Charlie Farley

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://borgenproject.org/top-12-dea...rs-in-history/







Those alone add up to 48-58 million…

Then there’s



*Christians vs Muslims





https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...history-162752

It’s also estimated that the Mongol Conquest deaths were between 30-60 million (1206-1324), 25 million died in the Qing v Ming Dynasty wars (1616–1662), and quite a lot more like those.

Whilst the 20th Century industrialised war, our ancestors were no slouch at it either (for various religious, dynastic, or nationalistic reasons).

Ok so I was wrong but you see what I mean about shear volumes of death with nothing to do with religion.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

LOL. Have you read what you just posted, you sound nuts.

Of course, it was nothing at all to do with the press chasing her then (or the fact she no seat belt on).

And that's the key point certain individuals miss, if she'd been wearing a seat belt she'd probably be alive, like another passenger in the car is, the best assassins the world can proffer and after all that planning they'd leave something to chance like a seat belt

[Sephiroth]

…. and she wouldn’t have been in that car if Charley hadn’t been stiffing her all those years. Hence my use of the word “indirectly”.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

…. and she wouldn’t have been in that car if Charley hadn’t been stiffing her all those years. Hence my use of the word “indirectly”.

Who's Harry's father???

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Who's Harry's father???

Charley. Harry’s eyes are also close together in the same way.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

…. and she wouldn’t have been in that car if Charley hadn’t been stiffing her all those years. Hence my use of the word “indirectly”.

I agree

[WorldlyDigital]

The low interest shown in the coronation is indicative of things changing and moving away from the traditions that we expect.

We are doing some articles on the coronation this week and I will ensure this features.

See Day 1's article, any feedback welcomed :-)

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by WorldlyDigital

The low interest shown in the coronation is indicative of things changing and moving away from the traditions that we expect.

We are doing some articles on the coronation this week and I will ensure this features.

See Day 1's article, any feedback welcomed :-)

You have some strange sentences in this paragraph:

Reasons for Coronation

The coronation of a monarch serves several purposes. First and foremost, it legitimizes the authority of the new ruler. It is a way of ensuring that the monarch has the support of the people and the church.

The coronation also serves as a way of demonstrating the monarch’s power and authority. It is a highly symbolic event that is meant to inspire awe and respect in the people.

Finally, the coronation is a way of reinforcing the monarch’s duty to uphold the laws and traditions of the realm. The monarch takes an oath during the ceremony to protect and defend the country, to govern with justice and mercy, and to maintain the laws and customs of the land.

In addition, the coronation is a way of celebrating the ascension of a new monarch to the throne. It is a time of great pomp and pageantry, with processions, music, and festivities. The coronation is also an opportunity for the monarch to connect with the people and to inspire loyalty and devotion.

The coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla is set to be an historic event, steeped in tradition and ceremony. The coronation ceremony is a complex and highly symbolic event that has evolved over centuries. It serves several purposes, including legitimizing the authority of the monarch, demonstrating the monarch’s power and authority, and reinforcing the monarch’s duty to uphold the laws and traditions of the realm. The coronation is also a time of celebration and festivity, with processions, music, and festivities.

- the King reigns but does not rule.
- the coronation does not "ensure" the support of the people. It may hope to increase but that would be as far as it goes
- suggest you are overdoing the "inspiring awe & respect" bit
- he can't protect or defend the country, nor govern it with or without the merciful part
- hoping for "loyalty and devotion" is a bit of a log shot to be fair

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Who's Harry's father???

It could be James Hewitt but to me Harry takes his looks from the Corgis.

[WorldlyDigital]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have some strange sentences in this paragraph:



- the King reigns but does not rule.
- the coronation does not "ensure" the support of the people. It may hope to increase but that would be as far as it goes
- suggest you are overdoing the "inspiring awe & respect" bit
- he can't protect or defend the country, nor govern it with or without the merciful part
- hoping for "loyalty and devotion" is a bit of a log shot to be fair

__________________________________________________ ____


Thanks for the feedback we really appreciate your comments and they have spawned other thoughts regarding tradition. I think the way that you have inferred to down play the emotional strength in some of the sentences really does go to show the tradition and loss of interest in the monarchy over the last few years/decades.

Thanks again for your insight. Much appreciated.

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have some strange sentences in this paragraph:



- the King reigns but does not rule.
- the coronation does not "ensure" the support of the people. It may hope to increase but that would be as far as it goes
- suggest you are overdoing the "inspiring awe & respect" bit
- he can't protect or defend the country, nor govern it with or without the merciful part
- hoping for "loyalty and devotion" is a bit of a log shot to be fair

Also, we are centuries past the point where the new king wasn’t king until crowned. Succession is determined by Parliament, thanks to the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701) and various subsequent amendments.

Thanks to the rules of succession set out in these acts, Charles became Heir Apparent at the same time his mother became Queen, and became King the moment she died.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Also, we are centuries past the point where the new king wasn’t king until crowned. Succession is determined by Parliament, thanks to the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701) and various subsequent amendments.

Thanks to the rules of succession set out in these acts, Charles became Heir Apparent at the same time his mother became Queen, and became King the moment she died.

I think that this is an important point. The coronation is just the flag waving and crown carriage-ing bit. No significant meaning in the real world for the vast majority of the country.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Also, why would that fool want to be the ‘defender of faith’? They can’t all be right as to who created what? He can’t believe in all faiths? There are laws protecting people’s right to religious belief so why get stuck into what has been the most common cause of wars and violence?

Much depends on exactly how it’s framed during the coronation service next week. If we are presented with a multi-faith act of worship then we have been left with a meaningless muddle that won’t be true to the confession of any religion represented there. I would be surprised if any senior Muslim or Sikh invited to the coronation would be happy with that, even if some of the liberal twits in the Church of England hierarchy are.

For what it’s worth, I know Archbishop Justin to be an evangelical and while he will be keen to allow the reality of multicultural Britain to be demonstrated I do not believe he will allow the impression that the service is one in which all gods are recognised and invoked.

‘Defender of Faith’ could be an intellectually muddled attempt to construct a single understanding of faith and deity out of all major religions, and actually I suspect that in his youth that’s probably where Charles was leaning. Today, however, I suspect it will be presented to us as a part of a constitutional responsibility to the freedom and wellbeing of all people regardless of their beliefs.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Much depends on exactly how it’s framed during the coronation service next week. If we are presented with a multi-faith act of worship then we have been left with a meaningless muddle that won’t be true to the confession of any religion represented there. I would be surprised if any senior Muslim or Sikh invited to the coronation would be happy with that, even if some of the liberal twits in the Church of England hierarchy are.

For what it’s worth, I know Archbishop Justin to be an evangelical and while he will be keen to allow the reality of multicultural Britain to be demonstrated I do not believe he will allow the impression that the service is one in which all gods are recognised and invoked.

‘Defender of Faith’ could be an intellectually muddled attempt to construct a single understanding of faith and deity out of all major religions, and actually I suspect that in his youth that’s probably where Charles was leaning. Today, however, I suspect it will be presented to us as a part of a constitutional responsibility to the freedom and wellbeing of all people regardless of their beliefs.

I accept your rationale.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

…. and she wouldn’t have been in that car if Charley hadn’t been stiffing her all those years. Hence my use of the word “indirectly”.

She was in it because she was returning to the apartment of Dodi Fayed (her apparent lover).

She died because she wasnt wearing a seat belt, when the car she was in (driven by a drunken driver, at twice the speed limit) crashed into a pillar, while apparently being persued by members of the press.

While I dont particularly care for Charles, blaming him for something he had nothing to do with is utter nonsense.