Jump to content
Paul Bearer

King Charles III

Recommended Posts

Prince Philip's death has certainly brought the trolls flocking here.

  • Like 5
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9798585/Prince-Charles-says-wear-face-mask-Freedom-Day-government-advice-tells-him.html

 

As the heir to the  throne Prince Charles seems a bit cavalier about his own  ( and indeed others) health and life after apparently indicating he will more or less only wear masks in future if compelled.

Perhaps there really is an outside chance the royal  family will lose two family members this year with the Queen losing both her husband and oldest child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9798585/Prince-Charles-says-wear-face-mask-Freedom-Day-government-advice-tells-him.html

 

As the heir to the  throne Prince Charles seems a bit cavalier about his own  ( and indeed others) health and life after apparently indicating he will more or less only wear masks in future if compelled.

Perhaps there really is an outside chance the royal  family will lose two family members this year with the Queen losing both her husband and oldest child.

That presumes that masks really do work very well and the vaccines are useless at preventing severe illness and death.

Both assumptions are bollocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

That presumes that masks really do work very well and the vaccines are useless at preventing severe illness and death.

Both assumptions are bollocks.

I'm not so sure.

I certainly  don't think masks are a magic bullet but nor do I think they are useless .

Amongst the much smaller  number of people dying at the moment thanks in large measure to these wonderful  vaccines  are a small number of people whom the vaccine doesn't  or rather hasn't worked  well on or vaccine escape as some say. It has always been stated that vaccines were not a  100% guarantee  but pretty damned useful for the vast majority. 

I am more thinking along the lines  that as the heir to the throne and a man who frankly with his beetroot colour a lot of the time doesn't look like he will live as long as his mother  and may even be outlived by his mother. I thought he'd be much more on the cautious side .

I have never felt like masks or vaccines were sold to me as a 100%  guarantee but rather a rather wise and good choice to make that increases the odds favourably. 

I have a  feeling Prince Charles will be  outlived  by his sister Princess Anne by many years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I'm not so sure.

I certainly  don't think masks are a magic bullet but nor do I think they are useless .

Amongst the much smaller  number of people dying at the moment thanks in large measure to these wonderful  vaccines  are a small number of people whom the vaccine doesn't  or rather hasn't worked  well on or vaccine escape as some say. It has always been stated that vaccines were not a  100% guarantee  but pretty damned useful for the vast majority. 

I am more thinking along the lines  that as the heir to the throne and a man who frankly with his beetroot colour a lot of the time doesn't look like he will live as long as his mother  and may even be outlived by his mother. I thought he'd be much more on the cautious side .

I have never felt like masks or vaccines were sold to me as a 100%  guarantee but rather a rather wise and good choice to make that increases the odds favourably. 

I have a  feeling Prince Charles will be  outlived  by his sister Princess Anne by many years.

You may be right about Charles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

You may be right about Charles.

 

I still think the Queen has a decent chance of continue the royal family tradition by outliving one of her own kids (basically either every Monarch OR their spouse has outlived one of their own kids since the Tudors iirc) but my gut feeling was Andrew keeling over from recent stress or lack of sweating. :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, msc said:

 

I still think the Queen has a decent chance of continue the royal family tradition by outliving one of her own kids (basically either every Monarch OR their spouse has outlived one of their own kids since the Tudors iirc) but my gut feeling was Andrew keeling over from recent stress or lack of sweating. :D

It's not impossible she could outlive two of her children !

 

I do wonder what the status of Camilla would be in the event  of Prince Charles death?  She couldn't be the Queen Mother because she isn't the mother to a royal but she would be a royal widow.

So would she be allowed to continue with royal duties if she so desired? Just as Princess Alice the dowager duchess of Gloucester did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

It's not impossible she could outlive two of her children !

 

I do wonder what the status of Camilla would be in the event  of Prince Charles death?  She couldn't be the Queen Mother because she isn't the mother to a royal but she would be a royal widow.

So would she be allowed to continue with royal duties if she so desired? Just as Princess Alice the dowager duchess of Gloucester did?

 

Well the last time that happened (the monarch outlived the heir) was Prince Albert (what a cursed name!) in 1892. He was the son of Edward VII and would have been King in 1910 but died ages before from the flu. Anyhow, he was weeks off getting married when he snuffed it, and so his bride to be... wound up marrying his brother George instead, and became the Queen Mother anyway.

 

A chain of events I don't foresee happening to Camilla! :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

It's not impossible she could outlive two of her children !

 

I do wonder what the status of Camilla would be in the event  of Prince Charles death?  She couldn't be the Queen Mother because she isn't the mother to a royal but she would be a royal widow.

So would she be allowed to continue with royal duties if she so desired? Just as Princess Alice the dowager duchess of Gloucester did?

 

She would be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and would most likely fuck off with a big pension.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I do wonder what the status of Camilla would be in the event  of Prince Charles death?  She couldn't be the Queen Mother because she isn't the mother to a royal but she would be a royal widow.

So would she be allowed to continue with royal duties if she so desired? Just as Princess Alice the dowager duchess of Gloucester did?

 

If Charles died before succeeding to the throne, I think Camilla would still be known as Duchess of Cornwall.  The Duke of Cornwall title would merge with the Crown on Charles's death, but Camilla would still be styled as Duchess.   I'm sure she would still do royal duties if she wished to.

If Charles died as King and Camilla survived him, she would still be Queen Camilla. 

Widowed consorts are usually still known as Queen [her name]. 

