neilwillis Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Rumour has it, there is some news leaking from Clarence House about 2 adulterous wrinklies getting hitched. Yet another nail in the coffin of the house of battenberg's credibility? Quote
neilwillis Posted February 11, 2005 Author Posted February 11, 2005 The nation has a very short memory - the last British king that did this died in exile. Quote
peterg Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 me neither, much better to marry the woman he has loved for 30 years than another slapper oh and why is it some people say they he shouldn't marry a divorcee 'cos the church of England doesn't like it - the C of E wouldn't exist if Henry VIII hadn't wanted a divorce in the first place goodness me!! Quote
neilwillis Posted February 11, 2005 Author Posted February 11, 2005 I don't object at all to the marriage, what bugs me is the double standards they seem to think are OK. His Aunt was prevented from marrying Peter Townsend -a wartime fighter ace - because he was considered unsuitable, being a commoner, so Princess Margaret was not allowed to escape her obligations. Edward and Mrs Simpson we all know about. It just strikes me as strange that things can change so much in so short a space of time, and if he wants to do that, fine. Just don't let him ever try to moralise on anything ever again. Quote
peterg Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 hmmm, everyone says the royal family should 'get with the times' and then they get criticised for taking a more modern approach to a situation I guess they can't win whatever they do..... oh and "so short a time" ?? Edward and the yank tart was 70 years ago and even the Margaret thing was 40 years ago..... in an episode of The Good Life shown recently Margot expressed surprise that Tom & Barbara were letting two students sleep together in their house even though they weren't married - just think how shocking to anyone that would be now Quote
neilwillis Posted February 11, 2005 Author Posted February 11, 2005 Fair point, so the next thing we will see is a single parent family living in Buck House? I just see the whole Monarchy business as archaic, and an expensive irrelevence. Just call me Olly Quote
PeterOz Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 I just see the whole Monarchy business as archaic, and an expensive irrelevence. With you there Neil. Spongers, all of 'em To the barricades...... Quote
neilwillis Posted February 11, 2005 Author Posted February 11, 2005 Phew I'm not alone - I was getting worried there lol Quote
davidgh Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 10 Good Reasons for Keeping the Monarchy: 1. Very significant tourist attraction, and therefore earner of foreign currency (Americans and Germans are fascinated) 2. Saves us having to elect a president (although some maintain we already do.......) 3. Er................ .............................................Ho Hum! Quote
PeterOz Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Don't worry Neil, room for both of us (and a fair few more! in the Tower Quote
DickieB Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Just call me Olly No, how about "Traitor" Surely he has done the right thing morally, by marrying her, rather than going on living in sin? And as for cost, they cost us about £30 million a year I think, but bring in literally billions in tourism. Surely any business man would count that as exceptional value? PS Yes, I know, I've sworn my life to defend them Quote
neilwillis Posted February 11, 2005 Author Posted February 11, 2005 PS Yes, I know, I've sworn my life to defend them So had I a few years back. I disagree about the royals being the ones bringing in the tourists. They came to see me and my mates on our horses. The queen was rarely at home, and she certainly didn't come out to say hello! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.