Prince William

[ManInLondon]

Originally posted by SomeGuyOverThere@Oct 12 2005, 07:05 PM
My ever-accurate COCKDAR gives me slightly-small toaverage readings for most of the Royals.

Harry and Willy included.

If thats any evidence at all.

[post=350875]Quoted post[/post]​

Charles isn't exactly small.

http://www.stars-masculines-nues.com/princecharles.jpg

and if any of those rumours regarding Harry and James Hewitt are to be believed, as mentioned earlier Hewitt is meant to be very well endowed.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Originally posted by EnglishMan+Oct 12 2005, 08:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EnglishMan &#064; Oct 12 2005, 08:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-SomeGuyOverThere@Oct 12 2005, 07:05 PM
My ever-accurate COCKDAR gives me slightly-small toaverage readings for most of the Royals.

Harry and Willy included.

If thats any evidence at all.

[post=350875]Quoted post[/post]​

Charles isn&#39;t exactly small.

http://www.stars-masculines-nues.com/princecharles.jpg

and if any of those rumours regarding Harry and James Hewitt are to be believed, as mentioned earlier Hewitt is meant to be very well endowed.

[post=350897]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I didnt want to see that.

I didnt want to think about that.

I dared not get a COCKDAR reading for him because the very thought causes several neurons in my brain to catch fire and run around screaming "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo&#33;"

Bad EnglishMan&#33; Don&#39;t make my brain catch fire&#33; :spank:

 

[LuckyLuke]

Originally posted by dijstra1975+Oct 12 2005, 06:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dijstra1975 &#064; Oct 12 2005, 06:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Don&#39;t think so; succession is set by act of parliament which requires HMQ&#39;s permission; so unless she agrees it can&#39;t jump; once HMQ dies the succession is immediate and would require HRHPC to abdicate before PW could succeed. [/b]

Although the Queen has the power to authorise (or veto) laws of Parliament, the last monarch to refuse to sign a required piece of legislation lost his head. Thus, this &#39;power&#39; is illusionary.

<!--QuoteBegin-dijstra1975
I can&#39;t think of any instance the crown has been denied; several times the newly succeeded monarch has been stripped of the crown or more often killed off but denied succession I don&#39;t think so ... but I&#39;m happy to hear who you think it happened to. [/quote]
The deposition of James II is the obvious case. It is to be known that James II had a lawful born male heir at the time he was deposed by an Act of Parliament. Historically, this is known as the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.

Edward VIII also abdicated upon the insistance of Parliament. It was the opinion of Parliament that Ms. Wallace Simpson was an unacceptable Queen due to her divorcee status and indicated to Edward their refusal to crown her. Edward abdicated rather than have his wife refered to as only a &#39;consort&#39;.

It is to be noted that Ms. Camilla-Parker-Horsey has the same status as Ms. Simpson and Parliament may refuse to crown her as Queen. Also considering Charles&#39; foolish comments about disestablishment, Parliament could refuse to Crown Charles on that account since it is the same point James II was deposed upon.

Elizabeth and/or Charles has no authority (by actual right) to negate these potential Parliamentary decisions.

 

[dijstra1975]

Originally posted by LuckyLuke@Oct 13 2005, 04:37 PM
The deposition of James II is the obvious case. It is to be known that James II had a lawful born male heir at the time he was deposed by an Act of Parliament. Historically, this is known as the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.

That happened before the act of settlement in 1701 which changed the rules....

Edward VIII also abdicated upon the insistance of Parliament. It was the opinion of Parliament that Ms. Wallace Simpson was an unacceptable Queen due to her divorcee status and indicated to Edward their refusal to crown her. Edward abdicated rather than have his wife refered to as only a &#39;consort&#39;.

His choice not parliaments...and he was King but abdicated.

It is to be noted that Ms. Camilla-Parker-Horsey has the same status as Ms. Simpson and Parliament may refuse to crown her as Queen. Also considering Charles&#39; foolish comments about disestablishment, Parliament could refuse to Crown Charles on that account since it is the same point James II was deposed upon.