Queen Mary was still Queen Mary after the death of George V. 

Queen Alexandra was still Queen Alexandra after the death of Edward VII.   

After the death of George VI, Queen Elizabeth was mostly referred to as the Queen Mother because the present Queen is also named Elizabeth.  If Margaret had been the elder and succeeded to the throne, I expect the QM would have carried on being called Queen Elizabeth.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Windsor said:

 

She would be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and would most likely fuck off with a big pension.

 

I don't think the Dowager bit would be needed, as there would be no new Duchess of Cornwall in the picture.   The title isn't hereditary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

If Charles died before succeeding to the throne, I think Camilla would still be known as Duchess of Cornwall.  The Duke of Cornwall title would merge with the Crown on Charles's death, but Camilla would still be styled as Duchess.   I'm sure she would still do royal duties if she wished to.

If Charles died as King and Camilla survived him, she would still be Queen Camilla. 

Widowed consorts are usually still known as Queen [her name]. 

Queen Mary was still Queen Mary after the death of George V. 

Queen Alexandra was still Queen Alexandra after the death of Edward VII.   

After the death of George VI, Queen Elizabeth was mostly referred to as the Queen Mother because the present Queen is also named Elizabeth.  If Margaret had been the elder and succeeded to the throne, I expect the QM would have carried on being called Queen Elizabeth.

 

Thanks Toast I appreciate your thoughtful reply. 

I know you are very knowledgeable on royal topics so I'm happy to defer to you.

Am I right in that if Charles dies before he reaches the throne  then it becomes impossible for Harrys children to become prince and princesses in future because they no longer will be grandchild of the monarch at a point in the future?

I know Charles is apparently not going to title them in that way anyway but just incase of there being a slim chance he relents. 

Prince William certainly won't title them of that I am sure!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Windsor said:

 

She would be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and would most likely fuck off with a big pension.

You are a cynical old sod!!!:D;)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Toast said:

 

I don't think the Dowager bit would be needed, as there would be no new Duchess of Cornwall in the picture.   The title isn't hereditary.

 

I'm pretty sure she would still be dowager as the title belongs to her husband; not her. She would be a widowed duchess and thus the term dowager would apply even if there would be no new Duchess of Cornwall at that point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Thanks Toast I appreciate your thoughtful reply. 

I know you are very knowledgeable on royal topics so I'm happy to defer to you.

Am I right in that if Charles dies before he reaches the throne  then it becomes impossible for Harrys children to become prince and princesses in future because they no longer will be grandchild of the monarch at a point in the future?

I know Charles is apparently not going to title them in that way anyway but just incase of there being a slim chance he relents. 

Prince William certainly won't title them of that I am sure!!

 

You're too kind!  Because I'm not really sure about that. 

 

The Queen issued Letters Patent confirming that the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should be HRH Prince/Princess.  So effectively that means the children of William but does not include any children of Harry's.  It doesn't specify grandchildren of the monarch.

(There's also the complication that the title "Prince of Wales" isn't automatic.  If and when Charles succeeds to the throne, William won't become Prince of Wales unless and until Charles confers the title on him.)

 

image.png.ce8a4424481be58d93d6ea49e3defa3d.png

 

The bottom line is that the monarch can always tinker with the rules by issuing Letters Patent. 

 

46 minutes ago, Windsor said:

I'm pretty sure she would still be dowager as the title belongs to her husband; not her. She would be a widowed duchess and thus the term dowager would apply even if there would be no new Duchess of Cornwall at that point.

 

The title does, but isn't there a distinction between title and style?  I think she could still be styled Duchess of Cornwall.  But IMBW.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn. Can't believe the BBC consider that worthy of a breaking news notification. They're just as guilty for needlessly hyping the hysteria around COVID and scaring the population as the rest of the broadcasters.

My dad is the same age as Charles. He's 3x jabbed, but a stroke survivor. Had COVID 2 weeks ago. His worst symptom was feeling tired with a "wee headache". Charles is healthy, presumably jabbed and has already had it in the past. There's a next to zero chance of any complication developing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's already had it once + he'll be boosted up.. maybe even a forth jab like me.   No chance it'll be anything more than a mild bout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very possible (in my opinion), that COVID never leaves us and there'll be wave after wave, like the annual flu waves, and I think it's possible that many, many people will basically get re-infected every few months or so. I think everybody will have one or two weeks per year a bit under the weather, if there are any symptoms at all.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Yawn. Can't believe the BBC consider that worthy of a breaking news notification. They're just as guilty for needlessly hyping the hysteria around COVID and scaring the population as the rest of the broadcasters.

My dad is the same age as Charles. He's 3x jabbed, but a stroke survivor. Had COVID 2 weeks ago. His worst symptom was feeling tired with a "wee headache". Charles is healthy, presumably jabbed and has already had it in the past. There's a next to zero chance of any complication developing.

I agree, but much of the media landscape has resorted to clickbait celebrity gossip now, and covid has provided an abundance of opportunities for it, as every person even remotely famous who tests positive is now worth a full headline. Unless a critical mass of the population is educated in critical thinking, or at least wake up to the reality of media behaviour these days, nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

The Duchess of Cornwall has now tested positive as well.

So turns out horses can get covid too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0x66x0fa0wy81.jpg?width=640&auto=webp&s=

I've been seeing Prince Charles' sausage fingers making the rounds on Reddit. His feet look equally as bad. 

 

Theories of total heart failure, too much salt, gout, water retention keep getting made in the thread. I couldn't possibly comment further. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use