Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017

Subject: Andy and Meghan
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 12:23 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 12:25 PM

sorry should be in BS. but it was PRETTY exciting for a monarchist like me....

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: Snuffy
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 12:31 PM

I don't think Harry would be too chuffed at Uncle Andy muscling in on the action! :-)

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 01:08 PM

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"

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 01:31 PM

oh.. so it's not just another bland upper middle class public school folk duo...

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 01:50 PM

Andy and Meghan, are they members of this forum?

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 02:31 PM

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

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: keberoxu
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 02:41 PM

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?

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 05:35 PM

Accuracy would not help matters...

Harry....Andy....what the hell! A right gang of bumholes.

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 05:37 PM

Is she the one he was filmed giving a damn good rogering to from behind at that party or was that someone else?

Subject: RE: Andy and Meghan
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 07:25 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 07:57 PM

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-

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 08:46 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Nov 17 - 08:54 PM

Yeah, Steve, but what about Al Whittle? Is he a conspiracy theory, too? ;-)

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:00 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Mr Red
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:11 AM

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).

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:30 AM

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?

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:33 AM

Sorry, wrong thread!

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 05:33 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 05:42 AM

Oh dear.
Nothing but gloom and negativity however happy the occasion.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Stu
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 06:23 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 06:32 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Stu
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 06:41 AM

"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

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 06:49 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 07:34 AM

Welcome to the brainless world of the Keith Acheson/Nicholas Witchell world of fawning royal sycophancy!

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: gillymor
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 08:00 AM

You won't get much sympathy over here,Keith,
we gave those royal parasites the heave-ho
more than 2 centuries ago.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 08:27 AM

It's giving the Daily Heil readers a problem, apparently

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 08:35 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 08:38 AM

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

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 08:40 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 09:10 AM

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?

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 09:15 AM

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

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 09:37 AM

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...

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 10:02 AM

It's a bloomin' sight more wholesome that sticking your todger in a dead pig.

:D tG

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Vashta Nerada
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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 11:59 AM

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?"

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 11:59 AM

Sod it. Nearly got it!

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 12:02 PM

ROTFLMAO!
Where are those 'laughing so much I'm crying' emojis when you nee half a dozen?

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 12:26 PM

There's a question mark hanging over them...

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: keberoxu
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:42 PM

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)

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:54 PM

"...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?

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 05:09 PM

Stu sez: The last royal wedding cost us around £30 million

I'm sure the U.S. tabloids made more than that in profit from the last UK royal wedding. Haven't you people in the UK figured out ways to profit from your Royals?

Read my latest bestseller, Royalty: For Pleasure and Profit, only £8.95 (plus £37.95 postage and packaging)

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 05:15 PM

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!

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: keberoxu
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 05:15 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 05:44 PM

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...

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 05:53 PM

Not recently, I grant you, but Albertopolis is well represented!

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 06:23 PM

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!

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 10:56 PM

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....

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 04:32 AM

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

Subject: RE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engaged-Nov 2017
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 04:37 AM

I hadn't noticed that. Personally I can't take my eyes off Meghan...