Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Queen is to hand over a substantial part of her public duties to Prince William to help him prepare for the day when he becomes King, according to a confidential document obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

Secret papers reveal that plans to ease the strain on the 83-year-old monarch and her 88-year-old husband, Prince Philip, are at an advanced stage.

The disclosures come despite months of denials from the Palace that the Queen was planning to step back from her official work in favour of her 27-year-old grandson.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0ZXz3ypQq

Shadow King - sounds like a character from Lord of the Rings.

2009 "Who Gives a Shit" Award nomination.

So does this mean Charles is F'ed?

andy7171 wrote:So does this mean Charles is F'ed?

its long been rumored that Charles would never be King, it makes much sense for the Queen to bypass him and make Prince William next in line as he is very popular with the people. Interestingly, if William were to become King over his father Prince Charles will not only be passed over as King but would lose his title as Prince of Wales which is reserved for the next in line to the throne and would be put aside until a King William had a son. (I remember talk previously that they may change the law so that if the eldest child of a monarch is a girl she would become monarch even if there is a male younger then her, I cant confirm that ever became law, if it did and a King William had a daughter then the title Prince of Wales would be decommissioned until a future monarch had a qualifying son.).

Prince Charles would then take on what is currently a secondary title and become HRH The Duke of Cornwall.

UNHWildCats wrote:

andy7171 wrote:So does this mean Charles is F'ed?

its long been rumored that Charles would never be King, it makes much sense for the Queen to bypass him and make Prince William next in line as he is very popular with the people. Interestingly, if William were to become King over his father Prince Charles will not only be passed over as King but would lose his title as Prince of Wales which is reserved for the next in line to the throne and would be put aside until a King William had a son. (I remember talk previously that they may change the law so that if the eldest child of a monarch is a girl she would become monarch even if there is a male younger then her, I cant confirm that ever became law, if it did and a King William had a daughter then the title Prince of Wales would be decommissioned until a future monarch had a qualifying son.).

Prince Charles would then take on what is currently a secondary title and become HRH The Duke of Cornwall.

Dude you know too much about this subject.

I totally hope Charles gets passed over.

UNHWildCats wrote:

andy7171 wrote:So does this mean Charles is F'ed?

its long been rumored that Charles would never be King, it makes much sense for the Queen to bypass him and make Prince William next in line as he is very popular with the people. Interestingly, if William were to become King over his father Prince Charles will not only be passed over as King but would lose his title as Prince of Wales which is reserved for the next in line to the throne and would be put aside until a King William had a son. (I remember talk previously that they may change the law so that if the eldest child of a monarch is a girl she would become monarch even if there is a male younger then her, I cant confirm that ever became law, if it did and a King William had a daughter then the title Prince of Wales would be decommissioned until a future monarch had a qualifying son.).

Prince Charles would then take on what is currently a secondary title and become HRH The Duke of Cornhole.

Travis, I am impressed with the depth of your knowledge! And I added a small FIFY that's appropriate for the British royal family.

Government quashed this bogus rumor today. There is NO "Shadow King" tr@sh going on in the Palace.

ya cause someone denying something has always made it not true. Maybe the report isnt true, but I wont totally rule it out just because its denied. Remember, Bill Clinton didnt have sexual relations with that woman.

Trying.........to............care.................NOPE!

Britain should remove these people from their pedestals, open up all the royal palaces to the public to generate revenue, and put these silver spoon sucking idiots out on the street. They're like tits on a bull - they serve no purpose whatsoever.

UNHWildCats wrote:ya cause someone denying something has always made it not true. Maybe the report isnt true, but I wont totally rule it out just because its denied. Remember, Bill Clinton didnt have sexual relations with that woman.

Hey T, D1b retired last week, you gotta update that signature.

ASUG8 wrote:Trying.........to............care.................NOPE!

Britain should remove these people from their pedestals, open up all the royal palaces to the public to generate revenue, and put these silver spoon sucking idiots out on the street. They're like tits on a bull - they serve no purpose whatsoever.

If you'll recall correctly, both of them served their country in the armed forces, and Harry was even deployed to Afghanistan. I agree that they serve no practical political purpose, but don't sell them short.

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Trying.........to............care.................NOPE!

Britain should remove these people from their pedestals, open up all the royal palaces to the public to generate revenue, and put these silver spoon sucking idiots out on the street. They're like tits on a bull - they serve no purpose whatsoever.

If you'll recall correctly, both of them served their country in the armed forces, and Harry was even deployed to Afghanistan. I agree that they serve no practical political purpose, but don't sell them short.

They all do - I also remember film crews following them around. It's great that they served, but doesn't make them any better than any of the other thousands in Britain who enlist.

ASUG8 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
If you'll recall correctly, both of them served their country in the armed forces, and Harry was even deployed to Afghanistan. I agree that they serve no practical political purpose, but don't sell them short.

They all do - I also remember film crews following them around. It's great that they served, but doesn't make them any better than any of the other thousands in Britain who enlist.

Film crews did not follow Harry around when he was deployed, in fact his deployment was embargoed until his return for security reasons and he had to be pulled early because some jackass reporter decided to publish where he was deployed to.

ASUG8 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
If you'll recall correctly, both of them served their country in the armed forces, and Harry was even deployed to Afghanistan. I agree that they serve no practical political purpose, but don't sell them short.

They all do - I also remember film crews following them around. It's great that they served, but doesn't make them any better than any of the other thousands in Britain who enlist.

Certainly makes them better then the people running our country recently.

UNHWildCats wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
They all do - I also remember film crews following them around. It's great that they served, but doesn't make them any better than any of the other thousands in Britain who enlist.

Certainly makes them better then the people running our country recently.

I hate to break it to you, but if Princes Chuck, Willie, and Harry pull 4 tours they won't be running Great Britain. As for here, I don't think it's necessarily a prereq, but it helps to have some perspective when you're deploying troops.