Charles 'wants Camilla to be crowned queen'

[#juan]

While I don't doubt your numbers too much, Juan, sometimes it ain't only about the money. Regardless, this much money and land and effort wasted - oh yeah, it's a crime.

Pangloss

It's a crime...against whom? In my experience, it is the poor who stand in line for hours to catch a glimpse of the Queen when she does visit. To take the Queen's hand is a special treat. I'm not speaking for myself, but I've seen people fall all over themselves after a smile from the Queen. We spend relatively little on the Queen's representative in Canada who is not begging for your vote. It is a bigger crime to spend several hundred million dollars a year shuttling someone around who is after your vote.

 

[wotaworry]

It's a crime...against whom? In my experience, it is the poor who stand in line for hours to catch a glimpse of the Queen when she does visit. To take the Queen's hand is a special treat. I'm not speaking for myself, but I've seen people fall all over themselves after a smile from the Queen. We spend relatively little on the Queen's representative in Canada who is not begging for your vote. It is a bigger crime to spend several hundred million dollars a year shuttling someone around who is after your vote.

The word Republic sounds better every day.

 

[petros]

So does guillotine. The French knew what they were doing.

 

[wotaworry]

Lets keep our heads! However the day I bow, curtsy, or otherwise debase myself in an effort to show how inferior I must be.Is the day........... You finish

 

[petros]

do laundry? believe in leprechauns? shiit a house? start an ant farm? anything else useful and not degrading?

 

[PoliticalNick]

As much as some of you want to believe the Queen (crown) is a figurehead you are incorrect. What wis commonly called the 'constitution' is nothing more than a royal proclaimation propped up by an act of british parliament. We are still, legally, a british colony and she is the head of state with the absolute power of the monarchy. It may be very tough, almost impossible, for her to try and exert that power anywhere in the commonwealth including the UK but in legal terms she still can.

 

[The Old Medic]

There was never any doubt that she WOULD become Queen.

Since Diana died, the divorce becomes irrelevant. His marriage to Camilla the Cow is perfectly normal with the Church, and with the Government. if he lives long enough, he will be King, and she will be his Queen consort.

Anyone that didn't realize this was in LaLa land.

 

[EagleSmack]

I often wonder if the Queen even wants her son to be King. He's been a Royal Pain in the Azz. She is in her 80's so why doesn't she just give it up?

 

[Corduroy]

As much as some of you want to believe the Queen (crown) is a figurehead you are incorrect. What wis commonly called the 'constitution' is nothing more than a royal proclaimation propped up by an act of british parliament. We are still, legally, a british colony and she is the head of state with the absolute power of the monarchy. It may be very tough, almost impossible, for her to try and exert that power anywhere in the commonwealth including the UK but in legal terms she still can.

Legally, the UK had legislative supremacy over of the Canadian parliament until 1931 and still retained some constitutional powers until 1982. Even though many of our constitutional documents are acts of the British parliament, they were legally patriated in 1982, so technically what you said about us being a British colony isn't true. The Queen acts in Canada as the Queen of Canada, not of the United Kingdom. The only real constitutional dependence we have remaining is that the rest of the Queen's realms have to agree if we want to change our succession laws.

And legally, the idea that the Queen acts on the advice of parliament is interpreted to mean she must act on the advice of parliament. Though it isn't quite the same as saying the Queen can't act against parliament without suddenly finding herself without a job. Is that what happened when Stephen Harper circumvented the will of parliament by having the Governor General prorogue it a few years ago? Nope. But isn't that the point of parliamentary supremacy? It might be a bit murky.

And now you've just read a republican defend the constitutional role of the Queen. Go figure.

 

[Johnny Utah]

God Save The Queen!

 

[EagleSmack]

That is what I'm saying Johnny. The Brits should skip right over Chuck and Camille and put his son in with his smoking hot chick.

 

[Johnny Utah]

That is what I'm saying Johnny. The Brits should skip right over Chuck and Camille and put his son in with his smoking hot chick.

No **** because with her as Queen it will provide young British males with years of masturbation material..

 

[EagleSmack]

I am sure she already does!

 

[lone wolf]

My guess is you ain't checking out the Royal belly-button

 

[jgarden]

Charles and the Royals would be far better off by ensuring that history doesn't repeat itself and that Ms. Middleton doesn't go down the aisle with the knowledge that William is in love with another woman.

Charles and Camille will continue to go down in history as 2 selfish people, whose "infidelity" destroyed any chance for happiness of a young Diana - whose only mistake was to become an unwitting member of a "threesome."

I doubt the public is enthusiastic about having a confessed "adulterer" on the throne, let alone accepting the "rottweiler" as its queen.

FOOTNOTE: Does anyone remember Andrew, and his former girlfriend - Koo Stark? This is the same Andrew who is friends with one of Khadafi's sons!

 

[damngrumpy]

I like how some people ignore the facts that are on paper. Whether you care or not
on paper it is what it is. For example we are not really a democracy at all Canada is
a constitutional monarchy and the Queen is head of state until we change it.
I think we need not bother about adulterous relationships, as a factor to being king,
queen or even prime minister, if that were the case half the people in those jobs would
be mowing lawns. We are long past the days of this old code stuff.
As for the present people in the castle they are dysfunctional misfits anyway but they are
our governing misfits until we collectively as a nation have the discussion to dispose of the
whole institution.

 

[CurioToo]

In reflection of prior monarchies (before newsprint and electronic media) there were probably lots of things going on among the royalty not only of the U.K. but of Europe as well

People are human - regardless of their royal births.

I think the figurehead of monarchs should be left up to those under their rule and to lose the historical value would be a shame as
I grew up adoring the British Royals (thank you mom) and watched old films of the two princesses become women in society which I thought
must have been very tough for them. I enjoyed Elizabeth's prolific family though and they all seem to be busily doing good works
even now.

If people suffer financially in retaining the monarchial system then I would perhaps have some future reservation as to continuing the
history.

DamnGrumpy

I liked your last post - it is difficult to make a decision on the wisdom when one has to consider the individuals and players in the royal lineage.

With Elizabeth's agism I wonder if the Commonwealth should be reconsidered rather than continuing with any nations who prefer to
honor but remain separate from the monarchy once she has passed.

 

[Corduroy]

I'm looking forward to a King Charles and a Queen Camilla. Why wouldn't she be Queen? She'd be married to the King, right? Isn't that how our glorious monarchical heritage is supposed to work? Don't back down on it now.

 

[Said1]

You mean paparazzi with no morals. lolzzzz, :rollseyes:

 

[damngrumpy]

Because you are married to the King or Queen does not mean you are immediately
entitled to the Title. There is a process, and credentials that must be considered.
I do not know all the details but Prince Phillip did not get the title of King now did he?