For the very last time*: Prince Charles & Romania

A new biography of our old friend Prince Charles was published last week, titled Charles: The Heart of a King. The work of Time journalist Catherine Mayer, the book is not an official biography (indeed, given that it is not chronological it is not really a conventional biography at all – and all the better for it) although Mayer had a great deal of access to Charles and those around him for more than a year.

Click to buy the book at Amazon
Click to buy the book at Amazon

We have to admit from the start that the book is far better than we expected. It’s by and large objective, and Mayer is unafraid to criticise the prince when he deserves it while remaining, overall, perhaps a bit too pro-Charles for our tastes. Uniquely for a biography of the prince (we think) Mayer has devoted space to Charles’s dabblings in Romania, a subject which any regular reader will know is one that we like to bang on about a great deal. Indeed, that’s where our interest in this book really begins, for we feature in the chapter: Mayer interviewed us last year.

Yes, we are quoted in full rant-mode in a biography of Prince Charles. The tower no doubt awaits.

Or does it?

For despite telling Mayer much the same as we have written on these pages over the past few years, she has – despite using a quote from one of our choicest anti-Charles rants – done us the honour of portraying us as being ‘better disposed towards the prince than his blog suggests.’

She also, however, broadly agrees with us. She states at one point:

“One of Turp’s accusations resonates: that Charles romanticises peasant life in Romania. In finding ways to support people living these lives, Charles is irrefutably helping to keep them where they are.”

Mayer then quotes our good selves:

“For me the biggest problem is that the Romania the Prince loves, these serf villages, they confirm his world view…this idea that there is a natural order of things, that everyone should know their place.”

There’s a little more from Bucharest Life in the book, much of which will come as no surprise to our regular reader: our views on Charles and his role in Romania are as steadfastly uncomplimentary as ever.

In brief, Charles is one of those people who appears to genuinely believe that he was – as the title of the book suggests – born to be king. For him, it’s a god-given right that no man or woman can take from him. For the same reason he believes that the Romanian peasant was born to work the land: that’s the role they were assigned, and no other life is possible. To Charles, the idea that a peasant could become a king, or king a peasant, is anathema to his belief system. In Charles’s world, social mobility does not and must not exist, else the whole natural order of things come crashing down.

Well, we can’t agree. As heirs to the spirit of the Diggers, the Ranters, the CNT and every other radical group which ever set about turning the world upside down, we see no role for Charles except the one he carves out for himself. We would – in all sincerity – be delighted to see him move permanently to Romania, renouncing the crown and committing the rest of his life to the good, honest life of the toiling peasant. We would have nothing but admiration for him.

We can’t, alas, see it happening.

Instead, Brian will continue to visit Romania, will continue to claim that the simple life of the Romanian peasant is wonderful, and will continue to be hailed as Romania’s greatest friend. He isn’t. He is a reactionary who espouses a way of life he himself eschews.


122 thoughts on “For the very last time*: Prince Charles & Romania

  1. The views from all sides are predictable and come as no real surprise, not too me anyway. The amount of links the Royal family have around the world means often they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. On a scale of things I’d hazard a guess Charles isn’t the number one detractor and enemy of Romania, some* on here seem to have more pops and digs at Romania than anyone else!

    I do agree with anon, and would say well done for being quoted, as you sometimes write some good stuff, not least your excellent ‘In your pocket guide’ – which as Bucharest goes, I’ve yet to see better.

    *some means some, and not all.


      1. @Phil, yeah well it comes as no surprise anything I say gets pulled apart from the usual suspects around here, but I’d still hazard a guess plenty more people are far more deserving of grief over how they ‘speak or act’ in regards to Romania, you’ll find Charles puts his foot in it as much as his father at times.

        Anyway sorry you struggled to understand my original point, but it makes a refreshing change to see you taking turns in attacking me 🙂

        Maybe I’ll become more popular around here if I start moaning and having digs at Romania, and the culture?

        However I won’t, and the ONLY problem I ever had in Romania in at least 14 visits was from a drunken English bloke as it happens, and what a odious turd he was, the vast majority of Romanian people who I know are some of the best friends I’ve ever made.

        Sorry if that upsets some of you.


      2. @Rog The gist of the issue is that Charlie likes Romania – or at least the Romania that he knows – because the peasants know their place, and they look picturesque doing all the hard work while he enjoys being lord of the manor. Click on the first link in the article for Craig’s previous, which explain more.


      3. @Phil sorry just seen this amongst the Churchill rants 🙂

        I do get that to a degree, but is that really what he is doing, and if that IS his real view, who cares, he can’t make or force anyone into being a peasant, so those type of outdated views are meaningless in reality!

        Also doesn’t he invest in areas (as Craig himself has confirmed above) so that kinda undermines your argument a little, in relation to asserting he only comes to Romania to be ‘lord of the manor’ and watching ‘picturesque peasants’ at work.

        I am NOT saying he’s perfect of that I share his views – I am just saying I was shocked at the attacks he was getting, when I can’t find a single thing he’s done wrong, in Romania, or too Romanians – I can only find good things and ironically Craig’s presented evidence to back that up too!

        So it’s all quite bizarre on that basis !

        I am sure Craig and others could find others closer to home who are more heinous and corrupt than Charlie boy !


  2. Stuffy social views aside, at least he has invested in Romania and paid some people fairly for land and services. It’s more than many Romanians have done.


    1. @Crae I’d imagine you make a fair point regarding perhaps *some Romanians. *(some means NOT all) …….. I think what we have hear is a classic case of someone doing, acting and speaking as he was raised … What I mean by that is Charles is a member of the Royal family inner circle and much like his father (not mum) he has a history of perhaps speaking without realising others may pull his words apart and turn them against them ……… A similar example was when I said I found a lot of things ‘quirky’ in Romania … This lead to many on here going on a full on rant and attack saying I was a posh, snobby Brit who enjoyed the peasants and poor pavements etc etc …. It was quite bizarre, as they had quite simply taken my words and view completely out of context and put their own meaning of what they THOUGHT I was saying, and not actually what I meant!

      My pint is this, Charles doesn’t and wasn’t raised in the real world, not as we know it anyway, I think as much as he may enjoy ‘rural life’ in Romania for example – he perhaps didn’t stop to think that stuffy social views and attacks would come from perhaps his completely innocent views – which didn’t mean any REAL harm, but have outraged the ones who lap this kinda stuff up!

      Of course he SHOULD be more savvy and street wise to the fact ANY comment a man like him makes could and more than often will be jumped upon to others advantage – but I’m sure Charlie boy isn’t the sole source of Romania’s problems and any comments he makes are usually well meaning … I reckon Craig’s excellent research skills could be put to more use attacking certain Romanian land/property owners and politicians etc etc who do far less or far more harm than Charlie boy could ever do or done ………. Or is Craig afraid of picking on targets closer to home, is censorship and fear of reprisals a consideration if he did speak out and attack individuals such as say Becali or Ponta and his cronies? **noted Craig HAS been a staunch critic of Ponta previously, but hopefully you get my point – aren’t there anymore like Ponta who deserve exposing?


  3. Hell, nobody needs to work the land here anymore – they can all get jobs at their local Mega Image. There must be three to a village by now


  4. I’ve just had 20 minutes worth of Google, Romania and Prince Charles, but I can’t find the terrible acts he’s committed or the disgraceful manner in which he behaves and treats Romanian people ???

    Am I missing something Craig ? ……… What exactly is it that Charlie boy has done, which is so bad or as dramatic as your article makes out? (genuine question) I can’t see that he’s Romania’s number one enemy and tyrant, so what exactly is the problem with him?


    1. Well in the UK there is his aggressive anti-democratic activity, privately lobbying to influence government policy and then abusing privilege to get his communications with our elected leaders exempted from the freedom of information act. That’s enough for me, whatever he might be doing to keep Romanian peasants in picturesque serfdom.


      1. So nothing he’s doing so heinously wrong in Romania then, just the UK?

        Glad that’s cleared that up then. I’m not a fan of the Royal family as much as some, but my point was I did a small amount of research into his Romanian activity, and couldn’t find anything to suggest he’s the axis of evil as Craig’s articles make out.

        I am sure there are people involved in Romania far more deserving of such a torrent of hatred, as Charles appears to be getting … Ponta and his cronies or Becali? I don’t know, but surely there are more people doing harm, bribes, corruption, abuse of power etc etc.

        If anyone can point me in the direction of his heinous crimes in Romania, I’d be interested to see them, as yet I can’t find as much as Craig has made out?

        Oh and for the couple of regulars who stalk me, I am NOT defending Charles here (especially if that anti democratic stuff is true), I am merely confused as to why he’s hated so much and cast as Romania’s number one tyrant and detractor, at least on here anyway!


      2. “So nothing he’s doing so heinously wrong in Romania then, just the UK?”

        I don’t know any specifics about what he’s up to in Romania, not living there. His behaviour in the UK doesn’t fill me with great confidence that he has the interests of anyone but himself and his culture of privilege at heart, though.

        If he is such an open, progressive, pro-democratic fellow then why doesn’t he apply those principles in the country he seems destined to rule?


      3. @Richard the article by Craig was about Charles and his behaviour towards Romania?

        I appreciate you may have genuine concerns about his bahaviour in the UK, but that’s not what the article was about and not what I was commenting on.

        Your last paragraph I assume is sarcasm, but I’m not sure who it aimed at? As I for one haven’t dressed him up as you appear to insinuate by asking me in the manner you have.

        However to try and appease you by answering your last point – I’ve not noticed too much in the way of ‘bad behaviour’by him in the UK either – although NO DOUBT he may on occasions act in a manner I’d question, but genuinely can’t say I’ve noticed him being as bad as you make out.

        On an aside I feel the Royal family needs a reform to some degree, elements may be outdated and I imagine the future of the Royals under William for example – may well see some significant changes in how they are funded and their status or ability to affect politics, for example.

        On a broader observation, I’m not convinced our Royal Family are the axis of evil and you’d be hard pressed to find a single example of where the Queen has acted in a manner to shame us or indeed anyone else.

        That said, I am for freedom and democracy, and on that basis, I feel the Royal family DOES need reform.


      4. I can’t reply direct to your last post for some reason, Roger, so I have to step back and comment here.

        My point in highlighting his bad behaviour in the UK (see is to show that he is anti-democratic and meddles in the affairs of government despite having no popular mandate to do so. That is intolerable.

        Given that that is the way he can be shown to act I think it is entirely legitimate to view his activities overseas with suspicion. I’ll be back in Romania next week, so will ask around with some journalist and NGO-worker friends of mine and see what I can find out.

        To tidy up one of the more fanciful things you claim, nobody has said that the British royal family is the axis of evil. It is however an anachronism whose very status – as I already said – personifies, normalises and entrenches inequality. That cannot be healthy in any society.

