Charlie Farley

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Duped by the courtiers you mean.Both were victims of the plotting and planning of the court.Also how much meddling came from Mountbatten and the Duke of Edinburgh?

Charlie should have had the balls to stand up for the love of his life like his uncle instead of being a puppet. A puppet who in just a few days will be crowned King

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Charlie should have had the balls to stand up for the love of his life like his uncle instead of being a puppet. A puppet who in just a few days will be crowned King

Easy for you to say who has never ever been under the microscope of the world and media.Easy for you to say who has the freedom that Charles has never had.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Easy for you to say who has never ever been under the microscope of the world and media.Easy for you to say who has the freedom that Charles has never had.

Edward managed to do it. Easy for me to say who has never had the privilege. Never known a life where I wanted for nothing or had the best health care without waiting and so on. Poor Charles hey

[Mr K]

Wonder who is paying for all this cobblers? Charles should sell that crown and fund a few food banks.
This country goes ever backwards, poorer and increasingly irrelevant.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Although it was duty that caused him to seek out and marry a ‘suitable’ bride from a noble family, rather than the society divorcee he wanted to marry …

She wasn't a divorcee until well into the affair, she was still married when it began.

It's the night of 17 December 1989.

A radio enthusiast is scanning frequencies - often used by police officers and pirate radio DJs - when he stumbles across a private phone call between a man and a woman.

It is obvious they are lovers. The man’s voice sounds familiar. The radio operator presses the record button.

The man is 41-year-old Prince Charles, the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II, the future King of England and the husband of Princess Diana.

But the woman on the other end of the line doesn’t sound like his wife. She is in fact Camilla Parker Bowles - a 42-year-old married mother who, outside of royal circles, is almost entirely unknown.

See https://news.sky.com/story/the-rise-...nsort-12871317

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

She wasn't a divorcee until well into the affair, she was still married when it began.

See https://news.sky.com/story/the-rise-...nsort-12871317

I’m thinking way further back than that. Charles and Camilla met in the very early 70s and dated, but she eventually became engaged and married Andrew Parker-Bowles. There are all sorts of rumours as to why she got engaged to someone else while Charles was out of the country. But they remained close and got closer as the years went by.

https://www.today.com/popculture/roy...line-rcna56336

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Charles is indirectly responsible for Diana's death for the reasons I have provided

You have provided no credible reasons, just complete nonsense, hes no more responsible than you are.

[Sephiroth]

Many people disagree with you for the clear reasons I have set out.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Many people disagree with you for the clear reasons I have set out.

And many DON'T.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Maggy

And many DON'T.

Maybe there should be a referendum. Seeing as parliament is there to do the will of the people maybe it is time to see what the will actually is

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Maybe there should be a referendum. Seeing as parliament is there to do the will of the people maybe it is time to see what the will actually is

Referendums seem to work wonderfully in Switzerland, mind you in Switzerland they don’t even have a president as we would understand it - there’s a committee of 7 and one of them is chosen to be president for 12 months at a time. While doing the job they gain no more executive power than any of the other six. Distribution of power is embedded in their culture from the top to the bottom.

Here, we elect MPs based on their political philosophy and affiliation more than we do their exact policy platform; even the manifesto at election time is a broad programme for 5 years and we happily vote for the one that fits our outlook best, even if we don’t agree with all of it.

Referendums are alien to our way of thinking. They polarise us in ways our political discourse is ill-equipped to handle. Neither the Scottish independence referendum nor the Brexit referendum really settled the issue for large numbers of those on the losing side. For better or worse, we have a system of representative democracy and we have little choice but to lean into that.

For the same reason, whether it’s a king, or a figurehead like the president of Ireland or Germany, I think we need to stick with a system of government that is tied to Parliament. I don’t much like the idea of that much executive power resting in the hands of one person, and given how poorly we as a nation deal with polarised politics, we of all people don’t need an executive president who is also supposed to be the head of state and symbol of national unity, but who is unlikely ever to have the support of much more than half the electorate.

At present, while he’s not as popular as his mother, Charles , or rather, the institution of the monarchy embodied in him, still has approval ratings any elected president would die for. If that changes substantially, over the long run, then some process might need to be devised to decide whether to change it. But given our recent history with referendums, an all-or-nothing vote on abolishing the king would be a very dangerous prospect.

[Jaymoss]

Nothing will ever settle anything though will it as there will always be differing opinions. The whole system is a mess we are under the control of an unelected leader as we type.

Thankfully we do not have to do anything like actually pay homage to any of them

[Sephiroth]

I'm content for the monarchy to continue in its current form.

I just don't like Charlie Farley.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm content for the monarchy to continue in its current form.

I just don't like Charlie Farley.

If Charles is "Charlie Farley" then that makes Camilla "Piggy Malone" (for those with long memories)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

If Charles is "Charlie Farley" then that makes Camilla "Piggy Malone" (for those with long memories)

I won't have that! Neasden High Street, or at least Neasden, was my home for many years and Piggy Malone was not Trans!