a thought
 

Please don't think that I really know what I'm talking about on this subject, but isn't the Queen (or King) supposed to be the defender of the faith? If that's the case, then Charles shouldn't be king because he had an affair. Since Prince William is hot and perfect he should get the crown next. And because he didn't have an affair and seems to be in love. Don't mind the first reason. :)

Eh...I've never heard the Sovereign described as the defender, merely the head of the Church of England. Frankly, Charles should never have married Diana. He and Camilla should have been together from the start.
Also remember that affairs, like all sin, are forgivable. I don't see a particular reason to burden William with such a responsibility so early in his life, like his grandmother.

Good Morning,
Actually, Her Majesty is styled, inter alia, as "Defender of the Faith". Its a title that goes back to Henry VIII, ironically, granted by the Pope and never recinded. Look at a British coin and you will see the letters around the Queen's head "Elizabeth II, DG, REG, FD". These stand for Elizabeth II, Deo Gratias, Regina, Fideii Defensor which in English mean Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, Queen, Defender of the Faith.
As to the business of HRH the Prince of Wales's indiscretion, I agree absolutely with your point. As I recall, Our Saviour paid the freight for all our indiscretions making forgiveness and redemption available as a free gift to any and all who accept His gift. I also recall that He said, "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone".
I don't think anyone of us ought to be in the stone casting business. I sure as hell don't qualify, and if I did I'd be a pretty poor excuse for a Christian if I were to start chucking stones at anyone for their sins.
Anyway, the order of succession is not discretionary and absent a major change to the Constitution of the UK (yes, there really is one, its just not the same as what most people think of in terms of a specific document called a "constitution") when Her Majesty dies (once annointed there is no retirement or resignation provision in the Coronation Oath) the next in line automatically becomes the soverign. Between succession and annointing there is a narrow window to opt out but this is, shall we say, unusual.
As to HRH Prince Harry, he is a serving officer and his regiment is going in harm's way. Where else should he be except at the head of his troops. That he is a Royal is all the more reason for him to win his spurs. God willing he and his men will come back in one piece, but if not he will not be the first royal to fall while doing his job and leading his men.
Perhaps you might have seen the obituary published in the Times every year on the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings:
"Harold, King of England, on the field of battle, in defence of the realm".

Yeah, but Harold didn't have the paparazzi following him around.

The Photogs are going to go anywhere that they can get pixs, well maybe except to Iraq!:)

In the History of England if anyone knows, most if not all of the Princes headed militay of England into Battle along with The King.

The leaders of the Rhelm were the Leaders of all of the Country!:)

While We look at the British having a inept Govt. they probably look at ours the same way!:D

A great post from Dekeguy as usual.

Centaur, perhaps you should consider the above.

No.

Hell, I like Parliament cause you can heckle. Watching that stuff on CSPAN is waaaaay more entertaining than watching our government. Here each senator/representative gets up and grandstands his little speech. THERE they cheer and boo and Blair seems like he's having a grand old time and it's all jolly good fun.

Evidently who ever this person is, they know everything or it seems?:rolleyes:

Combat camerpersons are way above the paparazzi:) ;) :D
While I have posted somewhere in GC the number of reporters and camerapersons killed and wounded, I am just about sure that the number for paparazzi is "0".

While not the same, this is particularly true of the Military camerafolks.

The members of Combat Camera are the ones who have gone in with the first wave of invasions and shot the pictures of the Marines storming the beach.

They are remarkably brave as well as highly skilled.

"Royals" have lead, from the front, in past.
But something that many people do not know is that it is true for the US as well-that members of our leadership, or their familys, have done so as well:
From http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiib1.htm

*ROOSEVELT, THEODORE, JR. Rank and organization: brigadier general, U.S. Army. Place and date: Normandy invasion, 6 June 1944. Entered service at: Oyster Bay, N.Y. Birth: Oyster Bay, N.Y. G.O. No.: 77, 28 September 1944. Citation: for gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944, in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France .
*N.B. An asterisk in the citation indicates that the award was given posthumously.
The award: The Medal of Honor

Highly unlikely. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (the reigning Sovereign's mother) lived to the ripe old age of 102, and the way things are looking it's very possible Charles will accede to the British throne but have a short reign in the waning years of his life.

Abdication is out of the question - memories of Edward VIII still haunt the Royals.

looks like they really might be that stupid
 

I wonder how much of that is intimidation and how much is serious.