        And as far as we know (subject to the institutional secrecy that surrounds the political and financial activities of the Windsors) the Queen has done nothing to shame Britain. The thing is, that simply isn’t the point. The point is that if she did (see the current allegations about Andrew), there is *nothing* we can do about it. Where do I get to vote on whether Charles should get to be King and I should be obliged to bend the knee before him?


      5. @Richard no fair enough, I don’t doubt your opinion on him in the UK, and I’ll say again – nobody is perfect and he will have flaws as we all do, but you don’t have to listen to his view or moral guidance – just stay calm and ignore it!

        I am ONLY interested as to why he’s considered so poorly by Craig in relation to Romania ONLY, and his numerous articles slating him – that is all ?

        Thanks for being the only one thus far to attempt to tell me why, as Craig appears unable to back up his claims, as usual.


      6. “I’m not a fan of the Royal family as much as some,”

        @Roger, is there/ are there any member(s) of the British Royal Family that you like?

        Without being a fan, I like a few of them and I am not “afraid” to say it 🙂 : Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Princess Alexandra of Kent, Prince Charles and Camilla- Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie-Countess of Wessex, Prince Harry.

        From the older generations I like Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent ( born Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark). She married Queen Elizabeth II’ s uncle Prince George, The Duke of Kent in 1934. Queen Elizabeth (then- Princess Elizabeth of York) was one of her bridesmaids- she was 8 years old at the time and very cute!
        I like Elizabeth,The Queen Mother too. During World War II, in 1940, when London was being bombed she and The King chose to stay in London sharing the horrors of the blitz with their people. The Royal Family set an example that encouraged their people to be at their very best. Even when Buckingham Palace itself was bombed and badly damaged, the Royal Couple refused to move. Her Majesty famously made the remark : ” I am so glad we are being bombed! It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face!”

        I find the history of the British Royal Family fascinating- starting with Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and their children and many grandchildren, including Princess Marie of Edinburgh- the future Queen Maria of Romania, Princess Margaret of Connaught- future Crown Princess of Sweden, Maud of Wales- future Queen of Norway, Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg- future Queen Ena of Spain, Princess Louise Mountbatten- future Queen consort of Sweden…


      7. @PofYE firstly WOW … Your knowledge for someone who has stated that they aren’t British and yet have such a commendable and vast knowledge of the British Royals – far more than me you’ll not be surprised to know 🙂

        I guess to answer your question I’m of a generation that admired Diana, who essentially married into the Windsors … Her son William looks like the making of the best King ever! Harry seems quirky and a bit of a cheeky chap type – no harm in that, and the younger lot seem more in touch and perhaps ready to drag the Royals closer to me and you, which can’t be a bad thing.

        I guess as it stands the Royals are here – so shouldn’t the ones who DO work hard and build bridges etc etc be commended ?

        Also I wonder over the years (QE II reign) how much conflict they have helped resolve or calm, how much joy they bring, the Jubilee celebrations, Royal Weddings, The Olympic opening cerenomy etc etc ……. So all in all I think they have plus and negative points, perhaps need some reform, but aside from that, they are part of our history and perhaps helped shape the UK as what we know it is now.

        A very liberal and democratic country, and of course NOWHERE is perfect, no country or nation, but I fail to see how the Royal family are only bad and something that needs disbanding immediately.

        As for the Charles and Romania thing – have you any ideas on where or when he’s been as heinous as the article makes out?


      8. @Roger,
        I just like to learn about things that I find interesting. That is all. 😉

        Regarding Princess Diana, I was 13 when she died so, at the time, I did not know much about her or her work. But I do recall watching her funeral, Elton John’s touching tribute and how heartbreaking the image of little Harry and William walking behind their mother’s coffin was!
        Later I found out that Charles and Diana’s marriage was not a love match but a marriage arranged by the Queen Mother, a marriage that would end in divorce.

        You said that you admired Princess Diana but I will ask you anyway (maybe you have more information than I have): do you believe that some people’s hate towards Camilla and Charles is justified?
        I am trying to figure this out because from what I have read Charles was already very much in love with Camilla when he had to marry Diana. It was not him the one who chose Diana to be his wife.
        Maybe his fault was that he married a woman which he did not love…
        Anyway, judging by the videos and photos of Charles and Camilla together, it is obvious that they are well- suited as an elderly couple. There is something in the way they look at each other, in the laughter and fun they have at the public engagements, in the way they communicate without words…or maybe I am wrong but this is my perception.

        To answer your question- like you, I also have no idea what Prince Charles has done that is so wrong or evil. From what I know he has a fondness for a quiet village where he likes to retreat from time to time. This place could have been anywhere on this planet, it just happened to be in Romania.


      9. @PofYE …. I’m not so old myself, but do remember the wedding 🙂

        It’s a difficult one and perhaps one we’ll never really know the full story, and why should we, as they have a right for some things to remain private, a bit like I am sure Craig and his fellow anti Prince Charles detractors, do they REALLY know his intentions for Romania or how he REALLY thinks – of course they don’t, they are clueless as you and I, so I judge him on what evidence I can find – and as yet, I can’t find anything to warrant such attacks on him ……. So I hope when Craig returns he can enlighten and educate us all on why Prince Charles deserves such attacks for the way he behaves in Romania.

        Anyway back to your questions – well like us they are only human and relationships can break down, we can love or fall out of love, the royals are no different! Clearly something went wrong, and we perhaps will never know, but the legacy of Diana and Charles is two admirable sons and William who risks his own life as a RAF rescue pilot is possibly FAR more than anyone on here will EVER do in their own life to risk their own life for others – so not sure the uneducated attacks by some on selected members of the royals is hypocritical at best, if not plain ignorant.

        Like you say the royals have and do shape society in the UK to a degree** (means to a degree for my fan club of detractors) and I wonder how many of the hypocrites would stand proud as punch outside Buckingham Palace for a photo with family or partner or watched and enjoyed the fantastic jubilee celebrations, reveled in the extra paid bank holiday courtesy of the Queen, watched the Royal weddings etc etc etc ……… I would say the royals need some reform, but to rid them altogether? I am not so sure binning our heritage and history is as wise and called for as some are saying …….. I mean WHY, what is the major problem with the royals?

        Anyway going back to Diana, she’s one of my favourites but only as you asked, I’m not a massive fan of the Royals, but just felt the need to defend their good points as some were painting a false picture, and I’m all for fairness and taking on the self proclaimed better educated bullies on here – it’s just that some of them aren’t as educated as they make out! They can’t be as they wouldn’t keep coming out with abusive, angry and ill thought views which a simpleton like me can pick apart 🙂


      10. @Geronimo

        If that’s your idea of flirting then you’re either letting your prejudice against me blind your opinion or you’re idea of flirting is nowhere near what I’d call flirting.

        In my world it’s sometimes nice to be nice, and doesn’t mean you fancy someone, maybe you should try being nice sometime?

        *cue more attacks in the future, no doubt ; but would be nice to see a few of you be a little more mature at times, we live in hope:)


      11. @Geronimo,

        Wow, you “caught” us! You are such a “perceptive” individual, aren’t you?

        Your “insightful revelation” is so important for the topic that has been discussed so far!

        Please do tell me… what gave us away? Was it our use of emoticons 😉 or was it the exchange of replies (without an aggressive tone or language) with the genuine purpose of wanting to find out another person’s point of view on a specific matter?

        If you were expecting more insults and aggressive language, I am sorry ( No, I am not sorry!) that Roger and I “disappointed” you.


      12. I think it’s quite common in any culture for certain types of men to react badly to women who are clearly more able to engage and debate, than they are … It must be a tragic ego type thing, and makes you have a wry smile at their insecurities and outlook on life … It’s sad but we appear to have a couple of blokes on here who act like children with abuse and smutty remarks when they are met with a contrary view or it’s a poster they have a chip on their shoulder about!

        I was raised that it’s OK to disagree and debate, without resorting to abuse or smutty remarks towards women, just because it’s a women.

        I am sure even the ones who don’t always agree with me, would be of a similar view on this subject – that debate is fine, but the abuse and anger isn’t really needed – and says a lot more about them, than anyone else!

        ** of course the well known couple of exceptions can be seen by all, I do hope they’ve not got a female partner!


    2. In brief: Charles is assisting in the perpetuation of poverty-level subsistence farming. His love of Romania stems from the fact that he finds there a place which confirms his world view, namely that everyone is born to fulfill a certain role, be it king or peasant. He is opposed to any kind of social mobility. For Charles, a peasant must remain a peasant and think himself lucky. Also (and I am quoted in the book on this) he assists and invests in and promotes the Saxon villages which are far from being the poorest in the country: he could do more good elsewhere.


      1. @Craig

        Thanks for the reply, it seems as others have said you were otherwise engaged.

        Look I get where you’re coming from, and you write often some cracking stuff, but in my view you seem to go ‘over the top’ on Charles, and I imagine your efforts would be better placed attacking the Ponta types or surely more apt corrupt people closer to home?

        Also many of your criticism of him is your perceived interpretation of how he thinks – how do you know for gospel he really and genuinely believes peasants must remain peasants? And lets say he is that misguided, he’s hardly forcing Romanian people to be REAL LIFE peasants is he?

        I get you don’t like him, but I felt you gave or give some of the anti British types to use Prince Charles as a stick to beat British people with again – when in reality he’s not really doing anything wrong!

        Your only salient direct criticism in regards to Romania is that he doesn’t spend his money where you think he should????

        I’d love to see your reaction if I came round to your home and dictated to you where you spent your money!

        I think the fact he invests in Romania is a GOOD thing, and it’s not for you to dictate where he invests, especially as his current choice of investment is doing no harm!

        Disappointed in you on this Craig, but like the views of Churchill, Charles or anyone else, you don’t have to follow, listen or be guided by them 🙂


  5. …be delighted to see him move permanently to Romania, renouncing the crown and committing the rest of his life to the good, honest life of the toiling peasant.

    Regardless of his connection to Romania why should Prince Charles renounce the Crown? Why should a person renounce his parents’/ ancestors’ legacy and reject their wish of falling in their footsteps, especially if that person has been preparing all his life for a specific role which comes with great responsibilities.
    Unlike his mother (who had to take on the role of Queen without having previous apprenticeship, following the sudden death of her father, King George VI) Charles has had a long apprenticeship so I do not see why he would not make the best job he can.
    Queen Elizabeth II once said that she believed continuity was very important. Because of this, I believe she will be pleased to see her son taking on the role and continuing her wonderful work.

    In my opinion, Prince Charles will be a great King someday.
    He probably is not perfect- I did not know/ was not aware of the things Richard mentioned- but to me ( a person who does not live in the United Kingdom), Prince Charles comes across as a well- informed, spontaneous, responsible, dapper-looking gentleman. At the public engagements he attends, he always looks to be feeling at ease when he interacts with the “normal” people he meets (unlike his brother Andrew or his mother’s cousin Edward, The Duke of Kent- they always look indifferent or like they do not care about the people present at the events).

    I like how, in his interview with Andreea Esca, Prince Charles mentioned Queen Marie of Romania (born Princess Marie of Edinburgh) and how his great-grandfather King George V fell in love with her and proposed.
    I often ask myself what kind of queen consort Marie would have been for the United Kingdom, had she accepted King George ‘s proposal. I think she would have been quite different than Queen Mary. 🙂


    1. Surely the ‘renouncing the crown’ quip was a childish dig at what the article author would want him to do, but it was clear he was being childish, as he clearly has a problem with Charles – although I am quite sure others are more deserving of such criticism, as is Charles REALLY such a heinous individual and scourge of Romania and its population – I mean in adult terms, and not that of a spoiled child?

      I’ve had another quick look again tonight and I would appeal to the educated and grammatical elite on here, to inform me of the numerous heinous crimes Charles has committed to Romanians past and present, as I’m struggling to find a single thing, as yet?

      However nobody is perfect, and are Charles acts well meaning, or are they as damaging, crass and aloof as Craig makes out?

      Is Charles REALLY Romania’s number one detractor with corruption, bribes, political favours etc etc ?

      I thought people like Ponta and Becali may be more deserving of attack, than Charlie boy.**

      **In relation to Romania, as that’s what the article is about isn’t it?

      His indiscretions in the UK aren’t meant to be at debate, unless you have a agenda I guess.


    2. As usual a balanced and mature post from PofYE, and whose spelling and grammar brings shame on mere mortals like me, that will no doubt get certain non confrontational and calm people a wee bit hot under the collar, so too speak 🙂


    3. “Regardless of his connection to Romania why should Prince Charles renounce the Crown?”

      Because the very existence of a monarchy entrenches and normalises inequality right at the heart of any society where it still persists. Any person who considers all people to be (born) equal should abhor monarchy and wish to have nothing to do with it.

      If Charles is such a super-duper fellow, so well in tune with the needs of his fellow Britons then let him put it to the test and stand for election. If he’s so good then he’ll get a genuine mandate and be free to wield the power and seniority he thinks is his by right. And if he turns out to be no good then a mechanism will exist by which he can be replaced. (c.f. former king Boris in Bulgaria). At present no such mechanism exists. And there can be no justification for that.


      1. Monarchy does indeed entrench and normalise inequality but so does inherited wealth in general and far more pervasively. David Cameron would no more have ended up in Eton, Oxford and Downing Street except for an accident of birth any more than Prince Charles would have ended up in Buckingham Palace. For consistency you should recognise that the communists were onto something – nobody under their system is officially born owning anything more than anybody else. Furthermore, communism is not wedded to the foolish idea that election by a majority of the by-and-large ignorant is a better mechanism for choosing good rulers than the consecration of those born and brought up to rule. According to them, one’s place in the system should depend on how well one has served the best ideas, i.e. meritocracy is better than democracy. Furthermore, presidents and prime ministers have no better track record in history than unelected monarchs. Nor is it right to think that mechanisms have ever been lacking for replacing kings and emperors, as the many deposed among them could vouchsafe. Personally I think an unelected Prince Charles would have made a better ruler than David Cameron. Both had some good ideas but David Cameron had to bend all his out of shape to accommodate the fools his election depended on.


      2. “Furthermore, communism is not wedded to the foolish idea that election by a majority of the by-and-large ignorant is a better mechanism for choosing good rulers than the consecration of those born and brought up to rule.”

        I refer you to what Churchill had to say on the merits and shortcomings of democracy as a system of government.


      3. Churchill made an assertion not backed up by any argument, which is rather characteristic of him. I don’t see any merit in it. Furthermore, there have been few worse war criminals than Churchill and, since George VI was not a war criminal whereas Churchill was elected, he is an actual embodiment of the principle that prime ministers are by no means better than kings. If you want to know what Churchill was really like you should read the unauthorised biography by David Irving. The authorised biographies are just parroting what the establishment wants you to believe. If you don’t have time for that then you can get a flavour from this video:


      4. Dermitius as UK bashing goes – labeling Churchill as war criminal is textbook 🙂

        Of course he should have just rolled over and let Nazi Germany prevail, what a joke of a man he was, how dare he defend his own country and endeavor to stop the fantastic Nazi regime from raping, pillaging and slaughtering millions of innocent human beings!

        Yes, you Sir are absolutely correct, Churchill was even more satanic and deserving of criticism than Prince Charles 🙂

        Only on bucharest life !!!


      5. Roger I’m afraid that you are confused on this issue. Whether Churchill was a war criminal was nothing to do with his decision to fight the Germans instead of ‘rolling over’. One can fight an aggressor and be perfectly right to do so as long as one is meeting the long agreed criteria for fighting a just war, i.e. just cause, legitimate authority, reasonable prospect of success and benefits to be achieved in proportion to the harm to be caused. What makes Churchill a war criminal is that he was prepared to use any means, no matter how evil, to defeat his enemy. For him the end justified the means. So, in direct contradiction of international law, he advocated and authorised saturation bombing of cities, directly targeting and killing non-combatants amounting to at least half a million and probably far more. Three million died in Bengal because he diverted rice from India to stockpile in Britain. One could go on, and on but those will do. When one adds to that his military incompetence, his racism and his direct responsibility for causing the war in the first place – read Pat Buchanan’s ‘Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War’ if you doubt this – his high standing in Britain would be surprising if one didn’t realise that he said truly ‘history will be kind to me, I intend to write it’.


      6. Dermitius no I’m not confused at all, so please don’t make the same mistake the angry one falls into everytime … You see of course during WWII acts were committed on ALL sides which could be argued as war crimes, that there is no doubt – and I’m not comfortable with the Dresden carpet bombing for example, or the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs … but nor am I happy with the slaughter of millions of Jews and anyone else the Nazi’s deemed not one of their own … You see of course two wrongs don’t make a right – but to single out Churchill as being the only or indeed main war criminal of WWII smacks of stupidity or you have a anti-UK agenda ?

        Surely most normal people would agree the ‘biggest’ or first aggressor of WWII was Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party?

        I am struggling to see how you can put Churchill and the British Empire(as was) above Hitler and his Nazi party …….. as worse tyrants and war criminals ???

        I understand many on here like attacking the UK, but surely you need to pick your agenda and propoganda *need anon to spell check* a bit more carefully in the future – as I’d argue Hitler was far worse initially, than anyone who fought to stop him.

        I say initially as Stalin wasn’t exactly a saint and admirable leader and sympathetic to his people.

        In summary it was WWII for gods sake – surely anyone with any sense would be aware that war crimes were rife, on ALL sides – but lets remember who started the war, and it certainly wasn’t Churchill, as you claim!

        He wasn’t even Prime Minister at the time, it was Chamberlin!

        And some of you call me thick 🙂


      7. Roger, while I disapprove of Anon’s methods he does have a point when he says that you show yourself to have a flimsy grasp of what counts as evidence and are unable to make the necessary distinctions to conduct a successful argument. Furthermore you are frequently attributing to other people views that they have not propounded, something you take umbrage at when it is aimed at you. So just think about this. It does not follow that Churchill is not a notorious war criminal from the fact that Hitler, Stalin, Truman and Tojo were also war criminals of a similar order. If someone were to kill my children that would not stop me being a murderer if I were to kill theirs. This is not an eccentric opinion. Truman’s honorary degree at Oxford was contested on the basis that he was a mass murderer for dropping the atomic bombs. Further, I nowhere said that Churchill was the main or only war criminal of World War 2 or made any relative ranking of his crimes against its other main leaders. I simply said that there were few worse and that is certainly true in terms of the number of murders he is directly responsible for, let alone those he is accountable for because of his military incompetence. Neither did I say that Churchill started the war but that he bears responsibility for causing it. The initiation of something and the causing of it are two distinct phenomena. One might add as an analogy that Anon might have initiated the tedious rounds of insults between you but you bear a significant responsibility for causing them!


      8. @Dermitius let me quote what YOU said directly ………..

        ” direct responsibility for causing the war in the first place ”

        My apologies, I thought Hitler and his Nazi party were the main instigators of causing the war in the first place – I also was under the impression Chamberlin declared war on Germany, as they invaded Poland?

        I apologise on behalf of my history teacher and the false information Lawrence Olivier narrated.

        I genuinely wasn’t aware Churchill was ”directly responsible for causing the war in the first place” (your words, not mine)

        And fear not, I’m sure Mr angry will be lurking somewhere ready to back slap your ”destruction” of an ill educated fool like me, anytime soon 🙂

        When are letting the Jewish council in Romania know that Hitler wasn’t all that much of a bad egg and Churchill started it all?

        Good luck with that!


      9. Dermitius ……. Actually no, if I’m wrong or accused you or anyone of something they are not, I’ll apologise or amend …. I am only going off your attack and claims regarding Churchill.

        You’ll find in life not everyone shares the same views or agree – and that creates debate, and in some cases anger and abuse (but I’ll leave that for you asteemed mate anon) He’ll like that spellwing misteak 🙂

        I simply have a differing view to yourself, no need to drag Mr angry into it, as I’d hoped he’d stalk elsewhere or better still get some form of help for his issues – but we’ll see and hope he behaves from now on. (don’t hold your breath)

        And on a final note – why have you ignored the fact I admit and AGREE that Churchill quite possibly was fully aware of acts that could be deemed as war crimes?

        I’ll say it again, to be very clear – I ADMIT and AGREE his conduct was not as we’d all want, but who in such a conflict acted perfectly?

        I think you are very naive to the fact it was a World War on a scale you or I can only imagine – however it appears (to me) that I am more logical and balanced in my thought process … irrespective of my spellwing and grammer 🙂

        Hope if you continue, you can engage in a civil and balanced manner – my mother always taught me that others my have a valid opinion too, and I may not always be right – I think a few on here need to think on in that respect!


      10. Dermitius: there is no doubt that Churchill was an appalling human being. But the minute you suggest that I read and take seriously a fascist holocaust denier like David Irving is the minute I stop paying attention to anything you might have to say.


