According to the polls, these folks are in the minority, so that's reassuring. Too also, the amount of racism she encountered in the UK was sickening.

Except, she wasn't. The British press and public fawned over her and Harry. Were there some idiots who did act like racist feckwits, sure, were they more than a microscopic minority, nope.

The negative publicity kicked in around her actual or perceived acts, actions or activities, not race.

Now, that is based on actual facts, headlines and editorials at the time, not a version of "my truth"

Mr brolin wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:50 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:13 pm I can see why people would take different views on Harry. My own take, based on what I saw from quite a ways away, was that in his youth he didn't look like someone I'd want to know, through no fault of his own, but that the military changed him completely into someone I liked and respected.

As for Meghan--I am appalled by the amount of shade that is thrown on her here and around the world for what seem to me to be foolish reasons. According to the polls, these folks are in the minority, so that's reassuring. Too also, the amount of racism she encountered in the UK was sickening.

Except, she wasn't. The British press and public fawned over her and Harry. Were there some idiots who did act like racist feckwits, sure, were they more than a microscopic minority, nope.

The negative publicity kicked in around her actual or perceived acts, actions or activities, not race.

Now, that is based on actual facts, headlines and editorials at the time, not a version of "my truth"

I'm not going to claim that I was keeping a close eye on the press coverage around them, but that is the impression I got from what I saw. Pictures and stories of Megan and Harry were EVERYWHERE. It was full on Diana levels of hero worship. Even now there is a bias in favour of Megan and against the rest of the Royal Family in the Press coverage. I think the public is starting to get tired of it based on my Mothers reaction to it all, but the fact that the book is a best seller is proof enough that the Public has not exactly turned against Harry, at least.

And ya, that's why I am baffled by people going on and on and ON about the "race" angle. It simply never, ever came up over here in any coverage that I saw. No-one cared.

cnnbrk@c.im
CNN Breaking News
@cnnbrk@c.im
Buckingham Palace reveals details of the coronation of King Charles III in May https://cnn.it/3XKKmKf

While we're talking about Royal extramarital affairs, someone please name the last King who we're pretty sure DID NOT have an affair or 29?

I'll wait.

My question is this: Does the British legal or political system have any formal procedure for removing a monarch who is shown to have committed real "high crimes and misdemeanors"? I don't know of any, at least any that is formalized in law. Let me just say that I don't believe that Charles has committed any crimes.

They've made one a head shorter (Charles II), starved one to death in the Tower (Richard II), Deposed one, who undeposed himself only to be deposed again (Henry VI) made one disappear in the Tower (Edward V), one killed in battle in a fight that started back with the guy who kept getting deposed (Richard III) and one who got kicked out for (the story goes) falling for a twice divorced American (although being a Nazi friendly kind of guy might have been part of it).

Losing the job, historically, has not been good for one's health.

Foggy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:51 pm I don't know diddly squat about the royals. I have never heard the spoken voices of either Harry or Meghan. I haven't looked at enough photos to have a clue as to the color of her skin. I couldn't pick her out of a lineup. I avoid the royals like the plague, and ask that ol' Wifehorn change the subject when she starts discussing her admittedly encyclopedic knowledge of the gossip.

But I do understand the comment that if you wish to be left alone, you don't write a tell-all book and give it huge promotion. I was in a Barnes & Noble yesterday and there was a table full of Spare, right in the middle of the store such that you really couldn't avoid seeing it.

Yeah, he want to be left alone, but at the same time he has to have some way to earn a living.

He is no longer on the Royal payroll but I understand that he is a pretty good helicopter pilot.

Suranis wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 5:30 pm

And ya, that's why I am baffled by people going on and on and ON about the "race" angle. It simply never, ever came up over here in any coverage that I saw. No-one cared.

Yeah, pretty much.

As I understand it, the public exposure of the 'race card' was on Megs herself claiming that race was definitely an issue within the Royal Family. 'Someone' making snide remarks about "what color the baby would be", and other examples. The racist attitude of some of those closest to the Queen (not necessarily in the family) has been documented.

Also, her much publicised falling out with Kate may have been triggered by that event (not that Kate was the offender, but maybe she didn't support Meghan as much as Megs would have liked), and it has also been alleged that Kate was jealous of Meg's popularity.

Her acting out that resulted in the 'fall from popular grace' may have had a perfectly 'logical' initiation.

And you have to realize that once the tabloid smell blood in the water, they just spin out of control.

keith wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:43 pm Yeah, he want to be left alone, but at the same time he has to have some way to earn a living.

He is no longer on the Royal payroll but I understand that he is a pretty good helicopter pilot.

It seems Harry and Megs are just fine on the financial front. As I heard him say in an interview, the book was about self-healing (not the wording he used). He received a $20mil advance for it.