Ms Simpson doesn&#39;t have the same status as HRH Duchess of Cornwall as the marriage was approved by the monarch and isn&#39;t morganatic so she under the patent of Edward III would automatically become queen although may choose not to assume that style.

The removal of Charles from the succession has to be done by and act of parliament before the death of HMQ; and HMQ is required to give accent before that act could become law and therfore valid. If she chooses not to, which would be highly likely, then parliament cannot invoke the parliament act because, even assuming the lords didn&#39;t reject it, it falls outside of those acts which it was allowed to act on.

St.John of Fawsley has written extensively on this and a skip to William could only happen if all of the Lords, Commons and Queen agrees and it would disenfranchise the throne and given we don&#39;t have a constitution would effectively bring down the state, judiciary and the government...not a can of worms I think we wish to be opened.

Elizabeth and/or Charles has no authority (by actual right) to negate these potential Parliamentary decisions.

[post=351275]Quoted post[/post]​

Sorry under the act of settlement they do; it has just never been tested&#33;

Dij

Who knows way to much about english history to be healthy but then its all just family really....

 

[Alley Blue]

Originally posted by dijstra1975@Oct 13 2005, 05:05 PM
Who knows way to much about english history to be healthy but then its all just family really....

[post=351316]Quoted post[/post]​

What exactly is your affiliation with the royal family my good man ( to add a British tone to the sentence )

 

[HairyHippy]

The Royals have gone in for circumcision for generations. It is a class thing. In the UK the upper class cut their sons, the great unwashed didn&#39;t. The Second World War diluted this tremendously, and now very few lads are cut on a routine basis here in UK except for religious reasons (Jewish, Muslim, Arabs etc.). Charlie is cut, as are his brothers, but Princess Diana insisted that her lads were not "mutilated", and although Wills has expressed a desire to have it done in his late adolsescence (to remain in keeping with tradition?) I don&#39;t think it has been done.

Queen Victoria married Albert, a German Royal (she was of German descent, of course) and he was not cut and had a large dick, we have the dear Queen&#39;s words for that, as related to John Brown her later lover.

I don&#39;t think I am inclined to pay more respect to a person just because I know they have a large dick. I doubt if it would work in courtly circles either. If the thronely incumbent is a comlete idiot, airhead, or charlatan then they would receive the sycophancy that they deserve to their face and the contempt they have earned for the rest of the time. It has always been thus.

Peace, man&#33;

 

[dijstra1975]

Originally posted by Alley Blue+Oct 13 2005, 06:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alley Blue &#064; Oct 13 2005, 06:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-dijstra1975@Oct 13 2005, 05:05 PM
Who knows way to much about english history to be healthy but then its all just family really....

[post=351316]Quoted post[/post]​

What exactly is your affiliation with the royal family my good man ( to add a British tone to the sentence )

[post=351320]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

My heritage is much more English than the Saxe-Coburg clan; but if you go back far enough and I mean right outside the line of succession then we share a common ancestor or two.

Dij

 

[Alley Blue]

Originally posted by dijstra1975+Oct 13 2005, 10:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dijstra1975 &#064; Oct 13 2005, 10:44 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Alley Blue@Oct 13 2005, 06:11 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-dijstra1975

@Oct 13 2005, 05:05 PM
Who knows way to much about english history to be healthy but then its all just family really....

[post=351316]Quoted post[/post]​

What exactly is your affiliation with the royal family my good man ( to add a British tone to the sentence )

[post=351320]Quoted post[/post]​

My heritage is much more English than the Saxe-Coburg clan; but if you go back far enough and I mean right outside the line of succession then we share a common ancestor or two.

Dij

[post=351417]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Now that’s pretty fascinating&#33;

 

[Pecker]

Everybody&#39;s family line can be traced back to a royal family or pet.