      11. Roger, as usual you’ve ignored my actual points. Of course you complain that I ignore some of yours and that is true because some of them count for so little that they don’t merit a response. Thus you ask why I ignore your point that both you and Churchill were aware that some of his acts might be deemed war crimes. It never struck me as needing to be pointed out that awareness that others might deem you guilty does not constitute a defence against the charge that you are guilty! Similarly, the fact that it was a big bad war in no way goes to show that Churchill was not one of those responsible for it being a big bad war! You ignorance of the role of Churchill in directly engineering a major conflict with Germany is understandable if your knowledge of events does not go beyond what was served up in British schools and TV series such as Laurence Olivier’s World at War, though even in British schools the contribution of the iniquitous treaty of Versailles and the fact that much of Poland had been Germany before WWI would have got a mention. However that may be, your general approach to the matter would seem to be this. In a war there are the goodies and the baddies. The British could not be the baddies so they much be the goodies and, consequently, their opponents, the Germans, must be the baddies. I’ve tried, there, to put some structure on your thoughts. If so then the conclusions do follow from the premises but the premises are obviously false. Has it ever struck you that perhaps all parties to a given war might be guilty, and that pointing out the faults of one party does not constitute exonerating the others? As for the Jews and Romania, are you aware of Churchill’s vitriolic antisemitism and have you read Romania’s response to the British ultimatum of the 30th November 1941?


      12. @Richard. Is that because you have actually read anything by Irving or know what he actually claims or are you going by secondhand accounts? As a research historian of World War 2, he is widely regarded as having no equal even by those who most dislike what he says. Revisionist historians themselves are wary of him because he does not deny that the Germans murdered huge numbers of Jews, he just disagrees that it took place on the direct orders of Hitler and anywhere else than in the Aktion Reinhard camps. If you want to see the impact of his views then watch the latest series by Laurence Rees on the ‘Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler’. Having been brought up on Laurence Ree’s series I couldn’t at first understand why he was saying that the slaughter of the Jews was not directly ordered by Hitler but only indirectly suggested to creative subordinates. Reading Irving I now know why. Of course Irving is rabidly antisemitic now but then so was Churchill.


      13. @Dermitius I am not sure why you are starting with the insults, I can only assume it’s because you can’t debate in a mature manner and when someone who you deem a ‘fool’ or of lesser intellect than you, questions you – well I’ll make no apologies for that, to you or anyone on here, I’ll not be bullied, rest assured on that 🙂

        Now, back to what YOU said, and I’ll quote you again ……….

        ” direct responsibility for causing the war in the first place ”

        My apologies, I thought Hitler and his Nazi party were the main instigators of causing the war in the first place – I also was under the impression Chamberlin declared war on Germany, as they invaded Poland?

        I apologise on behalf of my history teacher and the false information Lawrence Olivier narrated.

        I genuinely wasn’t aware Churchill was ”directly responsible for causing the war in the first place” (your words, not mine)

        If you didn’t mean what you said, just be a man and say so!

        No need to be childish and rant on with abuse and how ‘thick’ I am etc etc …….. because it’s in black and white what YOU said.

        So I will ask you …… Was Churchill directly responsible for causing the war in the first place????

        Surely even the ones who hate me the most must be cringing at that ridiculous and sweeping statement about Churchill !

        Of course I know and fully admit all sides committed war crimes but I took issue with your one sided attack on Churchill and your lies that he was directly responsible for WWII, because he wasn’t!

        So come on, how can such a superior intellect as you be upstaged by a fool like me?



      14. Let’s not forget that Churchill was all for bombing the hell out of civilians in Iraq while he was SoDftC. Gas was also encouraged…


      15. Zero. ‘Neither left nor right but against the centre.’ That fourth way slogan has a lot to be said for it. I would rate communism above democratic liberalism but that is not setting the bar very high!


      16. ha right while both are gettin obsolete..
        give us a timeframe for the nwo implementation? we all know it will be communism with a twist..but when?


      17. @Richard,

        While I agree with you that no one deserves to be held above others just because of their bloodline I believe that the royals are placed in a specific framework, one that is different from the framework in which politicians are placed. I do not think it is “fair” of you to expect them to stand for election (like politicians do), because they (the royals and the politicians) fulfill different functions in a society/ play distinct roles.

        A royal house is a uniting institution for a nation, it is simply “there”, it´s not a new face every four years but provides consistency, moral leadership, can be a father/mother to a nation if you will.
        A constitutional monarch who represents all the millions of British people, no matter their politics, and is a successor to so many centuries of history, has a unifying power that a President/politician would find hard to achieve.

        I see a monarch as a symbol. A hereditary monarch represents a link to a nation’s past, a line that has continued through all a country has experienced. In modern times, it is symbol that represents a nation’s “roots” and identity, its historical greatness.
        When I see Prince Charles (who seems to be a very thoughtful, interested, dynamic, well spoken and highly competent individual, who no doubt has great plans for crown and country), I do not see only him- I also see Queen Elizabeth II, King George VI, King George V, King Edward VII, Queen Victoria and centuries of history. He cannot be separated from his predecessors.

        Today´s royal families ( I am talking about the European ones) have very little to no executive power anymore; their work is to represent and fulfill all the ceremonial needs a nation might have and maintain a strong bond with its history.They also have the capacity to devote their entire lives to helping and bringing attention to various causes. And as such I think they are an invaluable asset to any country that still is a monarchy. They have the ability to have an impact and touch people in a way that very few politicians can.

        I disagree with your comparing Prince Charles’ position with the one of the former King Simeon II of Bulgaria as their situation was/ has been very different. Prince Charles is the heir apparent to one of the oldest, strongest current monarchies, with about 1000 years ( if I am not mistaken) of history, continuity and tradition behind it while Simeon II is the head of a deposed royal family. I do not know much about Bulgaria’s politics but I assume the reason the former king Simeon II decided to go into politics was that he no longer had a country to rule. Had he been in Prince Charles’ place I very much doubt he would have chosen this path.

        I did not think I had a strong opinion on the matter but apparently I do. 🙂


      18. @PofYE some great points and well made as usual – you must smile at people likening the modern day Royals akin to their ‘dark ages’ relatives 🙂

        Anyone would think we still drowned witches and Charles has 8 wives 🙂

        Equality is important but I feel the Royal family offer more than just a symbol of our heritage and history – Prince William has probably saved more lives than anyone on this forum (doctors excluded) and yet he’s getting slated as useless to society !

        I suppose the internet attracts all sorts though!


      19. @Roger,

        Thank you for your recommendation but the cable company here does not have BBC 2 England on its list of channels. They have BBC Knowledge, BBC Entertainment, BBC News but they do not have BBC 2…

        And yes, It is true that I like this type of documentaries.
        May I say that you are an observant/ perceptive person yourself?! 😉


      20. @PofYE ssssssshhhhh Don’t say anything nice about me or that I am a level headed and decent bloke like many of us on here!

        I am a racist bigot who hates Romanians or in fact anyone, anywhere any place, anti democratic, abusive to women and anyone I don’t agree with, I can’t read or write properly, my spellwing and grammer is not fit for the internet, I can’t type a simple sentence, I am ‘thick’ and poorly educated and know nothing about anything! 😉

        Although I’d argue the more perceptive, decent, level headed and sane amongst us have a different view on me 😉

        On the documentary you may be able to search it elsewhere if you can get the BBC iplayer or sometimes stuff like that gets posted on You Tube – but watch before copyright removes it ! Alternatively maybe there is an ex-pat on here who knows something we don’t on how to get BBC 2 England in Romania?

        Don’t be seen being nice to me though, the vultures will be circling 🙂


      21. the vultures will be circling 🙂

        I cannot express in words how hard I laughed when I read the quoted sentence! 😀
        There couldn’t have been a more apt accurate description!
        I am still laughing!

        I will try to find the documentary somewhere else.


      22. ‘I am a racist bigot who hates Romanians or in fact anyone, anywhere any place, anti democratic, abusive to women and anyone I don’t agree with, I can’t read or write properly, my spellwing and grammer is not fit for the internet, I can’t type a simple sentence, I am ‘thick’ and poorly educated and know nothing about anything!’

        The most sensible thing you’ve ever said, and the most truthful.


      23. @anon

        I see you’re still unable to act like a mature adult even after numerous olive branches and you continue with your abuse and foul mouthed replies.

        What a class act your are, and your behaviour says a lot more about you, than it does me.

        It doesn’t matter how intelligent or superior you feel you are – until you act like a mature and respectful human being, your cries of criticism and false accusations about anyone you don’t like, your views will only be shared by the ignorant or fellow posters with a blind agenda.

        I thought once over the age of say 16, most people stopped attacking the individual, and instead took each view on its merit.

        You continue to prove you’re an unpleasant human being, and until your abuse stops, I don’t see how I can judge you any other way!


      24. @PofYE no problem and like I say search around the net and you may find a link to programme etc …… And yes, you’ll see a well known vulture and abuser of all comers has reared it’s head below/above (depending on where my comment ends up)


        **Those couple of smileys will really get them talking about our ‘flirting’ and rather angry too !


      25. @anon and now you’re struggling that much, you’ve had to resort to calling me the angry one 🙂

        The one major flaw in that though, I’m not the one angrily posting abusive posts and childish lies – you are, you even think women are fair game for abuse, which shows everyone what type of man you are.

        I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but you can get help for your issues.

        If your life is so devoid of happiness or a purpose, I was thinking ……. Do you reckon Craig might let you be his website spelling and grammar monitor ?

        I’m serious! Every single post can be sent to you and you can proof read and amend accordingly – that way it ensures this is a world first for a a chat forum – perfect spelling and grammar by every single user, and all thanks to Anon!

        @Craig Turp – can you employ Anon and do your bit for society and help someone in their hour of need?

        I am happy to provide plenty of posts for you to get your teeth into and corect alll speling and grammer misteaks, so don’t say I’m not sympathetic to your needs and it’s another olive branch I’m willing to offer.

        You could also ask Craig if he’s ban women and homosexuals from his site – but I think you’ll struggle with that one Anon – you’ll not won many friends with those sort of prehistoric views in 2015 !

        So my message is stay calm, and we’ll help you if you want it.


      26. Anon no, you’re wrong again, never claimed I wasn’t bothered or I wouldn’t reply to you, so your lies continue …….. As for being angry, well I won’t lie and claim that fools don’t frustrate me at times – but as for genuine anger ? The sort where I’d get annoyed about their spelling and grammar, or get so angry with their contrary view or how they type that I then abuse strangers on the internet including women.

        Well no, I’m definitely not angry on that scale – so as the anger stakes go, you’re well ahead on that score!

        Now take a deep breath and accept the advice of someone whose trying to help.

        So what about if Craig Turp makes you spelling and grammar monitor for each post – do you think that would help your condition?

        Genuine question above, please try and remain calm when you answer, as you did claim I was just a ‘idiot’ who you only toy with whilst you’re on a tram – so that must be one hell of a tram ride 🙂

        Unless it’s yet another of your lies exposed by this so called idiot 🙂

        Must be hard for someone whose claimed to be so intelligent to have a idiot run rings around you 🙂

        Have a nice day and I hope your keyboard or touch screen survives your no doubt angry reply!


