BS: Prince Harry's bum

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 11:45 AM

OK so people noticed the difference between William and Harry in looks.... and put two and two together to make.. well yes Harry does look like Hewitt. Has anyone ever noticed the distinctly different look of Prince Charles and Prince Andrew? Charles looks much like Prince Philip but Andrew? the mind boggles!...........

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Joe_F
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 02:54 PM

Musically inclined persons visiting Las Vegas will be disappointed to discover that the Liberace Museum is closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Owen Woodson
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 02:57 PM

Ahh. I've got it. 'Do as I say. Not do as I do.'

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 04:15 PM

You Brits are worse gossips than we on this side of the water.

And the idea that the royal family are supposed to be role models for the rest of youse? It is to laugh. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and ball teams and children need role models. The rest of us are supposed to grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: gnu
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 04:29 PM

Ebbie.... hahahahahahaaaa!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 04:22 AM

Someone calls me 'a royalist above. To clarify, I am not doctrinairely so: rather a 'let·it·be·for·fear·of·something·worse'-ist, a 'don't·fix·if·not·bust'-ist. And it isn't bust. The present incumbent sets a fine dignified example imo; and after years of perhaps too laid-back a refusal to commit publicly to much, recently in Olympic Opening revealed a hitherto much unexpected aspect of personality. As for setting examples, as urged by Owen ~ George IV? Edward VII? Come now. Re expense: do presidency-upkeeps not cost the public purse as much as any monarchy? Are presidents immune from immoralities & sex scandals ~~ like Clinton & that present Eyetie incumbent? Oh, come on again. There have been some dire members of our royalty, to be sure, like our present Gracious Lady's horrible late sister Margaret, snobbish & vain, whose best friends were required to call her Ma'am at all times (I often wonder whether Armstrong-Jones, Earl Snowdon, had to say "Knees a little more raised, if it so graciously please you Ma'am" while begetting Lord Lynley); but they are mostly much better than her.

As to Young Harry: agree with Eliza that a little more thought, even when not at work, to expectations and appearances would not hurt ~~ he is 27, not 17. But, as my late mother-in-law used to say, "It is hardly a hanging matter", surely? Lighten up for crying out loud, some of you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: GUEST,Paddy
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 06:21 AM

MtheGM, you are obviously a royalist by default and what about our (Irish) ex president Mary Robinson? She showed extreme dignity when your Queen Elizabeth recently visited Ireland and she has no expensive hangers on.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 06:40 AM

Interestingly I read that the late Nick Drake was a member of Princess Margaret's 'set'. I seem to remember Ian Campbell having some nice words to say about her - and Ian is or was a communist.

She can't have been as bad as that.

But the niceness is irrelevant. the royalty stuff gives the red light for all sorts of people to think they're summat special. Its a sort of gold standard of inequality that every jumped up little git in England aspires to.

Take this business of Harry calling one of the men under his command 'my little paki friend'. The guy can't object. If you'd done that as a teacher Mike, it would be instant dismissal. Or if a policeman had done it. Any other public servant in fact. That establishes inequality.


somehow it doesn't fit in England 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 06:49 AM

Had she no presidential palace, Paddy, with its attendant staff &c? Who paid when she had to pay diplomatic or state visits, or receive other heads of state doing so? I have no doubt that she did so with the utmost dignity; but not with nothing but a cup of tea and a custard cream in a 12'square sitting-room, putting on the kettle and laying out the bikkies herself, I'll be bound. I think you are being a bit disingenuous.

And what exactly is a 'royalist by default', and how do you make me out to be one such?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 06:51 AM

Communist or not, GUEST [whoever you are] ~~ I bet Ian called her 'Ma'am'.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:01 AM

Moreover, I don't disagree with much of what you say; I am simply exercised as to what you propose to replace all this which will not cause a whole lot of upheaval, to no really guaranteed perceptible improvement. You will simply replace a royal gold-standard with a presidential one, which will equally be out of the aspirations of all the 'little gits' ['jumped up' or otherwise] whom you so charmingly cite. We all know how easy it is in actual fact to go from log-cabin to White House, don't we?

(I honestly don't see how saying this makes me 'a royalist by default', Paddy.)

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:28 AM

Ah, yes ~~ 'inequality'. Funny how we have all been aspiring for ever to abolish it - just like that other old bugbear, punishment!. But, somehow, try as they might, nobody has ever contrived to do away with either of those horrible abuses.

Perhaps, perish the thought, there might just be such a thing as - what shall we call it? - Intransigent 'Uman Nacher? The Old Adam? Original Sin?

oh, you know what I mean

after all. Dash it!

Still ~~ keep on trying, darlings. And much good may it do you!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:33 AM

" But, as my late mother-in-law used to say, "It is hardly a hanging matter",... "

In the pics I saw on the TV, he had the family jewels covered.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:54 AM

I always thought you needed 12 inches to be a ruler!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:56 AM

"For some time now, I've been pondering the question of what we do with the royal family once the revolution has taken place. That's the socialist revolution of course."

Don't waste your time pondering - it'll never happen. The majority of us grew up after we left full-time education.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 01:31 PM

Brian Sewell speaks!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 01:34 PM

Harry does look remarkably like Hewitt. It's plausible.

He also acts a bit like the renownedly erratic Hewitt.

BUT he is a part of the royal family if not the royal bloodline.

Princes tend to get more than ordinary blokes but with the privilege comes the responsibility of not being seen to be acting like a louche and irresponsible playboy.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 02:15 PM

You're all just jealous because he's getting plenty of high-class shags, and you're stuck with raping your own hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 02:32 PM

He does look remarkably like Hewitt indeed; but, equally to my mind, like the Spencers ~~ I commend you yet again to Gainsborough's portrait of the first Earl on the wiki page about the earldom, which is what he will look like in 30 years or so. Is it not possible that his attraction for the errant Princess was that she was somewhat family-fixated, & fell for the man who reminded her of a beloved brother? BTW, GUEST; I feel bound to say that I agree with you to extent I have never believed her death to have been accidental- any more than Marilyn Monroe's. The idea of the future king having Muslim half-siblings must have been too much for them to contemplate. But this is, of course, no less pure speculation than all those 'facts' which you promulgated with such absurd certainty.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 02:59 PM

"I have never believed her death to have been accidental-"

Ah, yes. The driver of the car agreed to be slaughtered with her. Perhaps his family was to be paid a LOT of money. But he had to get drunk first...

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 03:08 PM

Come on, we all know it was Prince Philip who had her murdered.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 04:03 PM

If Louis was alive, he blow his top.







Yes, in very poor tatse, indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 05:43 PM

Ebbie ~ Sorry, but do not get your (sarcastic?) point. If the thing did happen as some of us suspect it might have done, then of course the driver was not a knowing or willing part of the operation, but a collateral casualty. And why was he drunk? - he was a professional driver: would he have got so of his own volition?

I repeat ~~ this is obviously speculative; but the whole thing - like, I say again, M Monroe's not altogether dissimilar fate, about which similar theories exist - was just so astonishingly peculiarly convenient to the Establishment, wasn't it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:12 PM

But can you LEGITIMATELY rape your hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 06:51 AM

LOL! Yep, The Usual Suspect Mob of Pissers and Moaners on here do it all the time. It's their sole source of pleasure.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 07:06 AM

I've no problem with young Squishy's hi-jinks, but din't think we should be paying for them.

However, I think all you overseas royalists should put your money where your mouth is and stump up a shekel or fifty to fund his beanos. So, in the spirit of international co-operation you can send your hard-earned cash to me and I'll make sure the Hewitt Jr. and the others get it. I'll treat the money your broke your back for with similar reverence and be assured that most of it will end up with the exchequer and subsequently those loveable old royals that you are so supportive of.

Bostin!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 09:28 AM

I read in one account that the hotel waived the £30,000 fee, presumably the publicity photos were worth it!

RtS
(why is it always the rich that get -and expect- freebies?)

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Stu
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 10:14 AM

Shine on. Vegas cost me a cowin' fortune when we were there. We couldn't afford to get pissed.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 10:47 AM

Really? Why, we found it one of the best value towns we'd ever been in. Cheap but lavish eat-all-you-like buffets in every hotel. Free cabarets. Marvellous value. Mind, we had to go thru the casino & past the slot machines to get to them; perhaps they thought we might stop & play?...

Oh! You mean you did, SFJ! Why, silly old you ... no wonder it cost you.

LoL

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: ragdall
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 06:44 PM

It's heartwarming to see that the troops have been showing their support for the prince (among other things).

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 07:01 PM

Thanks rags. It's comforting to know that so many support Harry and are willing to let the Union Jack off.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: ragdall
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 07:05 PM

Hey, gnu, with that much support from the military, if push comes to shove Harry could become the next king?

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 09:08 PM

Oh dear. I am in a dither. Could you, as a demure lass from northwestern Canada, actually be saying something allusionary (yeah... I made that up... cool, eh? Well, unless it's been done eh?) with your cheek(s)?

Perhaps I should leave such childish humour in my own mind?

And, no, not me... not that there is anything wrong with that... with proper lube, of course. I am always about safety first, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 09:23 PM

'I read in one account that the hotel waived the £30,000 fee, presumably the publicity photos were worth it!'

A princely sum
For a princely bum

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 10:55 PM

Whatever you think of the antics of Harry, or his parentage, there seems to be an assumption that "we" (if UK taxpayers) are funding his lifestyle.

In fact, the only members of the royal family to get direct state (ie taxpayer) funding are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, through the Civil List. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but NOT the Prince of Wales or his family) are funded from a parliamentary annuity which is fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.

The Queen claims this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and the net amount is subject to normal income tax. No different from most other people who claim expenses against taxable income.

Charles and his family's funding comes through the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall, which is a private business. In the same way as many other "family businesses" this is run as a Trust, with the current beneficiary (Charles) having access to the profits, but not the capital. Assets can only be acquired or disposed of via the trustees (Charles being only one of several). Harry's living expenses over and above his pay as a military officer are met by Charles from his DoC income.

The DoC income is by statute tax-exempt, but for many years Charles has voluntarily paid income tax on the profits he takes as income.

You could argue that the DoC benefits unfairly from its tax-exempt status which means that it has more funds to re-invest than a normal private corporation would, and that therefore Charles is able to take out more profit as (taxed) income than he would as the beneficiary of a normal Trust business, I suppose. But the point is that Harry doesn't, as many people suppose, just get a big dollop of taxpayers' cash funnelled into his account every year (other than his military salary).

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 11:13 PM

MtheGM: Someone calls me 'a royalist above. To clarify, I am not doctrinairely so: rather a 'let·it·be·for·fear·of·something·worse'-ist, a 'don't·fix·if·not·bust'-ist..... The present incumbent sets a fine dignified example imo; and after years of perhaps too laid-back a refusal to commit publicly to much, recently in Olympic Opening revealed a hitherto much unexpected aspect of personality.... Re expense: do presidency-upkeeps not cost the public purse as much as any monarchy? Are presidents immune from immoralities & sex scandals ~~ like Clinton & that present Eyetie incumbent? Oh, come on again. There have been some dire members of our royalty, to be sure, like our present Gracious Lady's horrible late sister Margaret, snobbish & vain, whose best friends were required to call her Ma'am at all times...

My dad was a member of Coats Mission (as an ordinary Coldstream Guardsman) until 1942 when he went off to Africa and Italy to fight Rommel. This was a company of Guards who were in close attendance on the royal family at all times with instructions in the event of a German invasion to remove them "willing or not" from danger, transport them over to the west of England and then eventually to Canada if things got hopeless. He always had a lot of time for the young Elizabeth, who he said was respectful and considerate towards the guards, and would crack jokes with them and generally treat them as human beings. He loathed Margaret with an absolute passion. She treated them with contempt and sometimes, when they were on post, she would walk up and down in front of their posts 30 or 40 times, just to make them "present arms", which they had to do every time a royal passed them.

He said one of the prize "stakes" in their card schools was to be one of those assigned to Margaret in the event that the royals were "forcibly removed"....everyone wanted to be one of those troops, so they could take the opportunity to "kick the shit out of the little bitch" as he put it!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 11:54 PM

Rob ~~ How interesting: many thanks. Seems I was right about that one, eh? And at that time she would have been only 12, and her sister, present HMQ, 16.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: GUEST,Big Al whittle
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 05:16 AM

Not really Margarets fault that the soldiers were given such a dumb order

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 06:02 AM

Not quite sure of your point here, Al. However 'dumb', she didn't have to exploit it in that brattish manner, did she?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Van
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 06:06 AM

Naylor you are spouting rubbish. THE QUEEN IS GIVEN A GRANT BUT SHE PAYS TAX. LIKE HELL. I pay tax but get no grant. I pay for every expense I have as does everyone else. the Queen pays a certain amount of money back. You and I can't choose how much money we pay to the state but she can. Do you really think that would reflect the money that comes from her estates or investments? Doubt it. Still nice to know that there are still loyal innocents.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 06:52 AM

""Michael, you know the Royal Family are rotten to the core when it comes to jockeying outside of marriage, it has been so for centuries.""

Can somebody explain why this twerp is being allowed to post without a consistent name, but simply as GUEST. I thought that waaas banned.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 08:21 AM

well we've all done daft things. I'm still doing 'em. I suppose some of us are just daft. Royalty, or commoner.....

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 09:39 AM

"Oh! You mean you did, SFJ! Why, silly old you ... no wonder it cost you."

We were there as part of a vertebrate palaeontology conference . . . which was a tad incongruous to say the least. 30 of us walking though the Paris casino covered in desert dust, a tad smelly and dressed in field gear was great fun - I think it even distracted some of the zombies on the slots. Odd place though, and quite bizarre. Arriving on the strip at night was quite something, but in the daylight it all looks a bit like a posh version of Blackpool crossed with the Trafford Centre. Totally devoid of any taste whatsoever, but does have to be seen to be believed.

Actually, I exaggerate a little. It was expensive (hellish for the students), but we found the 5-cent slots and took the free drinks until we had our fill and then we moved on. We also frequented the cheap eats places in Caesar's Palace in the evening and the excellent Denny's in the morning.

Oddly enough, I'd go back and will try tapping Steve Wynn up for £30k's worth of freebies.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: PHJim
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 04:01 PM

For a long time I posted as GUEST:Jim until I realised that there were other GUEST:Jims and I was getting the credit (or blame) for their posts too.
I wonder if all of the posts from GUEST are coming from the same person, the guy/girl with the inside dope on the affairs and parentage of the members of the Royal Family. When someone signs as GUEST, it is very easy for others to put words in their mouth.
But if this person is closely associated with the Royal Family, and how else could he/she know all the facts that he/she has been posting, (unless perhaps he/she is bullshitting us, do ya think?) perhaps he/she is not allowed to use a name in order to protect his or her privacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 05:21 PM

As Mrs Dale used to say, I'm worried about Jim.....

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:04 PM

WHICH Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: PHJim
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 05:40 PM

I'll be OK Big Al. I was just bored.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 05:43 PM

Just bored? By WHOM? I hope it was an enchanting prince.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Van
Date: 31 Aug 12 - 04:56 AM

Naylor
I find what you have said to me extremely offensive and am surprised that it remains as a post. An apology would be nice and the post ought to be removed. That sort of language should not be allowed on this site and I am surprised that it got past the gnomes. I expressed an opinion. if you did not like it there was no need to respond using obscene words that I believe most users of this site would find offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry's bum
From: Van
Date: 31 Aug 12 - 07:14 PM

I still find it amazing that such language is deemed acceptable.

---

I didn't see it in the first place because I tend to avoid British BS "argument" threads. I looked, and deleted the message. It's not the language, but that it was a personal attack. ~Moderator