|
29 Apr 11 - 01:10 AM (#3144526) Subject: BS: The Royal Wedding From: J-boy In just a few short hours some of my countrymen will wake early and assemble themselves in front of their televisions to witness the marriage of "Will and Cate". I think (as an American) that the whole thing is a bit anachronistic and silly. What are your thoughts cousins? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:16 AM (#3144527) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,mg I don't want too much money wasted on it, but I am glad that they are setting an example of marriage and will be a fine royal couple. mg |
|
29 Apr 11 - 02:42 AM (#3144549) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Prince William was out greeting some of the crowds last night...just wandered out with Prince Harry and started chattering to loads of folks. Took everyone by surprise...and Wills looked genuinely over the moon, couldn't stop beaming, from ear to ear..He and Harry are having some time to themselves in Westminster Abbey this morning, just before the ceremony..I guess to sit quietly and spiritually be with their Mum. It must be hard being married in the same place where your Mum's funeral took place, but at least those memories will today be softened with some happy ones for them both. I bet they're both so excited! :0) |
|
29 Apr 11 - 02:54 AM (#3144550) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Doug Chadwick I haven't been invited - I just can't understand it. I feel hurt to be so ignored. DC |
|
29 Apr 11 - 02:59 AM (#3144551) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Backwoodsman "I don't want too much money wasted on it" It's all relative. I'd much rather a little of our (i.e. UK-citizens') money was "wasted" on a happy event like this, than the way your money (and, sadly, ours too) is being truly "wasted" in vast amounts on wars and the killing of citizens in countries many thousands of miles away. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 02:59 AM (#3144552) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Well, the Syrian Ambassador's been given The Order of the Royal Boote, so perhaps you could take his invite, Doug? If you leave now, you may *just* have time...and then, you could be our in-depth-on-the-spot Reporter! ;0) |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:05 AM (#3144554) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Dave Hanson Ex Tory Prime Ministers invited, ex Labour Prime Ministers not invited, says it all for me. Dave H |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:23 AM (#3144560) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. How boring is that?! Prince William and Princess Catherine will be what the folks call them, methinks..regardless of what Mrs. Queen thinks they should be called. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:27 AM (#3144561) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Arthur_itus I am not happy about the dosh being spent, but have to agree with Backwoodsman completely. Great to see such enthusiasm and it will be a very special day. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:46 AM (#3144567) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 She'll be so missed today by her sons. Harry's tender and moving words below say it all: Prince Harry talking about his Mother |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:48 AM (#3144569) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) I wish the young couple well, but the odds are stacked against them. I am sick listening to "the wedding will generate 500 million pounds " It will also see 6 billion pounds lost due to businesses having to close for the day, no production yet employers still have to pay wages. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 04:05 AM (#3144571) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Keith A of Hertford Like many countries, we are broke and facing an austere future. Unlike other countries we have these excuses to feel good about ourselves. We have incompetent and corrupt politicians representing us as other countries do. What we have and you don't is something above politics to represent us. Not much to celebrate in nearby republics just now. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:47 AM (#3144596) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Bloody hell Keith! Lighten up mate! Theres the snooker final next weekend, we had four days of continous sunshine recently and there's a good deal on two litres of gin at tesco. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:54 AM (#3144598) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller I've put up my Republic posters where they can be prominently seen by the people who will be holding a street party right outside my house. Now, shall I wear my t-sirt that says "I'm paying for this bloody wedding and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"? I rather think I might LOL! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 06:03 AM (#3144600) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MikeL2 hi Personally I am not a royalist, but I am not particularly anti either. As far as I am concerned the wedding is just that.....a wedding !! I wish the happy couple well as I would any couple getting married. My wife though is staunchly Royalist and loves weddings !! So at the moment she is camped in the lounge with feet up watching the event avidly. I have volunteered to be head cook and bottle-washer so that she can enjoy herself. If it makes Jan happy it makes me happy too. Best wishes to William & Kate and I hope that they are very happy together for a long time to come. As for cost - in the overall picture of things it is a drop in the ocean so lighten up everyone. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
29 Apr 11 - 06:20 AM (#3144607) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Musket Not watching it or excited by it. If I were a friend or relative of their then fine, but for me, it's a good boost for the economy, makes more GDP than it costs and good luck to them. So not against it nor moaning about it. Dave Hanson seems to think that ex Tory Prime Ministers have been invited and ex Labour Prime Ministers haven't. Just for the record, no ex Prime Minister has been invited. Just the current one. Knights of The Garter are part of the Royal caravan and are invited to such events. Despite an incoming Prime Minister traditionally offering that Knighthood to their predecessors, neither Tony Blair nor Gordon brown wanted it. Nothing to do with political party. A constitutional Monarchy is just that. Apolitical. Regardless of what any of the members would (or in the case of minor Royals do) vote. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 06:36 AM (#3144608) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Very amusing! labour seems to have some strange friends and allies in this. the Times says Tony should be in because he saved the royal family when they got it wrong over diana's death. The Mail ( who would rather die than say anything nice about labour) says at least Tony isn't one of these foreign nig nogs and he should be there. Blair very gallant, but smiling bravely through the fact that the Queen has had a chance at last, to knee him in the bollocks for that Helen Mirren film. all human life...! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:00 AM (#3144618) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu Sniff... I always get teary-eyed at weddings. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:33 AM (#3144633) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu Who's the chick with the antlers? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:46 AM (#3144638) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Dave Hanson M Thatcher and John Major have been invited, Mrs T is too ill to attend, and it was answered yesterday that there is a precedent for inviting PMs or ex PMs who are not Knights of the Garter. Dave H |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:48 AM (#3144640) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 LOL, gnu...She was Princess Beatrice, daughter of Prince Andrew and Sarah Fergusson...the other oddly dressed one was her sister, Eugenie. That's exactly what I thought she was wearing too, antlers! Cripes, she's gonna hate those photographs! Catherine looked beautiful though, elegance personified, very Grace Kelly. Even Mrs. Queen looked pretty, in sunshine yellow. Prince Phil did exraordinarily well for 90 years old and managed to keep his mouth shut too. I'm off to order I loved every moment of it. So...hang me. ;0) |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:50 AM (#3144641) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Oops, I'm off to order.........a body like Kate's sister. Was she the slinkiest 'Maid of Honour' ever...or what? Bet all you Republicans wished you'd watched it now.. ;0) And the trees were awesome, as were the floral displays. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:51 AM (#3144642) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Charley Noble The whole thing is considerably more lavish than what Judy and I did but if it makes them happy, what the hell! Charley Noble |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:04 AM (#3144647) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: olddude This old American country boy says Wow ... she looked so beautiful. I am so happy for them. I watched Diana get married, watch her funeral saw the kids grow ... just wonderful. He sure got a beauty didn't he |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:06 AM (#3144648) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu I listened to the TV from the office and whenever I heard a roar from the crowd I peeked in to see who scored. I was amazed by the lack of horseshit. Some of the horses were keyed up, nodding to the crowd constantly but most seemed unimpressed. I was impressed with the horses, the military, the carriages. Worth a few bob eh? Katey was either nervously excited or missed wave training. I assume Beth will take her aside and give her some pointers. And, yes, she was stunning. Good thing it wasn't sunny or the bling woulda blinded some peeps. All in all, for what little I did see, it was quite the show. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:06 AM (#3144649) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Backwoodsman It were great. Will's got himself a corker, lucky young bugger. And it got those of us who work for our living a day off work - hurrah! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:07 AM (#3144652) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Backwoodsman "I assume Beth will take her aside and give her some pointers." There is no Beth, gnu. It's Lillibet. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:08 AM (#3144653) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: nutty I didn't intend to watch it but got sucked in and now I'm really glad. I thought the ceremony was wonderful, grand yet still with the feeling of a family wedding. Kate and William seemed so relaxed and natural with each other and the whole Middleton family contrasted very favourably with the Royals even though some people would like to consider them as commoners. After years of being totally uninterested in the antics of the younger Royals, I feel that William, Harry and now Kate have breathed new life into British Royalty and I'm sure we have Diana to thank for that. However I still think that things could regress if Charles ever becomes King. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:29 AM (#3144664) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Little Robyn And there they are on the balcony. And the kiss.... Luverly! Robyn |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:35 AM (#3144666) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: olddude That was a kiss, good grief, come on Will have a look at that girl you just married she is stunning ... We need to have a talk with that boy don't we |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:35 AM (#3144667) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu I think I saw Terry just inside the doors. I expect he'll be gigging at the reception. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:37 AM (#3144669) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Arthur_itus 2 kisses. I'll bet they can't wait for it to be all over. :-) Good luck to them. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:41 AM (#3144671) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: olddude Yea I agree Arthur, it has to be a long day for the both of them. They always say that everyone has fun at a wedding except for the bride and groom ... I think that is true, it is exhausting. Fun to watch all the people so excited. It is wonderful to see something nice for a change instead of only wars and troubled economy |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:51 AM (#3144675) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu D'ya suppose her parents kicked in on the party supplies and decorations? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:51 AM (#3144676) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: olddude I like all the hats also, fun to see all the ladies wearing all the different styles of hats. Never see that much anymore |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:04 AM (#3144677) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: ragdall It was luverly! Evidentally there are still a good number of people who appreciate the monarchy. (Or appreciate an occasion to hold a big party)? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:05 AM (#3144679) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Stu Was Harry's dad invited? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:11 AM (#3144682) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: maple_leaf_boy As a Jacobite, I didn't watch it. My loyalty is to Francis II, Duke of Bavaria. Did anybody try to sabotage it? There were public threats made by Irish folks and Al-Qaida, I've heard of. I would've but, I couldn't at this time. If it was a little later on I could. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:21 AM (#3144683) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Harry made me laugh...he's such a wildchild. He grinned his way through it all...and...he grinned hugely when he saw his new sister-in-law coming down the aisle, no doubt said something a bit cheeky to Wills, from the look on his face..Wills kept staring straight ahead..good as gold.. You Jacobites don't know what you missed. ;0) Great to see the flypast by the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Lancaster... I miss the Queen Mum though... |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:28 AM (#3144684) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,number 6 All those exaggerated uniforms .... reminds me of scenes right out of the movie Duck Soup ... all that was missing were the 4 Marx brothers. biLL .... :-) |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:29 AM (#3144687) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,hg My grandmother Brenda Heywood was an English citizen until her death although she lived in America and married two Americans. She would have loved to watch this on the telly so I watched every bit of it for her and we enjoyed the bloody hell out of it! Two kisses!!!!!!!! It was wonderful and I bet they stay married forever! So there.... love, harpgirl |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:31 AM (#3144689) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs A absolutely wonderful occasion and celebration by the people of Britain, an exemplar to world and all those miserable killjoys - they know who they are, carried out to that degree of perfection that only our country is able to achieve. We wish them every happiness and joy. I took 360 photos from our TV screen. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:49 AM (#3144696) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller What a complete and utter load of bollocks. I've spent all day managing to avoid it. A total travesty of what this country is all about and what it represents in the world. What a poor example those lickspittle sycophants are setting - they know who they are. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 10:00 AM (#3144700) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Jim Dixon I'm an American, and I love it. Of course, I don't have to pay for it. But then, I do have to pay for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the lasting effects of previous wars. Weddings are a lot more fun, and cheaper. I can understand the republican sentiment. (Small 'r' to distinguish it from the American Republican Party.) But the royals serve one important function: By draining off the impulse for patriotic hero-worship, it means you don't have to treat your politicians like royalty, and I think you get better politicians because of it. At least, you get smarter ones. We Americans have to suffer fools like George W. Bush & Ronald Reagan, who would have been cut to ribbons if they'd had to endure something like your Parliamentary Question Time. (Bush admitted this, sort of.) Our presidents are able to stand aloof from any kind of accountability partly because too many people feel it is unpatriotic to criticize them too much. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 10:00 AM (#3144701) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Backwoodsman Good job I know you Pete, otherwise I'd be thinking you're a gutwrenchingly miserable, joyless, soulless old fart! :-) :-) There's more than enough abject misery in this world, much of it caused by us and our so-called "allies", what's wrong with a bit of fun for one day? No-one's hurt, and a lot of people are made happy. Only a Green-Eyed Monster could object. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 10:03 AM (#3144703) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs "What a complete and utter load of bollocks. I've spent all day managing to avoid it. A total travesty of what this country is all about and what it represents in the world. What a poor example those lickspittle sycophants are setting - they know who they are." Oh you are so wrong and you know it. I pity your family constantly being subjected to your inane drivel. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 10:04 AM (#3144704) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion Sorry, Leveller; but you & Fred & all of you lot over there are entirely in the minority; and you know that's true whatever you say. If you spent the day 'managing to avoid it' you didn't see the multitudes who think differently from you ~~~ I'll say it again - not just crowds; not just throngs, but And you claim to believe in democracy I suppose, don't you? And every one of them as good as you or Fred or me & just as entitled to an opinion on the matter, eh? Well then....... Just work it out.... ~M~ |
|
29 Apr 11 - 10:36 AM (#3144725) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Rapparee I've been invited on the Royal Honeymoon! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 10:39 AM (#3144726) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu ... Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Lancaster. Indeed! And the followup was impressive as well. Not so for people who have never seen same in person, I suppose. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:18 AM (#3144746) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Arthur_itus All from Lincolnshire Gnu |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:31 AM (#3144752) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MikeL2 hi <" Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Lancaster."> Called in on their way to bomb Libya ??? Cheers Mikel2 |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:34 AM (#3144754) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion Even a fule kno Spitfire & Hurricane were fighters, not bombers... ~M~ |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:36 AM (#3144755) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MikeL2 hi Caught some of the actual Service while having lunch. I have to say that it was very impressive in the Abbey. Thought the Bishop of London went on a bit though. Saw Posh & Becks. Very smart. David was wearing a medal - not one he won with Man United ??? Was he wearing it on the correct lapel...eg right??? Cheers Mikel2 |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:38 AM (#3144757) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MikeL2 hi Michael I was in the RAF !!! lol The Hurricane & Spitfire were protecting the Lancaster. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:40 AM (#3144759) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller "Good job I know you Pete, otherwise I'd be thinking you're a gutwrenchingly miserable, joyless, soulless old fart! :-) :-)" LOL! That's me! I agree that I may be in the minority, but until this country becomes a fascist state I'm entitled to hold and express that opinion. A huge number of my friends and acquaintances hold similar views. Nor will I be subjected to the bullies who think I should shut up! Right this moment there is a street party outside my house - I even let them tie the bunting to my tree. The fact that I choose not to join in is neither here nor there. I don't want to stop people enjoying themselves; I just happen to think the monarchy is a waste of time, money and space. If anyone doesn't like that, tough shit! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:41 AM (#3144760) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion Were you then, LoL? Then you know bombers didn't fly with fighter escorts... Nice thought, tho, mind! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:43 AM (#3144762) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller "I pity your family constantly being subjected to your inane drivel." My family mostly think the same way. What does your family think about your drivel, Bozo? I'd be really interested to know. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:57 AM (#3144766) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller Six more minutes an I'll be five o'clock and we can open a bottle of wine and toast the happy couple (that's me and mrsleveller because we've managed to avoid the wedding) then we're going to go out and have a go on the bouncy castle in the field next door. Hooray - I LOVE bouncey castles. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 12:01 PM (#3144768) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Stu "Only a Green-Eyed Monster could object." Or someone who's lost their job due to cuts . . . losing their carers because of cuts . . . can't afford to go to uni because of the rising prices etc etc To those people it seems they're having wealth and privilege waved in their faces and are paying for the pleasure. I've nothing agains the couple personally and I wish them well in their new life as I would any other newly weds whose wedding (or part of) I don't have to pay for. Westminster Abbey looked nice with the trees though. But what the heck. It's par for the course. The country is run by a cabal of old Etonians, rich businessmen and public schoolboys; some ordinary millionaire's daughter has been co-opted into one of the richest families in the country, Monarchs, slebs and politicians have gathered to pay homage to this unremarkable bit of social immobility and the willing citizens render themselves subjects and kneel before the flag and monarchy and accept their place in the world. Which, however at one you feel with House Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Baaaaaa! I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here . . . a royal wedding, bunting, the innocent bride, the old crew on the balcony, a war or two, deprivation, misery, a nasty little piece of work in the PM's chair . . . it's like we'e back to the good old days of you-know-who. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 12:09 PM (#3144770) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: michaelr I'm told the wedding cost the British public 29 million pounds. If that is true, I can understand the anger of some members of that public. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 12:09 PM (#3144771) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) Today was a great day, we shared happiness as a nation, families enjoyed a memorable trip to the capital, the ceremony was filled with pomp and splendour in a way only us Brits can do it. Americans interviewed in the capital today spoke with envy of us having a Royal family. Don't sour the day be going red Fred, May day is on Monday so you can wrap the red flag around you then. Makes you proud to part of this great nation. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 12:40 PM (#3144786) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link here,s hoping this royal marraige fares better than some others. hopefully the royalty paraphenalia will be good for the economy,or at least recoup the expense. but the english do pomp and ceremony so well-don,t we?. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 12:44 PM (#3144789) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Arthur_itus The number of people who enjoyed the wedding far outwieghed the ones that didn't. That has now't to do with politics. Anyway the debt for this cvountry was taken over from Mr Brown, so lets stop the crap about the cons. I am not a con voter, but some of you people need to get a life. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:11 PM (#3144804) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu 29 million pounds!? Good thing the Canuck PM had nothing to do with it. He spent a billion bucks on a much smaller party in Toronto last year. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:16 PM (#3144807) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack heading for the pub "I am not a con voter, but some of you people need to get a life." With eyes wide open . . . Was impressed with the Battle of Britain memorial flypast though, and good luck to the lad as at least he puts his life on the line in the service of all of us and that bravery is to be admired. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:22 PM (#3144811) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs What does your family think about your drivel, Bozo? I'd be really interested to know. They enjoy every minute of it. I hope you enjoyed not enjoying the street party, because enjoyment and having fun is most important. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:25 PM (#3144813) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Backwoodsman Jack, Leveller, according to the BBC there was an estimated worldwide audience of 2 billion - THAT'S TWO FRIGGIN' BILLION. That tells me that you're outvoted. Two billion of us are happy today. Hurrah! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:30 PM (#3144815) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Fred McCormick Bloody hell. Are you people still at it? I spent most of today with a group of friends on Hilbre island in the mouth of the river Dee, miles away from the wedding. It was the gear. Not a tv or radio anywhere within hearing distance. We sang republican and socialist songs, and picnicked, and observed the birdlife and the seals and the flora and the extraordinary sandstone rock formation which is such a distinctive feature of that splendid isle. All that after a splendid night at Liverpool's own Woody Guthrie Folk Club, where we were righty republicanly entertained by the socialist sentiments of no less a personage than Roy Bailey. Brother, did the wedding come in for some stick! And I'll be out again on Sunday, demonstrating against the cuts and the coalition and singing revolutionary songs with the Liverpool Socialist Singers. Dunno what we'll be singing yet, but Joe Hill will certainly get in there, as will Bandiera Rossa and the Internationale and quite a few others. Sorry, did I hear the sound of a tory sick bag being opened? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:43 PM (#3144823) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Becca72 For some reason, this is all I could hear in my head during the ceremony... :-) mairrwage |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:44 PM (#3144824) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Fred McCormick Sorry Backwoodsman, there are almost 7 billion people on this planet. That leaves around 5 billion who didn't tune in. OK, there are some ruthlessly repressive regimes who prevented their citizens from tuning in. (And before anybody says anything, I condemn all tyrannical regimes, whether of the left or the right.) So let's knock a billion off that figure. Then again, we should discount perhaps another billion who are too remote or poverty stricken to get to a tv. That leaves potentially 3 billion who didn't watch it. Doesn't sound like we've been outvoted to me. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:45 PM (#3144827) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion Oh, Fred, you old cheater you. Out you were singing and enjoying yourself, when you had PROMISED to spend the day cowering under the stairs. Shame on you for being such a wicked old fibber! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:49 PM (#3144831) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller I've had a great day! Really enjoyed the bouncey castle.Then just as the street party was ending (bear in mind I live in an ultra-tory/ukip area)a Labour Party candidate drove up and spent half an hour in heated debate with what was left of the party. It was hilarious - talk about putting your head in the lion's mouth! I'm not normally a Labour supporter (well, not New Labour) but that man gets my vote. "They enjoy every minute of it." Then they're the only people who do, Bozo! I bet she likes hitting herself on the head with a hammer - and the dog obviously can't run away! LOL! Bear in mind that I come from a long line of left-wing activists and social reformers, and that mrsleveller works for the Workers' Education Association and younger son is following the tradition (he's at uni studying History and Politics). We'll keep the red flag flying here. Long Live the Republic! :) |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:50 PM (#3144832) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Fred McCormick Well M, I thought under the stairs was about the only place I could be sure of not running into you. Then I remembered Hilbre Island. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 01:57 PM (#3144835) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller Oh dear, I'm quite tearful now! Some of our neighbours have just come over and given us big hugs and said they wished that we'd been at the party. When we explained that we would have felt hypocritical, being Republicans, they said that it makes absolutely no difference as they aren't that into the royal family anyway, so where off out get the adults' party going. If previous village parties are anytghing to go by, this will probably be going very late into the night. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 02:01 PM (#3144836) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs Have a great time, I'm off to deprive our garden of a considerable amount of greenery which has grown whilst we were on holiday! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:00 PM (#3144859) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Ebbie "...where off out get the adults' party going." sheesh I never will understand English English. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:06 PM (#3144862) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MikeL2 Hi Michael I know that fighter escorts were not particularly successful in the early days of WW2 but both Spitfires & Hurricanes did fly on escort missions. 122 Squadron of 2nd Tactical Air Group based at Turnhouse near Edinburgh certain flew on escort missions. They were superceeded by the American Mustangs as the main escorts. Especially when the B52's were introduced into Europe. Regards MileL2 |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:10 PM (#3144864) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Alan Day I thought Kate looked absolutely lovely. Nice dress. Her Chief Bridesmaid's dress was stunning , plain and simple, but just lovely. I think I can put up with Kate's smile for a few years. Good luck to all that enjoyed the day.Very patriotic. Al |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:14 PM (#3144869) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) I thought young Hewitt did a great job. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:57 PM (#3144895) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion MikeL ~~ but to be really pedantic, didn't Lancasters come along a bit later? Still, take your point! ~M~ |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:12 PM (#3144960) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Q (Frank Staplin) Lots of money spent, but with all the visitors, and interest elsewhere, sales are good, probablt many times the outlay. It was a good show. I got up at 3AM and watched through to the away at around six and to bed again. Music was excellent, the hats were out of this world, Harry constantly rocking on his feet- lots to watch. I thought the forest inported* into Westminster was a bit too much, but maybe the Greens applauded. *inadvertently a new word. Descriptive, so I won't change it. As a one-time car-buff, I liked the arrivals in the limousines (saloons?) better than the departure with the 'osses. One with side-mount tires, I would have mortgaged my soul for. (My wife said I was nuts for watching it) |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:58 PM (#3144979) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Dave the Gnome A reet gradely do. Nowt to do with politics or class or creed - whatever people may think. It was about the joining of two people who obvioulsly love each other and, even if it did come from our purse, which I doubt, 2 billion people watching surely made up for it. No? MP |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:17 PM (#3145012) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Joe Offer Anygody care for a fashion report?.... The groom wore a stunning red uniform jacket with gold cuffs and collar and a sky-blue sash adorned with pips and epaulets and a few medals, all held together with what appeared to be a very wide brown belt..... What's the shamrock on his collar for? I see the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour was delayed so it would not conflict with the wedding. I never did quite like that shuttle - why do the Americans have to use the British spelling for the name of that shuttle? Isn't Endeavor good enough? -Joe- |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:30 PM (#3145017) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Ruth Archer The Shamrock is presumably there because he is a Colonel of the Irish Guards. The Endeavour is presumably spelled that way because it is named as a tribute to Captain Cook's ship. Q, I think you'll find that the term du jour is "curated", which has come to mean any remotely creative endeavour (see what I did there?), from making an iPod playlist to framing some pictures to put on the wall of your house - so you could say "Oh wow - Kate Middleton curated an amazing indoor forest for her wedding" while sipping your appletini. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:23 PM (#3145037) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Gervase I took 360 photos from our TV screen. That's just plain weird - the sort of thing that used to typify the folk that Diana used to call 'the cat-stranglers'. I watched it and thought it was enchanting. Utterly irrelevant to the world as it is today, but all the better for that. The language of the Book of Common Prayer wedding service is such a part of the warp and weft of our culture that even a crusty atheist like me finds magic in the words, while the drill and pageantry was faultless. This is one republican who thoroughly enjoyed the whole preposterous shebang. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:26 PM (#3145039) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Q (Frank Staplin) kate was the plat du jour? (sorry) I'm still mired back in the days when people drank latte |
|
29 Apr 11 - 08:39 PM (#3145043) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Gervase I'd love to see a provenance for the 2 billion viewers claim. One suspects that this is an absurdly optimistic guess which suits the broadcasters' purposes to the point where it can be mentioned unchallenged. The FIFA world cup final claimed to have reached an estimated 1.3 billion viewers, and that figure was derided by many. To suggest that the wedding, jolly though it was, reach nearly 30 per cent of the population of the planet is preposterous. Look at the audience. Vast areas of the world don't have access to television. For them the viewing figures will be 0 percent. A fifth of the world's population lives in China. I would be surprised if the wedding was shown live and watched by 30 per cent of the population of the People's Republic. Even in the royal-loving USA, I find it hard to believe that a quarter of the population of Los Angeles got up at 3am to watch, or a quarter of New York stirred from its slumbers at 6am to tune in. What say our US posters? How many here watched it live? Even allowing for clips shown on news broadcasts, online showings and streamed to mobile devices a day later, the two billion figure still seems ludicrous. Sorry to piss on the parade, but shoddy claims like that do no-one any favours. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 10:52 PM (#3145070) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: J-boy I watched about four minutes of the big show on youtube. The flyover was cool. I just wonder how many bears died to supply the hats on those Coldstream Guards. Or maybe they use fake fur now? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 11:06 PM (#3145073) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: J-boy And mighty fine hats they are. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 12:39 AM (#3145098) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Little Hawk Turned out okay, did it? I'm glad. Penelope Rutledge and her clan must have had a simply wonderful time. I'm sure they'll remember it for the rest of their lives. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 03:21 AM (#3145128) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "I just wonder how many bears died to supply the hats on those Coldstream Guards. Or maybe they use fake fur now?" The bearskins apparently are the 'by-product' from the culling of bears which takes places in Canada and the USA each year, under the supervision of Rangers, where they're killed to stop too much damage being done. They are *not* specifically killed for the British Army to make use of them. The Army purchases around 50-100 pelts a year. We are not the only country to use them...and the Army are searching for an alternative: BBC article on Bearskins Wiki - Bearskin Hats This is a great site for many things to do with English and British Culture: The Queen's Guard - from Woodlands Junior School |
|
30 Apr 11 - 03:42 AM (#3145133) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Arthur_itus The really nice thing about the wedding, is that it allowed us,and will for the next week or two, to be happy and see happy news and events, instead of all the aweful things we do get to see on the news these days. It's as good as taking your depression pills. I wish we could ban unhappy news on TV and the papers, and leave other countries to sort their own issues out and work on the positives of the UK. Mudcat doesn't help, becuase there is always somebody who wants to knock a very happy event and of course blame it on the politicians. What was so great, was that there was no trouble for the police to have to deal with. Much nicer. People came together in harmony and for a day, forgot their worries. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:34 AM (#3145153) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 This was lovely, so very 'British'....Everyone did themselves proud yesterday. The Police walking the crowds up The Mall There was a magical shot on the News this morning, of one of the policman boogeying on down to the crowds, as they were walking up The Mall...He was dancing down it, in front of them all...giving some real Soul Brother moves...it was great! :0) I'm trying to find it on Youtube, no luck yet though.. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:39 AM (#3145155) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: DMcG Had an interesting discussion with my son about it today - neither of us watched, but he probably would have if he had not been visiting. He made the point that whether you are pro- or anti- the royals, they are one of the few things that are world-wide symbols of being British. But that led on to a few other things, to do with to what extent the wedding is binding the country together. I haven't seen a good enough photo of the crowds outside the palace, but I'd be really interested to know how well it reflects the ethnic mix of Britain today. The visitors from outside the UK add complications, of course, but some rough guide would be interesting. Also I became aware of one of Sherlock Holme's "dogs that didn't bark": I didn't see any shop selling fireworks and they are usually everywhere for these sorts of things. I can imagine prohibitions in the London area but haven't heard of one ... |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:42 AM (#3145157) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Keith A of Hertford Joe, as Ruth said, William's uniform was that of the Irish Guards, of which he is honorary Colonel. The page boys' uniforms were based on the same and also bore the shamrock. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:47 AM (#3145158) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Keith A of Hertford The TV audience may not have been 2 billion, but it was big. No ceremony connected with the administration of any republic would generate such interest and warmth. Maybe the first moon landing was comparable. Did anyone not enjoy it? Certainly not those who supported the fatwah and declared it a target. Sad for them. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:52 AM (#3145161) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 I found that policeman! :0) He's in here, a few moments in... Royal Wedding Moments You May Have Missed - BBC News "..I haven't seen a good enough photo of the crowds outside the palace, but I'd be really interested to know how well it reflects the ethnic mix of Britain today..." Pretty darn well, from what I saw yesterday..and there's a beautiful shot here of a West Indian lassie, Grace Gothard, all decked out in Union Jacks and looking radiantly happy. :0) Grace's England :0) |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:02 AM (#3145164) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Allan Conn "to do with to what extent the wedding is binding the country together." To tell you the truth I don't think it makes much of a difference re real politics. Many people perhaps see it more of a celbrity thing now - double A list perhaps - but still a celebrity thing. If anything it has perhpas emphasised the difference between modern Scotland and England at least. There seems to be a feeling of goodwill towards the couple here but there has been little big celebration. Folk were on holiday so no doubt many saw at least part of the wedding but the press was reporting last week that there are only 30 officially sanctioned street parties in the entire country (compared with thousands in England) and most of these were in Edinburgh itself. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:03 AM (#3145165) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: theleveller OUCH! Got a bit of a sore head from NOT celebrating the wedding last night. But took the dog out round the lanes this morning and the sun is shining, the hawthorn hedgrows have burst into blossom and the verges are bright with cowslips, lady's smock and stitchwort. Now that's really what this country is all about, not a bunch of drones wasting our money on a pointless execise in self-aggrandizement. And today I've got a big plot to dig over for the new gothic garden next to the orchard so better get started as mrsleveller is standing over me with a whip (nice!). |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:12 AM (#3145172) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Oh, fer goodness sake, levels, stop being such a misery. :0) Besides, you now have to live down enjoying a party that was ONLY put on because of the Royal Wedding...Teehee.. ;0) |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:30 AM (#3145179) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Ralphie Best bit for me was the choral piece during the ceremony....Very Lauridsen/Taverner-ish. Nice touch with the MG too! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:33 AM (#3145180) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs I took 360 photos from our TV screen. That's just plain weird - the sort of thing that used to typify the folk that Diana used to call 'the cat-stranglers'. I watched it and thought it was enchanting. Utterly irrelevant to the world as it is today, but all the better for that. The language of the Book of Common Prayer wedding service is such a part of the warp and weft of our culture that even a crusty atheist like me finds magic in the words, while the drill and pageantry was faultless. This is one republican who thoroughly enjoyed the whole preposterous shebang. Even more wierd that I had the camera on RAW format setting which is a pain to convert to jpg. You're right about the language, great words from the time when my parents forced me to go to church!! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:35 AM (#3145182) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) It was an Aston Martin Ralphie, yes I agree a very nice touch. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:37 AM (#3145183) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST Joe... "I see the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour was delayed so it would not conflict with the wedding." Hahahahaaa |
|
30 Apr 11 - 07:54 AM (#3145224) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs The photos in the paper are just as blurred as those I took from the TV!!! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 08:10 AM (#3145229) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Eliza "Even a fule know..." MtheGM, you remind me of '1066 and all that', is that where you got that expression from? Made me smile. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 08:53 AM (#3145246) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MikeL2 hi bonzo My wife wanted some pictures to send to her sister in Spain. So I put the wedding on timeslip on one of my DVD recorders. I edited the file and during editing process took still pics of what Jan wanted. The results are certainly much better than I saw in today's papers. Got me a few brownie points at home too !! Cheers Mikel2 |
|
30 Apr 11 - 09:39 AM (#3145270) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Keith A of Hertford According to a recent CBS News/ New York Times poll, Queen Elizabeth II has a 61 percent favourable rating among Americans, with a mere 7 per cent holding an unfavourable view of the British monarch (a further 25 per cent are undecided). That compares with an average job approval rating this week of 45.5 percent for the US president according to RealClear Politics, with some recent polls placing him as low as 41 percent. Prince William was just behind the Queen with 57 per cent approval, with Kate Middleton polling at 45 percent (with 43 per cent undecided, bearing in mind that the survey was conducted almost two weeks ago, before much of the publicity surrounding the royal wedding.) Only Prince Charles was less popular than the polling average for Barack Obama, with an approval rating of 38 percent. All you have to do is to rename the office of president to that of prime minister, and accept the queen as your constitutional head of state. The politicians can get on with the politics and no-one has to like them. It works for 80% of brits. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 09:47 AM (#3145272) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: McGrath of Harlow You've never evidently still to make the acquaintance of Nigel Molesworth, the Curse of St Custards, Eliza. I think you'll like him. As chronicled in Down with Skool ect |
|
30 Apr 11 - 09:47 AM (#3145273) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion "Even a fule know..." MtheGM, you remind me of '1066 and all that', is that where you got that expression from? Made me smile. === No, Eliza; the quote is from Geoffrey Willans & Ronald Searle's "Nigel Molesworth, the Curse of St Custards" stories, originally in Punch magazine 1940s, collected in 1950s in books: Down With Skool, How To Be Topp, Wizz For Atoms, Back In The Jugg Agane. Happy to have made you :) ♥~Michael~♥ |
|
30 Apr 11 - 09:50 AM (#3145274) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion Wow, McGrath; how about that for a X-post dead heat! Just look at the times. SNAP! ~M~ |
|
30 Apr 11 - 09:53 AM (#3145278) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Dave the Gnome Found this quite interesting - From an article in the online Guardian Newly-wed couple drive from Buckingham Palace to Clarence House in car given to Prince Charles by Queen in 1969 Prince William, in a surprise break from the schedule, borrowed his father's 41-year-old open-topped Aston Martin to pootle down the Mall to Clarence House with his new bride. The car was a 21st birthday present to Prince Charles from his mother in 1969 and, like many middle-aged men's sports cars, it spends most of its life these days in the garage, used only occasionally for jaunts around the country lanes of Gloucestershire and doing only a couple of hundred miles a year. It has, however, impeccably green credentials in contrast to most 1960 sports cars, having been converted to run on bioethanol fuel – and not just any old bioenthanol but converted from surplus British wine. So it runs on plonk – all part of Charles's green initiatives: his other cars, Jaguars, an Audi and a Range Rover have all been converted to run on used cooking fat. Now, if only we all had the money to convert our cars... :-) MP |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:05 AM (#3145287) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) As expected we saw a good few knockers on this thread, some having a swing at the Royal family, some because it was a truly British celebration of not only a marriage, but of our heritage as well. It was a day many felt proud to be British. We don't have much of a feel good factor at the moment, so allow those who enjoy the pomp and splendour of such events to enjoy it. Sadly Royal marriages have a poor track record. I remember the wedding of Princess Margaret as if it was yesterday. Sadly that marriage along with those of Anne and Mark Phillips, Charles and Diana and Andrew and Sarah all took a nose dive. Yesterday also confirmed without doubt to me that Harry is no more a Royal than I am, he is the spitting image of James Hewitt, in looks, posture and in manner. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:20 AM (#3145292) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""They were superceeded by the American Mustangs as the main escorts. Especially when the B52's were introduced into Europe."" I'm a little puzzled by this since the role of the P51 Mustang was downgraded to Ground Support in 1951, and the the B52 made its maiden flight in 1952 and entered active service in 1955. It was also Jet powered and would have needed to slow down for a Mustang escort. Perhaps you were thinking of the B29? Sorry for the drift. Back on topic, today's papers featured a very good shot of the crowd, and you'd have to agree that there was a good mix of ethnic groups in that. ""We'll keep the red flag flying here. Long Live the Republic! :)"" Not in your lifetime my friend. Latest polls show 75% for keeping the Monarch and 20% against it. I don't know what the other 5% want and probably they don't know themselves. Don T. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:35 AM (#3145297) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "Yesterday also confirmed without doubt to me that Harry is no more a Royal than I am, he is the spitting image of James Hewitt, in looks, posture and in manner." Nope. He's got the Spencer red hair (see Diana's brother and sisters) and Charles' small eyes, his face shape too, which are nothing like those of James Hewitt in all the photos I've looked at. The person he most resembles, to me at least, is Diana's sister, Jane..and Sarah too... Diana didn't look like either of them, but those two sisters looked very similar. So I think that's where Harry gets his looks from, along with his colouring... Jane and Sarah |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:56 AM (#3145310) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) Sorry Lizzie, can't run with you on that one. Diana's brother is sandy, NOT bright ginger. https://network23.org/amp/files/2010/12/prince_harry_james_hewitt_20050413.jpg |
|
30 Apr 11 - 11:01 AM (#3145317) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs But Harry walks like a pro polo player!!! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 11:03 AM (#3145318) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Stilly River Sage I got up early, watched it, enjoyed it, was glad to see this story come full circle from Diana's marriage to the marriage of her son. One can imagine that Diana would have been very happy with the outcome of how she raised her son, how Charles carried through after she was gone, and how level-headed he and his new bride both appear to be. More power to them. SRS |
|
30 Apr 11 - 11:08 AM (#3145321) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: The Borchester Echo Not that I have more than the mildest iota on interest nor any brief to defend the Saxon ascendancy but it was promulgated pretty damn quickly after the engagement announcement that the families would be footing the bill for the junketing themselves. So thay could do what they damn well liked. Doesn't bother me. Puts a stop to any whingeing that "we're paying for it" anyway which is just as well as they seem well able to afford an Aston Martin DB5, lots of trees and designer frocks by the skipload. Very naff choice of music (from what I heard) except for that Welsh rugby song at the beginning "any fule know"is from the Molesworth books. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 11:14 AM (#3145324) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) I rest my case Bonzo. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 11:55 AM (#3145345) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs Saved by the Gibb - Photoshop will batch convert any number of photos from RAW to jpg in any file size to care to choose, so a lot of time saved! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 11:58 AM (#3145347) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) Some anti Royal on the radio this morning said, "give me one good reason why I should have watched the Royal Wedding yesterday, what part of that charade could possibly of held my attention for more than one minute. " I was very tempted to phone in and tell him. "Kate's sister Pippa as maid of honour poured into that dress and the rear view as she walked up the isle." http://maxfarquar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/pippa-middleton-great-arse.jpg |
|
30 Apr 11 - 12:16 PM (#3145355) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Fred McCormick Isn't that absolutely typical. Pippa Middleton's got a great arse so everything's alright with the world and we can hang onto our monarchy after all. Just as well I kept a spare royal wedding sick bag. Great ass or no, less than 50% of the British population watched the charade, so we're in the majority after all. Richie, some of us are concerned with matters of greater import than the shape of Kate Middleton's sister's arse. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 12:29 PM (#3145359) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) Okay Fred,but you would you not admit that you took just one little peep at her Khyber Pass ? |
|
30 Apr 11 - 12:37 PM (#3145361) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs "Richie, some of us are concerned with matters of greater import than the shape of Kate Middleton's sister's arse." and such sanctimoneous bores you are too! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 12:39 PM (#3145362) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs Or even sanctimonious!! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 02:04 PM (#3145387) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MikeL2 <"Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Arthur_itus - PM Date: 29 Apr 11 - 11:18 AM All from Lincolnshire Gnu "> Hi Arthur I believe The Lancaster was mainly manufactured at Avro in Woodford Cheshire just down the road from here. I think it was first flown (non-operationally from Ringway Airport Cheshire ( Now Manchester International Airport ). Cheers Mike |
|
30 Apr 11 - 02:13 PM (#3145389) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Arthur_itus Hi Mike What I mean't by that was they flew from Lincolnshire to fly over London and then before they returned to base, they flew overa village in LIncolnshire that was having a party. I didn't mean where they were built. You have a tough match tomorrow Mike. Are you going to the match? |
|
30 Apr 11 - 02:42 PM (#3145394) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "Sorry Lizzie, can't run with you on that one. Diana's brother is sandy, NOT bright ginger." Ah, but Jane is sandy...and that photo of James Hewitt..it's the *only* one where they look similar, because James has his eyes all screwed up laughing. If you look at him forward facing, they ain't even similar. Look at the eyes of Prince Charles...the colour of Jane's hair...and there you'll find Prince Harry... He does have a strange gait though..but then he's a young and funky prince, so he kinda boogied down that aisle.. When he said to William "Wait till you see what's coming!" as he turned to look at Kate...well, I wonder what he thought when he saw Pippa in *that* dress! .......Probably..."Phawwwwwwwww!" ;0) Lizzie (who has anything *but* a Pippashapedsitupon...more resembling one of the Polo Ponies) LOL |
|
30 Apr 11 - 03:34 PM (#3145408) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Eliza MtheGM, Oh yes, of course, I remember now, 'How to be Topp'. I seem to remember "Fotherington-Thomas is wet and a weed". Goodness me, how long ago since I read that book? |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:03 PM (#3145437) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: McGrath of Harlow Looking at the clip of him driving the Aston Martin, it looks as if neither of them were wearing a safety belt. If that's the case, then in light of the fact that his mother died because she didn't use a safety belt, it's a pretty weird thing to do. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:17 PM (#3145445) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: JennyD Have another look - I think they were wearing seat belts. I'm British but I live on the east coast of the USA and I can tell you that it was the one thing everybody was talking about on Friday morning, and a lot of people (like me) got up at 5am to watch it on the TV. Also there were at least four channels on the TV, including BBC America of course, showing it either in its entirety or edited highlights, later in the day. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 05:24 PM (#3145449) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Dave the Gnome Best line of the day - You know who you are so no apologies for pinching it - God, the RAF are rubbish. They didn't hit one of those Germans on the balcony. :-) MP |
|
30 Apr 11 - 07:21 PM (#3145498) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "Sorry Lizzie, can't run with you on that one. Diana's brother is sandy, NOT bright ginger." Ah, but Jane is sandy...>>>> Darn it, I meant Jane IS Bright Ginger! :0) |
|
30 Apr 11 - 07:38 PM (#3145504) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Q (Frank Staplin) Harry is full of ginger. Not much on TV that leaves me smiling these days, but the wedding did. I wish them well! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 08:11 PM (#3145507) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: gnu I wish them well also. As for them not waring seat belts, no way one could tell. But, if they weren't, I would say that is their choice. After all, they are Him and Her and they are heirs in the most powerful family on the earth. Say what you want about "the royals" but they still rule the earth. If you disagree, read a newspaper... I didn't see anybody shooting people in Britain today but people are being shot all over the world... oil... opium... who controls it? I enjoyed the wedding. As for wether they were wearing seat belts, I don't think they or any of their loyal subjects give two fucks from Sunday. I really don't understand why you would care. Unless you were terribly concerned about their safety, which I doubt. Although you should be because they butter your bread by protecting your way of life. That is what they do... that is what your government does... that is what your corporations, like BP, do...they protect your standard of living. Read a newspaper... Libya, Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy.... it's called history. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:14 PM (#3145550) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: LadyJean I've been a bit upset about the thing, and wondering why. I don't care one way or the other about royals. Then it occurred to me. I always wanted a wedding. I don't mind being single. I'm much happier than most of my married friends, but I would have liked to have had the dress and the bouquet and all the rest of it. Oh well. As I said, I am MUCH happier than most of my married friends. By the way, I understand the royal couple will be doing their own housework, rather than empoying someone. I can name you a bunch of doctors' wives in Squirrel Hill who wouldn't DREAM of doing without help! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 11:34 PM (#3145571) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion Gnu ~ re no-one shooting anyone: one of the few sour notes that the occasion struck with me was the presence of heavily armed police monitoring the crowds all along the route. Alas the day! that all these loonies all about [you all know who they are, whom I mean] have made such a thing necessary. It was not so when Bess·II did first reign & this old hat was new. I am sure they were wearing seatbelts; and it was not their choice ~~ not just a matter of safety; they are legally required to wear them and it is absolutely essential that our future ruler must set an example of maintaining the law. I recently saw the Queen emerge from Ely station on a visit to the Cathedral, get into the waiting car with her lady-in-waiting, and immediately proceed to do up her seatbelt before being driven off. ~Michael~ |
|
01 May 11 - 02:00 PM (#3145904) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: WalkaboutsVerse One thing the U.K. hypocritically has in common with Syria and Libya is, of course, an UNELECTED head-of-state; and that William and Katherine seem a good couple does not alter the fact that monarchies are greedy unfair blasphemies - http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com/#225 |
|
01 May 11 - 02:25 PM (#3145920) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Bonzo3legs By the way, I understand the royal couple will be doing their own housework, rather than empoying someone. I can name you a bunch of doctors' wives in Squirrel Hill who wouldn't DREAM of doing without help! I stayed in a house in BA 3 years ago where there was a live in maid - it was fantastic, certainly the way I would go given the money. |
|
01 May 11 - 02:34 PM (#3145927) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Little Hawk There have always been security problems for monarchs and members of royal families...they are a magnet for assassins, both privately motivated lone individuals and agents of well-organized plots on the part of either revolutionary groups or hostile governments. Note, for example, that a number of western countries are presently quite clearly attempting to assassinate Muammar Gadhafi by using high tech weapons to kill him (not that I'm saying he's a "royal"...but he is in a somewhat similar hierarchichal position within Lybia...). It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, being a monarch or something similar to a monarch...or just being closely related to one...and it always has been so. In fact, it's probably less dangerous now than it was a couple of hundred years ago. |
|
01 May 11 - 04:44 PM (#3145993) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: MGM·Lion WAV ~ what is so automatically and intrinsically great about elected heads of state? Hitler was elected Chancellor {OK, I know, Godwin's Law - but the observation happens to be appropriate here}; Mao; Pol Pot... It is at least arguable that it the non-elected condition of the monarchy that gives the institution its peculiar symbolic and unifying force. I know I am begging the question as to whether such exists, and many on this forum decline to acknowledge it; but it is surely what motivates the 75% revealed by poll after poll who want to keep the monarchy in its present state and avatar. ~M~ |
|
01 May 11 - 04:57 PM (#3146005) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Little Hawk It's always a gamble with both elected heads of state and with monarchs. They may turn out to be good, bad or indifferent for the nation....but you really have no way of knowing until they've had a chance to try out the reins of power for awhile. And they have no way of knowing either. |
|
01 May 11 - 05:51 PM (#3146036) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Q (Frank Staplin) The BBC said there were only 75 arrests. Seat belts- I have a car of about that age (German 1973, his A-M is 1969) and it has only lap belts, which would not show except to an overhead camera. Dunno what the 1969 UK requirements were, or if an upgrade is required there for vintage automobiles. |
|
01 May 11 - 05:55 PM (#3146038) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: McGrath of Harlow The point of a "head of state" is some kind of symbol of unity. But there's no particular reason this should be a human being. I suppose it could be some inanimate object - a statue, a mountain. Or perhaps, to make it more fun and provide some element of variety over time, an animal. A horse, an elephant, a giant tortoise... |
|
01 May 11 - 06:35 PM (#3146062) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) This car was fitted with lap belts as standard, so I think it likely they used them. I restored a 1958 Jag XK150 and fitted competition belts. There is no law that says I had to do this. |
|
01 May 11 - 06:44 PM (#3146066) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Shanghaiceltic Watched it over dinner as we are ahead of the UK by 7 hours. Impressed by the general atmoshphere and the pomp, always good for helping with the UK's tourist industry. William looked like he needed a good stiff drink... |
|
01 May 11 - 07:58 PM (#3146090) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Shanghaiceltic Oh! and the Mrs nearly snorted rice through her nose when she saw Prince Andrew's daughter 'ats. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 05:14 AM (#3540210) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy It seems before the day is out there will be another child born into the Royal Family. Royal marriages don't seem to last very long as history has shown, at least the days of incest seem to be behind us. Sarah Ferguson, Diana Spencer and Princess Anne to name a few. This isn't something new. It is well reported that Harry is Diana's love child with James Hewitt. Prince Andrew could be the lovechild of The Queen and Henry George Reginald Molyneux Herbert, Earl of Carnarvon (Lord Porchester). She became romantically involved with him after she discovered that her husband, Prince Philip was carrying on a secret affair with her cousin Princess Alexandra. Prince Andrew bears an uncanny resemblance to Lord Pochester, and that similarity goes beyond the facial. Unlike the other males in the royal family who are slender like Prince Philip, Prince Andrew is chunky like Lord Porchester and the two sons born to his marriage. When Prince Andrew was born, he was kept under wraps as no other royal baby has been before or since. The world received no glimpse of hum, not even when he was christened, for there were no official photographers present to record what is normally a happy semi-official occasion shared by the royal family and the public alike. Coming on top of society's knowledge that Prince Philip and The Queen's marriage had been nothing more than a viable but unromantic partnership, and that he had been absent during much of the period when she might have been impregnated, if only supported the case as to whether Prince Philip was actually Prince Andrew's father. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 08:37 AM (#3540237) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Musket I have never read "Hello" magazine. Reading the diatribe above, I don't need to. I wonder if Prince Charles and his equerry muse on how Bill Kennedy looks awfully like the milkman, or if he bears an uncanny resemblance to that bloke who used to hang around school gates? I am not exactly a Monarchist, and whilst I have been pleased to have had the opportunity to meet a few of them through different roles, I accept that it is better to have a head of state that has it and lumps it rather than someone who seeks the status... That we can retain a tradition, however tenuous, is a nice icing on the cake. Like anybody else, I have no idea of the cost versus what they bring in, but one will balance the other to a degree. The hurtful aspects of living in a goldfish bowl must be bad enough, but to have intelligent people wish you ill and say things in the public domain with no foundation and no regard for feelings, I just think the poor buggers deserve better. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 09:45 AM (#3540253) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Little Hawk Well said, Musket. The stuff they have to go through is pretty sad. Nobody makes a fuss like this when one of my budgies lays a clutch of eggs...not even when the eggs hatch...and it's probably a good thing. Too much bother can cause a little bird to have heart failure just from the stress. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 05:24 PM (#3540507) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Mrrzy It's a little prince! |
|
22 Jul 13 - 06:32 PM (#3540534) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: SPB-Cooperator The only two things that are remotely of any interest to me are that the constitutional issue of succession/gender won't be a subject for discussion for at least the next 20 years, and that as far as I am aware this is the first time in history that for generations in line for the throne have been alive at the same time, and it is unlikely to happen again for a generation or so. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 07:06 PM (#3540547) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: Rapparee I think he should be named Dwight, Bruce, or Lance. They would all be Kingly Names. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 07:20 PM (#3540554) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding From: SPB-Cooperator or Rex ---- having Rex Rex on coinage woold appeal to me but I doubt if I would have to live well into my hundreds to see that |
|
22 Jul 13 - 08:54 PM (#3540585) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: McGrath of Harlow Whatever the baby gets called isn't liable to be the name he uses as king. Charles has said he intends to be known as George VII as king, George VI was known as Bertie, and Edward VIII was known as David. Elizabeth is a bit of an exception. People yearning for a Republic in England are on a loser. The thing is, getting rid of the monarchy without any other more significant cganges would be pretty futile. Perhaps in Sctland where there is more possibility of real changes. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 09:47 PM (#3540602) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: gnu Rap... what about Shane 0.I? |
|
22 Jul 13 - 11:03 PM (#3540620) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Rapparee Chongo. King Chongo the Oneth. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 12:11 AM (#3540634) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Little Hawk King Shane the First would be absolutely awesome!!! |
|
23 Jul 13 - 01:40 AM (#3540651) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Backwoodsman I rather favour Clint - it has a strong, manly sound to it. King Clint the First - that one's difficult to beat, IMHO. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 02:01 AM (#3540655) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: MGM·Lion A monarch isn't called "The First" until a Second of the same name comes along, though. We didn't talk of Elizabeth I, but just of Queen Elizabeth, until the present incumbent's reign began. Queen Anne is just that, not Anne I, likewise King John, because there has never been a second of either. ~M~ The one and only... |
|
23 Jul 13 - 04:13 AM (#3540682) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Acorn4 I think Tarquin or Atlantis would be good, or even Moonchild! |
|
23 Jul 13 - 06:07 AM (#3540704) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: banjoman Is anyone else sick and tired of the excessive media coverage of what is a normal daily event. The "Royal" baby is one of 2,500 born in the UK yesterday. The birth of any baby is an event to celebrate, but give us a break. I estimated that yesterday the BBC alone had at least 5 camera crews and at least 20 reporters from all over the country. I expect ITV did similar. No wonder they are trying to increase the TV Licence fee. Leave them alone to celebrate as a family please. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 06:42 AM (#3540714) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,CS "Is anyone else sick and tired of the excessive media coverage of what is a normal daily event." I had no idea that there was a baby till I opened Mudcat.. Ahh, the peaceful bliss of being TV-free! |
|
23 Jul 13 - 06:53 AM (#3540718) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: WalkaboutsVerse Monarchies are blasphemies - the only one born to rule is a prophet of God; or, in verse, via Google's Blogspot, Poem 225 of 230: AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10 - http://walkaboutsverse.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/walkaboutsverse-225-of-230.html |
|
23 Jul 13 - 07:08 AM (#3540720) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,King Clint the First Well, it makes a very pleasant change from nutters hacking off-duty soldiers to death, or X-Factor bullshite, or who Liam Gallagher's been giving the mutton dagger to, or any number of shitty topics that the meedja insist on ramming down our throats ad nauseam. IMHO. YMMV. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 08:04 AM (#3540737) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: s&r WAV that's a sour and rude little post. I wish the family well. They're the prisoner of circumstance as are you. Stu |
|
23 Jul 13 - 08:05 AM (#3540739) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Will Fly He should be called Crimson. His time will come... |
|
23 Jul 13 - 08:23 AM (#3540741) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,King Clint the First LOL Will! |
|
23 Jul 13 - 08:30 AM (#3540743) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Nigel Parsons Irrespective of what WAV may think, monarchies are NOT blasphemies. Christ recognised temporal authorities: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" |
|
23 Jul 13 - 08:34 AM (#3540744) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Wesley S A little bird told me that the baby will be named Barack. You heard it here first. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 09:13 AM (#3540758) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: treewind Bill Kennedy appears to be ignorant of the long established tradition in the British aristocracy that the wife's first duty is to bear her husband a son*, who will inherit the family fortune and his name. Once that duty has been fulfilled, it's always been open season on both partners as long as they are reasonably discreet about it. It matters not who Prince Andrew's father is, nor Harry's. Look at the first sons: Charles and William's fathers are who they are supposed to be, and it's a fairly safe bet on this occasion that the new Royal baby is William's too. *presumably it doesn't have to be a son now; if a daughter is good enough for Royal accession, she's good enough for inheritance of the family fortune too. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM (#3540786) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Musket tries again.. WAV. One small problem. We all accept that as pack animals, we traditionally have someone to open factories and monuments, get first pick of the kill etc. Well, the royal family exist. I've met a couple of them, and it wasn't in a dream. God however only exists in the minds of those who want or need a god. So how the flying can it be blasphemous when God only applies to the minority who are religious? 10/1 George 50/1 Henry Evens Wayne 2/1 on Colin |
|
23 Jul 13 - 11:55 AM (#3540809) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: MGM·Lion Maternal grandfather -- Michael. Just saying... ~M~ |
|
23 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM (#3540826) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Jim McLean As they say in Scotland: Ah dinnae care whit they ca' it as long as they dinnae ca' it owner a dyke. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 12:33 PM (#3540829) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: MGM·Lion Or the English version, as quoted by Evelyn Waugh, I doesn't matter what they call you so long as they don't call you 'pigeon pie' and eat you up. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 12:53 PM (#3540837) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Charles seems a reasonable bet. We haven't had one for a while. Don T. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 12:53 PM (#3540838) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: MGM·Lion "IT doesn't...", bugger it |
|
23 Jul 13 - 02:02 PM (#3540875) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Acorn4 I'm still banking on Cyril. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 02:19 PM (#3540884) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Little Hawk Perhaps they will name the child "Wilfred". If they do, Wifred Pennifere will finally feel that his life has been justified. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 02:43 PM (#3540900) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Eliza My dear sister-in-law Hazara is about to give birth in Ivory Coast. She's walking about in 40 degrees heat and enormous humidity, still carrying market produce on her head to sell at her stall, having walked quite far to buy the stuff she sells. She'll have her baby with practically no medical help, and probably hasn't eaten all that well during her pregnancy. We send what we can afford to help her, but it isn't much I'm afraid. My point is that there are millions of little ones born in the world disadvantaged from the start, in war, famine, disease and poverty. I wish William, Catherine and Baby Cambridge well of course, but that baby will have everything possible for his needs. I'm more concerned about all the others. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 04:14 PM (#3540926) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Allan Conn "if a daughter is good enough for Royal accession, she's good enough for inheritance of the family fortune too" No the aristos have not changed. My wife works a couple of days a week for one prominent family and when the father dies the title etc and family seat goes to his nephew rather than his daughter. Still the way of things. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 11:43 PM (#3541048) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Rapparee Well, here's a little list of names I feel appropriate: Hans Vito Amos Zebadiah Nicodemus Tatonka Yotonka Jed Sebastian Timothy Dumnguallaun Cadwallon Cináed Ciarrge Áengus Goibnenn Fergus Fingal Liudolf Tȟašúŋke Witkó Mangas Coloradas Cochise Victorio Geronimo Essa-queta Nana |
|
24 Jul 13 - 03:49 AM (#3541091) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Nigel Parsons I'm not sure I understand Rap's list. My choices would be: (for a boy) Bowler Brown. (for a girl) Barbara |
|
24 Jul 13 - 04:08 AM (#3541098) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: MGM·Lion Not only do I not understand it either; but I fail to see the slightest point in any of these silly suggestions & speculations. Why are you all doing it, please? I get your puns on Windsor, Nigel; but it is all a bit desperate for a laugh, eh? ~M~ |
|
24 Jul 13 - 02:10 PM (#3541280) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Bonzo3legs Bing - because King Bing sounds good, or for the Prince - how about Vince!!! |
|
24 Jul 13 - 02:36 PM (#3541292) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Eliza Well, it's George Alexander Louis. Nice traditional names. |
|
24 Jul 13 - 02:43 PM (#3541296) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: DMcG It is difficult to avoid despair sometimes. A (UK born and educated) receptionist said to my daughter yesterday: "George would be nice. We've never had a George." |
|
24 Jul 13 - 03:10 PM (#3541305) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Musket cashing in You may note from above I was offering 10/1 on George. Nobody took me up on it. Not even real people in the office or in the pub. I however laid my bets off ready and within the hour, £350.00 or thereabouts from a £20.00 + tax outlay will hit my bank account via Messrs W Hill. Gawd bless 'em! Royal family are good for prosperity after all. Mine anyroad.... |
|
24 Jul 13 - 04:18 PM (#3541326) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Allan Conn The drinks are on Musket! |
|
24 Jul 13 - 05:39 PM (#3541350) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Little Robyn But have they thought about his initials? George Alexander Louis - GAL! Little Prince Gal! At least, the Geordies should be happy. Robyn |
|
24 Jul 13 - 05:42 PM (#3541351) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Eliza Is anyone else like me? I tend to form an opinion of a name according to people I've met with the same name. When I was little, we had a lovely greengrocer called George. He was a genuine Cockney, fat and red-faced, and talked about "A pahnd of sprahts." He wore a brown dustcoat over his fat tum. His wife was (of course) Gladys, called Glad and their surname was Perkins. Almost too good to be true, but it was. So this Royal baby will make me smile when I remember George Perkins. |
|
24 Jul 13 - 06:04 PM (#3541355) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Shimrod It pains me to think of the kingdom that George VII is destined to rule over.If present trends continue, that kingdom will consist of a bleak, sterile island covered in bricks, concrete and tarmac and experiencing increasingly erratic weather and extreme weather events. An island riven by bloody conflict as various groups and factions fight over dwindling resources and besieged by desperate people, from elsewhere on the planet, whose plight is even worse than that of the people of the island. A living Hell! I doubt if there will be many more kings after him - perhaps he'll be our last King. |
|
24 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM (#3541356) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Eliza Oh dear Shimrod, surely not. What a gloomy prognosis! Trends don't usually continue, things change and often for the better. Don't despair, our country will be alright. |
|
25 Jul 13 - 03:36 AM (#3541448) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Shimrod Let's hope you're right, Eliza. But things are not looking good. Every reputable climate scientist is saying that climate change represents a dire threat with biodiversity loss not far behind. And our present government is using the current economic crisis as an excuse to accelerate the rate of environmental destruction. |
|
25 Jul 13 - 08:07 AM (#3541510) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: SPB-Cooperator If Charles adopts the name George if/when he comes to the throne, that would make him George VII and George, George VIII |
|
25 Jul 13 - 12:44 PM (#3541618) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Q (Frank Staplin) I suggested Hezekiah and Hepzibah but they were rejected. |
|
25 Jul 13 - 01:01 PM (#3541627) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Jim McLean All together now .... "Wha the de'il ha'e we gotten for a king, but a wee, wee, German Lairdie ... " |
|
25 Jul 13 - 06:54 PM (#3541732) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: PHJim I knew it'd be either George, Paul, John or Ringo. I was kinda hoping for Ringo. "King Ringo" has a nice ring to it. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 12:03 AM (#3541814) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: Sandy Mc Lean I bear no ill will against England or any other country of the British Isles, but as a Canadian I demand that the monarchy expire with the death of the prescent queen as ruler of Canada! It is past time to move on! |
|
26 Jul 13 - 02:39 AM (#3541842) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Allan Conn "but as a Canadian I demand that the monarchy expire with the death of the prescent queen as ruler of Canada" Though Sandy surely that has nothing to do with England or any other Britih people? Whether Canada remains a monarchy or not is for Canadians to decide amongst themselves. No-one is forcing Canada to remain a monarchy. It is not about demanding anything more about persuading your fellow Canadians. I must admit that I'm not a monarchist anyway so can't get fully in my head why British people would support the constitution. The idea that Canadians and Aussies etc support a foreign family as being their head of state is even harder to get to grips with :-) The only country that breaks news here every now and again over its swing to a more republican leaning is Australia and to tell you the truth I think to most British people, even monarchists, it is of little consequence whether the monarch remains head of state of Australia or not. I don't think it would change peoples feelings towards that country one bit. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 06:01 AM (#3541896) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Teribus For the name I would have thought that Edward Louis Victor Ifor Stephen, or King ELVIS for short. |
|
26 Jul 13 - 06:20 AM (#3541900) Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby From: GUEST,Fred McCormick Sandy. As a resident of the UK I would like to see the monarchy dissolved in as short a time as possible. I've just seen a fleeting glimpse of a headline saying that the brand new royal sprog will inherit £650,000,000. Good God! He's only just got here and he's already got more money than most of us could earn in a lifetime. BTW, has anyone spotted the flaw in naming him George Alexander Louis? That's right. The initial letters read G-A-L. Great bit of naming that for our supposedly future king. |
