General Chit Chat

[DiamondGooner]

Apart from Charles being a prick...





He was forced into an arranged marriage (pretty archaic) just to produce an heir and a spare. But he did his duty so fair play to him.

He's with the right woman now.

Well albiet I got most of my insight into their courtship from "The Crown" which I know isn't 100% accurate but from what that shows ...........

Charles couldn't get with Camilla because she was married at the time, she was cheating on Parker Bowles with Charles but didn't want to divorce him because too many people were against it.

Charles then trying to move on courted Diana, they got together but he never got over Camilla and frequently stayed in touch.
He treated Diana like sht simply because she wasn't Camilla, again this is from the show, but the Palace never forced him to marry Diana, he brought the idea forward because he couldn't have Camilla so started dating Diana publically and the wedding ensued.

This is why Diana ended up cheating on him because he was running off to see Camilla every chance he got while they were married.

[Dejan]

Hilarious to see how some in here are so f***ing defendent of your royal family

[gooney]

If Meg stayed in Uk she would have a car accident like Diana. These people need to be put down all of them

[Phil71]

Apart from Charles being a prick...





He was forced into an arranged marriage (pretty archaic) just to produce an heir and a spare. But he did his duty so fair play to him.

He's with the right woman now.

Well albiet I got most of my insight into their courtship from "The Crown" which I know isn't 100% accurate but from what that shows ...........

Charles couldn't get with Camilla because she was married at the time, she was cheating on Parker Bowles with Charles but didn't want to divorce him because too many people were against it.

Charles then trying to move on courted Diana, they got together but he never got over Camilla and frequently stayed in touch.
He treated Diana like sht simply because she wasn't Camilla, again this is from the show, but the Palace never forced him to marry Diana, he brought the idea forward because he couldn't have Camilla so started dating Diana publically and the wedding ensued.

This is why Diana ended up cheating on him because he was running off to see Camilla every chance he got while they were married.

The truth is that he was seeing Camilla since the early 70s, but was a bit of a playboy and not committed.

His marriage to Diana was arranged by the Queen Mother and one of Diana's elderly aunts. Baaically they decided it was about time he produced the heirs. He didn't want it because he was already seeing Camilla again (had never stopped but was more committed to her). They insisted he do his duty so he reluctantly agreed.

Royals in the immediate line of succession don't marry for love. It's just business. Continue the line.

And it's then not at all unusual for them to have affairs with true lovers.

Diana was from those circles.

[Ach]

If Meg stayed in Uk she would have a car accident like Diana. These people need to be put down all of them

Bit harsh but the Queen and her husband are gone soon. Charles is pretty much the most pointless Prince ever seen in the history of princes and no one will take any notice of William with the crap he spouts.

[Ach]

Hilarious to see how some in here are so f***ing defendent of your royal family

[Royal Gooner]

Hilarious to see how some in here are so f***ing defendent of your royal family

Just like I'm sure you would be of King Willem-Alexander.

[Dejan]

Hilarious to see how some in here are so f***ing defendent of your royal family

Just like I'm sure you would be of King Willem-Alexander.

Hell f***ing no

I despise the royal family

Verstuurd vanaf mijn D5803 met Tapatalk

[DiamondGooner]

For me its purely functional.

The Royal family for me even somewhat watered down today, serve a purpose in a system which has been developed, tried and tested for for 1,200 years.

They act as a counter weight to Parliament which is why our government is nowhere near as corrupt as America's is.

We actually have rules about our parties not being allowed to have lobbiests or be brought and paid for by private companies.

Getting rid of too many traditional establishments means kicking away the building blocks of what's held up our society all these centuries, the alternatives usually look pretty brutal.

[Phil71]

For me its purely functional.

The Royal family for me even somewhat watered down today, serve a purpose in a system which has been developed, tried and tested for for 1,200 years.

They act as a counter weight to Parliament which is why our government is nowhere near as corrupt as America's is.

We actually have rules about our parties not being allowed to have lobbiests or be brought and paid for by private companies.

Getting rid of too many traditional establishments means kicking away the building blocks of what's held up our society all these centuries, the alternatives usually look pretty brutal.

They're also great for UK trade.

The Monarch hosting dignitaries from other countries at Buckingham Palace works wonders.

And can you imagine how many tourists come to England every year because of them?

They are worth tens of billions of pounds in income to the UK treasury.

[swipe right]

Does anyone else find Piers Morgan’s obsession with Meghan Markle creepy?

[Va-Va-Voom]

Hilarious to see how some in here are so f***ing defendent of your royal family

Just like I'm sure you would be of King Willem-Alexander.

Why are you on your knees for the royal family?

[LMAO]

For me its purely functional.

The Royal family for me even somewhat watered down today, serve a purpose in a system which has been developed, tried and tested for for 1,200 years.

They act as a counter weight to Parliament which is why our government is nowhere near as corrupt as America's is.

We actually have rules about our parties not being allowed to have lobbiests or be brought and paid for by private companies.

Getting rid of too many traditional establishments means kicking away the building blocks of what's held up our society all these centuries, the alternatives usually look pretty brutal.

They're also great for UK trade.

The Monarch hosting dignitaries from other countries at Buckingham Palace works wonders.

And can you imagine how many tourists come to England every year because of them?

They are worth tens of billions of pounds in income to the UK treasury.

Far fewer than France (and by extension, the Palace of Versailles).

No doubt some people visit to see a circus attractionliving museum exhibit, but I think monarchists/royalists overestimate the royal family's impact on tourism.

[swipe right]

You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.

[DiamondGooner]

You can’t call yourself a free, modern country and go around curtsying to people based on birthright.

Of course you can.

........... because your free not to "curtsy".

You should study up on what "modern" countries look like when they get rid of the royal family.

Name me a country with no Royal family which has a good non-corrupt system?

You'll struggle.