Moving the Queen out of the way - Contractor UK Bulletin Board

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

MrMark replied

20 October 2009, 12:12
Originally posted by minestrone View Post

She is close to the age where she will definetly need a carpet cleaner.

I wouldn't like to clean that place. Corgi nuggets all over the place I suspect.
Leave a comment:
minestrone replied

20 October 2009, 12:09
Originally posted by MrMark View Post

Is anyone here looking forward to seeing Charles (or will it be George?) become King? I know I am. Beats having President Beckham any day of the week.

She is close to the age where she will definetly need a carpet cleaner.
Leave a comment:
Dong replied

20 October 2009, 11:59
Oh..... well it was a sweet story....

$%$^$^!!!! That was my happy thought for today!
Leave a comment:
shaunbhoy replied

20 October 2009, 11:50
Originally posted by DaveB View Post

The church at the time would not allow divorcee's to re-marry in church when a previous spouse was still living and it was felt Edward would not be able to retain the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England if the marriage went ahead.

On top of this the Govt at the time did not approve of Wallis Simpson as a suitable person to be queen. Had they done so they would have made more of an effort to overcome the legal issues involved - such as Simpsons first marriage not being recognised as annulled ( in the US ) by the English Church.
It was generally felt that she was exploiting the King for financial and personal advantage. There was also concern that Edward would further involve himself in politics and that were he to abdicate it would prevent him for interfearing in government policy.

In the end they remained married, ostensiably happily, for 35 years untill Edwards death.

Edward and his bed-hopping colonial trollope of a mistress/wife were rampant nazi sympathisers too, let us not forget that. Hitler had him all lined up to be reinstated had they been able to successfully invade too.
The whole divorce thing was used as a smokescreen to disguise that fact...........allegedly.

HTH
Leave a comment:
Dong replied

20 October 2009, 11:49
Oh, thanks for that. It's actually quite a sweet story in the end then. He gave it all up for love.... So did they have any kids? I wonder if there is anyone out there that is suddenly going to make a claim for the crown?

I wonder if they still send people to the tower......
Leave a comment:
DaveB replied

20 October 2009, 11:41
Originally posted by Dong View Post

Didn't King-Emperor Edward VIII have to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson, a divorcee?

But then Prince Charles is divorced too? How does that work?

Edward was essentially forced to abdicate because the establishment in Govt and the CoE at the time refused to condone the marriage.

The church at the time would not allow divorcee's to re-marry in church when a previous spouse was still living and it was felt Edward would not be able to retain the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England if the marriage went ahead.

On top of this the Govt at the time did not approve of Wallis Simpson as a suitable person to be queen. Had they done so they would have made more of an effort to overcome the legal issues involved - such as Simpsons first marriage not being recognised as annulled ( in the US ) by the English Church.
It was generally felt that she was exploiting the King for financial and personal advantage. There was also concern that Edward would further involve himself in politics and that were he to abdicate it would prevent him for interfearing in government policy.

In the end they remained married, ostensiably happily, for 35 years untill Edwards death.
Leave a comment:
Dong replied

20 October 2009, 10:59
Didn't King-Emperor Edward VIII have to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson, a divorcee?

But then Prince Charles is divorced too? How does that work?
Leave a comment:
AtW replied

20 October 2009, 10:51
ACHTUNG!

This thread should be locked immediately as it borders on treason!

I believe even today one old law requires anyone proposing to remove Her Majesty should be shipped to Australia...
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

20 October 2009, 10:45
Originally posted by MrMark View Post

I think we should run it by Mandelson - the real power in the land!

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/i...sonEmperor.jpg
Leave a comment:
RichardCranium replied

20 October 2009, 10:42
Originally posted by MrMark View Post

Originally posted by daviejones View Post

Skip Charles because he is a clown, go straight to William....IMHO

Not normally how this hereditary business works, though.

Unless Billy is knighted, of course. Then he can step sideways and jump forward two over the supposed King and take the Queen's place.
Leave a comment:
BrilloPad replied

20 October 2009, 10:16
Originally posted by MrMark View Post

It's not a popularity contest. Maybe you've been watching too much Pop Idol. Charles is the rightful heir and will become King.

I wasn't suggesting popularity. I just once someone more sane than George III
Leave a comment:
MrMark replied

20 October 2009, 10:16
Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post

Not if Simon Cowell is master of the coronation.

I think we should run it by Mandelson - the real power in the land!
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

20 October 2009, 10:14
Not if Simon Cowell is master of the coronation.
Leave a comment:
MrMark replied

20 October 2009, 10:13
Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

Anyone who wants to be "defender of the faiths" rather than "defender of the faith" is not suitable to be King.

Let alone his talking to plants. "and what do you do for a living"?. "oh you are a tomato plant". "have you been doing that long?".

It's not a popularity contest. Maybe you've been watching too much Pop Idol. Charles is the rightful heir and will become King.
Leave a comment:
BrilloPad replied

20 October 2009, 10:12
Originally posted by MrMark View Post

Is anyone here looking forward to seeing Charles (or will it be George?) become King? I know I am. Beats having President Beckham any day of the week.

Anyone who wants to be "defender of the faiths" rather than "defender of the faith" is not suitable to be King.

Let alone his talking to plants. "and what do you do for a living"?. "oh you are a tomato plant". "have you been doing that long?".
Leave a comment: