Jump to content

Charles 'told Prince Harry NOT to bring Meghan to Balmoral to see dying Queen'


Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Racist and petty even in the gravest times for this family.

 

I'm hoping the passing of this gracious lady will mark the beginning of the end of this anachronistic monarchy.  At the very least I can now hope that my country will become a republic without the new entitled toff remaining as our head of state.

I can't think about this lot without remembering how they became what they are, nor wonder why people in this modern world still kowtow to this hybrid German-Anglo bunch.

 

 

Russia sounds the place for you ......  oh'  don't worry you'll have plenty of vodka nights in the barracks 

  • Like 1
Posted

I've not known very few families in which the matriarch or patriarch has passed away without some family drama coming into play.   

 

The glue that holds the family together is gone.

Posted
4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was quite widely reported that it was a gathering for close family members only and the Queen had actually died before Harry got to Balmoral 

Yep. Apparently only King Charles and and Princess Anne were at the Queen's bedside when she passed away. And that's because they were both quite near to Balmoral when she deteriorated. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Middleton wasn’t there either. 

Well it was her three children's first day at a new school. She and her husband probably thought it important that she was at home for them, especially as someone had to explain that their great grandmother had died .

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Well it was her three children's first day at a new school. She and her husband probably thought it important that she was at home for them, especially as someone had to explain that their great grandmother had died .

The OP goes into that and further about why she didn’t go. 
 

And let me be clear my posts are not in any way intended to criticise the protocols followed during this time, but rather try to show they may not have been particularly applied to markle as the mail would have us believe. 

Edited by Bluespunk
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

The OP goes into that and further about why she didn’t go. 

Yes, realised that now. My post was clumsily worded, and not really aimed at you, rather I suppose at all the putative conspiracy theorists out there...

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Yes, realised that now. My post was clumsily worded, and not really aimed at you, rather I suppose at all the putative conspiracy theorists out there...

No worries, seems we are in agreement. 

Edited by Bluespunk
Posted
4 minutes ago, sotonowl said:

Why would I, I'm as British as they come. Try reading the post again without jumping to conclusions.

Fair enough, I thought that the first "republic" you wrote was actually "Republican " and I thought *Here we go again*

Posted
17 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Racist and petty even in the gravest times for this family.

 

I'm hoping the passing of this gracious lady will mark the beginning of the end of this anachronistic monarchy.  At the very least I can now hope that my country will become a republic without the new entitled toff remaining as our head of state.

I can't think about this lot without remembering how they became what they are, nor wonder why people in this modern world still kowtow to this hybrid German-Anglo bunch.

 

 

Be careful what you wish for. For a start your taxes will go to elect yet another politician.

She was head of state, but didn't interfere- way, way better than any politician, spending their time thinking up new ways to make our lives worse.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I've heard senior armed forces people explaining something I wasn't aware of. Basically that the armed forces are loyal to the monarch, not to the government.

Firstly because the monarchy remains stable and apolitical whereas governments change.  And secondly in case the government of the day 'turns bad' the monarch can step in with the backing of the armed forces and kick them out. That is apparently a critical part of our constitution and a reason why the monarch is important ????‍♂️

Wonder if any ex forces folk on here can confirm or correct that?

While you are correct, refer posts above, members of the British armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, I’d be more than a little surprised to hear any senior officers, serving or retired discuss the idea of the military overthrowing a British Government.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
  • Like 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

While you are correct, refer posts above, members of the British armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, I’d be more than a little surprised to hear any senior officers, serving or retired discuss the idea of the military overthrowing a British Government.

 

 

 

 

Yes soldiers do swear an oath to the sovereign, his (her) heirs and successors.

 

But overthrowing the government; why, in the case of the infantry it would interfere with the rugby and cricket programs, for the Cavalry polo, and for the Household Division polo. For the logisticians it would involve suddenly dispensing items over the great counters of "no" so they wouldn't want to do it.

 

All the Navy's Large Grey Boats are being mended, and the RAF would insist on it all being done and dusted by Thursday teatime lest it interfered with the weekend.

 

Amongst the "officer corps" the "young thrusters" would hang back to see which way it would go before they got involved; the "passed over"

wouldn't know where to start.

 

Anyway, it would involve facing Penny Mordaunt in full "little Miss Bossy mode" - I would take my chances in battle but sod that for a game of soldiers!

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, xylophone said:
17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Camilla has never had the title of, or been referred to correctly, as "Queen Camilla".

However at some stage in the coming weeks and months, as the UK and the world slowly acclimatise to the accession of King Charles III and Queen Camilla

As I said, Camilla, the Queen Consort, has never had the title of, nor been referred to correctly as, Queen Camilla.

Edited by Liverpool Lou
  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, transam said:

The military is not for you then.....:whistling:

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I would have been court martialed, or dishonorably discharged within the first month of service. Likely for punching an officer, or telling him off. I do not suffer fools easily. Never have. I respect politicians and bigwigs even less. Highest on the list are the super rich who think they are something special. 

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.




×
×
  • Create New...