Camilla "could be Queen," warns Charles
The 12th Doctor
Posts: 4,338 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331296/Camilla-Queen-Charles-breaks-year-silence-future-role-second-wife.html
Old Charlie has apparently suggested Camilla could be Queen after all.
You all remember Camilla - she was the bint Charles carried on with while Diana's "accident" was being arranged.
Old Charlie has apparently suggested Camilla could be Queen after all.
You all remember Camilla - she was the bint Charles carried on with while Diana's "accident" was being arranged.
0
Comments
I like Camilla, as much as i can like someone without knowing them.
they are your bosses!
lol
:rolleyes:
If the Princes can like her and be ok with it. Everyone should be ok with it.
Well, that's the spin isn't it? Apparently not so behind closed doors.
The unelected monarchy don't tell me what to like or what not to like, thank you.
QFT.
Those are the rules of a hereditary monarchy. You support it, deal with its downsides...
That would be a democratic republic, not a monarchy. Which, by the way, is exactly what this country needs.
Yep, nothing 'could be' about it. Unless people are happy with changing our constitution on a whim. Which starts a precedent.
I think overall Charles is a fairly decent guy who does a lot of good things, fair enough he's aired some views at times that have pissed people off but who hasn't.
UK is in effect a democratic monarchy, isn't it?
I suggest that UK is very much more democratic than many democratic republics such as, to name one of the biggest, Russia, which has an elected President and Parliament with a Prime Minister. Having a democratic republic does not necessarily mean a better democracy and often it's the reverse.
If you're so against them why don't you start a revolution or something? Instead of adding stupid suggestions that Diana was murdered. :rolleyes:
This.... the only people complaining as far as I can see on this thread are republicans, we have a constitutional monarchy it is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution.
It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.
Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the Monarch may have strictly Ceremonial duties or may have Reserve Powers, depending on the constitution, have a directly or indirectly elected prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power.
Eh? Monarchists do accept it don't they? It's the republicans that have to deal with its downsides (as they see it).