FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Kate may never become Queen
Kate may never become Queen
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The latest amendment being considered is that she will become the King's Consort. This seems perfectly reasonable, after all Philip wasn't given the title of King.
The good news is that if this does become law, Camilla won't be crowned Queen. Perhaps they might be justice after all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
think we should just get rid of the royal family altiogether...they dont do much theese days and they certainly hold no power like they did in the days of old |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I don't believe that was guaranteed and I have suspicions that Charles would have fought for Camilla to be Queen. I believe he was just playing a waiting game... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *londeCazWoman
over a year ago
Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria |
Regardless of what's been decided, Camilla will become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne whether she uses the title or not...I personally have no issue with that. I've always thought it odd that a Queen's husband doesn't get Kingship yet a King's wife is automatically a Queen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gosh - I so don't care. It won't affect their already luxurious lifestyle which is completely at odds with the struggles of day to day life of 'commoners'."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" I've always thought it odd that a Queen's husband doesn't get Kingship yet a King's wife is automatically a Queen"
It's because king is traditionally seen as a higher title than queen, and it would be improper for someone just married into the family to hold the title |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who gives a shit ?"
lol.
I said this when they were reporting in all seriousness on the news (I think it was Nicholas Witchell with his toadying creepy face on) that Kate's father wears fancy dress on Christmas day... so chuffin what! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is no reason for Kate not to become Queen.
Philip could not become King as he was not born to it.
Camilla cannot become queen because she is divorced.
Diana could have become queen, but one divorced could not.
Why do we need these people anyway? Off with their heads............. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"think we should just get rid of the royal family altiogether...they dont do much theese days and they certainly hold no power like they did in the days of old"
The power has indeed all been devolved to government but to say they don't do much is a vast understatement! How many 86 year olds do u know still perform as many activities as the queen? What about the charitable foundations they setup/ are patrons of? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Regardless of what's been decided, Camilla will become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne whether she uses the title or not...I personally have no issue with that. I've always thought it odd that a Queen's husband doesn't get Kingship yet a King's wife is automatically a Queen"
Some of the reason for that is down to the current rules of succession. A King can 'appoint' a Queen, as that role is, in peerage terms, subservient to that of King. But a Queen cannot appoint 'above' her, hence Ole Phil only got Duke of Ed.
If the proposed changes to the rules of succession go through (without the pro-monarchist bum-lickers kicking up a right stink and claiming the changes to be the work of Satan..) not only will female offspring have an equal right to succession, but they will - in theory - therefore have an equal right to appoint. In other words, the role of King and/or Queen would be of equal rank, either being able to appoint the other on marriage.
Where's Norman St John-Stevas when you need him..???? 
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who gives a shit ?
lol.
I said this when they were reporting in all seriousness on the news (I think it was Nicholas Witchell with his toadying creepy face on) that Kate's father wears fancy dress on Christmas day... so chuffin what!"
Yeah, like there's never been a Royal cross-dresser......
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"think we should just get rid of the royal family altiogether...they dont do much theese days and they certainly hold no power like they did in the days of old
The power has indeed all been devolved to government but to say they don't do much is a vast understatement! How many 86 year olds do u know still perform as many activities as the queen? What about the charitable foundations they setup/ are patrons of? "
How many 86 year olds have the number of staff she does?
How many 86 year olds cost the country what she costs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Given as how she doesn't claim state pension/benefits etc I'd say there are thousands of 86 year olds that cost the state more...
Many studies have also concluded that the UK benefits finically through added tourism and ambassadorial roles performed by the royal family. These far outweigh their expense. Just look at the millions that was pumped into the economy this jubilee year... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the Queen and the royals bring in far more cash than they take.
Also other countries LOVE the royals, many of them more than we do. If a big business deal needs going through for UK workers they will send in a royal (Andrew/Edward/Will etc) to charm the other country's decisions makers. happens all the time but rarely reported.
Plus the obvious tourism.
Finally, if we got rid of the Royals, who would be the 'figurehad' of the UK? Like the Merkins, it would be a politician (obama in their case). I REAALLY don't want this. As much ass some people hate Charles etc, do you really think Blair/Brown/Cameron are better international figureheads for us? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
funny how a lot f the people posting negative comments are scottish!! The sooner you de-evolve and your country collapses under it's own ability to generate income, the better! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Regardless of what's been decided, Camilla will become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne whether she uses the title or not...I personally have no issue with that. I've always thought it odd that a Queen's husband doesn't get Kingship yet a King's wife is automatically a Queen"
i thought philip wasnt king because him and liz were not married when she became queen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Philip was never King because a King is precieved to have more power than a Queen, hence why all women who succeeds husbands are called Prince. Seems strange that Kate wont be Queen after all the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Philip was never King because a King is precieved to have more power than a Queen, hence why all women who succeeds husbands are called Prince. Seems strange that Kate wont be Queen after all the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth"
Her Father was King George V |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Given as how she doesn't claim state pension/benefits etc I'd say there are thousands of 86 year olds that cost the state more...
............ "
I mentioned this to my auld mither. She nearly choked on her caviar.
Fortunately her personal physician was in the next room so she lives to jump out of helicopters again tomorrow. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Philip was never King because a King is precieved to have more power than a Queen, hence why all women who succeeds husbands are called Prince. Seems strange that Kate wont be Queen after all the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth
Her Father was King George V"
Actually, her father was Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathclyde and Kingsthorpe
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"funny how a lot f the people posting negative comments are scottish!! The sooner you de-evolve and your country collapses under it's own ability to generate income, the better!"
Your post is highly inappropriate. I suggest you get your facts right on the nationality of those who you say have shown negativity towards the royal family. Its verging on racist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Regardless of what's been decided, Camilla will become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne whether she uses the title or not...I personally have no issue with that. I've always thought it odd that a Queen's husband doesn't get Kingship yet a King's wife is automatically a Queen
i thought philip wasnt king because him and liz were not married when she became queen"
That'll come as a surprise to Charles, even if Diana thought he was an illegitimate person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"funny how a lot f the people posting negative comments are scottish!! The sooner you de-evolve and your country collapses under it's own ability to generate income, the better!"
Separation is never going to happen but even in Salmond's Brave new la-la land - we'll be keeping the Queen (and the pound)(and NATO)(and Trident). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not read all the posts as to be honest the anti royal brigade just annoy me.
I think that it's already been decided that Camilla won't be queen. But can not see why Kate won't be
I've throughly loved all the pomp and circumstance this year. My kids have learned all about it this year. It's great. Looking forward to the royal baby next year.
Think the younger royals are doing great job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The latest amendment being considered is that she will become the King's Consort. This seems perfectly reasonable, after all Philip wasn't given the title of King.
The good news is that if this does become law, Camilla won't be crowned Queen. Perhaps they might be justice after all."
Are you trying to imply that there might need to be some restitution against Camilla for any part that she might have played in her life ?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its worked for 400 years odd so why change? The banking system worked for 60 years then Mr Clinton got rid of the protection put in place after the wall street crash. Within 20 years of this there was another crash....
Within "the establishment" the queen is seen as the one piece of stability and dependability in a world that is increasingly in a state of flux.
Furthermore the queen and particularly those who work for her do provide real checks and balances at the highest level.
We can get a hint of this when we consider that MI5 works for the Government and MI6 works for the queen and the two are separate and distinct organizations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Philip was never King because a King is precieved to have more power than a Queen, hence why all women who succeeds husbands are called Prince. Seems strange that Kate wont be Queen after all the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth
Her Father was King George V
Actually, her father was Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathclyde and Kingsthorpe
"
Missed a I off. Her father was King George VI |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not read all the posts as to be honest the anti royal brigade just annoy me.
I think that it's already been decided that Camilla won't be queen. But can not see why Kate won't be
I've throughly loved all the pomp and circumstance this year. My kids have learned all about it this year. It's great. Looking forward to the royal baby next year.
Think the younger royals are doing great job. "
totally agree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *evilwolfCouple
over a year ago
Leicestershire |
"Philip was never King because a King is precieved to have more power than a Queen, hence why all women who succeeds husbands are called Prince. Seems strange that Kate wont be Queen after all the Queen mother was Queen Elizabeth
Her Father was King George V
Actually, her father was Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathclyde and Kingsthorpe
"
Actually King George V was the Queen Mothers Father-in-law
Devil  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We can get a hint of this when we consider that MI5 works for the Government and MI6 works for the queen and the two are separate and distinct organizations. "
What??? U clearly don't know what either organisation does if u believe that to be true... Coupled with the fact that MI6 doesn't even exist anymore... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"
We can get a hint of this when we consider that MI5 works for the Government and MI6 works for the queen and the two are separate and distinct organizations.
What??? U clearly don't know what either organisation does if u believe that to be true... Coupled with the fact that MI6 doesn't even exist anymore... "
6 does exist, it's just adopted a Sunday name. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I haven't read the whole thread. But to all you anti Royalist I can say only one thing and that is such a strong arguement you will be left speachless..... "France!" "
Yep. There's no doubt your well reasoned and considered contribution leaves me speechless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"I haven't read the whole thread. But to all you anti Royalist I can say only one thing and that is such a strong arguement you will be left speachless..... "France!" "
Yup France - and didn't they have a good idea? Beheaded their aristocracy. Great argument. I agree - let's be like the French! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I haven't read the whole thread. But to all you anti Royalist I can say only one thing and that is such a strong arguement you will be left speachless..... "France!"
Yup France - and didn't they have a good idea? Beheaded their aristocracy. Great argument. I agree - let's be like the French!"
Getting rid of monarchy wasn't enough. They've yet to achieve a proper separation of powers (as if WE have). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"I haven't read the whole thread. But to all you anti Royalist I can say only one thing and that is such a strong arguement you will be left speachless..... "France!"
Yup France - and didn't they have a good idea? Beheaded their aristocracy. Great argument. I agree - let's be like the French!
Getting rid of monarchy wasn't enough. They've yet to achieve a proper separation of powers (as if WE have)."
True but it's a start. I hate the idea that people can just be born into the right family and have so much influence in the country - whether they are perceived to have power or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I haven't read the whole thread. But to all you anti Royalist I can say only one thing and that is such a strong arguement you will be left speachless..... "France!"
Yup France - and didn't they have a good idea? Beheaded their aristocracy. Great argument. I agree - let's be like the French!"
Yes lets... Then we can behead anyone we don't like, who disagrees with us or has a different point of _iew. Then we can starve who ever is left and then have a small mad man take us to war.... Then a couple of hundred years later we all our women would have hairy armpits..... Are you mad? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hate the idea that people can just be born into the right family and have so much influence in the country - whether they are perceived to have power or not."
This happens throughout virtually every country in the world, monarchy or not. The children of rich, successful, politically active etc parents always have influence beyond their means to begin with as we popularise people through the media and they have the means to access better education... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hate the idea that people can just be born into the right family and have so much influence in the country - whether they are perceived to have power or not.
This happens throughout virtually every country in the world, monarchy or not. The children of rich, successful, politically active etc parents always have influence beyond their means to begin with as we popularise people through the media and they have the means to access better education... "
Its probably a bit outdated after a thousand years. Hereditary privilege in the 21C doesn't sit too well with some |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god."
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it."
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it."
Err not really. The whole structure of this society and country, monarchy, parliament, law, policing, bill of rights, your freedoms and customs is based on the existence of god. So its not really my arguament is it, it is a statement of fact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Err not really. The whole structure of this society and country, monarchy, parliament, law, policing, bill of rights, your freedoms and customs is based on the existence of god. So its not really my arguament is it, it is a statement of fact."
does that mean that seeing as the burden of proof of the existence of god is on believers that all laws stemming from magna carta, habeas corpus,the bill of rights and the act of settlement are null and void?
Or do i spy a Strawman? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?"
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Being stinking rich is actually quite hard work..... No really: hear me out!
1. If you inherit a fortune and have not worked for it then this is going to send you "half bananas" for a start. The reason why Charles is so bitchy is because of this and the fact that he has been waiting to inherit a job for the last 60 odd years... I am not expressing sympathy here but just giving the griff.
I see this with certain people in Africa. They want what you have but then when they get it they tire of it because they did not have to work for it. Midas touch stuff....
2. Everybody in Africa wants to be the president. You could stock a football team with the candidates for President in Kenya right now. Why? Because you can do what the hell you want with complete impunity.
Who in the UK would want her job right now. Camera lens up your ass 24/7; everybody with an opinion on everything you do. No more hanging out on a website like this pal: You can't even have a decent game of strip billiards without an international incident ...LOL
3. You are the leader... When sh1t goes down you must inspire, reassure, motivate and guide. Those weekly meetings Cameron has with her. Do you really think they are all one way? I helped lead a big business until a couple of years ago and it is bloody stressful. I was happy to hand the keys back...
4. Over the last 30 years in this country we have grown the middle class considerably. Thus we have killed the extreme left off and the extreme right has committed suicide.
We are left with the nondescript mush in the middle who don't seem to stand for anything. Country's get the leaders they deserve and the appalling turnout on voting has resulted in this.
The middle class seem to think that as long as we have a safe pair of hands in charge who will allow me to keep my two cars, nice house blah blah then I am comfortable and least bothered about anything else.
I wouldn't wish poverty on anyone but I think this type of middle class thinking has got too big. We need some heredity rich bastards to break it up a bit.
P.S. I am not a rich bastard myself. I have just lived a bit... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Err not really. The whole structure of this society and country, monarchy, parliament, law, policing, bill of rights, your freedoms and customs is based on the existence of god. So its not really my arguament is it, it is a statement of fact.
does that mean that seeing as the burden of proof of the existence of god is on believers that all laws stemming from magna carta, habeas corpus,the bill of rights and the act of settlement are null and void?
Or do i spy a Strawman? "
Those things you mention infer the applied existence of God. There was never a direct mandate from The Man himself who set out these laws for man to follow. It's a catch-all getout for people in power to retain that power, and it also shackles the monarch so as to imply that there is an entity with higher powers than the Queen (in olden times at least). Even Roman emperors had a slave in the chariot behind him whispering "Remember, thou art mortal," during his coronation. There has always been the inferred existence of a God to temper the power of the man/woman/organisation that held the real highest power. A reminder that they can be removed 'by the will of God' should the people tire of them.
I don't think Her Maj will be worrying about doing bird for not following God's laws anytime soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him."
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god."
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him.
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw "
I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him.
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw
I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right."
some people think its right to have sex with little children, some think its right to rape, torture, murder, enslave and steal. Is that what you advocate ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right.
some people think its right to have sex with little children, some think its right to rape, torture, murder, enslave and steal. Is that what you advocate ?"
And this is indicative of all non-believers is it?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him.
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw
I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right.
some people think its right to have sex with little children, some think its right to rape, torture, murder, enslave and steal. Is that what you advocate ?"
are you saying religion prevents those things. Or sponsors them? Not really sure what your point is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him.
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw
I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right."
Fair enough but answer quickly now: Is a mystic weak or strong?
Your answer says far more about yourself than the mystic... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
"
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fair enough but answer quickly now: Is a mystic weak or strong?
Your answer says far more about yourself than the mystic..."
I think they prey on people who are at a particularly vulnerable part of their lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him.
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw
I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right.
Fair enough but answer quickly now: Is a mystic weak or strong?
Your answer says far more about yourself than the mystic..."
are we including the ones who are charlatans? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fair enough but answer quickly now: Is a mystic weak or strong?
Your answer says far more about yourself than the mystic...
I think they prey on people who are at a particularly vulnerable part of their lives."
When it comes to the "the PR wing / soul saver's" I entirely agree with you but then there are those who quietly get on with their faith and that's a different matter. Anyhow: We are off topic.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police."
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him.
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw
I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right.
Fair enough but answer quickly now: Is a mystic weak or strong?
Your answer says far more about yourself than the mystic...
are we including the ones who are charlatans?"
They are ALL charlatans. There is no hotline to heaven. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
One would have to prove the existence of god to convict her though. Kinda shoots your argument down in flames doesn't it.
Did you see that film last night with Billy Connolly?
Yes I did, hence the question.
If we are to live our lives by the laws of some omnipotent being then it's only fair that the existence of such a being is proven. It is not enough to say, "He is all around us and in everything," I want to SEE him.
that's the thing with believers,they reject the burden of proof. If you doubt the existence of god their reply is usually "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"
The caps lock is theirs not mine btw
I've always held the opinion that religion is for weak-minded people who have no faith in themselves to live their lives by what they feel is right and not by what some hidden allseeing superchum says is right.
Fair enough but answer quickly now: Is a mystic weak or strong?
Your answer says far more about yourself than the mystic...
are we including the ones who are charlatans?
They are ALL charlatans. There is no hotline to heaven. "
OK...Forget the heaven and hell thing as I don't buy it either TBH but are you seriously suggesting that you have never had a single spiritual experience in your life?
Never felt somebody else's stare from across a room and wheeled around to see who is looking. Never had the feeling that there might be some "wiring under the board" that is guiding what you do and think?
How do you deal with death? If you are and atheist then surely the only comfort you can have in death is that you will make good compost?  That's not quite doing it for me TBH. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police.
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules..."
Treason is an act against the sovereign or nation. The queen is a traitor/treasoness in that she swore to govern and uphold the law of god and the laws and customs of the people.
She has failed to do that and therefore is in breach of the oath she swore.
You are also a sovereign. Its a two way relationship between the people and the queen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police.
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules...
Treason is an act against the sovereign or nation. The queen is a traitor/treasoness in that she swore to govern and uphold the law of god and the laws and customs of the people.
She has failed to do that and therefore is in breach of the oath she swore.
You are also a sovereign. Its a two way relationship between the people and the queen."
What "laws" has our Queen broken? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police.
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules...
Treason is an act against the sovereign or nation. The queen is a traitor/treasoness in that she swore to govern and uphold the law of god and the laws and customs of the people.
She has failed to do that and therefore is in breach of the oath she swore.
You are also a sovereign. Its a two way relationship between the people and the queen.
What "laws" has our Queen broken?"
treason |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police.
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules...
Treason is an act against the sovereign or nation. The queen is a traitor/treasoness in that she swore to govern and uphold the law of god and the laws and customs of the people.
She has failed to do that and therefore is in breach of the oath she swore.
You are also a sovereign. Its a two way relationship between the people and the queen.
What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason"
is this going down the'joining the eec and ratifying subsequent treaties' route? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police.
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules...
Treason is an act against the sovereign or nation. The queen is a traitor/treasoness in that she swore to govern and uphold the law of god and the laws and customs of the people.
She has failed to do that and therefore is in breach of the oath she swore.
You are also a sovereign. Its a two way relationship between the people and the queen.
What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason"
How has she committed treason? You've made this statement a number of times. What are her crimes against the crown? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police.
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules...
Treason is an act against the sovereign or nation. The queen is a traitor/treasoness in that she swore to govern and uphold the law of god and the laws and customs of the people.
She has failed to do that and therefore is in breach of the oath she swore.
You are also a sovereign. Its a two way relationship between the people and the queen.
What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason
How has she committed treason? You've made this statement a number of times. What are her crimes against the crown? "
The crown lol. the crown is the city of london corporation, registered and trading for profit in the quater mile of the city of london. A seperate state with its own laws and police force. Swearing an oath to become queen and not upholding that oath is treason. If you are interested i suggest you go and read some stuff. Personally i dont think you have any interest at all so i cant be arsed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The latest amendment being considered is that she will become the King's Consort. This seems perfectly reasonable, after all Philip wasn't given the title of King.
The good news is that if this does become law, Camilla won't be crowned Queen. Perhaps they might be justice after all."
As long as the forelock-tuggers have someone to reign over them, they'll be ever so 'appy and 'umble |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Constitutionally the queen should be in a jail cell. She swore an oath on her coronation swearing to uphold the laws of god.
err ok mr Cromwell, you start an E petition and see how long it lasts..
private prosecution perhaps..??
yes your honour i will now outline the case for....
lol i didnt make this game up. its their rules not mine. But going by their rules you have to say the queen has committed treason and so to have the mp's and the police.
not sure treason is applicable against the Queen who is the sovereign or head of state..?
thought treason was a crime 'against the state or the sovereign'..?
rules, schmules which of us can say we have allways abided by all the rules...
Treason is an act against the sovereign or nation. The queen is a traitor/treasoness in that she swore to govern and uphold the law of god and the laws and customs of the people.
She has failed to do that and therefore is in breach of the oath she swore.
You are also a sovereign. Its a two way relationship between the people and the queen.
What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason
How has she committed treason? You've made this statement a number of times. What are her crimes against the crown? The crown lol. the crown is the city of london corporation, registered and trading for profit in the quater mile of the city of london. A seperate state with its own laws and police force. Swearing an oath to become queen and not upholding that oath is treason. If you are interested i suggest you go and read some stuff. Personally i dont think you have any interest at all so i cant be arsed."
I'll read up on it. Can you point me to a website that will enlighten me. One thing tho,it has to be a site that isn't run by a conspiracy theorist. Or contain the word theory.Or Conspiracy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason
How has she committed treason? You've made this statement a number of times. What are her crimes against the crown? The crown lol. the crown is the city of london corporation, registered and trading for profit in the quater mile of the city of london. A seperate state with its own laws and police force. Swearing an oath to become queen and not upholding that oath is treason. If you are interested i suggest you go and read some stuff. Personally i dont think you have any interest at all so i cant be arsed."
If that's your argument mate your more deluded than I first thought. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"think we should just get rid of the royal family altiogether...they dont do much theese days and they certainly hold no power like they did in the days of old"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason
How has she committed treason? You've made this statement a number of times. What are her crimes against the crown? The crown lol. the crown is the city of london corporation, registered and trading for profit in the quater mile of the city of london. A seperate state with its own laws and police force. Swearing an oath to become queen and not upholding that oath is treason. If you are interested i suggest you go and read some stuff. Personally i dont think you have any interest at all so i cant be arsed.
If that's your argument mate your more deluded than I first thought."
crack on and correct me then. Evidence that disproves anything i stated ? thought not. looking forward to a troll free year |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason
How has she committed treason? You've made this statement a number of times. What are her crimes against the crown? The crown lol. the crown is the city of london corporation, registered and trading for profit in the quater mile of the city of london. A seperate state with its own laws and police force. Swearing an oath to become queen and not upholding that oath is treason. If you are interested i suggest you go and read some stuff. Personally i dont think you have any interest at all so i cant be arsed.
If that's your argument mate your more deluded than I first thought. crack on and correct me then. Evidence that disproves anything i stated ? thought not. looking forward to a troll free year "
Come on, you really can't be that thick |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What "laws" has our Queen broken? treason
How has she committed treason? You've made this statement a number of times. What are her crimes against the crown? The crown lol. the crown is the city of london corporation, registered and trading for profit in the quater mile of the city of london. A seperate state with its own laws and police force. Swearing an oath to become queen and not upholding that oath is treason. If you are interested i suggest you go and read some stuff. Personally i dont think you have any interest at all so i cant be arsed.
If that's your argument mate your more deluded than I first thought. crack on and correct me then. Evidence that disproves anything i stated ? thought not. looking forward to a troll free year "
Do you have evidence that PROVES anything you've stated.
As said before,Burden of proof.
I know enough about The City of London,The Rothschilds,The Queens apparent deference to the Lord Mayor of London within the city walls,Corporations,what constitutes a Crown colony,ad nauseum,but I've never been furnished with any real proof.And anyone who is suspected of hiding it is accuses of Misprison of treason. And then of course we're just a stones throw away from The NWO,Lizards,shape Shifters and The Annunaki.
So,to sum up. Got any proof? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
