Discussion:
Camilla - our new queen
(too old to reply)
israel t
2005-02-11 11:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Personally, I don't see why Charles should be king. Isn't he too old to
be crowned ? From a tourism/tabloid perspective, there is nothing of
interest left in this old boring person.
Perhaps Charles could discover that he is gay.

That would sell a few copies of the Sun.
If William were crowned, then
there would be plenty of interest in him, his travels, his romances, his
marriage etc etc. And maybe Harry could play practical jokes on his
older brother (the king) to generate even more buzz about the royals.
The Doctor
2005-02-11 12:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-11 12:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
--
Why?
And before anyone blethers about the Church of England, look at the morals
of the guy that founded it!
Lesley Robertson
israel t
2005-02-11 13:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
And before anyone blethers about the Church of England, look at the morals
of the guy that founded it!
Jesus ?
Yeah , he did have a thing going with Mary Magdalene.
Michael O'Neill
2005-02-11 14:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by Lesley Robertson
And before anyone blethers about the Church of England, look at the morals
of the guy that founded it!
Jesus ?
Yeah , he did have a thing going with Mary Magdalene.
Ehrm, nope. Not Jesus. He founded Christianity.

He didn't found Catholicism. That came later.

Nor did he found the Church of England.

Wake up, ye dozy wee bollix!

M.
Rev Dr Dick Foot
2005-02-12 05:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Ehrm, nope. Not Jesus. [ . . . ].
He didn't found Catholicism. That came later.
Nor did he found the Church of England.
Jesus founded Broomleigh Baptist Church.
--
Rev Dr Pastor Dick F Foot BA, DD, FFD
The Guardian of English Christianity
Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Zurich)
111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
http://www.church.broomleigh.org/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
israel t
2005-02-12 08:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev Dr Dick Foot
Jesus founded Broomleigh Baptist Church.
And he will send lightning down to incinerate anyone who disagrees.
Rev Dr Dick Foot
2005-02-12 17:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by Rev Dr Dick Foot
Jesus founded Broomleigh Baptist Church.
And he will send lightning down to
incinerate anyone who disagrees.
He had better.
--
Rev Dr Pastor Dick F Foot BA, DD, FFD
The Guardian of English Christianity
Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Zurich)
111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
http://www.church.broomleigh.org/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Ryno Bloody Ryno
2005-02-13 01:07:34 UTC
Permalink
On 12 Feb 2005 11:22:53 -0600, Rev Dr Dick Foot
Post by Rev Dr Dick Foot
Post by israel t
Post by Rev Dr Dick Foot
Jesus founded Broomleigh Baptist Church.
And he will send lightning down to
incinerate anyone who disagrees.
He had better.
http://tinyurl.com/48ule
The Doctor
2005-02-11 23:49:08 UTC
Permalink
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-12 09:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
--
Don't be silly, BPC isn't taking any rights from the lad (who has a right to
have a bit of a life before getting chainged to the "smile and shake hands"
treadmill).
Lesley Robertson
Alan Hardie
2005-02-12 12:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
--
Don't be silly, BPC isn't taking any rights from the lad (who has a right to
have a bit of a life before getting chainged to the "smile and shake hands"
treadmill).
I agree. Unleash the poor lad from the endless cycle of dutification cruelly
and unwarranted prying imposed upon him (and his future sproglets) and
establish a republic. Unless of course he chooses to stand for election as
President in which case he would deserve everything he got.
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-13 17:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?

I'd like the option.
allan connochie
2005-02-13 17:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Interesting survey results in the Scotsman today. Asked what they'd prefer
49% of Scots said an elected President. Only 30% said the want to retain
the monarchy. When's the SNP going to grow the balls to openly come out as
a Republican party? It can't do them much electoral damage now surely!



Allan
Lachie
2005-02-13 18:04:20 UTC
Permalink
sgrìobh allan connochie
Post by allan connochie
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Interesting survey results in the Scotsman today. Asked what they'd prefer
49% of Scots said an elected President. Only 30% said the want to retain
the monarchy. When's the SNP going to grow the balls to openly come out as
a Republican party? It can't do them much electoral damage now surely!
I think it will be the obvious course, once QE1 shuffles off this mortal
coil.

However I deem desirous that we offer the job to Princess Anne, first
for her bravery shown in the Mall, shouting at an assailant to bugger
off and protecting her husband Foggy.
More importantly her imperturbability and singing, whilst being the
Patron of the SRU.

God Bless all who sail in her?
--
Lachie.
Ni bhéarfainn broim dreólín ar dhuilleog cuillin agus is beag an puth gaoth é sin!
israel t
2005-02-13 20:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lachie
God Bless all who sail in her?
ooooh....

dirty talk is naughty....
The Doctor
2005-02-13 20:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Interesting survey results in the Scotsman today. Asked what they'd prefer
49% of Scots said an elected President. Only 30% said the want to retain
the monarchy. When's the SNP going to grow the balls to openly come out as
a Republican party? It can't do them much electoral damage now surely!
Allan
The SNP are CONservative republicans last I heard.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Lachie
2005-02-13 22:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Capturing in this missive on, Sun, 13 Feb 2005, at 20:43:24, with the
sparing prose of Rambaud and displaying the suave and sophisticated
disposition of Archibald Leach, sgrìobh The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by allan connochie
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Interesting survey results in the Scotsman today. Asked what they'd prefer
49% of Scots said an elected President. Only 30% said the want to retain
the monarchy. When's the SNP going to grow the balls to openly come out as
a Republican party? It can't do them much electoral damage now surely!
Allan
The SNP are CONservative republicans last I heard.
Who did you hear that from, don't you be calling me a tartan Tory and
apparently I am not even Republican.
--
Lachie.
It was irritating to have one's physical shortcomings pointed out quite so
plainly twice in one evening, once by a beautiful girl and once by a dying badger.
Tom Holt.
The Doctor
2005-02-14 00:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lachie
Capturing in this missive on, Sun, 13 Feb 2005, at 20:43:24, with the
sparing prose of Rambaud and displaying the suave and sophisticated
disposition of Archibald Leach, sgrìobh The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by allan connochie
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Interesting survey results in the Scotsman today. Asked what they'd prefer
49% of Scots said an elected President. Only 30% said the want to retain
the monarchy. When's the SNP going to grow the balls to openly come out as
a Republican party? It can't do them much electoral damage now surely!
Allan
The SNP are CONservative republicans last I heard.
Who did you hear that from, don't you be calling me a tartan Tory and
apparently I am not even Republican.
Into the whiskey I see.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-14 11:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by allan connochie
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Interesting survey results in the Scotsman today. Asked what they'd prefer
49% of Scots said an elected President. Only 30% said the want to retain
the monarchy. When's the SNP going to grow the balls to openly come out as
a Republican party? It can't do them much electoral damage now surely!
Allan
The SNP are CONservative republicans last I heard.
Where did you hear that?

They're more left liberal scando-monarchists.

The opposite of what you've heard.

Did you hear it from a Liberal Democrat by any chance?

The Doctor
2005-02-13 20:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Then you will want to see off the Prince of Wales.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-14 11:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by The Doctor
The Prince of Wales must give Prince William
his right tothe throne!
What about my right to the throne?
I'd like the option.
Then you will want to see off the Prince of Wales.
So Charles is secure then.
Michilín
2005-02-13 03:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by Lesley Robertson
And before anyone blethers about the Church of England, look at the morals
of the guy that founded it!
Jesus ?
Yeah , he did have a thing going with Mary Magdalene.
(Just a drooling fuckwit...)

Michilín
Paul Helm
2005-02-11 19:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
--
Why?
And before anyone blethers about the Church of England,
look at the morals of the guy that founded it!
Yes but in those days, people did not follow the King by beheading women
who had shown them up for what they are. Lord Archer, by comparison,
plagiarised Prince Charles with Monica Coghlan on 27 April 2001.

http://www.coghlan.rbhousing.biz/

Seems a shame that not even an Archer murder is original.
--
http://www.paul.helm.rbhousing.biz/


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-11 20:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
--
Why?
And before anyone blethers about the Church of England, look at the morals
of the guy that founded it!
Yeah, a bit confused aren't they.

Progress is that after 500 odd years a church founded by a man married 6
times doesn't allow divorce.

Bit like Ian Bell's TV review in today's Herald. In the 1640's Charles I
could marry a Roman Catholic. Nowadays it's a minefield on who a Charles can
marry.
israel t
2005-02-11 13:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
m***@eircom.net
2005-02-11 13:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Zzzzzzzz

M
Paul C
2005-02-11 16:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@eircom.net
Zzzzzzzz
Bristol Evening Post




TETBURY MAN TO WED

BY JOHN HOUSEMAN

10 February 2005

Prince Charles is to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, it was announced
today. They will marry on Friday April 8, at Windsor Castle, Clarence
House said.
--
Paul
Cory Bhreckan
2005-02-11 14:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
There were one hundred ten Charleses before him?
Ian Morrison
2005-02-11 14:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
There were one hundred ten Charleses before him?
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.

Philip (the first)

Arthur (the second?)

or

George VII

Fascinating stuff, eh?

------
Ian O.
Alan Smaill
2005-02-11 15:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
There were one hundred ten Charleses before him?
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
don't think so -- Edward I preceded by Edward the Confessor,
numbering a l'*nglaise starts in 1066. No Scottish Arthurs.
Post by Ian Morrison
or
George VII
Edward IX
Stuart the first ??
Post by Ian Morrison
Fascinating stuff, eh?
------
Ian O.
--
Alan Smaill
Alan Hardie
2005-02-11 15:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
don't think so -- Edward I preceded by Edward the Confessor,
numbering a l'*nglaise starts in 1066. No Scottish Arthurs.
So who did the Seat belong to?
Alan Smaill
2005-02-11 15:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hardie
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
don't think so -- Edward I preceded by Edward the Confessor,
numbering a l'*nglaise starts in 1066. No Scottish Arthurs.
So who did the Seat belong to?
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.

Not a King of Scots, though.
--
Alan Smaill
Ian Morrison
2005-02-11 16:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).

Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.

------
Ian O.
jren57
2005-02-11 18:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"

Queen Elizabeth of England

King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-11 20:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jren57
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"
Queen Elizabeth of England
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
Ian Morrison
2005-02-11 20:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
Anyway, a few pillar boxes later, the message got across. Who was PM at
the time? Churchill, or was it Eden? Neither known for their tact and,
in the former case, well-known to have a certain "thing" about the
Scots, ever since been chased out of Dundee.

------
Ian O.
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-11 22:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
Anyway, a few pillar boxes later, the message got across. Who was PM at
the time? Churchill, or was it Eden? Neither known for their tact and, in
the former case, well-known to have a certain "thing" about the Scots,
ever since been chased out of Dundee.
Imagine being chased out of Dundee by an opponent running on a tee-total
manifesto.

Thety must have been desperate to get rid off him.
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-11 22:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
Anyway, a few pillar boxes later, the message got across. Who was PM at
the time? Churchill, or was it Eden? Neither known for their tact and, in
the former case, well-known to have a certain "thing" about the Scots,
ever since been chased out of Dundee.
Imagine being chased out of Dundee by an opponent running on a tee-total
manifesto.
Thety must have been desperate to get rid off him.
We could do with a bit of that now, to get rid of He Who (thinks he can)
Walks on Water.....
Lesley Robertson
Ian Morrison
2005-02-11 23:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
We could do with a bit of that now, to get rid of He Who (thinks he can)
Walks on Water.....
I think you should be cross-posting this to soc.culture.county-durham

Robin Cook, my MP, has an excellent little article in the "Guardian"
today about why the USA should accept the International Criminal Court,
at least in relation to the atrocities currently being committed in
Darfur. He quotes a USA State Department official as saying that
"Americans will not be tried by a Belgian", and sugesting that this
indicates a certain lack of knowledge of European geography....

Robin Cook for PM!

PS Yes, I know he refused to run for leadership of the Labour Party last
time because, in his own words, he is "too ugly". Having seen how a
certain US President managed to get himself "elected" twice, he
shouldn't have too many fears on that score now, I would have thought.

------
Ian O.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2005-02-11 23:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
PS Yes, I know he refused to run for leadership of the Labour Party last
time because, in his own words, he is "too ugly". Having seen how a
certain US President managed to get himself "elected" twice, he
shouldn't have too many fears on that score now, I would have thought.
Why? Do you think the US Supreme Court
would award it to him?

Deirdre
Ian Morrison
2005-02-11 23:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Post by Ian Morrison
PS Yes, I know he refused to run for leadership of the Labour Party last
time because, in his own words, he is "too ugly". Having seen how a
certain US President managed to get himself "elected" twice, he
shouldn't have too many fears on that score now, I would have thought.
Why? Do you think the US Supreme Court
would award it to him?
I very much doubt that your Supreme Court would allow Robin Cook to
become UK PM, if it was within their power, after what he has said about
US foreign policy since early 2003, and especially in his resignation
speech just before the invasion of Iraq. One of the things he said then
was "there are no WMD in Iraq". He was absolutely correct.

IIRC, the immediate reason for our going to war was that there were WMD
in Iraq, and that they could be hitting UK military targets (e.g. our
bases in Cyprus) "within 45 minutes".

There was no mention of any "humanitarian" reasons for going to war, and
killing tens of thousands of innocent people in the process. That
happened post hoc. Robin Cook's own account of what happened in March
2003 makes illuminating reading, at least for those of us whose heads
aren't stuck up our own backsides....

------
Ian O.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
2005-02-12 00:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
IIRC, the immediate reason for our going to war was that there were WMD
in Iraq, and that they could be hitting UK military targets (e.g. our
bases in Cyprus) "within 45 minutes".
I know the rhetoric, Ian...believe me, I've followed
this entire travesty with a fascination bordering
on macabre. Rarely does one ever get to witness
such a continuous abuse of power firsthand.
Post by Ian Morrison
There was no mention of any "humanitarian" reasons for going to war, and
killing tens of thousands of innocent people in the process. That
happened post hoc.
Rationalisations for egregious mistakes usually
do.
Post by Ian Morrison
Robin Cook's own account of what happened in March
2003 makes illuminating reading, at least for those of us whose heads
aren't stuck up our own backsides....
That would be much of the free world, Ian...the
gung-ho contingent is loud, but, thankfully, there
are fewer of them than one might think.

Deirdre
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-12 09:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Robin Cook, my MP, has an excellent little article in the "Guardian" today
about why the USA should accept the International Criminal Court, at least
in relation to the atrocities currently being committed in Darfur. He
quotes a USA State Department official as saying that "Americans will not
be tried by a Belgian", and sugesting that this indicates a certain lack
of knowledge of European geography....
I find that heartening - if they had an accurate map, it's the beach across
the road from my house they'll come up when they get around to invading....
And I'm almost equidistant betwen the Court and Scheveningen Jail (currently
Slobbo's Dunroamin).
Lesley Robertson
Lachie
2005-02-13 01:04:41 UTC
Permalink
sgrìobh Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Lesley Robertson
We could do with a bit of that now, to get rid of He Who (thinks he
can) Walks on Water.....
I think you should be cross-posting this to soc.culture.county-durham
Robin Cook, my MP, has an excellent little article in the "Guardian"
today about why the USA should accept the International Criminal Court,
at least in relation to the atrocities currently being committed in
Darfur. He quotes a USA State Department official as saying that
"Americans will not be tried by a Belgian", and sugesting that this
indicates a certain lack of knowledge of European geography....
Robin Cook for PM!
He did sell Hawks to Indonesia, huge profit for BAe, the lads and
laddies from the US will not understand why that question is being asked
but it should.

No chance, Gordy is ugly too, he may do it and he a sort of a Socialist?
Post by Ian Morrison
PS Yes, I know he refused to run for leadership of the Labour Party
last time because, in his own words, he is "too ugly". Having seen how
a certain US President managed to get himself "elected" twice, he
shouldn't have too many fears on that score now, I would have thought.
Why don't you become a tartan Tory and glory in the being of Master
Salmond?

I thought you lived near Hopetoun?

Salmonid and Sturgeon for the white sea fleet from Whitehills, one boat.
--
Lachie.
She ruled the Toads of the Short Forest and every newt in Idaho and every cricket
who had chorused, by the bush in Buffalo. FZ
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-13 17:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Lesley Robertson
We could do with a bit of that now, to get rid of He Who (thinks he can)
Walks on Water.....
I think you should be cross-posting this to soc.culture.county-durham
Robin Cook, my MP, has an excellent little article in the "Guardian" today
about why the USA should accept the International Criminal Court, at least
in relation to the atrocities currently being committed in Darfur. He
quotes a USA State Department official as saying that "Americans will not
be tried by a Belgian", and sugesting that this indicates a certain lack
of knowledge of European geography....
Robin Cook for PM!
Suppose it's the only way he can avoid having dreadful students as
neighbours.
jren57
2005-02-11 21:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by jren57
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"
Queen Elizabeth of England
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
The Queen is not styled "Queen of Scotland" or "Queen of England", she is
styled "HRH Queen Elizabeth II of GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND", and
her Mother had already filled that role.

On Postboxes in England, really it should say EIIIR
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-11 22:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jren57
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by jren57
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"
Queen Elizabeth of England
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
The Queen is not styled "Queen of Scotland" or "Queen of England", she is
styled "HRH Queen Elizabeth II of GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND", and
her Mother had already filled that role.
No she hasn't. She was a Queen consort. Nothing more. Not a Queen monarch.
Post by jren57
On Postboxes in England, really it should say EIIIR
You're making this up as you go along....much like the Royal family does.
Cory Bhreckan
2005-02-12 22:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by jren57
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by jren57
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"
Queen Elizabeth of England
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
The Queen is not styled "Queen of Scotland" or "Queen of England", she is
styled "HRH Queen Elizabeth II of GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND", and
her Mother had already filled that role.
No she hasn't. She was a Queen consort. Nothing more. Not a Queen monarch.
Post by jren57
On Postboxes in England, really it should say EIIIR
You're making this up as you go along....much like the Royal family does.
Oh my! They haven't changed their surname *again* have they?
Cory Bhreckan
2005-02-11 22:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by jren57
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by jren57
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"
Queen Elizabeth of England
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
The Queen is not styled "Queen of Scotland" or "Queen of England", she is
styled "HRH Queen Elizabeth II of GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND", and
her Mother had already filled that role.
On Postboxes in England, really it should say EIIIR
Except that she was Queen *Consort*, if you count them think about how
many queenly suffixes were jumped up my Henrey VIII alone. The current
Liz should be the fifth in that case (by my count, including Elizabeth
of York and Elizabeth Woodville).
allan connochie
2005-02-12 15:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by jren57
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by jren57
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"
Queen Elizabeth of England
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Er, no. That's not the reason. They just didn't think in that inimicable
high minded Anglo-focussed style they have.
The Queen is not styled "Queen of Scotland" or "Queen of England", she is
styled "HRH Queen Elizabeth II of GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND", and
her Mother had already filled that role.
On Postboxes in England, really it should say EIIIR
You're havering complete nonsense. The defence made was that the number
should follow not the English numeral nor the Scottish numeral but the
highest numeral in question. Hence if there was a King Alexander then he'd
be Alexander IV even though England has had no previous Alexanders. This
was stated only after the horse galloped and folk tend not to believe it was
in their minds at the time. There had been no Scottish objections to
previous English based numerals and they were unprepared for the commotion
in the 1950s. In other words Betty was badly advised and given her
background she herself should have known better.



Allan
Charles Ellson
2005-02-11 20:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by jren57
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got blown
up, of course.
No, it is is right, because the Queen's mother was also styled "Queen
Elizabeth"
She doesn't count, she was a Queen Consort.
<snip>
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Alan Smaill
2005-02-13 23:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got
blown up, of course.
Getting a bit, er, nationalist there, Ian .....

AIUI the agreement on numbering is now the maximum number between
the two systems, so there could be fun with a King David, Edgar,
etc.

As for getting the number of William "wrong", would anyone
notice these days?
Post by Ian Morrison
------
Ian O.
--
Alan Smaill
j***@dsl.pipex.com
2005-02-14 00:22:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:27:26 +0000, I read these words from Alan
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got
blown up, of course.
Getting a bit, er, nationalist there, Ian .....
AIUI the agreement on numbering is now the maximum number between
the two systems, so there could be fun with a King David, Edgar,
etc.
As for getting the number of William "wrong", would anyone
notice these days?
Probably not, OTOH getting the colour wrong would certainly
be noticed. What's after Orange in the rainbow ?

-- TDS
Michilín
2005-02-14 04:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@dsl.pipex.com
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:27:26 +0000, I read these words from Alan
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got
blown up, of course.
Getting a bit, er, nationalist there, Ian .....
AIUI the agreement on numbering is now the maximum number between
the two systems, so there could be fun with a King David, Edgar,
etc.
As for getting the number of William "wrong", would anyone
notice these days?
Probably not, OTOH getting the colour wrong would certainly
be noticed. What's after Orange in the rainbow ?
-- TDS
Colour-me-bigot. That's the newest game in (Belfast) town -
persecuting immigrants, smashing up their homes and shops. I don't
understand why a major massacre of NI Protestants and Catholics is
considered such a big deal - it would resolve a lot of problems.

I suppose we can't do it because we'd have MacHamish and MacRobert
coming round whining about civil rights and all that crap.



Michilín
israel t
2005-02-14 08:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Colour-me-bigot. That's the newest game in (Belfast) town -
persecuting immigrants, smashing up their homes and shops.
Lovely.
As it is, people think that it is a hellhole...
Charles Ellson
2005-02-14 04:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@dsl.pipex.com
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:27:26 +0000, I read these words from Alan
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Alan Smaill
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Not of Scots, certainly, but quite possibly of a part of what became
Scotland. After all, the Dalriadan Kings of Scots had no hesitation in
making themselves Kings of Scots (and Picts, Britons etc.).
Besides, our present Queen's namesake wasn't Queen of Scots, just the
murderer of one, but that didn't prevent the creation of E2R, and the
labelling of pillar boxes thus, even in Scotland - until they got
blown up, of course.
Getting a bit, er, nationalist there, Ian .....
AIUI the agreement on numbering is now the maximum number between
the two systems, so there could be fun with a King David, Edgar,
etc.
As for getting the number of William "wrong", would anyone
notice these days?
Probably not, OTOH getting the colour wrong would certainly
be noticed. What's after Orange in the rainbow ?
Choose your own direction...
Red-Orange-Yellow-Green-Blue-Indigo-Violet (Roy G Biv)
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
allan connochie
2005-02-12 15:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Alan Hardie
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
don't think so -- Edward I preceded by Edward the Confessor,
numbering a l'*nglaise starts in 1066. No Scottish Arthurs.
So who did the Seat belong to?
Who knows? One of the less convincing Arthurian claims, IMHO.
Not a King of Scots, though.
Wasn't a king of the English either.


Allan
Post by Alan Smaill
--
Alan Smaill
Andrew Chaplin
2005-02-11 17:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
don't think so -- Edward I preceded by Edward the Confessor,
numbering a l'*nglaise starts in 1066. No Scottish Arthurs.
Post by Ian Morrison
or
George VII
Edward IX
Stuart the first ??
I believe it would be typical for him to use one of the names he
received at the font when he was christened, and neither "Edward" nor
"Stuart" was one of those. "George" is believed to be the
front-runner. There is not a lot of luck associated with royals named
"Charles."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-11 20:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Ian Morrison
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
don't think so -- Edward I preceded by Edward the Confessor,
numbering a l'*nglaise starts in 1066. No Scottish Arthurs.
Post by Ian Morrison
or
George VII
Edward IX
Stuart the first ??
I believe it would be typical for him to use one of the names he
received at the font when he was christened, and neither "Edward" nor
"Stuart" was one of those. "George" is believed to be the
front-runner. There is not a lot of luck associated with royals named
"Charles."
It definitely won't be a name of a previous Scottish King. That's a cert.
israel t
2005-02-11 21:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
It definitely won't be a name of a previous Scottish King. That's a cert.
Does that mean that Johnny Walker the Second is out of the running ?
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-11 22:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by Jackie Mulheron
It definitely won't be a name of a previous Scottish King. That's a cert.
Does that mean that Johnny Walker the Second is out of the running ?
Johnny Walker the First would be an, er, first.
israel t
2005-02-12 03:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Johnny Walker the First would be an, er, first.
Johnny is surely royalty among the scots.
Or has Chivas Regal taken the royal spot ?
Lachie
2005-02-13 01:19:14 UTC
Permalink
sgrìobh israel t
Post by israel t
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Johnny Walker the First would be an, er, first.
Johnny is surely royalty among the scots.
Or has Chivas Regal taken the royal spot ?
Our Johnny may not be quite as Royal as you think, in fact I have on
occasion, heard him extract the urine from the us poor Scots.

I do love the fourth verse,

One more time,

Lord grant that Marshall Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!


Aye, it makes you proud to have visited Drury Lane.


God Save The Queen (Cook / Jones / Matlock / Rotten)

God save the queen
The fascist regime
It made you a moron
Potential H bomb

God save the queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future
No future
No future for you

God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves

God save the queen
Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems
Oh god save history
God save your mad parade
Lord god have mercy
All crimes are paid

When there's no future
How can there be sin
We're the flowers in the dustbin
We're the poison in the human machine
We're the future
Your future

God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves

God save the queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

No future
No future
No future for you

No future
No future
No future for me

No future
No future
No future for you

No future
No future for you
--
Lachie Macquarie,
Ni bhéarfainn broim dreólín ar dhuilleog cuillin agus is beag an puth gaoth é sin!
Joe Makowiec
2005-02-11 22:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Does that mean that Johnny Walker the Second is out of the running ?
I was going to let this one pass, but sometimes the flesh is weak. I'll
regret it later.

No, Johnny Walker the Fifth...
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
israel t
2005-02-12 09:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Makowiec
No, Johnny Walker the Fifth...
Touche !
Michilín
2005-02-14 04:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by Joe Makowiec
No, Johnny Walker the Fifth...
Touche !
I'll bet you pronounce that "touch-ee".

Michilín
israel t
2005-02-11 21:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Chaplin
I believe it would be typical for him to use one of the names he
received at the font when he was christened, and neither "Edward" nor
"Stuart" was one of those. "George" is believed to be the
front-runner. There is not a lot of luck associated with royals named
"Charles."
He could add a Chaplin at the end and find a new career in the movies.
israel t
2005-02-11 21:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
Tampon the First .
ray o'hara
2005-02-11 22:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by Ian Morrison
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
Tampon the First .
my thoughts too.i'll bet they do stuff even danish porn movies
wouldn't do.
Ian Neal
2005-02-11 23:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
my thoughts too.i'll bet they do stuff even danish porn movies
wouldn't do.
But just thinking about that with those two has destroyed my appetite - a
new weight loss scheme...

prosper

Ian
Malcolm
2005-02-11 14:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
There were one hundred ten Charleses before him?
Sometimes it seems that way. In any case, Charles, if he succeeds his
mother, could choose another name, as many of his ancestors did, e.g.
Philip (the first)
Arthur (the second?)
or
George VII
Fascinating stuff, eh?
He's already stated that he will be George VII. The name King Charles
apparently brings to his mind sayings like "Uneasy lies the head....."!
--
Malcolm
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-11 20:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Why did I miss no.s 3 to 110?
Cory Bhreckan
2005-02-11 20:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Why did I miss no.s 3 to 110?
Judging by the average length on the trone for the first 2 they could
have sqeezed them pretty easily.
israel t
2005-02-11 21:07:07 UTC
Permalink
We want Camel as our Queen !

Would give a whole new depth of meaning to "one hump or two"
soup
2005-02-12 20:52:49 UTC
Permalink
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
--
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione
Malcolm
2005-02-12 21:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by soup
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
George VII
--
Malcolm
max.it
2005-02-12 21:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by soup
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
George VII
--
Malcolm
Charles, Philip, Aurthur, George. Anything but Sue

Take your pick

max.it (the orange cage)
Geraint Davies
2005-02-12 23:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by max.it
Post by Ian Morrison
George VII
Charles, Philip, Aurthur, George. Anything but Sue
Take your pick
Try to get them in the right order, otherwise you may end up mistaking
Charles for Major; Philip for James and Arthur for Hewitt.
--
Geraint Davies and Sarah Branson
3 Mulgrave Road Croydon CR0 1BL
http://www.geraintdavies.sarahbranson.com/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
The Doctor
2005-02-13 01:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by soup
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
George VII
The curent Prince of wales is facing the fate of Edward 8.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Lachie
2005-02-13 01:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Capturing in this missive on, Sun, 13 Feb 2005, at 01:09:41, with the
sparing prose of Rambaud and displaying the suave and sophisticated
disposition of Archibald Leach, sgrìobh The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by soup
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
George VII
The curent Prince of wales is facing the fate of Edward 8.
You son, are madder than me, a bucket of anemones and four rhododendrons
and an azalea.

And by the way that is sea anemones.
--
Lachie.
"Can the United States ever become genuinely civilised?
Certainly it is possible. Even Scotland has made enormous progress since the
Eighteenth Century, when according to Macaulay, most of it was on the cultural
level of Albania." H.L. Mencken.

Sorry, that is as close as I get get to Candida.
israel t
2005-02-12 21:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by soup
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
Was it George who abdicated because he had the hots for a commoner or
was it Edward.
Geraint Davies
2005-02-12 23:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by soup
Charles is associated with beheading.
Was it George who abdicated because he had
the hots for a commoner or was it Edward.
Edward. Very common: American.
--
Geraint Davies and Sarah Branson
3 Mulgrave Road Croydon CR0 1BL
http://www.geraintdavies.sarahbranson.com/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
israel t
2005-02-13 00:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geraint Davies
Edward. Very common: American.
Horrors !

I guess that Elizabeth getting the hots for a Greek was ok ?
Magda
2005-02-13 02:04:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:00:10 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, israel t
<***@bigpond.net.au> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... Geraint Davies <***@lawyerlovers.com> writes:
...
... > Edward. Very common: American.
...
... Horrors !
...
... I guess that Elizabeth getting the hots for a Greek was ok ?

It was a Greek *Prince* and a cousin of hers.
israel t
2005-02-13 04:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magda
... I guess that Elizabeth getting the hots for a Greek was ok ?
It was a Greek *Prince* and a cousin of hers.
Still a greek.

And screwing cousins is a bit sus.
Geraint Davies
2005-02-13 06:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
And screwing cousins is a bit sus.
Not for Royals.
--
Geraint Davies and Sarah Branson
3 Mulgrave Road Croydon CR0 1BL
http://www.geraintdavies.sarahbranson.com/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-13 17:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geraint Davies
Post by israel t
And screwing cousins is a bit sus.
Not for Royals.
Or Hebrideans and Appallachians.
Madra Dubh
2005-02-13 17:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
Post by Geraint Davies
Post by israel t
And screwing cousins is a bit sus.
Not for Royals.
Or Hebrideans and Appallachians.
Appallwhochians.??
The Phantom Piper
2005-02-14 08:09:03 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Feb 2005 00:12:39 -0600, Geraint Davies
Post by Geraint Davies
Post by israel t
And screwing cousins is a bit sus.
Not for Royals.
Ah! Leave it to the Welsh for the best Mordant Wit
on the subject yet!

(Now, where were you when Fast Eddie I was about
draining your economy and destroying your sovereignty
forever as he built Beaumaris and Caernarfon?)

Of course, Chuckie Bigears is a man apart from such prior
Top Toffs as the Geordies, and Dutch Billy: he has actually
aspired (most publicly!) to be a Ladies Sanitary Device, thus
endearing himself to those of us who wish to see the Royals
taking a more Useful Part in society...

Long Live Bonnie Prince Tampon!

Once he has been firmly, er - inserted - in the Throne,
clenched firmly within the glistening halls of Power, he
can begin the business of stopping Leaks to the press
within the palace staff, preventing Spotty performance
among the Peers, and in general precluding any sort
of unsanitary odour from emanating aneath his Royal
Stewart tartan kilt!

*Thank God* that the good Burghers of Einglannd had the
sense to prevent any more Scottish or Catholic monarchs
from sitting the throne of their cherished empire! Who knows
what sort of embarrassment or shame might have occurred,
if it weren't for the solid, German and Dutch Kings brought in
from afar and installed to rule over every true Einglischmann...

"Long Live Bonnie Prince Tampon!" I say! And long live
the great Saxe-Coburg Gotha family - I mean, the Windsors!


Wiping A Tear From My Eye,

---The Phantom Piper
Magda
2005-02-13 10:13:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:54:19 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, israel t
<***@bigpond.net.au> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... Magda <***@hotmail.hey> writes:
...
... > ... I guess that Elizabeth getting the hots for a Greek was ok ?
... > It was a Greek *Prince* and a cousin of hers.
...
... Still a greek.

Still a Prince.

... And screwing cousins is a bit sus.

When they are ugly like yours.
Jackie Mulheron
2005-02-13 17:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Post by Geraint Davies
Edward. Very common: American.
Horrors !
I guess that Elizabeth getting the hots for a Greek was ok ?
He's more German and Danish.

The idea he'd run a kebab shop is quite ridiculous
israel t
2005-02-13 20:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackie Mulheron
The idea he'd run a kebab shop is quite ridiculous
Yeah, his customers would be offended by him muttering his usual racist
rubbish.
The Doctor
2005-02-13 01:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by soup
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
charles 1, correct.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Rick
2005-02-13 01:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by soup
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
charles 1, correct.
--
So...wouldn't that would make him Charles the 2 and 4/5ths?
The Doctor
2005-02-13 01:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Post by The Doctor
Post by soup
israel t popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
said
Post by israel t
Post by The Doctor
Time for the Prince of Wales to renounce the throne!
No.
King Charles 111 will reign !
Isn't he taking George the something as his name?
Charles is associated with beheading.
charles 1, correct.
--
So...wouldn't that would make him Charles the 2 and 4/5ths?
Charles 2 was the one who returned from exile.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
mc
2005-02-11 14:16:58 UTC
Permalink
She'll be named Princess Consort.

MC
Keeper of Giovanni Ribisi!
Geraint Davies
2005-02-11 19:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Perhaps Charles could discover that he is gay.
Again? Does the Royal Prerogative include Outing oneself twice?
Post by israel t
That would sell a few copies of the Sun.
Sold a few copies of foreign newspapers with headlines like Buckingham
Phallus.
--
Geraint Davies and Sarah Branson
3 Mulgrave Road Croydon CR0 1BL
http://www.geraintdavies.sarahbranson.com/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
israel t
2005-02-11 21:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Naaaa that inbred dork could never be gay,,anyone that wants to be a tamon
in horse face knickers is weird,, not gay
yech....
Yes, I had forgotten about that tampon bit.
Lionheart
2005-02-11 20:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by israel t
Personally, I don't see why Charles should be king. Isn't he too old to
be crowned ? From a tourism/tabloid perspective, there is nothing of
interest left in this old boring person.
Perhaps Charles could discover that he is gay.
That would sell a few copies of the Sun.
If William were crowned, then
there would be plenty of interest in him, his travels, his romances, his
marriage etc etc. And maybe Harry could play practical jokes on his
older brother (the king) to generate even more buzz about the royals.
There is no age limit
do you know he is gay
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...