Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles

[DRoseDARs]

I'm really trying to find a reason to care or have any interest beyond making this post in a thread on the matter...

[Last Conformist]

Colllapsing tabloids

[alva]

Originally posted by Odin
The brits need to get rid of these kleptoparasitic idiots and become a republic. I don't get why countries keep constitutional monarchs, they are not needed in a democracy.

Actually, one of the reasons is you guys. Anytime we get a discussion about this, the nay sayers simply point to the US and mumble something 'bout "case closed".

[Drogue]

As Dauphin said, they are net providers. The small amount they cost is far less than the tourism they bring in. And moreover, we don't pay for their upkeep, we pay for the upkeep of places like Buckingham Palace, which we'd have to do with or without them.

This way we don't need to elect a President, and thus give them power, and we gain from tourism. I see no reason to change that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Prolly the least appreciated British ambassador is the Queen.

Over here, when the Queen visits, everyone goes out to see her. I've twice been where she has, yet found myself unable to see her from where I sat.

[Provost Harrison]

Drogue: I think those tourists would come regardless of whether there was still a monarchy or not.

Ben Kenobi: Asher doesn't live too far away, you can go and see him

[Ben Kenobi]

And get shot?

[Last Conformist]

Why not invite all the 'Poly Canucks for one big gayfest?

[Ben Kenobi]

I've tried.

I've had two polymeets with Joncha, but NYE couldn't come to the first one, and Asher's now in Toronto.

It's a little far, say 4 thousand km from here to Toronto, so you Euros need to bear that in mind.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If he's marrying a divorcé, doesn't that mean he's not eligible to become King?

Charles' Clarence House office said Parker Bowles, 57, would take the title Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, when she and the 56-year-old Prince of Wales marry on April 8. If Charles becomes king, she will be known as Princess Consort rather than queen.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050210/ap_en_ce/diana_s_village_2

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Drogue
As Dauphin said, they are net providers. The small amount they cost is far less than the tourism they bring in. And moreover, we don't pay for their upkeep, we pay for the upkeep of places like Buckingham Palace, which we'd have to do with or without them.

This way we don't need to elect a President, and thus give them power, and we gain from tourism. I see no reason to change that.

Hmm, maybe we Americans should make Bush II king, and move the seat of power to some other position.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Drogue
As Dauphin said, they are net providers. The small amount they cost is far less than the tourism they bring in. And moreover, we don't pay for their upkeep, we pay for the upkeep of places like Buckingham Palace, which we'd have to do with or without them.

This way we don't need to elect a President, and thus give them power, and we gain from tourism. I see no reason to change that.

Thats like saying drug dealers bring money into the country so it's good thing

Shoot the feckin' lot I say (the royals not the drug dealers, at least drug dealers are useful)

Inbred parasites etc....

[Ben Kenobi]

They aren't parasites, if they make you money. How does the tourism they draw amount to any pain and suffering for England?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Thats like saying drug dealers bring money into the country so it's good thing

Drug dealers would be a different thing, if the drugs they supplied didn't harm people. Similarly, the royal family are a good thing until they start harming people.

On what basis are they bad?

[MRT144]

they dont actually do anything worthwile.