      27. …never claimed I wasn’t bothered […] As for being angry, well I won’t lie and claim that fools don’t frustrate me at times

        It is a perfectly normal reaction for us (people in general) to get bothered, disappointed and saddened when we ran across certain types of negative behaviour and conduct which is so far away/different from our own.

        Considering what is happening on this website (by that I mean lousy mind games attempts- I am not Dr. Eric Berne but I am pretty sure that’s what they are) you have every right to be bothered. It is a perfectly understandable reaction.


      28. @PofYE

        It’s a shame though as the behaviour by the likes of him can ruin the often good debate on this site.

        His foul mouthed abuse and sexual slurs against women and homosexuals leads me to the undoubted conclusion he’s not a pleasant individual at all, or at the very least he has ‘issues’ in his life, that make him act in this manner.

        I must admit that my OWN behaviour is not perfect and I’ve allowed myself to be drawn into it, on occasions BUT I can’t abide bullies and people who naturally assume they are a superior human being, because they can spell better, or think someone else is thick … added to his childish abuse and anger when he’s challenged.

        Lets hope he is mature and articulate enough to sit back and reflect on his behaviour and amend it – but I seriously doubt he has it in him to do this.

        We will see.

        I’d fully expect some form of crude remark about me and you ‘flirting’ or something equally as childish along those lines.

        One thing is for sure, I’ll not be bullied from here by anyone, and I think that might well be what makes him and his followers so angry, perhaps?

        It’s ironic with all his accusations of being illiterate, thick, stupid, simple etc etc etc …… That so often he and his followers make the such weak arguments and resort to abuse and childish behaviour as their first form of defence!

        Hardly the acts of superior intellectual types is it:)


      29. @Roger,

        You and I flirting? How could we?!
        I do not even agree with some of your political views and you are not a fan of the royals to the same extent I am. 😉

        The only thing in common we might have are the grammar mistakes. 😀 ( I have just spotted my using the wrong tense of “run” in my previous comment. Oops!)


      30. “A royal house is a uniting institution for a nation, it is simply “there”, it´s not a new face every four years but provides consistency, moral leadership, can be a father/mother to a nation if you will.”

        Sorry, but an adulterer who fantasises about being a tampon in use by another man’s wife has no right to try and give me any moral leadership. Any more than a woman convicted of organising dog fights does giving moral leadership to the people of Romania.


      31. @Richard well that’s a classy reply and analogy, great moral leadership to be admired by us all …

        However I am sure the majority wouldn’t be so weak willed or naive to allow Charles views or opinion lead me on my morals or views at all – so on that basis I am not sure why you let his views (if you disagree with them) bother you so much?

        Oh and do you know ANY reason why he’s such an anti-christ as Craig’s articles say – I mean why can’t anyone explain why Prince Charles is deserving of such attacks?

        I am sure others are more deserving of criticism?

        Ponta, Becali and many other corrupt politicians and so called business leaders etc ?

        Or is it just Prince Charles who is to blame for all of Romania’s problems?

        I can’t as yet find anything deserving of such hatred by the conveniently missing article writer.


      32. It’s not an analogy, Roger. I was told that Royal Houses offer moral leadership. I responded with factual instances showing that that argument is invalid. Strictly literal. No need for analogies. And it’s not my job to be classy.

        With Ponta, the simple fact is that he sought the highest office in the land and the people said “nu”. Which is exactly as it should be. When do I get my say when Charles seeks to assume the highest position in the land? I’m not seeking to imprison him, just to keep him away from the levers of power until such time as he puts together a coherent platform of policies and receives a popular, fixed-term mandate to enact them. What is so unreasonable about that?

        As for what Charles has been up to in Romania I was out with friends in bucharest last night but I forgot to ask them. I’ll try to remember when I see them again.

        Craig is probably best placed to answer the question but his twitter feed suggests he’s otherwise engaged right now.


      33. @Richard,
        Since you have brought into discussion an aspect of his private life, I would say that a man who has loved ONE woman (a woman he could not marry in his youth only because his family wouldn’t allow it) his entire life can/could give moral leadership.
        It might sound old-fashioned but in his case it is true.

        After you mentioned it, I had to search the conversation and I found a transcript. First time I briefly heard about it was many years ago.

        It was a VERY intimate conversation that should never have been made public.
        It was not something that the general public really needed to know, was it? Did it contain anything related to the affairs of the country? Did it have a negative impact on people’s lives? Was knowing about this conversation useful to them in any way?

        I would rather question the morality of those who thought it “right” to reveal the conversation to the whole world. To me, invading someone’s privacy to this extent/level is a gross abhorrent behaviour.
        There is a line between one’s public role and his private life and it should not be crossed.

        You mentioned the world “adulterer”. Technically he was, but I also believe that the context in which some things happen is VERY important. If the marriage had been a happy one maybe the intimate conversation wouldn’t have taken place. Like Roger said- like us they (the royals) are only human.


      34. @PofYE

        Not sure of your circumstances but if you can get BBC2 England on Thursday of this week, an interesting programme called ”reinventing the royals” is on at 21.00 for an hour.

        Looks right up your street !


      35. This is acutely frustrating – I have numerous comments stuck, pending moderation, so several points look un-responded-to, when in fact my responses are in limbo.

        Also my phone is acting up and I can’t copy & paste.

        In brief though, he can give moral guidance because he went against an intolerable interference in his life by his family who wouldn’t let him marry who he chose? Fair enough, they sound awful. Trouble is that’s the same family that you hold up as our moral teachers and exemplars.

        You can’t have it both ways, you know.

        Anyway, I’m off to Harghita, where I’ll be 100% offline for several days now so I’ll have to leave it there for now. Which is a shame.


      1. Monarchy in the UK is so far removed from the dark ages though, so if you’re speaking about the UK’s monarchy, your views aren’t correct, it’s nothing like the dark ages anymore – we don’t be-head people in the UK or throw them in the Tower for quite some time now 🙂

        However of course things evolve and sometimes need reform, including our Royal family – but with the new blood of the youngsters lead by their admirable grandmother (QEII) … I think moving forward we’ve not a bad bunch, if they continue in similar vein to now.

        Lets take Prince William, I wonder how many of the critics have saved as many lives as he has?

        He was a RAF rescue pilot and HAS saved REAL lives whilst putting his at risk, and not just ‘playing at it’ … The Queen has done wonders for relations and ties throughout her reign and the manner in which some of the younger ones act is refreshing and makes them feel almost ‘normal’ and ‘in touch’ with the general population as much as they can.

        NOW before the ones who attack the poster and not the points – of course more reform is needed but I’m not sure we should rid the UK of the Royals altogether – how many of the visitors to the UK or people already here enjoy having a pic taken outside Buckingham Palace, the tower of London, Kensington Palace, enjoy the jubilee celebrations, Royal weddings ETC ETC ……. Hypocrites are we ? 😉

        Anyway that’s all slightly off topic !

        I’m STILL waiting for anyone ???? To show how Prince Charles is the heinous evil dictator and staunch vile and corrupt anti Romanian ?

        What are you all waiting for ………… Where are the long list of Prince Charles crimes on society to Romanians ???????


      2. No, I was talking about monarchy in general. I doubt there’s any argument someone could make to convince me that leadership of a nation is something you can inherit. There’s something about it that just doesn’t click with me.

        Whether the UK the monarch has limited powers and he/she can’t have someone locked away in the Tower doesn’t make the idea of a hereditary monarchy any more legitimate to me, it just decreases the magnitude of problem.

        Basically I think Charlie has about as much a right to be head of state in the UK as I have to be crowned the King of Romania.


      3. It’s a good job Charlie doesn’t and never will lead the UK, neither does any other member of the Royal family either, so you’ve nothing to worry about in that respect.

        I also agree, it’s not very democratic is it, so you have my agreement on that.

        Do I feel the UK royal family serve a purpose, yes, to some degree, and of course to some like yourself not at all – but it’s not likely to change radically until QEII passes away, in my opinion.

        I think the ‘new breed’ of Royals, may well see the most radical overhaul in recent years and eventually (decades most likely) the phasing out of the Royal family or at least the funding by the UK taxpayer cease or dramatically reduce.

        Conversely a lot of British and indeed other nationalities love the Queen, Buckingham Palace, William and the quirky side of our heritage, so maybe the anti Royals need to accept their view too?

        Or at least understand it, and not go into a tirade of abuse about it **which I don’t see you do Giuseppe, but others clearly allow debate or a contrary view anger them so much.


      4. @Roger. If you think willy the woofter ever did a days work with the air force, then you’re very much mistaken pal! Willy, like his father and grandfather, uncles etc like nothing better to pass the time by sticking their tools up young boys bums.


      5. @Rearguard Do NOT get me wrong here … I am no way saying William or any others you mention work 40 hours a week and know a hard days graft, of course not !

        But I’m pretty sure if we believe the pictures on TV and the reports from some of the people he rescued, that Prince William did fly and rescue people in the Sea King Helicopter and in turn risked his own life whilst doing so … That was my only point, and it was made to disprove the ones who think he’s an absolute waster in life, when the reality is, he’s probably saved more lives in his privileged upbringing than anyone else who posts on here, unless we have a raft of life savers on Bucharest Life?

        As for people’s sexual orientation, that’s their business, but I was pretty sure Prince William had a wife called Kate and a child too?

        So not so sure about what you insinuate, but I presume you have proof to the contrary, and if so, my apologies for assuming Prince William was straight.


      6. @Rearguard and please don’t take the ump, my views aren’t really aimed at you so much, more so the ones who think William is a useless human being, when I’d argue he’s probably more worthwhile than those who slate him, and almost certainly a nicer bloke, who’s probably alright to have a beer with, especially if he brings his younger brother!

        I reckon these two are as close to normal as they can be !

        Some of the others have a dodgy track record I agree, but William and Harry don’t seem half as bad as some make out.

        Just my opinion, doesn’t make me right, but it’s my opinion and unless I see evidence to prove otherwise, I’m sticking to it.

        Much like I’ve not seen a shred of evidence to prove Charlie is as bad as Craig Turp and others say, in relation to ROMANIA that is – not a shred !

        **apart from Craig doesn’t think he spends his money on the right things in Romania.

        I look forward to visiting Craig and telling him where he should spend his own money in Romania, but not sure he’d like some of his own medicine 😉

        Some of the higher intellects of Buc Life need to engage their superior brains more often, as idiots like me will pull their weak opinion to pieces 🙂


      7. It’s illegitimate at best and downright despotic at worst.


        The European kings and queens now reign with the consent of the governed. They remain on the throne by tradition and popular consent.
        For example, the deep symbolism which is present during the State Opening of The British Parliament, through its 500 years old traditions, is utterly illustrative of everyone’s place in the constitution and it clearly shows that the monarchy is not as “despotic” as you might think.

