Buckingham Palace. Fact. A man brew spending half new eating 1_ wje. m_ rene, J_ ela while. He drank half a heme of wine heme bettr. ' itd! smattering,. Not only once, but twice. On the second tour he even sat down and talked to the queen. Since there was no law for doing so he was let free of charge. Buckingham Palace Fact A man brew spending half new eating 1_ wje m_ rene J_ ela while He drank a heme of wine bettr ' itd! smattering Not only once but twice On the second tour he even sat down and talked to queen Since there was no law for doing so let free charge
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (81)
[ 81 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
60 comments displayed.
#11 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +158
(02/08/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Not only once, but twice. On the second tour he even sat down and talked to the queen. Since there was no law for doing so he was let free of charge.
#14 to #11 - newsmyrna
Reply +6
(02/08/2013) [-]
England doesn't have a law against breaking and entering.
#16 to #14 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +15
(02/08/2013) [-]
England used to not have a law against breaking and entering Buckingham palace*

#17 to #16 - newsmyrna
Reply +4
(02/08/2013) [-]
Wow...that's pretty crazy, but I guess if no one has done a thing before there is no reason to make a law against that thing.
#18 to #17 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +7
(02/08/2013) [-]
The law was created shortly after his second visit, from what i recall it was the only incident of its type in history(except the pipe boy which was charged for theft rater than being there.)
#19 to #18 - newsmyrna
Reply +2
(02/08/2013) [-]
The pipe boy? I looked it up but couldn't find anything.
#20 to #19 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +5
(02/08/2013) [-]
There was this kid(12 or 14 years old i think) who lived 2 years inside the royal family palace. He was only discovered because the staff saw various food missing and sot marks on the places he had been(he was living in a pipe there after all). He was then sentenced to the tower.

I don't exactly remember the age but i think it was somewhere in 15-17 century.
#21 to #20 - newsmyrna
Reply +4
(02/08/2013) [-]
Sucks for him never mess with the Tudors, but if it was around the 17th I guess that would be the Stewarts or that point where Lord Oliver Cromwell took over.
#22 to #21 - felixjarl
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#24 to #22 - newsmyrna
Reply 0
(02/08/2013) [-]
I think you're thinking of a different person I'm talking about the one who served as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth from 1653-1658. He made the New Model Army and had King Charles I executed.
#31 to #24 - Furubatsu
Reply +1
(02/08/2013) [-]
Kinda weird how you respect Cromwell enough to call him Lord and protecctor but coming from an Irish family he was seen like the Hitler of the age.
#83 to #31 - newsmyrna
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
I'm not calling him Lord Protector out of a decision on my part that was his title.
#84 to #83 - Furubatsu
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
Yeah but most people I know (even thorough Engleshmen) just call him Cromwell
#85 to #84 - newsmyrna
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
Well there's your answer I'm not English I'm an American.
#87 to #85 - Furubatsu
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
I see
#25 to #24 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/08/2013) [-]
Mmm yes, the reason why i did delete my comment. But yes, possibly.
#73 to #16 - jjsh
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
There is a law against trespass, however its a tort law and so would have to be privately petitioned by the property owner, in this case the royal family.
#74 to #73 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/09/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I do think the Buckingham palace is stated as the property of the queen and county and thus is classified as public domain.
#77 to #74 - jjsh
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
Oh yes, right you are. Since 2007 according to wikipedia. The dude in question i believe was prosecuted for theft however, for the wine he drank whilst in the palace.
#78 to #77 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
He was but the queen decided to drop the charges.
#80 to #78 - jjsh
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
Haha turns out he was a bit on the mental side
#81 to #80 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
yes, he was just out from a mental hospital(6 months)
#55 to #14 - giblets
Reply +1
(02/08/2013) [-]
There's so many weird 'laws' in England, for instance, in Chester (where I live) it's technically legal to kill a Welshman inside the City walls after midnight with an arrow (although you'd still be breaking common law).

And it is also technically illegal to have gay sex with more than one person at a time, but you would never be convicted because of the European Court Of Human Rights
#57 to #55 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +4
(02/08/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Those laws were all abolished after a incident where a Scottish man was killed on a open street and the killer was left free due to a medieval law.
#58 to #57 - giblets
Reply +2
(02/08/2013) [-]
The laws themselves were not repealed, but more they clash with common law, and the Human Rights Act, so you'd still be convicted.

I think don't hurt me if I'm wrong
#61 to #58 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +2
(02/08/2013) [-]
This image has expired
A old law stated that you could kill any sottish man wearing a bow in a particular city without punishment.

So a guy was dressed up as braveheart in that town and got gunned down by modern guns by a lunatic who was aware of this law.

They were all abolished after that particular incident.

#63 to #61 - giblets
Reply +1
(02/08/2013) [-]
The one to do with killing a Welshman was a bye-law that was kept in place to drive the Welsh to Wales, and was kept in place by several monarchs.

But it's had no real implications for hundreds of years so I don't think they'd waste parliamentary time repealing it.
#64 to #63 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +2
(02/08/2013) [-]
Guy was killed

Of course they did take time!
#65 to #64 - giblets
Reply +1
(02/08/2013) [-]
Different law though, and that guy wouldn't have gotten off!

You might be right, but most the time Parliament has more pressing concerns.
I'm too tired to be arsed to look it up, so I'll just say you're right.
#66 to #65 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +2
(02/08/2013) [-]
They did abolish lots of old laws including the one you speak of.

It is the law abolishment in history who holds the record of the least opposition.
#67 to #66 - giblets
Reply +1
(02/08/2013) [-]
You're probably right.

I just like the idea of Chester having a weird law, we don't have much :(
#69 to #67 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +2
(02/08/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Yea i see your point. Sorry to break your spirits mate.
#70 to #69 - giblets
Reply +1
(02/08/2013) [-]
It's fine. I thumbed you up none the less.
#1 - skardox
Reply +29
(02/08/2013) [-]
proof?
#2 to #1 - kapane
Reply +5
(02/08/2013) [-]
It was me
#4 to #2 - niklamacz
Reply +5
(02/08/2013) [-]
proof?
#5 to #4 - kapane
Reply +126
(02/08/2013) [-]
#72 to #5 - kanpai
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
i'm sorry i've ever doubted you.
#15 to #5 - andrewhannaford [OP]
Reply -20
(02/08/2013) [-]
Your wrong, it's me.
#79 to #15 - bjartur
Reply +1
(02/09/2013) [-]
You're*

Jesus.
#82 to #79 - andrewhannaford [OP]
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
I try to be funny and everyone bashes on me, cool. -_-
#86 to #82 - bjartur
Reply 0
(02/09/2013) [-]
Just stop, that was awful.
#23 to #15 - tomainstream
Reply -13
(02/08/2013) [-]
im not wrong im tomainstream
#8 - markowuzhere
Reply +54
(02/08/2013) [-]
you forgot to mention that he visited the queen in her 'private chambers'
#9 to #8 - turbodoosh
Reply +27
(02/08/2013) [-]
gigitty
#37 - Exterwinator
Reply +44
(02/08/2013) [-]
meanwhile on the other side of Buckingham Palace...
#51 to #37 - anon
Reply 0
(02/08/2013) [-]
"Getting real tired of your ****, master Wayne"
#59 to #51 - kustomforce
Reply +4
(02/08/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#27 - hkd
Reply +25
(02/08/2013) [-]
Wan't there some psycho a while back that went and sat on the Queen's bed whilst she was sleeping? She woke up, talked to the man and then he was taken away...
#43 to #27 - theshadowed
Reply -2
(02/08/2013) [-]
That was in WW2
#28 to #27 - ImaTumor
Reply +4
(02/08/2013) [-]
I think that was the same guy.
#29 to #27 - midget gang bang
Reply +4
(02/08/2013) [-]
I think it was the same man but a different time
#42 - jldragon
Reply +23
(02/08/2013) [-]
But did you know that the Titanic hit an iceburg and sank?
#44 to #42 - departed
Reply -5
(02/08/2013) [-]
Wat is tittytanic?
#46 to #44 - diegotan
Reply +14
(02/08/2013) [-]
#35 - emmyizme
Reply +15
(02/08/2013) [-]
Doesn't that make the security protocol ******* useless?
Doesn't that make the security protocol ******* useless?
#26 - Kirbyman
Reply +9
(02/08/2013) [-]
That's my boy.
That's my boy.
#10 - madeyegubbins
Reply +7
(02/08/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#32 - ibleedbmx
Reply +5
(02/08/2013) [-]