Buckingham Palace - what's going on?

Tony Stark said:
I guess the reason I ask is that I don't think you need any ability to be passable as the head of state. Hell Donald Trump could be a decent head of state if he didn't also have to be head of government and commander in chief.
Click to expand...

You don't really. I suppose the only thing you really need is the right image and in that sense I suppose Charles lacks it in the way his mother and his son doesn't.
 
angrysoba said:
You don't really. I suppose the only thing you really need is the right image and in that sense I suppose Charles lacks it in the way his mother and his son doesn't.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? She looks like a partially-mummified hairless cat, and William's ninety-percent bald spot and ten percent pudge now. True, Charles looks like he's been boiled in vinegar then beaten in the face until the bones squished, but that's perfectly appropriate for royalty. Royalty is considered exceptionally handsome if they have at least one chin, but not more chins than they have teeth, and the chin and teeth don't meet at an angle three inches past the end of the nose. If you're thinking about Charles's ridiculous ears, don't worry: he can always wear his mother's hats to hide them. That would be regally dignified.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What are you talking about? She looks like a partially-mummified hairless cat, and William's ninety-percent bald spot and ten percent pudge now. True, Charles looks like he's been boiled in vinegar then beaten in the face until the bones squished, but that's perfectly appropriate for royalty. Royalty is considered exceptionally handsome if they have at least one chin, but not more chins than they have teeth, and the chin and teeth don't meet at an angle three inches past the end of the nose. If you're thinking about Charles's ridiculous ears, don't worry: he can always wear his mother's hats to hide them. That would be regally dignified.
Click to expand...

Just looked up a recent picture of him. Damn only 34, not much older than me. I almost feel sorry for him.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What are you talking about? She looks like a partially-mummified hairless cat, and William's ninety-percent bald spot and ten percent pudge now. True, Charles looks like he's been boiled in vinegar then beaten in the face until the bones squished, but that's perfectly appropriate for royalty. Royalty is considered exceptionally handsome if they have at least one chin, but not more chins than they have teeth, and the chin and teeth don't meet at an angle three inches past the end of the nose. If you're thinking about Charles's ridiculous ears, don't worry: he can always wear his mother's hats to hide them. That would be regally dignified.
Click to expand...

Well of course they all look ghastly, ghastly, like a cross between Beijing and Stoke-on-Trent, but I was thinking more of their reputation than their physical appearance.
 
angrysoba said:
Well of course they all look ghastly, ghastly, like a cross between Beijing and Stoke-on-Trent, but I was thinking more of their reputation than their physical appearance.
Click to expand...

What's Charles's reputation? I've always considered him a boring old fart, even his scandals are dull stuff. How do others see him? As wickedly malevolent? Sinfully seductive? Mad? Evil? Any of those, alone or in combination, would make him significantly more interesting and therefore maximize his entertainment value, so they'd be quite desirable in a royal...oh, I see! Charles is simply too uninteresting to be a decent monarch! Elizabeth had the war, and her murder spree, and her feuds with the other royals to make her interesting, and of course the silly hats. William has the pretty wife and cute children and his erotic sculpture-carving hobby to make him interesting. What does Charles do? Drink homeopathic tea and write letters complaining about architecture! Maybe, if he's feeling really wild, and has recklessly consumed more than three cups of herbal tea, he'll get out a stamp and collect it.

Screw that. Just give the crown to Harry, who will probably puke into it during a bender, and make the nation all the better for it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What's Charles's reputation? I've always considered him a boring old fart, even his scandals are dull stuff. How do others see him? As wickedly malevolent? Sinfully seductive? Mad? Evil? Any of those, alone or in combination, would make him significantly more interesting and therefore maximize his entertainment value, so they'd be quite desirable in a royal...oh, I see! Charles is simply too uninteresting to be a decent monarch! Elizabeth had the war, and her murder spree, and her feuds with the other royals to make her interesting, and of course the silly hats. William has the pretty wife and cute children and his erotic sculpture-carving hobby to make him interesting. What does Charles do? Drink homeopathic tea and write letters complaining about architecture! Maybe, if he's feeling really wild, and has recklessly consumed more than three cups of herbal tea, he'll get out a stamp and collect it.

Screw that. Just give the crown to Harry, who will probably puke into it during a bender, and make the nation all the better for it.
Click to expand...

Definitely much better idea. King Henry IX, who would not be the first king to dabble in a bit of Nazi horseplay and strip snooker with drunken wenches. I think if the monarchy is about anything at all it should be about naked privelege flaunted jeeringly at the povos of the kingdom.
 
angrysoba said:
I think the suggested theory that she is prolonging her life somehow to prevent Charles becoming king is preposterous for a number of reasons. Obviously it raises the question of just how she is able to do that. Is it through willpower or through bathing in the blood of virgin humans giving vitality to her reptilian heart? Or could her long life be attributed more to a combination of good genes (her mother lived to over 100 after all) and an active lifestyle with every existing resource at her disposal for good nutrition and modern medicine plus a literal army to protect her. She's in her early nineties which is not inordinately old for someone with her advantages.

But in addition to that, we're projecting our tabloid-informed opinion that tampon man is held in as low a regard by the queen when she might think that he's just as capable of turning up to dinner parties and reception lines as she or at least her husband is. It's not as though Charles III will be an absolute monarch.
Click to expand...

This post is garbage. There are many ways of prolonging your own life. For example not smoking and drinking only in moderation, if at all. Plus staying physically active and eating well. She could have easily have gone the way of her younger sister, Margaret.
 
rjh01 said:
This post is garbage. There are many ways of prolonging your own life. For example not smoking and drinking only in moderation, if at all. Plus staying physically active and eating well. She could have easily have gone the way of her younger sister, Margaret.
Click to expand...

That's true. She could have smoked and drank herself to death by now. She could have taken up Russian roulette or base-jumping as a hobby. The fact that she hasn't can only mean one thing. She doesn't want Charles on the throne.
 
Babbylonian said:
How is it possible to embarrass a nutter who openly endorses homeopathy?
Click to expand...

Open the john when he is taking a ****, take a picture and post in on the front page of the Sun or Mirror!!!!! Pretty sure that would do him right!!!
 
psionl0 said:
Why not now? The last time the monarchy had anything to do with Australia's internal politics was when some old drunk sacked the prime minister.

It may be a lengthy process finding a suitable model for a republic but there is no reason not to start the process (other than Elizabeth still has her admirers).
Click to expand...
Why that? Don't you in Australia - and in Canada as well - already have a suitable model. I mean, basically you have two figurehead/reserve powers heads of state - the Queen and the Governor-General. When you scrap the Queen, rename the GG to "President" and done!
 
ddt said:
Why that? Don't you in Australia - and in Canada as well - already have a suitable model. I mean, basically you have two figurehead/reserve powers heads of state - the Queen and the Governor-General. When you scrap the Queen, rename the GG to "President" and done!
Click to expand...

I was thinking something similar. Pass an act that says the successor to the Queen is the GG.. The sovereign and GG would be the same person. Then no need to even change the constitution.
 
ddt said:
Why that? Don't you in Australia - and in Canada as well - already have a suitable model. I mean, basically you have two figurehead/reserve powers heads of state - the Queen and the Governor-General. When you scrap the Queen, rename the GG to "President" and done!
Click to expand...
You clearly don't appreciate that under the constitution, the Queen has all the power. She appoints the GG, She (or the GG) appoints the prime minister and She (or the GG) decides when elections are to be held. Even if a bill is assented to by the GG, the Queen can still say "nuh uh".

That the PM is the leader of the majority party and the Queen/GG only does what the PM says is purely a convention. Surely Australia doesn't need such Regal oversight in the 21st century.

rjh01 said:
I was thinking something similar. Pass an act that says the successor to the Queen is the GG.. The sovereign and GG would be the same person. Then no need to even change the constitution.
Click to expand...
There is no way that such an act would survive a constitutional challenge. The constitution clearly states that the Queen and the GG are two different people.
 
rjh01 said:
This post is garbage. There are many ways of prolonging your own life. For example not smoking and drinking only in moderation, if at all. Plus staying physically active and eating well. She could have easily have gone the way of her younger sister, Margaret.
Click to expand...
What syphilis? I was going to say there was little chance of the Queen contracting that but then we know Phil has had more than one mistress.
 
Darat said:
What syphilis? I was going to say there was little chance of the Queen contracting that but then we know Phil has had more than one mistress.
Click to expand...

Syphilis? You are the first to mention syphilis. You would have to post again if you want to get your message across.
 
rjh01 said:
Syphilis? You are the first to mention syphilis. You would have to post again if you want to get your message across.
Click to expand...

Thought you were saying the Queen could have gone the route of her sister, i.e. died from complications due to syphilis? Did I misunderstand you?
 
Darat said:
Thought you were saying the Queen could have gone the route of her sister, i.e. died from complications due to syphilis? Did I misunderstand you?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. Princess Margaret died after suffering strokes. If you have evidence she died from complications due to syphilis please produce them. Or are your posts a joke?

In 2001, she suffered further strokes that left her paralysed on the left side of her body and affected her vision. The last time she was seen in public was at Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester’s 100th birthday celebrations that December.

Princess Margaret died on 9 February 2002 at King Edward VII Hospital in London after suffering another stroke.
Click to expand...
http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/the-life-and-death-of-princess-margaret-76187
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
You clearly don't appreciate that under the constitution, the Queen has all the power. She appoints the GG, She (or the GG) appoints the prime minister and She (or the GG) decides when elections are to be held. Even if a bill is assented to by the GG, the Queen can still say "nuh uh".

That the PM is the leader of the majority party and the Queen/GG only does what the PM says is purely a convention. Surely Australia doesn't need such Regal oversight in the 21st century.
Click to expand...
You can say it's purely convention, but it's a very strictly held convention. Yes, in principel the "Queen has all the power", but in fact neither the Queen nor the GG has used those reserve powers against the advice of the PM since the constitutional crisis of 1975.
 
Tony Stark said:
I guess the reason I ask is that I don't think you need any ability to be passable as the head of state. Hell Donald Trump could be a decent head of state if he didn't also have to be head of government and commander in chief.
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

Being a non-governing head of state requires a lot more diplomacy and tact than being a governing one like Trump is. Clashing with Congress/Parliament is normal political life for a head of government. As a non-governing head of state, you're expected to be nice and diplomatic to your hosts on official state visits, you're expected to hold nice, non-political Xmas speeches and the like, cut ribbons, smile, etc. The behaviour of Prince Philip is, in this respect, really outrageous for a monarch. Last but not least, nearly every non-governing head of state has reserve powers, like having to formally sign bills, call for elections or dismiss executive. There the trick is to know when to use those reserve powers and, above all, when not to; and those are "rules" that mostly are not codified but are determined by tradition and by insight in the current political landscape.

I bet that the government leaders that Trump has already met are internally fuming about his boorish behaviour; but he can get away with it as he's the political leader and as the USA is the world's only superpower, so they have to deal with him. But as only a head of state, his core business would be to be nice and diplomatic and if there's one thing he utterly fails at...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom