No one sees the same thing? Princesses Diana?

a reply to: Tangerine

The monarch is not divinely chosen, they were chosen by the establishment when the last one abdicated - there is precious little difference between wallace simpson and camilla parker bowles - when it comes down to it.

Kingship, whenit was a divine principle was not hereditary but the best person to lead the country. They held no personal wealth and held power because the country had to be prosperous and well run for all - not something I think our current 'kingship/queenieship provides us with.

People living on low incomes and facing debt to the level it is now look at the royals high living on their taxes and are not gullible and realise a redistribution of some of the unearned wealth would go a long way round. Even the French palaces provide Billions in revenue for the French people, which our palaces with a live string of would-be monarchs don't manage to do.

Sorry I just want them gone and what they represent finished with.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Tangerine

The monarch is not divinely chosen, they were chosen by the establishment when the last one abdicated - there is precious little difference between wallace simpson and camilla parker bowles - when it comes down to it.

Kingship, whenit was a divine principle was not hereditary but the best person to lead the country. They held no personal wealth and held power because the country had to be prosperous and well run for all - not something I think our current 'kingship/queenieship provides us with.

People living on low incomes and facing debt to the level it is now look at the royals high living on their taxes and are not gullible and realise a redistribution of some of the unearned wealth would go a long way round. Even the French palaces provide Billions in revenue for the French people, which our palaces with a live string of would-be monarchs don't manage to do.

Sorry I just want them gone and what they represent finished with.

The monarch is "annointed by God". That's the claim. I didn't make it up nor do I believe it but they do. It's little known that they don't become the monarch when the crown is placed on their heads. They become the monarch when, during the coronation, they are anointed. That's the part of the coronation that you didn't see in the coronation film of Elizabeth II because it took place under a tent that shielded it from the cameras. They are not "chosen by the establishment". When Edward abdicated (after he ascended to the throne following the death of his father but, very importantly, BEFORE he was anointed), the next-in-line by "divine right" ascended to the throne.

I don't quite follow your comparison of Wallace Simpson and Camilla. Could you elaborate? Edward almost certainly did not abdicate to marry Wallace (even though that was his official statement). Edward didn't want to be monarch (apparently, almost no one does), was extremely ill-suited to the very demanding job, and was a Nazi sympathizer who met with Hitler. Wallace had a relationship with a ranking Nazi officer and received a bouquet of flowers from him daily even when she was with Edward and she, too, was a Nazi sympathizer who had tremendous influence over Edward. The House of Windsor and government were convinced that, should Edward stay on the throne, England would quickly fall to the Germans. Because of this, Edward was likely encouraged to abdicate. He was a very immature man who was obsessed with Wallace and this notion appealed to him. However, had he not abdicated, he absolutely could have married her. It's a myth that the monarch can't marry a divorced woman. You'll note that Charles married a divorced woman and he will become the monarch. Camilla is divorced but, other than that, I don't see any grounds for comparing her to Wallace Simpson. After all, Charles is divorced, too.

I do understand that people having a hard time surviving financially chafe at the notion of royals living, well, royally. However, I understand that it costs each British person something like a pound or two a year--not much but still more than some would like. On the other hand, the royals bring in huge money in tourist dollars (not that it ends up in the hands of regular people). Basically, if the royals aren't getting the money from the taxpayers, the corporations are. Either way, the regular people loose.

The divine right thing makes no sense to me but, all things considered, I'm not sure that, in practice, its proven to be a worse system of government than most others.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Tangerine

The concept of royalty is so outmoded that the majority of countries don't have a 'family' living off the riches of the land and the people. Its defunct because they serve no real governing purpose except queenie can veto whatever she likes and its shut down. I suspect she would like to use her veto on loosing the scottish finances towards her yearly allowance from the public purse.

I am surprised you need to ask what's wrong with charlie and camilla - diana is whats wrong with charlie and camilly! She will never go away and serves as the best example of the establishment's true level it will sink to to protect itself and its loves in this country.

I suspect Charles could well be the last monarch if he ever gets to sit on the throne. However it begs the fact that currently we are supporting one of the wealthiest women in the worlds 4 generations of family.

Actually, most countries have an upper class living off the riches of the land and the people. They're simply not called royals.

The British monarch legally has the right to rule (ie. the people of Britain are not citizens but her subjects), to be consulted by and advise and warn ministers of government, the power to enact legislation, to award honours on the advice of the Prime Minister, to sign treaties and to declare war. The monarch can also refuse her government's request to dissolve parliament and call an election. She also has the right to choose the prime minister if there's an inconclusive general election. That's a lot of power. She doesn't use most of it but she certainly could.

When you say, "I am surprised you need to ask what's wrong with charlie and camilla - diana is whats wrong with charlie and camilly! She will never go away and serves as the best example of the establishment's true level it will sink to to protect itself and its loves in this country" what exactly are you implying? Diana was hounded unmercifully by the media. Are you referring to the media as the establishment? She couldn't handle the "royal life", was very unhappy (as was Charles) and the Queen allowed them to divorce. Exactly what did "the establishment" do to her?

It's true that Diana will never "go away" in the minds of those who remember her, but she is already transformed into a memory and not an active presence much like people have fond memories of Elvis but few still obsess over him. Camilla is becoming more accepted each year and will become Queen consort when Charles ascends to the throne. By that time, all but a small percentage of the public will get caught up in the pomp. I think he'll make a good king (he's better prepared than anyone in history) and she'll perform her role admirably--far better than Diana would have. Will he be the last monarch? Who knows.

a reply to: Tangerine

There are a number of class distinctions in British society, and it is more than Scotland, England, Wales and Northern ireland as well as the many numerous small islands such as jersey and the isle of man (A scottish dependancy originally given to Scotland by the King of Norway), indeed the City of London not great london only that section called the City of London is actually a seperate Realm under the queen and anyone born in the city of london is a FREEMAN, this also applies to any british citizen born within the England without a birth certificate and while these may seem to be legacy and antiquated law's they are used by bank's and corporations as well as some very wealthy members of the elite to avoid taxation.
Did you know for instance a court can not bind a FREEMAN to pay a fine as they are exempt and could appeal to the high court as a county court as no jurisdiction over a FREEMAN, the difference is a Subject is Subject to the Queen but a Freeman may give his fealty but is essentially that a FREEMAN, these law's are rooted in feudal england and in the seperate positon and class of the Norman Freemen over the Saxon (slaves owned by there norman lord) Serf's.

The Royal family are indeed an anachronism of history but for many of us a likeable one that set's us apart but there is also a very strong claim that they are also not our LEGAL RIGHTFUL Royal family in accordance with the law's of Succession no that Dubious honour now goes to the Son of the man who Tony Robinson from the time team tracked down and who mock knighted him (Tony Robinsons mock Knighthood by the Heredatory king Edward was more legally legitimate according to this claim than any Knighthood handed out in the past 500 years in accord with this argument as the Tudor dynasty were actually usurpors).

And of course he has been since Knighted by the Queen who is technically of the House of Hannover, though if you look at history the reinstatement of the monarchy was an act of a democratic parliement so they do have legitimacy from there onward and of course Prince William of Orange was chosen over stronger claimants of genealogical descent because he was the appropriate choice of the anglican and protestant parliement also though not directly related I believe her Royal Highness the queen mother was a genuine good woman who gave verification to and wished my mother the best in a letter we have in which she told my mother she was supposed to be dead in 1960 under her first married name of Alice Leslie (she had divorced Frank Leslie a catholic Freemason in 1959 after he tried to poison her and she herself being a Anglican had never wanted to marry him but it had been arranged by those around her in 1951) and a plaque had been dedicated to her on the Tattershall stand at Aintree racecourse, my mother Lady alice HALLWORTH fegan Second marriange Mc.Ardle 1960 divored in 1969 (fegan being a deedpoll name taken by her father William Hallworth who worked in british intelligence) is the rightful heir of the entire Tattershall holdings' including the Bloodstocks and Title of Lady Tattershall, it was all bequeathed in trust to her by Lady Elizabeth Tattershall her relative though she has never recieved a penny of her inheritance which was concealed and Simply Taken by a group of corrupt local government and solicitors - the queen mother confirmed this, needless to say my mother is a strong royalist and there is a possible family link to princess Alexandra and Victoria, but anyway I digress yet again so here is the infamous documentary in which Mr Robinson or perhaps better termed Lord Robinson as mock or not he was knighted by a rightful geneological plantagenat heir to the kingdom of England and Wales but of course not Scotland as the throne of Scotland still has the rightful claiment being the Stuarts and Will's and Harry have a legitimized claim to the scot's throne through there mother Dianna who had Stuart blood, but then once again Britian was under that Parliement and the current Royal family have legitimacy since William of Orange to that Throne as well.



Also worth mentioning is that the Queen may on paper own that much but in reality it is state property and the royal family actually make money for the country through tourism and foreign trade missions as an ambassador for british trade, even today Royal patronage is worth a lot of money to any company allowed to display the crest, crown or title royal.

Ultimately though what does it matter to any of us who had a title or who has not, it is a parliement that run the country so any grumbles stop at no 10 downing street and I have quite a few.

This is the way I see it.

Diana had 2 boys and was young much after they were young. Kate will most likely have 2 boys and pass, just around the same age as the boys or the same age as of Diana, under some mystery illness.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Interesting. Thanks. I wasn't aware of some of this.

originally posted by: Diabolical
This is the way I see it.

