sympathyforthedevil 11 Posted November 26, 2005 You are incorrect Mr. Brimley. Just because you can acknowledge that many in the world hate him doesn't mean that you agree. For example, if the question were "who is the most hated man at my university," I could acknowledge that a lot of people would say "Vice Chancellor Watson" even thought I have nothing against the man myself. I hate Vice Chancellor Watson. In fact, I really despise him and wish he would choke to death on his own vomit. Sorry, but that's just the way I feel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrunoBrimley 86 Posted November 26, 2005 You are incorrect Mr. Brimley. Just because you can acknowledge that many in the world hate him doesn't mean that you agree. For example, if the question were "who is the most hated man at my university," I could acknowledge that a lot of people would say "Vice Chancellor Watson" even thought I have nothing against the man myself. Not even you understood that drivel Paulie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tempus Fugit 214 Posted November 26, 2005 You are incorrect Mr. Brimley. Just because you can acknowledge that many in the world hate him doesn't mean that you agree. For example, if the question were "who is the most hated man at my university," I could acknowledge that a lot of people would say "Vice Chancellor Watson" even thought I have nothing against the man myself. What has the Vice Chancellor done to deserve this scorn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canadian Paul 97 Posted November 26, 2005 What has the Vice Chancellor done to deserve this scorn. I have no idea TF. He's just a popular target of bitching on my student council as far as I know. That truly is drivel that even I do not understand. And no Mr. Brimley, I am quite cognizant of the meaning behind my own drivel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Handrejka 1,904 Posted November 26, 2005 Why are women who committ crimes more hated than men. Myra Hindley seems to be more hated that Ian Brady and M Carr seems to be just as hated as Ian Huntley and she never actually killed anyone. As an after thought I wonder if Ian is the most evil name in Britain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sympathyforthedevil 11 Posted November 26, 2005 As an after thought I wonder if Ian is the most evil name in Britain Ian is the most evil first name in Britain. Blair is the most evil surname. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Bearer 6,102 Posted November 26, 2005 As an after thought I wonder if Ian is the most evil name in Britain Ian is the most evil first name in Britain. Blair is the most evil surname. What if our own Iain's full name is Iain Blair? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tempus Fugit 214 Posted November 26, 2005 As an after thought I wonder if Ian is the most evil name in Britain Ian is the most evil first name in Britain. Blair is the most evil surname. Sir Ian Blair must be practically satanic then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted November 26, 2005 Let's not go overboard with all our debates matter most of youlove George W Bush or you hate him because pretty much each and every one of you live in Tony Blair's little kingdom anyhow. Hold that....who's Kingdom? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted November 26, 2005 Let's not go overboard with all our debates matter most of youlove George W Bush or you hate him because pretty much each and every one of you live in Tony Blair's little kingdom anyhow. Hold that....who's Kingdom? Hold up now......I don't know the rules on your kingdom. Would I be breaking the british laws by saying one owns A kingdom? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted November 26, 2005 No, its the Queen's Kingdom (In my opinion). Tony Blair only runs it because she says he can (according to the constitution). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted November 26, 2005 No, its the Queen's Kingdom (In my opinion).Tony Blair only runs it because she says he can (according to the constitution). I don't believe in royalty. Your born into a faimly thrown into it with no choice and told as a young child what you will be. Some may take this as an honor but if the individual is a complete asshole.......then look what you have running GB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tempus Fugit 214 Posted November 26, 2005 (edited) No, its the Queen's Kingdom (In my opinion).Tony Blair only runs it because she says he can (according to the constitution). I don't believe in royalty. Your born into a faimly thrown into it with no choice and told as a young child what you will be. Some may take this as an honor but if the individual is a complete asshole.......then look what you have running GB. Royalty exists whether you believe in them or not. We already have a complete asshole running UK PLC, thanks. Not HRH QEII of course, but TB. Edited November 26, 2005 by Tempus Fugit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted November 26, 2005 Actually our current monarch is not that bad at what she does. I think we may have problems when/if her son takes over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cerberus 302 Posted November 27, 2005 I don't believe in royalty. Your born into a faimly thrown into it with no choice and told as a young child what you will be. Some may take this as an honor but if the individual is a complete asshole.......then look what you have running GB. It isn't only royal children who have their destiny determined at birth. Children (especially sons) born into mega-rich families (Maxwells, Murdochs, Kennedys etc) are expected to carry on the family business when the "old man" is no longer around. And Prince Charles could, in theory at least, have removed himself from the line of succession at any time in the past, eg by marrying a Catholic woman. I believe there is a Japanese princess who did exactly that recently (and no, I don't mean marrying a Catholic woman). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted November 27, 2005 Blair. I think I've found someone who may agree with you there millwall. Things are about to get even messier for Blair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest Posted November 28, 2005 my vote is mrs camilla parker bowles....she would have to be one of the most hated women of this time adulteress destroyer of a royal family never mind destroying her own...2 sets of children have suffered through the evil misconduct of this woman.And i say Mrs Parker Bowles..as far as catholic law there is no divorce.charles will have to abdicate in favour for his son as his uncle did before him in favour of his brother...conduct unbecoming on both parts Charles has shown the world he is not fit to be King >In my opinion if his sons decline the throne then his sister Princess Anne would make perfect queen she reminds me of good queen Bess 1st. thats my say on the matter and mind u lots of others about time people had their say about the monarchy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted November 28, 2005 my vote is mrs camilla parker bowles....she would have to be one of the most hated women of this time adulteress destroyer of a royal family never mind destroying her own...2 sets of children have suffered through the evil misconduct of this woman.And i say Mrs Parker Bowles..as far as catholic law there is no divorce.charles will have to abdicate in favour for his son as his uncle did before him in favour of his brother...conduct unbecoming on both parts Charles has shown the world he is not fit to be King >In my opinion if his sons decline the throne then his sister Princess Anne would make perfect queen she reminds me of good queen Bess 1st. thats my say on the matter and mind u lots of others about time people had their say about the monarchy If none of them want the job maybe Windsor could step in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cerberus 302 Posted November 28, 2005 In my opinion if his sons decline the throne then his sister Princess Anne would make perfect queen she reminds me of good queen Bess 1st. You go back a bit, then? Lady Die, I'm not sure Windsor is anatomically qualified to be the next Queen of England - Elspeth, on the other hand ... only a couple of divorces in the way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted November 28, 2005 my vote is mrs camilla parker bowles....she would have to be one of the most hated women of this time adulteress destroyer of a royal family never mind destroying her own...2 sets of children have suffered through the evil misconduct of this woman.And i say Mrs Parker Bowles..as far as catholic law there is no divorce.charles will have to abdicate in favour for his son as his uncle did before him in favour of his brother...conduct unbecoming on both parts Charles has shown the world he is not fit to be King >In my opinion if his sons decline the throne then his sister Princess Anne would make perfect queen she reminds me of good queen Bess 1st. thats my say on the matter and mind u lots of others about time people had their say about the monarchy If none of them want the job maybe Windsor could step in? If I were King the monarchy would be destroyed in a matter of days. Especially as Queen as Cerberus suggests. So perhaps I would be the DL candidate for King. As for the guest who hates Camilla: 1. It is pointless with everything we now know to pin all the blame for the destruction of that marriage on one person. They all committed adutery and in the end its fairly clear that there was little love envolved in either marriage. Not one of the three were happy before 1992 and we cannot assume that it was all down to Camilla. Diana never saticefied Charles, Charles never saticefied Diana and so they bothe looked elsewhere for comfort. Marriages break down all the time. 2.We are talking about the British Monarchy, what the hell has Catholisism got to do with anything. Indeed, catholics cannot take the throne. The 1701 Act of Settlement secured that. 3. It is very unlikely that abdication will be forced on Charles. Britain has grown more liberal (religiously) since 1937. It is the Prime Minister, not the Arch Bishop, who has the final say. There is a likely chance that the Monarch will break away from the Church of England especially since Charles has interest in other faiths aspects. 4. Princess Anne taking the throne would spell the end of the Monarchy. It would be seen as a rediculous move from the 9th in line to skip 9 living royals to take the throne. Her children also have no titles, they are effectively commoners. Thats my rant over, I'm no expert so there are probably many mistakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted November 28, 2005 Lady Die, I'm not sure Windsor is anatomically qualified to be the next Queen of England Queen Elizabeth I had the "heart and stomach of a king" ... if that helps at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted November 28, 2005 There is ofcourse the rumour that Princess Elizabeth died and was replace with a small boy who grew up to be Queen Elizabeth I. It apparently explains the Virgin Queen part aswell as the fact that she was terribly ugly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted November 28, 2005 There is ofcourse the rumour that Princess Elizabeth died and was replace with a small boy who grew up to be Queen Elizabeth I. It apparently explains the Virgin Queen part aswell as the fact that she was terribly ugly. Maybe she was just an ugly woman ... and the virgin bit would follow on from that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted November 28, 2005 Not if you are Queen of England in the 16th Century. Men want to marry you for the power they can gain. Elizabeth did love some but never persued 'her' interest in them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
