|
27 Nov 17 - 12:23 PM (#3890727) Subject: Andy and Meghan From: Big Al Whittle What wonderful news! Another royal wedding! I think its really wizard of these people to reign over us. In fact I have just done a shit the size of a large vegetable marrow in sheer excitement. |
|
27 Nov 17 - 12:25 PM (#3890728) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: Big Al Whittle sorry should be in BS. but it was PRETTY exciting for a monarchist like me.... |
|
27 Nov 17 - 12:31 PM (#3890729) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: Snuffy I don't think Harry would be too chuffed at Uncle Andy muscling in on the action! :-) |
|
27 Nov 17 - 01:08 PM (#3890730) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: DMcG I noticed the BBC had a link saying 'Not an ordinary royal wedding' - and to be fair it is in many ways. But I await a future "Pretty ordinary royal wedding, really" |
|
27 Nov 17 - 01:31 PM (#3890732) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker oh.. so it's not just another bland upper middle class public school folk duo... |
|
27 Nov 17 - 01:50 PM (#3890734) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: The Sandman Andy and Meghan, are they members of this forum? |
|
27 Nov 17 - 02:31 PM (#3890739) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: Dave Hanson I'm sick to death of hearing about it already, the BBC six o'clock news was the Harry and Meghan shoe FFS. Dave H |
|
27 Nov 17 - 02:41 PM (#3890743) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: keberoxu Moderators, should the thread title be called into question? The poster who originally titled the thread uses no proper names in the post itself, only in the title. So the OP itself is little help. There seems to be some confusion about the fiancé / potential groom. If "Andy" was intended, wasn't he married to Sarah Ferguson "Fergie"? If "Harry" was intended, then "Andy" is mistaken. Could you please look at this? |
|
27 Nov 17 - 05:35 PM (#3890776) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: Big Al Whittle Accuracy would not help matters... Harry....Andy....what the hell! A right gang of bumholes. |
|
27 Nov 17 - 05:37 PM (#3890777) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Is she the one he was filmed giving a damn good rogering to from behind at that party or was that someone else? |
|
27 Nov 17 - 07:25 PM (#3890800) Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan From: Donuel There are American right wing news shows that are making a big deal that Meagan isn't really white. They are sort of calling her a mud blood. |
|
27 Nov 17 - 07:57 PM (#3890805) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Joe Offer Yeah, I suppose it's a good idea to clarify the thread title. After all, we are not a supermarket checkout counter, where all the magazines refer to celebrities by their first names and I can never figure out who they're talking about. Kinda makes you wonder where Big Al hangs out. Wikipedia says nothing about Meghan Markle having anything to do with a man named Andrew, so one could wonder what Al knows that the rest of the world doesn't. Now, Wikipedia says that Alan Whittle is a retired English footballer born in 1950, so a person could get all in a tizzy about that, too. But come to think of it, anything that can make us forget about Donald Trump for even a few minutes, is good enough for me. -Joe Offer- |
|
27 Nov 17 - 08:46 PM (#3890812) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Many a true word spoken in jest, Joe. This whole charade will be used by the establishment for months to demonstrate how we still rule the world apropos of our true-Brit royals (basically Gemano-Greek, actually, but hey) and to take our minds off the calamity of brexit. |
|
27 Nov 17 - 08:54 PM (#3890813) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Joe Offer Yeah, Steve, but what about Al Whittle? Is he a conspiracy theory, too? ;-) -Joe- |
|
28 Nov 17 - 04:00 AM (#3890839) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford For the benefit of non Brits reading this, these bitter old men are not at all representative of public opinion here. Most of us are delighted with the match. I wish them well. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 04:11 AM (#3890841) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Mr Red Now, while we can question how far down the regal tree we have to slide before this warrants a big yawn but may I remind you what not having a Royal Family does for a country. 1) Hollywood and all that is going on and coming out there. 2) The sheer cost of a presidential race, not to mention election. And what has that found as the bestest solution in the whole wide world? You can twat on about the cost of the Royals in a thinly disguised belief system (AKA religion) but financially Brittain can't afford a president. And as we are finding out right now, elections (referenda) cost a helluva lot more than a million tin boxes with slits on top. We can't get rid of Gove fer gawd's sake. Megan Markle is committed to causes and already uses what celebrity she has to espouse them. She will undoubtedly continue to be concerned over issues and make us aware. Markle will sparkle. There are plusses in this. (to those without blinkers). |
|
28 Nov 17 - 04:30 AM (#3890844) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Steve and Backwoodsman, what is wrong in asking if two people agree on something? Why is it so hard to reply? I am sure I have been asked if I agree with something someone else has posted. Steve was adamant that although he referred to leavers as "Plebs" he did not mean it. BWM calls them "feeble-minded" and stands by it. You both usually argue from the same position so it is reasonable to ask if you agree on that. So, do you? |
