Prince Harry doesn't look anything at all like Prince Charles... nor his brother, the fast balding Prince William. But Harry is a DEAD RINGER for the "cad" Captain James Hewitt, that Lady Di admitted to having the affair with. Can we be honest, and once and for all, address this?

It would be useful it Harry would submit to a DNA test, if he has time, in between wearing Nazi outfits and cheating on his current pretend girlfriend/model.

And I can't stand when Harry makes these statements like, "I want my unit to be called into service in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or wherever..." Puh-leese.

Harry isn't going anywhere, even though he is only a step-brother of William, who is getting FUGLIER by the moment... have you seen a recent picture of him? Yech! The Charles genes must be stronger than the Lady Di... but Harry got lucky, cause the Captain James Hewitt cad genes are stronger than the fugly Prince Charles genes.

And that Camilla Parket Bowles... she ain't no looker, but I'm glad Prince Charles has found his true love... he'll never be king.

And I think Harry really shouldn't have the right to live in any palace, being a bastard step-child. They should build him a little shack in the back of the palace grounds. Puh-leese... can we be honest here?

I do like the present Queen, Elizabeth 2... but do they only allow her to speak 11 words per year? Is that her quota?

if hewitt really is the father it will never be aloud to broadcast it ,it would bring the monarchy down

In the good old days one would have tried to murder the other by now, they're just so boring these days.

if hewitt really is the father it will never be aloud to broadcast it ,it would bring the monarchy down

Don't buy into that tired old line... the "monarchy" isn't going anywhere... they are doing just fine... they are the largest recipients of welfare in the world... that won't change, regardless of who bastard Harry's father is... one thing is certain: it ain't Prince Charles. I just wish he would stop with all the "I want to go and fight" nonsense... I mean, when was the last time a "royal" was killed in military action? Puh-leese.

But Harry still has some good looks... William is well into the "fugly" category. I think they both smoke too... and are both probably alcoholics by now too.

How sad. The mother really did try to at least pretend she was concerned about some serious world issues, in between fashion shoots, and only while the cameras were rolling, of course... and what a sad ending for the mother, Lady Di... killed by a drunken and drugged French driver, who was breaking all sorts of laws... and we can be sure that Lady Di was in the backseat yelling, "faster, faster, get away from those evil paparazzi, that make me famous, that I owe everything to, who I pretend to hate, but I really love..."

But these are public people, people who CHOOSE to live in the public eye, and open to discussion by all... but combine that with the huge amount of welfare they get, and it's pretty pathetic and sad.

What time is the revolution?

In the old days Hewitt would have been quietly transferred to some outpost to serve as sniper bait. Alas, there's no more chivalry these days.

Nice to have a Royal Family those isnt it! Ner Ner na na ner!

when was the last time a "royal" was killed in military action?

Well, the last king to be killed was Richard 111, but that is not what you meant was it?

Moss

Who does take the throne after Elizabeth II?

Charlie ain't gonna pass it up that's fer shooowa, he's waited long enough.

Charlie ain't gonna pass it up that's fer shooowa, he's waited long enough.

So , he is next in line? What do the Royals do really? Do they have any power or influence worth mentioning?

The British army swears allegiance to the monarch, it cannot take the side of the people.

This oath was enacted after the English civil war and is the reason we haven't had a civil war, or even much of a protest since.

As much as we would like to, the upshot is the army will always back the establishment, so there is the reason for our famous English apathy.

Like it or loath it, the monarchy does keep the peace.

...the last king to be killed was Richard 111

I knew the UK has had quite a few Dicks as head of state, but not one-hundred-and-eleven of 'em.

Scouse.

The British army swears allegiance to the monarch, it cannot take the side of the people.

This oath was enacted after the English civil war and is the reason we haven't had a civil war, or even much of a protest since.

As much as we would like to, the upshot is the army will always back the establishment, so there is the reason for our famous English apathy.

Like it or loath it, the monarchy does keep the peace.

Did not know that. That doesn't mean the Monarchy can order around the Military though, right?

...the last king to be killed was Richard 111

I knew the UK has had quite a few Dicks as head of state, but not one-hundred-and-eleven of 'em.

Scouse.

Would you have preferred Richard the Turd

Moss

The British army swears allegiance to the monarch, it cannot take the side of the people.

This oath was enacted after the English civil war and is the reason we haven't had a civil war, or even much of a protest since.

As much as we would like to, the upshot is the army will always back the establishment, so there is the reason for our famous English apathy.

Like it or loath it, the monarchy does keep the peace.

Did not know that. That doesn't mean the Monarchy can order around the Military though, right?

Ultimately yes it can, although the reality is that the army takes it's direction from parliment, which in itself is an extension of the monarchy only dressed up to look like the people have some say.. as if

The fine points were written into the trade off at the end of the English Civil War, the Parliment (business) got more power and the monarchy got protected from ultimate disolution, it's worked perfectly ever since and will do as long as business never turns on the state and lets face it, while they're happily milking the rest of us that's never going to happen. I think that it was Jared Diamond that coined the phrase Kleptocracy,, sums it up nicely, even bastard sons get on the gravy train.

The British army swears allegiance to the monarch, it cannot take the side of the people.

This oath was enacted after the English civil war and is the reason we haven't had a civil war, or even much of a protest since.

As much as we would like to, the upshot is the army will always back the establishment, so there is the reason for our famous English apathy.

Like it or loath it, the monarchy does keep the peace.

Did not know that. That doesn't mean the Monarchy can order around the Military though, right?

Ultimately yes it can, although the reality is that the army takes it's direction from parliment, which in itself is an extension of the monarchy only dressed up to look like the people have some say.. as if

The fine points were written into the trade off at the end of the English Civil War, the Parliment (business) got more power and the monarchy got protected from ultimate disolution, it's worked perfectly ever since and will do as long as business never turns on the state and lets face it, while they're happily milking the rest of us that's never going to happen. I think that it was Jared Diamond that coined the phrase Kleptocracy,, sums it up nicely, even bastard sons get on the gravy train.

So, Parliment is still old upper class Lords and what not?

Parliaments maxim is 'for the maximisation of private profit' apart from a spot of socialist altruism in the 30 years after 1945 that is it's purpose.

reason for edit, parliament not parliment

Parliments maxim is 'for the maximisation of private profit' apart from a spot of socialist altruism in the 30 years after 1945 that is it's purpose.

Ah, not much different from American Congress, I get it!

My English history is a bit fuzzy, here's a bit from Wiki. I was looking for the declaration about 'the maximization of private profit'

When Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603 by the Scottish King James VI, (thus becoming James I of England), the countries both came under his rule but each retained its own Parliament. James I's successor, Charles I, quarrelled with the English Parliament and, after he provoked the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, their dispute developed into the English Civil War. Charles was executed in 1649 and under Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of England the House of Lords was abolished, and the House of Commons made subordinate to Cromwell. After Cromwell's death, the Restoration of 1660 restored the monarchy and the House of Lords.

Never mind you've got it now, it's a tax fiddle

when was the last time a "royal" was killed in military action?

Prince George, Duke of Kent. August 25, 1942

Robski is 100% spot on when it comes to where the loyalty of the military truly lies

1979/80 there was a great deal of anti-Crown rhetoric coming from the loony left. Muggins was in Germany at the time and for many weeks the topic of conversation was how we ( at the time ) would not allow the abolishnitiks to have their way. This was not just pissed junior officer talk, senior guys were leading the charge so to speak. I to this day believe this Int found it's way back to the Halls of Westminster, as the rhetoric was toned down quite noticeably.

...not to mention the magnificent diplomatic record HRH possesses. Many people do not seem to realise the influence she has wielded over the years, particularly in Africa (and, to a lesser extent, parts of the middle east). HRH is certainly more than a mere figurehead.

When I was made an Australia Army officer we all made our individual oath part of which was to "the Queen of Australia" We got a Royal Commission and each one is sent to England for approval of HRH.

As an enlisted man you have a couple of variations available:

1) you swear an oath or make a declaration of alliegence

2) you say or ommit the line "so help me God"

3) you declare you alliegence to Australia

As an officer you don't (or didn't when I made mine) have these variations.

You make a "sacred oath" to defend and protect "the Crown and Commonwealth" and you finish up by saying "so help me God" with one hand on your sword (or in my case sabre) and the other on a bible which is then presented to you with your "Certificate of Royal Commission"

Afterwards you get back to being in Australia by eating the first decent meal you have had in months and get absolutely smashed and force the bast@rd sergeants and Warrant Officers salute and say "congratulations Sir!" Ah the memories and the joys.

CB

...not to mention the magnificent diplomatic record HRH possesses. Many people do not seem to realise the influence she has wielded over the years, particularly in Africa (and, to a lesser extent, parts of the middle east). HRH is certainly more than a mere figurehead.

The only female HRH now is Princess Anne, surely?

Anyway, I prefer to have this shower than a succession of Reagan / Clinton / Bush as head of State. Tony Blair thought he could be President, but look at him now - shuffled off into a completely powerless job.

This thread has degenerated into a discussion about British history.... ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I was hoping some would have the courage to say, "weho, you're right... Harry is a basterd child, and we've all been participating in this charade for decades... enough is enough... weho, you're right..."

Why haven't the British people DEMANDED a DNA test, a forced one? That "cad" is the father... puh-leese.

Because in general, the British people show respect for the dead, and would not like to tarnish the memory of anyone for the sheer hel_l of it. Your comments belong in the tabloids, which thankfully do not represent the majority of " The British People ", just a few sad unfortunate attention seekers...........................Oops.

Edited for my usual crappy spelling, which only gets worse with stress.

Bastards in the British Royal Family? What a yawn, not a shocker. A discussion of British royal history might be in order so that Weho could understand how common it has always been

No. weho has no interest in British history... won't do him any good to know about it. Weho does enjoy reading about British hooligans, when the world's largest welfare recipients (the so-called "royal" family) do something stupid... Yes, i enjoy reading about that... and I also enjoy knowing how quickly the British have bought into this whole thing that Harry is somehow related to Prince Charles, which simply couldn't be true... unless you're frickin' blind.

I admit I do like those "After Eight" mints, which I think used to be British, they have probably now been bought up by someone from the UAE... I also like VIZ Magazine a lot... and some good music has come out of there, like the Spice Girls, Westlife, Take That etc... I also like the t.v. show Absolutely Fabulous... actually, yes, some good things have come out of the U.K.... I can admit that... I'm strong...

.

Hey Weho, it appears that you can "slag off" members of the British Royal Family without getting the thread closed - but if you were British would you be accused of treason ?

Just wondering..