        While some people might see the State Opening of the Parliament as an old-fashioned piece of theatre, it is certainly much more than that.
        Beyond the formality, the stunning ceremony and pageantry, it shows a constitutional compromise which allows the monarch to sit on the throne and an elected government to rule.

        The State Opening of The Parliament is not a celebration of royal power- instead it shows the unifying role the monarch plays and her relationship with the Houses of the Parliament.
        The Queen reading the speech-which is written by the Prime Minister- is very symbolic of how the Constitution works and the fact that for legislation to be passed it has to have the agreement of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and of the sovereign, for bills to become legislation.

        When the Queen opens the Parliament she sits on her throne in the House of Lords but the real power is in the House of Commons. Through her messenger (The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod), the Queen summons the commons to the House of Lords but it is those very commons that she has summoned who by the wish of the Government have required her to read the speech.
        As the Queen’s messenger approaches the House of Commons, the elected deliver their symbolic historic snub to the unelected by shutting/slamming the door in his face. This gesture has become symbolic of the independence of the Commons. The slamming of the door is to say: “We are the part of the Parliament elected by the people and we decide who comes in.”
        The Black Rod symbolises the balance of power not only between Parliament and the Queen but crucially between the elected House of Commons and the appointed House of Lords.He hits the door 3 times and after the door opens, he tells the MPs that the Queen requested their presence in the House of Peers and then he leads the elected MPs through to the chamber of unelected lords.
        The commons shamble along from the House of Commons’ chamber making a huge noise indicating that “for all your grandeur and for all your pomp in the House of Lords, we are the people who make the noise and we are the people who matter”.
        After they arrive and stand at the bar of the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Government, hands the speech to the Queen.


      8. A monarch who doesn’t rule by might or divine right is hardly worthy of the name, any others are just expensive tourist attractions. Real monarchy is an alternative to democracy not a supplement to it. The proper attitude of any self-respecting monarch to the people, consenting or otherwise, is ‘off with their heads’!


      9. That’s a very interesting point regarding tourism … I wonder how many from here would take great pleasure of pics outside The various Palaces or Tower of London, etc etc etc ?

        And I wonder how much money (if could be estimated) do the UK Royal family generate for the economy and provide jobs etc?

        YES I agree or feel they need reform, regarding status, funding etc BUT to get rid completely ?

        Not sure I agree or see a valid reason for that.

        Exactly may same view on immigration actually ….. Stop immigration altogether – hell NO ! We need it !


        Reform immigration and control it – hell YES !

        So you see you can balanced about most things, the Royal family included.

        No need for ridiculous statements such as ill judged claims Churchill was responsible for World War 2 (just as an example) 🙂

        Have a nice weekend all !


      10. @Roger, how degrading for any royal family to be praised for being good value for money! That’s the sort of justification that would appeal to those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

        As for Churchill, I see there’s a timely piece about him here.

        In regards to WW2, the charges against Churchill, in addition to being a mass murderer, are:

        (I) He was the chief drum-beater agitating for war with Germany following his funding by the zionist Focus group in 1936. Hitler never wanted a war with Britain and admired and wanted to preserve the British Empire intact.

        (II) He had an opportunity to conclude a peace treaty on terms very favourable to the British Empire in 1940 and again in 1941, but did not do so, thus prolonging the European conflict unnecessarily with dire results.

        (III) He colluded with Roosevelt to back the Japanese into a corner in order to bring the US into the war against Hitler by the back door, since American public opinion was decidedly against it. Thus he turned what had been a local European war into a world war. It is even quite likely that he did the dirty on Roosevelt because the British had broken the Japanese Naval code JN-25 and had a good idea that Pearl Harbour was going to be attacked. Of course Roosevelt preferred Stalin to Churchill and thought the latter was a drunken bum! I’m willing to overlook his fondness for the bottle, however, since being a mass murdered is far more significant. I’m still unable to fathom, however, on what grounds you are willing to overlook his war crimes. Is it because he was British despite being the son of an immigrant mother?


      11. how degrading for any royal family to be praised for being good value for money! That’s the sort of justification that would appeal to those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing


        There was nothing degrading toward the BRF in the question I asked Roger- it is a known fact that the royal family/ The Queen needs funding to support her work as HEAD of STATE and the money is needed to enable her to carry out her official duties- so do not try to make it look/seem like it was.
        That is how you chose to interpret it.
        I have said only positive things about the British Royal Family in my comments but you conveniently ignored this aspect. That is a very “fair” attitude on your part!

        Also, you have no idea of what I value so you should not make assumptions- you are not some kind of omniscient God, are you? You like to believe about yourself that you are, but you are not.
        Since we are making assumptions, would it be fair on my part to say that you did not seem like one to follow the herd but the herd mentality present amongst a few readers of this blog is starting to affect you and that more uprightness would be needed?

        It was you who brought into discussion the monetary value of the monarchy by referring to the royals as “expensive tourist attractions”, therefore do not come now with this holier-than-thou attitude and preach me about “the price of everything and the value of nothing”, as it is obvious that you are not qualified for it.
        Your calling them “expensive tourist attraction” is indeed degrading.

        Maybe I should have put the expression “good value” between quotation marks but it did not cross my mind that you would interpret the expression in such a malicious way.
        But in retrospect, I should not be surprised by this behaviour…

        You always seem to put so much emphasis on arguments but then you resort to cheap tricks such as veiled personal attacks…you have lowered the debate standards that you, yourself set and that is quite disappointing.


      12. @PotE,
        Derm was not preaching to you about the ‘Price of everything and the value of nothing’, he was replying to Roger; to claim otherwise is just plain dishonest and makes your shifting of the discussion away from the points he’s made to his ‘attitude’ little more than a distraction.
        Maybe you should address his rather valid claim that
        ‘Real monarchy is an alternative to democracy not a supplement to it.’
        Instead of attacking him.


      13. @Prisoner of your eyes. What a tirade! Since my post does not even mention you and is explicitly directed at Roger, and since I had not even seen yours when I posted mine you have shot yourself in the foot by accusing me of a personal attack on you! It looks like, while I may not be omniscient, I did have some foresight about the kind of things that some people would post! Not that one needs to have any great acumen to do that. Defences of the royal family in financial terms are ten-a-penny whenever the topic comes up. So in this instance it is actually you who have lowered yourself by indulging in a personal attack. For my own part I find that it quite suffices to concentrate one’s fire on the foolish things that people say rather than on the fools that say them; one can often kill two birds with one stone!


      14. Derm was not preaching to you about the ‘Price of everything and the value of nothing’, he was replying to Roger; to claim otherwise is just plain dishonest and makes your shifting of the discussion away from the points he’s made to his ‘attitude’ little more than a distraction.

        Well… he did both (preaching me and replying to Roger) in the same comment.
        What you have failed to grasp/see was that in his reply to Roger, Dermitius thought it fair to insert a veiled attack aimed at me.

        In the excerpt I quoted from his reply to Roger it was obvious Dermitius was alluding to me since it was I who had mentioned the “good value”, and not Roger.
        If you read carefully, Roger himself says that he never wrote these words. And it is true because I was the one who wrote them.

        No, I did not shift the discussion. I only answered to his attack- which was his assuming that I knew “the price of everything and the value of nothing”.
        Could I have been that wrong and maybe it was not directed/aimed at me? Hmm…I might have. I even thought that maybe I misunderstood Dermitius ( I admit that this type of misunderstandings might happen) but I somehow doubt it.

        That is all I will say regarding this issue. I shall not continue because I already addressed the issue in my reply to Dermitius and I really believe this blog does not need more negative vibes than it already has.


      15. @PofYE

        It’s pretty clear that Dermituius gets it wrong and was clearly attacking you as he quoted YOUR exact words and wrongly aimed them at me (quite amusing in some ways)

        He’s then inherited another abusive observer whose jumped on his bandwagon and got it equally as wrong!

        I notice you like me concede faults at times – do you notice the likes of Dermitius and the abusive one NEVER EVER concede that they got anything wrong ???

        That tells me and anyone observing all we need to know!

        I’ll step back now as no matter what I say or prove, these types will wriggle, lie and abuse their way out of it – I hope if you don’t agree or defend me again, they’ll pick another target, as it’s pretty clear you run rings around them perfectly well on your own – even if running rings isn’t your intention – just fair, balanced and mature debate !

        I am almost certain the abusive one is a lost cause, but maybe Derm has it in him to be fair and humble?

        We will see.

        Chin up kid and have a nice weekend !


      16. @Prisoner of your Eyes. You are mistaken. I would have been only too pleased to have replied directly to your post if I had seen it, since it perfectly illustrated the point I wished to respond to. What on earth makes you think I would not want to reply to you directly? Do you see some pattern in my posts of replying to posts other than those I am concerned with? As for the words ‘value for money’, that is simply a common turn of phrase and an adequate summary of two paragraphs of Roger’s which I had already seen. They are not even in quotation marks. If you look at the timings of the posts it may well indicate to you that I was writing mine as you were writing yours. So given your vehemence I can only conclude that you feel your post is effectively undermined by the point I was making, which indeed it is, and I have no problem saying it directly to you!


      17. @Roger, your last posts simply confirm the points I have just made! Merely repeating yourself until people are tired of responding may well earn you the last word but it will not add one iota of force to your arguments.

        For some reason you seem to think I am being evasive. So I am perfectly willing to repeat for you that I do indeed think Churchill was directly responsible for World War 2. Unlike you, however, I do not confuse direct and sole responsibility. Direct responsibility can be attributed to someone when something is the result of their own intentions and actions. Sole responsibility can be attributed when nobody else has any direct responsibility. So do I think Churchill was solely responsible? No, I do not. Others, such as Hiter, Stalin and Tojo were also directly responsible. Do I think he was chiefly responsible? No, I think that honour goes to Stalin because I have read and agree with Viktor Suvorov’s well known ‘The Chief Culprit’. Have you? But I do think that Churchill was directly responsible because he wanted a world war, led the British charge for one and I do not think that there would have been a world war without him. Nor would it have been so terrible if he had stayed in the wilderness where he belonged. Is that clear enough?

        Would you like me to write your next post for you?


      18. @Derm

        Your childish quip at the end and prolonged abuse makes also proves my points clearly.

        I would suggest you need to research the definition and use the English language better, as do I at times too!

        You said Churchill was ”directly responsible” for causing World War II …. Well he wasn’t even the Prime Minister who declared war, nor were your use of the words ”directly responsible” correct or appropriate.

        I would suggest the vast majority of people would assume ”directly responsible” meant ”directly responsible?”

        It’s not criminal to be humble, and admit you could have worded it better – and I wonder why someone who keeps insinuating how much better they are than me, can’t be as humble as I am, and admit when I got it wrong!

        You can be as evasive or try and wriggle as much as you like(like you’ve tried with PofYE) the fact remains you used a statement which was wrong.