Diana had 2 boys and was young much after they were young. Kate will most likely have 2 boys and pass, just around the same age as the boys or the same age as of Diana, under some mystery illness.

Let's carry this one step further. As long a you're in Woo-woo Land giving your prophecies, don't you also believe that you're somehow psychically contributing to it happening?

a reply to: Tangerine

No, that's impossible, because she's already in the hospital and I didn't do it.

originally posted by: Diabolical
a reply to: Tangerine

No, that's impossible, because she's already in the hospital and I didn't do it.

Maybe you subconsciously wish her ill.

As with most forms of politics, there will be conspiracies. I think that the OP is semi-grasping at straws when it comes to this, but considering history it's not too far out of the question. I however have to disagree, I don't think that Diana and Kate are similar at all. As much as I hate to say it, it seems that maybe Kate is just a smidge smarter than Diana and that might be something that would save her.

Wasn't it fairly common knowledge that the Queen didn't really like Diana, whereas now it's also pretty common knowledge that the Queen likes Kate? That's also something that would save Kate. I mean, all orders of 'assassination' have to come from somewhere, right?

EDIT: you'll have to excuse my semi-lack of knowledge on this topic.. I was five when Diana passed. So aside from what I've read on the internet I know hardly anything on the topic. But trying to contribute because I've been interested in this topic for awhile now.


DOUBLE EDIT: Wasn't Diana's marriage pretty rocky and unhappy, but Kate's seems pretty awesome thus far. So that's gotta have some sort of safety on it too.

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
As with most forms of politics, there will be conspiracies. I think that the OP is semi-grasping at straws when it comes to this, but considering history it's not too far out of the question. I however have to disagree, I don't think that Diana and Kate are similar at all. As much as I hate to say it, it seems that maybe Kate is just a smidge smarter than Diana and that might be something that would save her.

Wasn't it fairly common knowledge that the Queen didn't really like Diana, whereas now it's also pretty common knowledge that the Queen likes Kate? That's also something that would save Kate. I mean, all orders of 'assassination' have to come from somewhere, right?

EDIT: you'll have to excuse my semi-lack of knowledge on this topic.. I was five when Diana passed. So aside from what I've read on the internet I know hardly anything on the topic. But trying to contribute because I've been interested in this topic for awhile now.

DOUBLE EDIT: Wasn't Diana's marriage pretty rocky and unhappy, but Kate's seems pretty awesome thus far. So that's gotta have some sort of safety on it too.

You're implying that Diana was murdered by the royals. There is absolutely no evidence that she was murdered by anyone unless you consider the paparazzi's behavior in chasing the car to be tantamount to murder.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Okay problem solved. Just because the Queen says she likes kate, doesn't mean she does. I mean, I can pretend to hate someone too, just for show.

who cares lets hate all royals why they so important in our lifes, what risks are they taken for us?

a reply to: amraks

I just wanted to be the first to call it.

kate is nothing like Diana. kate is a Diana wannabe and trying desperately hard to be like Diana and wants to win the nations hearts. shes even got Dianas engagement ring ffs, she had her eye on that for years. if everything goes belly up i don't think she would open her mouth about the royals.

Diana was something else.

a reply to: Tangerine

You should watch the Keith Allen documentary called Unlawful Killing. Its banned in the UK but it is worth watching if you can get a copy. You assertion she was not murdered is not backed up the the court case. Our newspapers said accidental death but the actual verdict was unlawful killing (and not by the paps)

originally posted by: slippeddisc
kate is nothing like Diana. kate is a Diana wannabe and trying desperately hard to be like Diana and wants to win the nations hearts. shes even got Dianas engagement ring ffs, she had her eye on that for years. if everything goes belly up i don't think she would open her mouth about the royals.

Diana was something else.

I liked Diana too. That is why I think, Kate will suffer a fate just like Diana. They wanted the kids, not her. Probably won't be the same fate, but something is going to happen soon around Diana's age, or the age of her sons.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Tangerine

There are a number of class distinctions in British society, and it is more than Scotland, England, Wales and Northern ireland as well as the many numerous small islands such as jersey and the isle of man (A scottish dependancy originally given to Scotland by the King of Norway), indeed the City of London not great london only that section called the City of London is actually a seperate Realm under the queen and anyone born in the city of london is a FREEMAN, this also applies to any british citizen born within the England without a birth certificate and while these may seem to be legacy and antiquated law's they are used by bank's and corporations as well as some very wealthy members of the elite to avoid taxation.
Did you know for instance a court can not bind a FREEMAN to pay a fine as they are exempt and could appeal to the high court as a county court as no jurisdiction over a FREEMAN, the difference is a Subject is Subject to the Queen but a Freeman may give his fealty but is essentially that a FREEMAN, these law's are rooted in feudal england and in the seperate positon and class of the Norman Freemen over the Saxon (slaves owned by there norman lord) Serf's.

