Discussion:
Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The Throne?
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-08 19:52:58 UTC
Permalink
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.

Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.

However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Hal
2007-11-08 23:15:11 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-08 23:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !

All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.

In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 01:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Whack all imperialists
2007-11-09 01:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agreed - he would probably spend most of his time practising being a
tampon for Comeinand Park-Yer Balls
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 09:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read somewhere
that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
-- Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Exactly.
--
Count Baldoni
The Doctor
2007-11-09 03:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
Olivier
2007-11-09 11:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
And William is a descendant of king Charles II by his mother !!
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:21:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
Renia
2007-11-13 14:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:10:45 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Renia <***@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
: The Highlander wrote:
:
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
:>>news:fh0jjo$4gu$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
:>>
:>>>In article <***@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
:>>>
:>>>>Hal expressed precisely :
:>>>>
:>>>>>On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:>>>>>>Line of
:>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>Why?
:>>>>
:>>>>Why indeed !
:>>>>
:>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:>>>>becomes King.
:>>>>
:>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:>>>>
:>>>
:>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:>>>--
:>>>Member - Liberal International
:>>>This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
:>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:>>
:>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:>
:>
:> Currently numbering around 40 members.
:
: They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
: but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.

It all depends on your definition.

Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
they are or have married Roman Catholics.

Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Renia
2007-11-17 01:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:>
:>
:>>
:>>>
:>>>>
:>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:>>>>>>Line of
:>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>>Why?
:>>>>
:>>>>Why indeed !
:>>>>
:>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:>>>>becomes King.
:>>>>
:>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:>>>>
:>>>
:>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:>>>--
:>>>Member - Liberal International
:>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:>>
:>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:>
:>
:> Currently numbering around 40 members.
: They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
: but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
It all depends on your definition.
Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
they are or have married Roman Catholics.
Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.
I'm talking about the Civil List.
Sacha
2007-11-17 01:44:41 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/07 01:33, in article fhlgch$c3u$***@mouse.otenet.gr, "Renia"
<***@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Renia
I'm talking about the Civil List.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4971.asp

has the information you want.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'
Dave
2007-11-09 13:43:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
I think you may have misspelled "hysterical"...
Breton
2007-11-09 13:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?

Breton
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 15:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.

Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI

The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
David
2007-11-09 17:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.
Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI
The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
Not all of these people are closely related to each other!

In general, yes, women in the First World live longer than men.
However, Charles' parents are both long-lived: his father is 86 and
healthy, his mother is 81 and healthy. Barring any accidents, Charles
can expect to live at least into his 80s. At nearly 59, Charles is
already older than his grandfather George VI, whose early death was
probably not due to congenital factors. Edward VIII had lived to be
nearly 78, after all, and I expect that Charles lives a healthier life
than both men.

If Charles lives to the age of at least 80 (in 2028) he will almost
certainly outlive his mother, even if she matches the late Queen
Mother's century. Obviously Charles will not have one of the famously
long reigns of British history, but that is the price to be paid for
being the child of a long-lived parent -- as was discovered not only
by Edward VII, but also George IV and before him Edward the Black
Prince.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
Well his last wife was younger than he and she is very dead.
What has age got to do with it?
People die at every age.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 21:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni
Breton
2007-11-09 21:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I though you said you weren't trolling.

Breton
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:22:56 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
I think that's a gross libel.
William Earl Haskell
2007-11-20 05:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
And you've got the hemerrhoids to prove it, no doubt. Next time, make
sure to use enough lube.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-20 23:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
And you've got the hemerrhoids to prove it, no doubt. Next time, make sure
to use enough lube.
Would your advice there /|\show you to have rather a intimate knowledge of
the finer points of that particular pastime?
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-12 12:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).

With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.

Citizen Jimserac
Turenne
2007-11-12 18:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.


Richard Lichten
Breton
2007-11-14 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Precisely. You could usefully have mentioned that abdication is not a
unilateral act. It can't happen before accession and even then only
with the consent, not only of the UK Parliament, but also the
Parliaments of all the overseas Realms.

