 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Prince Harry
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,RobertB. Date: 04 Nov 05 - 06:30 PM Is it just me or has anyone noticed the likeness between James Hewitt and Prince Harry ? I noticed it was brought up in another thread. Would dna not sort this out ? Then again, this type of thing has went on in Royal circles for hundreds of years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST Date: 04 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM Yes I always thought there was more than a likeness, I imagine the press were told to hush up about it.Was there any Gingers among the Royals ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 05 - 06:58 PM There's been a fair amount of press speculation about this - it's said that there was a DNA test which confirms Charles as the father, and that the dates of Diana's extramarital activities wouldn't tally for Hewett being the dad anyway. Who knows? Who cares? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,RobertB. Date: 04 Nov 05 - 07:07 PM Just checked through the net. No DNA done, just a story on someone trying to steal Harry's DNA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 05 - 07:45 PM You haven't checked thouroghly enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST Date: 04 Nov 05 - 08:11 PM Under hypnosis recently shown, if it was true, Hewitt admitted he was seeing diana at time of conception of the ginger prince. DNA results would never be public knowledge, but I reckon they have been done, even without Harry's permission/knowledge. No question that Harry's a Hewitt in my mind and lots of others. I don't think you have to particularly 'care' to have an opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,Chris Date: 04 Nov 05 - 11:22 PM The person known as "prince" Charles was right pissed off when Harry was born and was heard to utter something like "...and he's got bloody ginger hair, too!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Sorcha Date: 04 Nov 05 - 11:30 PM So, some new blood gets into the Windsors.....can it hurt? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 05 Nov 05 - 04:05 AM "Was there any Gingers among the Royals ?" I can't remember among the Royals, but there certainly was among the Spencers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Big Al Whittle Date: 05 Nov 05 - 04:21 AM just as long as we know who's going to the guillotine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST Date: 05 Nov 05 - 05:16 AM There are a few Gingers among the Royals, isn't the Queen's youngest son a Ginger Beer ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Dave Hanson Date: 05 Nov 05 - 10:11 AM Harry can't be James effin Hewitts son because Harry has got a backbone. eric |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST Date: 05 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM Well then he can't be charlie boys either cos he's got a chin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: *daylia* Date: 05 Nov 05 - 02:33 PM Prince Harry was two years old when James Hewitt met his mother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Liz the Squeak Date: 05 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM Look at pictures of Harry and then look at pictures of his uncle and grandfather Spencer here. He's a Spencer through and through.... LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Cobble Date: 05 Nov 05 - 05:03 PM Elizabeth the First was ginger haired. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Cluin Date: 05 Nov 05 - 05:04 PM Nobody can dispute THAT side of the parentage, Liz. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Cluin Date: 05 Nov 05 - 05:07 PM "Was there any Gingers among the Royals ?" Sure. They may cost a bit extra, but those blokes are rich. They've always liked to spoil themselves. Q. How do you know when a redhead has reached orgasm? A. She unties you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 05 - 06:07 PM Elizabeth the First was ginger haired. But the Royals aren't descended from Elizabeth the First. No one is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Peace Date: 05 Nov 05 - 07:28 PM That's why she was called "The Virgin Queen". No doubt she and Sir Walter were having it off (did I say that the British way? And correctly? Certainly wouldn't care to use the term 'shag'). Anyway, she was so referred to because she had no children--well, that she KNEW of, anyway. And with that, I wish you ALL a goodnight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 06 Nov 05 - 03:23 AM Thanks for the links provided by *daylia* (05 Nov 05 - 02:33 PM) and by Liz the Squeak (05 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM) Liz as you draw attention to it, Harry is the spitting image of his Grandfather. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST Date: 06 Nov 05 - 07:16 AM Spitting image of James Hewitt, who thinks your view counts Teribus ? if your other opinions are anything to go by! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Liz the Squeak Date: 06 Nov 05 - 07:22 AM But then... Hewitt and are very similar in appearance.... go back and look at both links. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 06 Nov 05 - 06:41 PM Well Ed and William are out of the picture on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST Date: 06 Nov 05 - 07:38 PM The butler did it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,Robbie Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:10 PM See he's following his fathers footsteps in the army. Being posted in Iraq shortly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Alba Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:42 PM See Thread titled BS: Harry Wales: The Human Shield for more views on this very topic Robbie! Best Wishes Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,ib48 Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:53 AM definately hewitts,is that why they want him to go to the front line? I WONDER |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,Robbie Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:04 AM Refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Rapparee Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:16 AM Like so many other things, why should I care? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,Windsor Knot Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:48 PM Very intersting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Big Mick Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM Nice to have a thread which gets us off of the interminable discussion of US politics. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Scooby Doo Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:49 PM So what if he is a Windsor or a Hewitt he has more guts than you or I have in fighting in this F////// war which the Americans started. Scooby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Wesley S Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM Scooby - That's not fair. The United Sates has only been able to start wars for the last 232 years. England however has been around a lot longer and has had lots more experience starting F////// wars. We're catching up as fast as we can. Have a heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Scooby Doo Date: 29 Feb 08 - 04:06 PM Sorry Wesley but i don't have a heart. Scooby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Wesley S Date: 29 Feb 08 - 04:09 PM I'll bet you do Scooby. England is a country full of big hearted people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Raedwulf Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:49 PM More to the point, Wesley, we eventually learnt that starting wars was a bloody stupid idea. And you've no excuse. We never had anyone to learn from, but you could've learnt from us... Now we just ride on your coat tails. When are you going to learn what we learnt? Maybe then the assholes in charge of us will stop getting us involved in your dumb mistakes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: goatfell Date: 01 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM who gives a damn really about the royal family, they have not work a day in their lives and yet it us the tax payer that pays their wages great job sitting on you fat arse all day but mind you the queen is a very mean woman she hardly gives her staff good enough wages at all. so as a protestant UP THE REPUBLIC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Scooby Doo Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:37 AM I disagree with you Arran DOWN WITH THE REPUBLIC AND UP WITH DEMOCRACY. Scooby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:06 AM "they have not work a day in their lives and yet it us the tax payer that pays their wages great job sitting on you fat arse all day but mind you the queen is a very mean woman she hardly gives her staff good enough wages at all." - Arran Ah Tom, you do spout a load of complete and utter crap at times, as pointed out in a couple of other threads the cost to the British Tax payer of the "Civil List" amounts to 62 pence per person per year. Because the Queen accepts the £37.2 million from the "Civil List" the UK Government pockets the entire income from the Crown Estates which amounts to £190 million. Don't know about you Tom but I make that a deal that is decidedly in favour of the UK Tax Payer. As for "they have not work a day in their lives" you chum would not last a week if you tried to follow their working schedule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: TRUBRIT Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:10 PM Any evidence that Harry is a a 'ginger beer' --- and do we care? i suppose I must if I am posting.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 03 Mar 08 - 12:09 AM No |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:20 AM "The United Sates has only been able to start wars for the last 232 years. England however has been around a lot longer and has had lots more experience starting F////// wars." - Wesley S Wesley if you go off and do a bit of research you will find that "England" has not started all that many wars, F//////, or otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:04 AM Teribus, they don't understand that calling the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "England" is like us calling the United States of America, "Texas". Now wouldn't that wind some of them up? All English people are British, but not all British people are English. Not exactly rocket-science, methinks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM Teribus and Backwoodsman, I resent the generalization that says "they don't understand that calling......" and the implication that we are all ignorant louts. One person made an assertion. If you were as enlightened as you seek to portray yourselves, you would have addressed your nasty little comment to the person who made it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Wesley S Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:15 AM I used the term England because that's where London and Parliment are located. I'll assume that the seat of your government would be the proper place to look when it comes getting the wars started. I can see why y'all would want to spread that honor around a little. True - America started this most recent war - but not with my approval. England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdon were all dragged into the war - we put a gun to your head and forced you. So sorry. It's not your fault. You're blameless. There - is that better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,PMB Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:27 AM But we do call all USAians "Yankees". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: goatfell Date: 03 Mar 08 - 12:08 PM So the Irish Republic is not a DEMOCRACY, then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:41 PM I do believe Big Mick that I did address my post specifically to Wesley S, so that I certainly am a bit mystified as to what your post of 03 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM is all about. But I will stand by my statement England, Great Britain, the UK, call it what you will, has started very few wars. Those that we did get drawn into we generally finished them in pretty good shape - and that does include your War of Independence which took on a global perspective in which Britain enhanced her trading position in the Carribean, Africa and in the Far East at the expense of Spain, France and the Netherlands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Wesley S Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM Well - the victors DO get to write the history.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,Busby on 42nd Street. Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM Teribus, They were good at kicking the crap out of the natives and looting the countries they took by sword and bayonet. They never seem to flex their muscle at the big boys ! Tell us more about the camps they set up in South Africa during the Boer War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:33 PM Well best compare their performance against the superpowers of the day and compare the "Empires" they created Compared to the British Empire the French, Spanish and Dutch came nowhere close, it never started as an Empire it started as a Commonwealth and has since reverted to a Commonwealth of Nations, second largest international organisation only to the United Nations. British Army at the height of Queen Victoria's reign numbered 40,000 less men than the US currently have in Iraq. So 42nd Street Busby, if what you say is true, they must have been really good at "kicking the crap out of the natives and looting the countries they took by sword and bayonet" over two thirds of the surface of this planet. As for your - "They never seem to flex their muscle at the big boys !" - You have got to be kidding, for the best part of 400 years, they knocked seven bells out of all the "big boys" of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: artbrooks Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:40 PM Have the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx, and whoever else is included ever started any wars? Except maybe for the odd invasion of England? Maybe Wesley S. was right in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:55 AM Art the greatest disater ever to befall Scotland was James IV's invasion of England in 1513 that was fairly short lived and ended with James' death on Flodden Field. At that time Scotland had lived at peace with England and was prospering. England was at war with France and the French were coming in second. The Queen of France playing to James's sense of chivalry, sent James IV a handkerchief, a ring and a letter pleading that Scotland should come the the aid of their old ally France. James Stuart, then, like a complete and utter prat assembled the largest and best army Scotland had ever mustered and invaded England. Just over the Tweed a wee bit up from Ford Common he met an old English nobleman, the Earl of Surrey, just recalled from France. He was an extremely experienced soldier and a very capable commander. He enticed the Scots from a dominating position on Flodden Hill, the English armed with Pikes and Halberts lopped the ends of the Scottish lances, the slaughter was immense. The famous and well known Scottish lament, "The Floo'ers O the Forest" was penned about the Battle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,Busby on 42nd Street Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:57 AM Teribus, Please tell us more about the internment camps they set up in South Africa during the Boer War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:47 AM By all means Busby on 42nd Street. The Boer Kommandos were being supplied and kept "in the field" by sympathisers in the surrounding farms. The civilians were cleared off their land into "concentration camps" and the Boers lost the supply lines, they eventually decided to negotiate peace terms. As a means of shortening the conflict and bringing about an end to the war the strategy was effective. There is only one governing rule in war - Win. Anybody that has any misconception about that is a complete and utter fool, no-one engages in war to lose "nicely", war is not a "nice" business. The conditions in the British Camps in South Africa became one of the leading points of debate in the General Election and campaigners in the UK won concessions from the Governmment to improve conditions markedly. South Africa became a self Governing Dominion in 1906 and the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910. Counter to popular myth the British did not "invent" such camps: First recorded use of this tactic was in the Spanish 10 Year War in Cuba 1868 -1878 which resulted in the deaths of 300,000 Cuban rebels and civilians. At exactly the same time as the British were fighting the Boer War the Americans were herding Philippino civilians into camps during the Philippine - American War 1899 to 1902. There the US forces suffered 4,380 casualties whereas the Rebel lost 16,000 and civilian deaths could only be estimated at somewhere between 250,000 and 1,000,000. While all that was going on the British Forces lost round about 7,700 men in action, plus some 15,000 from disease, Boer losses in action amounted to about 8,000 men with civilain casualties of 28,000 Boer + 20,000 Africans. Therefore in the scale of things the British camps in South Africa appear to have been a damn sight more "humane" than those operated by either the Spanish in Cuba or the Americans in the Philippines. Glad to have been of service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: GUEST,Busby on 42nd Street Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:31 PM "As a means of shortening the conflict and bringing about an end to the war the strategy was effective." Surely you are not saying the murder of thousands of women and children held in these camps was right ? |
|
Subject: BS: Means to Shorten a War ! From: GUEST,Busby on 42nd Street Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:54 PM Sadly my generation has seen more of the horrors of war due to the age of live television. No one can find justice or reason for wholesale murder on such a grant scale. Well it appears one member of this forum has the answer ! When I posed the question on another thread regarding the use and justifaction of internment camps in South Africa during the Boer war, this was the reply I received. "Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: Teribus Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:47 AM The Boer Kommandos were being supplied and kept "in the field" by sympathisers in the surrounding farms. The civilians were cleared off their land into "concentration camps" and the Boers lost the supply lines, they eventually decided to negotiate peace terms. As a means of shortening the conflict and bringing about an end to the war the strategy was effective. So there you have it, stick everyone (man, woman or child) into concentration camps. To call this "An effective Strategy" is sickening.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Means to Shorten a War ! From: Peace Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:59 PM I know Teribus and think that maybe the term 'facetious' should enter this thread. There is NO way he'd advocate that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Prince Harry From: artbrooks Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:47 PM Last time I looked, effective did not mean the same thing as right. You asked him for information, totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread, so don't bitch when he supplies it. |
