Prince of Wales becomes oldest heir to the Throne for 300 years

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
George III wasn't mad. He suffered from porphyria.



It was triggered by Britons in their North American colonies who didn't want to pay the same taxes that Britons elsewhere had to pay.





The 1834 fire was very popular - crowds gathered watching it, cheering it on as it burned down parliament.

1834 wasn't the only time the Houses of Parliament were destroyed by fire. It also happened in 1298 and 1512. The 1512 fire caused Henry VIII to move the royal family out to Whitehall Palace just a few hundred yards away.


Actually, the Americas objected to 'taxation without representation', while the Brits had become resigned to the Pocket and Rotten Borough kleptocracy.

Britain narrowly staved off revolution at home post 1815, BL.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Not necessarily. He could be hoping for her to abdicate. That isnt without precedent.

That would be a loooooooooong shot. It's not in Lizzy's nature especially after the disgrace of Edward VIII doing it.
 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
Prince Charles is ***** whipped.

LMAO. The auto-censor changed p?ssy to *****. What a hopelessly cliché, middle class, Old Orange Lodge, Ontario mentality. What if I want to talk about my cat? Do I type, "Here posse posse posse?"
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Prince Charles is ***** whipped.

LMAO. The auto-censor changed p?ssy to *****. What a hopelessly cliché, middle class, Old Orange Lodge, Ontario mentality. What if I want to talk about my cat? Do I type, "Here posse posse posse?"

And it was you who accused me of being crude earlier! Anyway I would say Barracuda bitten would be more appropriate than P*ssy whipped!
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
p ussy whipped...really?...wtf...what is this a throw back to a 100 years ago when women had no say... jeeeeeeezuz?
 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
p ussy whipped...really?...wtf...what is this a throw back to a 100 years ago when women had no say... jeeeeeeezuz?

It isn't disempowering of women at all. The expression p ussy whipped is a comment on the way some men let them selves be manipulated. It is a description of how some women use the power of gender to disarm males. Far from being disempowering of women, it refers to how easily some men are able to be dominated. Some years ago Prince Charles was recorded talking on his cell to Camilla, telling her that all he really wanted in the whole world was to be her tampon. That is p ussy whipped.

Watch for it in some women's posts. One commented here, or perhaps on another thread, something to the effect that she wanted to be feted, wined and dined. Several males responded with minor but obvious innuendo seeking approval. Why would people debating politics engage in such obvious sexual innuendo? It immediately sends a message to some males that these invitations will be refused them if they don't go along with the speaker. The invitations don't have to be real life. Gender influence is much more subtle than that. Some women here play that gender game. I haven't seen you do it.
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,914
1,907
113
Actually, the Americas objected to 'taxation without representation'

The British colonists in North America were hardly any different in being taxed without being represented in parliament.

Most Britons back at home had the same predicament.
 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
And it was you who accused me of being crude earlier! Anyway I would say Barracuda bitten would be more appropriate than P*ssy whipped!

LMAO. I have no fear of being accused of being too vulgar here. You out do me regularly.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,914
1,907
113
It isn't disempowering of women at all. The expression p ussy whipped is a comment on the way some men let them selves be manipulated. It is a description of how some women use the power of gender to disarm males. Far from being disempowering of women, it refers to how easily some men are able to be dominated. Some years ago Prince Charles was recorded talking on his cell to Camilla, telling her that all he really wanted in the whole world was to be her tampon. That is p ussy whipped.

Watch for it in some women's posts. One commented here, or perhaps on another thread, something to the effect that she wanted to be feted, wined and dined. Several males responded with minor but obvious innuendo seeking approval. Why would people debating politics engage in such obvious sexual innuendo? It immediately sends a message to some males that these invitations will be refused them if they don't go along with the speaker. The invitations don't have to be real life. Gender influence is much more subtle than that. Some women here play that gender game. I haven't seen you do it.

I only wine a dine a woman if she pays half of the bill.
 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
The British colonists in North America were hardly any different in being taxed without being represented in parliament.

Most Britons back at home had the same predicament.

Americans don't get just how destructive the American Revolution was to their hopes of world dominance. If they had not resorted to the gun in 1775 they would now own North America from Mexico to Nunavut.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,914
1,907
113
Americans don't get just how destructive the American Revolution was to their hopes of world dominance. If they had not resorted to the gun in 1775 they would now own North America from Mexico to Nunavut.

Thank God things didn't turn out that way.
 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
George III wasn't mad. He suffered from porphyria.


According to http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/porphyria/DS00955/DSECTION=symptoms there are two kinds of porphyrias. One is Acute porphyrias. Symptoms include forms of the disease that cause predominantly nervous system symptoms and, in some cases, skin symptoms, as well. Acute porphyria attacks are rare before puberty and after menopause in women. Signs and symptoms may last one to two weeks.

The other is Cutaneous porphyrias. Symptoms include forms of the disease that cause skin symptoms as a result of oversensitivity to sunlight, but don't affect your nervous system. Some forms of cutaneous porphyria begin to show signs and symptoms during infancy or childhood.

Neither of these refer to the symptoms reported of George III.



Thank God things didn't turn out that way.

Amen.

I only wine a dine a woman if she pays half of the bill.

LMAO. Who chooses the restaurant?

Just saw your question of whether Scandinavian countries have the equivalent of our Charter. I don't know.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,914
1,907
113
Actually, the Americas objected to 'taxation without representation', while the Brits had become resigned to the Pocket and Rotten Borough kleptocracy.

Britain narrowly staved off revolution at home post 1815, BL.


Nah. There was nowhere near a revolution in Britain in the early nineteenth century, apart from the odd little outburst of violence by left wing troublemakers like the Luddites. No violent political revolution has occurred in Britain since the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s, which was an anti-absolute monarchy revolution which saw the execution of a monarch 150 years BEFORE the French Revolution.

There was no need to be a revolution in Britain. Unlike the Frenchies and their other continental neighbours, the British were a free people who, unlike the French, had long got rid of their feudal system and their Absolute Monarchy. In 1819 the British Bill of Rights was 130 years' old.

Britain was impervious to revolutionary change in the early 1800s. Though every other aspect of British life in the 19th century was transformed by industrial, social and cultural development, the country's rulers seemed somehow to avoid the mistakes of their continental counterparts. When Britain was at the peak of her imperial power at the end of the 19th century, historians charted the country's rise to greatness over the preceding hundred years or so. They were inclined to stress British genius for avoiding fundamental conflict between classes and social groups, and the country's ability to manage evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, political change.

LMAO. Who chooses the restaurant?

Well, it's equality, innit? It's halves on the bill nowadays, ladies.

I usually choose the restaurant, cos if I let the woman choose it'd be somewhere expensive, like the Ritz.

There's nothing wrong with the local Spudulike (unless she hates potatoes) or the delightful local kebab shop up in the Muslim-dominated Daubhill area of the town - the Kabul Kebab House - where they roast dead alsatians on spits (where we are usually the only people in there who don't look like Osama bin Laden).

 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
It isn't disempowering of women at all. The expression p ussy whipped is a comment on the way some men let them selves be manipulated. It is a description of how some women use the power of gender to disarm males. Far from being disempowering of women, it refers to how easily some men are able to be dominated. Some years ago Prince Charles was recorded talking on his cell to Camilla, telling her that all he really wanted in the whole world was to be her tampon. That is p ussy whipped.

Watch for it in some women's posts. One commented here, or perhaps on another thread, something to the effect that she wanted to be feted, wined and dined. Several males responded with minor but obvious innuendo seeking approval. Why would people debating politics engage in such obvious sexual innuendo? It immediately sends a message to some males that these invitations will be refused them if they don't go along with the speaker. The invitations don't have to be real life. Gender influence is much more subtle than that. Some women here play that gender game. I haven't seen you do it.
okay fair enough, thanks for the explanation.

I see it as denigrating both male and female because of the way I view relationships. I believe them to be a partnership and that the one strongest in any given situation should be the one to lead for that piece. When I have heard the term used it has meant the guy is a weakling if he defers to the woman. It was kind of a he-man, thump the chest kind of usage.

I do remember the tampon incident and I do not believe it lessens Charles in any way. He was forced due to his position to marry Diana; unlike Philip who married the love of his life as did Queen Elizabeth. Nice for them...not so nice for Charles. Phillip had the talk with him many times until he gave in. He never loved her, he never pretended to love her. His love was always Camilla so to call or view him weak, he is not. He did what he had been brain washed into believing was his duty. In the end, he won.

That is neither weak nor p ussywhipped.

As to the interaction you witnessed between two members you are new here and thus have misinterpreted the interaction. Many of us have known each other for many many years both on here and various forums. It is a safe place to joke in a flirtation manner since we are all of varying ages and backgrounds and know each other well. It's a friendly place once you have been here for a while. Even drop down drag out fighting leads to passive respectful response either down the road or in another thread.
 

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
It isn't disempowering of women at all. The expression p ussy whipped is a comment on the way some men let them selves be manipulated. It is a description of how some women use the power of gender to disarm males. Far from being disempowering of women, it refers to how easily some men are able to be dominated. Some years ago Prince Charles was recorded talking on his cell to Camilla, telling her that all he really wanted in the whole world was to be her tampon. That is p ussy whipped.

Watch for it in some women's posts. One commented here, or perhaps on another thread, something to the effect that she wanted to be feted, wined and dined. Several males responded with minor but obvious innuendo seeking approval. Why would people debating politics engage in such obvious sexual innuendo? It immediately sends a message to some males that these invitations will be refused them if they don't go along with the speaker. The invitations don't have to be real life. Gender influence is much more subtle than that. Some women here play that gender game. I haven't seen you do it.


Good post but don't forget thatr this is 'online'.

On line I'm 6 ft 6" built like Achilles, richer than the boss of Microsoft, and - 21 years old...
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
p ussy whipped...really?...wtf...what is this a throw back to a 100 years ago when women had no say... jeeeeeeezuz?


For some people, if a woman holds any power, it is plain and simply, because she is female. Not because she is, in fact, intelligent, a partner to that man, etc. If a man defers to a woman in any way shape or form, it's based on sex, not equality. Some people can't get past the 'gender war' mentality. It's a shame. It makes them small.
 

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
Well, it's equality, innit? It's halves on the bill nowadays, ladies.

I usually choose the restaurant, cos if I let the woman choose it'd be somewhere expensive, like the Ritz.

There's nothing wrong with the local Spudulike (unless she hates potatoes) or the delightful local kebab shop up in the Muslim-dominated Daubhill area of the town - the Kabul Kebab House - where they roast dead alsatians on spits (where we are usually the only people in there who don't look like Osama bin Laden).


And just 'ow do the people of Alsace feel la' bout THAT , GOV'nor?


Americans don't get just how destructive the American Revolution was to their hopes of world dominance. If they had not resorted to the gun in 1775 they would now own North America from Mexico to Nunavut.


However, the proclamation of 1763 created the vast Indian Nation nation beyond the Alleghenies.

And when 'ave the Brits ever broken a treaty?:p
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
p ussy whipped...really?...wtf...what is this a throw back to a 100 years ago when women had no say... jeeeeeeezuz?

Hey, Sal nothing wrong with a woman "wearing the pants", it's just that there is something wrong with a man who lets her get away with it. -:) -:) -:) (I'm ducking)

LMAO. I have no fear of being accused of being too vulgar here. You out do me regularly.

I'd have to disagree, you don't see my words getting bleeped out ...........***************************.