Not going to happen.

Breton
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 12:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Precisely. You could usefully have mentioned that abdication is not a
unilateral act. It can't happen before accession and even then only
with the consent, not only of the UK Parliament, but also the
Parliaments of all the overseas Realms.
Not going to happen.
Breton
Understood. But one last point, and this is not
to be taken as a disagreement but only an observation.

Charles has been stifled, chained, criticized, obstructed, repressed
and held back for an entire lifetime by the Queen, the press, by
protocol,
by convention, by his father and by god knows who else.
In such a circumstance, one must suspect that there
is no telling what he will do, when the time comes.

Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 13:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.

The question arises, how much weakening?

As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.

But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.

Citizen Jimserac
a.spencer3
2007-11-18 14:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.

Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 16:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-11-19 17:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.

Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-11-20 10:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!

Surreyman
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-20 12:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.

That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.

The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.

The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.

Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.

It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.

Citizen Jimserac
a.spencer3
2007-11-20 12:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes
to
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of
matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That's just some Scots and, of course, some English.
By no means makes it universal.
I have less than 'sparkling dedication'.
But I could give a damn, as would most.

Surreyman
William Black
2007-11-20 14:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?

Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?

Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?

Or the India one of ten years before that?

Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-20 15:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.

There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?

Citizen Jimserac
William Black
2007-11-20 16:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.
There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?
You're not kidding.

The vast influx of Poles, complete with shops where none of the staff have
even tried to learn English, make doing business down at the locally Iraqi
owned pizza shop a breeze, and buying an Indian meal dead easy.

Over a million Poles have come to the UK in the past few months, the
largest influx of people into the UK ever.

The arrival of a vast horde of ill educated papist bigots will, as usual,
cause some problems for a few years, and then disappear...

But it'll take a long time, unlike Commonwealth immigrants the Poles don't
have to pass an examination on culture in the UK before they're allowed to
stay...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Renia
2007-11-20 17:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.
There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?
You're not kidding.
The vast influx of Poles, complete with shops where none of the staff
have even tried to learn English, make doing business down at the
locally Iraqi owned pizza shop a breeze, and buying an Indian meal dead
easy.
Over a million Poles have come to the UK in the past few months, the
largest influx of people into the UK ever.
The arrival of a vast horde of ill educated papist bigots will, as
usual, cause some problems for a few years, and then disappear...
Actually, they're probably better-educated than the British. Did you see
the article about the Polish boy being educated in Britain, who decided
to return to Poland because the British education system was so dismal?
Yet, in England, he was called a genius, because he was so far advanced
of his teenage classmates.

As to being Papist, religion was barred for much of the 20th century.
Catholicism remains, but it's not as strong as in other countries.
Post by William Black
But it'll take a long time, unlike Commonwealth immigrants the Poles
don't have to pass an examination on culture in the UK before they're
allowed to stay...
My father certainly didn't. But he carried round an "alien card" for
years during the 40s and 50s.

And I just love Alistair, Darling, who wants to "think of the future"
and make sure CDs with personal financial information concerning half
the country does not "get lost in the post" again. How about looking to
the past, when the country was run properly. Of course, that used to be
Gordon's department. He set it up, with Darling by his side.

