No one is asking that you play semantics. Sticking to the reality of the situation would be helpful thought, rather going off on a tangent and trying it infer something that is not there.

The Government has nothing to do with how the Royal Family chose to breed and with whom. That's their choice, not the Government's.

This. If you are going to compare hundreds of years of british history and ingrained culture to some vacous Hotel chain billionaire then you cannot be reasoned with. And I'm not even a royalist

One's Queen is staying! Thanks!

Shameless plug but M's new movie W.E. will cover this from Wallis point of view, in cinemas soon!

I've locked this to delete some posts, it's been derailed by personal clashes

Ok deleted the bickering and off-topic post, keep it on topic

so all of my responses were deleted, and Pyramid get's the last word? doesn't seem fair to me. i totally pwned him, and yu deleted it all, and made it seem like i had nothing to respond with.

I deleted any posts which involved personal arguing or which were generally off topic, feel free to respond to Pyramids post as long as you stick to the topic and don't use insults

If you look you will see that another 2 posters have posted since the last post of mine - so how that's me having the last word, god knows. I am a 'she' not a 'he'.



You made reference to 'if you want to know about history, go speak to the Scots'.

You are speaking to a Scot, therefore it would appear that since you feel the Scots have more to say on the matter, it would therefore appear that given that I am Scottish, that you would agree with my Scottish points of view.

Why does what happen in the UK as far as our Monarchy concern you so deeply?

Ohhh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize this was a British only section of the bus. Sorry, maybe you can tell me which water fountains are for Brits and which are for every one else. i didn't realize this forum was segregated.

My bad, i thought everyone was free to participate in any discussion despite their nationality.

We knew Brown would take over at some point when we elected Blair the third time, Brown was there for three terms too, trust me no one was shocked when Brown became PM

I did not suggest it was segregated or not open so no need for such sarcasm. What about the other part of my comment that related to you saying, 'talk to the Scots'. I am one.

I asked why you are so deeply concerned about the UK and it's monarchy. Given that this is very much the topic of the thread, it is a valid question given your opposition to it - I'm wondering why you feel so deeply about it when it doesn't have a direct impact on you. That is not me saying you have no right to discuss it, that's me simply wondering why you have such an interest and opposing view on something that has no effect on you personally in any way.

Yes, and he obviously knew very little facts on the subject. Which is fine as he asked for explanations but he was very opposing to something he didn't really understand.

Plus, the thread was about the Queen being head of Church of England so I think it got derailed 3 and half pages back. lol

I was obviously saying it as a generalization. I'm sure some Scots are anglophiles, just as some Americans are anglophiles.

Obviously what i was talking about doesn't apply to you, don't take everything i say so personally, geesh, this is why MTVN had to censor our convo, because you take everything to personally,
obviously we are talking in generalizations.

You think everything is a compettion we're talking about history, ity's not a personal attack on you, sorry if you felt personally attacked, i didn't mean anything i said to be a personal attack on you.

"he" has a name, If you wanna talk about me, try talking to me, and you're talking about me not be able to address people directly for questions?? wow, now who doesn't get irony??

Off topic, again.:nono:

Now, who's taking things personally?

I did not say you don't address people directly for questions, I was actually trying to stick up for you on that matter. If you actually read my post you'll see I said that you didn't know a lot of facts on the Royal Family so actually asked for explanations on things you weren't clear on.

I then said that you were very opposing about the Royal Family considering you seemed to not know an awful lot about it.

So, I fail to see any "irony", and I've been "talking directly to you" all through the thread. Well, until you made the comparison to Paris Hilton.

Not really the case. The next (Should Charles abdicate) Queen would have come from a working class family. With William being King of course.

Too right !

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...can_dynasties/

:rolleyes:

AFAIK, there has never been "segregation" in the UK, unlike the USA, where it persisted until 1968 .....

Exactly. ^^^^

Absolutely,and also just a rumour that a Royal may be passing anywhere has tourists lining the streets for hours just to catch a tiny glimpse of them.

The Monarch is the designated head of the Church of England, she still holds the title 'defender of the faith', it may sound antiquated to some but it's a continuance and symbolism that has still a strong part of the UK tradition and its values.

While it is true the Monarch has no real power as such as to the politics of the Nation, the Monarch does still have a major role to play especially if there were difficulty in forming a govt of the country due to fragmented parties or unclear election results.
The Monarch can in extraordinary circumstances,call for elections to be held for instance.

Long may the Monarchy continue and I feel sure it will.

Seems to me, our American offspring are jealous of our history and traditions, is all.

Pointing out what they see as irregularities in our state and constitution whilst totally ignoring the blatantly obvious ones in their own.


Is the word "titular" not in the abbreviated dictionary they are taught from?

Yeah this. :thumbs:

The consensus among most historians and political experts is the US Constitution was and still is the best blueprint for government that man has ever put to paper. :hmph:

OTOH, the consensus among most historians and political experts is the US Constitution was and still is the worst blueprint for government that man has ever put to paper, since it has, as its main aim, the eradication, control or corruption of the rest of the world.

:eek: