Go to first unread
Back
to top
Prince Charles could be bisexual
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
Report
#21
There's nothing wrong with being gay/bi etc... and it shouldn't stop anyone from being in any position. One point is that if he is (allegedly) then what would that mean for the CoE with their current crisis already causing deep division - having the head of that church allegedly being gay/bi could have consequences.
These allegations of what he might have done, if true, would mean that he could not be King.
These allegations of what he might have done, if true, would mean that he could not be King.
0
Report
#23
(Original post by Dude)
if he is gay. it means he can't be king. AND THATS GOOD ENUF FOR ME.
if he is gay. it means he can't be king. AND THATS GOOD ENUF FOR ME.
0
Report
#24
The law states that to be king you have to be the first line to the royalty. That means that the next king or queen we have will be Charls, and he can be gay if he wants there is no law about it. The royaty should know by know, don't have servents bad new!!! They are underpaid and will spread anything for money or a potensal story to the newspapers. IF he marries Miss what ever shes called, it will inlarge the amout of people in line, but quite a lot as her family line from then on would by pass a lot of people eg harry and william, and take there children instead!!! how messed up is that
0
Report
#25
(Original post by Spelling_King)
The law states that to be king you have to be the first line to the royalty. That means that the next king or queen we have will be Charls, and he can be gay if he wants there is no law about it. The royaty should know by know, don't have servents bad new!!! They are underpaid and will spread anything for money or a potensal story to the newspapers. IF he marries Miss what ever shes called, it will inlarge the amout of people in line, but quite a lot as her family line from then on would by pass a lot of people eg harry and william, and take there children instead!!! how messed up is that
The law states that to be king you have to be the first line to the royalty. That means that the next king or queen we have will be Charls, and he can be gay if he wants there is no law about it. The royaty should know by know, don't have servents bad new!!! They are underpaid and will spread anything for money or a potensal story to the newspapers. IF he marries Miss what ever shes called, it will inlarge the amout of people in line, but quite a lot as her family line from then on would by pass a lot of people eg harry and william, and take there children instead!!! how messed up is that
0
Report
#27
it would depend on how old he is, and if hes genertical viable as his son, as the oldist son will usaly go to be in power, and this will skip the rest of the queens other sons, as she has 2 an earl there and there. It could upset a hell of a lot of royalt as people will go from 4th in line to 12 in line, it all depends if they got marrid. Then queen can also choise if she wishes to wich of her children go in line, but if she dosn't that its charls
0
Report
#28
I can't believe some of the ignorant biggotted crap that has been spouted on this thread.
And anyway preventing someone from taking up a job because of sexual orientation has been illegal from December 2003 - http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewal...s_at_work.html
And anyway preventing someone from taking up a job because of sexual orientation has been illegal from December 2003 - http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewal...s_at_work.html
0
Report
#29
can't understand the homophobia on this thread....suppose evryone to their own opinion though.
there is nothing wrong with him being gay/bisexual, even if he is gay/bi which he seems to be rejecting the allegation.
if he wa indeed involved ion the rape then his kingship must be disputed but on the grounds there should be no dispute.
there is nothing wrong with him being gay/bisexual, even if he is gay/bi which he seems to be rejecting the allegation.
if he wa indeed involved ion the rape then his kingship must be disputed but on the grounds there should be no dispute.
0
Report
#30
(Original post by MattG)
can't understand the homophobia on this thread....suppose evryone to their own opinion though.
there is nothing wrong with him being gay/bisexual, even if he is gay/bi which he seems to be rejecting the allegation.
can't understand the homophobia on this thread....suppose evryone to their own opinion though.
there is nothing wrong with him being gay/bisexual, even if he is gay/bi which he seems to be rejecting the allegation.
