Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by verybdog, Nov 2, 2003.
Who do you prefer to be King of England? Charles or William? and why?
I had a conversation with some of my British friends about this last summer. They're not royalists, and they said they wouldn't mind if the whole lot was thrown out on the death of Elizabeth II. I asked them, "What about the tourist trade?" They looked at each other and said, "Well, we'll keep a few of them, then." But none of them thought much of Charles. Modesty prohibits me saying the exact words they used to describe him.
King Gringo Tex has a nice ring to it, though.
I voted for GringoTex just for the heck of it. Plus, he would make a good king.
Charles is the heir to the British throne. Therefore, he should become the king and sovereign head of state for Great Britain and No. Ireland, and its commonwealth nations.
have some watery tart lob a scimitar at them, and who ever catches it...
Neither. I don't want theoretical power held in the six-fingered hands of those genetic paddling pools.It's about time we grew up as a nation and declared a Republic.
There are aspects of the US structure I admire (as many as the practices I don't), such as the separation of powers, checks and balances between the legislature and executive, the existence of a codified constitution etc. If this can be adapted to a British system, I'd think it would be great, as long as no-one elects Tony Blair as President.
King of England... how typically American.
Anyway I voted for Gringo Tex because a) I'm a republican and b) I've been given the chance to vote and made my choice.
It's not just Americans. For example, ex-King Farouk said, "Soon there will be only five kings left - the King of England, the King of Spades, the King of Clubs, the King of Hearts and the King of Diamonds."
I would like to nominate Elizabeth Hurley. She is the hottest thing in England.
Long live queen Elizabeth the third!
Here's a puzzler:
Who gets beheaded first in the reign of HRH Gringo the First, Guy Ritchie or Madonna?
Acting like we should give a flying *#*#*#k....how typically British.
King Arthur didn't exist. No Kings were chosen that way. Traditionally, Monarchic dynasties have taken power through bloodthirsty warfare, with the losers generally beheaded or chopped into messy little pieces on a battlefield somewhere. A little less peotic than the mythical legend, but it's time we had another takeover and I favour the battle method. Sod having Kings & Queens who look at home a formal banquets. I want a Henry VIII type king who looks like he's run a sword through his enemies on many occasions, and sits at a big wooden table eating feasts with his bare hands and drinking goblets of wine. I want a king who, for the christmas speech shags, a serving wench right there on the table, live to the nation. The sort of king who tells the pope to piss off and starts his own religion so he can shag as many women as he wants. A king we could be proud of, even if he had syphallis.
Look who started this thread you muppet. The only reason the royal family is still around is because you Americans love everything about them... thanks.
Are you that King Richard?
I vote for Charles. He rocks.
Sure go ahead and blame us, we're used to it. To be honest though, nobody truly gives a fuck about your royal family. We just like watching the bad things that happen to them.
btw, vbd is not American. He's just here to study
Oh, thank you for telling everybody that, Mr Moderator!
See that, Mr. Prenn. That's a typical American attitude - anything unsuitable to their palate, they call it "unamerican" and try to tell the messenger move to France.
WTF are you ranting about?
Unamerican? Telling people to move to France? Are you sure you're in the right thread?
It's not like you haven't mentioned it before!
Uh-oh, the moderator is in the angry mode, I better go back to the topic.
Look, saying we Americans don't give a rat's arse about the royal family is a blatant lie as we know it. We deeply care about the scandals of the royal family as much as we care about the Red Sox games. We deeply care about Mr. Tony Blair and the British people.
Long live the King!
Speak for yourself.
As a New Yorker, I could give a rats ass about the Red Sux. I hope they all burn in hell. Hey, I kind of feel the same way about the Royal family too...
maybe there's a connection somewhere.
...these damn Yankees! Glad they lost the World Series...
Completely missing the point...how typically English.
Mr. Prenn has a point!
Imagine NBC or ABC or CBS no longer broadcasting these Royal gossips!
Hoping somebody burns in hell is hardly an indicator of your lack of interest in them. There must be some Americans that have an inexpicable interest in them or they wouldn't be on the news over there. I'm sure your news doesn't feature stories of the Swedish royal family for example (which is a shame as I saw a postcard of them this summer and one of the princesses is pretty hot - or maybe she was a ringer).
One odd thing is that if Charles becomes king he won't be King Charles, he'll be King George. Apparently he thinks the name King Charles is too closely associated with beheading, the fate that befell one of the last two.
I think he could choose a better name than George though. Go back to that never-to-be-forgotten era of 955 to 959 when the country was ruled by King Eadwig.
For those who claim England is less PC than the US, please note that we did our bit for the disabled right back as early as 1016, when Edmund Ironside became the world's first king in a wheelchair to take the throne (specially converted with supporting side bars for his entire 7 month reign).