That silly spoiled wanna-be princess should try working fast food or shoveling horse manure if she's hard up for cash. Not
all of us feel 'entitled' to a 'measly' $25,000 a year just for getting married (well, I do know a couple of girls that do
but that's another story entirely)... Who does she think she is? The Duchess of York? Oh... wait. She WAS. Now she can work
for a living like everyone else!
I fully agree with the author of this article that the the Queen has held her head up with poise and a sense of duty for a
long legacy of um... well... being the queen. She didn't ask for the job, but I think the payoff is probably better than
the 'difficulties' of being in such a hard-earned position. My how the sarcasm drips.
Fergie on the other hand, needs to sell her rich-person stuff and go learn how to work the fry cooker at a McDonalds. NONE
of the royals earned their position, they aren't 'special' they're just spoiled. At least the Queen is spoiled with
dignity. So when the life of privellige they take for granted is taken away from them, it shouldn't be such a difficult
concept that now they have to live lives of drudgery like everyone else.
Waah waah poor Fergie the press is so hard on her...
What a load of nonsense. She got in the spotlight in the first place. Her own fault for being a greedy little pig. Maybe if
she led a normal life instead of clinging to the archaic system of 'royalty' as a handout then nobody would talk bad about
Guitardian wrote:Oh... wait. She WAS. Now she can work for a living like everyone else!
Actually it was hard work. I get the strong impression she is better off out and away from the pressures of Royal life.
Guitardian wrote:
I fully agree with the author of this article that the the Queen has held her head up with poise and a sense of duty for a
long legacy of um... well... being the queen. She didn't ask for the job, but I think the payoff is probably better than
the 'difficulties' of being in such a hard-earned position. My how the sarcasm drips.
It doesnt drip as loudly than your ignorance. Being Queen is a curse, especially now. H.M. has done a very good job and
is largely treated by an ungrateful public with less credit than she deserves. She is keeping the country together.
Guitardian wrote:
NONE of the royals earned their position, they aren't 'special' they're just spoiled.
Quite the opposite. Even Charles has earned it to some extent, and he will make a very poor choice of King. Afterr him it
only goes up. Prince Edward is farly useless but largely eventually gaff free. Prince Andrew is a war veteran who insisted on not skipping missile decoy duty as a navy helciopter pilot in the Falklands war. Missile decoys take off with a transponder
similar to the signiture of the warship and hope the anti ship missiles are distracted shoot at only them and not the ship.
As for 'spoiled', these are not Paris Hiltons, they do stuff. Or are you assuming that because they still have something in the bank?
How exactly is H.M. holding the country together? I thought that has something to do with workers. I do not object to the royals being royal for royalties sake, I mean we have our Paris Hilton in the states too. The judgement I make here is that Fergie is getting trounced in the media for using her connections to sell Royal scandal stories to pay for her lavish lifestyle. Serves her right if the media trounces her.
Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together?
In 1997 there was a small yet powerful earth tremor near Windsor. This aggravated a hitherto unknown faultline which threatened to, literally, slide much of the North East of England into the sea. There was some debate about whether or not we were really all that bothered about this happening, but then we realised we'd have to reprint the maps and then figure out another region to mock. So, this very day, Liz spends anywhere from 8-10 hours a day with, basically, a lot of glue and a massive roll of duct tape. Her public appearances have been taken over by an android facsimile. THis is why no one in publci ever sees the Queen eat, drink or use the toilet.
Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together? I thought that has something to do with workers. I do not object to the royals being royal for royalties sake, I mean we have our Paris Hilton in the states too. The judgement I make here is that Fergie is getting trounced in the media for using her connections to sell Royal scandal stories to pay for her lavish lifestyle. Serves her right if the media trounces her.
The Queen and the vast majority of the Royal family work incredibly hard not only as ambasadors for the country, but also spend a huge amount of time helping charites, are figureheads for the armed forces, bring in millions of pounds in tourist revenue, and raise moral amongst the populace.
They are born into their roles and have very little choice over how they lead their lives, most of their time is spent on state engagements and when go anywhere they are hounded by the press. For me they are some of the hardest working people in the country.
Yes the Royal family get to travel first class and live in palaces, what would you prefer? That they lived in a flat above Aldi and drove about in a battered Ford Granada. Some how I can't see this encouraging many tourists or doing much for the moral of the country.
Fergie is a money grabbing parasite who should be thrown in a very small dark cell for a very long amount of time so that she can reflect upon her treason.
Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together?
H.M. has a lot of authority, at least on paper. One of the 'powers' she does have and the only one she is expected to use is her right to demaned the Prime Minister reports to her and is accountable to her.
The Queen can ask ANY question of the Prime Minister and it cannot be refused or evaded. The answer is privileged, H.M. cannot tell anyone what the Prime Minsiter says, but he is obliged to report weekly
anyway.
The only trouble with that is that Tony Blair refused to do so. Blair thought that because he was elected he was above accountability, but that was his pride speaking. Every Prime Minsters inclusing giants
like Churchill and Thatcher reported as ordered, so did every prior Labour administration. Blair thought he was special because he was Blair. Brown adopted the same bad habits, though he had less balls
than Blair and couldnt face off Her Majesty completely, so he sent emails instead. So he reported in some way.
But thats New Labour for you, and not H.M's fault. New Labour and Blair especially didnt like accountability one little bit.
I dont yet know what Cameron does, I hope he went back to the old system. Accountability is a national safeguard.
Also H.M. is very popular, there is a lot of tension between Scots and English, though far more Scottish anti-English sentiments than the other way around. Being a Scot in any English city is one thing, you
are welcome. Being English is Glasgow is not a good idea. a basic loyalty to the Crown is what is keeping many British subcultures together.
Guitardian wrote:
I thought that has something to do with workers.
Most workers dont understand the monarchy and come up with the same crap you are spouting. I get tired of explaining that the Royals are not Freeloaders at taxpayers expense. We expect them to be grateful
for what they get from the civic list and we forget that the crown estates are far larger earners and go straight to the government.
Guitardian wrote:The judgement I make here is that Fergie is getting trounced in the media for using her connections to sell Royal scandal stories to pay for her lavish lifestyle. Serves her right if the media
trounces her.
Nope that is what the tabloids and papparazzi say, inflated stories and outright lies are their specialty. Like Diana before her, they will have nothing nice to say until she dies. You surf an old headline for Diana
from 1996 or before and you will find the same gak as you are reading now.
Im a staunch Royalist, but im not fond of Fergie, or the hangers on for that matter. Maybe we can keep the immediate family and force the others to sign on like everyone else!
Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together?
In 1997 there was a small yet powerful earth tremor near Windsor. This aggravated a hitherto unknown faultline which threatened to, literally, slide much of the North East of England into the sea. There was some debate about whether or not we were really all that bothered about this happening, but then we realised we'd have to reprint the maps and then figure out another region to mock. So, this very day, Liz spends anywhere from 8-10 hours a day with, basically, a lot of glue and a massive roll of duct tape. Her public appearances have been taken over by an android facsimile. THis is why no one in publci ever sees the Queen eat, drink or use the toilet.
Guitardian wrote:
I thought that has something to do with workers.
Most workers dont understand the monarchy and come up with the same crap you are spouting. .
(edit: sorry still getting the hang of this quoting thing)
You don't perchance go foxhunting do you?
It is not 'crap' I'm spouting. I respect the Queen, I respect Prince Andrew for his sense of duty. I realize that they fulfill a role in British nationalism (hey I have a British passport too, this isn't some dumb Yankee who'se never been there). The paparazzi being used as a tool bribe just so she can keep all her nice lifestyle is as condemnable a scandal as such things like Martha Stewart's tax evasion, Blogojavich's auctioning of a Senate seat, Paris Hilton's "get-out-of-jail-free" card, Leona Helmsly, etc... (American "royalty" scandals).
I would never condemn my Queen, but the last time I was in England I was far more interested in going back to stonehenge and visiting Leeds castle in Kent than I was in seeing the 'changing of the guard' at Buckingham, or the 'crown jewels' exhibit at the tower. English tourism doesn't just come from the fact that they have a royal family, it comes from the fact that there's lots of neat places to see.
Some of them (Liz and Andrew for instance) do a fine job of holding up English idealism, but other ones... like this incident of pawning off royal scandals so she can still pretend to be a princess kind of lifestyle... how can you insult me for thinking that is just plainly wretched? If I was King over there I would go Anne Boleyn on her before she opened her fat ugly mouth, just for making the threat... but oh yeah I'm just a serf my opinion doesn't matter because I don't have the right parents.
I understand that the hole Cash-for-access scheme is only the tip of the iceberg.
Despite living for free at on of Andrews residences Fergie has spunked about £4m (weightwatcher and book money) in the last decade on top of her divorce settlement and has now come up with this scheme! Full marks for sneakyness but what a witch, talk about stabbing him in the back.
I heard on radio 2 yesterday [Whiticker the former Mirror royal commentator] that she had been dipping in her daughters trust funds! By all accounts she was a liability when she was married but had staff to kirb her excesses. As he rightly pointed out a hundred years ago they would have banged her up in an asylum, I'm not entirely sure that this isn't the right treatment. She is off with the fairies!
It is not 'crap' I'm spouting. I respect the Queen, I respect Prince Andrew for his sense of duty. I realize that they fulfill a role in British nationalism (hey I have a British passport too, this isn't some dumb Yankee who'se never been there). The paparazzi being used as a tool bribe just so she can keep all her nice lifestyle is as condemnable a scandal as such things like Martha Stewart's tax evasion, Blogojavich's auctioning of a Senate seat, Paris Hilton's "get-out-of-jail-free" card, Leona Helmsly, etc... (American "royalty" scandals).
I would never condemn my Queen, but the last time I was in England I was far more interested in going back to stonehenge and visiting Leeds castle in Kent than I was in seeing the 'changing of the guard' at Buckingham, or the 'crown jewels' exhibit at the tower. English tourism doesn't just come from the fact that they have a royal family, it comes from the fact that there's lots of neat places to see.
Some of them (Liz and Andrew for instance) do a fine job of holding up English idealism, but other ones... like this incident of pawning off royal scandals so she can still pretend to be a princess kind of lifestyle... how can you insult me for thinking that is just plainly wretched? If I was King over there I would go Anne Boleyn on her before she opened her fat ugly mouth, just for making the threat... but oh yeah I'm just a serf my opinion doesn't matter because I don't have the right parents.
Funnily enough I dont defend the the former Duchess of York, but I wont denegrate her either. I wish we could ignore her and let her get on with her life instead, but we know that wont happen.
My principle point was that you assumed in your OP that they were all freeloaders except the Queen herself, and I wasnt even sure you were not being sarcastic regarding her.
As a rule I defend the royals, and ignore the odd mistake they make. They are human after all. They are all under terrible pressure all the time, some crack under the strain 'Fergie' is one of those who did. She has to play the game because the press wont excuse her from the table and never will. But she hasnt any cards anymore, so she is in a trap. I have and lose sympathy for her in rotation.
Thanks for clarifying Orlanth. I was not being sarcastic about the Queen herself, just the position in general. What do you guys think about the fact that when things like this happen (like Diana's unfortunate death, Charles' oddities, lil' nazi outfit prince) they all kind of stay off the radar until the public forgets about it for the next scandal.
Oh they jump all over making Prince William's service out east a big deal, but the moment it is revealed that he was extremely high priority protected/defended/kept-out-of-harms-way (despite his alleged wishes otherwise) suddenly all those news footages disappeared. Prince Harry is evidenty a heart throb until his exploits at a haloween party are unveiled all of a sudden he's out of the news. Etc.
The same thing happened here with our own 'royalty' in the states. Michael Jackson dies... that's all we hear about for MONTHS. He even makes the news by being DEAD! same happened to that slut chick who married a rich old dude and did a playboy spread. They block the news with scandals, while meanwhile... Kennedy, a huge civil rights advocate and keystone of liberal ideals in america dies... 1 day it gets mentioned in the news... and suddenly the next festering parasite is sent out to distract people from who/what's important. We spent more time in the 90s worrying about Bill Clintons dick than we spent worrying about African revolutions, accidental air strikes on the wrong building (1 day in the news before quashed by a blowjob) I believe Fergie to be one of those parasites too and she deserves NO SYMPATHY and I think she should spend some time on an assembly line with the rest of us serfs.
Guitardian wrote:Thanks for clarifying Orlanth. I was not being sarcastic about the Queen herself, just the position in general. What do you guys think about the fact that when things like this happen (like Diana's unfortunate death, Charles' oddities, lil' nazi outfit prince) they all kind of stay off the radar until the public forgets about it for the next scandal.
Wel, to answer the seond half of your comment. If you look at the News of the World have to say, that is the tabloid that set up the sting.
News of the World are saying 'Fegi' is bringing the House of Windsor into disrepute. Up to a point that is true, but only up to a point, after all the Royal family have plausible deniability. However the tabloid insists in saying that she is bringing her ex husband into disrepute and therefore by extension the queen. to be fair to the News of the World, the editor interviewed was careful to say that he respects Prince Andrew his work and his integrity, and I dont think this is an empty platitude but an honest assessment. However the people bringing the Royal family into disrepute are he New of the World, after all they knew it would do and nevertheless set up the sting and published the story.
'Fergie' might deserve what she gets, but any knock on effects can only be attributed to the exploiting of the story by the media concerned. Had they been genuinely sympathetic to the Royal family they could have buried the story, not carried out a sting to begin with or at the very minimum exposed it to the Royals first and later reported Prince Andrew cleaning up the mess openly instead. That at least would both leak the story and put the family itself in a more positive light. Which is very fair because this scandal is not their fault.
Guitardian wrote:
Oh they jump all over making Prince William's service out east a big deal, but the moment it is revealed that he was extremely high priority protected/defended/kept-out-of-harms-way (despite his alleged wishes otherwise) suddenly all those news footages disappeared.
William cannot be risked. Yes he serves in the armed forces but will never see action. He is the second most important Royal after H.M. and who everyone hopes to be the next monarch. William is a godsend to the Monarchy as he has his mothers charm and his paternal grandmothers skill and adherence to duty. He is also smart and clean, all they need do is make sure they have carefully chosen bride for him.
Guitardian wrote:
....lil' nazi outfit prince.....Prince Harry is evidenty a heart throb until his exploits at a haloween party are unveiled all of a sudden he's out of the news. Etc.
I defend Prince Harry in this and all things. He is a soldier and he is NOT mollycoddled. While news of his tours is kept highly classified in case he is targeted he still went out and did the standard job with the trops like any other army Lt. A lot of what he says and gets stick for is stuff any army officer says, he deals with squaddies day in day out, and mixes with them as well as with his brother officers. He has a soldiers outlook and a soldiers humour and within barracks likely has a soldiers mouth. I have no evidence for this but we know he is not a PC prude so likely there are things he says his squaddies hear, would make scandals but don't because they are loyal to him.
I suspect both your comments are about the same single 'incident'. I don't know a lot about that, but I do know it was a fancy dress party with an African theme. Harry went as Africa Korps and (the armband would not have been authentic) his older brother was fully blacked up and dressed in a grass skirt. Anyway no-one there was offended by the costumes but some teenage guest took a picture to sell to the press. I imagine he or she will be regretting that betrayal for a long time.
Also look who complained, mostly Jewish groups, and of course the British tabloids. Actually this put some backs up. Mel Brooks can do Springtime for Hitler as often as he likes, but we can no longer be seen to lampoon Nazi iconography. The root behind that is that Jews are Hitlers victims and have unique access to the iconography. This neatly forgets that the reason Nazi paraphernalia has not been banned in the UK is because we too can make that claim, and with a stringer justification all told being the first and longest opponents of the Third Reich, and of our own choosing rather from being attacked. The Israeli Prime Minister was asked to give judgement, while Harry as a British army officer shares common ground the Israelis claim and should, and in the past could, use the iconography without labeling for the same reasons Spielberg and Mel Brooks can.
It might have been unwise, but I challenge anyone to call Prince Harry a racist without first pointing the same finger at others who mock the me symbol, which of course they wont do with good reason.
Guitardian wrote:
The same thing happened here with our own 'royalty' in the states. Michael Jackson dies...
Well if the US considers such people as royalty then it is they not the celebs that need mocking. Celebs are celebs, royals are royals, and that goes internationally too. I would not support such disrespect to a foreign monarch either, but celebs are there to be mocked. Especially those you chose to mention. The best reaction I ever saw to Michael Jackson came from Jarvis Cocker, and Paris Hilton is her own worst enemy.
Guitardian wrote:
I believe Fergie to be one of those parasites too and she deserves NO SYMPATHY and I think she should spend some time on an assembly line with the rest of us serfs.
Things are going to be even more difficult for her now. The divorce settlement was very paltry for someone of her station, half of Prince Andrews Royal Navy salary. Which was legally fair and sent a message: if Andrew was an ordinary man of his armed forces rank this is what you would be getting, so she is a commoner again. Though it was rumoured she was getting supplementary voluntary support from the Royal family, it was on promise of good behaviour.
The Royal family had to work bloody hard for their position a few hundred years ago.
Fergie's a waste of space however. Much of the 'royal' culture is as well, but for the most part they do a brilliant job of providing figureheads for the country, and most of them earn their place.
Princess Anne is (pardon the the pun) an absolute trooper. The Queen herself served in the WAAC during the Second World War. Blah blah blah.
(sorry I don't know the quote thing so well.. but... quote Orlanth here
Well if the US considers such people as royalty then it is they not the celebs that need mocking. Celebs are celebs, royals are royals, and that goes internationally too. I would not support such disrespect to a foreign monarch either, but celebs are there to be mocked. Especially those you chose to mention. The best reaction I ever saw to Michael Jackson came from Jarvis Cocker, and Paris Hilton is her own worst enemy.
----
While I agree to all of the above, I don't think you can insult the American standard of our own, non-family-lineage 'royalty' when it really amounts to the same thing; You are important because you have a rich famous family and lots of non-earned inheritance money. If it were me or you, we would probably act a lot more responsibly with our birthright. But then again, if we were raised in privellige like Paris or Diana, we probably wouldn't think like that. Still, I love England, I think H.M. is a cool lady, but with the birth of international media, paparrazzi etc, the difference between our 'celebs' and yours grows narrow.
@Smiling... do they cost me money? That depends on how far up the Macro-economics ladder you want to climb. There is only so much money floating around. Some people are born with it and hoard it while others produce it.
Guitardian wrote:(sorry I don't know the quote thing so well.. but... quote Orlanth here
Press the yellow QUOTE button to the top right of the post. Type below all the text that turns up in the text window. Edit the quote down too if you like, but dont touch anything in [square brackets].
Guitardian wrote:(sorry I don't know the quote thing so well.. but... quote Orlanth here
Press the yellow QUOTE button to the top right of the post. Type below all the text that turns up in the text window. Edit the quote down too if you like, but dont touch anything in [square brackets].
Thanks for the tutorial!
Orlanth wrote: don't touch anything in the square brackets.
just testin if it worked... and yeah.. one of the fergies is kinda hot, at least according to our last poster's pic. Maybe they should trade roles. The Royals need some kind of sex symbol in order to be legit in modern culture. Princess Di would have been a great candidate but she had too much class for that kind of photo shoot... Oh well... I guess that's why they're the upper class. English tabloids get frumpy Fergie while americans get hot diva Fergie. I doubt if there's any correlation but I suspect her choice of name was specifically to make a reference to the 80s upjumped princess idea, kind of as a pop-culture joke... not so dissimilar to her own lifestyle.
Previously the monarchy have, of necessity, had to maintain a degree of seperation from the rest of the populace. This has changed with the current royal family who have tried with various degrees of success, to be seen as 'ordinary people'.
But there is a problem with this position, because they have title and priviliges that are founded on birthright and historical precedence of being perceived as superior to the rest of us.
The Windsors have increasingly used the media to open up to the public. The net result is a blurring of distictions between royalty and celebrity.
They are unelected heads of state who wish to play on their celebrity status. That makes them fair game too. In any case the royal family has long been subject to mockery. We have a very healthy tradition of satire in this country.
Long may that continue.
robertsjf wrote:I'm sorry, normally I don't care being 'Merican and all but this quote:
Orlanth wrote:Being Queen is a curse,
made me chuckle. Cursed with being one of the wealthiest people in the world. I'm so sad.
Granted, being the ruling Monarch of England was probably alot cooler before that Cromwell bastard!
Have enormous power that cannot be wielded.
Pretend to get on and like people your government wants you to pretend like. Playing host to vermin like Ceaucescu and Mugabe.
Get the huge income from your estates taken away and replaced by as smaller fraction as a handout for which you are expected to be grateful. I cant see any other billionaire stomaching that. Hey Branson we will take away your empire give you three million a year expect you to entertain our cronies with it and be grateful you get that.
Put up with ignorant people thinking its all gravy train and easy money.
Tabloids.
Papparazzi.
Hangers on one cannot dismiss.
Security concerns.
Treasonous politicians that one cannot send to the tower.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote: They are unelected heads of state who wish to play on their celebrity status.
Unelected doesn't mean less worthy, they grew up into the role. I trust Her Majesty to have th best interest of th nation at heart above ANY elected poltician. Royals are there by accident of birth, so were hereditaries. Eelected polticians are there because they win the rat race. Who wins the rat race, the man or the rat?
also the Royals would rather not have celebrity status, their actual figurehead role doesnt actually require it.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
That makes them fair game too.
Easy game, not fair game, unlike a politician or celeb the Royals have no right or means of reply.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
In any case the royal family has long been subject to mockery. We have a very healthy tradition of satire in this country.
Long may that continue.
Satire is a valued break on power, the Royals do not have true power. Also satire has been devalued as it has been increasingly partisan. Comedians today ignore their responsibilities under fools license but still demand the privileges.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Previously the monarchy have, of necessity, had to maintain a degree of seperation from the rest of the populace. This has changed with the current royal family who have tried with various degrees of success, to be seen as 'ordinary people'.
Don't you mean... Common People?
I agree that the idea of being in the Royal Family isn't as great as some would think. The paparazzi in the UK is just brutal.
Oh please... anyone defending the royals at all, saying how 'hard' their job must be, etc... That's misplaced national pride and you know you would switch jobs with them in a second if offered the opportunity. Don't tell me you think your job is easier than theirs... Well maybe if you program windows update computer software or run a corporation that sells banks or something, but aside from that...
Orlanth wrote:Put up with ignorant people thinking its all gravy train and easy money.
I never said it was easy. But if it's so horrible, why not quit? If the job was so bad how does England keep the throne occupied? Evidently, it's not all bad. You want to tell me that it's really hard work. OK, I believe it. Seems pretty rewarding, too.
And as far as having to pretend to like people that I actually don't: please, I have to do that at my job all the time and it pays less than monarchy.
Guitardian wrote:Oh please... anyone defending the royals at all, saying how 'hard' their job must be, etc... That's misplaced national pride and you know you would switch jobs with them in a second if offered the opportunity. Don't tell me you think your job is easier than theirs... Well maybe if you program windows update computer software or run a corporation that sells banks or something, but aside from that...
robertsjf wrote:I never said it was easy. But if it's so horrible, why not quit? If the job was so bad how does England keep the throne occupied? Evidently, it's not all bad. You want to tell me that it's really hard work. OK, I believe it. Seems pretty rewarding, too.
I would much rather keep my job in a factory than willingly chose to be a royal. At all times they must represent their country, must be mindful of what they say, act in certain ways. For me, that does not compute. While being royal must certainly have a few perks, there are a lot of downsides from what I can tell. Not to mention the stress from what one royal says can lead to disasters depending on the situation. Through the downsides of the job, the reason why I believe the Queen simply does not "quit" is because of a sense of duty.
Then again, I'm just an American who finds the thought of celebrities as royals not only insulting, but idiotic.
Guitardian wrote:Oh please... anyone defending the royals at all, saying how 'hard' their job must be, etc... That's misplaced national pride and you know you would switch jobs with them in a second if offered the opportunity. Don't tell me you think your job is easier than theirs... Well maybe if you program windows update computer software or run a corporation that sells banks or something, but aside from that...
I would much rather keep my job in a factory than willingly chose to be a royal. At all times they must represent their country, must be mindful of what they say, act in certain ways. For me, that does not compute. While being royal must certainly have a few perks, there are a lot of downsides from what I can tell. Not to mention the stress from what one royal says can lead to disasters depending on the situation. Through the downsides of the job, the reason why I believe the Queen simply does not "quit" is because of a sense of duty.
Then again, I'm just an American who finds the thought of celebrities as royals not only insulting, but idiotic.
Something tells me they don't fear geting laid off from their factory job and having their girlfriend's mom live with them because the bank took away her home for mortgage foreclosure. You would volunteer for it if you could. Who wouldn't?
The only time I would ever step into that position, or the President's, is if it was absolutely needed. And by that, I mean something was seriously, seriously wrong, and I would give it up the moment I could.
I don't fear getting laid off. Currently, I am laid off. It's always a high possibility for my job, as I make parts for airport snow plots and it's seasonally dependant (Fall is the heavy months, spring and summer less so.) I'll get called back soon. Don't have a girlfriend, but even that problem you mentioned wouldn't be an embuggerance to me. All it would mean is someone who's paying me rent now until they get back on their feet, a girlfriend who is highly appreciative of taking her mum in, and a good rep with her friends in case things go wonky.
Not everyone wants to be a royal or democratically elected leader. Some of us are happy where we are. Some of us know better than to touch such a position with an eleven and a half foot pole.
Question: Can't a member of the Royal family, especially one in a position, be removed from their office by parliament if things go really bad? And all people with royal lineage have an allergy to revolutions and axes when that fails. And if you fail that badly, you really, really screwed up.
The Queen does it out of a sense of duty built up in the era when such things meant something.
A lot of the minor royals are just hangers-on. They could just walk away if it is so tough. There is no law to compel them to remain a royal. They don't because they haven't the talent to maintain themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed. In many cases the 'work' required of them is hardly taxing.
There are jobs that pay more, and require less work, than that of the British monarch.
Sarah Ferguson is an embarrasment. I expect her to meet with an 'accident' in the not-too-distant future. The Monarchy is something which a lot of people (myself included) take VERY seriously. It is not something to be toyed with. What she did was exceedingly foolish.
@Orlanth - Cameron seems to be a pretty stand-up type of chap - I expect he'll play the game.
Albatross wrote:There are jobs that pay more, and require less work, than that of the British monarch.
Sarah Ferguson is an embarrasment. I expect her to meet with an 'accident' in the not-too-distant future. The Monarchy is something which a lot of people (myself included) take VERY seriously. It is not something to be toyed with. What she did was exceedingly foolish.
@Orlanth - Cameron seems to be a pretty stand-up type of chap - I expect he'll play the game.
Forbes magazine estimated the Queen's wealth at $650 million in 2008, but no official figure is available.
I'll take that job as I don't know of many that pay that well.
Whilst I appreciate that not everyone is in favour of the Royal Family, there are many people who are firm monarchists - including several people who have already posted on this thread.
With that in mind I would like to politely request that you refrain from posting crass and insulting remarks about our Royal Family. I take an insult to the Royal Family as seriously as I would an insult to my person.
Then you should listen to more sex pistols Alba... No seriously, it isn't an affront to the proud and respected and occasionally jaded privelliged few who have the right last name. Many of them do take it very seriously, and do their best to uphold the honor of an institution as archaic yet somehow still relevant as the the one they are caught up in. Being rich, powerful, and loaded from birth is hardly an easy life to deal with, is it? High ranked members of the Catholic church come to mind. Some are good at being a standing representative of the Catholic faith, other ones feth altar boys. I don't think the 'royals' are any less exempt from media attacks. If you don't like getting called on your bs, don't do bad things. Nobody hates on queen Liz in the media... oh yeah... cuz she is a standup kinda person who used her fortunate birthright to help people, encourage her country to the excellence they know, not just to drive a Bentley and so on.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote: They are unelected heads of state who wish to play on their celebrity status.
Unelected doesn't mean less worthy, they grew up into the role. I trust Her Majesty to have th best interest of th nation at heart above ANY elected poltician. Royals are there by accident of birth, so were hereditaries. Eelected polticians are there because they win the rat race. Who wins the rat race, the man or the rat?
also the Royals would rather not have celebrity status, their actual figurehead role doesnt actually require it.
Easy game, not fair game, unlike a politician or celeb the Royals have no right or means of reply.
Satire is a valued break on power, the Royals do not have true power. Also satire has been devalued as it has been increasingly partisan. Comedians today ignore their responsibilities under fools license but still demand the privileges.
To much flim flam and tugging of forlocks
not enough cocking of snooks
That is brake on power, sadly satire is unable to break power.
oh how my heart pumps custard for those poor hard put upon wretches
Any Americans want a royal family
we can do a special BOGOF deal if it helps
Guitardian wrote:Then you should listen to more sex pistols Alba... No seriously, it isn't an affront to the proud and respected and occasionally jaded privelliged few who have the right last name. Many of them do take it very seriously, and do their best to uphold the honor of an institution as archaic yet somehow still relevant as the the one they are caught up in. Being rich, powerful, and loaded from birth is hardly an easy life to deal with, is it? High ranked members of the Catholic church come to mind. Some are good at being a standing representative of the Catholic faith, other ones feth altar boys. I don't think the 'royals' are any less exempt from media attacks. If you don't like getting called on your bs, don't do bad things. Nobody hates on queen Liz in the media... oh yeah... cuz she is a standup kinda person who used her fortunate birthright to help people, encourage her country to the excellence they know, not just to drive a Bentley and so on.
The Sex Pistols only refer to the Queen in one song.
I was referring to the guy who called the Royal Family 'retards' (ironic, considering they all go to the finest schools, and the guy who made the post seems to be barely literate...). That's just tacky. I have no problem with criticism. No-one is above criticism.
I guess I could go bludgeon half the world into submission to express my displeasure and stuff all the gold I got for generations into a fortress and insist upon my royal decree for reasons that later become a more complex political web to deal with where I need to just look the part but still keep the jewels... Is that a better way of stating my royal intention?
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh dammit! I didn't get that option when I was born
Guitardian wrote:I guess I could go bludgeon half the world into submission to express my displeasure and stuff all the gold I got for generations into a fortress and insist upon my royal decree for reasons that later become a more complex political web to deal with where I need to just look the part but still keep the jewels... Is that a better way of stating my royal intention?
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh dammit! I didn't get that option when I was born
Some are + while some are - ... they are not infallable, and none of them really truly have to worry about working for a living. They bitchslapped india, america, various african countries, france, germany, spain, etc for plenty of crown jewel for 'I dont have to work so I can busy myself doing good things' insurance... some of them do good deeds. other can go sell themselves to the paparazzi and get a failed book ghost written about it for all i care... THATS what I'm on about. all them royal hangers-on seem like trolls to me. Half the royal family itself is (due to the nature of marriage... do you think Di actually thought Charles was hot? or maybe just knew he was loaded...) I could go on and on but I'm halfway through a 12 pack and am just going to embarass myself more if I go on.
I was referring to the guy who called the Royal Family 'retards' (ironic, considering they all go to the finest schools, and the guy who made the post seems to be barely literate...). That's just tacky. I have no problem with criticism. No-one is above criticism.
I think you're missing Alpharious' point. To be clear, the term 'slow' is not permitted on this site Alba as its deeply offensive. He's stating not to use it again.
I cant use the word slowed? okay sorry... what explains the ditzy blonde chic in the following thread (yes she is, I've met her and that word might apply)
Can someone please close this thread, it started as a poorly concealed attempt to insult the Royal family and had devolved into slinging childish insults.
There are people who regularly post on this site, myself included, who have or still do, serve in the armed forces and as such will have sworn an oath of allegiance to the monarch and fought on her behalf. Regardless of personal motives for joining up some of the comments made here are deeply offensive.
Constructive critisism is fine as is lampooning however, I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting a nations figureheads has to the site.
Guitardian wrote:Then you should listen to more sex pistols Alba... No seriously, it isn't an affront to the proud and respected and occasionally jaded privelliged few who have the right last name. Many of them do take it very seriously, and do their best to uphold the honor of an institution as archaic yet somehow still relevant as the the one they are caught up in. Being rich, powerful, and loaded from birth is hardly an easy life to deal with, is it? High ranked members of the Catholic church come to mind. Some are good at being a standing representative of the Catholic faith, other ones feth altar boys. I don't think the 'royals' are any less exempt from media attacks. If you don't like getting called on your bs, don't do bad things. Nobody hates on queen Liz in the media... oh yeah... cuz she is a standup kinda person who used her fortunate birthright to help people, encourage her country to the excellence they know, not just to drive a Bentley and so on.
The Sex Pistols only refer to the Queen in one song.
I was referring to the guy who called the Royal Family 'retards' (ironic, considering they all go to the finest schools, and the guy who made the post seems to be barely literate...). That's just tacky. I have no problem with criticism. No-one is above criticism.
I apologize to dakka members for using the term retards, my mistake. I am some what amused at your assumptions than I am barley literate
As for Prince Charles, anyone who would marry the granddaughter of his grandfather’s mistress, I just hope they’re not related except by marriage.
Just goes to show, no greater honour can an Englishman expect, than to lay down his wife for his king.
squilverine wrote:Can someone please close this thread, it started as a poorly concealed attempt to insult the Royal family and had devolved into slinging childish insults.
There are people who regularly post on this site, myself included, who have or still do, serve in the armed forces and as such will have sworn an oath of allegiance to the monarch and fought on her behalf. Regardless of personal motives for joining up some of the comments made here are deeply offensive.
Constructive critisism is fine as is lampooning however, I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting a nations figureheads has to the site.
The OP was questioning the actions of Her Madge's ex daughter in law.
As to fighting on her behalf, I thought the current conflicts were about safe guarding our freedoms and protecting us from evil terrorists?
So all along 'our boys' are really the queen's own and putting their lives on the line for the monarch and not us plebs?
It is also quite a leap from criticising a lesser royal to offending those that have served or are serving.
And yes we know that the queen is head of the armed forces
I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting has to the site either but it goes on aplenty.
So far there hasn't been a lot if any personal attacks against Lizzie, but we may as well start now...
Hmmm... conspiracy theory? Broken link... odd how that happens whenever something wants to stay off the news involving the Royals, or their American counterparts... just a thought, but I'll go check it out due to morbid curiosity....
Enough with the Black Eyed Peas Fergie pics people! She is such a ropey old boiler! I dread to think of the money she has spent on surgery; I read somewhere it was verging on $250,000.
Monster Rain wrote:The "r-word" is now verboten on message boards?
I weep for mankind.
That makes you weep? Somalia, Sudan, terrorism, the second Great Recession is on NOW, Barney the Dinosaur still lives, and this makes you weep?
It was the straw that broke the camel's back, Fraz. It's also indicative of one of my least favorite aspects life i.e. how PC everything has to be anymore.
With Ronnie James Dio and Phill Harris dead, I'm on a hair trigger these days.
Jeb, despite what the class warriors on dakka say, the overwhelming majority of the UK support the monarchy.
And their knockers are just ridiculously short sighted anyway.
I find the argument very easily settled. Do YOU like politicians?! Would we really rather have a slimy toady "president" Brown over a nice dignified old lady?
There will always be a ruling class, its just that in America you have a much worse one, people like Paris Hilton and her wretched family, or Bob Dylan and his kids, or Brad Pitt and his irritating wife, and look at the way they go on about the bloody Kennedys, and they are awful people on the whole (like most politicians) especially Ted "hand brake" Kennedy.
They get their kids and family members to be famous too, they get adored and screeched over by the public, they stick their noses into every business there is.
I dont really see whats the difference between our constitutional monrachy and the ridiculous celebrity worship that seems to prevail in every nation on earth other than the fact that the Royals are just nicer people in general because they are told from a young age that they must do their duty and they are not as pompous and self important as most "celebs"
How many politicians or celebrities kids go and serve in Ganners like Harry did? And most of them help in the armed services. Andrew seems a good guy and went to the Falklands, Edward tried out for my lot but failed miserably!
The Queen is a very dignified and gracious old lady.
If all of the commies slagging them off where in Harrys position they would have sat on a boat and spent mummies money on lap dancers. Harry jumped on a helo and flew to Kandahar. Thats why they hate the Royals, and they do "hate" them, in an entirely irrational way, because they know they have more integrity then them. I met Harry several times and i have to say he was well liked by all of his men and seemed a decent chap all round.
Im not a theist either, but i shall be happy to sing "God save the Queen" when the dear old lady shuffles off the mortal coil!
squilverine wrote:Can someone please close this thread, it started as a poorly concealed attempt to insult the Royal family and had devolved into slinging childish insults.
There are people who regularly post on this site, myself included, who have or still do, serve in the armed forces and as such will have sworn an oath of allegiance to the monarch and fought on her behalf. Regardless of personal motives for joining up some of the comments made here are deeply offensive.
Constructive critisism is fine as is lampooning however, I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting a nations figureheads has to the site.
The OP was questioning the actions of Her Madge's ex daughter in law.
As to fighting on her behalf, I thought the current conflicts were about safe guarding our freedoms and protecting us from evil terrorists?
So all along 'our boys' are really the queen's own and putting their lives on the line for the monarch and not us plebs?
You missed my point. Members of the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen and the country. The Queen and many other Royals act as commander in chief of a lot of the regiments in the Army. As such the majority of those serving are staunch Royalists and therefore get offended when people start hurling insults.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is also quite a leap from criticising a lesser royal to offending those that have served or are serving.
And yes we know that the queen is head of the armed forces?
Actualy the majority of my coments were directed at the person who refered to Royal family as a bunch of r***rds. Not everyone does know that the Queen is the head of the armed forces, especialy those who don't come from the UK. Also you don't have to directly insult someone to offend them, as you pointed out the Queen is the head of the armed services and we tend to look out for each other.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting has to the site either but it goes on aplenty.
Your not wrong there mate, sometimes it is funny and deserved other times it is tedious and offensive.
I'm not a royalist by any stretch; as long as they keep pulling in the tourist money and not making too many public gaffes they can stick around forever.
That said, i shall be sad when the Queen dies/abdicates. She has been a fantastic ambassador for Britain over the years and has even helped our politics from time to time. The thought of her going and that plum-faced moron Charles taking over really is the pits.
@Matt: It seems that the strongest sentiment towards the monarchy that I found during my travels to the UK were in Oxford. That always struck me as a bit strange. I was having a few pints with some of the lads there, and we were all ripping apart some republicans that were at the table with us...*sigh* I was born in the wrong country...
That's a very good point, mattrym. Our 'royalty' in the States are indeed a despicable lot because they were not born into it, and didn't grow up with the sense of duty that one would have engrained from day one if they were. The hangers-on, on the other hand, were not born into it and had no such conditioning in childhood.
When I went to play the Cannes Film Fest a couple years back I met many many movie-star types who we allegedly worship over here and I came back and said to my manager "I cannot BELIEVE how full of themselves these people are! I want to go home..."
You'd think I would be starstruck or excited going to rich extravangent parties and meeting this or that who's who sort of people, but instead I was disgusted and realized that even the ones who are seen as 'modest' or 'humble' or call themselves 'blessed to have this opportunity' to the media... were ALL a contemptable lot.
They all live in a different world from the common man, but at least the Royalty has had that thought very staunchly set in their mind from their childhood. They don't take their position and status for granted like some celebrity person (well the good ones don't anyways). I think it's a matter of class, and I don't mean class like upper/middle/lower I mean having some class. Those people have had (at least in public) poise and respectfulness and a general sense of obligation for the fact that they lead such lavish lives owed entirely to their subjects. Hollywood types just think they earned it so they own the place. You earned it HOW? being the cute face in the Fantastic Four movie?...
Yeah you're right, they come from entirely different backgrounds and were raised with entirely different values.
It is easy to confuse the two because they are both all over the media all the time, but for entirely different reasons. The Royalty doesn't make a big deal about its red carpet walks because it doesn't have to, that sort of thing is a daily standard. Take some movie star from some stupid romantic comedy and they want everyone to know they're all that, worrying about who is the best and worst dressed at the oscars or whatever.
All I have to say is, they will be the second against the wall when the revolution comes. The first will be the guys who got coconut oil popped popcorn banned.
mattyrm wrote:Edward tried out for my lot but failed miserably!
He tried, give him credit for that. There is a world of difference between someone who say 'I will serve' and it found out to be insufficient quality than one who say 'I will not serve'.
He and I have a lot in common on those grounds, I was really messed up when I was in my late teens - early twenties, the system worked, they didn't give me a commission, thought it was what I wanted to do for many years.
There is no shame in this, given the need or opportunity I would serve this country.
mattyrm wrote:Edward tried out for my lot but failed miserably!
He tried, give him credit for that. There is a world of difference between someone who say 'I will serve' and it found out to be insufficient quality than one who say 'I will not serve'.
He and I have a lot in common on those grounds, I was really messed up when I was in my late teens - early twenties, the system worked, they didn't give me a commission, thought it was what I wanted to do for many years.
There is no shame in this, given the need or opportunity I would serve this country.
Yeah no offence intended Orlanth, i just used to find that funny because when i old my family i was trying out for the Royal Marines my grannie always used to say "eeee well Edward couldnt do it!"
Indeed, im well aware of the harsh reality of demanding physical training, my best mate in training got a stress fracture on his 30 miler and never made it out of the box, some people are the consumate soldiers but their body lets them down. No shame in it, Indeed, it is better to try and fail than to never try at all.
We had a plaque on the wall in my company lines with a quote by Teddy Roosevelt i feel is pertinent to this..
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat"
Too be honest I'm not a huge fan of the Royals as an institution. Certainly I think they need reform, far to many hangers on currently.
However with regards to the immediate family I would never make personal attacks against them. Though I remain to be convinced that the Queen does an essential job there's no doubt in my mind that she carries out here role with considerable dignity and works very hard. I even have a grudging respect for Charles.
However with regards to the hangers on (of which I include Fergie and Andrew) I'm quite happy to make an exception to this rule. They are a collection of utterly useless scroungers. Fergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement. Not this may not seem like a fortune but considering there are many thousands of people, working their socks off on the minimum wage, who would give their right arm to earn this much in return for their honest work, getting this for doing nothing is a fething disgrace.
As for Andrew yes I'm well aware of his helicopter piloting during the Falklands however can anyone enlighten me as to what he has done in the almost 30 years since the war? Aside of course from playing Golf and Womanising at the taxpayers expense that is.
Guitardian wrote:Fergie and Fergi... hmmm.... how to tell them apart?
Well... It's like Corgi and Corvette
C'mon Guitardian there is a world of difference betwixt them
= corgi (the one on all fours)
=Corvette
The corvette is HMCS West York. Fergie is/was Duchess of York
see how I kept it on topic
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hi squilverine
missed that
As much as my republican tendencies despise the institution and my cynicism insists that the royals are a bunch of inbreds; retarts? I doubt it.
Even Charles, whose views on architecture I tend to disagree with is obviously an intelligent bod.
Hi Matty
"short sighted knockers"
Are you saying Fergi has myopic boobies?
LuciusAR wrote:Too be honest I'm not a huge fan of the Royals as an institution. Certainly I think they need reform, far to many hangers on currently.
However with regards to the immediate family I would never make personal attacks against them. Though I remain to be convinced that the Queen does an essential job there's no doubt in my mind that she carries out here role with considerable dignity and works very hard. I even have a grudging respect for Charles.
However with regards to the hangers on (of which I include Fergie and Andrew) I'm quite happy to make an exception to this rule. They are a collection of utterly useless scroungers. Fergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement. Not this may not seem like a fortune but considering there are many thousands of people, working their socks off on the minimum wage, who would give their right arm to earn this much in return for their honest work, getting this for doing nothing is a fething disgrace.
As for Andrew yes I'm well aware of his helicopter piloting during the Falklands however can anyone enlighten me as to what he has done in the almost 30 years since the war? Aside of course from playing Golf and Womanising at the taxpayers expense that is.
To be fair Andrew is currently (and has been for some time the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. (bit of a mouthful that!) In this role he has more than pulled his weight, I would imagine that he has probably brought far more money to the UK than he costs us in taxes. Also as Charlies younger brother, before Harry and William came along) he was second to the throne. So in my eyes he isn't a hanger on as not only does he work hard but is immediate family to the Queen.
LuciusAR wrote:
However with regards to the hangers on (of which I include Fergie and Andrew) I'm quite happy to make an exception to this rule. They are a collection of utterly useless scroungers. Fergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement. Not this may not seem like a fortune but considering there are many thousands of people, working their socks off on the minimum wage, who would give their right arm to earn this much in return for their honest work, getting this for doing nothing is a fething disgrace.
As for Andrew yes I'm well aware of his helicopter piloting during the Falklands however can anyone enlighten me as to what he has done in the almost 30 years since the war? Aside of course from playing Golf and Womanising at the taxpayers expense that is.
This one has to be dealt with. If we won't defend a veteran we don't deserve our passports.
However with regards to the hangers on (of which I include Fergie and Andrew) I'm quite happy to make an exception to this rule. Sorry grossly unfair. Andrew served his purpose being the heir's spare until William was born. He cannot suddenly be thrown out of the Royal family. Frankly its offensive to even consider them hangers on. The Monarch and direct heir(s) and the siblings of themselves and their direct heirs and the still married spouses of same, make up the core of the Royal family. Anyone else is a hanger on, and guess what, they are not on the civic list. Edward is a Royal, Countess Sophie is, their kids maybe not.
They are a collection of utterly useless scroungers. Andrew ran missile decoy duty. Let me explain how this works. You get in a helicopter fitted with a transponder, you take off and hover just over the waves regardless of weather and turn on a transponder. The transponder says in electronic-ese 'look Argie exocet missiles, i'm the warship.' If you are lucky the missile hits you and not your ship; yes that right you are doing your job best when you get targeted by a missile while in a helicopter with nowhere tgo go and nowhere to hide.
Now choose one of the following.
LuiciusAR you are...:
a) being a complete arsewipe.
b) someone who will withdraw his words regarding the moral worth of Prince Andrew.
c) explain why a veteran who pulls such duty (and had the opportunity to not do so because he was a prince but refused) is a 'useless scrounger'.
Don't try and tell us you didn't mean Andrew.
As for Andrew yes I'm well aware of his helicopter piloting during the Falklands however can anyone enlighten me as to what he has done in the almost 30 years since the war? How much more need he do to be 'worthy' in your eyes. By this logic I have to wonder if you want to cut the disability pensions of veterans of the Falklands war as 'scroungers' too. Learn some respect.
Aside of course from playing Golf and Womanising at the taxpayers expense that is. Amazing what you can do on a Royal Naval officers salary. The family home is paid for by the Crown, yes its bigger than he would expect to be able to afford with a mortgage in New Britain. Apart from that he pays his own way with his own pay. Of course now he has addtional roles and additional support but you are deluded if you think he is drawing anything like the pay he would get for being a businessman or politician in that role. Andrew greases the international trade wheels, and do so very well. People with those skills normally have 6-7 figure salaries and are worth every penny. Andrew has to take his civic list payment, and appear grateful he is getting it for 'nothing' from the taxpayer.
Fergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement. Not this may not seem like a fortune but considering there are many thousands of people, working their socks off on the minimum wage, who would give their right arm to earn this much in return for their honest work, getting this for doing nothing is a fething disgrace.
Actually it was £15k at the time of the settlement it will be even more now. Because its a portion of her ex-husbands pay.
What a scandal eh. These servicemen are flounting the paychecks that could have been better spent on another tier of NHS managers or a whole new Equality and Diversity quango. Perhaps these damn veterans should hand back the money they flaunt for the public good? But they do not, many are also slapping the taxpayer in the face by having the gall to support their families with the pay.
LuciusAR wrote:Too be honest I'm notFergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement.
And Lizzie Bardsley got £37,500 a year off Nu-lab. And she bred another generation of never work, never earn, never do anything but breed toothless simple children.
LuciusAR wrote:Too be honest I'm notFergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement.
And Lizzie Bardsley got £37,500 a year off Nu-lab. And she bred another generation of never work, never earn, never do anything but breed toothless simple children.
I know who im happier paying for!
Be fair Matty anyone wishing to poke that miserable hag probably deserves the money, she must have a minge like a punched lasagne.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Matt: It seems that the strongest sentiment towards the monarchy that I found during my travels to the UK were in Oxford. That always struck me as a bit strange. I was having a few pints with some of the lads there, and we were all ripping apart some republicans that were at the table with us...*sigh* I was born in the wrong country...
If you're thinking of emigrating here do it soon, before the new anti-immigration rules come into force.
LuciusAR wrote:Too be honest I'm notFergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement.
And Lizzie Bardsley got £37,500 a year off Nu-lab. And she bred another generation of never work, never earn, never do anything but breed toothless simple children.
I know who im happier paying for!
Be fair Matty anyone wishing to poke that miserable hag probably deserves the money, she must have a minge like a punched lasagne.
LuciusAR wrote:Too be honest I'm notFergie for example gets 15K a year straight from the taxpayers pocket as part of her divorce settlement.
And Lizzie Bardsley got £37,500 a year off Nu-lab. And she bred another generation of never work, never earn, never do anything but breed toothless simple children.
I know who im happier paying for!
Be fair Matty anyone wishing to poke that miserable hag probably deserves the money, she must have a minge like a punched lasagne.
I was better of not knowing who she was, having not watched any dire IQ draining reality TV shows.
Perhaps you guys are outing yourselves, I would be less embarassed if caught comparing favourite quotes from Mein Kampf than seeming to know anything about this irrelevant lump without Googling first.
Orlanth wrote:I was better of not knowing who she was, having not watched any dire IQ draining reality TV shows.
Perhaps you guys are outing yourselves, I would be less embarassed if caught comparing favourite quotes from Mein Kampf than seeming to know anything about this irrelevant lump without Googling first.
Ahem. Let's not get carried away. Some would say that frequenting a forum dedicated to lil' plastic manz is pretty lame.
Orthanth c'mon dude. Random article caught my eye... eyerybody gets to discuss their thoughts about Royals in general conversation... you are demanding we all google stuff. Yeah google is a reliable source for facts too right? lighten up, I think it's cool that so much national pride and standing up for the queen has come out of people being made aware of what this dumb lady is trying to do to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
Guitardian wrote:Orthanth c'mon dude. Random article caught my eye... eyerybody gets to discuss their thoughts about Royals in general conversation... you are demanding we all google stuff. Yeah google is a reliable source for facts too right? lighten up, I think it's cool that so much national pride and standing up for the queen has come out of people being made aware of what this dumb lady is trying to do to them.
That's actually not what I am saying, but we digress either way so it doesn't matter.
Guitardian wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
mattyrm wrote:No outing mate, i heard about her in a newspaper? Funny thing "wife swap" isnt something i watch either.
Here's a funny thing i heard in a newspaper
the truth wrote:Investigations
A review by Nicholas Blake QC published in March 2006[1] following a two year investigation suggested the deaths were self-inflicted but criticised a number of aspects of training at Deepcut which could have contributed to the deaths. Blake is a member of Matrix Chambers, a leading human rights legal practice in the UK.
Points identified by the report were:
* The training environment at Deepcut, causing low morale through poor accommodation, limited recreational facilities, and the balance between privacy and dormitory life.
* Unsupervised access to weapons.
* Supervision of trainees.
* Discipline, bullying and informal sanctions.
* Ventilation of grievances.
* Poor instructors.
A subsequent investigation by Private Eye in September 2006 found shortcomings in Blake's review. It criticised the robustness of the review and concluded that Blake "failed to get to the source of the stink that surrounds Deepcut and the deaths; that there was a negligent failure to address the glaring problems at the base that lasted for years".[2] The British Journalism Review commented on the effect that media coverage had on the investigation.[3]
A report by the Army Board of Inquiry was due to be published in December 2007, but was delayed by the Ministry of Defence until May 2009. The inquiry supported Blake's findings and returned open verdicts.[4]
I cannot believe that people choose to take their own life because of their jobs (although in the past I have occasionally wanted to). here's something missing here, and it's coincidental that the people investigating are the same people they were working for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: one man's conspiracy is the next man's naive.
Guitardian wrote:I cannot believe that people choose to take their own life because of their jobs
Telegraph wrote: The Foxconn factory in the southern Chinese boom town of Shenzhen is so vast that walking around its outer perimeter takes two hours. Its workers turn out components that are supplied to big Western electronics brands including Nokia, Hewlett-Packard and Dell. And it is here that most of the parts for Apple's iPhone, and the much-awaited iPad, which goes on sale in the UK this week, are manufactured.
Yesterday, Li Hai, a 19-year-old employee of the firm, jumped from the top of the building in Shenzhen to his death. It brought the number of suspected suicides at the factory this year to 10. There have been another two attempted suicides..
I have a confession to make. I'm not actually reading this thread at all. I'm just skimming it for more fapworthy pics. Sorry, but the only royal family I care about is Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhirsag. Enki/Ted Nugent in 2012!!!
deepsh%t barracks... Not a nice place to get stationed apparently, i dont see how poor facilities make people top themselves though, on our first push into Iraq we turned up in Kuwait in January with no idea what was happening or when we were going home, never ate anything but rations and MREs for about 5 months, slept in a hole in the floor and washed by standing on a pallet and pouring cold water over our bodies and i still thought it was a good laugh all in all once the shooting started. The idea that the lads at deepcut topped themselves because of poor facilities leading to depression is ridiculous. Something dodgy went on there, i have no doubt about that.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Matt: It seems that the strongest sentiment towards the monarchy that I found during my travels to the UK were in Oxford. That always struck me as a bit strange. I was having a few pints with some of the lads there, and we were all ripping apart some republicans that were at the table with us...*sigh* I was born in the wrong country...
If you're thinking of emigrating here do it soon, before the new anti-immigration rules come into force.
I would in a heartbeat...but alas, the lack of a job, or the funding for post-graduate education limits my options. I can only hope to find a job in international business that will let me focus on the UK and Europe.
Well there's always McDonalds. They do business internationally!
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh wait... we're all better than that aren't we?
Automatically Appended Next Post: The notion of moving to the states to get a job here to focus on how to rip off the U.S. to rip off the U.K. because of financial loopholes you learn in school is just wonderful. No seriously I mean that. You will go far, man. Making food is a much less "I hate myself" kind of job, and face it, you really don't need the Lexus, and probably would look silly driving around in one anyways.
My missus made the move last year jeb and she doesnt want to go home, then her friend lisa came to stay for 6 weeks, and she doesnt want to go either, and now she is trying to get her other two housemates over and her mom as well! But i dont think York is that nice a city, so i prefer to tell myself its just my company. :-)
I've been all over the world a few times over and I gotta say location is far overrated. National pride can always be cockblocked by common sense. Pride in heritage is overrated, and a cause of strife. Matty has it right... 'good' places to be are about the people around you, not about the place itself. Hey, as an Englishman I often feel 'superior' to some of the country bumpkins around here. I also feel self aware that I am really no better, just different, and the air of superiority and British pride and such represented by the Queen is just another way of dividing. So I'll just hang out with my hick neighbors anyways and feel better in the back of my head, that even though we're English and therefore better at doing anything than anyone (except cooking and dentistry) we are ALSO better at being able to understand our superiority in context and therefore able to pat the little people on the head and deign to allow them in our company. I wonder if that's what it's like to think as a Royal?
Automatically Appended Next Post: We do not condone the usage of the "Royal We" (Referring to Ourself of course) in our prescence, by those who are not Us. It is a blatant misuse of the grammer of Our language. It should furthermore be noted that by "Ours" We refer to "mine", and by "We", We refer to "I", likewise "Us" refers to "me" in your commoner dialect. This is an important distinction to understand in order to foster correct usage of Our language and cultural superiority as demonstrated by Our person.
Darn..
