Charles compares Putin to Hitler

[erebus 10]

Charles is not creating a diversion, it is reinforcing already seeded prejudices, which is the point.

[mjw47 10]

Charles is not creating a diversion, it is reinforcing already seeded prejudices, which is the point.

 

Humour isn't your forte is it?

 

Whilst I have little time for Royalty and believe that Andrews dealings look dodgy to say the least, I doubt that Charles took a backhander to divert attention from Russia's actions.

 

As I said earlier, his comments were crass, to compare the Leader of the country that did more to win the second war than any other with Hitler is beyond stupid.

 

If this is the way the clown is going to behave when he becomes King then we are in for interesting times.

[Harleyman 12]

Humour isn't your forte is it?

 

Whilst I have little time for Royalty and believe that Andrews dealings look dodgy to say the least, I doubt that Charles took a backhander to divert attention from Russia's actions.

 

As I said earlier, his comments were crass, to compare the Leader of the country that did more to win the second war than any other with Hitler is beyond stupid.

 

If this is the way the clown is going to behave when he becomes King then we are in for interesting times.

 

The media will have a field day. One blooper after another from a Monarch who would be otherwise as interesting as a guided tour around historic Barnsley Gas Works. Look on the bright side

[mjw47 10]

The media will have a field day. One blooper after another from a Monarch who would be otherwise as interesting as a guided tour around historic Barnsley Gas Works. Look on the bright side

 

As a Republican believe you me I am looking on the bright side.

 

My personal opinion is that the British have been conned, coerced and cowed into being a servile, subservient bunch of serfs from time immemorial.

 

In my opinion, anyone who can even consider the thought that someone is intrinsically 'better' than them simply by the fact that they were born into a particular family is so stupid that they come close to deserving their fate.

 

Despite my contempt for Royalty and Aristocracy I have to give credit to his mother.

 

She was dealt the hand, and played it like a grandmaster.

 

Charles on the other hand is an arrogant thicko who isn't bright enough to 'get it' If you keep your personal opinions to yourself you don't upset anyone.

 

At the moment it's only people like me that disagree with Royalty and inherited privilege on principle that object to the status quo.

 

Once he inherits the throne, and starts giving everyone the benefit of his 'wisdom' people are going to get annoyed with a self appointed 'expert' who's views are no more relevant than anyone elses, but are taken into account simply because of who he is.

 

It shouldn't take long for people to realise that his influence is biased and self regarding and designed purely for his own selfish reasons.

 

At that point, maybe people will come to understand how completely anachronistic this arrangement is.

 

On the other hand it's been my experience that Royalists are thick as pudding, so maybe not.

[janie48 98]

If anyone should be blamed or criticised, its whomever leaked this private conversation to the media.

I agree.

A lot of those media people resent the Royals, which is a shame because unlike some of those upper class idol rich who contribute nothing to society, the Royal family have a lifetime service to perform which most manage to do rather well in my opinion.

 

It can't be that easy having to endure the constant media attention and scrutiny. I'm sure there are very few that would exchange places with them. Some people are just envious of their wealth and position, but generally most people are supportive of the Monarchy.

 

When the Queen's father unexpectedly (due to his brother's abdication) became King, the weight of the responsibility was far from easy for him, but in spite of his health problems during the time he reigned he achieved much respect from the nation.

[LeMaquis 10]

It can't be that easy having to endure the constant media attention and scrutiny. I'm sure there are very few that would exchange places with them.

 

Very few of the royals have constant media scrutiny because they're out of the public eye most of the time. Charles and the Queen make regular public appearances but Anne, Andrew and Edward don't appear much in the news at all. William and Harry make the news a lot, the latter usually for the wrong reasons along with his granddad. Beatrice and Eugenie are sixth and seventh in line to the throne and I can't remember the last time I heard any news about them. The ninth and tenth are Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor who I'd never even heard of.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2014 at 08:22 ----------

 

This whole petty thing seems to have overshadowed the events in Ukraine and I can't help but think that's what the Russians want.

 

The Ukraine issue is being very closely monitored by NATO. I doubt if they'll be distracted by what Charles says or give a toss what his opinions are. Russia will be well aware of that.

[janie48 98]

Very few of the royals have constant media scrutiny because they're out of the public eye most of the time. Charles and the Queen make regular public appearances but Anne, Andrew and Edward don't appear much in the news at all. William and Harry make the news a lot, the latter usually for the wrong reasons along with his granddad. Beatrice and Eugenie are sixth and seventh in line to the throne and I can't remember the last time I heard any news about them. The ninth and tenth are Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor who I'd never even heard of.

It doesn't mean they aren't doing anything useful because they don't get into the national news.

They're are all those charitable organisations most of them are connected with that help to promote the charities. A charity is always pleased to have a member of royalty as a patron, and especially so with Princess Anne who is known to be very committed.

Edited May 25, 2014 by janie48

[catpus 10]

I agree.

A lot of those media people resent the Royals, which is a shame because unlike some of those upper class idol rich who contribute nothing to society, the Royal family have a lifetime service to perform which most manage to do rather well in my opinion.

 

It can't be that easy having to endure the constant media attention and scrutiny. I'm sure there are very few that would exchange places with them. Some people are just envious of their wealth and position, but generally most people are supportive of the Monarchy.

 

When the Queen's father unexpectedly (due to his brother's abdication) became King, the weight of the responsibility was far from easy for him, but in spite of his health problems during the time he reigned he achieved much respect from the nation.

 

Quick, pass the sick bucket. If there is one thing guaranteed to promote vomit it is a sycophant.

I am sure there are MILLIONS of workers who spend 8 - 10 hours a day bent over a machine in a factory only to receive a pittance, who would give their eye teeth to exchange places with the parasites.

''Some people are just envious of their wealth and position.''

That old chestnut...What b***ocks, So, are we all envious of footballers, film stars, pop stars? Or are you projecting your own feelings here - are you envious of these people?

Generally, people are NOT supportive of the Monarchy, but tolerate them, providing they keep their heads down and do the job they are paid to do, shaking hands and smiling to supposedly bring in the tourists.

As for the Queen's Uncle Edward... well where do we start? Try doing some reading before you make fatuous statements. He did not abdicate, but was forced out because he was a Nazi and pervert. And his relationship with Simpson was a sham.

 

Begin at the beginning:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/69643-nazi-relative-royals-disowned.html

The Queen's uncle Eddie the Duke of Windsor, the one who married the American slut Wallis Simpson was great friends with Adolf Hitler. The fact that Eddie married Wallis was much to the annoyance of the Queen's Mum Elizabeth Bowes Lyon who also wanted him, and in the end was forced to settle for the younger brother… Affectionately referred to as ‘the backward one’.

In fact, according to files released in 2003, high ranking Nazi officials considered Eddie to be “no enemy to Germany”. They also considered him to be the “logical Director of England’s destiny after the war”.

 

The affection deficit in which the Royal children grew up goes far to explain their sickly character. The first born suffered from a clear sexual sadomasochist deviation, which turned him into a slave of the first woman who abused him. Bertie, who would succeed Edward as George VI, was pathologically shy, so much so that he couldn’t help stuttering every time he faced an audience. He chain-smoked and would die from lung cancer aged 56. With regards to the youngest one, Prince George, Duke of Kent, he was simply fascinated by brown shirts and swastikas; he would perish in 1942 during a mysterious flight. Rumour has it that he was headed for Sweden in order to break a deal with Hitler.

 

Eddie, who was diagnosed a Naranjo's Depressive-Masochist gave up the million pound hat to marry the much passed around slapper Simpson. I cannot imagine why?

'' As the Public Record Office releases more documents concerning the abdication of King Edward VIII, BBC News Online looks at the life of Wallis Simpson - the woman for whom he relinquished the throne.

 

Bessie Wallis Warfield, as she was born in Baltimore, Maryland, was something of a misfit from the start.

Her arrival in June, 1896, came just seven months after the marriage of her parents, causing some embarrassment to Warfield relatives for whom moral propriety was essential as the elite of Baltimore society.

a new biography, "That Woman: The Life of Wallis Simpson," suggests that the "mannish" social climber with the "beautiful dark sapphire blue eyes, full of sparkle and nice mischief" may have been intersex.

Author Anne Sebba points to the Duchess of Windsor's raspy voice, square jaw and flat chest as signs, among other physical manifestations, that she was born male.

She describes a flirtatious debutante with a voracious sexual appetite, trained in the Chinese art of seduction and comfortable with oral sex, an unlady-like talent in the early 20th century.

 

Bessie's father died when she was five months old and throughout her formative years, she and her mother had to rely on irregular hand outs from a wealthy relative.

Free after her first divorce in 1927 Bessie discarded her first name - because "so many cows are called Bessie" - and learned how to flirt. But she was still shut out of the world she regarded as her birthright.

 

Soon after the humiliation of "coming out" without the usual debutante's celebration ball, she grasped the first means of escape from Baltimore by becoming engaged. But her marriage to her first husband, Navy pilot Earl Winfield Spencer, was apparently a disaster from the start.

He turned out to be a moody alcoholic so Wallis left him, and after a passionate but short-lived affair with an Argentine diplomat. A single woman again, she began an affair with a married man, Ernest Simpson, a British-American businessman, and they wed in 1928. "I really feel so tired of fighting the world all alone and with no money," she wrote to her mother.

Settled into English society, she met Edward, Prince of Wales, at a house party given by his 'mistress' Lady Thelma Furness, at Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire. The couple enjoyed busy social lives in Europe. He was charming, the most eligible bachelor in the world; she was married, at 35 no longer in the first flush of youth and no beauty, but she was seductive.

By 1934, the prince was a frequent visitor to the Simpsons' home, and it has been said their relationship was consummated that year.

Wallis told her aunt: "It requires great tact to manage both men. I shall try to keep them both."

By January, 1936, though, the prince had become King and his love for Wallis an obsession. The Simpson marriage cracked under the strain and Wallis sought a divorce.

Despite his several mistresses, Edward has been characterised as Mrs Simpson's lapdog. "There must have been some sort of sadomasochistic relationship," says Philip Ziegler, Edward VIII's official biographer. "He relished the contempt and bullying she bestowed on him."

He eventually abdicated on 11 December, 1936.

She found Edward's dependence upon her burdensome and claustrophobic, writing to her uncle: "How can a woman be a whole empire to a man?"

 

Other revelations long after her death in 1986 were to prove more damaging to her reputation....

The couple were guests at Hitler's mountain retreat

Frozen out by the British royals, the Duke and

Duchess's alleged pro-German sympathies became the subject of an FBI investigation in 1941.

The FBI was told that during the German invasion of France the previous year, that the Duchess had passed information to the Nazis' foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop.

Officers were told that von Ribbentrop had been the Duchess's lover when he was ambassador to Britain in 1936, sending her 17 carnations every day to remind her of the number of times they had slept together.

And, 13 years after Edward had given up his throne to marry her, the Duchess reportedly embarked on an affair with Jimmy Donahue, a playboy grandson of the stores mogul, FW Woolworth. She was 54, he was 34, homosexual, outrageous and promiscuous. Or was this just a cover for Edward who was also alleged to be homosexual?

The duke, meanwhile, fully aware of the relationship, trailed behind them for most of the four-year affair.

But, it seems, neither the Duke nor the Duchess found a fulfilling role from the day he gave up the Crown. As the duchess once said: "You can't abdicate and eat it."

 

I hope this sets you on the road to research for yourself, and relieves you of your unrealistic Disney coloured perception of the perfect Royals.

[janie48 98]

 

I hope this sets you on the road to research.

If I decided to set out and do any research it wouldn't be in the form of what you have to offer.

Your long cut and paste posts are tedious to say the least, especially when what you present are details that are old news often distorted, that have appeared in TV documentaries and sensational press articles to entertain people like yourself.

[Kidorry 189]

If I decided to set out and do any research it wouldn't be in the form of what you have to offer.

Your long cut and paste posts are tedious to say the least, especially when what you present are details that are old news often distorted, that have appeared in TV documentaries and sensational press articles to entertain people like yourself.

Well said.When all they can produce is copy and paste, to me it says they are incapable of forming their own opinion.