The Royal family are indeed an anachronism of history but for many of us a likeable one that set's us apart but there is also a very strong claim that they are also not our LEGAL RIGHTFUL Royal family in accordance with the law's of Succession no that Dubious honour now goes to the Son of the man who Tony Robinson from the time team tracked down and who mock knighted him (Tony Robinsons mock Knighthood by the Heredatory king Edward was more legally legitimate according to this claim than any Knighthood handed out in the past 500 years in accord with this argument as the Tudor dynasty were actually usurpors).

And of course he has been since Knighted by the Queen who is technically of the House of Hannover, though if you look at history the reinstatement of the monarchy was an act of a democratic parliement so they do have legitimacy from there onward and of course Prince William of Orange was chosen over stronger claimants of genealogical descent because he was the appropriate choice of the anglican and protestant parliement also though not directly related I believe her Royal Highness the queen mother was a genuine good woman who gave verification to and wished my mother the best in a letter we have in which she told my mother she was supposed to be dead in 1960 under her first married name of Alice Leslie (she had divorced Frank Leslie a catholic Freemason in 1959 after he tried to poison her and she herself being a Anglican had never wanted to marry him but it had been arranged by those around her in 1951) and a plaque had been dedicated to her on the Tattershall stand at Aintree racecourse, my mother Lady alice HALLWORTH fegan Second marriange Mc.Ardle 1960 divored in 1969 (fegan being a deedpoll name taken by her father William Hallworth who worked in british intelligence) is the rightful heir of the entire Tattershall holdings' including the Bloodstocks and Title of Lady Tattershall, it was all bequeathed in trust to her by Lady Elizabeth Tattershall her relative though she has never recieved a penny of her inheritance which was concealed and Simply Taken by a group of corrupt local government and solicitors - the queen mother confirmed this, needless to say my mother is a strong royalist and there is a possible family link to princess Alexandra and Victoria, but anyway I digress yet again so here is the infamous documentary in which Mr Robinson or perhaps better termed Lord Robinson as mock or not he was knighted by a rightful geneological plantagenat heir to the kingdom of England and Wales but of course not Scotland as the throne of Scotland still has the rightful claiment being the Stuarts and Will's and Harry have a legitimized claim to the scot's throne through there mother Dianna who had Stuart blood, but then once again Britian was under that Parliement and the current Royal family have legitimacy since William of Orange to that Throne as well.

Also worth mentioning is that the Queen may on paper own that much but in reality it is state property and the royal family actually make money for the country through tourism and foreign trade missions as an ambassador for british trade, even today Royal patronage is worth a lot of money to any company allowed to display the crest, crown or title royal.

Ultimately though what does it matter to any of us who had a title or who has not, it is a parliement that run the country so any grumbles stop at no 10 downing street and I have quite a few.

You need to begin with Catherine of Araogon then note Marys rightfull place in line,this is where an interesting devince happens,one which creates the potentiality for there to exist a possible more legally rightfull Heir than Prince Charles OR Prince William.

originally posted by: Diabolical
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Okay problem solved. Just because the Queen says she likes kate, doesn't mean she does. I mean, I can pretend to hate someone too, just for show.

That's true, but... I dunno. Even people who pretend to like someone else often times shows hints of disliking someone. A simple eyeroll and the like. I mean... Anybody who's been through high school knows that. Lol.

Like I said though, I don't think they are similar. So their situations wouldn't be similar.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
As with most forms of politics, there will be conspiracies. I think that the OP is semi-grasping at straws when it comes to this, but considering history it's not too far out of the question. I however have to disagree, I don't think that Diana and Kate are similar at all. As much as I hate to say it, it seems that maybe Kate is just a smidge smarter than Diana and that might be something that would save her.

Wasn't it fairly common knowledge that the Queen didn't really like Diana, whereas now it's also pretty common knowledge that the Queen likes Kate? That's also something that would save Kate. I mean, all orders of 'assassination' have to come from somewhere, right?

EDIT: you'll have to excuse my semi-lack of knowledge on this topic.. I was five when Diana passed. So aside from what I've read on the internet I know hardly anything on the topic. But trying to contribute because I've been interested in this topic for awhile now.

DOUBLE EDIT: Wasn't Diana's marriage pretty rocky and unhappy, but Kate's seems pretty awesome thus far. So that's gotta have some sort of safety on it too.

You're implying that Diana was murdered by the royals. There is absolutely no evidence that she was murdered by anyone unless you consider the paparazzi's behavior in chasing the car to be tantamount to murder.

The OP is pretty much implying that Diana's death was a set up. Why else would they say that they are similar and that Kate will end up likely the same way.