David Craig, on August 2nd, 2017It’s been a week full of stories about the disastrous marriage of convenience between the beautiful Diana and our possible future king the self-obsessed, self-centered, ludicrously opinionated, spineless Charles.
I personally believe that if Charles hadn’t been such a self-absorbed, greedy, lazy, arrogant, brainless waste of skin, the Queen would have handed over to him years ago.
Anyway, as the debate about Charles becoming our king hots up, I’ve noticed at least ten possibly surprising similarities between our useless, whining, self-absorbed, self-serving Prince Charles and his not so great great uncle Edward VIII (Edward the Abdicator). Surprisingly none of the mainstream media seems to have noticed these many similarities.
1. Edward VIII, like Charles, was emotionally-retarded, immature and self-centered. Edward’s private secretary for eight years believed that “for some hereditary or physiological reason his normal mental development stopped dead when he reached adolescence”. Remind you of anyone?
2. Both became Prince of Wales. Edward was officially invested as Prince of Wales in a special ceremony at Caernarvon Castle on 13 July 1911. A rather fanciful ceremony in the style of a Welsh pageant was invented for Edward and he was coached to speak a few words in Welsh. Just like Prince Charles’ overblown and utterly pointless investiture:
3. Edward could have had the pick of any number of young, attractive, eligible girls. Instead he preferred the older, charmless remarried divorcee Wallis Simpson. Useless Charles did, in fact, marry a beautiful, eligible young girl, Princess Diana. But Charles always preferred the older and (IMHO) charmless Camilla and was apparently already finding ‘solace’ in Camilla’s beefy arms within a few months of his marriage to young Diana
4. Wallis Simpson was described by someone who knew her as “austere”, “lantern-jawed” and “with a face like an old boot”. By the way, this is Camilla:
5. It was rumoured that Edward was sexually inadequate, felt threatened by younger, beautiful women and the only way he could get sexual satisfaction was because Wallis Simpson had “learnt a few tricks when in China”. We’ve now learnt that Charles seldom had sex with Diana and it is possibly significant that after her divorce, Diana preferred the company of rather manly men (one of whom had the nickname “horse” for reasons I hope I don’t have to explain here) – men very unlike whining drip Charles
6. Edward was described as being “completely obsessed” by Wallis Simpson. Charles became a national embarrassment and laughing stock with his “I want to be your tampon” phone call to Camilla
7. Wallis Simpson ended up spending the rest of her life “living with a man she privately ridiculed for being immature, boring, self-absorbed and intellectually her inferior”. Camilla and Charles? Maybe. One can imagine Camilla ridiculing the hopeless Charles to her friends. Though it’s said that Camilla is no intellectual powerhouse either
8. Edward caused unease in government circles with actions that were interpreted as interference in political matters. Government ministers were reluctant to send confidential documents and state papers to Edward because there was a lack of confidence in his discretion in constitutional and political matters. A bit like the congenital meddler Charles with his often idiotic views on anything that enters his empty head and almost endless stream of letters to government ministers
9. Edward was much taken with Nazi Germany and did much to ingratiate himself with Hitler:
Charles seldom seems to miss an opportunity to grovel to our Moozerlum friends as they plan the invasion and subjugation of our once great country:
10. Both men were emotionally and intellectually unsuited to become the kind of king anyone could respect. But the main difference between these two men seems to be that Edward didn’t want to become king and probably used his relationship with Wallis Simpson as a way of getting out of any royal commitments so he could live a life of idle luxury at taxpayers’ expense without actually doing any work. Charles, on the other hand, seems desperate to become king even though this would be a disaster for the royal family and would probably lead to Australia, Canada and New Zealand becoming republics. After all, who could handle a banknote with Charles’s idiotic face and jug ears on it without bursting into laughter?
Personally, I believe that if Charles ever thought about anyone other than himself, he would step aside and the monarchy could skip a generation letting the much more acceptable William and Kate take over. But sadly Charles is probably incapable of seeing his own glaring deficiencies and will irredeemably damage the monarchy through his own selfish personal ambition.
Is this really the future for our once great country?
Useless Charles as king? Red Jeremy Corbyn as PM? And Mad Angela Merkel as our real ruler? Gawd help us!!!!!