For instance, 9-11 New York City Firefighter Mike Moran has a royal Irish ass.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by dijstra1975@Oct 13 2005, 05:05 PM
a skip to William could only happen if all of the Lords, Commons and Queen agrees and it would disenfranchise the throne and given we don&#39;t have a constitution would effectively bring down the state, judiciary and the government...not a can of worms I think we wish to be opened.

[post=351316]Quoted post[/post]​

oh, many of us beg to differ on THAT point.

 

[dijstra1975]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Oct 14 2005, 05:02 AM
oh, many of us beg to differ on THAT point.

[post=351529]Quoted post[/post]​

Which point?

Dij

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by dijstra1975+Oct 14 2005, 03:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dijstra1975 &#064; Oct 14 2005, 03:33 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Oct 14 2005, 05:02 AM
oh, many of us beg to differ on THAT point.

[post=351529]Quoted post[/post]​

Which point?

Dij

[post=351612]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Yes.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by dijstra1975+Oct 14 2005, 07:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dijstra1975 &#064; Oct 14 2005, 07:33 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Oct 14 2005, 05:02 AM
oh, many of us beg to differ on THAT point.

[post=351529]Quoted post[/post]​

Which point?

Dij

[post=351612]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-dijstra1975@Oct 13 2005, 05:05 PM
bring down the state, judiciary and the government...not a can of worms I think we wish to be opened.

[post=351316]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

 

[dijstra1975]

Originally posted by dijstra1975@Oct 13 2005, 05:05 PM
bring down the state, judiciary and the government...not a can of worms I think we wish to be opened.

OK but thats just the difference between me, part of the establishment so pro the status quo, and i presume you not part of the establishment and against it.

Dij

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by dijstra1975@Oct 14 2005, 04:31 PM
me, part of the establishment so pro the status quo

[post=351708]Quoted post[/post]​

interesting&#33; so tell me, what IS it like living without self-respect or basic humanity? sounds like a riot&#33;

 

[dijstra1975]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Oct 15 2005, 10:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Oct 15 2005, 10:24 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-dijstra1975@Oct 14 2005, 04:31 PM
me, part of the establishment so pro the status quo

[post=351708]Quoted post[/post]​

interesting&#33; so tell me, what IS it like living without self-respect or basic humanity? sounds like a riot&#33;

[post=352097]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Don&#39;t understand; in breeding does that to your brain; why don&#39;t I respect my self, family, or position? Why do I not have basic humanity?
Dij

 

[lennper]

I have a nice nude schoolphoto of Prince William from Eaton 1996 how could I sendit here, I have´t my pics as URL or could send them as links how could I just enclose pics to my mail?

 

[B_Stronzo]

It is true that Harry has some sort of inexplicable sexiness, despite
not having the "pretty" looks of his brother.
it is popular at the moment to bash Wills, why i am not sure...
to me he is drop dead gorgeous.
The dicks of their father and uncle look pretty nice from
the tabloid shots through the years...no sign that they are huge, though.

Generationally the "Windsor wangs" have been notortiously small. The late Duke of Windsor (the abdicated Edward III) was a well-known "pee wee". He frequented Geishas as a lad to develop his sexual prowess to it's said.

But with respect to Wills perhaps the Spencer genes helped the mix. I think William is the handsome one too. His height is wonderful and he has enough of the "Royal Mug" to look significantly regal without being homely (like his aunt Anne). The saddest thing is that his hair is vacating his scalp as we speak.

With respect to Prince Harry he has an appeal for me but it's best, I suspect, in its boyish faze.

Did you folks know that the Late Princess of Wales was 1/64 ARMENIAN??

Yup, it's true. Perhaps that exotic "piece" helped out the "Royal piece".

 

[jeansprong]

I wouldn't trust anyh of those stories. The Royals come from a long line of chaps who wore cod-pieces!

"Do you like my wee-wee, Mummy?"

Jeansprong

 

[longNthick22]

The only interesting tid-bit that I could find in this 4 page thread is that Dr. Rock is 25. 25? So bitter and so aged looking for 25.