        Call me names, stupid, broken record etc etc as much as you like, the fact remains you made a naive statement and this idiot noticed, and you don’t like it one bit.

        Have a nice weekend and perhaps brush up on the correct use of words, for your future postings or attacks on anything UK related 🙂


      19. @Derm

        No you clearly were having a pop at PofYE and you used her phrase exactly – so stop wriggling and be a man and admit you’re wrong.

        As for your made up ‘value for money’ quip.

        Well I’ve never once said that, so you are lying to insinuate I did, or simply you struggle to read and understand people’s wording, and make your own assumptions of what they meant.

        I think we have a classic case of ”someone is telling me I am wrong on the internet rage” by you and your abusive mate.

        My advice is simple, there isn’t a human alive whose not made a mistake – you and your abusive sidekick included.

        Sorry to speak the truth, but nobody is perfect Derm and you really ought to understand that simple concept, if you’re as more informed in life as you try and make out.

        From where I’m standing, you come across as a ”I’m always right type” and that’s not really a pleasant trait in life – but you do get all sorts on the internet, so no real surprises here.

        Try and stay fair and balanced, and accept criticism or faults without anger or bias, but we will see.

        My bet is you’ll not react well to meaningful advice, lets see if you prove me absolutely spot on, on this occasion at least !


      20. @Rearguard

        Quite right old chap !

        WWII was nothing to do with good old Adolf and his Nazi party, they weren’t in anyway responsible for WWII – it was that ”fat Brit” Churchill and his racist country who were ”directly responsible” for WWII ……….. The history books are all wrong and we’ve been enlightened to the error of our ways by a angry bloke on Bucharest Life 🙂


      21. And I wonder how much money (if could be estimated) do the UK Royal family generate for the economy and provide jobs etc?
        YES I agree or feel they need reform, regarding status, funding etc BUT to get rid completely ?

        @Roger, how much does the British taxpayer pay (approximately) for the Royal Family, per year?
        Is the amount of money the right one (in your opinion)? Should it be smaller? Should it be bigger?

        I would genuinely like to know because I am under the impression that, whatever the amount might be, it is good value, especially if we think about the work the Queen has put into strengthening your country’s diplomatic relations/ties with other countries, for more than half a century. Actually, I think this aspect of her work is priceless…

        A nice weekend to you too!


      22. @PofYE

        Actually in answer to your question regarding tax, I don’t know the exact answer, but this website will help

        I haven’t got time just now to look in depth, but I am not overly concerned of a small contribution from my earnings, towards an institution which many hold dear to their hearts and heritage, along with all the other benefits, some of which you’ve mentioned, such as the diplomatic one, and of course tourism … You just know the most critical on here would pose outside Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London, Queens guard etc etc etc etc given half a chance, some probably already have! Hypocrites might be an apt description 🙂

        As said, I am sure reform can be made, perhaps in this austerity and hopefully evermore democratic society, reform can be made, but to abolish our Royal Family, why on earth would, or should we do that?


      23. @Dermitius ?

        What on earth are you going on about, I mean really ?

        Let me be VERY clear for you, as you appear to be unable to digest simple and clear views (and please be fair and calm about this, don’t let your personal anger take control of your senses, as you’ll look silly)

        OK so point one, I have never written the Royal family are ” good value for money ” (so lie number one by you)

        Having said that, I do believe our Royal Family do offer values, above and beyond the point of money, if some of our taxes fund them, the diplomatic, heritage and tourism generated is a welcome outcome of this, and not sure why it’s so degrading as you claim – please explain?

        Point two ……… Now this is the one I am at a loss to your thoughts ?

        I have NEVER EVER claimed Churchill was not a war criminal ?????????

        In fact I even AGREED he was, as were pretty much ALL sides !!!!

        So why are you lying, as it’s in clear black and white what I’ve typed, so if you lie like this, for a so called higher intellect than me – well you’ve just made a fool of yourself, with your lies ?

        So once again, to be clear as my words on this screen, I AGREE Churchill was the leader when war crimes were committed, I’ve seen the moving memorial in Dresden with my own eyes – so please don’t do as others have and LIE about me, to turn more against me, thank you.

        Oh and finally, are you still angry as I chose to disagree with this claim of yours, which all can see in black and white below and above …..

        YOU CLAIMED …… ”direct responsibility for causing the war in the first place ”

        You claimed Churchill was ” directly responsible for World War 2 ”


        Do you know concede how ridiculous that lie is?

        I’d say many factors caused WW2 but to pin it solely on a man who wasn’t even Prime Minister when the Chamberlin declared war on Germany, and you blame Churchill ???

        LOL as the kids say 🙂

        Now please, please try and be mature, and accept you made a mistake, and refrain from making up childish lies and lets move on?

        I am not as stupid as some of you try and make out 😉

        And if you still want to peddle your assumptions about me – best make sure your opinions and statements are faultless !

        As this British idiot will have you for breakfast 😉


      24. Woger,
        Winning an argument or debate has little to do with convincing the other person, but rather the observers of the discussion.
        Declaring yourself the ‘winner’ shows a complete lack of self-awareness.
        It would seem that the only person who ever agrees with you is your pet sycophant; everyone else thinks you’re a cretin.


      25. @Roger, I’m afraid you are sounding like a broken record, stuck in the same place and endlessly repeating the same thing. Your knowledge of history seems to be have remained fairly static since your schooldays. You appear to be unaware of the social and political factors that control what gets taught about the past in any given society or, if you are aware, think that somehow it might happen elsewhere, like the Soviet Union, but couldn’t happen in Britain. Hence you have no interest in the very real debate that has developed among serious historians about the complicity of Churchill in engineering global war. Even though it was peripheral to my main point about Churchill being among the worst war criminals – do you now concede that? – I have provided you with references to books, videos and articles that discuss the matter and outline the sort of man he was. You, however, show no interest in investigating the matter further, and certainly provide no references of your own that might illuminate the debate, but rather try to distract people with bellyaching about people calling you ‘thick’ or claiming themselves to be ‘superior intellects’. I would like you to point to those posts where I have made claims about our relative IQs. I think you will find that I have not since it is entirely unnecessary.


      26. @Dermitius

        Right this is getting silly now, and I am seriously at a loss to what is your problem with me and what I’ve said?

        Ignoring the abusive bully whose had a post removed on here by Craig (and rightly so) Can you please tell me what your personal problem with me is?

        I said from the very start Churchill committed war crimes, so what EXACTLY do you want me to concede, as I appear to have already done as you ‘wish’ from the start ? Sorry to be childish a little here myself, but I know people keep telling me how poor my language is, but how can I be any clearer than I already have?

        I realise what’s happening here, you tried to have a ‘pop’ at me, and your attacked wasn’t as fool proof as you thought, I pointed that out and now you’ll ignore your mistake 😉

        So if I am wrong about that – will you concede this statement you made was wrong…..

        Churchill was ”directly responsible for causing the war in the first place”

        (your words, not mine)

        Churchill was NOT directly responsible for causing World War II …….. wriggle and evade as much as you like, this statement by you is wrong !

        All I have done is point this out and you don’t like it, not one bit.

        So if you are what you claim, and I am now a ‘broken record’ I have to ask myself why are you being so defensive, attacking me and ignoring your clear mistake.

        I can only assume by your behaviour your ego has taken a hit, the man the small group like to mock and bully has pointed out a mistake you!

        If you ever want to have a balanced and mature debate in the future, you’ll have to understand that sometimes your views will be challenged and you’re not always right, you DO write some good stuff, as does occasionally the abusive friend of yours – but you both seem unable to accept or concede that sometimes you’re wrong, or people like me may have a fair point on occasions!

        So to be clear again (3rd or 4th time now and I’ll keep playing this record until you admit you got it wrong)

        1. I have NEVER denied Churchill committed war crimes, NEVER, so you are lying if you continue to claim otherwise.

        2. You claimed Churchill was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for starting World War II.

        I wonder why nobody as yet has agreed and provided proof that Churchill was directly responsible for starting WWII yet ????

        Perhaps a BIG clue was that he wasn’t even Prime Minister at the time lol !

        You may be critical and attack my ‘school child’ history – but it’s better than yours on the basis of who was directly responsible for WWII – as your claim proves !

        I realise you’re probably too far down the ‘Lets all attack ‘woger’ road already – but it’s not going to make your attacks any more valid or believed, when you keep making lies to back up your agenda!’ (not with the many sensible and fair posters and readers on here anyway)

        I HOPE, you can be mature enough to admit you were wrong, and I had a fair point in making you aware of this, and lets stop your childish attacks on someone you keep making assumptions about.

        We will see, how you behave and if you’ve got it in you – at this time I seriously have my doubts 😦


      27. @PofYE

        I’m sorry but my opinion that you agreeing with something I’ve said would mean the vultures would attack you appear to have come true.

        You’re a GOOD poster on here and it’s a shame these ‘men’ have decided to attack you based predominately because you dared to ‘defend me’ on perhaps one or two occasions.

        They aren’t pleasant people, that’s clear how they behave on here and certainly towards women – which isn’t a surprise so much, just disappointing. Craig must have removed a particular vulgar attack from Anon on this thread, and I’m glad you didn’t have to read it, but I guess it shows what we are dealing with on here.

        I can’t tell anyone what to do but I feel you may be best distancing yourself from my opinions, even if you agree – as you’ll be attacked from these ‘fair and balanced adults’ due to association.

        I think Craig will continue to delete the most abusive posts, as his son, and all ages and walks of life read this forum, but the attempted stalking and bullying will probably continue, if you agree or defend me in the future.

        This is the world of the internet I’m afraid, these types are probably the sort to resort to violence in reality when they meet someone who disagrees with them – having said that they could equally be cowards, who get some sort of ‘kick’ out of stalking and bullying strangers on the internet?

        Either way – I’m glad I’m not that kinda person, irrespective of what some try and claim !

        And finally, you don’t need my help anyway – you do a pretty good job of running rings around them anyway 🙂

        That’s what makes them so angry, as I keep finding out 🙂


      28. @Derm

        I also notice you have also failed to acknowledge and admit I’ve never denied Churchill was a war criminal, never !

        So again are you too much of a cowardly type to admit you made a mistake or indeed peddled lies about me to make a failed point ?

        Come on, show us all a post where I deny he is a war criminal ???

        What are you stalling for ?

        In fact I’ll help you once again, by saying for the 4th or 5th time – I AGREE and already have AGREED with you that Churchill was a war criminal along with many others – I’ve been to Dresden and that’s just ONE example of what I agree with you on!

        I just can’t agree he was ”directly responsible” as he wasn’t in the correct definition of those words – he wasn’t even the man who declared war – that was a man called Neville Chamberlin, I learned that from Laurence Olivier and his World at War series 😉

        It’s easy to see how you are confused though, one had facial hair and about 10 stone, the other usually had a cigar in his chops and was probably in excess of 20 stone ……… So easy mistake for you to make 🙂


      29. @Roger, of course you didn’t deny that Churchill was a war criminal, you simply said:

        “Dermitius as UK bashing goes – labeling Churchill as war criminal is textbook”

        It was obvious from those words – from someone who is as concerned for the precise meaning of words as you are – that you were commending me for providing the correct textbook description of Churchill’s wartime behaviour. After all, we know that you are not against ‘UK bashing’.

        As for the rest of what you say, it is as predictable as predicted.

        I suggest you might like to look over your previous posts. If you do so, you may notice that you respond to any one individual as if he or she were responsible for every piece of criticism that anyone has ever directed at you. Hence they reek of a persecution and inferiority complex. Rest assured if I were to genuinely insult and denigrate you, as opposed to criticising what you say and your manner of saying it, the upshot would be unmistakable and you would have no need to draw anybody’s attention to it. Perhaps that is your aim, as it obviously was with Anon.

        As for the rest, you are free to ignore any distinction not readily employed by the masses if you so wish, but you will not gain any insight that way. Perhaps you should consider things in a different fashion. I would be interested to know what facts about Churchill’s behaviour of which I was unaware were you trying to inform me about? Was it something I had not considered about his warmongering, his sources of finance, his dealings with Roosevelt, his knowledge of Japanese naval activities, his response to the peace overtures from Hitler? Or was it something else. Were you concerned that I had overlooked some sources and were trying to present a case that these things had been misconstrued or were you acting from a knee-jerk pro-Britain and her icons position?

        I’m also glad to know that you are telepathic and have a direct insight into my intentions with regard to another poster even though they would seem to be contradicted by my actual words and could not be guessed from any obvious motive. If I had known that you had direct access to my thoughts I would have let you post for me! I’m so transparent after all that there is no need to post on my own account. If I respond to an oft-repeated point made in a round about fashion by one person which is then repeated in stock terms by another, it is quite obvious that I must have really have been replying to the latter person all along. How foolish of me to think I could get away with that when people only appear to be making common remarks and are really putting forward astounding new arguments that could not have been guessed in advance!

        Since, however, debate is pointless unless someone will be convinced, be assured that I will no longer trouble you with difficult distinctions on this particular topic unless I hear something from you first which is really worth considering. Declare that a victory if you wish, others can judge as they will.


      30. @Derm

        That was some rant and I’ll be honest and say I didn’t read it all as it began to read exactly as I predicted, pretty pointless in reading until the end, in all fairness that is.

        It’s quite simple really – You told two lies and I questioned and corrected them.

        1. You lied and claimed Churchill was directly responsible for World War II – He wasn’t, many factors were.

        2. You lied and claimed I denied Churchill had committed war crimes – I didn’t, and continually agree he did.

        All you attacks and frustrations asides, those are the facts, and you can’t be mature enough to accept it.

        However no problem, but if you think I’ll be bullied into going away, think on son 😉

        *Although you should get the praise of your abusive mate, he loves this kinda stuff, he might even call me a monkey or some crass homophobic slur!

        And finally it does amuse me somewhat, how all the self claimed intellects on here, get their knickers in a twist over a ‘cretin’ like me – You’d have thought you were far to clever for that!

        I know you may argue the authenticity of WIKI, but I’ll have a 10 bob bet that they are correct on who declared was on Germany – and it wasn’t who you claimed was directly responsible, far from it 🙂

        Happy to help and have a nice remainder of your weekend!


      31. Woger,
        Let me make one thing entirely clear.

        I don’t call you a cretinous idiot because of you inability to form coherent sentences, nor your terrible use of ellipsis, lack of understanding of speech marks or piss poor spelling. Neither do I think you’re a cretinous idiot for supporting UKIP or because of your lack of education…

        I refer to you as a cretinous idiot simply because when quite clearly faced with an argument for which you have no answer, or something that actually requires some thoughtful input or a source, you instead decide to dance around like a monkey, throwing around baseless accusations and doing anything you can to avoid addressing the evidence or core of ones argument until they give up and stop posting, or just call you a cretinous idiot and be done with it.


      32. @Roger. Let me help your case – consider it a parting gift as far as this discussion goes. Why stop at accusing me of just two lies? Here’s another one you can credit to me. Chamberlain was not responsible for WW2, he did everything he could to prevent it which is why he was replaced in due course by the genuine warmonger Churchill. Yes Chamberlain did reluctantly declare war on Germany – I assume most people know that without having to confirm it by looking in Wikipedia – but that’s quite another thing from being responsible for world war! Now you can say ‘strike three – you’re out!’, as indeed I am.


      33. Anon

        You’re an abusive, unpleasant homophobic bully. Your posts have proved this, no real need for me to highlight it – Craig removed one of your most abusive ones the other day, so I imagine if you continue you’ll be banned.

        As for you getting so upset about someones spellwing and grammer – do you know how ridiculous and childish you sound? Even your new mate Derm doesn’t feel the need to act like such a baby, and perhaps your attitude makes you a tad racist, as I assume you’ll be attacking the pleasant Romanian’s on here, who may not write or type in a perfect manner, at all times. In fact a few of your posts contain mistakes, but would anyone be so childish as to point them out?

        Says it all really.


        You failed to deny your lie about claiming I denied Churchill was a war criminal ?

        You know you lied and I’ve caught you out – I can see this annoys you but the moral of the story is, don’t lie – be humble and admit your mistakes.

        On the Chamberlin thing, I fully agree, he did his best to avert war, but that’s you trying (and failing) to evade what you originally claimed.

        YOU claimed ”Churchill was directly responsible for starting World War II”

        That’s a lie and one from someone either very naive, ill educated in relation to WWII or someone with perhaps a anti UK agenda.

        I reckon it’s the third one, as you do seem intelligent in some respects, but in other ways you’re as ”stupid” as you insinuate and your new mate thinks I am.

        It’s rather amusing and ironic that for such a ”cretin, idiot, stupid person” etc etc …………. That all of you self proclaimed superior educated people, actually can read my views and keep responding to them !!!

        The irony and comedic value will no doubt be lost on the pair of you 🙂

        Churchill being directly responsible for WWII will tickle me for a long time, I’m sure the Jewish community and indeed many Romanian’s will be pleased you failed to mention Hitler and his disgusting Nazi party from any blame!


      34. ww2 had nuffink to do with Hitler, he was just a British agent doing as he was told. It was all down to the Rothchilds. They still have 2 more world wars in the pipeline.


      35. What are you dribbling on about now Roger? Craig has said time and time again that he deplores censorship and I sure as hell don’t notice any posts missing.
        Are you making things up again to deflect from having to actually address Derms arguments?
        Keep on dancing little monkey, you make me laugh.


      36. @Anon

        I’ve addressed all the relevant ‘arguments’ of Derm and he’s not impressed, much like when you sulk and get angry 🙂

        There was a crass sexual abusive post about me and PofYE by you, it’s been removed, so who removed it?

        I know Craig doesn’t like censorship so much, but I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate your abusive and crass attacks either – his son and others read this site, it’s not a bullies playground for unpleasant and angry middle aged men in a crisis, like you to spout your hatred as your life is so unhappy.

        That’s how you come across anyway, a angry little man, who resorts to abuse when he’s made to look silly 🙂


      37. @Anon

        Monitor all of your posts ?

        No, never said that, you’re lying again son 😉

        I read them, well at least the first few rants, if it’s a long one, I usually don’t bother finishing it all.

        You’ve posted a few crass and abusive posts recently, and it shows me you’re an unpleasant man, you also seem childish and angry.

        I can only judge you on the way you behave, and as I don’t abuse people, make lewd remarks, bully women, slurs against homosexuals etc etc ………… Well it shows me and others who the unpleasant one is, and I’m assuming due to your age, it’s some form of mid life crisis, or you have no love in your life?

        I’m gonna guess it’s both, almost a certainty 😉


  6. In brief though, he can give moral guidance because he went against an intolerable interference in his life by his family who wouldn’t let him marry who he chose?

    What I said was that he could give moral leadership because he loved only one woman his entire life. I see nothing immoral about it.

    that’s the same family that you hold up as our moral teachers and exemplars.

    I do not know what immoral deeds Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip have done during QE’s long reign…
    Having said that, I would like to make something clear, Richard: I have never stated that the monarchs have always been examples of morality at all times, throughout the history. ( I am not talking only about the British ones.)
    I am pretty sure you know just as well as I do that there have always been people with undignified/ unseemly behavior so it would be foolish on my part to claim otherwise.


    1. To be honest, I don’t want moral guidance from anyone, be it a royal, a religious leader or a politician. Morality is individual: there is no global, all-encompassing moral code we should follow. Indeed, I think that history has demonstrated time and time again that when one group of people attempt to impose their morals on others, you end up with fascism.


      1. I know some people who could do with a bit of moral guidance. Wouldn’t suggest Prince Charles for the job though as he is clearly bonkers. His sense of entitlement and belief in the social order that will keep the poor poor for ever is hardly surprising. Why anyone would listen to is much more so.


      2. So you don’t think then that it is an objective truth that fascism is wrong, it’s just something that you have personally decided you don’t like? If someone were to decide differently then, while you might dislike their decision, you don’t think they would be any more wrong than you since there are no global objective moral truths? Does that also hold for the immorality of carpet-bombing, torture and rape?


      3. Moral guidance is ONLY if you allow yourself to be guided, so if you don’t allow yourself to be swayed – then what’s the problem?

        It’s like moaning everytime there is an advert on tele you don’t like, you don’t have to buy the product, just ignore it !

        Is that simple concept REALLY that hard to grasp for the educated elite on here?


      4. @Craig Turp

        Have you any links, proof, or in fact anything that backs up your claims for why Prince Charles is deserving of such criticism for his activities in Romania?

        I am struggling to find anything myself and whilst I am more than happy to be shown otherwise, I can’t as yet find a single thing?

        Which considering your frequent attacks, I assumed they’d be a raft of evidence to back your attacks up?

        Thanks in advance.


      5. @Craig Turp,
        First of all, I apologize for unintentionally placing my previous comment at the top of the “Comments” section. I was replying to Richard so my reply should have been down thread.

        Of course every person decides for himself/herself what behaviour wants to adopt (in private and in public). Nowhere did I say that individuals should faithfully/blindly follow/ the behaviour of a royal, religious leader or politician.


      6. Agree with that and I’m of the same view … There are millions of people who try and impose their views on people, and to an extent we are all doing that in every post we type!

        But PofYE nails it when stating ”every person decides for himself/herself what behaviour wants to adopt”

        I can’t see anyone saying anyone should faithfully/blindly follow anyone?

        I thought some of you were self proclaimed intellects and better than the ”likes of me” – so why do you all keep getting basic things so wrong?


Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s