86 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Experts?”

  3. X is the unknown quantity – spert is a drip under pressure.
    Every time one of them has anything to say he/she has to drive at least 100 miles from home.

  5. Who cares? They are just the latest irrelevant freaks in the continuing monarchy freak show. Not news, not relevant, and a gigantic waste of money.

  6. Well if i may …lol
    I agree that flying to kates how in a helecopter at a cost of over a million pounds is wasteful and the people have a right to get angry at that but that has happened since the beggining of time . still worng though as for there wedding this could be the couple that turn things around i think they are truley in love with each other i hope they have a few kids , i wish them well and as for the wedding it is royalty of course it is going to be big and expencive i am o.k. with that i pray that there love out last’s all other thing’s and may god watch over them .
    Prince charles and dianan wwere both headed in the wrong direction i think prince charles is a douchebag i am sure the queen is praying for these two as a last ditch effort to save the monarchy .
    I like monarchies becasue what the queen say’s is what is done but she doesn’t say anything at all …the muzzies could literally be wiped right out of britain in a few years and all deported back to there sh!t holes in the middle of the desert and there is nothing anyone can do or say because it is the queens wish ….however we live in a democracy and that wouldm ake doing that so much more harder !!!

  9. If she’s smart she’ll keep a low profile. Diana got too big for her britches and that’s why the queen had her killed.
    That’s what I’ve heard from several “experts”.

  10. Nooooo, JOURNALIST’S SAY. They just found an “expert” to say it for them and then quoted that “expert”. Same old same old.

  12. I agree with GG (Governor General?). Personally, I’d sooner live under a constitutional monarchy than any other form of government. Hopefully Katherine will not be as neurotic and shallow as her husband’s mother could be.

  13. Constitutional Monarchy an oxymoron? It only works if someone is faking. So, is this prince first in line for the throne, or is his father still in queue?

  14. Why a couple of junior “royals” of Muslim dominated Britanistan should cause excitement I can’t imagine.

  17. altaguy @ 11:02
    Could not agree more. The monarchy is and has been a joke for centuries. Upper and Lower Canada should have joined the American revolution and been done with Europe at that time. Time to grow up.
    The irony for monarchist supporters is that a Haitian seperatist(GG) had the power to appoint a Libel-NDP-Bloc coalition government not that long ago. I am sure it didn’t happen only because the idiots in the coalition were already fighting with each other.
    IMHO the monarchy has conditioned the people of this country to accept ‘top down’ government as the norm. It has not served us well.

  20. altaguy – LMAO with a mouthful of cornflakes. You owe me a keyboard.
    Damn – gotta remember to not eat or drink at the computer.
    Remember the sitcom “Men Behaving Badly”? Just replace Men with Royals. I agree with altaguy – they are one of the world’s biggest dog & pony show.

  21. It occurs to me that Chucky Cheese would ascend to the throne should Lizzy take the big dirt nap. Probably the only way Billy boy gets the gig next is if Liz abdicates and names boy to succeed.

  22. Kate Middleton is a real natural beauty, Diana looked plain in comparison.
    That’s why Diana had to put on the dog and be such a clothes horse with designer finery, just like Michelle Obama has to do to get the “experts” to oooh and aaah.
    Kate Middleton could wear a potatoe sack and look better than Diana did in the finest Versace.

  23. Well she’s no Lucretia Borgia, I’ll tell you that.
    Diana was stupid and nuts. Kate looks sane and quite smart and sensible. Ironically she’s probably much more the dutiful, hearty, stoic type that the royals ought to marry, assuming they ought to exist, than either of those vulgar sloane rangers, the blonde and the redhead. But I’m getting sleepy. Has Charlie Sheen done anything I should know about in the last few hours?
    (If anyone I know gives me a plate with pictures of thingee and thingee on it I will bash her to death with it. There are some things up with which I will not put.)