|
28 Nov 17 - 04:33 AM (#3890846) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Sorry, wrong thread! |
|
28 Nov 17 - 05:33 AM (#3890856) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: SPB-Cooperator Another royal birth and wedding in the pipeline - well that should give the government latitude to further wreck this country without too much media attention. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 05:42 AM (#3890859) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Oh dear. Nothing but gloom and negativity however happy the occasion. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 06:23 AM (#3890868) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Stu The last royal wedding cost us around £30 million (a huge wodge of that on security), if a bank holiday is declared that costs the economy billions. That's a lot of money that could be better spent on people who are vulnerable or need assistance. Cladding tower blocks so poor brown people don't die horrible deaths for want a few grand for safe cladding for example. Good luck to the young couple, I've nothing against them personally but they can afford to pay for their own wedding like the rest of us. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 06:32 AM (#3890875) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Cladding housing blocks is a council expenditure. Security is a national burden. I would not see it withdrawn from anyone who is a target for murder. Lighten up. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 06:41 AM (#3890879) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Stu "Lighten up." Sod off. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-freeze-working-people-typical-family-300-real-terms-cut-inflation-a8079196.html |
|
28 Nov 17 - 06:49 AM (#3890883) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford So we can not be happy about anything unless everything else is perfect. Woe, woe and thrice woe! Save us from the gloom and misery of all these bitter old men. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 07:34 AM (#3890897) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Welcome to the brainless world of the Keith Acheson/Nicholas Witchell world of fawning royal sycophancy! |
|
28 Nov 17 - 08:00 AM (#3890906) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: gillymor You won't get much sympathy over here,Keith, we gave those royal parasites the heave-ho more than 2 centuries ago. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 08:27 AM (#3890910) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman It's giving the Daily Heil readers a problem, apparently |
|
28 Nov 17 - 08:35 AM (#3890914) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Have I ever said anything that could be remotely construed as fawning royal sycophancy? No. I am just happy that there is some wholesome and unadulterated good news about, as are most people here. Thank goodness all you miserable, moaning, gloom-mongers are not typical. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 08:38 AM (#3890915) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Dave the Gnome I am very happy for them. Just let them pay for their own wedding like everyone else instead of spending public money on it. I have a business plan for the royal family that I have expounded on a number of occasions and I think it would benefit us all. Let Disney run the franchise. It would make the country a fortune :-) DtG |
|
28 Nov 17 - 08:40 AM (#3890917) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Mrrzy I bet George VI is just sputtering with rage as he spins in his grave. If people hadn't been such twats back then he could have stayed not King. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 09:10 AM (#3890923) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: SPB-Cooperator Re: Cladding = So when is Central Government going to repay Local Government the funding cuts so that the cost of cladding doesn't come out of other local authority budgets? |
|
28 Nov 17 - 09:15 AM (#3890924) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Re last royal wedding, "Most realistic estimates place the final cost for the wedding around 12 million pounds, all of which will be covered by private funds. However, the state may have to pay a hefty sum to cover public services like increased police presence for security and traffic detail." https://lifestyle.howstuffworks.com/weddings/planning/royal-weddings/who-pays-for-royal-wedding.htm |
|
28 Nov 17 - 09:37 AM (#3890929) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Wholesome? He's an immature young man who allowed himself to be videoed bollock naked during a society pissup giving a young woman a standing-up one from behind. Well, I suppose it feels wholesome while you're doing it. It's been a long time... |
|
28 Nov 17 - 10:02 AM (#3890937) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Dave the Gnome It's a bloomin' sight more wholesome that sticking your todger in a dead pig. :D tG |
|
28 Nov 17 - 10:48 AM (#3890946) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Vashta Nerada He grew up in the glare of publicity. He seems to be grown up now. The wedding of his older brother was paid for by the family and was a private affair, even though it was of interest and publicized. One expects the same thing will happen here, no state wedding for the fourth, almost fifth in line to the throne. We can do that math, even from here across the pond. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 11:59 AM (#3890966) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Grr! I'll try that one again. They haven't got any of their own money in any moral sense. It's all ours. We pay for all of them all the time. All stolen from us Brits and those Johnny Foreigners who used to live in those countries painted red. A cracker from today's Daily Mash, which God preserve: THE royal wedding is incredibly exciting, according to all the wealthy white people in the Cheltenham branch of Waitrose. 'Comfortable' housewife who has a massive kitchen table Mary Fisher said: "We'll probably have a semi-ironic street party with bunting and high quality cold meats, from a local organic farm run by someone my husband knows from London. "It'll be lovely, we don't often see the neighbours because our street is all large, really nice detached houses with lots of space between them." Fellow rich attractive woman who keeps falling for online scams Emma Bradford added: "I can't wait to stand on the street waving a very small Union Jack around my head next Spring. "I hope they have kids because that'll be an excuse for me to talk about choosing private schools in a subtly boastful manner. Because 'our two' are currently at a very good school." However Donna Sheridan, who sells the Big Issue outside the supermarket, said: "Is he the one who dressed up as a Nazi that time?" |
|
28 Nov 17 - 11:59 AM (#3890967) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Sod it. Nearly got it! |
|
28 Nov 17 - 12:02 PM (#3890968) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman ROTFLMAO! Where are those 'laughing so much I'm crying' emojis when you nee half a dozen? |
|
28 Nov 17 - 12:26 PM (#3890976) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw There's a question mark hanging over them... |
|
28 Nov 17 - 04:42 PM (#3891017) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: keberoxu Many thanks, Joe Offer. Appreciate you taking it seriously. Ah, the royal family ... and those Archdukes of Saxe, Gotha, and Altenberg, from which branch Prince Albert blossomed, and who eventually renamed themselves Windsor. My ongoing labor of love away from the Mudcat is research into the lyrics of the German Lied, especially eighteenth and nineteenth century. A hopping time, with the likes of Goethe holding forth, the Napoleonic wars, the uprisings in 1848 ... and wouldn't you know, some of those Archdukes were dilettante artistes themselves. Take Prince Albert's big brother Archduke Ernst. So help me, he composed an opera, and managed to pull enough strings to have this up-and-coming establishment called the Metropolitan Opera in faraway New York City stage a production. I think the subject was the goddess Diana (whoa! premonition?) The music critic for the New York Times got out his meat cleaver and disposed of the Archduke's music with a few well-aimed whacks. Ah, but then there is Ernst and Albert's grandfather August Emil Ludwig, I think it was, also an Archduke. Poetry and prose were his thing. When he died at an early age, all the press turned out for his funeral and interment. Much was made of the four-part mixed choral setting of one of his poems that was sung at the graveside. (composer was F. H. Himmel) While the poet Archduke did father a daughter in his first marriage, who would be the mother of Ernst and Albert, he was also an enthusiastic transvestite whose idealization of Arcadia of the classical Greeks inspired him to dress up, not as a shepherd, but as a nymph in diaphanous draperies. (what can you say) |
|
28 Nov 17 - 04:54 PM (#3891020) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw "...inspired him to dress up, not as a shepherd, but as a nymph in diaphanous draperies." I wonder what inspired inspired our 'arry to dress up as a Nazi, then? |
|
28 Nov 17 - 05:15 PM (#3891025) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Well, Joe, they say that they attract tourists. I say they do no such thing. You'd all pile into our lovely country anyway. A weak pound does a damn sight more to get you lot in! |
|
28 Nov 17 - 05:15 PM (#3891026) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: keberoxu Apologies, that should be Archduke August Emil Leopold. Funny you should mention the Third Reich in passing. The Archduke whose name I just corrected was on the most cordial terms with Napoleon, while the other German-speaking duchies and kingdoms were rallying against the latter. |
|
28 Nov 17 - 05:44 PM (#3891028) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw The 20 most popular UK attractions, 2016 (source: Daily Telegraph) British Museum - 6.42m National Gallery - 6.26m Tate Modern - 5.84m Natural History Museum - 4.62m Southbank Centre - 3.9m Somerset House - 3.44m Science Museum - 3.24m V&A Museum - 3.02m Tower of London - 2.74m Royal Museums Greenwich - 2.45m National Portrait Gallery - 1.95m Chester Zoo - 1.9m Kew Gardens - 1.83m Westminster Abbey - 1.82m National Museum of Scotland - 1.81m Edinburgh Castle - 1.78m Royal Albert Hall - 1.66m Scottish National Gallery - 1.54m St Paul’s Cathedral - 1.52m British Library - 1.5m Not what you'd call a significant royal input... |
|
28 Nov 17 - 05:53 PM (#3891029) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: DMcG Not recently, I grant you, but Albertopolis is well represented! |
|
28 Nov 17 - 06:23 PM (#3891032) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Well he died a bloody long time ago. You may as well say that we all flock to Oz because of transportation, to the US because of Robert E. Lee, or Ireland because of the "famine." We just don't! |
|
28 Nov 17 - 10:56 PM (#3891058) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker So did they actually do a conclusive DNA test on ginger 'arry...??? ..or is that why he's only getting a small quiet wedding in the family's back yard shed...????????? Mind you, my eyes do keep getting mesmerised by what appears to be a developing large thinning area on the top back of his bonce, which might actually resemble the Royal Windsor baldness pattern.... |
|
29 Nov 17 - 04:32 AM (#3891084) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Nigel Parsons From: Vashta Nerada - PM Date: 28 Nov 17 - 10:48 AM He grew up in the glare of publicity. He seems to be grown up now. The wedding of his older brother was paid for by the family and was a private affair, even though it was of interest and publicized. One expects the same thing will happen here, no state wedding for the fourth, almost fifth in line to the throne. We can do that math, even from here across the pond. Sorry, I couldn't let it pass. Prince Harry is currently 5th in line, probably 6th by this time next year: 1st: Prince Charles 2nd: Prince William (son of Charles) 3rd: Prince George (son of William) 4th: Princess Charlotte (daughter of William) 5th: Prince Harry (2nd son of Charles) Cheers Nigel |
|
29 Nov 17 - 04:37 AM (#3891086) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw I hadn't noticed that. Personally I can't take my eyes off Meghan... |
|
29 Nov 17 - 04:41 AM (#3891088) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw That was in reply to pfr and the bald patch. Looking at their ancestry, I can't help thinking it's a shame we didn't take back control a long time ago. They'd never have got in, wot with coming 'ere without jobs, wanting to live the benefits lifestyle... |
|
29 Nov 17 - 04:43 AM (#3891090) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford ..or is that why he's only getting a small quiet wedding in the family's back yard shed...????????? No. Such weddings are often held in that 13th Century shed. Queen Victoria's children and Harry's brother Edward for instance. Security will be much cheaper and all of the wedding costs are paid by the families. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 06:23 AM (#3891106) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Harry has a brother, Edward? Wow - who knew? |
|
29 Nov 17 - 06:42 AM (#3891111) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Sorry, uncle. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 06:44 AM (#3891112) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Is Backwoodsman your uncle, Keith? |
|
29 Nov 17 - 06:48 AM (#3891113) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Fuck, no! |
|
29 Nov 17 - 06:54 AM (#3891115) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Dave the Gnome I can be your uncle Keith if you like. I will answer to anything. :D tG |
|
29 Nov 17 - 10:04 AM (#3891158) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford I am very glad to have been able to dissipate all that gloom and despondency precipitated in all our "hard-Left" snowflakes by the mere mention of a royal personage . |
|
29 Nov 17 - 10:33 AM (#3891168) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Better to be a Snowflake than a feeble-minded, sycophantic pillow-biter willingly taking it up the arse from the Eton Old-Boys. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 11:21 AM (#3891186) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Raggytash Royal Wedding??? Has a DNA test ever been made public so we can actually know who his father is? |
|
29 Nov 17 - 11:52 AM (#3891194) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Nobody can help who their parents are, Raggy. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 11:57 AM (#3891195) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Raggytash I've no axe to grind, if two people want to get married fine, good luck to them. However I don't wish or want to know every detail reguritated ad nasuem for the next six months. As for it being a "royal" wedding ............... |
|
29 Nov 17 - 11:58 AM (#3891197) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman I'm with you on that. But I'm pretty sure it gets very wearing when people constantly question your parenthood. He is who he is. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 12:24 PM (#3891204) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Another beauty from today's Daily Mash. Just remember who's the real f**king princess here, by Kate Middleton LET'S be very clear about this, Meghan. I am a princess. You are not. Congratulations on your engagement to Harry, he's so lovely and funny that one almost forgets he's a ginger. I'm sure you'll enjoy being a dukette or lady baron or whatever delightful thing they'll call you. There are lots of perks to this 'lower-tier' type of title, such as never needing to pre-book at Carluccio's and 20 per cent off at Odeon cinemas. But I just wanted to avoid any misunderstanding about who is the actual princess in this situation. Yes, technically I may still be a duchess but ask anyone who ever wanted a fete opened or a potato picture painted with a random group of povvo kids, and they'll tell you I am (Fairytale) Princess Kate. That's right, bitch. I'm sure you and I will be the best of friends, assuming the proper protocol is observed. This may include complimenting my hair on a half-hourly basis, not eating carbs within 200 yards of my presence and submitting your mobile telephone for regular 'anti-Kate propaganda screening'. Sometimes people who don't get along with me have accidents, like at school when Gemma Carpenter-Price somehow fell out of the Dorm B window and couldn't have solid food for a month. That was unfortunate but I don't anticipate any such problems between us. Do you? No. Good. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 01:44 PM (#3891228) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Better to be a Snowflake than a feeble-minded, sycophantic pillow-biter willingly taking it up the arse from the Eton Old-Boys. Well yes. Anything better than that, but how is it relevant here? |
|
29 Nov 17 - 02:11 PM (#3891241) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Bite that pillow, boy! |
|
29 Nov 17 - 02:23 PM (#3891247) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford No thanks. You will have to dine alone. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 03:12 PM (#3891257) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Big Al Whittle well at least i've established his name...er....Andy....or something. |
|
29 Nov 17 - 03:32 PM (#3891267) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker This where it could get really weird regarding conspiracy theories about secret lives of the royals... what if 'arry's ginger gene was passed down from... Fergie...!!!!!!????? |
|
29 Nov 17 - 06:01 PM (#3891298) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw We desperately need another series of The Windsors. I can't wait to hear what Parpp Middleton thinks of all this... |
|
29 Nov 17 - 09:11 PM (#3891332) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Joe Offer What's ginger mean in this context? Joe, uninitiated |
|
30 Nov 17 - 05:21 AM (#3891372) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford Harry has reddish hair Joe. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 05:23 AM (#3891373) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw The colour of his hair. Ginger nut. Carrot top. Rusty bonce. If referring to the hair down south, fire-crutch. Hope this helps. His excuse for having hair that colour is that it's in the Spencer family (Diana's side). He's almost certainly right. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 05:31 AM (#3891378) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Keith A of Hertford No-one needs an "excuse" for their hair colour. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 06:11 AM (#3891387) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Doug Chadwick The colour of his hair. Ginger nut. Carrot top. Rusty bonce. How does making fun of someone using insulting terms based on the colour of their hair differ from those based on the colour of their skin? DC |
|
30 Nov 17 - 06:21 AM (#3891388) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Dave the Gnome I don't think anyone has been subjected to torture, slavery or civil rights abuses based on the colour of their hair, Doug, but point taken. It can be seen as insulting, particularly by the recipient, but it is not in the same league as true racial abuse. To categorise them as being the same is detracting from the fight against true inequality between races. In my opinion. DtG |
|
30 Nov 17 - 06:37 AM (#3891392) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Well, bugger me backwards! I agree with Keefie! I completely fail to understand this obsession some people have with 'Azza's parentage. None of us, not one has any responsibility for who begat us. If his family accept him as one of them, who are we to heap that kind of unpleasantness on him? Y'know, there are a lot of far, far more important things in this world to bother our pretty little heads over. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 07:12 AM (#3891401) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw I wasn't making fun. I was answering Joe's question. I've never made fun of a redhead by using those terms. On the other hand, our 'arry has been in trouble not just for wagging his naked bottom at a phone camera whilst giving a young lady a good backwards seeing-to and showing up at a party wearing Nazi regalia, he also indulged in "good-natured banter" in his barrack-room days by calling fellow recruits "ragheads" and "my little Paki friend." Sort of puts the (admittedly unjustied) joshing about his hair colour into context... |
|
30 Nov 17 - 07:14 AM (#3891402) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Unjustified |
|
30 Nov 17 - 07:48 AM (#3891406) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman And can any of us claim, truthfully, to never - ever - have behaved in a way we probably shouldn't, said things best left unsaid, shown ourselves in a bad light? We, however, are able to misbehave in comparative privacy, without a horde of cameras observing our every move, in reasonable certainty that our pissed-up party-shag won't appear on Twitter the next morning. I recall a good number of my school-friends, and young adult mates, who thought it was 'clever' and 'funny' to pretend to be Nazis, or Nazi-supporters. But we saw the error of our ways, we grew up. Like many of those around in the seventies, I pissed myself laughing at 'Love Thy Neighbour', and referred to black people as 'wogs', 'spades', and 'nig-nogs', called Asian people 'Pakis'. But I saw the error of my ways, I grew up. As a fairly senior royal, his employment possibilities are fairly limited, and are understandably affected by security concerns. In recent years, he's given publicity - via such vehicles as the Invictus Games - to the plight of injured armed-forces veterans, and spoken on a number of other social and ecological issues. Since he did the things you've described, Steve, there is every indication that he's seen the error of his ways, he's grown up. I hope my faith is justified. Time will tell. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 08:00 AM (#3891408) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw He lives in a bubble. People who live in bubbles quite often think they can do or say what they please. Think Hollywood, White House, Parliament and celeb culture to name just a few recent examples. Think expenses fraud, awful tweets and sex abuse. Privilege can bring with it unfortunate attitudes and unwanted consequences. The royals have got the time, money and other resources to do the good things you've mentioned and it's jolly good, it can't be gainsaid. There are millions of people wiping people's bottoms in care homes or swabbing hospital floors who are doing just as much good, if not more, and they are doing it unsung and for next to nothing. Worth remembering. We wouldn't miss the royals. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 08:27 AM (#3891412) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman As I say, Steve, we are who we are. None of us can change the family we were born into, or the up-bringing we were given, the schools we were put through, the expectations placed on us by our parents, whatever. Hate the system, by all means, but don't hate the individuals who are there because of who their parents are/were. And, given a choice, I'd take a powerless, benevolent monarch over a President Trump, President Cameron, President Blair, or President May every time. At least our monarch can't lead us into a nuclear holocaust. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 08:45 AM (#3891417) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker "We, however, are able to misbehave in comparative privacy, without a horde of cameras observing our every move, in reasonable certainty that our pissed-up party-shag won't appear on Twitter the next morning. " Not any more.. cam phone cretin culture with instant internet uploads has effed it up for all of us out on a nights drinking... A senior workmate of my wife's has just this week been reprimanded and put on serious warning at work for private facebooking... |
|
30 Nov 17 - 10:12 AM (#3891440) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Are you suggesting that the royals somehow limit the ability of the Blairs, Camerons and Mays to do bad things? I don't think so, John! And don't forget that they represent and help to perpetuate unearned privilege and to legitimise unearned, inherited wealth and the possession of stolen land.... |
|
30 Nov 17 - 10:25 AM (#3891444) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker My mum is 85.. I can understand how her generation of women could grow up as working class labour voting fans of the royals.. But my mrs... she's as much a modern progressive lefty as I am.. we were students together during the miner's strike..she's even got an MA.. and 30 years career in the local authority public sector care services.. .. no.. I can't accept her gushing over royal weddings and babies the way she does.. the traitor... I think in her mind they must be on the same celebrity level as Catherine Zeta-Jones & Charlotte Church...!!!?????? |
|
30 Nov 17 - 10:26 AM (#3891445) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: meself "our pissed-up party-shag" ... ?! I've never even had a "pissed-up party-shag" .... How was it? What did I miss?? |
|
30 Nov 17 - 10:41 AM (#3891448) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman No, I don't think that Steve. However, the Blairs, Camerons and Mays of this world do not have the same executive powers as a President, and they are not Heads of State. In that way, their powers are limited by the Sovereignty of Parliament, and they can't just do as they like. Not completely under control, but perhaps more so than they would be if they had presidential powers. I believe that the Head of State should be what the monarch is - merely a figure-head with little power. I would like to see much of the ostentation of monarchy done away with, I don't understand the need for all those palaces and mansions, for instance, and I'd like to see the wider royal family relegated to the same status as the rest of us. I understand the desire for an elected head of state, and I understand the dislike of our monarchical system, but we are currently seeing, across the pond, that electing a head of state is no guarantee of getting the best person in charge, and at least our monarch doesn't have her thumb on the Big Red Button. I don't think you'd ever see her re-tweeting 'Britain First' racist shit either! |
|
30 Nov 17 - 11:06 AM (#3891456) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw The Mash has reported that Trump has retweeted "Britain First" in order to get an invitation to the royal wedding. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 11:53 AM (#3891464) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman LOL! |
|
30 Nov 17 - 12:25 PM (#3891469) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Allan Conn Though Backwoodsman just because their is an elected Head of State it doesn't mean that needs to be a powerful figure. I can't imagine the UK is likely to go republican anytime soon - but if it did I imagine they would plump more for the Irish type of Head of State. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 01:33 PM (#3891483) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: keberoxu Dave the Gnome, apropos ginger hair and discrimination, have you ever heard of dumb blond/blonde ? Ask Dolly Parton. Also there are men who get harassed for that reason -- I recall a church choir director, and he's one of the good ones, who was sick and tired of the dumb-blond prejudice. |
|
30 Nov 17 - 01:37 PM (#3891485) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker Well if 'arry's hair continues to thin and fall out at this rate, he eventually won't have any problem with cruel folks taking the piss for him being a ginger.... |
|
30 Nov 17 - 02:54 PM (#3891500) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw ...unless he drops his pants (again). Mind you, I'm all too conscious of that Billy Connolly song that went: Ah Jesus Christ I'm nearly forty My pubic hair is turning grey... So if 'arry goes bald by the age of forty all his troubles will evaporate! |
|
30 Nov 17 - 07:26 PM (#3891530) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: robomatic Some one who might've been a Yank trotted out this ol' superiority rant upstairs: You won't get much sympathy over here,Keith, we gave those royal parasites the heave-ho more than 2 centuries ago. Oh, really, and we don't amplify their doings and promote our offspring to marry their offspring and celebrate crass/class difference? And we don't employ thousands of 'razzi to chase down our underworld heros and our publicity seekers? Seems to me with the lack of the official self appointed social parasites we have burdened ourselves with entire ships' bottoms of teredo worms with two legs. So on behalf of the former colonials I wish to walk back that little superiority screed. We all know that we do feel superior, but not for that negligible advantage. |
|
01 Dec 17 - 03:54 AM (#3891558) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Doug Chadwick .....is not in the same league as true racial abuse. Despite the old saying, name-calling can hurt just as much as sticks and stones. Playground bullying is in the same league as true racial abuse when it leads to the victims developing eating disorders, self abusing or committing suicide. Prince Harry has devoted much of his recent efforts to highlighting the problems of mental health. As I understand it, this is, in part, inspired by his own experiences growing up in the public spotlight. It isn't helped by people taking sideswipes at a personal trait over which he has no control. DC |
|
01 Dec 17 - 04:36 AM (#3891568) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Dave the Gnome keberoxu Dave the Gnome, apropos ginger hair and discrimination, have you ever heard of dumb blond/blonde ? Yes, I have. I have still not heard of people being tortured, enslaved or being denied their civil rights because of their hair colour. Doug Playground bullying is in the same league as true racial abuse when it leads to the victims developing eating disorders, self abusing or committing suicide. Yes it is. I have still not heard of people being tortured, enslaved or being denied their civil rights because of their hair colour. DtG |
|
01 Dec 17 - 04:52 AM (#3891569) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Oh well, as long as people who are bullied kill themselves rather than be denied their civil rights or tortured by others, that's OK then, no problem? |
|
01 Dec 17 - 04:55 AM (#3891570) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Doug Chadwick Dave the Gnome, Having your life made a misery, to the point of ending it, is a pretty big denial of civil rights. Hair colour is just one bullet in the magazine of those who want to put others down for being different. The Khmer Rouge murdered people who wore glasses because they thought that they must be intellectuals. DC |
|
01 Dec 17 - 04:56 AM (#3891572) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Amen, Doug. |
|
01 Dec 17 - 05:00 AM (#3891573) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker Well they can't have been that bright then, if they didn't take their glasses off whenever the Khmer Rouge came round caling... PFR - a speccy smart arse weirdo geek since the age of 8... |
|
01 Dec 17 - 05:29 AM (#3891578) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Speccy four-eyes. Shorty-pants (short pants and being called Shaw in synergy). Football pitch bullying for making mistakes (in the house team only as a makeweight, a great scapegoat when we list). Dunno really. Part of growing up is learning to roll with the punches. The job of the adults around kids is to be vigilant as to the nature of the bullying. Is it sporadic rough and tumble or is it concerted? Of course it ain't right to take the piss out of someone's ginger hair, but if the victim is really going under ostensibly because of that the chances are that the bullies are exploiting other vulnerabilities. A great ginger guy with a rounded personality could even turn the joshing to his advantage... |
|
01 Dec 17 - 05:39 AM (#3891579) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Lost |
|
01 Dec 17 - 05:48 AM (#3891581) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Dave the Gnome The only point I am making Doug and BWM is that 'schoolyard bullying' or its grown up equivalent is not in the same league as the race discrimination that the world is still witnessing. There is no KKK hanging people with red hair. There is no National Front beating up blondes. There is no fundamentalists burning the churches of those who wear glasses. (Khmer Rouge excepted!) I said right at the outset that I accept it is a problem but I still believe that there is no comparison of scale or intensity. If you believe there is, fine, that is your opinion and you are as entitled to it as I am to mine. DtG |
|
01 Dec 17 - 06:24 AM (#3891585) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker On balance I tend to tolerate humorous mild piss taking over sanctimonious moral high ground seizing & monopolising.. which in itself is a much more insidious control freak form of bullying... |
|
01 Dec 17 - 07:05 AM (#3891595) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Someone who takes the piss out of your hair colour and nowt else has an uphill struggle in his career as a bully. Real bullying is concerted, insidious and attritional, and often subtle. |
|
01 Dec 17 - 07:07 AM (#3891597) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Point taken, Dave. Although I agree, I still don't accept that the colour of his hair, or his mother's choice of sexual partners, is a good reason to slag off any young man, let alone one who, through an accident of birth, is constantly in the public eye, and is prevented by royal protocol from responding as he might wish. |
|
01 Dec 17 - 07:12 AM (#3891599) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw He does have his compensations. |
|
01 Dec 17 - 07:15 AM (#3891601) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker Ok, so let's divert cruel attention away from 'arry's ginger bonce... His new mrs to be.. in profile, her nose looks like a big toe.... |
|
01 Dec 17 - 07:44 AM (#3891605) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Perfectly suits my toe fetish... |
|
01 Dec 17 - 07:45 AM (#3891606) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Not my cup o'tea at all. Prefer my missus. |
|
02 Dec 17 - 11:34 AM (#3891853) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Bonzo3legs Can she do a decent poached egg I wonder? I'd wager that Harry can, having been in the army! |
|
02 Dec 17 - 12:26 PM (#3891868) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: punkfolkrocker Bonz - in this context is "a poached egg" a euphemism for some kind of kinky posh boy sexual activity young 'arry might be familiar with...????? |
|
02 Dec 17 - 05:09 PM (#3891901) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Bonzo3legs Like piloting an Apache helicopter against the taliban perhaps??????? |
|
04 Dec 17 - 10:16 AM (#3892203) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Allan Conn My mother had red hair but she had the kind of red hair colour that other women envied and men liked. Her sister on the other hand had more a ginger colour and did as a youngster receive a lot of stick for it. Maybe less so here in Scotland as it is more common here. Obviously it is true that it isn't the same as racial abuse etc - but it is also true that bullying like that also affects many youngsters. I had a pretty serious speech impediment as a youngster and it was bad enough having it without being mimicked and reminded about it. It didn't affect me too much as I had plenty of friends etc and was big enough that kids often only did it once - but at the same time I am pretty sure it dented my confidence a bit. I know others in speech therapy were affected worse and had a much harder time at school. You kind of know that kids are going to act like that because someone maybe can't speak as well, or they have ginger hair, or they are very small etc etc etc but you kind of expect grown ups not to reinforce that kind of behaviour! |
|
11 Dec 17 - 10:06 AM (#3893346) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Oh dear. According to the Daily Mash, it's all orff! Royal wedding off after Meghan realises Harry not Ed Sheeran THE royal wedding has been cancelled after Meghan Markle discovered Harry is not actually Ed Sheeran. Markle was introduced to Harry as a ‘rich, famous, ginger Brit’ and assumed that could only be her favourite pop star. When Harry realised the confusion, he maintained the illusion by pretending Prince Charles was Simon Cowell and Fergie was ‘Adele without any make-up’. A palace insider said: “We thought it was weird she called him ‘Ed’, but maybe it was some kind of pet name. “He’d claimed he’d bought his working class family a palace with all the royalties from Galway Girl, but that he wasn’t allowed to sing her any songs because technically that counts as a concert and he’d have to give his management ten million pounds. “I think she realised a few weeks ago but it was all a bit awkward by that point. “Luckily she has since met Ed Sheeran and is now engaged to him.” |
|
11 Dec 17 - 02:28 PM (#3893384) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman ROTFLMAO! :-) :-) |
|
11 Dec 17 - 08:35 PM (#3893434) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Steve Shaw Next time you meet up with Musket, John, ask him to sing that well-known Mudcat folk song, Rot My Flay-o! |
|
12 Dec 17 - 02:22 AM (#3893458) Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017 From: Backwoodsman Tomorrow night, Steve (providing Mrs. Musket doesn't have him Confined To Barracks!). I might take my little Zoom H2 and record it for posterity! :-) |