Prince Charles

Claret Toni · Post by **Claret Toni** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:14 pm

I see the other Royal Claret has tested positive for COVID 19 and is self isolating.

As with all people so infected, I wish him a speedy and full recovery. I do wonder, however, how he'll manage to run his own bath water at the desired temperature and squeeze his own toothpaste. Still we all, in our different ways, have our crosses to bear.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:32 pm

Claret Toni wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:14 pm
I see the other Royal Claret has tested positive for COVID 19 and is self isolating.

As with all people so infected, I wish him a speedy and full recovery. I do wonder, however, how he'll manage to run his own bath water at the desired temperature and squeeze his own toothpaste. Still we all, in our different ways, have our crosses to bear.

I think the palace can sort the bath water..... run it hotter than usual, just hot enough so it will cool back to the prince's desired temperature after the "royal bath filler" has withdrawn to at least 2 metres.

Tooth paste - well that will be harder if it's required to sit on the royal tooth brush before the prince brushes his teeth.

I wonder, what does he do for flossing? Who has that job?

Suratclaret · Post by **Suratclaret** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:38 pm

Earlier this week didn't Nicola Sturgeon say that people shouldn't move to second homes Scotland to self isolate?

ClaretMov · Post by **ClaretMov** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:37 pm

Prince Charles is isolating with COVID - 19

Prince Andrew is isolating with Amy - 14

Claretitus · Post by **Claretitus** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:51 pm

Prince Charles-"well, the test results are in"
Camilla-"what, Harry isn't yours"?
I'll get me coat.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:54 pm

ClaretMov wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:37 pm
Prince Charles is isolating with COVID - 19

Prince Andrew is isolating with Amy - 14

Brilliant.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:25 pm

One is a Claret. One wishes him well.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:02 pm

Brilliant if ClaretMov had put Amy-17. 14 is going into territory that should be roundly condemned. Hell of a difference between 17 and 14 in a country where the age of sexual consent is 16.

ClaretMov · Post by **ClaretMov** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:51 am

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:02 pm
Brilliant if ClaretMov had put Amy-17. 14 is going into territory that should be roundly condemned. Hell of a difference between 17 and 14 in a country where the age of sexual consent is 16.

You do know Amy isn't real.......

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:53 am

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:02 pm
Brilliant if ClaretMov had put Amy-17. 14 is going into territory that should be roundly condemned. Hell of a difference between 17 and 14 in a country where the age of sexual consent is 16.

Even better had he put Co-Ed 16.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:51 am

ClaretMov, you do know Prince Andrew is real?

Prince Charles is isolating with COVID-19
ClaretMov is isolating with Amy-11.

ClaretMov · Post by **ClaretMov** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:19 am

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:51 am
ClaretMov, you do know Prince Andrew is real?

Prince Charles is isolating with COVID-19
ClaretMov is isolating with Amy-11.

You do know the story behind Prince Andrew ???????

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:47 pm

Hi ClaretMov, yes, or I think I do.
I take it you are referring to his association with the American, whose name escapes me for the moment, Jeremy Epstein I think. Then there is the testimony from a woman who now lives in Australia now with her family. She has spoken of a time when she was a ‘sex slave’ of Epstein and of the time where she was expected to sleep with P Andrew at the age of 17. There is a photograph of the two of them together. Again at the time of the photograph and the party, she was 17. Personally I think that 17 would have made me smile and think, funny. 14 I don’t find funny at all. Don’t worry, it’s all down to personal tastes I suppose.

Claret Toni · Post by **Claret Toni** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:38 pm

Somewhat disappointing, to me, that this thread has moved this way, but it has, so I'll put my slant on it.

Prince Andrew has been accused of having slept with an American female in the USA when she was 17, and under the US age of consent, when in the US. The FBI have issued statements to the effect that Prince has not helped them in their enquiries.

Prince Andrew has issued public denials, which included his TV interview. In that Prince Andrew expressed his gratitude about the introductions his former friend Jeffrey Epstein made for him but failed to show any empathy towards the former alleged victims of Epstein. In view of the public backlash at this lack of empathy Prince Andrew stepped back from public life.

Epstein is a convicted sex offender. Prince Andrew is not; he's just pompous, entitled and not very bright.

Personally I'd be more than happy, if this returned to how Prince Charles, who, although far from flawless (like us all) is very unlike his brother, was struggling on in isolation with the Duchess of Cornwall - like how does that work, in isolation his wife?

Zlatan · Post by **Zlatan** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:44 pm

Even at the age of 17 some would argue that Prince Andrew or any other middle aged bloke would be wrong to bed a 17 year old. Those same people who would moan are likely the same type who’d egg on a mate to grope a stripper or sleep with a prostitute on a weekend break in Amsterdam and think nothing of it.

It’s because it’s Prince Andrew and because he’s a bit dim

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:47 pm

Zlatan wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:44 pm
Even at the age of 17 some would argue that Prince Andrew or any other middle aged bloke would be wrong to bed a 17 year old. Those same people who would moan are likely the same type who’d egg on a mate to grope a stripper or sleep with a prostitute on a weekend break in Amsterdam and think nothing of it.

It’s because it’s Prince Andrew and because he’s a bit dim

That's a fantastic generalisation, Zlatan

Hendrickxz · Post by **Hendrickxz** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:56 pm

I didn't know until the other day that Prince Charles lives at Birkhall when in Scotland. I suppose I should have guessed...

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:57 pm

Hi Toni, as I understand it, Charles and Camilla might be in the same building but in separate parts of the building, allowing Charles to be ‘in isolation’.
So Zlatan, if 17 is naughty enough, you might agree with me, that there is no need to change 17 to 14. That’s another story altogether.

Zlatan · Post by **Zlatan** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:01 pm

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:57 pm
Hi Toni, as I understand it, Charles and Camilla might be in the same building but in separate parts of the building, allowing Charles to be ‘in isolation’.
So Zlatan, if 17 is naughty enough, you might agree with me, that there is no need to change 17 to 14. That’s another story altogether.

17 is legal, 14 is not

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:05 pm

I guess that’s your way of saying you agree with me then. Lol

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:28 pm

Come on, it was only a joke.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:43 pm

Do people honestly believe that Charlie boy has the virus. Have we heard anything about the people around him who have since exhibited similar symptoms. I haven't I wonder why not!. As you would expect some of those who have understandably been in close contact with PM Johnson have now been found to have contracted the virus.

With regard to the paedophile Andrew he was I believe 40 or 41 when 'that' picture was taken. A disgusting individual. My wife informs me that Charles and Camilla now live more or less separate lives.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:46 pm

You can't blame them.

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:49 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:46 pm
You can't blame them.

Camilla lives in the stables.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:51 pm

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:31 pm

Corky wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:43 pm
Do people honestly believe that Charlie boy has the virus. Have we heard anything about the people around him who have since exhibited similar symptoms. I haven't I wonder why not!.

My guess would be because you aren't a royal doctor.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:34 pm

conyoviejo wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:49 pm
Camilla lives in the stables.

that's brought a smile, thanks

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:01 pm

Corky proving that he doesn’t understand the word paedophile. Someone having sex with a 17 year old is the opposite of a paedophile. Sounds like, by your definition, you most likely know a lot of paedophiles.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:03 am

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:01 pm
Corky proving that he doesn’t understand the word paedophile. Someone having sex with a 17 year old is the opposite of a paedophile. Sounds like, by your definition, you most likely know a lot of paedophiles.

In one of your posts above you say it is all down to personal taste. Frankly I do not think you have any. I like to think that my moral compass is pretty sound, yours on the other hand seems incredibly twisted. In fact I would suggest that you are a classic misogynist who puts little value on women.

And with regard to me potentially knowing a lot of paedophiles, please don't judge me through the prism of your eyes. You may mix and associate with middle aged men who think that sex trafficking is OK and that having sex with barely legal girls is perfectly acceptable BUT fortunately I don't.

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:49 am

Charles was across a table from the Prince of Monaco (Albert) in London and he was the first to get it. It is assumed that Charles got it at the meeting

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:45 am

conyoviejo wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:49 pm
Camilla lives in the stables.

Didn’t know she was a Rovers fan

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:01 pm

Corky, no need to resort to personal insults. I did not say or suggest that you mix or associate with any paedophiles. I only said that if you think that a 40 year old having sex with a 17 year old constitutes paedophilic, then you must know a lot of paedophiles. Just as I must know a lot of paedophiles by that definition. Although that would not be something either of us would be aware of, probably.
There are a lot of people who have had consensual sexual relations with partners under 16 who are still not paedophiles, but they are sexual offenders.
However morally reprehensible Andrew might be to many, there is nothing to justify the label of paedophile and as a fair minded human being I would expect you not to hang that label on him as easily as you choose to do. Is 40 middle aged. I don’t know where middle age starts as well as you do.
You can’t measure ‘barely’ legal. It is either legal or illegal. In this country 15 is illegal, 16 is legal, 17 is legal, 18 is legal and 19 is legal. Before midday on a 16th birthday might be considered barely legal. Surely 365 + days can’t be considered barely legal.
Misogynistic is something I’ve never been accused of before, so I don’t even have to look back at anything that you may choose to misinterpret.
However you might be seen to be saying that a 17 year old (female in this case) does not have the freedom to have sexual contact with anyone of their choosing and should be limited to your ‘moral age appropriate limits’.
I do hope that you have googled paedophilia so that you know when it is appropriate to use the term in future. Hoping that no-one in your family is ever unfairly labelled in any way whatsoever.

Also please note that I have not resorted to any disrespectful or offensive accusations or insults towards you. I expect the same respect in return as I I am sure that is something we are both capable of.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:23 am

I think you need to stop fixating on my family and friends and sort out your own first or at least distance yourself from all those you suspect might be a bit dodgy. And while you are at it, wouldn't it cleanse your soul if you stopped number crunching and actually showed some compassion for these poor girls.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:33 am

Corky wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:03 am
In one of your posts above you say it is all down to personal taste. Frankly I do not think you have any. I like to think that my moral compass is pretty sound, yours on the other hand seems incredibly twisted. In fact I would suggest that you are a classic misogynist who puts little value on women.

And with regard to me potentially knowing a lot of paedophiles, please don't judge me through the prism of your eyes. You may mix and associate with middle aged men who think that sex trafficking is OK and that having sex with barely legal girls is perfectly acceptable BUT fortunately I don't.

Got to agree...The stringfellow types of this world make me cringe.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:04 pm

Corky, you certainly know how to twist things. Yes I did say that ‘it’s all down to personal tastes I suppose’. That was not to do with P Andrew and a 17 year old. What I do say is that any female aged 16 or 26 or 36 or 46 or 56 or any age you choose from 16 upwards is free to have sexual partners of any age from 16 upwards without anyone judging them negatively. Likewise any male 16 or upwards is free to have similar non restrictions on the ages of sex partners. This is only in response to you saying that in your opinion I am a misogynist. You are completely free to believe that you should only choose sexual partners within a narrower age range. That is your choice. It does not mean that you are right to say that people should only operate within your boundaries. I respect people’s choice, provided they stay within legal limits.

Now my comment about ‘it being a matter of taste I suppose’ was about ClaretMov’s joke ‘Amy - 14’. My taste said that I didn’t find it funny, some did.
Maybe you should read my post at 9.02pm Fri 27th before you say that I have a twisted moral compass. Maybe reading the whole of the thread might be advisable, as I’m sure you would agree it is always better to get things in context before negatively judging someone.
ClaretMov, Zlatan, Boatshed Bill and others know what I was commenting on, as well as the too easy use of the word paedophile these days when it should be sex offender and too many people not knowing or caring about the difference.
What I said previously did not fixate on your family, so I will rephrase as you cannot understand what I meant. There are a lot of people who are not as hung up on age differentials as you might believe. I sometimes might cringe but I still believe that people should be free to make personal choices without my or other people’s judgements provided they stay within the law. Again you fall into the trap of personal insults. I do not knowingly consort with the types you insinuate that I do. I said that neither of us would know unless you know about everyone’s thoughts on such subjects. I certainly don’t know the thoughts of everyone that I know.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:15 pm

tim_noone, maybe you should also read all my posts on the thread before jumping to the wrong conclusions and choosing to jump on a bandwagon of insults. I would expect a neutral to add balance to an argument not further distort it.

ClaretMov must be having a right chuckle, lol. I’ve got to say Mov, I should have just let it lie, shouldn’t I. Serves me right.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:44 pm

Good news, Charlie Boy is now out of isolation and feeling well.

LeadBelly · Post by **LeadBelly** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:49 pm

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:44 pm
Good news, Charlie Boy is now out of isolation and feeling well.

It is good news. For us 70+ year olds, it shows that you can get CV and survive without having a major problem.
Good luck to him, he's presumably immune now (for some unknown period at least) & can go about more freely.

Claret Toni · Post by **Claret Toni** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:54 pm

Returning to the Subject matter it is, of course, good news to read he's recovered.

..and it is perhaps timely to wish all other vulnerable septuagenarian's well and, if infected, a speedy recovery.

Wonder if he'll be volunteering to help out the NHS?

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:07 pm

No doubt he’ll do a guest walkthrough at a hospital near to him somewhere soon and good luck to him and all future survivors. Commiserations to all those families who lose someone during these difficult times.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:08 pm

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:15 pm
tim_noone, maybe you should also read all my posts on the thread before jumping to the wrong conclusions and choosing to jump on a bandwagon of insults. I would expect a neutral to add balance to an argument not further distort it.

ClaretMov must be having a right chuckle, lol. I’ve got to say Mov, I should have just let it lie, shouldn’t I. Serves me right.

I havent concluded anything regards you...nor jumped on a bandwagon of insults. I just referenced an individual from history.... if that's ok? I'm sure at some stage of life and posting on here you will reference some individual who you like or dislike.... its human nature.isnt it?

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:18 pm

Remember guys ....

: FB_IMG_1585584822282.jpg (53.71 KiB) Viewed 1499 times

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:22 pm

True enough on your comments re Peter Stringfellow, but from what you quoted and then began with, ‘got to agree’ your comments seemed not only about Mr Stringfellow. Please pardon my obvious mistake.

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:45 pm

tim_noone wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:08 pm
I havent concluded anything regards you...nor jumped on a bandwagon of insults. I just referenced an individual from history.... if that's ok? I'm sure at some stage of life and posting on here you will reference some individual who you like or dislike.... its human nature.isnt it?

Careful Timothy

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:57 pm

Steve1956 wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:45 pm
Careful Timothy

Yes......I know

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:03 pm

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:22 pm
True enough on your comments re Peter Stringfellow, but from what you quoted and then began with, ‘got to agree’ your comments seemed not only about Mr Stringfellow. Please pardon my obvious mistake.

Correct they weren't only about mr stringfellow i mentioned his type. I do beg your pardon.alls good.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:54 pm

With me also Tim.