  24. I’ve always felt that if Chuck absolutely had to marry someone it would have been nice if he had married an Indian (Hindu or Sikh) woman from one of their royal families. It would have helped to solidify commonwealth ties, and he would probably have acquired a wife with natural beauty and good sense rather than the airheaded horse he was forced to marry. Maybe one of the remaining princes (how many are there?) will have the sense to follow that path.

  25. This probably should have fit into the ‘World Has Too Many Reporters’ department, no?
    Royalty 24/7, gimme a break. Especially while King Harper’s jack-booted thugs are poised to take over the streets in Canada lest we not vote left.
    Oh the humanity!

  26. Oh, and Di, are you reading from the great beyond? Starving orphans are not fashion accessories, and clutching at them while wearing a $200.000 outfit, flashing a little leg and gazing soulfully into the camera is not going to get you beatified. Boring old princess Anne does more charity work in the average year than you did in your lifetime on those well-photographed occasions when you managed to take a moment off from bonking your clinically retarded boyfriends. (Technically, cuckolding the Prince of Wales is treason, you know. She could, and arguably should, have been beheaded in the Tower of London. Jussayin’.)

  28. As yes, the sheer joy of it all. A scrapped gun registry and King Harper’s jack-booted thugs kicking leftie ass in the streets. It’s almost poetic…poetic eroticism.
    But on the subject of Kate (the second on this site), she’s drop dead gorgeous. It is going to be stunning pageantry for sure. Not that I’m a big fan of the monarchy IE I will take up arms and fight for Steven Harper and will not take up arms to fight for the Queen. Hmmmm. Wonder whether the oath I took those many years ago is still in effect.

  30. Here’s hoping there is enough genetic distance between them that their children don’t end up like their paternal Grandfather.

  31. Bow and Submit to your new Queen!
    You WILL work, you WILL pay your taxes and you Will NOT speak out to harshly, so that you may continue to provide the lifestyle that they have become accustomed too.

  33. X is the unknown quantity – spert is a drip under pressure.
    Every time one of them has anything to say he/she has to drive at least 100 miles from home.
    Exactly. My first thought on seeing the headline was “How does one get to be an expert on this sort of thing? Is there some credential that one earns?”

  34. BlahBlah, Blah jewels, beauty, blah, princess, wedding, blah, blah palaces!
    Celebrity worshipping doofus blather juice.
    Divorced in ten years max.

  35. Thank goodness for Prince William. One slapper in his life has been more than enough.

  36. The only thing Kate has over Diana is she’s alive.
    They are BOTH boring, shallow women who got in the news not because of anything they actually achieved but simply by virtue of shacking up with some royal dude.
    Fergie was boring, too.

  37. Some day, when we separate from the eastern provinces, we’ll be a republic.
    But for England’s sake, I do hope they skip the Prince Charles and go for some sanity. I’d really hate to see Prince Jughead on the back, yes I said the back, not the obverse, of our current coinage.

  38. richfisher >
    “Divorced in ten years max.”
    These people don’t divorce. They take heads.
    Started with Henry VIII.

  39. Considering some of the alternatives, I’ll take a constitutional monarchy any day. It’s worked well in Canada, we have 350 years of proof. Bring on Kate Middleton, she beats the crap out of most of our elected drones.

  40. Free Thinker >
    I suppose any system of government can either be good or bad dependant on those in power at the time. As you pointed out, you can only watch the track record of any system and keep your fingers crossed for the future.
    In my opinion the best system ever devised was the original idea of the Republic of the United States as it was first intended. Nothing beats freedom and Liberty than the inherent rights of the individual. Of course all “free thinkers” clearly understand that is has failed the test of time becoming corrupted and compromised.
    So in a nutshell, you are probably right about our current constitutional monarchy. Hopefully it remains that way. It won’t if the socialists and big corporate interests are allowed to continue “globalizing”.

  41. Probably the only way Billy boy gets the gig next is if Liz abdicates and names boy to succeed.
    Elizabeth can not name her successor. Well she can but no one has to pay any attention. The Succession Act of 1702 (or something like that) says that the British Parliament must approve the next monarch and they will stick with the traditional first-born son. The only way for William to ascend the throne next is if Charles dies before Elizabeth.

