|
02 Nov 05 - 09:51 AM (#1595731) Subject: BS: prince charles.... From: tarheel I saw red when I heard about prince charles...of all the people on this earth...a miserable blue blood that couldnt run his own household and had the nerve to cheat and have a 20 yr affair going on with his whoremaiden and then has the nerve to marry her and parade her to all of the world as if we should all bow down.....and then for him to tell the US how to treat the murdering savages in the east. I cant even tell you how angry it made me. how dare he....tell America how to react. I with someone would throw him out of the country and tell him to go back to his castle where the other fossils live. Isn't he the dope who traded Diana in for an old nag? If anyone in the white House is stupid enough to grant any more than a courteous listen and send him on his way, they should fly back with him Not to mention getting involved in the Serbia/Herzegovina/Balkans conflict. It was local Muslims who were taking most of the asskicking. The Serbs and Croats were armed enough to handle themselves. Still wonder what the actual reason for our involvement in that one is. The Islamofascists have the oil, so we suck up to them. If they didn't have the oil, we would have crushed them a long time ago. Look what is going on in France. If we keep it up, this will soon happen here in the USA. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 09:58 AM (#1595736) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: greg stephens So can we take it that broadly speaking you're not in favour of him? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:05 AM (#1595737) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST had the nerve to cheat and have a 20 yr affair going on Was he at a folk festival then |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:06 AM (#1595739) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,not a monarchist either while he's over there.. why dont y'all keep him !!! cant we just sell the royal inbreed and all his family to Disney themepark corporation !? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:12 AM (#1595745) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Strollin' Johnny More to the point, do we give a Flyin' Fuck what the colonials think of him? Not on your life. Americans aren't in a position to preach at anyone. He's no better and no worse than that Texan gobshite who lives in that Grace And Favour apartment in DC. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM (#1595748) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Peace I thought prince only had one name. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:24 AM (#1595757) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Jon I'm bo monarchist but I fail to see what the Charles/Diana/Camilla buiness has to do with any views over what tarheel describes "as how to treat the murdering savages in the east". |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:29 AM (#1595763) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: SINSULL Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...isn't that what you believe Tarheel? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:31 AM (#1595766) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,*daylia* The Serbs and Croats were armed enough to handle themselves. Still wonder what the actual reason for our involvement in that one is. Could be that when not actively engaged in wars of whatever genre, (milatary wars, War on Terrorism, War on Drugs etc) the powers that be in the US suffer an identity crisis. Without war, would the US still be the same US we all know and love? "...And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there .... ...And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion A home and a country should leave us no more? Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave ... ....Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just..." and then for him to tell the US how to treat the murdering savages in the east. Hmmm ... should be a piece of cake. Just kill 'em! Worked just fine for the Dodi dilemna, after all. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:37 AM (#1595773) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,any chance for a dig at the yanks whoremaiden !!!????? doesn't that more aptly describe the young Diana being sold on as breeding stock to the Royal Family ??? ..anyway Camilla may have a face like a horses arse but at least she dont have a backside the size of a barn like most of your uncosmopolitan yank wives !!! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:57 AM (#1595781) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John Hardly I must admit that the notion of monarchy fails with me as well....though I think that the human yearning for a monachy must be coded into our genetics because, even when we claim to not want a monarchy, we still strive for one and/or act as though it is the default setting for all government. For instance... ...it is very likely that the USA --- we who fought a war to NOT be under a monarchy, and swear to ourselves that we are proudly a constitutional republic... .....are going to have 28 consecutive years with either a Bush or a Clinton in our White House. What is that if not "dynastic"? But what I really am curious about with Prince Charles.... ...in the UK, how ubiquitous is the organic produce that Prince Charles sells? Is it throughout the UK market and in direct competition with the farmers of the UK (and their produce)? And if so, isn't there just the tiniest of insults to injury that Charles' family got rich -- beyond anyone's wildest imaginings -- on the backs of the working Englishman, and yet he takes that wealth, hires a bunch of workers to farm for him, puts that produce in a market competing against the average farmer who has what he as by the sweat of his brow.... ....and then claims to "give the money away" that he gets from the farming... .....and he expects and gets praised for his philanthropy?? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:58 AM (#1595782) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: artbrooks Well, Tar...you are certainly entitled to your opinion of Prince Charles and Camilla but I'm afraid that a lot of your information on other things just isn't correct. You mentioned getting involved in the Serbia/Herzegovina/Balkans conflict? We (the US) really weren't. That was entirely a Blue Hat (UN) operation that the US had no control over and minimal involvement in. The UN policy of giving the Serbs back their guns when they wanted them and doing absolutely nothing to help the Bosnians (most, but not all, of whom were Muslim) when they were being dragged out and murdered (which is very different from taking most of the asskicking created a basic unwillingness on the part of many members of the US military to participate in UN operations. You noted that the Serbs and Croats were armed enough to handle themselves. Well, the Serbs certainly were, since they had the entire arsenal of the former Yugoslav Army at their disposal. But the US, and most of the rest of the world except a few Moslem nations, embargoed weapons shipments to the Croats and Bosnians, at lest at the beginning of the breakup war, and this contributed to the slaughter. You don't have this confused with Kosovo (a different part of the Balkans, where the military intervention was a NATO/US operation), do you? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 11:11 AM (#1595784) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST I dunno, I was rather heartened to see that he went with the comfortable and stable old hag over the borderline...young is not always better than old...she's even quit smoking for the old git! Aas for politics, I do think Charley should lend his money and his power to the good of the people of the world...like the Gates have done with the eradication of diseases like malaria. I like the loaning of small amounts to people to get businesses going as well. And STOP ALL WARS! Jimmy Carter said some brave things this morning on the telly! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 11:36 AM (#1595793) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: greg stephens John Hardly: Charles' organic bacon etc is not to be viewed as unfair competition for other organic farmers. It is actually working as a fantastic promotional tool for the whole organic scene in the UK. Long may he continue to plug the ideas. he's been way ahead of most other potical leaders on this one. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 11:49 AM (#1595800) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ebbie That's what I like about some Christians- they are so forgiving! (Why do I feel that if I googled tarheel's diatribe, I'd find it ver batim somewhere on the internet?) Prince Charles and the British monarchy are of no actual interest to me but I think they are in an impossible position, one that scarcely a one of us would be able to manage any better. As for the Diana being traded in for his "whoremaiden", don't you think, Chuck, that if he had been allowed to marry the whoremaiden (you do have such a way with words!) Diana would never have been in the picture in the first place? She was a breeder, and a successful one at that. (Which put her also in an impossible place.) I must say that I am grateful that I'm not a man (this time 'round) because Camilla's looks don't bother me. (You mean to say you think that Charles is prettier?) It seems like that most men react as though they were being asked to bed the woman and thus recoil in horror. (You might examine your christian soul, tar.) |
|
02 Nov 05 - 12:01 PM (#1595811) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: katlaughing Leave the man be...he did not choose his station in life, no more than the rest of us. He is a fallible human being like the rest of us. I like some of his ideas and commend his efforts in caring about the environment, etc. I don't give a damn about his personal life, except to wish him peace and happiness, and don't believe people should pry into it. This world, today, is much too concerned with celebrities and their personal lives. I am also suprised at Mudcat menfolk being so concerned with looks. I thought most valued the person within and did not judge purely on looks. Oops...there's another bubble burst. kat |
|
02 Nov 05 - 12:01 PM (#1595812) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,folkiedave Years ago we were at a campsite in France with a gang of mates and an equivalent gang of Dutch people. Every night a toad appeared at the campsite wash basin, and we christened the toad "Prince Charles". The Dutch people couldn´t understand why so we explained that once it had been an ugly prince and now it was a beautiful toad. Dave |
|
02 Nov 05 - 12:04 PM (#1595816) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,G Well put, Ebbie! And Tarhell, of what consequence is it of mine regarding the visit to the U.S.? None, of course. I am an admirer of his with regard to his farming research. And I will just bet that the older gal is a better lover than the youngster was, probably more faithful and no doubt better versed in the social graces in a natural manner. I think being at the same dinner party with them would be a lifetime experience. Tar, just having a bad morning? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM (#1595820) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST ...and you also, Kat! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 12:34 PM (#1595851) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST And I will just bet that the older gal is a better lover than the youngster was, probably more faithful and no doubt better versed in the social graces in a natural manner. Older hags are generally less energetic, problematic and demanding than younger ones, anyway. But "social graces" and "natural manner"? At first I saw no connection between the two, but then I remembered ... The Graces (Grecian formula) Hmmmm ... looks quite natural, after all. Not that estranged from the horse's derriere either! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 12:34 PM (#1595854) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,*daylia* GUEST above is me, sorry ... |
|
02 Nov 05 - 12:55 PM (#1595861) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Francophile Look what is going on in France. If we keep it up, this will soon happen here in the USA. !!!????? errrr.. what exactly is going on in France..? looking cool & sexy and dressing chic ? cooking with imagination and flair ? drinking fine wines ? speaking French ? What !!!!!!????? are you warning us against ???? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 01:11 PM (#1595864) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: MMario perhaps he is talking about the civil disturbances that have been reported re: muslim women, traditional dress, public bans, etc. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 01:12 PM (#1595865) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Rapparee My wife and I, one cold and rainy October night, were motoring through Balmoral. Chucky was there, but did he even offer us a nice cuppa? It is to laugh! I would have done so to him, noooooooo, he was crass and boorish enough to ignore wet, cold, weary travelers. Well, I cut him, let me tell you! Right out of my social circle. When I learned he was coming I didn't bother to send him an invitation to drop around, and should I meet him on the street I would cut him dead. Humph. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM (#1595880) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ebbie Maybe he was just having a bad day, Rap. You know how that is. Try him again next trip. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 01:49 PM (#1595887) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob No win situation! If he speaks everyone says it is to trees! If he keeps silent... he does not care! Should have married camilla years ago but got sent off to sea in the Navy. However if you look at all the work he does with The Princes trust for young under priviledged people he has achieved a great deal.One thing about the Royal Family, they cannot answer back. Some of his opinions about architecture are so true, anyone been to London lately and seen the Gerkin!!! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 02:02 PM (#1595896) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST Sounds like a few of you should get laid really soon. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 03:26 PM (#1595948) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Stilly River Sage I'm glad Charles and Camilla were finally able to marry and I wish them well. The photos of the two portray a very happy middle-aged couple. They're both bright people, and Charles does have some good ideas in appropriate technology and environmental venues. SRS |
|
02 Nov 05 - 03:39 PM (#1595959) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Raedwulf Actually, the Gherkin, as modern archi-torture goes, is not too bad. But too much much of modern AT is "monstrous carbuncles". Even if Charles is provably the world's biggest idiot, he's right about that much. And Diana? Neurotic. Bulimic. They're both maladjusted by any "normal" standards. A match made in something close to hell for both of them, & neither's fault. Don't blame her, don't blame him. They'd probably both have been happier if he'd married Camilla in the 70's though. But history happened as it did, & perhaps, William, Harry & their descendants will be happier, as a result, than they might have been. As for tarheel, we Yookers once had a king we called Lackland. You could easily be called Lackwit. Given the choice between your opinion and Charles', I'll listen to Charles 100 out of 100 even if I don't agree with him. This says nothing about Charles. It says everything about you, though, you pathetic, limited, petty-minded, parochial little bigot. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 04:36 PM (#1596000) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Martin Gibson I don't have a big problem with the Prince. At least he is not gay. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 05:39 PM (#1596015) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST Have you ever thought he may be king one day |
|
02 Nov 05 - 06:05 PM (#1596028) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,sorefingers lol @ Martin G, you hit the nail nearly on the head. Live and let live. But there is still the issue of King G who had to abdicate to satisfy his desire, an American divorcee. Surely if a King had to do that, and, live in obscurity the rest of his life, should not this goose,ooops, gander do likewise? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 06:28 PM (#1596032) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: artbrooks Sorefingers, it was Edward VIII, not one of the Georges. December 11, 1936. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 06:56 PM (#1596041) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow My we have got our knickers in a twist tarheel, haven't we? I think having a Lord Emsworth as head of state has quite a lot going for it, really. Especially when it pisses off the occasional bigot. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 07:09 PM (#1596042) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie The Princes Trust THIS is just some of what this 'useless waste of space' [sic] is doing to help the youth of the UK. Not exactly parasitic behaviour is it? Giok |
|
02 Nov 05 - 07:18 PM (#1596045) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob More than Princess Tony and the precious Cherie! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 07:41 PM (#1596054) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: greg stephens Monarchy is totally absurd. But just say you live in a monarchy, as far as I can see Charlie boy (and his current missus) are the absolutely ideal couple for the next in line. Sensible,`organic, treat the earth decently, none of that let your emotions hang out bollocks, a little respect for education, a lot of respect for religions that are not your own, what's wrong with that? What has republicanism as currently offered got to beat that? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 07:54 PM (#1596059) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: tarheel MY,MY!!! if it wasn't for folks like me and the threads i write...you folks would be BORED to DEATH!!!! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 07:57 PM (#1596061) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: katlaughing Well put, greg! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 08:17 PM (#1596069) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Rapparee Thought that you might be interested in the menu for the dinner the White House put on for Chucky & bride: The menu for President Bush's dinner Wednesday for Britain's Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, as released by the office of the first lady: Celery Broth with Crispy Rock Shrimp Newton Chardonnay "Unfiltered" 2002 Medallions of Buffalo Tenderloin Roasted Corn Wild Rice Pancakes Glazed Parsnips and Young Carrots Peter Michael Pinot Noir "Le Moulin Rouge" 2002 Mint Romaine Lettuce with Blood Orange Vinaigrette Vermont Camembert Cheese and Spiced Walnuts Petits Fours Cake Chartreuse Ice Cream, Red and Green Grape Sauce Iron Horse "Wedding Cuvee" 2002 - Table settiing: Clinton China Vermeil flatware Gold pintuck silk tablecloths Sprays of white phaeleanopsis orchids with camellia foliage in the historic White House vermeil candelabras I'm probably going to pick up a sandwich at McDonald's this evening, myself.... |
|
02 Nov 05 - 09:02 PM (#1596094) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow Is the White House cook on a mission from God to kill them all? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 09:07 PM (#1596099) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Peter K (Fionn) artbrooks, you think it was the UN that bombed Belgrade? And you think the Serbs (who had fought with the Allies in WW2 and against Germany and Austria in WW1) had the entire arsenal of the former Yugoslav army at their disposal? If you don't know what you're talking about, better to keep quiet. Oh, and whatever you might have imagined about the UN role, the greatest outside interference in the Balkans conflicts of 1992-95 came from the US, in the form of immense support to Croatia and its president, Franjo Tudjman. Presumably they liked his autocratic style, and the way he restored the symbols and currency of the catholic-fascist regime that had attempted to wipe out the Serbs in 1941-45. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 09:13 PM (#1596104) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Bill D They're eating on Clinton China !!! It's a secret Bush plot to subvert the royals! |
|
02 Nov 05 - 09:16 PM (#1596106) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Peace "It's a secret Bush plot to subvert the royals!" If it's Clinton china, better check to see who's eatin' whom under the table. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 09:28 PM (#1596116) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow "Clinton China" - that sounds like some kind of euphemism. What are they planning to spring on the poor bloke and his old dutch? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 10:27 PM (#1596158) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: artbrooks Peter K: Belgrade was bombed by NATO forces as part of the operation in Kosovo. I never said that the UN was involved in this. This took place about seven years after the UN's abortive attempt to settle the war in the western part of the former Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav army was primarily a Serbian force, and it turned significant quantities of artillery and armor, as well as small arms, to the "partisans" of the Republika Srpska (the Bosnian Serb Republic). This force and Serbian regulars, who were formerly units of the Yugoslav Army, were responsible for an as yet unknown number of murders, mostly of Moslems, in Bosnia and Croatia. Peace was not imposed upon the combatants in the western Balkans until the US and NATO became involved. Please feel free to correct me...and provide your sources. Some facts about Bosnia may be found here. I might also suggest Bosnia, A Short History and Kosovo, A Short History, both by Neil Malcolm (but neither is short) or Yugoslavia, Death of a Nation by Laura Silber. These are all suitable for both the serious historian and the lay reader. |
|
02 Nov 05 - 11:02 PM (#1596168) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie I don't care what they ate, tonight I went to the Red Lobster on Vestal Parkway and ate endless shrimp, every time I finished one plateful they refilled it with another plateful of my choice. I had Popcorn Shrimp, Scampi, Fried Shrimp, and Coconut Shrimp, I started with a frozen Margarita, and washed the meal down with Pinot Grigio, and finished with a cup of coffee, am now back in Owego drinking Dickel Bourbon [thanks Dick Greenhaus] over ice. I can live like a future king too you know!! Giok |
|
02 Nov 05 - 11:06 PM (#1596171) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Peace What, no GIANT SHRIMP? Did you ever see the movie, "Forrest Gump"? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 11:19 PM (#1596178) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Kaleea Jeepers! I thought I'd just take a bit of a peek at what 'Catters of the Realm were thinking about Chuckie & Camilla coming over--but golly, tempers certainly have flared. S'pose Pres. dubblepew thought this would improve his ratings? |
|
02 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM (#1596182) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Part of the trade Kaleea, we went into Iraq with you, you had to take Chuck and Cammy for a visit. Giok |
|
03 Nov 05 - 01:57 AM (#1596230) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Richard Bridge On the evidence and arguments on this thread so far, Tarheel is the biger twerp. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 03:21 AM (#1596244) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle lot of cholesterol Giok! when somebody said all that about the prince being a nice guy and tolerant and respectful and loving - I thought yeh! I could with him at our folk club. the only trouble is that everybody I know who has had anything to do with the royal family reckons they are a pack of arseholes. And this I find strangely more persuasive. Roll on the republic! (cue for Ard to come in and say if we want it, we've got to fight for it, I suppose - but I don't look forward to that.) |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:07 AM (#1596276) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Cluin So Charles is Prince of Wales and Camilla gets to be Duchess of Cornwall? Seems to be a pecking order there. How do they feel about it in Cornwall? And what's the next title on the list?... Earl of Mann? Baron of Orkney? Guest of Honour of the Outer Hebrides? Village Idiot of Stonehenge? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:07 AM (#1596389) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Rapparee Since about 12 million people won't conveniently die so that I can become King of England (my ancestors were from Hanover, you know), I'll take number four or five on Cluin's list as a better prize. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:15 AM (#1596400) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: tarheel RICHARD BRIDGE IS A, ....is a......,is a ......, and then some!!! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:24 AM (#1596403) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Paco Rabanne Prince Charles is a splendid chap.If I had my way I would have you treacherous swine hung for treason! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:46 AM (#1596431) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,*daylia* ok, let's play what if! What if the handsome and charming Prince William got engaged to a lovely, wealthy Arab lady? How long do you think it would take before some godawful tragedy whisked them both away forever - say, a ski lift collapsing, or a housefire, or a plane crash, or a hit and run .... or maybe even just an unfortunate slip in the royal bathtub, causing them to simultaneously hit their poor little heads? I'd give the hypothetical couple about a year. At the max. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM (#1596458) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Ah daylia therein lies the root of much of our news media these days, experts are brought on to 'speculate' on the outcome of whatever that days' news is, and because they are "experts" people tend to believe them, and so there is a tendancy for these prognostications to become almost self-fulfilling prophecies. I assure you that if Prince William did take up with an Arab lady, while it would almost certainly be discouraged, he would not be rubbed out, we are talking civilised Britain here not a banana or soviet republic. I don't think we'd even get the CIA to hold her captive in a secret non US location! Giok |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:20 AM (#1596462) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Peace "I don't think we'd even get the CIA to hold her captive in a secret non US location!" Does such a place exist? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:21 AM (#1596465) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Peace Gawd, what AM I thinking. Don't answer that, John. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:41 AM (#1596483) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: greg stephens Well, I think Charles did a splendid job standing up at that dinner in Washington last night and letting Bush have it with both barrels on the subject of global warming(in the politest and most diplomatic language, of course). |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM (#1596492) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Monkey Man doesn't care, he lives on hot air, if it makes a balloon rise G W Shrub must be wearing diver's boots! Giok |
|
03 Nov 05 - 11:08 AM (#1596503) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Stu Seeing as my ancestors from England and Wales have suffered under the Norman Yoke for the past 1000 years you yanks would be welcome to keep the old scrote as far as I'm concerned (his organic Duchy Ale is a fine brew though . . .) Good fun to see an over-privileged member of the landed gentry lecturing a fundamentalist right-wing religious fanatic on how to run (riun?) his countyand lead the world. How we laughed! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 11:29 AM (#1596526) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Teribus Ah tarheel; "prince charles...of all the people on this earth...a miserable blue blood that couldnt run his own household" On that point you could not be more mistaken, he runs it very successfully, he was recently pulled to task over it by certain quarters of Labour Party, who were trying to get him sacked for running the Duchy of Cornwall because he may have a conflict of interest over deciding how much he gets paid. To hell with the fact that he does run it at a profit and has improved it considerably - but then commercial success is a concept that tends to unsettle and frighten the Labour Party. As far as doing 'good works' goes Prince Charles's record stands up to Bill Gates's by any reckoning. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 11:45 AM (#1596536) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle this isn't the view held most people who have had the misfortune to be within a hundred yards of him. the usual impression he makes is that of a complete twat. for example the stories of when he was landscaping that little village down in Dorset, the stories of his determined ignorance were legion locally. My sister lived round there at the time. as for good works, reminds me of that line in Hancock - I'm always buying flags - the lapels are are always the first things to go in my jackets |
|
03 Nov 05 - 01:43 PM (#1596604) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob met him once myself, quite liked him! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 02:56 PM (#1596634) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST I can never fathom why with the best education monaey can buy, they barely scrape through. Born stupid? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 02:58 PM (#1596638) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle go on billybob, what was it you liked about him? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 03:11 PM (#1596649) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Rapparee First fruits and tithes are odious things, And so are bishops, priests, and kings. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 03:21 PM (#1596660) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Don Firth Tell you what: for those folks who dwell on That Sceptered Isle who are not particularly enamored of Prince Charles, let me make you a deal: we'll send you George W. Bush, and you send Chuck over here and we'll let him take over the White House, okay? (My Gawd! I'm a genius!! That's bloody brilliant!!!) Don Firth |
|
03 Nov 05 - 03:47 PM (#1596687) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow The flaw in the Diana-was-murdered conspiracies is that, if the foolish woman had put on her seat-belt, as her bodyguard did, she would have survived the crash, as he did. In fact, since she was in the rear seat, unlike the bodyguard in the much more vulnerable front seat, she very likely wouldn't even have been seriously injured. It's a great pity that this aspect of the case wasn't emphasised much more in the sequel to the case - it might have saved the lives of a lot of people. But I suppose that pointing out that she only died through her own fault would have been seen as out of line with the hagiographical approach that so characterised the whole episode. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 03:47 PM (#1596688) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Jon No thanks Don. Charles is pretty harmless and as others comments does try in some areas. On the other hand, although I have implied (and believe) that Bush is dangerous, I could agree to a swap if you want to get rid of Bush but the deal is you get Bliar. I should be safe on that one as Bush would not survive a single commons debate. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 04:10 PM (#1596703) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Don Firth Yeah, Jon, I was afraid you folks wouldn't go for it, but, what the heck, it was worth a try. . . . Don Firth |
|
03 Nov 05 - 04:28 PM (#1596714) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Wesley S What if we offered some cash to sweeten the deal ? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 04:28 PM (#1596716) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: robomatic I've always had a good opinion of Prince Charles since I saw him in an old home movie, wearing a flight suit and channeling Bluebottle. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:05 PM (#1596757) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob Well, weelittledrummer, first time I met him , I was with Dave Bryant and we were singing at the premiere of Gallipoli at the National Film Theatre on the South Bank,and he was delightful,probably wondered who the hell we were , but had more manners than Harold(PM) Wilson who just wanted to get to the bar! second time,he had a good sense of humour,brilliant dad,(the kids were wearing baseball hats and jeans and their mum was still alive)I thought he was really just like anyone else having a great time with their kids, but then this was a private occasion and no press around.Maybe it is a shame that all we ever see is the formal picture? not only that, I am so old I remember when he was called " action man!" He really has not had the chance to show you what a great Head of State he could be! By the way I get really cross when people call Cherie the first lady,have they not heard of the Queen? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:15 PM (#1596773) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow I always think it was a pity they made him shave off the beard he grew one time when he was in the Navy. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:20 PM (#1596777) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob Made him look like the zsar!( see Prince Michael of Kent) |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:22 PM (#1596779) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow I always think it was a pity they made him shave off the beard he grew one time when he was in the Navy. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:23 PM (#1596781) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Cluin Let him grow his hair and a beard, give him a cowboy hat and guitar and he's Ray Benson (from Asleep at the Wheel). |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM (#1596796) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob Now I have seen the photo McGrath,why did he shave it off? Add a tankard and he was a morris dancer! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 05:54 PM (#1596805) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Cluin That was why, billybob. Jack the Ripper was a Royal. They didn't need another embarassment in the family. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 06:06 PM (#1596815) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob Have you read Patricia Cornwell" Portrait of a Killer"? Jack the Ripper was Walter Sickert? or even heard about Doctor Gull, Royal Doctor to Queen Victoria, who happens to be buried in Thorpe le Soken Essex England, and , I hate to say, 3 miles from my house!! Nothing to do with (Bonnie) Prince Charles!! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 06:12 PM (#1596819) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: akenaton Although a Scottish republican and anti-monarchist by inclination,I must agree with my friend Raedwulf(Scottish by adoption). I agree about Charles , Diana, and especially his eulogy on Tarheel...Ake |
|
03 Nov 05 - 06:33 PM (#1596831) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,sorefingers Never mind his highness what about French wine and Clinton china on G W's table? Wus Bimbo will have a fit if he finds out, but perhaps that might be the best thing for civilised society! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 06:40 PM (#1596838) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Yes I always thought that naming the wife of the incumbent president 'The First Lady' was really funny. What on earth does it mean? Is she the first person in the White House to behave like a lady [see M Lewinsky etc], or is she the first lady that the pres ever had, and if so were the others loose women. If it means she's the first lady of America, I cam imagine a lot of really nice American women who might be just a tad pissed off. Or is it a quest for a queen??? Giok |
|
03 Nov 05 - 07:25 PM (#1596865) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle I started the Patricia Cornwell but got bored. I think she's hit a bit of a trough, the last few books haven't been much good. wasit Stephen knight who got us all interested in Gull?Masons, etc... folksinger/author Barrie roberts has a theory about the Ripper - very complicated! The thing about the royal family, i get the feeling that the secrets are probably a bit murkier than even we suspect. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 08:13 PM (#1596891) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST I think he is a typical example of the British Royal Family, likes his women, defends their deeds and thick as a post. Will make a great King. Oh and officer in the Paras too, must not forget that ! |
|
03 Nov 05 - 08:36 PM (#1596901) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow If a US President got re-married, would his wife be known as the Second First Lady? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 08:51 PM (#1596910) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ebbie Hmmmm. Question: in other countries that have presidents, what is the spouse called? Or the prime minister's wife? Do you ape the German custom of calling them 'Frau Doktor' and say 'Mrs' Prime Minister? Or is no formal recognition made of them at all? |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM (#1596917) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Mrs Tony Blair is Cherie Blair, a working [sometimes] lawyer and a QC as well. She is known also as Cherie Booth QC in her working mode. We do not suffer from this American [apparently] need to give everybody a title. The fact that she has a mouth shaped like a letter box, and the dress sense of a chipmunk doesn't affect the fact that she's only the PMs wife and has no political role or title. Giok PS QC for the benefit of those who may not know is a Queen's Counsel, but we've all seen Rumpole so we know these things. G |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:31 PM (#1596931) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Teribus weelittledrummer - 03 Nov 05 - 03:21 AM "the only trouble is that everybody I know who has had anything to do with the royal family reckons they are a pack of arseholes. And this I find strangely more persuasive." And weelittledrummer - 03 Nov 05 - 11:45 AM "this isn't the view held most people who have had the misfortune to be within a hundred yards of him. the usual impression he makes is that of a complete twat." I take it then that you have never met any of them, and that your opinions are based on hearsay. What happenned to, "You should take people as YOU find them". Of the current members of the Royal Family I have met: - Prince Phillip he visited our town when I was ten, arrived by helicopter, it was very well publicised, we scampered down from school to see him land and had to wade over a cauld (salmon ladder) to make it there in time. As he landed he apparently saw us and immediately on landing, instead of greeting the local dignitories he walked over to us, asked if we were alright and advised us not to be so foolish in the future - we didn't have the heart to say that we'd come to see the helicopter not him, but he impressed as as being a nice man. - Prince Charles, he and I were in the Navy at the same time, we used the same pubs while on courses, always struck me as being a fairly normal sort of bloke. If you want testiment to him as a boss ask those who served under his command of HMS Bronnington, I've certainly not heard any complaints, and he still keeps in touch with them. - Princess Anne, in my opinion the best of the lot, hard working, tireless, down to earth. I had the pleasure and honour of dining with her onboard HMS Victory and came away extremely impressed with the lady. Weelittledrummer I would refer you to the good that this man, you so decry on the opinion of others, has done and measure him by that yardstick. By all means roll on the Republic - you'd end up with Posh and Becks, or the winner of 'Pop Idol'/Big Brother as your President - mark you it's probably what you rate. For my part I prefer having a purely ceremonial Head of State, a-political, that can link their history to the history of the country they represent back through damn near one thousand years - that's got a bit of style about it - Presidents? here today gone tomorrow, forgotten without the slightest thought or backward glance. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 09:57 PM (#1596941) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Cluin Yes, Stephen Knight's book came out in the early 70s with his theory that Dr. Gull was Jack the Ripper and suggested involvement of the Freemasons in a cover-up. It inspired Bob Clark's excellent Sherlock Holmes movie "Murder By Decree" which dealt with the same subject. There is also a school of thought that says Jack the Ripper was the insane misogynist Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence (son of future king Edward VII and nephew of Old Queen Vicki). |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:44 PM (#1596974) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ebbie "We do not suffer from this American [apparently] need to give everybody a title." Giok Good lord, Giok. Wherever did you get the idea that Americans feel the need to give everybody a title! Look at the UK's structure if you want an idea of titles. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 10:54 PM (#1596980) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Peace I have a title for Bush. It's not honourary, either. He earned it, fair and square. Don't know that the following is germaine to this conversation: my grandfather was a Commissionaire working at Dorval Airport when the Queen Mother landed. He stood to attention as she passed. She noticed the medals/ribbons on his chest and stopped to speak with him and shake his hand. She asked about his unit and about him. (He'd fought for England during WWI, at Mons nad Ypres if memory serves.) I know my grandfather treasured that moment for the rest of his life. I think the English use the word 'chuffed'. Anyway, despite having no great love for the notion of monarchies, the one person my grandfather met from the Royal Family was a gem, and he'd have stood up to anyone about that. |
|
03 Nov 05 - 11:25 PM (#1596999) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: NH Dave Although an outlander who has no dog in this fight, I suppose I should not comment, but that has rarely stopped me in the past. Charles had the misfortune to be born into a royal family, whith little useful work to do until he eventually succeeds his mother, as King of England. So like an obedient child he ships out to various Outward Bound type schools that set out to make a man out of him, even if they kill him in the process. He survives this training and becomes an officer in the British Military. As a Prince he is expected to become a Para, perhaps an SAS commander, and certainly an aviator. Mustn't neglect the RAF. But can he proceed up the line to become the Colonel of the Regiment, or an Admiral of the Sea, or the meanest bugger who ever climded down from a parachute? Not hardly, he must be eternally groomed to become England's eventual monarch, no matter how long it takes. In my book he has done well at almost everything he started, and with such an exciting role ahead of him, no matter how far away, he busies himself with improving the management of his ancestral acres, sells the odd bit of organic food, sires some young'uns, and waits for his eventual real job. Sorry, folks, I'd not have his job for anything. I like being able to walk among my fellow towns folk without drawing a crowd unless I have forgotten to zip something completely up; have Halloween trick or treaters or Guy Fawkes children knock on my front door seeking, "A penny for the Guy," and provide some contact with my neighbors and their children. I have no interest in trying to run the British Empire, some day, probably far away, as I said, I wouldn't have his lot for anything! And I think he's doing a pretty good job of carrying it off. Dave |
|
03 Nov 05 - 11:56 PM (#1597015) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle well if you think he's all right, I suppose he must be. as somebody said to Clarence before Dick3 chopped off his head, God keep you in that mind |
|
04 Nov 05 - 02:30 AM (#1597065) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2 Good one Teribus, esp. your remarks about the 'delights' of elected Presidents. If we'd had a Republic here in Australia a few years ago our President would certainly have been one Pauline Hanson, a fish and chip shop owner whose revoltingly racist, anti-Asian and anti-Aboriginal views were wildly popular. Since then she has thankfully and deservedly gone down the tube, a classic 9 day's wonder - but with a Republic she could have been installed as President to our lasting humiliation. I'm pissed off with all these people who think that Prince Charles has no brains. A brief read of his books on architecture and organic farming show him to be intelligent, articulate, sensitve and thoughtful. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 03:45 AM (#1597097) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Paco Rabanne 99 is the new 100 |
|
04 Nov 05 - 05:21 AM (#1597126) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Stu 100 |
|
04 Nov 05 - 08:03 AM (#1597202) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle 101 is the post modernist 100 a hideous carbuncle on the well loved traditional concept of 100 |
|
04 Nov 05 - 08:22 AM (#1597216) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Prince Harry Hewitt Christ there are a few here easy bought in. A pack of clowns is what the Winsors here. As to this guy saying Philip was a gentleman after he came over to them of a chopper. Ask those in other countries that he insulted whilst on visits ? And don't forget their attachment to the Germans ! Christ you lot in the United Kingdom are so easy taken in. Diana told the truth about them. What about the bodyguard she was seeing ? A expect police motorcyclist who got killed off a bike on a straight road ! And as she was getting ready to leave the country for a new life in France with the man she loved, bang the car she was in got the MI5 treatment. Best one of the whole lot that we all laugh at is Prince Harry, you would think James Hewitt shit him. Ah well why break a historic chain, they were all whores and still are.As to Canada, let me tell you all we don't have any time for them at all. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 09:13 AM (#1597252) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,DB The original poster to this thread seems a little confused - but then he's not alone. As a UK citizen (sorry, that should be 'subject' of Her Majesty)I tend to side with the view that says that the Monarchy is an outdated institution overdue for reform. I also see Prince Charles as a traditionalist - nevertheless, I agree with a lot of his views! Many aspects of the modern world are pretty shitty and it needs to be said loudly and clearly. We seem to be trapped in a situation in which all change is automatically seen as 'good' - even though many changes are about making the rich richer, at the expense of the poor, and degrading the environmment. As for Camilla, whatever the moral issues involved, I am enraged at the blatant and rampant sexism that any mention of her name brings out. Her appearance is totally irrelevant to any discussion of her and Charles's moral position. Camilla looks to me like a perfectly normal, middle-aged woman and should not be subjected to vile insults. The foul gutter press is responsible for this disgusting attitude and we should not seek to emulate them (or read their filthy rags, for that matter). Finally, a word about the world of Islam. This is an ancient civilisation which has contributed much to the world. It is also a fierce, warrior religion, born in the deserts of the Middle East, and hence shares many characteristics with Christianity and Judaism. Like the last two religions it is very prone to outbreaks of intolerance and fanaticism. As well as elevating certain individuals to near god-like status (kings, queens, princes etc.) we in the (nominally) Christian West don't appear to have ever got over our terror of Islam and seem determined to make war on it. This, like monarchism, is a curious, atavistic hangover from the Middle Ages. These tensions have been greatly exacerbated by the fact that the Middle East overlies vast reserves of oil. I wonder if 'we' in the West weren't so determined to use up most of this oil whether or not the, largely Muslim, peoples of the Middle East would have been quite so ready to squander it and warm the atmosphere with its combustion products? |
|
04 Nov 05 - 09:21 AM (#1597258) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,the Rottweiler GRRRRRRRRRR |
|
04 Nov 05 - 11:28 AM (#1597341) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Well this thread certainly lifted a few stones, and some surprising things crawled out mostly guests as usual. Guest Harry Hewitt for example seem grammatically and factually challenged, while Guest DB would appear to have another agenda altogether. Never mind, this subject is one of those that attract bigotry and downright prejudice whenever it is raised. It's a bit like mentioning certain nationalist organisations or certain racial stereotypes, up pop the defenders and the denigrators in fairly equal proportions. Ebbie when I say titles I don't mean dukes and earls and all that crap, I mean garbage collectors becoming recycling and disposal operatives, and other people being given job titles to disguise the true nature of their work, like the MD is now the CEO etc etc. Giok |
|
04 Nov 05 - 01:16 PM (#1597411) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow Don't worry Guest DB - you are legally a citizen of the UK.The myth that somehow people in the UK aren't legally citizens lingers on, but it's absolute rubbish. (The same kind of thing is true of all those other parts of the British Commonwealth where so far they haven't decided to adopt a republican constitution. Being a subject of the Queen in no way interferes with being a citizen of a country.) |
|
04 Nov 05 - 02:02 PM (#1597450) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Cluin Whoops! Sould read "grandson of Old Queen Vicki" in my last post. He was eldest son of the future king and supposedly in line for the throne but illness killed him off in his early 20s. Pneumonia, I think they claimed. Syphilis had driven him insane long before that though. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 02:19 PM (#1597469) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ebbie "I mean garbage collectors becoming recycling and disposal operatives, and other people being given job titles to disguise the true nature of their work, like the MD is now the CEO etc etc." Giok Unfortunate (for you) example you gave there, Giok! Garbage collecting IS different from recycling, for instance. Personally I think that many changed job titles now reflect more accurately what is being referred to. I don't know what an MD is (GM =General Manager, perhaps?) but a Chief Executive Officer is certainly more specific than a Manager. A Chair of a meeting is more accurate than a ChairMAN. It is the postion that is referred to, not the sex. Firefighter is more accurate than fireMAN- again it may be either sex. Flagger is better than FlagMAN, right? Lots of others. Just because there are silly abuses doesn't negate the intent. But earl, baron and baroness, lord and lady, duke and duchess... If those are not archaic titles and positions, I don't know what is. Back to you, Jack. (Or Giok, as the case may be!) |
|
04 Nov 05 - 02:24 PM (#1597474) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Jon Ebbie, MD = Managing Director. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 04:37 PM (#1597580) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow In those contexts historically "man" = "human being", rather than "male human being" The same way "dog" = "canine being" as well as "male canine being". (It works the other way round for goose and gander.) It's a quirk of the language. In that context the romans would have used "homo" (human being) rather than "vir" (male human being) - and that didn't in any way imply that Romans were not extremely sexist. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 05:40 PM (#1597611) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Cluin The ins-and-outs of how that whole titles thing works. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 06:19 PM (#1597633) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Prince Harry Hewitt John 'Gurk' MacKenzie Oh dear, a good old loyalist seems annoyed. Creep. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 06:35 PM (#1597644) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: McGrath of Harlow Getting steamed up about the royals seems a pointless diversion from the real enemies of liberty. It's rather as if people were to start huffing and puffing about the danger to pedestrians caused by brewers drays. Once upon a time, true enough - but these days it's the vehicles driven by internal combustion engines that are the danger, not the occasional picturesque horse-drawn wagon. Royals are just lottery prizewinners, but winners in a different sort of lottery, one of birth, which seems tom involve an expectation that they should work rather harder at trying to justify their existence than the people who just bought a lucky ticket in the ordinary lottery. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM (#1597645) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob Guest P Harry H, have you read your post? Seems to me Eton did you no good at all! |
|
04 Nov 05 - 06:54 PM (#1597651) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Raedwulf Firefighter is more accurate than fireMAN- again it may be either sex. Flagger is better than FlagMAN, right? As Kevin says, wrong. Man means person, not male. Chairperson, personhole cover, & so on, are ludicrous pieces of PC garbage that only show up the PC brigade's ignorance of their own bloody language. Wife originates in the AS wifeman. Wife being pronounced wee-fa; & cognate with the modern weaver; the person that weaves. As opposed to (if I remember Kathleen Herbert's lecture correctly) wepman, the man (i.e. person) that carries weapons. In AS, the origin of the bulk of modern English, man means person & needs to be qualified before it denotes gender. In Modern E. it may mean male when used alone, but still tends to be neuter as a compound noun & this is why you will hear references to e.g. "Madame Chairman". A "fireman" is exactly that - a PERSON that fights fires. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 07:31 PM (#1597667) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Thanks for the vote of confidence Ponce Harry, but if you read my previous posts, you will find I am a Scottish Nationalist, which fact would not tie in with your mis-reading of my post. We want an independant and republican Scotland, so the loyalist tag would appear to be mis-applied. Giok :~) |
|
04 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM (#1597709) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ebbie Now, frankly, I am not all that serious about this subject - and I take it that no one is going to call anyone out because of it. HOWEVER. You may say all you like that flagger, firefighter, Chair are wrong- it don't make a bit of difference to me. In MY country, we don't much hold with mouldy ideas of what used to be being all that important. A flagger is one who waves the flag to stop traffic. A firefighter is one who fights fires, especially seasonal forest and brush fires. A Chairperson is one who is holding down the function of chairing a meeting at that particular event. (If someone were to seriously refer to 'personhole' he or she would be laughed out of the meeting.) While nobles, Ha! I wag my nose at you. Who originally got to decide who were the nobles and who the base born? "Noble" may just as easily mean the wastrel son of an idle father as it could mean a servant of the people with an elegant code of conduct. Kings and queens- again a chortle. In the past they may just as easily have been the scion of a gardener as of another king or queen, not to even bring in whether they were of the same race or culture or nationality. Pshooie. ;) |
|
04 Nov 05 - 09:04 PM (#1597727) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Passionmate stuff from up there in the frozen north Ebbie, however I still think you went off at a tangent in misreading my use of the word title by taking to mean an heriditory or otherwise nomenclature bestowed by a gratefull monarch for services rendered. Surely President of the US or General Motors or FSGW is equally a title and as such is not deserving of your scorn of the word in the guise you have adopted for it? I am still of the opinion that the person who chairs a meeting is the chairman or in the case of a lady holding that TITLE Madam Chairman. I regret too the neutering of words such as actress to actor etc, the richness of the English language whether in its original form or in the style in which it is spoken by some of our former colonies is a wonderful thing, and it can only lead to a further 'dumbing down' of our common culture, if we continue to pander to the PC brigade. Giok |
|
04 Nov 05 - 09:53 PM (#1597761) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ron Davies In case anybody wants to know who still supports Bush, (a dwindling number of stalwarts), I give you Tarheel in all his glory and intellectual stature. Waiting for another classic Tarheel PM--the last one I received from him, after critical remarks about Mr. Bush, read: "you are so full of hate and greed that it makes me sick to even be here!... but i have that right and no liberal el pinko commie environmentalist animal righist bush hater bunch is gonna make me leave! you get it?" (sic) As others have pointed out, Prince Charles' record of talking sense is, you might say, somewhat above that of Tarheel. Who knows, maybe Tarheel is a better banjo player than Prince Charles. Or maybe not. I've read that "Deliverance" was a smear on the people James Dickey actually met on his trip. Maybe so. But "Deliverance" style individuals do exist, it appears. They're called Bush voters. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 10:25 PM (#1597783) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Cluin Hey, somebody's kept Jerry Springer on the air all these years. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 10:38 PM (#1597794) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Ebbie Giok, I'm only fussin' at you. I don't feel passionate about the subject in any sense. :) |
|
04 Nov 05 - 11:46 PM (#1597823) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Regular 'catter who's name doesn't matter. Tarheel, Many months ago I sent you a CD. You didn't have the decency to say thank you. I didn't expect that you'd like what was on it, but you might have acknowledged the gesture. You didn't. Now you pontificate about Christ knows what here, and pretend that somehow you have a moral superiority? Give me a fuckin' break. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 04:20 AM (#1597877) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle have you checked that it arrived, I always ask for people to acknowledge receipt. I don't think it really matters whether fellow mudcatters like your music. i think it sort of fills in some blanks with people occasionally, when you feel like you want to add depth to the exchange. most of us are well outside the mainframe of X-factor, Simon Cowell, Stock, Waterman and Shite etc |
|
05 Nov 05 - 08:28 AM (#1597969) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Jim McLean I wrote this sometime ago in the 60s. That's what I call pedigree. Chorus: Oh it is the greatest mixup that I have ever seen, His father is a German and his mother is a Queen. He is the prince of Wales although he's England's future King And his granny is the daughter of a Scotsman's highland fling. His aunt in Holland is a niece of Norway's royal pair And if they all died in their beds he'd be the Belgian heir! His father's mother came from Greece, his aunt's Bavarian Himself he wears the tartan of the Royal Stewart clan. His second cousin's Danish at least that's what he thinks For surely Queen Victorai must be the missing link! Chorus: Oh it is the greatest mixup that I have ever seen, His father is a German and his mother is a Queen. His mother she is English now or Scottish in Killin, Canadian in Canada and German in Berlin. His cousin's niece is Swedish and his uncle's wife is Greek And he himself must surely be an international freak. King Billy was a Dutchman and King Jamie was a Scot But the Prince of Wales just doesn't know if he is here or not. Our King won't come from London town or yet from Donegal Nor will he be from Scotland for we'll have no king atall! Chorus: Oh it is the greatest mixup that I have ever seen, His father is a German and his mother is a Queen. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 09:04 AM (#1597983) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Thanks Jim I'd forgotten all of that apart from the chorus, nice to be reminded. Giok |
|
05 Nov 05 - 09:10 AM (#1597986) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: billybob Did you know Prince Charles plays the cello?Rather well so they say. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 11:45 AM (#1598034) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,Harry Hewitt From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie Date: 05 Nov 05 - 11:21 AM And the spin doctors would have you believe they were out to get IRA/Sinn Feinn, just shows their agenda is not what the smear merchants would have us believe! Giok Isn't it funny Giok that remark of yours about Guest Harry Hewitt for example seem grammatically and factually challenged, just the one one in Fein ! Some things just bite you in the ass. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 12:04 PM (#1598048) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie Ah but with two Ns you get more eggs! Glad to see my remark didn't affect you one little bit!! G |
|
05 Nov 05 - 12:30 PM (#1598068) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Big Al Whittle Is that the same harry hewitt that married Concepta Riley in Coronation Street? The names are very similar. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 01:36 PM (#1598100) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: John MacKenzie You may be getting confused with Harry Pollit wld. G |
|
05 Nov 05 - 01:42 PM (#1598105) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: GUEST,amused Ah but, for being a twat there is no reward better than the fame of it! |
|
05 Nov 05 - 01:48 PM (#1598113) Subject: RE: BS: prince charles.... From: Teribus Guest amused - you should know! |
