Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Royal baby 'should be Princess of Wales'

princess duke and duchess of cambridge royal baby

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#46    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

View PostOverSword, on 22 January 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Henry's behaviour was judged as less than moral by most of the world while he was still alive

Show your evidence for that.

Quote

OverSword, on 22 January 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

  How many of your own ancestoral peasant countrymen did he have hanged for disagreening with what they perceived as him jeapordizing thier immortal souls just so he could groundlesly divorce his queen?

The amount of people that Henry supposedly executed for their religion pales into insignificance compared to the amount of Protestants that his Catholic daughter Mary burned at the stake in her short, fiver-year reign..

And Henry wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon because she did not provide him with a male heir.  That is, after all, why Henry married her.  As I've pointed out, it was NORMAL for a medieval monarch to marry a monarch just to provide him with a male her.  Medieval monarchs did not marry for love.  Henry was normal in that respect.  He was no different from most other monarchs of the time.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 23 January 2013 - 06:07 PM.


#47    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:11 PM

View Postealdwita, on 22 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Elizabeth's successor was James IV of Scotland

Elizabeth's successor was James VI of Scotland.


#48    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:45 PM

The charity works is BS. It doesn't do anything. Applied for Princes trust when Is tarted out in my Dream career. Nothing.

As for the rest of what you said it's all opinion. You don't sound like someone who knows much about the real world in the UK.

As for calling me Republican. LOL I hate the government, I hate the corruption of the government. You completely missed my point. My point is that the Queen might be head of state, but she doesn't do anything with it. Which means there is no point here being there. Please enlighten us with what decisions she actually makes regarding Britain?


As for Royals during wartime, they are all put in safe positions away from any Danger. If you class that as serving our country when others go without who did far more during WW2 then you need to take a long hard look at what you consider right and wrong.


Also calling me green eyed etc is just stupid. I believe in everyone being born with equal rights and equal chance in life. That includes the position you can rise to with hard work and eduction. I'm not taking about myself, I care about others more.


Would also like to point out thta I would NEVER be rich for one simple reason. I am not greedy enough. I would give too much to help others and give a lot to family and friends.

Edited by Coffey, 23 January 2013 - 06:50 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#49    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:56 AM

If the royal family did their genealogy homework and found every great great great great....great great great great grandkid of King whoever, the royal apartments would become littered with undesirables.   Whether Kate has a drip of royal blood in her from 700 years ago or not, she was a commoner through and through, knowing nothing about keeping up appearances like a royal does, and so she had to be trained how to do so.   It's all very proper, and ceremonious.  And disturbing.


"Meeting the Queen is a complicated thing. You have to curtsy, you can't extend a hand before she extends hers, you can't pick up food before she does, and you definitely, most certainly, never, ever are allowed to attempt to hug or kiss her. Which is why it caused quite the hilarious stir yesterday across the pond when Her Royal Highness half-embraced Michelle Obama. Nearly the entire nation simultaneously snarfed their English Breakfast. And then, the unthinkable happened: Michelle hugged her back. "


http://nymag.com/dai...ally_embra.html

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#50    ealdwita

ealdwita

    Hwt oredmcg

  • Member
  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:astcentingas , England

  • Hige sceal e heardra, heorte e cenre, mod sceal e mare, e ure mgen lytla.

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 23 January 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Elizabeth's successor was James VI of Scotland.

Sorry, finger trouble. (That's my excuse, anyway!)

"G a wyrd swa hio scel, ac gecnwan n gef!": "Fate goes ever as she shall, but know thine enemy!".

"I was born with a priceless gift - the ability to laugh at other peoples' troubles" - Dame Edna Everage

#51    Star of the Sea

Star of the Sea

    Pienso en ti siempre

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

  • 'The light of the world'

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:03 PM

View PostYamato, on 24 January 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

If the royal family did their genealogy homework and found every great great great great....great great great great grandkid of King whoever, the royal apartments would become littered with undesirables.   Whether Kate has a drip of royal blood in her from 700 years ago or not, she was a commoner through and through, knowing nothing about keeping up appearances like a royal does, and so she had to be trained how to do so.   It's all very proper, and ceremonious.  And disturbing.


"Meeting the Queen is a complicated thing. You have to curtsy, you can't extend a hand before she extends hers, you can't pick up food before she does, and you definitely, most certainly, never, ever are allowed to attempt to hug or kiss her. Which is why it caused quite the hilarious stir yesterday across the pond when Her Royal Highness half-embraced Michelle Obama. Nearly the entire nation simultaneously snarfed their English Breakfast. And then, the unthinkable happened: Michelle hugged her back. "


http://nymag.com/dai...ally_embra.html


I don't think British people would be too shocked at Michelle giving our Queen a little hug, it breaks protocol but it's still a lovely gesture. :)

Here take a look at the Telegraph and their response to it: http://www.telegraph...-the-Queen.html

Edited by Star of the Sea, 24 January 2013 - 05:04 PM.

"Love one another as I have loved you" John 15:9-17

#52    ealdwita

ealdwita

    Hwt oredmcg

  • Member
  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:astcentingas , England

  • Hige sceal e heardra, heorte e cenre, mod sceal e mare, e ure mgen lytla.

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

The 3 times that I've been privileged to meet Her Maj. I had to do a pre-meeting run-through, with a couple of flunkeys. I wonder if Mrs.Obama had to do the same thing? Somehow I doubt it, but for us 'lesser beings' the protocol is quite fixed! (Not that I minded, because I found the Queen to be one of the most pleasant people I've ever met and she has the knack of putting everybody at their ease instantly.) Gawd Bless yer Ma'am.

"G a wyrd swa hio scel, ac gecnwan n gef!": "Fate goes ever as she shall, but know thine enemy!".

"I was born with a priceless gift - the ability to laugh at other peoples' troubles" - Dame Edna Everage

#53    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Unsafe at Any Speed

  • Member
  • 24,120 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:40 PM

View PostCoffey, on 23 January 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:


As for calling me Republican. LOL I hate the government, I hate the corruption of the government. You completely missed my point. My point is that the Queen might be head of state, but she doesn't do anything with it. Which means there is no point here being there. Please enlighten us with what decisions she actually makes regarding Britain?
And here's the point. You say you loathe & despise politicians, but replacing as head of state someone who, at the very worst, doesn't do any harm, with either a Prime Minister given even more power, or a completely pointless figurehead President, seems, well, pointless. Unless it purely is on the basis of "they cost the Taxpayer <insert astronomical sum of your choice here>......"; well, how much do the policies of Governments cost the taxpayer? How much of what they spend (look at the MOD for a classic example) actually does anything productive? Particularly if you factor in what the Monarchy brings in in terms of tourism, etc, what is better value; the Monarchy or the vast armies of bureaucrats and the money black holes that are Government departments?

Quote

As for Royals during wartime, they are all put in safe positions away from any Danger. If you class that as serving our country when others go without who did far more during WW2 then you need to take a long hard look at what you consider right and wrong.

... Like Prince Andrew, Harry, Philip (who had a distinguished naval career in the war, admittedly before he married Elizabeth) ....

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#54    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

And here's the point. You say you loathe & despise politicians, but replacing as head of state someone who, at the very worst, doesn't do any harm, with either a Prime Minister given even more power, or a completely pointless figurehead President, seems, well, pointless. Unless it purely is on the basis of "they cost the Taxpayer <insert astronomical sum of your choice here>......"; well, how much do the policies of Governments cost the taxpayer? How much of what they spend (look at the MOD for a classic example) actually does anything productive? Particularly if you factor in what the Monarchy brings in in terms of tourism, etc, what is better value; the Monarchy or the vast armies of bureaucrats and the money black holes that are Government departments?

The government makes all the decisions anyway why are people not getting this? lol

There would be no difference at all. lol

As for the tourism, non of them actually see the royal family, you just need to make all their places museums and that will for fill the tourist attraction part.Then we can save the billions we spend on them for better things. Like sorting the NHS and eduction. (taking away student funding from further eduction was one of the stupidest things our government has done)


View PostLord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

... Like Prince Andrew, Harry, Philip (who had a distinguished naval career in the war, admittedly before he married Elizabeth) ....

Andrew and Harry never once saw any "action". All the royals wher ein safe positions. They even made up some BS about Harry being taken out of Afghanistan due to the safety of his fellow soldiers...

Edited by Coffey, 24 January 2013 - 09:08 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#55    rashore

rashore

    Telekinetic

  • 6,720 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:19 PM

View PostCoffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:


As for the tourism, non of them actually see the royal family, you just need to make all their places museums and that will for fill the tourist attraction part.Then we can save the billions we spend on them for better things.



I'm not from there, so I'm asking this in ignorance... How much money do the royals get from the people? Is that billions? Because I would have to imagine if you emptied their buildings for museums that would still cost a ton of money to upkeep.
Sorry if that's a dumb question, it just sounded like a lot of money being paid to the family.


#56    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:23 PM

View PostCoffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:


Andrew and Harry never once saw any "action". All the royals wher ein safe positions. They even made up some BS about Harry being taken out of Afghanistan due to the safety of his fellow soldiers...

Didn't he do an interview this week stating he had killed Taliban members as a helicopter gunner, but would much prefer to be with his army unit on the ground (as he was secrectly for months). Kind of hard to kill the enemy from a safe position (unless you "fly" drones like some sort of US republican coward :whistle: )


#57    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:48 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 24 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Didn't he do an interview this week stating he had killed Taliban members as a helicopter gunner, but would much prefer to be with his army unit on the ground (as he was secrectly for months). Kind of hard to kill the enemy from a safe position (unless you "fly" drones like some sort of US republican coward :whistle: )

An Apache can kill from miles away, it's technology is incredible, can sit behind a mountain and acquire targets then quickly fly over to take the kill. Then  fly out again.

Also Britain also uses drones.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#58    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:50 PM

View PostCoffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

An Apache can kill from miles away, it's technology is incredible, can sit behind a mountain and acquire targets then quickly fly over to take the kill. Then  fly out again.

Also Britain also uses drones.

And he never saw action in his army unit?


#59    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:57 PM

View Postrashore, on 24 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I'm not from there, so I'm asking this in ignorance... How much money do the royals get from the people? Is that billions? Because I would have to imagine if you emptied their buildings for museums that would still cost a ton of money to upkeep.
Sorry if that's a dumb question, it just sounded like a lot of money being paid to the family.

Well in 2011, Prince Charles alone got the following:

£1,962,000 from Goverment
£17,796,000 from Private estates. (Money comes from the people charged on the land and money made on the land. etc)
£4,398,000 from tax.
£1,080,000 Travel costs.


It's hard to accurately tell how much they earn because it's all done so they can take more advantage of it. lol

He also makes money from finance or banking I forget which one he own business in, which is set up through one of his charities.. lol Practically uses a charity to money launder from what I read about it.

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 24 January 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

And he never saw action in his army unit?

Not from what I've read. But fighting a bunch of badly trained rebels with modern day military technology isn't that difficult.

It's not like he is doing a beach landing in WW2 where he would have been at a serious disadvantage.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#60    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:02 PM

View PostCoffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:


Not from what I've read. But fighting a bunch of badly trained rebels with modern day military technology isn't that difficult.

It's not like he is doing a beach landing in WW2 where he would have been at a serious disadvantage.

Thank god for that! I thought our troops were in real danger! I guess all the casualties were from tripping over their own bootlaces.

I love it how these badly trained rebels have been fighting with us for 10 years when they can't compete. It really shows their fighting spirit.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users