The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Should Prince Charles (HRH) be the next king?



Charles is happy here with his love.

- - - Updated - - -

IamNoah said:
Quite. It will be a short reign anyway. Like Edward VII after Victoria--but with less sex.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but it would be much more intetesting to see him them them.
 
gsdx said:
Didn't we go through all of this in the Camilla thread?
Click to expand...

It was mentioned a few times by three posters but most of it was silly tampon jokes with no real explanation as to why he shouldn't be King. I really want a full discussion about this and hear from all jubbers as to why they believe he wouldn't be a good King.

Of course pics and videos are welcome too
 
He shouldn't be king because he'd rather be a tampon. He shouldn't be king because he prefers not just the quite proper preservation of architectural heritage, but a cloying, twee, disneyfied theme-park simulacrum of past architectural styles. Zombie Tudor, if you will. And not only does he prefer it, but he sullies himself with political bullying to achieve it, instead of maintaining the decorum and neutrality essential for a constitutional monarch. And he believes in, and promotes, a whole bunch of unscientific nonsensical health claims.
 
Short of Camilla accidentally killing him in some S and M bondage bedroom incident---he's going to be king:rolleyes:. I just don't want his Mom to step down ----he should only be king when mommy dies. And Mommie may outlive him.:p
 
bankside said:
He shouldn't be king because he'd rather be a tampon. He shouldn't be king because he prefers not just the quite proper preservation of architectural heritage, but a cloying, twee, disneyfied theme-park simulacrum of past architectural styles. Zombie Tudor, if you will. And not only does he prefer it, but he sullies himself with political bullying to achieve it, instead of maintaining the decorum and neutrality essential for a constitutional monarch. And he believes in, and promotes, a whole bunch of unscientific nonsensical health claims.
Click to expand...



He also promotes that we take care of the climate and he does not like our streets poluted with trash which leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. What political bullying ?

Where has he bullied ?
 

Prince Charles sits down with George Stroumboulopoulos for his first interview for Canadian television. The Prince talks about his love for Canada, its diversity, his charity work, and his sense of duty.

This is a good interview.
 
mikemizanin729 said:
So does this mean he shouldn't be king?

What do you make of this? It is part of his training to be King.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Prince-Charles-private-letters-ministers.html
Click to expand...

It is in no way training to be King - the monarch, if we are to keep them, should have absolutely zero influence and impact on politics in our country. He is an unelected person who has been using his powerful & intimidating influence in attempts to alter outcomes of the democratic process.
 
bankside said:
No. He's a buffoon. He should stand aside in favour of William, and in recognition that the fucked up the only job he was ever given, which was to marry a princess and live happily ever after. If we're stuck with him, though I think i'd still be a monarchist in general, I would not be able to bring myself to regret or oppose a republican alternative for the commonwealth.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the only job he had was to have an Heir and a Spare. He did that. As to the question, it depends on how long Lizzy lives for. At the rate she's going she'll be like her mother, and that would make him what, around 80 when he assumes the throne. It would be better to move from Lizzy to William purely for that reason alone.
 
mikemizanin729 said:
What do you mean of course we are keeping them who wouldn't want Royalty?

Intimidating influence ?
Click to expand...

I don't want to keep them - but that is an aside.

But if we are to have them, and it does not seem like they are going away any time soon, they should have no influence on politics whatsoever -they must be separate from that. If they want to be involved in politics they should renounce their titles and the money and influence that comes with it.
 
Aren't we as a nation worse of without them..???
 

Having a royal pint.

I like this pic I don't drink but if I did I would love to know what Royal Beer tastes like.

:cheers:
 
They are a tourist attraction.
 
The Crown is an emergency brake in case of a dictatorship.
 
A crown would sit nicely on his head with a pipe and slippers on his throne.

Then they should do a painting of it and sell it for millions.
 
mikemizanin729 said:
They are a tourist attraction.
Click to expand...

Currently no site in the top 15 most visited attractions in the UK belong to the crown. Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers.

Anyway it's not like no one visits Italy or France because they got rid of their monarchs.

http://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism
 
They recent Jubilee was a huge tourist attraction. What about the Americans who always talk about Buckingham palace?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top