• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Prince Andrew (Allegations of Famous People Engaged in Bad Sex Part 57)

3point14 said:
Probably by the same.

We can keep playing that game until we get to the first migration of man if you like?
Click to expand...
No. It was usurped by the English crown. Scotland escaped that fate, at least until a bit later.
Hence the emerging requirement to ensure that the duchy was placed firmly within England, the downgrading of the charters and the growth of duchy ‘rotten boroughs’. These gerrymandered parliamentary seats were created to maintain ducal powers and privileges through the exercise of parliamentary leverage - which in turn gave rise to early attempts at what was to later become an avalanche of so-called ‘Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts’. Acts that were themselves designed to lessen the duke’s reliance on troublesome, and constitutionally ‘dangerous’, duchy charters and oversee the beginnings of the slow transformation from Duchy of Cornwall constitutional entity to pseudo-‘private estate’.
Click to expand...
http://duchyofcornwall.eu/history02.php
 
3point14 said:
The Cornish.

A quick google reveals that it was stolen during the Norman invasion when some fellow rocked up with a big old army, put a flag in the ground and said 'this is mine cos I have the biggest army. Anyone wanna argue?' and that was that.

After that it was passed around through various thieves and sons of thieves until it ended up with Charles.
Click to expand...
Did that break some law? I thought William had the OK from the Pope?
 
3point14 said:
The Cornish.

A quick google reveals that it was stolen during the Norman invasion when some fellow rocked up with a big old army, put a flag in the ground and said 'this is mine cos I have the biggest army. Anyone wanna argue?' and that was that.

After that it was passed around through various thieves and sons of thieves until it ended up with Charles.
Click to expand...

And the Normans took it from the Saxons, who stole it from the Celtic British, who stole it from Earlier Inhabitants.......

It goes on forever. Not a big fan of the British Monarchy, but that is a really weak stick to attack them with.
 
dudalb said:
And the Normans took it from the Saxons, who stole it from the Celtic British, who stole it from Earlier Inhabitants.......

It goes on forever. Not a big fan of the British Monarchy, but that is a really weak stick to attack them with.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about one group of inhabitants v another. We're talking about the Crown Estate. It's not an "inhabitant". Suppose some company run by the family of the US president took over let's say Rhode Island, and when the inhabitants questioned this, were to say, well you took it over from previous inhabitants. So that's that.
 
3point14 said:
That which is purchased with that which is stolen is not legitamately obtained. In my opinion. All hereditary lands, titles, incomes and privilidges come from this. Either that or entitlement is issued by some non-existant deity (From god to king to man) which has no legitimacy either. Those deeded to the crown under threat of military action don't count as they count as stolen, the same for anything gifted by the Pope or other religious figure.

If there are any other ways that the Saxe-Coburg's obtained their lands in the UK then those methods may cause me to re-think my opinioin but at the moment this bolshy individual believes all crown assets were obtained by illigitmate means and are a damaging anachronism in the modern, democratic world.
Click to expand...

All of which happened at least a quarter of a century ago. One could say the same thing for land confiscated or appropriated by the state in the years since then, or indeed for property that passed from one person to another by means that in retrospect we might think not legitimate now. None of which is going to be miraculously rolled back, of course. Complaining about "hereditary lands" also seems odd, given that most people want to leave something to their next of kin. Is it only a problem when it is something big and valuable?
 
Myron Proudfoot said:
one US RW blogger announces proof that the photo of Andrew with the young woman is a fake, because the pixels are different sizes. I'll let you mull over how different pixels in the same digital file could be "different sizes"


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...es_Hes_Totally_Clueless_About_Digital_Imagery
Click to expand...

I read the LGF takedown and had a good laugh. Before that, I wanted to be charitable and attribute it to poor wording on the part of the journalist. After all, if you photoshop two photos into one, they're very likely to have a different original pixelation and there may be tells in the end product that this was the case.

OTOH, it's very unlikely that it would take nearly four years for someone to come up with the claim that the photo was a photoshop job. After all, the Daily Fail already published it in March 2011.
 
Craig B said:
I imagine Edward VII would have taken care of this detail personally, or at least have ensured that the women in question were duly compensated.
Click to expand...
He was also nice enough to send a wreath for the coffin of his age-peer, colleague and fellow debauchee prince Willem, heir apparent of the Netherlands, who died after five years in Paris of sex, drinking and gambling.

Nitpick: isn 't it technically wrong to refer here to "Edward VII"? After all, we're discussing here his life when he was still Prince of Wales.
 
ddt said:
He was also nice enough to send a wreath for the coffin of his age-peer, colleague and fellow debauchee prince Willem, heir apparent of the Netherlands, who died after five years in Paris of sex, drinking and gambling.

Nitpick: isn 't it technically wrong to refer here to "Edward VII"? After all, we're discussing here his life when he was still Prince of Wales.
Click to expand...

can you die of sex and gambling?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
can you die of sex and gambling?
Click to expand...
I didn't claim that, but, indirectly yes, you can. The sex may be an unusually strenuous activity which causes some bodily failure, e.g., a heart attack. The gambling may leave you too broke to buy decent food or healthcare. Or it may leave you indebted with an unscrupulous money lender who sends some thugs your way.

[ / derail ]
 
ddt said:
How do you manage to drag him into every thread? :boggled:
Click to expand...
My comment was directed not at the Dutch, but at the admirers of King Billy, who are to this day embarrassed by this support from Rome. These partisans of King Billy tend to be uncritical devotees of Royalty.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
Nitpick: isn 't it technically wrong to refer here to "Edward VII"? After all, we're discussing here his life when he was still Prince of Wales.
Click to expand...
Yes, but when people say, "The Prince of Wales was a debauched degenerate" it is not clear which one is meant, so it's better to specify the future regnal designation. But one ought to say, "the future" Charles II, George IV, Edward VII, Edward VIII, For the sake of technical accuracy.
 
FromBelgiumWithLove said:
My point was that the Daily Mail thinks that a skiiing chalet having a place to store skis and boots is one of those extravagances. But then, elsewhere in the article they also enviously note: "The master bedroom has its own en-suite bathroom". Such decadence!
Click to expand...

Indoor plumbing? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

I also love the use of the word 'opulent' in those articles.
Everything that you'd think was luxurious, automatically becomes "opulent" when you're a royal accused of being a 'pedophile'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom