Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
r.soleofsalford said:
As a 32 year old he married a 19 year old to use as a broodmare. For me that shows an unforgiveable lack of morals and shows his character to a T
Click to expand...
Not really sure Charles had much option..... it was an arranged marriage by the establishment, concerned that Charles was 32 and was single and as heir needed to produce a child. My understanding is it had to be a virgin (imagine some bloke going to the sun to flog their story / pictures of them shagging the future queen in the back of a car.....)
The Palace aides looked around Europe and the landed gentry in the UK and Diana was pretty much the only "suitable" woman available. I seem to recall at some point a few years before she was being lined up for Andrew!
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Not really sure Charles had much option..... it was an arranged marriage by the establishment, concerned that Charles was 32 and was single and as heir needed to produce a child. My understanding is it had to be a virgin (imagine some bloke going to the sun to flog their story / pictures of them shagging the future queen in the back of a car.....)
The Palace aides looked around Europe and the landed gentry in the UK and Diana was pretty much the only "suitable" woman available. I seem to recall at some point a few years before she was being lined up for Andrew!
Click to expand...



Oh right. He had to do it for the country. What a man.


8-}
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
We agree on a number of things but you’re talking shite here fella.
Click to expand...
It is. People look down their noses at it but when I look at a page where I already know all the facts, I reckon 99 times out of 100 it’s spot on.

The same cannot be said of a newspaper that we all know has a huge bias against the monarchy.

I don’t read the guardian about city, why would I about something else I know they’re not objective about?
 
Octavian said:
It is. People look down their noses at it but when I look at a page where I already know all the facts, I reckon 99 times out of 100 it’s spot on.

The same cannot be said of a newspaper that we all know has a huge bias against the monarchy.

I don’t read the guardian about city, why would I about something else I know they’re not objective about?
Click to expand...
Could we also suggest that we can’t cite you as a source as we all know you have a huge bias towards the monarchy?

You seem to be totally dismissive of anything that you perceive to be anti-monarchy.

I’ve no iron in this fire. Having an unelected head of state doesn’t sit comfortably, but I am in no rush to have to vote for one either.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Could we also suggest that we can’t cite you as a source as we all know you have a huge bias towards the monarchy?

You seem to be totally dismissive of anything that you perceive to be anti-monarchy.

I’ve no iron in this fire. Having an unelected head of state doesn’t sit comfortably, but I am in no rush to have to vote for one either.
Click to expand...
Yeah no problem with that.

Whatever pedestrian says I’m going to ignore because it’s obvious he’s bitter about the Queen specifically for some weird reason, and it’s not just me that’s noticed.

I’m very biased, not quite as biased as I am with City tho :-)
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Could we also suggest that we can’t cite you as a source as we all know you have a huge bias towards the monarchy?

You seem to be totally dismissive of anything that you perceive to be anti-monarchy.

I’ve no iron in this fire. Having an unelected head of state doesn’t sit comfortably, but I am in no rush to have to vote for one either.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top