Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr Instagram
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 20, 2014, 01:37:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 24258
  • Latest: ter353
Stats
  • Total Posts: 649959
  • Total Topics: 49610
  • Online Today: 158
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 2
Guests: 134
Total: 136

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: British Royalty Question  (Read 11287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RAB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined March 2003
British Royalty Question
« on: July 10, 2011, 01:54:15 PM »
I was reading an article about Will and Kate's brief visit to the U.S. and found something confusing.  Any of our UK members, or royal watchers, surely know the answer.

Queen Elizabeth's husband is known as Prince Phillip.

When William assumes the throne Kate (Catherine?) will be referred to as Queen.

So the Queen's husband is a Prince, but the King's wife is a Queen?

Is that correct?  If so why?   ???  Or does it not matter?

(BTW Kate is absolutely gorgeous in my opinion--whether it's jeans and a t-shirt or a designer gown--she's stunning.)

RAB

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,186
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2011, 02:01:06 PM »
Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

TRIUMEQ - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE - PRAVASTATIN - CIALIS


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline leese43

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2011, 02:01:37 PM »
Yes it's correct and, if I remember from my school days, it's because you can't get any higher than a King. (think chess) so if a woman is in line to the throne then her husband can't be made king or he'd be the one with all of the power.

Does that make any sense?

Leese
Oct 04 - Neg
Aug 05 - infected
Oct 05 - cd4 780, vl 60k
Apr 08 - cd4 430, vl 243
Jul 08 - cd4 550, vl 896
Nov 08 - cd4 730, vl 1.8k
May 09 - cd4 590, vl 1.5k
Sep 09 - cd4 460 vl 34k
Dec 09 - cd4 470 vl 42k
April 10 - cd4 430 vl 88.5k
July 10 - cd4 330 vl 118k
Aug 10 - started reyataz/truvada/norvir
Aug 10 - cd4 380 vl 4k (12 days after starting meds :))
Sep 10 - cd4 520 vl 1.5k
Oct 10 - cd4 590 vl 44
Jan 11 -cd4 610 vl <40 cd4% 50
May 11 - cd4 780 vl UD

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,280
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2011, 02:17:13 PM »


I often wondered how all that royalty stuff worked.

Anyway: Found this informative


http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110426095940AAtllAB

Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 25 mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


Diagnosed positive in 1985,.. In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started on  HAART on October 24th, 2003.

 As of 12/10/14,  t-cells are at 350,  Previous 8/25/14--- 402/ Viral load remains <40

 Current % is at 13% / Previous 8/25/14 11%

  
 63 years young.

Offline leese43

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2011, 02:32:36 PM »
Oh you've got me digging around now. Apparently he could have been given the title King consort but it's quite unusual in the UK.

This explains it well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_consort

Oct 04 - Neg
Aug 05 - infected
Oct 05 - cd4 780, vl 60k
Apr 08 - cd4 430, vl 243
Jul 08 - cd4 550, vl 896
Nov 08 - cd4 730, vl 1.8k
May 09 - cd4 590, vl 1.5k
Sep 09 - cd4 460 vl 34k
Dec 09 - cd4 470 vl 42k
April 10 - cd4 430 vl 88.5k
July 10 - cd4 330 vl 118k
Aug 10 - started reyataz/truvada/norvir
Aug 10 - cd4 380 vl 4k (12 days after starting meds :))
Sep 10 - cd4 520 vl 1.5k
Oct 10 - cd4 590 vl 44
Jan 11 -cd4 610 vl <40 cd4% 50
May 11 - cd4 780 vl UD

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 25,374
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2011, 03:48:51 PM »
Sorting out who is a king and who is a queen can be...challenging.
Andy Velez

Offline leese43

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2011, 04:17:33 PM »
Sorting out who is a king and who is a queen can be...challenging.

 ;D
Oct 04 - Neg
Aug 05 - infected
Oct 05 - cd4 780, vl 60k
Apr 08 - cd4 430, vl 243
Jul 08 - cd4 550, vl 896
Nov 08 - cd4 730, vl 1.8k
May 09 - cd4 590, vl 1.5k
Sep 09 - cd4 460 vl 34k
Dec 09 - cd4 470 vl 42k
April 10 - cd4 430 vl 88.5k
July 10 - cd4 330 vl 118k
Aug 10 - started reyataz/truvada/norvir
Aug 10 - cd4 380 vl 4k (12 days after starting meds :))
Sep 10 - cd4 520 vl 1.5k
Oct 10 - cd4 590 vl 44
Jan 11 -cd4 610 vl <40 cd4% 50
May 11 - cd4 780 vl UD

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,277
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2011, 07:17:21 PM »
Silly Brits.
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
11-6-14 CD4- 871, UD
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2011, 08:31:37 PM »
Sorting out who is a king and who is a queen can be...challenging.
Andy, only with gays in the US. I do believe there are more queens than kings.  ;)

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2011, 10:32:26 AM »
So when two gay men get married, is it a Queen and her King-consort, or a King and his Queen-consort? Or if it's a Queen and her Queen consort, who gets to wear the tiara? This stuff is so confuzzleing. I'll have to email Sir Elton and ask. He may know.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,228
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2011, 10:42:15 AM »
So when two gay men get married, is it a Queen and her King-consort, or a King and his Queen-consort? Or if it's a Queen and her Queen consort, who gets to wear the tiara? This stuff is so confuzzleing. I'll have to email Sir Elton and ask. He may know.

Most times its just to queens arguing over who has to be top .

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2011, 11:02:14 AM »
Most times its just to queens arguing over who has to be top .

Why don't y'all just get a double-headed dildo so everyone's happy? ;D
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline wolfter

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,732
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2011, 12:09:56 PM »
It gets worse, some of us like to maintain the title of princess! 8)

Bill used to call me that in the early days when I was trying to get my way.  Lord, I'd love that title again!
Complacency is the enemy.  ;)  Challenge yourself daily for maximum  return on investment.

Offline Jody

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2011, 08:06:31 PM »
Pardon my abundance of ignorance and I had trouble opening links today, my p.c. is having one of THOSE days but where do they get titles like Prince of Wales even when they are not at all from Wales, like Charles.  And now the younger royals are Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, or am I mistaken?, no great surprise there I know.  So I guess Cambridge is a place they declare, just for the heck of it, why not an extra title or three?  Queens can be fun, but tedious at times as well. ;)

Jody :)
"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world".
 "Try to discover that you are the song that the morning brings."

Grateful Dead

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2011, 09:34:06 PM »
Queens can be fun, but tedious at times as well. ;)

Testify!
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,244
  • Ninja Please
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2011, 09:42:00 PM »
The heir apparent is always the "Prince of Wales". When Chilla becomes king, Willy will succeed him as Prince of Wales. In addition the heir apparent is also usually the Duke of Cornwall.

The Welsh were subdued by the Poms centuries ago and so they have to suck up to an Englishman as their Prince.

It's customary for royals (the direct descendents of the monarch) to receive a title upon marrying (Andrew is the Duke of York, William was created as the Duke of Cambridge, poor old Edward was only made an earl -- the Earl of Wessex) so we can be confident that Harry will get one too if he ever manages to drag some vapid drone up the aisle at Westminster Abbey.

My guess is that Camilla will not be style as "Queen Consort" because everyone seems to hate her. Presumably because of that dreary slut Diana. I imagine Camilla will have to settle for "Princess Consort". Catherine (should she manage to stay hitched) will most likely become Queen Catherine.

Phillip isn't styled as the "King Phillip" because Queen Victoria couldn't convince the nobs to let them style her husband Albert as "King" and the precedent stuck.

Personally I'd shoot the lot of them. Fucking parasites.

Bring on the revolution.

MtD

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,186
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2011, 10:42:36 PM »
The heir apparent is always the "Prince of Wales". When Chilla becomes king, Willy will succeed him as Prince of Wales. In addition the heir apparent is also usually the Duke of Cornwall.

The Welsh were subdued by the Poms centuries ago and so they have to suck up to an Englishman as their Prince.

It's customary for royals (the direct descendents of the monarch) to receive a title upon marrying (Andrew is the Duke of York, William was created as the Duke of Cambridge, poor old Edward was only made an earl -- the Earl of Wessex) so we can be confident that Harry will get one too if he ever manages to drag some vapid drone up the aisle at Westminster Abbey.

My guess is that Camilla will not be style as "Queen Consort" because everyone seems to hate her. Presumably because of that dreary slut Diana. I imagine Camilla will have to settle for "Princess Consort". Catherine (should she manage to stay hitched) will most likely become Queen Catherine.

Phillip isn't styled as the "King Phillip" because Queen Victoria couldn't convince the nobs to let them style her husband Albert as "King" and the precedent stuck.

Personally I'd shoot the lot of them. Fucking parasites.

Bring on the revolution.

MtD

Of course you would  ::)
Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

TRIUMEQ - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE - PRAVASTATIN - CIALIS


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,244
  • Ninja Please
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2011, 12:59:06 AM »
Of course you would  ::)

Oh dear. Closet royalist are we Droodles? :)

MtD

Offline carousel

  • Member
  • Posts: 821
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2011, 03:12:06 AM »
You learn something every day.

I thought it was because Philip was a bit down market and a bit foreign, a kind of budget Royal and at the time the family couldn't bring themselves to give him the title.

Now that is less important and anybody can get in on the act, that old hag Camilla setting a precedent.




Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,143
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2011, 03:22:55 AM »
The heir apparent is always the "Prince of Wales". When Chilla becomes king, Willy will succeed him as Prince of Wales. In addition the heir apparent is also usually the Duke of Cornwall.

The Welsh were subdued by the Poms centuries ago and so they have to suck up to an Englishman as their Prince.

It's customary for royals (the direct descendents of the monarch) to receive a title upon marrying (Andrew is the Duke of York, William was created as the Duke of Cambridge, poor old Edward was only made an earl -- the Earl of Wessex) so we can be confident that Harry will get one too if he ever manages to drag some vapid drone up the aisle at Westminster Abbey.

My guess is that Camilla will not be style as "Queen Consort" because everyone seems to hate her. Presumably because of that dreary slut Diana. I imagine Camilla will have to settle for "Princess Consort". Catherine (should she manage to stay hitched) will most likely become Queen Catherine.

Phillip isn't styled as the "King Phillip" because Queen Victoria couldn't convince the nobs to let them style her husband Albert as "King" and the precedent stuck.

Personally I'd shoot the lot of them. Fucking parasites.

Bring on the revolution.

MtD

For the second time in a week I agree with Matty.  The royals serve no purpose except to leech off of the people.  By the way due to the rare occurrence of double agreement someone needs to cue the apocalypse.

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2011, 04:04:03 AM »

My guess is that Camilla will not be style as "Queen Consort" because everyone seems to hate her. Presumably because of that dreary slut Diana.
MtD

 ;D ;D ;D

Do you really blame them?




« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 04:37:35 AM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,244
  • Ninja Please
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2011, 08:26:00 AM »
;D ;D ;D

Do you really blame them?






Well, unflattering pap shots aside, I've always thought Camilla to be a rather handsome woman. The sort of "made of tweed" straight limbed, frigid, horsey type perfectly suited to an idiot like Charles.

Charles, of course, is as mad as a clown's cock. Talking to plants, defending fox hunting and quaffing homeopathic remedies like his stain-fanged grandmother sloshed gin and lillet down her nasty old screech at breakfast.

Diana was a stupid simpering slag. Her life was so hard, rolling around in those massive palaces tripping over piles of cash lifted from the Civil List. I suspect no-one would have minded the conga line of arab playboys hanging out of her had she practised just a touch of discretion.

Frankly, I think the Windsors should have been billed for the damage to the pylon that finally freed the world of the noxious, inbred, upper class cunt.

MtD

Offline poz1970

  • Member
  • Posts: 480
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2011, 08:29:22 AM »
watch this short video about the royals;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

J
"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to  heterosexuals. That doesn`t mean that God doesn`t love heterosexuals. It`s just that they need more supervision." -- Lynn Lavne

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2011, 12:09:59 PM »
watch this short video about the royals;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

J

Troo dat. I remember reading an article (in the UK Independent, I think) a few years ago that said pretty much the same thing as the video. (btw, it cracks me up that it's narrated by a Yank) The Royal family does not leech off the people.

Camilla isn't as hated as she once was. I think the turning point came when people realised that William and Harry accepted her and actually seem to like her. None of the carry-on with Diana would have happened if Charles had been permitted to marry Camilla in the first place, like he wanted.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,513
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2011, 12:46:39 PM »
Has anyone seen that really messy Sarah Ferguson trainwreck show on Oprah's new channel? I was channel surfing during a bout of insomnia recently and managed to watch at least 20 minutes of it. Tragic. They actually had her sitting down with Suzy Orman for financial advice. I think Dr. Phil was going to do an intervention with the Duchess but I couldn't bear to watch that.

The Windsors are really, really messy so I enjoy them. As far as expense to the taxpayer -- poppycock! You'd have to keep up those properties anyway, those are cultural expenses. Look at what France still pays to upkeep cultural treasures. So you stick some soap opera family in the properties and get really good PR effect for tourism. It's a bit of a wash financially.

And hating Lady Di well, that's like hating E.T. and you folks should be ashamed.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,186
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2011, 12:46:49 PM »
Oh dear. Closet royalist are we Droodles? :)

MtD

Talking to plants, defending fox hunting and quaffing homeopathic remedies like his stain-fanged grandmother sloshed gin and lillet down her nasty old screech at breakfast.

Diana was a stupid simpering slag. Her life was so hard, rolling around in those massive palaces tripping over piles of cash lifted from the Civil List. I suspect no-one would have minded the conga line of arab playboys hanging out of her had she practised just a touch of discretion.


ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I would like to get banged by Harry!  ;) :P
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 12:49:52 PM by drewm »
Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

TRIUMEQ - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE - PRAVASTATIN - CIALIS


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,877
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2011, 04:18:40 PM »
None of the carry-on with Diana would have happened if Charles had been permitted to marry Camilla in the first place, like he wanted.

And William and Harry would have been such ugly children, that not even a steak hung around their neck, would entice the family dog to play with them.

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,186
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2011, 04:39:33 PM »
And William and Harry would have been such ugly children, that not even a steak hung around their neck, would entice the family dog to play with them.

So very true!
Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

TRIUMEQ - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE - PRAVASTATIN - CIALIS


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,244
  • Ninja Please
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2011, 04:41:45 PM »
watch this short video about the royals;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

J

I hope you watched that wearing your union jack silk stockings held up with the gilt brocade suspenders emblazoned with the Royal Warrant. Which reminds me, I must raise the Eureka flag above the garage before breakfast.

Really, C. G. P. Grey? Monarchist propaganda by a low born gun-for-hire. Feh! ::)

Camilla isn't as hated as she once was. I think the turning point came when people realised that William and Harry accepted her and actually seem to like her. None of the carry-on with Diana would have happened if Charles had been permitted to marry Camilla in the first place, like he wanted.

Good and dutiful lads, William and Harry. Given that Harry is worth 43 millions by virtue of birth and as thick as shit, I suspect he wasn't too hard to convince. Where Charles is just mad, the stupid comes straight from the Spencer loins.

What's Harry's real father's name again?

The Windsors are really, really messy so I enjoy them. As far as expense to the taxpayer -- poppycock! You'd have to keep up those properties anyway, those are cultural expenses. Look at what France still pays to upkeep cultural treasures. So you stick some soap opera family in the properties and get really good PR effect for tourism. It's a bit of a wash financially.

Cultural treasures be fucked. High time those crumbling piles were pulled down to make way for mega malls and council housing for the disadvantaged.

Quote
And hating Lady Di well, that's like hating E.T. and you folks should be ashamed.

Y'know, come to think of it, they had the same skinny neck and preposterously large head. Coincidence?

I think not.

MtD

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,186
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2011, 04:53:15 PM »


YES, I WOULD!



MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM



Drop those trunks boy and come to Papa!
Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

TRIUMEQ - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE - PRAVASTATIN - CIALIS


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2011, 10:08:33 AM »
And William and Harry would have been such ugly children, that not even a steak hung around their neck, would entice the family dog to play with them.

Can't argue with that!



What's Harry's real father's name again?


I can't remember his name, but I remember he was a famous rugby player. :o
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline poz1970

  • Member
  • Posts: 480
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2011, 07:04:16 PM »
Can't argue with that!


I can't remember his name, but I remember he was a famous rugby player. :o

james hewlett or something like that


J
"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to  heterosexuals. That doesn`t mean that God doesn`t love heterosexuals. It`s just that they need more supervision." -- Lynn Lavne

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,165
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2011, 08:34:20 PM »
James Hewitt was a social climbing polo player, not rugby.
He's still quite around.

I think its a toss up about Harry's paternity - certainly the photo evidence exists of Harry looking like a Spencer, like a Windsor and like Hewitt.  They all kind of look alike, could probably find pics where he looks like Camilla!

I agree that Diana wasn't discrete.  I guess she could have just played along with the aristocratic old game and pursued and fulfilled her loves and passions discretely and stayed married and played her public role as well.  

But it was the 80's and quite a lot changed - all celebrities private lives became very public and the Windsor and particularly Diana became celebrities just like rock stars and movie stars.

She clearly had a lot of emotional problems.  Clearly was willing participant in the global celebrity she became, yet also a bit of a victim of historical circumstances and the media glare.  Maybe she had basic very modern needs like the rest of us - feel loved by her man, romance, etc. She wasn't educated to serve any great public role, but managed finally to do good works.

I never thought she was the great beauty the media told us she was, but certainly very pretty.  Cause she was who she was, she had star wattage and mystique, like Jackie O had, and Jackie wasn't a great beauty either.

Anyway William turned out right enough and Harry is dim but hot and we enjoy him well enough for that.  

William was a beautiful young man, we got good return on that for a long time didn't we?  But probably not aging into a stunning man.  Harry's looks might be there for the long haul.

I don't think the Windsor's are a great drain on the tax payers or British wealth generally - certainly less than other royals around the world, probably considerably less than most.  They do work for those millions.  Meanwhile other royals around the world don't do nearly as much, but can lob off huge chunks of a nation's GNP, billions and billions sometimes.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 08:39:27 PM by mecch »
ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,244
  • Ninja Please
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2011, 08:36:46 PM »
All royals are parasites. The Romanovs were treated leniently in my opinion.

MtD

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2011, 07:48:29 AM »
James Hewitt was a social climbing polo player, not rugby.


Ah, that's right. I was thinking of Will Carling:



But it was Hewitt who was suspected to be Harry's biological father.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,052
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2011, 08:56:21 AM »
But it was Hewitt who was suspected to be Harry's biological father.

Suspected? I thought these monarchy types were obsessed with bloodlines. Even American talkshow hosts know to use paternity tests. If these people want to be an elite ruling class I think they need to demonstrate genetic superiority, like on Gattaca.

I confess I don't understand the British obsession with royalty. It is the 21st century... Let it go.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 09:27:30 AM by GSOgymrat »

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,143
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2011, 10:58:02 AM »
Suspected? I thought these monarchy types were obsessed with bloodlines. Even American talkshow hosts know to use paternity tests. If these people want to be an elite ruling class I think they need to demonstrate genetic superiority, like on Gattaca.

I confess I don't understand the British obsession with royalty. It is the 21st century... Let it go.

I wonder how fast Harry would be left in the cold if he took a paternity test and found out charles is not his father?

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2011, 11:44:55 AM »
Who knows (or cares) whether or not Harry ever had a paternity test. What is speculated upon in the British red-top tabloid press and what happens in reality often have no relation whatsoever.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,513
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2011, 12:04:38 PM »
Who knows (or cares) whether or not Harry ever had a paternity test.

Then why have you made numerous posts about it?
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2011, 12:12:34 PM »
Then why have you made numerous posts about it?

Numerous posts? Two? Or three if you count me saying that it was only speculation in the British tabloids? Who got out of the bitchy side of the bed again, eh? Matilda brought up the question of Harry's paternity in the first place. ::)
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,186
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2011, 12:16:17 PM »
Get a cup of coffee girl...

Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

TRIUMEQ - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE - PRAVASTATIN - CIALIS


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,707
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2011, 12:36:51 PM »
Get a cup of coffee girl...



Talk about ironic.  That cat's expression is the same look Diana had before her Benz hit the pole.

Animals are amazing, Diana not so much.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline leese43

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2011, 05:24:10 PM »
I confess I don't understand the British obsession with royalty. It is the 21st century... Let it go.

I think you'll find Americans and Canadians are far more obsessed with them than we are.

Leese
Oct 04 - Neg
Aug 05 - infected
Oct 05 - cd4 780, vl 60k
Apr 08 - cd4 430, vl 243
Jul 08 - cd4 550, vl 896
Nov 08 - cd4 730, vl 1.8k
May 09 - cd4 590, vl 1.5k
Sep 09 - cd4 460 vl 34k
Dec 09 - cd4 470 vl 42k
April 10 - cd4 430 vl 88.5k
July 10 - cd4 330 vl 118k
Aug 10 - started reyataz/truvada/norvir
Aug 10 - cd4 380 vl 4k (12 days after starting meds :))
Sep 10 - cd4 520 vl 1.5k
Oct 10 - cd4 590 vl 44
Jan 11 -cd4 610 vl <40 cd4% 50
May 11 - cd4 780 vl UD

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,165
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #43 on: July 15, 2011, 05:37:03 PM »
I really don't think they get that much obsessional interest by almost all Americans.  They are major celebrities, bigger than Octomom and weightier than Angelina Jolie (skinny "do gooder" that she is).

However for those Americans who ARE celebrities or social climbers, to meet them or better be invited, is a major coup.  Tom Hanks was going on and on about it on some talk show.
I bet the interest and ass-kissing by British celebrities is even HIGHER!  They are your royals, Britain.  Don't foist the blame onto other countries for the Windsors being relevant.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 05:38:34 PM by mecch »
ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

Offline leese43

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #44 on: July 15, 2011, 05:54:32 PM »
I really don't think they get that much obsessional interest by almost all Americans.  They are major celebrities, bigger than Octomom and weightier than Angelina Jolie (skinny "do gooder" that she is).

However for those Americans who ARE celebrities or social climbers, to meet them or better be invited, is a major coup.  Tom Hanks was going on and on about it on some talk show.
I bet the interest and ass-kissing by British celebrities is even HIGHER!  They are your royals, Britain.  Don't foist the blame onto other countries for the Windsors being relevant.


Who's talking about celebrities? Oh, you again!  ;D

Leese
Oct 04 - Neg
Aug 05 - infected
Oct 05 - cd4 780, vl 60k
Apr 08 - cd4 430, vl 243
Jul 08 - cd4 550, vl 896
Nov 08 - cd4 730, vl 1.8k
May 09 - cd4 590, vl 1.5k
Sep 09 - cd4 460 vl 34k
Dec 09 - cd4 470 vl 42k
April 10 - cd4 430 vl 88.5k
July 10 - cd4 330 vl 118k
Aug 10 - started reyataz/truvada/norvir
Aug 10 - cd4 380 vl 4k (12 days after starting meds :))
Sep 10 - cd4 520 vl 1.5k
Oct 10 - cd4 590 vl 44
Jan 11 -cd4 610 vl <40 cd4% 50
May 11 - cd4 780 vl UD

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,143
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #45 on: July 15, 2011, 06:23:54 PM »
Get a cup of coffee girl...



This is what I imagine 90% of the posters on this forum look like as they post.

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,186
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #46 on: July 15, 2011, 06:37:49 PM »
This is what I imagine 90% of the posters on this forum look like as they post.

HA HA HA  :D
Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

TRIUMEQ - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE - PRAVASTATIN - CIALIS


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,513
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #47 on: July 15, 2011, 06:44:23 PM »
I think you'll find Americans and Canadians are far more obsessed with them than we are.

Leese

so prove your point with statistics, not empty assertions (on the face of it I'd probably agree with Canada, absolutely not with Americans if you pro-rate anything by viewership/readership by total population)
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,244
  • Ninja Please
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #48 on: July 15, 2011, 06:49:13 PM »
This is what I imagine 90% of the posters on this forum look like as they post.

You'd be wrong.


In the interests of remaining on topic, The Collected sayings of Phil the Greek.

MtD

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,052
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: British Royalty Question
« Reply #49 on: July 15, 2011, 06:56:46 PM »
I think you'll find Americans and Canadians are far more obsessed with them than we are.

Leese

I think you are underestimating American ignorance. Based on your observation I asked 6 people in my office, all college educated, to name as many members of the royal family as possible. Three said Charles, Diana, William and Harry. One said Queen Elizabeth. One said Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Fergie and "Diana's two kids." One said Queen Elizabeth, Charles and Charles Jr.  No one could name who William married.

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.