The Mail and the Monarchy

Disgusting Liberal · **Posted:** Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:10 pm

Dimmimar wrote:

Women and Catholics given equal rights!? OUTRAGE!

It's not the women that worrie people.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:33 pm

Secret documents cast doubt on legality of Charles's wedding

Quote:

In that case hopefully 'that woman' will never be queen.

- S.Cooper, GB, 8/11/2008 22:43

A Diana fanatic who just can't let go

Quote:

What is the point in opening this up, they are married! Why would you want to prove otherwise, because if it was a mess up and they aren't, they can do it all again in whatever way the law deems. Seems to me a monumental waste of taxpayers money to look into this, just let them be

- Claire, Wirral, 9/11/2008 0:07

I agree. Full credit for getting the waste of taxpayers money angle into it.

Quote:

Charles must be Defender of the Faith according to our laws, and he cannot just opt out of this and become some stupid defender of faiths, when they all conflict with one another! That is ludicrous! The church refused to marry the two and for good reason! Charles cannot and should not be King. It is illegal! Step aside Charlie boy!

- Michael Collins, Canterbury, England, 9/11/2008 0:29

But...but...I don't WANT him to be King!!!

Quote:

Of course his wedding was illegal and inappropriate for a supposedly future king! Charles can do as he pleases due to the lack of a British democracy! I have always been a royalist and admired the Queen but I have zero respect for the rest of them and I will vote for a Repoublic if we get such a referendum simply to shove Charles and his mistress out! If we must have a King and Queen, why not Prince Edward and Sophie who at least behave with decorum? Or the Princess Royal?

- Robard Sinclair (Brit Expat), Auckland, NZ, 9/11/2008 1:04

I'm reminded of that immortal Monty Python quote "I'm your King", "Well I didn't vote for you!"

Quote:

Ridiculous. What about the Royal Family's human rights? If the law needs changing first, then change it!

- Lisa, Berkshire, 9/11/2008 1:54

My view? Who cares? Clearly they love each other, and who are we to question that?

office_tramp · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:17 pm

Imagine if they'd been such a thing as a Daily Mail message board when Hentry VIII was going through wives like a dose of salts. They'd all have been beheaded for failing to recognise the legitimacy of wife number #. Ah, the good old days!

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:15 pm

Apologies for thread digging...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... yrant.html

Quote:

A dark and deliciously murky secret hovers over the continuing relationship between Prince William and his girlfriend Kate Middleton - a skeleton so large that even a vast royal closet would struggle to contain it.

For the Mail can reveal that William and Kate are distant cousins. Not only that, the common ancestor who links the two lovers is a murderous despot whose bloody deeds have been deliberately forgotten by history. Until now.

The man who links William and Kate as kith and kin is Sir Thomas Leighton, an Elizabethan soldier, diplomat and, for 40 years, the cut-throat Governor of Guernsey.

He is William's 12th generation great-grandparent, and Kate's 11th, making them 12th cousins, once removed.

So you go far enough back in history and two people happen to be related. By fuck, this is massive news.

ACG · **Posted:** Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:30 pm

bluebellnutter wrote:

So you go far enough back in history and two people happen to be related. By fuck, this is massive news.

two members of the british upper class no less!
egads!

Abernathy · **Posted:** Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:51 pm

Isn't in-breeding standard practice in royal circles?

ACG · **Posted:** Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:03 pm

Abernathy wrote:

Isn't in-breeding standard practice in royal circles?

maybe the shock in this story is how unrelated they are?

hel · **Posted:** Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:06 pm

This could go in the photoshop thread too...

ACG · **Posted:** Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:36 pm

hel wrote:

This could go in the photoshop thread too...

hmm, the princess and the pea-head.

Paul · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:00 pm

Queen's £38m a year offshore windfarm windfall - because she owns the seabed

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l#comments#ixzz13GyZ4Gr8

Some dodgy statistics and assertions in this one.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:00 pm

I like the way that some commenters completely miss the point of hereditary monarchy. We had one a while ago doing "you know who I'd have? Princesse Anne" She's ninth in line. I can see why even a lot of monarchists don't like Charles, but can't see what William's done to rule himself out of contention.

Timbo · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:28 pm

I think when the time comes, there's going to be a heavy emphasis on the fact that Charles' reign will be short, and a lot of focus will be given to William.

Son Of Hand · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:48 pm

office_tramp wrote:

Imagine if they'd been such a thing as a Daily Mail message board when Hentry VIII was going through wives like a dose of salts. They'd all have been beheaded for failing to recognise the legitimacy of wife number #. Ah, the good old days!

Can you imagine a Tudor Mailite on the scaffold?

' I die the King's good servant... but not that woman's!'

Waterstones · **Joined:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:26 pm **Posts:** 298

I have noticed that in the case of the Monarchy the Mail want both ways,they don't like it if the Royals don't do anything but don't like it if they do do anything(case in point Harry going to Afghanistan.)

crabcakes_windermere · **Joined:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:56 pm **Posts:** 2084

Waterstones wrote:

I have noticed that in the case of pretty much every topic the Mail want both ways, they don't like it if someone doesn't do anything but don't like it if they do do anything

Fixed that for you.

The Mail and the Monarchy

Who is online