Category: 
I always reckoned charlie couldnt throw the length, certainly doesnt appear he did so in producing harry imho….
Charles seeks solace in plants, talking to them as you would another person but in the stupid princes case, its because the plants are actually at least his intellectual equal.
One day he may actually outhink a dhalia!
A man who knows nothing and does nothing, preferring to live like a leech off his various “duchys”, effectively stealing the property and wealth of those who happen to have been unfortunate enough to live on property he claims and spouting off on policy matter he cant comprehend. 50 days to save the planet and all that shat.
A big idle toffee nosed dolescrounger, just like the rest of the royals.
Imagine if the royals were signing on and lived on a council estate? Imagine the furore?
Well in effect they are yet i hear no condemanation of them for their antics or excesses, just media fawning and attempts to ingratiate themselves for personal advantage, with chief amongst them, the BBC’s royal correspondent Nick “DUI” Witchell, sucking arse like its going out of fashion.
Get your face out of the royal sphincter Nick, its unsanitary and you cant see where youre going.
When I see Charles’sons on television I wonder what they make of the film made by Keith Allen and financed by Mohammed Al Fayed in 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmsfh_FQWG0
The High Court’s judgment was that Diana’s and Dodi’s deaths were not accidental. Misleadingly, the media still portrays their deaths as a tragic accident. However, the High Court decided they were both victims of an unlawful killing. In other words, they were probably murdered.
The questions “who did it”, “who ordered it” remain unanswered, uninvestigated and unsought.
Why?
The biggest challenge to the monarchy is being seen to play only a ceremonial role instead of challenging the government of the day to justify its actions. A heredity monarch should be asking fearless questions as a critical friend – then holding parliament to account on what has been achieved by the decisions it has taken. All you anti monarchist do not speak for me, I like having a Queen…And the alternative..President Tony Blair with first Lady Cherie ????
I think most of us see the value in a monarch rather than a President Blair. The issue is that whining, self-obsessed invertebrate Charles is uniquely unqualified for the role as king and so should step aside with ugly Camilla and let William and Kate preserve the monarchy
I wasn’t too sure how to respond to this post, so I
travelled to Trafalgar Square to ask Lord Nelson for
his opinion. This was his exact response:
“You must consider every man your enemy who speaks
ill of your king”
Sorry David, but that’s what Horatio said!
He also said:
“You must hate French-fries, as you hate the devil”
At least I think he said that; it was rather noisy in the square.
Peter
August 2, 2017 at 1:03 pm
The biggest challenge to the monarchy is being seen to play only a ceremonial role instead of challenging the government of the day to justify its actions. A heredity monarch should be asking fearless questions as a critical friend – then holding parliament to account on what has been achieved by the decisions it has taken.
So why isnt it doing so then? Too cosy where they are methinks, no boat rocking in case they get abolished…which they bloody well should be.
All you anti monarchist do not speak for me, I like having a Queen…And the alternative..President Tony Blair with first Lady Cherie ????
So you like having a queen and a stack of freeloading bastards to feed with your taxes as well, go you.
The monarchy is irrelevant in todays world, theyre not of any benefit to the country for the money they cost to keep them in the lifestyle to which theyve all become accustomed.
And dont give me that pap about value for money, youd go broke if you ran a business using the monarchy as an example, they take far more than they give, theyre not worth the wasted taxes theyre given.
Which was my earlier point, theyre living off everyone else, which in biological terms make them parasites, just like the council scum that are frequently and depressingly lauded in the media from time to time, bet you dont love them though.
Double standards.
As for an alternative.
That arguments a non runner due to the following reason,; We dont need an alternative.
Why should a monarchy need to be replaced with something else?
Just f*ck it off and consign it to history where it deserves to be.
Im a right wing type of person but i despise the royals as theyre a shining example of class taken to the nth degree, not something we should be looking to emulate or aspire to be, rich chavs suckling the publicly funded taxpayers tit.
How is equality and parity supposed to ever work when you have one set of rules for the royals and another for us proles? And add insult to injury making us pay for em!
As fo blair and his witch, ducking stool is too good for em both.