Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Apr 11 - 10:22 PM "Edward VIII abdicated because it would be an abomination if an American divorcee was the wife of the King" That's the cover story. Now that many alive then are deceased, more facts are coming to the surface. She was highly pro-nazi (as indeed many Rich Americans were at the time - there was a strong US Nazi party till Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared War on the USA a few days after) - great personal friends with many high ranking nazis, and Edward was very amenable to them as well. Many such as Churchill were adamant that if he remained as King, Britain would become officially pro nazi too. Some of this is covered in, and highly relevant to the recent movie "The Kings Speech". Documented too. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Apr 11 - 11:34 AM There was also reference to it in this week's Upstairs/Downstairs they showed in the U.S. Some were very cosy (and the Windsor family is originally German, is it not?) SRS |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 26 Apr 11 - 12:11 PM 'Maybe they are referring to the abdicating King and his American wife with alleged nazi sympathies....' who cares what they refer to - they're bonkers. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: frogprince Date: 26 Apr 11 - 12:43 PM Why should we settle for this kind of superficial media coverage about the "royal knickers"? Why isn't someone doing some serious in-depth reporting? Shouldn't we know how much fuzz will be in those things? Will it grow free, be trimmed back, or will it be shaved off completely? Oh, did I just exceed the bounds of good taste? Sorry, but I guess the boundary got a little blurry there. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: MGM·Lion Date: 26 Apr 11 - 01:13 PM Why did you choose your nickname, Frogprince, if you can't be a bit more respectful towards somebody who might well be the one to give you that essential magic kiss? ~M~ |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 26 Apr 11 - 01:14 PM Blue. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: gnu Date: 26 Apr 11 - 01:40 PM froggy... you crack me up, yet again. Hahahahahaaa. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Apr 11 - 08:52 AM This is bizarre... ABC forced to pull Chaser wedding coverage Just two days before Prince William and Kate Middleton are due to tie the knot, ABC TV has been forced to cancel The Chaser's one-off live coverage of the event due to what it says are restrictions imposed by the royal family. The Chaser's Royal Wedding Commentary was due to air on ABC2 from 7:00pm AEST on Friday, offering viewers a satirical take on the royal wedding. But now the live special - promised to be "uninformed and unconstitutional" - has been reluctantly pulled due to restrictions imposed over the Easter break. ABC TV was initially advised by the BBC, and subsequently by Associated Press Television News (APTN), there were no coverage restrictions that would prevent The Chaser's wedding commentary. But new conditions of use issued by APTN over the Easter break state footage cannot be used "in any drama, comedy, satirical or similar entertainment program or content". ABC TV director Kim Dalton says he is disappointed. "The national broadcaster has acted in good faith in its negotiations around ABC2's planned coverage with both the BBC and APTN," he said. "We're surprised and disappointed at this very late stage to be informed that any satirical or comedic treatment of the marriage of Australia's future head of state has been banned." As late as this morning the BBC issued a new contract imposing additional restrictions on the use of its material. "ABC TV had always planned to take the BBC's full coverage with commentary on ABC1, however, like other broadcasters, we thought Australians would appreciate an alternative take on this major event," Mr Dalton said. "The Nine Network has Dame Edna giving her commentary and the Ten Network has the 7PM Project taking a light-hearted approach to the royal wedding. "Our obvious choice for a light-hearted commentary is The Chaser team. Clearly, the BBC and Clarence House have decided The Chaser aren't acceptable." The Chaser's Julian Morrow says the team accepts the ABC has been put in an "impossible position by people acting on behalf of the royal family". "For a monarchy to be issuing decrees about how the media should cover them seems quite out of keeping with modern democratic times... but I suppose that's exactly what the monarchy is," he said. "It's traditional for the condemned to appeal to the monarch for a stay of execution, so that's what we're going to do. "Unfortunately it's also traditional for people who appeal for clemency to be executed." Morrow says the move goes against free speech. "It seems a bit crazy for the royal family to be trying to dictate the way they get represented in the media," he said. "It seems a bit out of step with a modern democracy, but I suppose royalty is out of step with a modern democracy, so there you go." The Chaser's Chris Taylor says it is an "honour" to be taken off air by the Queen herself. The APTN advisory says the restrictions on the coverage of the wedding ceremony from Westminster Abbey have been agreed between Clarence House, the private office of the Prince of Wales, and the BBC. According to the advisory, restrictions apply to the "period from the arrival of the first member of the royal family for the wedding service until the last member of the royal family leaves the main entrance of Westminster Abbey following the conclusion of the wedding service". ABC1 will still be taking the BBC coverage of the wedding, including its commentary, and ABC News and ABC News 24's coverage will not be affected by the ban on ABC2 usage. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Apr 11 - 09:03 AM Chaser fans 'gutted' over axed wedding show Users of Facebook and Twitter have vented their anger, calling the BBC "wankers" and directing obscenities towards the Queen. "The royals: such a joke that they can't take any," Jay Dessi wrote on the ABC's Facebook page. "How do I complain? They need to know they should come to their senses or they will turn me into a republican. I never cared before, but I care now," said Sharnell Shipard. "They made me care enough that I just joined Prince William's Facebook page to lodge a complaint. I haven't sat through weeks of wedding crap on TV to have the only part I was looking forward to taken from me." .... "Oh! For Kate's Sake! The Chaser's coverage of the wedding was the part that people were ACTUALLY looking forward to," @Cameron_John said. Some fans even encouraged The Chaser to "just do it anyway". "What are they going to do? Set the governor general on you?" @ScottCllns tweeted. ~~~~~~~~~~ Some friends have set up their own facebook page to throw virtual tomatoes .... :-) |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: gnu Date: 27 Apr 11 - 01:35 PM Not very sporting of them. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 11 - 02:25 AM There's apparently quite a rumble building over it. Yet 'Dame Edna' a guy dressed up as a lady pretending to have received a fake award of nobility is ok.... |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: CupOfTea Date: 28 Apr 11 - 02:40 PM They can't quite be the "Royal" kinckers if she's not a royal yet, no? (Being American, i suspect this is so, not quite sure how that works...) *I* have seen the genuine "We are NOT amused" article: Queen Victoria's used knickers. Really. Honest. The Kent State University Costume Museum had them on display years ago, and me without my camera, dagnabit. I do recall it vividly, though Joanne in Cleveland |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: gnu Date: 28 Apr 11 - 02:50 PM Actually, not my cup of tea. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 28 Apr 11 - 03:22 PM Queen Vickie was sooooo teensy. They had a display of her clothes at Killerton House a few years back..including her underwear.. Hope no-one puts my knickers on display when I pop my clogs. Heck, I'd better leave orders for them to be burnt....or....burn them before I go! I'll be the only 85 year old going commando! ;0) |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 28 Apr 11 - 07:48 PM If you'd like to entrust a used pair to me Lizzie, I'll make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Apr 11 - 04:33 AM And whose hands would they be, then, Al? ~M~ |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: frogprince Date: 29 Apr 11 - 12:37 PM Actually, Gnu just about said it all on the "not going" thread early this morning" "Sniff..." |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: gnu Date: 29 Apr 11 - 03:26 PM Well froggy... not quite... |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: gnu Date: 29 Apr 11 - 03:26 PM .... COME OFF TONIGHT! |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:15 AM ""the next Queen of England." Do you know something we don't?"" I think she probably does, assuming that you are unaware that the title "Queen" is not automatic, and is very unlikely to be applied to Horse Face, since she is not his first wife. Most likely is "Princess Consort", a sort of mirror image of Philip. The other thing to remember is the extreme longevity of the females of that family. Charles is very likely to pop his clogs well ahead of the present incumbent, and for the sake of the public perception of the royals that might not be such a bad thing. William and Catherine certainly present a much less stuffy appearance. Don T. |
Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Knickers From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:14 PM I'm old enough to remember (just) when Lizzie was the beautiful young queen with her dashing naval officer husband. Then Charles was the dashing young heir with his beautiful bride. What'll be the public perception of Wills and Kate in 40 years time? |