Beyond that, Forbes outlines other ventures/projects going on. They are not going to be homeless or hungry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieport ... ion-deals/

keith wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:43 pm He is no longer on the Royal payroll but I understand that he is a pretty good helicopter pilot.

Someone should send him a recruitment video for the 699th, maybe?

keith wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:43 pm

Foggy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:51 pm I don't know diddly squat about the royals. I have never heard the spoken voices of either Harry or Meghan. I haven't looked at enough photos to have a clue as to the color of her skin. I couldn't pick her out of a lineup. I avoid the royals like the plague, and ask that ol' Wifehorn change the subject when she starts discussing her admittedly encyclopedic knowledge of the gossip.

But I do understand the comment that if you wish to be left alone, you don't write a tell-all book and give it huge promotion. I was in a Barnes & Noble yesterday and there was a table full of Spare, right in the middle of the store such that you really couldn't avoid seeing it.

Yeah, he want to be left alone, but at the same time he has to have some way to earn a living.

He is no longer on the Royal payroll but I understand that he is a pretty good helicopter pilot.

Which pays about 2% of what he needs to make to maintain his lifestyle.

Someone should send him a recruitment video for the 699th, maybe?

Is he willing to work for Pupperoni and teenie greenies?

I just saw this on facebook, and it made me think of the people having exaggerated fainting spells about Charles III and Camilla. I also do not know if its true or not, but hey.

A lot of the fainting spells back in the day had to do with perception of Diana as young and pretty and Camilla as old(er) and homely. I think I recall some descriptions of her as horse faced.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:53 pm A lot of the fainting spells back in the day had to do with perception of Diana as young and pretty and Camilla as old(er) and homely. I think I recall some descriptions of her as horse faced.

Wasn't it more about her still (?) being married to Andrew Parker Bowles while the two of them had an adulterous relationship?

It was not a dalliance that demonstrated high moral standards not befitted the future head of the country's established church.

It’s good to be King!
(Mel Brooks movie quote)

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:48 pm It’s good to be King!
(Mel Brooks movie quote)

History of the World, Part I.....






And, Robin Hood, Men in Tights...

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:34 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:53 pm A lot of the fainting spells back in the day had to do with perception of Diana as young and pretty and Camilla as old(er) and homely. I think I recall some descriptions of her as horse faced.

Wasn't it more about her still (?) being married to Andrew Parker Bowles while the two of them had an adulterous relationship?

It was not a dalliance that demonstrated high moral standards not befitted the future head of the country's established church.

Henry VIII has entered the chat...

(also too, pretty much every British King since Edward the Confessor)

Camilla was not unattractive when she was young, she just never had the glamour looks Diana did. And she hasn't aged well if you ask me but no one who matters has so here we are. The King seems genuinely happy, both of their previous spouses has passed away and THAT is all that the Church demands or desires as far as them being together now.

The Queen when she was younger...

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:34 pm It was not a dalliance that demonstrated high moral standards not befitted the future head of the country's established church.

I actually heard this on TV this weekend. "This was a Church founded on the Balls of King Henry."

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:56 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:34 pm It was not a dalliance that demonstrated high moral standards not befitted the future head of the country's established church.

I actually heard this on TV this weekend. "This was a Church founded on the Balls of King Henry."

That's a famous phrase though I cannot say who originated it. I had read it by middle school.

Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:03 pm That's a famous phrase though I cannot say who originated it. I had read it by middle school.

I'd never heard it before so it got a laugh out of me.

This is a true, totally serious, 100% factual history of Britain, beginning with 'enry of Eight.

Queen Camilla to wear controversial Queen Mary's Crown at coronation

KATIE KINDELAN
Tue, February 14, 2023 at 10:57 PM GMT+1

The exact crown Camilla, the Queen Consort, will wear at the coronation in May has finally been announced.

Camilla, who will be crowned alongside her husband King Charles III, will wear the Queen Mary's Crown, Buckingham Palace confirmed Tuesday.

The crown has been removed from the display at the Tower of London in order to make modifications to it ahead of the May 6, 2023, coronation, the palace said.

Camilla's decision to wear the Queen's Mary Crown at the coronation brings with it some controversy and a historic first.

This will be the first time in "recent history" that a queen consort has used an existing crown for a coronation, instead of having a new one made, according to the palace.




https://www.yahoo.com/gma/queen-camilla ... 47052.html

(original: Good Morning America)

aka remove the controversial koh-i-nor diamond once an treasured Indian artefact.

Camilla is recycling!!! Good for her!!!

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:12 am Camilla is recycling!!! Good for her!!!

Yeah, I thought that was good, and apparently a conscious part of why she chose to do it this way.