0
Report
#31
(Original post by LadyFadge)
If he is then that is really his business not everyone elses, Yet again the Newspapers have taken this thing and blown it up. I dont think that he will admitt anything so we will never really know anyway
If he is then that is really his business not everyone elses, Yet again the Newspapers have taken this thing and blown it up. I dont think that he will admitt anything so we will never really know anyway
love ya
0
Report
#32
(Original post by Gina17)
i agree!!
love ya
i agree!!
love ya
I dont know why you are talking about him not being King, because he does not want to be anyway he has made that obvious! When him and CPB got together publicly
0
Report
#33
(Original post by LadyFadge)
Thank you.
I dont know why you are talking about him not being King, because he does not want to be anyway he has made that obvious! When him and CPB got together publicly
Thank you.
I dont know why you are talking about him not being King, because he does not want to be anyway he has made that obvious! When him and CPB got together publicly
0
Report
#35
(Original post by LadyFadge)
And People think i am crazy
And People think i am crazy
0
Report
#36
I love it when I read all of these Royal correspondents who are flapping about because their idol has been hinted as being bisexual...Especially James Whitaker in the mirror, what a prat.
Adam
Adam
0
Report
#37
I persoanlly couldn't give a flying monkey what Charles's sexual inclanation was - even if it did involve sheep.
However... I don't think the UK would accept a bisexual king, sadly.
However... I don't think the UK would accept a bisexual king, sadly.
0
Report
#38
I really do not think it matters. Although i find it disgusting i think that one day every1 will be bisexual...its becoming more and more fashionable(espically among girls) in my area...
0
Report
#39
(Original post by FudgeMonkey)
I really do not think it matters. Although i find it disgusting i think that one day every1 will be bisexual...its becoming more and more fashionable(espically among girls) in my area...
I really do not think it matters. Although i find it disgusting i think that one day every1 will be bisexual...its becoming more and more fashionable(espically among girls) in my area...
0
Report
#40
Prince Charles bisexual? Firstly, its debatable whether he even should be the heir, whether the monarchy should even exist. To me it only represents British imperialism and the slavery it brought thousands of people.
However, I do think it is immoral to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, so if the throne is there (which to me it shouldn't be), we shouldn't say that Prince Charles has any less of a right to a job IF he is bisexual. Firstly, it's unfair - other princes/Kings may have been bisexual but we wouldn't have known so why blame Prince Charles? Just because the media have supposedly found out? What a load of rubbish. Secondly, this might not even be true. What then? Thirdly, why should it matter what people do in the past? Harry did drugs - the public "forgave" him for that. And fourthly, kicking Charles off the throne because he is supposedly "bi" would open that whole can of worms where people would sue the Royal Family/Government for discrimination (the act passed in Dec 2003). Also, the Monarchy is hereditary. The whole point people, of having a monarchy is that we don't decide who inherits the throne - "God" does (according to tradition). If we want to say who will and will not be King/Queen, why bother even having a monarchy at all? Why not just have a Democratic Republic, with a President? We can't make money from tourism and dictate who will and will not ascend to the throne. Simply enough - we can't have our cake and eat it.
However, I do think it is immoral to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, so if the throne is there (which to me it shouldn't be), we shouldn't say that Prince Charles has any less of a right to a job IF he is bisexual. Firstly, it's unfair - other princes/Kings may have been bisexual but we wouldn't have known so why blame Prince Charles? Just because the media have supposedly found out? What a load of rubbish. Secondly, this might not even be true. What then? Thirdly, why should it matter what people do in the past? Harry did drugs - the public "forgave" him for that. And fourthly, kicking Charles off the throne because he is supposedly "bi" would open that whole can of worms where people would sue the Royal Family/Government for discrimination (the act passed in Dec 2003). Also, the Monarchy is hereditary. The whole point people, of having a monarchy is that we don't decide who inherits the throne - "God" does (according to tradition). If we want to say who will and will not be King/Queen, why bother even having a monarchy at all? Why not just have a Democratic Republic, with a President? We can't make money from tourism and dictate who will and will not ascend to the throne. Simply enough - we can't have our cake and eat it.
0
X
new posts
