MedVision ad

The Prince of Wales (1 Viewer)

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Most folk here would have deduced I'm a republican and that I'm not a fan of the monarchy generally. The current monarch in particular I think in her behaviour reflects the era in which she was coronated but the one exception in this family for me as always been Charles. He has always struck me as the only Royal particularly aware of the need for the monarch to transform itself somewhat or become an expensive irrelevance, he makes many considered and researched contributions to public discourse, he does enormous work for charity although granted so does Harry and in a family prone to having their feet perennially stuck in their respective mouths he seems to be quite astute when it comes to respecting cultural sensitivities.

I'm guessing though, in line with the rest of the world, most of you do not like the Prince of Wales so I ask, why? Why would you nearly all prefer Charles to decline the throne in favour of William?
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
charles is a ninny

while he certainly has excellent fashion sense (possibly the world's best dressed man) and his understanding of architecture and urban aesthetics is fantastic, his opinions on islam and multiculturalism are lamentable

i've become less and less interested in monarchism over the years after realising the monarchy has sat back and done essentially nothing to reverse the demographic transformation of the united kingdom or its mutation into a hideous, ultra politically-correct, blade runner-esque society

i propose a new (ultra-reactionary) royal house
 

Chemical Ali

지금은 소녀시대
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,728
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
he's a muslim

and just imagine his head on our coins and $5 note
 

LonelyWolf

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,031
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
once the queen dies, a new royal family should be selected, that being any wealthy english family capable of tracing their lineage - the current family is hardly english
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
He's a fucking retard who thinks homeopathy and woo all work
 

cem

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
2,438
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
once the queen dies, a new royal family should be selected, that being any wealthy english family capable of tracing their lineage - the current family is hardly english
If they are hardly English then unless you are of indigenous Australian background you can't be Australian.

I know that people point to the German coming in in 1714 to claim the family is German but since George II every monarch has been born in the UK with two of the last three most recent spouses also born there - Queen Mary (wife of George V) was born in Kensington Palace, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (wife of George VI) was also born in the UK so in the last 100 years one consort wasn't born in the UK - Philip but where were his mother and grandmother born - Windsor Castle and his great-grandmother was born in Buckingham Palace - not to mention his great-great-grandmother being born in Kensington Palace and her father and grandfather also being born in the UK. Sure others were born elsewhere but there has been a continuous line of being born in the UK since the mid-1700s - before the British arrival in this country.

The go back to 1714 and look at what was George I's claim based on - the fact that his grandmother was born in the UK and her father was the King of Scotland and England.

So if they aren't English then most of us aren't Australian.
 
Last edited:

Shadowdude

Cult of Personality
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
12,145
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
If they are hardly English then unless you are of indigenous Australian background you can't be Australian.

I know that people point to the German coming in in 1714 to claim the family is German but since George II every monarch has been born in the UK with two of the last three most recent spouses also born there - Queen Mary (wife of George V) was born in Kensington Palace, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (wife of George VI) was also born in the UK so in the last 100 years one consort wasn't born in the UK - Philip but where were his mother and grandmother born - Windsor Castle and his great-grandmother was born in Buckingham Palace - not to mention his great-great-grandmother being born in Kensington Palace and her father and grandfather also being born in the UK. Sure others were born elsewhere but there has been a continuous line of being born in the UK since the mid-1700s - before the British arrival in this country.

The go back to 1714 and look at what was George I's claim based on - the fact that his grandmother was born in the UK and her father was the King of Scotland and England.

So if they aren't English then most of us aren't Australian.
Is it bad that when I read: "but since George II every monarch has been born in the UK", I thought of the Final Jeopardy! clue in the 2009 Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions when Larissa (my favourite jeopardy player 5eva) failed to identify George II as the first monarch born in the UK? =(
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
He's a fucking retard who thinks homeopathy and woo all work
This is a family who believes they are the divinely designated leaders of the one true Church of England, homoeopathy is sort of dwarfed in the significance stakes.
 

mirakon

nigga
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,221
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Is it bad that when I read: "but since George II every monarch has been born in the UK", I thought of the Final Jeopardy! clue in the 2009 Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions when Larissa (my favourite jeopardy player 5eva) failed to identify George II as the first monarch born in the UK? =(
yes it is bad
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
This is a family who believes they are the divinely designated leaders of the one true Church of England, homoeopathy is sort of dwarfed in the significance stakes.
Not when it comes to public funds and public health
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
This is what you get when you found a political system on the family values of Henry VIII. At a point in the not-too-remote future, the stout heart of Queen Elizabeth II will cease to beat. At that precise moment, her firstborn son will become head of state, head of the armed forces, and head of the Church of England. In strict constitutional terms, this ought not to matter much. The English monarchy, as has been said, reigns but does not rule. From the aesthetic point of view it will matter a bit, because the prospect of a morose bat-eared and chinless man, prematurely aged, and with the most abysmal taste in royal consorts, is a distinctly lowering one. And a king does have the ability to alter the atmosphere and to affect the ways in which important matters are discussed. (The queen herself proved that in subtle ways, by letting it be known that there were aspects of Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy that she did not view with unmixed delight.)

So the speech made by Prince Charles at Oxford last week might bear a little scrutiny. Discussing one of his favorite topics, the "environment," he announced that the main problem arose from a "deep, inner crisis of the soul" and that the "de-souling" of humanity probably went back as far as Galileo. In his view, materialism and consumerism represented an imbalance, "where mechanistic thinking is so predominant," and which "goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion." He described the scientific worldview as an affront to all the world's "sacred traditions." Then for the climax:

As a result, Nature has been completely objectified—She has become an it—and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo's scheme.
We have known for a long time that Prince Charles' empty sails are so rigged as to be swelled by any passing waft or breeze of crankiness and cant. He fell for the fake anthropologist Laurens van der Post. He was bowled over by the charms of homeopathic medicine. He has been believably reported as saying that plants do better if you talk to them in a soothing and encouraging way. But this latest departure promotes him from an advocate of harmless nonsense to positively sinister nonsense.
We owe a huge debt to Galileo for emancipating us all from the stupid belief in an Earth-centered or man-centered (let alone God-centered) system. He quite literally taught us our place and allowed us to go on to make extraordinary advances in knowledge. None of these liberating undertakings have required any sort of assumption about a soul. That belief is at best optional. (Incidentally, nature is no more or less "objectified" whether we give it a gender name or a neuter one. Merely calling it Mummy will not, alas, alter this salient fact.)

In the controversy that followed the prince's remarks, his most staunch defender was professor John Taylor, a scholar whose work I had last noticed when he gave good reviews to the psychokinetic (or whatever) capacities of the Israeli conjuror and fraud Uri Geller. The heir to the throne seems to possess the ability to surround himself—perhaps by some mysterious ultramagnetic force?—with every moon-faced spoon-bender, shrub-flatterer, and water-diviner within range.

None of this might matter very much, until you notice the venue at which Charles delivered his farrago of nonsense. It was unleashed upon an audience at the Center for Islamic Studies at Oxford University, an institution of which he is the patron. Nor is this his only foray into Islamophilia. Together with the Saudi royal family, he supported the mosque in North London that acted as host and incubator to Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid, the hook-handed Abu Hamza al-Masri, and several other unsavory customers. The prince's official job description as king will be "defender of the faith," which currently means the state-financed absurdity of the Anglican Church, but he has more than once said publicly that he wants to be anointed as defender of all faiths—another indication of the amazing conceit he has developed in six decades of performing the only job allowed him by the hereditary principle: that of waiting for his mother to expire.

A hereditary head of state, as Thomas Paine so crisply phrased it, is as absurd a proposition as a hereditary physician or a hereditary astronomer. To this innate absurdity, Prince Charles manages to bring fatuities that are entirely his own. And, as he paged his way through his dreary wad of babble, there must have been some wolfish smiles among his Muslim audience. I quote from a recent document published by the Islamic Forum of Europe, a group dedicated to the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the imposition of sharia, which has been very active in London mosques and in the infiltration of local political parties. "The primary work" in the establishment of a future Muslim empire, it announces, "is in Europe, because it is this continent, despite all the furore about its achievements, which has a moral and spiritual vacuum."

So this is where all the vapid talk about the "soul" of the universe is actually headed. Once the hard-won principles of reason and science have been discredited, the world will not pass into the hands of credulous herbivores who keep crystals by their sides and swoon over the poems of Khalil Gibran. The "vacuum" will be invaded instead by determined fundamentalists of every stripe who already know the truth by means of revelation and who actually seek real and serious power in the here and now. One thinks of the painstaking, cloud-dispelling labor of British scientists from Isaac Newton to Joseph Priestley to Charles Darwin to Ernest Rutherford to Alan Turing and Francis Crick, much of it built upon the shoulders of Galileo and Copernicus, only to see it casually slandered by a moral and intellectual weakling from the usurping House of Hanover. An awful embarrassment awaits the British if they do not declare for a republic based on verifiable laws and principles, both political and scientific.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/06/charles_prince_of_piffle.html
 

LonelyWolf

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,031
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
If they are hardly English then unless you are of indigenous Australian background you can't be Australian.

I know that people point to the German coming in in 1714 to claim the family is German but since George II every monarch has been born in the UK with two of the last three most recent spouses also born there - Queen Mary (wife of George V) was born in Kensington Palace, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (wife of George VI) was also born in the UK so in the last 100 years one consort wasn't born in the UK - Philip but where were his mother and grandmother born - Windsor Castle and his great-grandmother was born in Buckingham Palace - not to mention his great-great-grandmother being born in Kensington Palace and her father and grandfather also being born in the UK. Sure others were born elsewhere but there has been a continuous line of being born in the UK since the mid-1700s - before the British arrival in this country.

The go back to 1714 and look at what was George I's claim based on - the fact that his grandmother was born in the UK and her father was the King of Scotland and England.

So if they aren't English then most of us aren't Australian.
the family hasn't properly been in England for 500 years or more. Time for a family of true Englishman
 

LonelyWolf

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,031
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Once the Queen dies and Princess Mary becomes Queen of Denmark - we should switch allegiance.

Such a brilliant idea imo
 

cem

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
2,438
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
the family hasn't properly been in England for 500 years or more. Time for a family of true Englishman
What more do they need to do but be born there, live there and spend their lives serving the country to be classed as British?

Since the Tudors only George I and George II weren't born in Britain - that is two monarchs in the last 500 years. All of them have lived in the country for a large part of their reigns with the possible exception of George I.

I would really like to know where the family has been if they haven't been properly living in England in the last 500 years considering that they have been born there and lived the vast majority of their lives there.

The present Prince of Wales has one parent and one grandparent not born in the UK - better them many of the British population and many Australians. If that doesn't make him British then I am not an Australian as I can't claim 3/4 of my grandparents being born in Australia - only 2/4 of my grandparents were born here. 5 of his 8 great-grandparents were also born in the UK - all four of his great-grandparents on his mother's side and one of his father's grandmothers - who happened to be born in Windsor Castle - something not even the Queen can claim - an ancestor that recent born in Windsor Castle (Philip's mother and grandmother were both born there).
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Here is what I think:
- I don't care where they were born.
- I don't care whether Charles is an astute dresser or knows about buildings and stuff
- I don't care whether they do charity work, so they bloody should. They get paid a bucket load of money for a purely symbolic role

And a whole bunch of other stuff.

Basically I don't care about the royal family, in a way that is totally apathetic. I.e. I don't care if they exist, I don't care if they don't exist.
 

suling

Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
342
Location
Armidale
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
Has everyone forgotten that William the Conqueror was a Norman? Also, the early Plantagenet kings ruled from France and hardly ever visited England.
 

LonelyWolf

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,031
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Has everyone forgotten that William the Conqueror was a Norman? Also, the early Plantagenet kings ruled from France and hardly ever visited England.
The point still stands, the royal family should have an English lineage of a minimum of 500 years
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top