  42. Kathryn – And maybe he will die – probably from a heart attack when he wakes up in the middle of the night and accidentally sees his wife without her makeup. UUUUUUUHG

  43. The current TV drama that is the Royal Family is the best argument available for a limited government. Just imagine the behind-the-scenes power wielded by a ferschlugginer idiot like Prince Charles as King, see him paired up with airhead Dianna as Queen for double the idiocy. Now tell me their depredations couldn’t be sharply reduced by a really enormous TAX CUT.
    Money is power. Don’t give them any.

  44. Kate is no Diana for sure. Kate is more mature as she marries into the Royal Family. There’s really nothing to compare them, she’s marrying Diana’s son who has had a more “normal” life than Charles ever did.

  45. I have to admit that, Chuck, the bat-eared tampon prince, actually had some influence on my life. He succeeded in turning me from a moderate monarchist to a convinced republican.
    Now it’s true that one’s royalist convictions ought to be strong enough to endure the stupidity of a single royal idiot. God knows there were enough idiots who occupied the throne over the centuries. Even my historically favourite English royal dynasty, the Plantagenets, produced their share. Unfortunately Chuck, the current royal idiot, is a contemporary, and has been disabusing me of my monarchist sentiments for most of my life.

  46. Not quite, Kathryn. The Act of Settlement of 1702 prescribes that the Monarch must be in accord with the Church of England. That clause barred Catholics from the throne. The provisions were restated in the Act of Union 1800 which declared that only the Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia were in line for the Monarchy. The law states that the eldest child becomes Monarch. In the event that the eldest is female, she does not become Monarch if she has any younger brothers.
    Charles III becomes Monarch upon the death or abdication of Elizabeth II. It happens automatically so long as Charles meets the requirements of the Act of Settlement. Upon the death of his father, William becomes William V.
    Felis, I agree with you about the current scion of the House of Windsor. But the Plantagenets were no better. Most of them spent their time bankrupting the country by fighting one vainglorious foreign war after another, the worst being Richard I. Accordingly, the Plantagenets also set the English record for monarch executed in the most agonizing fashion possible (Edward II). There were only two clever ones: Henry II and John; the first ruined the country with family civil wars and the second was a moral degenerate. The rest were varying degrees of mental defectives (Henry III and VI) or brutal tyrants (virtually all of the rest).
    As for the rest:
    The Tudors? Started off with two cutthroats and one blood-drenched madwoman, and only salvaged the dynasty with Elizabeth I.
    The Stewarts? Other than one miser, James I and one dilettante, Charles II, the Stewarts spent most of their time plunging England into civil war and mismanaging the finances.
    The House of Hannover? The first two didn’t even speak English and loathed the country they’d inherited from Anne.
    Mostly they were shades of awful which is why Cromwell quite rightly put them in their place in the 1640s.

  47. The Act of Settlement is an outrage! A Muslim can never be Head of State (dhimmis are okay I think, so Chucko needn’t worry unless he’s secretly converted or something which wouldn’t completely blow my mind).
    Honestly, if the Monarchy were abolished Britain would be even more dreary and awful than it already is.

  49. I’m with Free Thinker.
    Because most people don’t know any history, they just assume that the Monarchy is elitist and, therefore, should be done away with. Hey, Obama’s an elitist, as are his backers, Bill Ayers and George Soros, but who’s saying get rid of Obama, aside from the Tea Party and the Republicans?
    A constitutional monarchy has held us in good stead and there’s no good reason to abolish it. Without the Monarchy, not only would Britain be more dreary than it already is (Black Mamba), its tourist trade would tank. These Royals bring more money to the plebs than you think. (Plus they do a lot more hard work and charity gigs than most people realize.)

  50. batb is right, as per usual. James the first was the most intelligent to sit upon the throne (they didn’t have toilets per se, so never mind the scatological jokes) and the Stewarts were not the originators of Divine Right. If any one was, it was the first protestant King, Henry VIII. The present Monarch could put most of us to shame in intelligence and hard work and COMMON sense.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation