Posted on 02/26/2005 3:58:41 PM PST by wagglebee
"I suggest that any man who would trade in Diana Spencer for...Camilla Parker-Bowles...is simply too stupid to be allowed to accede to the throne."
You aren't the first to say this. Apparently Charles father, Prince Phillip said or wrote to Diana that he thought no-one in their right mind would leave Diana for Camilla Parker-Bowles, according to Paul Burrell. Prince Phillip has made it clear for several decades that he thinks his son is too weak-minded to get the throne. He would much preferred Princess Anne to become Queen, if the rules had allowed this, because she has the guts that Charles never had. Now, Prince Phillip may prefer his favorite grandson, Prince William to get the throne. Either way, the senior Royals seem to have their fingers crossed that Charles never becomes King.
Cheated on and destroyed the life of what seemed to be a lovely 19 year old lady with whom the British public was openly in love with. Given the public forum, this is quite appropriate behavior on our part.
Yes, I am particularly upset about it. Royalty takes it upon itself to destroy another life due to politics? I'm rabid over it. You should be, too. Whining Royalty simply doesn't earn much compassion in my book, particularly one who apparently has upset our allies so much.
"Cheated on and destroyed the life of what seemed to be a lovely 19 year old lady with whom the British public was openly in love with."
Just looked you up. You sound like a paragon of virtue yourself:
Honorary member of the local American-Irish Olympic drinking team. I'm sort of a mascot. I'm single-handedly responsible for the current team cheer:"Rob can't take it! Rob can't take it!" As I like to say, "I'm not Irish, but the people who carry me home are."...
I love this song. It reminds me so much of Rio, mostly because everyone was so drunk and singing this song all night long. ...
"He's married to a supporter of murder and adultery.
Are you sure you aren't a lib? Jeez."
Are you sure you aren't a rabid zealot? Sound like one. And accusing someone of supporting murder and adultery (in your opinion) sounds quite fanatical to me. Some more of that kind and compassionate Christian attitude. You'd better go back to the drawing board.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for this jerk?
You are forgetting one of the great lessons of life - no woman is so beautiful that there isn't a man somewhere who is tired of her s...stuff.
Diana had a fine body & OK face. She also had the brains of a doorknob. She struck me as self-serving, manipulative and an emotional 5 year old.
Camilla has rotten looks (I always expect her to whinney) - but by all accounts, she's very supportive of Charles. And as Charles gets old, that might well be enough.
Besides...some dogs are good in the sack. I'm told. Not that Mrs Rogers...I mean...well, time to change the subject!
Is that the best you can do?
I've been to Chicago. I've met truly wonderful people there. They strike me as far more enlightened than this.
Again, to get back to your point, you asked "What did he do".
I would rather inform you of my issue with Charles rather than rebuke you. You are attempting to compel me to do so by attacking me personally with what pathetic ammo you have.
I had thought that I would have been delighted to share this discourse with you. I had hoped to continue this thread and bring in the sources that I had heard that turned my opinion against Charles. I have chatted on many threads with our British FReepers and they have shared a great deal of information on this relationship that turned my opinion from one of apathy to one of disdain.
But if you're bound to personal attacks before attempting to learn more about the situation, I suspect it speaks volumes about your maturity and ability to deal with such facts. Judging by your response it's worthless to explain anything to you. I won't be responding to your posts in the future, you don't seem to be able to get past personal insults without having a clear understanding of a situation, and I won't waste my time.
he's lucky he's not up for murder....
The more valorous kings of England past are doing 900rpm in their graves! Sheesh! If this is what royalty has come to, retire it.
Man, I love British humor, and Charles is just a small part of it...
Thanks for your comments. Yes, Prince Charles has put a great deal of thought and effort into making the Duchy of Cornwall profitable.
I agree with flaglady47 about the despicable nastiness that comes up on FR whenever the British monarchy is discussed and probably on a lot of other threads that I'm not aware of. Frankly, most of the comments on this thread make me sick. I'm not sure I even feel like trying to argue with these Jacobins masquerading as "conservatives." I'd have more in common with Canadian liberals who support the monarchy than with these creeps.
One doesn't have to be as passionate a monarchist as I am to see that knee-jerk hostility to royalty and monarchy is profoundly un-conservative. I once e-mailed a somewhat well-known American right-wing internet commentator about this unfortunate tendency. His response: "Yes, it's disturbing that Americans in general have this attitude. For conservatives to have it is totally unacceptable. It means they subscribe to the liberal view that everything in history prior to 1789 or 1776 was chaos and old night. And if that's their view, how can they defend our civilization? All they can defend is liberal rights."
OK, so Prince Charles is a sinner. Well, I'd like to know, who are all these FReepers who are so perfect? Prince Charles is also a hardworking representative of one of Western civilization's greatest institutions who has done a great deal to help urban youth through his Prince's Trust and who cares deeply about issues that ought to matter to conservatives such as architecture, hunting, and the countryside in general.
I'll admit that sometimes I wonder why I ever got it into my head that it would be a good idea to sign up for a place like "Free Republic" with the intention of defending monarchy. Most of the comments on this thread and others like it only strengthen my conviction that the wrong side won in 1781.
>Some more of that kind and compassionate Christian attitude
Who said I was a Christian?
Furthermore, my accusation is correct. It's obvious.
"I won't be responding to your posts in the future, you don't seem to be able to get past personal insults without having a clear understanding of a situation, and I won't waste my time."
From your own Freeper Page:
"Honorary member of the local American-Irish Olympic drinking team. I'm sort of a mascot. I'm single-handedly responsible for the current team cheer:"Rob can't take it! Rob can't take it!" As I like to say, "I'm not Irish, but the people who carry me home are."...
I love this song. It reminds me so much of Rio, mostly because everyone was so drunk and singing this song all night long. ..."
I hate to tell you, but my "personal insults" are your own words off your own Freep page. Maybe you shouldn't advertise your own shortcomings if you don't want them parroted back to you.
And by the way, I have no idea who you are responding to, as the "I had a lot of fun, met many wonderful people," etc. is not a quote of mine. You goofed. It's someone else's comment. And I think your issues with Charles are the emotionalism of a liberal. Now remember, make sure you don't respond to this. You said you wouldn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.