King Charles III đź‘‘ Bop-bada-bapada-baaaaa !!!!

misterorange
Friday, May 5, 2023 8:39 PM
Tomorrow is the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla! Okay, I've never been a follower of all this Royal stuff. I think it's a cute tradition and rather comical at times. They seem to like it over there across the pond, so who am I to judge? But I have one question, just out of curiosity. Maybe the great minds of TUSCL can explain this. So Chicken-head Charlie divorced the beautiful Diana in favor of an old battle axe, Camilla. Now that he's about to be crowned King of England, she will become Queen. Well, Queen Consort, whatever the fuck that means. Either way, her title is Queen something or other. Why is it that Philip, who spent his entire adult life in the service of his wife Queen Elizabeth II, always remained Prince Philip and was never called King, or King Consort or whatever. He hung around kissing that old bag's ass for almost 75 years, and "Prince" or Duke of Edinburgh was the best they could do for him? WTF? Don't get me wrong, I think it would be pretty cool to be known as Duke of Edinburgh, or hell, Duke of fucking anything. But if I'm married to the Queen, and father of the future King of England, I'd just want something a little more prestigious. Maybe an intro like The Magnificent Duke, Prince of Princes, The Master of Disaster, His Highness Philip the Fabulous! Not to mention he was quite a handsome chap compared to his turkey-face son who's set to take the throne.

20 comments

Can we ship His Royal Anus, I mean, highness, Harry Markle back there? That's all I care about.
Tetradon
•
a year ago
By British tradition a male marrying into the royal family has never been given the title of King when their spouse becomes Queen, they have always been the Prince Consort and typically just refered to as Prince except in official documents. By contrast a woman who marries into the royal family becomes Queen Consort when her husband becomes King. A Prince Consort or Queen Consort can never become the ruling monarch. The only way to be a true King or Queen is to be born into the royal family and ascend to the throne as the ruling monarch.
whodey
•
a year ago
What ever title they have means they still get a shit-ton of $$$ and don't really have to work (along with homes; personal-security; personal-staff; etc).
Papi_Chulo
•
a year ago
do you know that there are many people that are loyal to royalty over there in england? if you were to say something really negative about the them some of those fans will curse you out and may even become violent. i never could understand why this is. do they realize that they, along with the rest of the other tax paying citizens, are enabling these royalty inbred assholes to enjoy their opulent lifestyle? queen qunt - looks like the typical unhappy prissy old hag. kinda like a british version of jill biden. would there have been public backlash if chucky married someone who was 1/2 his age minus 7 years instead of plus 7?
rattdog
•
a year ago
Charles must be a member of TUSCL dumping gorgeous Diana for horse face Camilla is equivalent to approving some of the ho’s that Icee, now CJ Kent post
motorhead
•
a year ago
The main reason is because male primogeniture is so important in the royal ascension that the title of King (even King Consort) would supercede the title of Queen (a King cannot be a mere consort, whereas a Queen can). So the title of Prince is given to someone who was in Prince Philip's position so the monarch isn't overshadowed by the title of a living King.
LapHunt
•
a year ago
^ That makes sense given all their old-school traditions.
misterorange
•
a year ago
This country is 24/7 royal family it’s crazy. I open up the post it’s all royal stuff
Muddy
•
a year ago
@motorhead, what's the line about being tired of her shit?
Goodclubrep
•
a year ago
Did anyone here actually watch the ceremony? I did and was struck by something King George actually said in the beginning, he said “ I have come not to be served, but to serve” I thought to myself that many of our own politicians could learn from that statement as well.
twentyfive
•
a year ago
@goodclubrep I think the line you are looking for is “No matter how hot a woman is, there’s some guy out there that’s tired of her shit”
twentyfive
•
a year ago
TradiTION, TRADITION! The whole thing is made up and full of silly rules and dodges to make shit look more or less legit to the current crop of english public. If a guy marries in, he gets all fringe benefits, but no "king" title. Women are a "queen consort" which makes them sound like a fuck toy, which suits camilla if you think about it. The whole family is bullshit though, windsor is a made up name. Charles' great grandfather Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (married to victoria) was a KRAUT. The whole damn line are krauts, and they can go to all the pheasant shoots and wear all the tweed they want, they're krauts. And, philip was a GREEK! Charles is a kraut-greek and should be running a kebab shop somewhere, not sipping tea as the king of blighty. Then again, the whole european royal genepool is as inbred as a bunch of Appalachian hillbillies, so one is as good as the next really.
drewcareypnw
•
a year ago
With all the crazy shit in the world, I like that they continue this tradition in England and the Commonwealth
wld4tatas
•
a year ago
"“ I have come not to be served, but to serve” I thought to myself that many of our own politicians could learn from that statement as well." He claims he wants to serve the public rather than be served and then has the public pay for a huge ceremony to honor him while being handed gold, jewels and whatever else he desires by a throng of his servants before heading back to his palatial estate. That sounds exactly like American politicians to me.
whodey
•
a year ago
well well well now. it's seems apparent that the UK is masquerading as a democracy but in reality it just may not be. see for yourself down below, as friendly protests against the monarchy is really being frowned upon. perfect examples shown how the police only work for the elites and not for the common folk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Lxa8UwUnA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fet9X7T1uGY
rattdog
•
a year ago
@whodey "That sounds exactly like American politicians to me." I agree, but maybe not quite "exactly" the same. The Brits (for the most part) accept and even celebrate the taxpayer funded extravagance of their Royals. It's a cultural tradition and very transparent. Beyond transparent actually, because it's not only available for anyone to see if they want to, it's shown off to the point that it's impossible NOT to see. There's some friction about the whole thing, and some people protest, but the fact is that the Royals bilking the public to finance their obscene opulence is perfectly legal. Over here, there is no treaty or tradition that elevates politicians to god-like status. Even the POTUS only gets paid 400,000 and that hasn't increased in over 20 years. I'll bet there are a few TUSCL members who make more than that. So here in America politicians have to fucking STEAL everything they believe they're entitled to. That's how people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Joe Biden begin their political careers with almost nothing and then retire with Jay-Z kind of money. There is a trade-off for both. The Royals have to keep up all that pomp and circumstance bullshit which must get really frustrating, even for traditionalists like the former Queen. American politicians have to constantly keep tap dancing their way around the law and public scrutiny, and while there is little to no chance they will ever be successfully prosecuted for their crimes, that's got to be a major annoyance when you believe you actually deserve everything you pilfered from the taxpayers. I was also struck by the phrase about "serving rather than being served". It's a beautiful sentiment. But I got to thinking, how does the Royal family "serve" the people of the United Kingdom? Well, they put on a pretty good show for them, and the people seem to enjoy it. But they are basically high-class "influencers" that promote feel-good causes. They don't have any real authority to change anything. Conversely, here in America, politicians hold enormous power, which they very cleverly use to convey an altruistic image while they fuck this country right up the ass. I guess the Royals and American politicians aren't so different after all.
misterorange
•
a year ago
^ My comment went to the relationship between the government and the people If you have any interest in the constitution of the United States it takes great pains to describe a tremendous fiction, that we are a self governing group of citizens who volunteer to serve our fellow citizens,then voluntarily cede power and go back to our ordinary life. The actuality is these greedy motherfuckers that run our government have elevated themselves into a permanent political class with more rights, power, and benefits than the people who elected them and as a result our entire society is threatened not by the protesters, but rather by those who deem themselves to be beyond criticism.
twentyfive
•
a year ago
And I'm afraid term limits is an overrated goal (if one believes that will change anything). It's the so-called "deep state" that's the problem. The unelected bureaucrats who really control everything. The Alphabet agencies that routinely manipulate the data reported to those supposedly "in charge", and covertly conduct espionage activities that don't even remotely serve the nation's interest or security, but protect their own career longevity and personal political agendas. Case in point: Sitting on the Hunter laptop information. Not just "sitting on" it but flat out declaring that it was invalid and the product of Russian disinformation. Now we know that it was 100% true, but it's too late to do anything about it. The scum sucking piece of shit Joe Biden is President. And the citizens of this country are so detached from reality, they will probably elect him again.
misterorange
•
a year ago
^ I don’t think term limits are a bad idea, but those criminal minds will figure a work around, what I have in mind is forcing these grifters to live according to the same laws as the rest of us, prosecute those who violate their oath of office, and harsher sentencing should be enforced against those politicians that violate laws that they voted for, just on point.
twentyfive
•
a year ago
^ I agree. But easier said than done.
misterorange
•
a year ago
Login or Join to leave a comment.
Start a Discussion