Britain should "look to the past" (not the future) to see how to deal
with in-migration. It always worked before. Not now, it's too intensive.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-20 23:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.
There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?
You're not kidding.
The vast influx of Poles, complete with shops where none of the staff
have even tried to learn English, make doing business down at the
locally Iraqi owned pizza shop a breeze, and buying an Indian meal dead
easy.
Over a million Poles have come to the UK in the past few months, the
largest influx of people into the UK ever.
The arrival of a vast horde of ill educated papist bigots will, as
usual, cause some problems for a few years, and then disappear...
Actually, they're probably better-educated than the British. Did you see
the article about the Polish boy being educated in Britain, who decided
to return to Poland because the British education system was so dismal?
Yet, in England, he was called a genius, because he was so far advanced
of his teenage classmates.
As to being Papist, religion was barred for much of the 20th century.
Catholicism remains, but it's not as strong as in other countries.
Post by William Black
But it'll take a long time, unlike Commonwealth immigrants the Poles
don't have to pass an examination on culture in the UK before they're
allowed to stay...
My father certainly didn't. But he carried round an "alien card" for
years during the 40s and 50s.
And I just love Alistair, Darling, who wants to "think of the future"
and make sure CDs with personal financial information concerning half
the country does not "get lost in the post" again. How about looking to
the past, when the country was run properly. Of course, that used to be
Gordon's department. He set it up, with Darling by his side.
Britain should "look to the past" (not the future) to see how to deal
with in-migration. It always worked before. Not now, it's too intensive.
This last point is a good one but we must be careful to differentiate
real immigrants, who naturally surround themselves with language and
culture with which they are familiar while making plans for their
children and descendants to become educated citizens and attain
success in the new country, and those immigrants who would prefer to
retain their culture and language to the radical extent of preparing
for the slow and gradual extinction, by attrition if need be,
of the culture and laws of the new country.

There IS a difference, to put it in as non-sharitable a way
as possible.

Citizen Jimserac
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 00:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.
There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?
You're not kidding.
The vast influx of Poles, complete with shops where none of the staff
have even tried to learn English, make doing business down at the locally
Iraqi owned pizza shop a breeze, and buying an Indian meal dead easy.
Over a million Poles have come to the UK in the past few months, the
largest influx of people into the UK ever.
The arrival of a vast horde of ill educated papist bigots will, as
usual, cause some problems for a few years, and then disappear...
Actually, they're probably better-educated than the British. Did you see
the article about the Polish boy being educated in Britain, who decided to
return to Poland because the British education system was so dismal? Yet,
in England, he was called a genius, because he was so far advanced of his
teenage classmates.
As to being Papist, religion was barred for much of the 20th century.
Catholicism remains, but it's not as strong as in other countries.
Post by William Black
But it'll take a long time, unlike Commonwealth immigrants the Poles
don't have to pass an examination on culture in the UK before they're
allowed to stay...
My father certainly didn't. But he carried round an "alien card" for years
during the 40s and 50s.
And I just love Alistair, Darling, who wants to "think of the future" and
make sure CDs with personal financial information concerning half the
country does not "get lost in the post" again. How about looking to the
past, when the country was run properly. Of course, that used to be
Gordon's department. He set it up, with Darling by his side.
Britain should "look to the past" (not the future) to see how to deal with
in-migration. It always worked before. Not now, it's too intensive.
Oh! get real!
I'm most certainly not a Labour supporter but the UK has never had such a
long run of constant prosperity than it has under Gordon Brown.
I very well remember the Boom/Bust years of such as Thatcher. I remember
between 3 and 4 million workers on the dole while the government set about
shutting down the railways, mines, steel works, ship building, white goods,
consumer electronic and heavy engineering. I remember the North of England
and Scottish Borders being decimated by closures of the textile industries.
I was a member of the TU party who met with the UK Minister of Defence who
was intent upon closing down the UK's Dockyards. I remember too the influx
of Jamaicans and Ugandan Asians who took over many jobs in such as London
Transport.
So, excuse me if I do not stand and cheer for your suggestion we should look
to the past for solutions for problems that actually do not exist.
What problems? We have about the highest rise in prosperity in the World,
among the lowest inflation and our currency is increasing against the Dollar
almost by the minute. We have actually got a problem of not enough skilled
people to fill our jobs and the only problem with immigrants is the
perception of ill educated, (mainly), bloody Little Englanders who perceive
their country to being overrun by foreigners when in fact the increase in
population from immigration is something like 0.06% in the past year.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 00:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.
There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?
You're not kidding.
The vast influx of Poles, complete with shops where none of the staff
have even tried to learn English, make doing business down at the locally
Iraqi owned pizza shop a breeze, and buying an Indian meal dead easy.
Over a million Poles have come to the UK in the past few months, the
largest influx of people into the UK ever.
The arrival of a vast horde of ill educated papist bigots will, as usual,
cause some problems for a few years, and then disappear...
But it'll take a long time, unlike Commonwealth immigrants the Poles
don't have to pass an examination on culture in the UK before they're
allowed to stay...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
So what bothers you most, Their numbers, their language or the fact they are
Roman Catholic?
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 00:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Pick one or several, it is your choice.
There is one, however, which STANDS OUT,
eh?
Citizen Jimserac
Indeed, Going by certain poster in these groups the English seem to have the
impression much of their problems stem from Scots littering their streets.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-11-20 15:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
And the Welsh will be back some day ...........

Surreyman
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 21:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.

And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Renia
2007-11-20 23:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.

Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.

It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.

Then came the meddlers.

The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.

These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.

Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.

Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.

Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.

The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)

Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.

TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.

Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.

Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.

Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.

Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.

People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.

Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
a.spencer3
2007-11-21 10:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.
Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.
It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.
Then came the meddlers.
The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.
These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.
Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.
Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.
Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.
The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)
Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.
TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.
Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.
Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.
Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.
Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.
People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.
Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
Well, I'm glad you had the time to write that lot!
And a little overstated, maybe. :-))
But many of the things you portray as having happened certainly are at least
past the germination stage.
The potential scenario is certainly true.

We are a tolerant nation, which is probably one of our major attributes.

But we must now become intolerant of those who wish to exploit and undermine
this - and by that I mean our own politicians, not the poor folk who in many
cases are deluded into coming here.

Because our tolerance IS being undermined.
90% of people are rapidly becoming very intolerant indeed of the 10% who are
now, without any exaggeration, ruling our lives, thanks to our now
ludicrously benign attitude to PC-ism which is indeed starting to destroy
the fabric of our nation - educationally, economically, socially.

Racism?

No - please notice that all the above problems are there without even
considering 'race'.

And that is the major, major problem. Actions against a minority (of
whatever nature) are jumped on, even if sensible and practical. Actions
against a majority are not.
Is there not an insanity in there somewhere?

To illustrate, very unpopularly ... a local ethnic minority's religious
festival is welcomed, and we are all exhorted to appreciate it and to join
in - and quite rightly too ... except for the fact that kiddies' schools'
Nativity plays are then banned as being provocative.

Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.

But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous statement.

However, we still do have time to manage all this far more sensibly.
Not too long ahead, though, we won't.
And I currently see no-one on the political scene who even wants to, let
alone can.

Surreyman
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-21 13:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.
Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.
It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.
Then came the meddlers.
The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.
These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.
Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.
Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.
Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.
The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)
Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.
TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.
Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.
Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.
Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.
Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.
People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.
Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
Well, I'm glad you had the time to write that lot!
And a little overstated, maybe. :-))
But many of the things you portray as having happened certainly are at least
past the germination stage.
The potential scenario is certainly true.
We are a tolerant nation, which is probably one of our major attributes.
But we must now become intolerant of those who wish to exploit and undermine
this - and by that I mean our own politicians, not the poor folk who in many
cases are deluded into coming here.
Because our tolerance IS being undermined.
90% of people are rapidly becoming very intolerant indeed of the 10% who are
now, without any exaggeration, ruling our lives, thanks to our now
ludicrously benign attitude to PC-ism which is indeed starting to destroy
the fabric of our nation - educationally, economically, socially.
Racism?
No - please notice that all the above problems are there without even
considering 'race'.
And that is the major, major problem. Actions against a minority (of
whatever nature) are jumped on, even if sensible and practical. Actions
against a majority are not.
Is there not an insanity in there somewhere?
To illustrate, very unpopularly ... a local ethnic minority's religious
festival is welcomed, and we are all exhorted to appreciate it and to join
in - and quite rightly too ... except for the fact that kiddies' schools'
Nativity plays are then banned as being provocative.
Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.
But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous ...
read more >>
Well said, Mssr.

So the old "intolerance" bugaboo is being used
to beat down dissent, just as in the states. And the politicians in
the U.S. somehow side with political incorrectness when one attempts
to speak out against the influx of people who are not
just culturally "diverse" but whose explicit goal is to
destroy and/or subvert the host culture - PERMANENTLY.

Need I repeat the warnings of the HEROIC Italian journalist,
a woman persecuted in Italy when she warned openly
of the subversion which had already begun to
undermine the identity of Europe, a woman
who was shot and left for dead in the Mexico riots of the late 60's
and this same woman who interviewed the senior Khomeni and then
defied him face to face by ripping off garments which she deemed
subversive of HER culture and HER individuality since she was
NOT a member of Khomeni's "faith". I leave you with a quote
from her book, "The Rage and the Pride" as I urge all of
you to read her arguments pointing to the dire
consequences of the parasitic subversion which proceeds
unchallenged even now.

"There are moments in Life
when keeping silent becomes a fault,
and speaking an obligation. A civic duty,
a moral challenge, a categorical imperative
from which we cannot escape".
(Oriana Falluci, The Rage and the Pride")

Citizen Jimserac
Renia
2007-11-21 14:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Piggy-backing. (Surreyman's -a.spencer3- post didn't make it to my
newsreader.)
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.
Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.
It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.
Then came the meddlers.
The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.
These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.
Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.
Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.
Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.
The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)
Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.
TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.
Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.
Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.
Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.
Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.
People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.
Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
Well, I'm glad you had the time to write that lot!
And a little overstated, maybe. :-))
As I said, potentially extremist, but I don't think it is overstated.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
But many of the things you portray as having happened certainly are at least
past the germination stage.
The potential scenario is certainly true.
We are a tolerant nation, which is probably one of our major attributes.
But we must now become intolerant of those who wish to exploit and undermine
this - and by that I mean our own politicians, not the poor folk who in many
cases are deluded into coming here.
Indeed. My own cousin from Poland came to the UK for 2 months. He
expected the streets to be paved with gold. In Poland, he is a Paramedic
AND a fireman, and wanted to finance his further Paramedic training. He
lived in my house rent-free for 2 months and was employed (legally) by
my brother, who gave him more than the usual rate, because he was
family. What astonished him, was the price of food. He almost starved
buying the very, very cheapest food he could find, which was of
questionable nutritional value. My sons naturally offered him their
food, but he would not take it. When I saw him, he said he should have
done what he has done in previous years during his annual holidays and
sick-leave; get employment as a delivery driver around Europe. Far
better remuneration than in Britain. He can't understand how people can
afford to live in England, particularly Poles and other East Europeans.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
Because our tolerance IS being undermined.
90% of people are rapidly becoming very intolerant indeed of the 10% who are
now, without any exaggeration, ruling our lives, thanks to our now
ludicrously benign attitude to PC-ism which is indeed starting to destroy
the fabric of our nation - educationally, economically, socially.
Absolutely. And so many people are just standing by and letting it
happen. Somehow, they think they are being clever, modern or
"progressive" by doing this.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
Racism?
No - please notice that all the above problems are there without even
considering 'race'.
And that is the major, major problem. Actions against a minority (of
whatever nature) are jumped on, even if sensible and practical. Actions
against a majority are not.
Is there not an insanity in there somewhere?
No, simple stupidity and lack of education and direction. The
proletariat rule now.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
To illustrate, very unpopularly ... a local ethnic minority's religious
festival is welcomed, and we are all exhorted to appreciate it and to join
in - and quite rightly too ... except for the fact that kiddies' schools'
Nativity plays are then banned as being provocative.
Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.
I told you before about my 15-year-old niece who had hear school-bag
searched for contraband packed lunch. She was forbidden to eat the food
her mother had provided for her: chocolate biscuit; yoghurt; orange
juice; and othe stuff I forget. How will my sister-in-law persuade her
typical teenage daughter to eat only seeds or whatever the school had
deemed to be "healthy" food?
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous ...
What? What? Where's the rest of the post?
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
read more >>
Well said, Mssr.
So the old "intolerance" bugaboo is being used
to beat down dissent, just as in the states. And the politicians in
the U.S. somehow side with political incorrectness when one attempts
to speak out against the influx of people who are not
just culturally "diverse" but whose explicit goal is to
destroy and/or subvert the host culture - PERMANENTLY.
It's the Emperor's new clothes. Nobody wants to seem unreasonable, so
they just let it all pass them by.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 18:29:27 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.
But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous ...
read more >>
Well said, Mssr.
So the old "intolerance" bugaboo is being used
to beat down dissent, just as in the states.
Nope!
Post by Citizen Jimserac
And the politicians in
the U.S. somehow side with political incorrectness when one attempts
to speak out against the influx of people who are not
just culturally "diverse" but whose explicit goal is to
destroy and/or subvert the host culture - PERMANENTLY.
So first define who these are then explain where action is not already being
taken against them?
In the first place you use rather a wide brush and make great sweeping
generalisations with it.
You attempt to tar those who are innocent of your charges along with those
who MAY be.
As an example - the overwhellming numbers of Muslims in the UK are NOT
extremists and the overwhellming numbers of Christians in the UK are not
extremeists.
Those of both religions who are are subject to the same laws and if they
break these laws they face the same charges in the same courts and, if found
guilty, they face the same punishment.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Need I repeat the warnings of the HEROIC Italian journalist,
a woman persecuted in Italy when she warned openly
of the subversion which had already begun to
undermine the identity of Europe, a woman
who was shot and left for dead in the Mexico riots of the late 60's
and this same woman who interviewed the senior Khomeni and then
defied him face to face by ripping off garments which she deemed
subversive of HER culture and HER individuality since she was
NOT a member of Khomeni's "faith".
That woman was very obviously just as much an extremist in another person's
country as her counterparts in the UK are with extreme anti-Christian
actions.
In another person's country she is subject to the laws of that country and
thus was not HEROIC - just plain a plainly stupid extremeist.
Post by Citizen Jimserac
I leave you with a quote
from her book, "The Rage and the Pride" as I urge all of
you to read her arguments pointing to the dire
consequences of the parasitic subversion which proceeds
unchallenged even now.
Where, in the UK, is it not challanged?
Who are you advocating we take action against that we do not already do so?
Post by Citizen Jimserac
"There are moments in Life
when keeping silent becomes a fault,
and speaking an obligation. A civic duty,
a moral challenge, a categorical imperative
from which we cannot escape".
(Oriana Falluci, The Rage and the Pride")
Citizen Jimserac
The United Kingdom has laws that take action against those who make any kind
of discrimination against anyone on the grounds of religion, sexual
orientation, gender, colour, race, disability and so on. They also have laws
against anyone who advocates violence or death against anyone and they have
anti-terrorist laws too.

You are getting very close to advocating action against people on religious
grounds, (and, before you start, get things right, I'm not saying a word
supporting terrorists or those who would force others to follow a religion
that is not their choice).

For a starter most Muslims are perfectly innocent of terrorist activities
and no more inclined to attempt to convert people than are the Jehovah's
Witness' or the Mormons who can, and do, knock doors all over the UK and
make the attempt to convert strangers to their , some would say, extreme,
religious beliefs.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-21 21:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
snip
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by a.spencer3
Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.
But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous ...
read more >>
Well said, Mssr.
So the old "intolerance" bugaboo is being used
to beat down dissent, just as in the states.
Nope!
Post by Citizen Jimserac
And the politicians in
the U.S. somehow side with political incorrectness when one attempts
to speak out against the influx of people who are not
just culturally "diverse" but whose explicit goal is to
destroy and/or subvert the host culture - PERMANENTLY.
So first define who these are then explain where action is not already being
taken against them?
YOU do not know who these people are?
YOU think I am referring to ALL Muslims??
Oh no, the VAST majority of them are peace loving
and very much unlike the radical killers who
will break every tenet of their own faith in the
blind exertion of terror and quest for power,
even unto their own self destruction.

Where is action not being taken against them???

The paralyzing force of "political correctness" is how
action is not being taken against them.
You see, the clever ones among them, in particular
certain radical mullahs, have in my opinion,
undertaken the strategy of utilization of the host
country's own laws for protection. They then
attempt a mild alteration here, a slight re-interpretation
there and when anyone notices or condemns this,
the cries of "racism", "intolerance" and political
"incorrectness are raised. At first
decades go by and all seems well. But instead,
what is happening is the creation of isolated
politically tubercular cells within the body
politic. From the outside they appear
to be law abiding and politically amenable
but on the inside of these rapidly spreading
enclaves, the same women hating mind numbing
ancient punishments and proscriptions
continue unabated until otherwise exposed
here or there by obvious legal violations -
a stoning here or there, of those events
that are violent and public enough to
be noticed.

Is it somehow different in the UK,
will you tell me that, because the UK
muslims are different from the Algerian
ones in France that everything will somehow
be different?

The peaceful and correct Muslim elements
struggle to maintain peace and the quiet
practice of their ancient and noble faith
but it is always the radicals who will come
to the forefront and seize control,
emphasizing the real or imagined
evils of modern society as a repression
against their 9th century fantasy
of conquest, slaves and power.

Hence my conception of the importance
of the royals. They can either
continue their desultory ways
or, sooner or later, they MUST speak
up and speak out against those
conditions which represent as much
a threat to civilization now as it
did 1,000 years ago. OH but
how difficult and dangerous
it will be when that happens,
but, after all, did not Diana
have the COURAGE to single handedly
speak out on the land mine issue
and did she not succeed in at
least making the problem known?

Citizen Jimserac
Renia
2007-11-21 14:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Ah, here it is, out of sequence!!
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.
Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.
It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.
Then came the meddlers.
The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.
These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.
Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.
Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.
Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.
The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)
Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.
TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.
Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.
Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.
Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.
Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.
People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.
Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
Well, I'm glad you had the time to write that lot!
And a little overstated, maybe. :-))
But many of the things you portray as having happened certainly are at least
past the germination stage.
The potential scenario is certainly true.
We are a tolerant nation, which is probably one of our major attributes.
But we must now become intolerant of those who wish to exploit and undermine
this - and by that I mean our own politicians, not the poor folk who in many
cases are deluded into coming here.
Because our tolerance IS being undermined.
90% of people are rapidly becoming very intolerant indeed of the 10% who are
now, without any exaggeration, ruling our lives, thanks to our now
ludicrously benign attitude to PC-ism which is indeed starting to destroy
the fabric of our nation - educationally, economically, socially.
Racism?
No - please notice that all the above problems are there without even
considering 'race'.
And that is the major, major problem. Actions against a minority (of
whatever nature) are jumped on, even if sensible and practical. Actions
against a majority are not.
Is there not an insanity in there somewhere?
To illustrate, very unpopularly ... a local ethnic minority's religious
festival is welcomed, and we are all exhorted to appreciate it and to join
in - and quite rightly too ... except for the fact that kiddies' schools'
Nativity plays are then banned as being provocative.
Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.
But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous statement.
However, we still do have time to manage all this far more sensibly.
Not too long ahead, though, we won't.
And I currently see no-one on the political scene who even wants to, let
alone can.
Surreyman
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-21 13:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.
Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.
It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.
Then came the meddlers.
The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.
These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.
Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.
Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.
Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.
The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)
Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.
TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.
Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.
Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.
Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.
Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.
People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.
Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
Well said! Hear hear!!!!!!!

Numerous excellent points which should be read
by EVERY citizen of UK and US and many other countries.

Many thanks for an outstanding posting!!

Citizen Jimserac
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 16:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.
Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.
It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.
Then came the meddlers.
The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.
These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.
Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.
Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.
Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.
The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)
Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.
TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.
Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.
Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.
Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.
Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.
People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.
Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
Well said! Hear hear!!!!!!!
Numerous excellent points which should be read
by EVERY citizen of UK and US and many other countries.
Many thanks for an outstanding posting!!
Citizen Jimserac
May one point out several daft things that you seem to agree with.

**"Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?**

Which country is the author calling, "This poor Country", is it England,
Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales?
The UK is composed of four countries and the UK is a political state - not ,
"A", country.

None of the UK countries are poor as the UK in general is among the World's
Top Ten Richest countries and actually comparatively richer now that she has
ever been.

http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_s_richest_countries

Top 10 by GDP are -

Luxembourg ... $56,380
Norway ... $51,810
Switzerland ... $49,600
United States ... $41,440
Denmark ... $40,750
Iceland ... $37,920
Japan ... $37,050
Sweden ... $35,840
Ireland ... $34,310
United Kingdom ... $33,630

Which history are we to consider as the UK history of England tends to be
all that gets considered. We also have really stupid conclusions being
drawn from obviously wrong facts?
For example language experts often say daft things like, "This influence
came from Roman Britain", and then they ignore the simple fact that Roman
Briton did not extent beyond Hadrian's Wall.
The same applied to, "Anglo Saxon Britain" and, "Norman Britain", and, "The
Danelaw", which did not obviously encompass all of Britain.
Then we have those who jump to obvious wrong conclusions as in bold claims
like, "The Scots language is English because it came from Northumbrian",
when a moments thought would expose the simple fact that the Northumbrian
language was a language belonging to an independent country that was, at
that time, not part of England.
As to the problems of immigration, there are no real problems of
immigration. The problems all stem from the idiotic perceptions that the
country is being overrun by foreigners when the facts totally prove
otherwise.

There are conflicts over the correct numbers, so we will work it out on the
larger figure of an estimated 400,000, (year 2005).

So, as the total population of the UK is estimated to be greater than
60,000,000 we will use that rounded figure.
(400000/60000000)X100=0.6666666667 or less than 7 in every hundred at the
highest estimate.

Remember also that those figures include the immigrants from such as
Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, France, German, Italy, Sweden, Norway
and so on.
Now it seems to me that the complainers are only worried about the coloured
and/or Muslim immigrants as I cannot recall anyone complaining about the
number of USA or Canadian immigrants nor about white Europeans. The actual
figures for coloured and/or Muslims is thus really quite small.

So just what is all the fuss really about?
There are just not nearly so many of them as the whiners would have us
believe and as they have, mainly, come here to work they tend to be younger
people.
One real problem in the UK just now is the ratio of older pensioners to
younger workers and that influx of younger persons will tend to help greatly
in that direction.
We also have a big problem of finding skilled people and these younger
folks, who are not already skilled, can be trained to fill such vacant jobs.
As to the lower IQ types these can be trained to do such jobs as the UK
population think beneath their dignity to undertake.
Believe me I hold much more respect for a poorly educated immigrant toilet
cleaner than I do for a highly educated, white, UK bred, dole drawing
layabout. and we need the former and can do without the latter.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-22 01:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.
And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.
It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.
Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.
It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.
Then came the meddlers.
The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.
These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.
Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.
Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.
Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.
The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)
Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.
TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.
Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.
Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.
Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.
Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.
It's a disaster waiting to happen.
And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.
People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.
Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?
Well said! Hear hear!!!!!!!
Numerous excellent points which should be read
by EVERY citizen of UK and US and many other countries.
Many thanks for an outstanding posting!!
CitizenJimserac
May one point out several daft things that you seem to agree with.
**"Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?**
Which country is the author calling, "This poor Country", is it England,
Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales?
The UK is composed of four countries and the UK is a political state - not ,
"A", country.
None of the UK countries are poor as the UK in general is among the World's
Top Ten Richest countries and actually comparatively richer now that she has
ever been.
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_s_richest_co...
Top 10 by GDP are -
Luxembourg ... $56,380
Norway ... $51,810
Switzerland ... $49,600
United States ... $41,440
Denmark ... $40,750
Iceland ... $37,920
Japan ... $37,050
Sweden ... $35,840
Ireland ... $34,310
United Kingdom ... $33,630
Which history are we to consider as the UK history of England tends to be
all that gets considered. We also have really stupid conclusions being
drawn from obviously wrong facts?
For example language experts often say daft things like, ...
read more >>
I thought her points were made rather deftly, not daftly,
are you daffy?

Citizen Jimserac
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 00:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Actually it was probably those bloody Romans or those Anglo Saxons.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-21 21:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Citizen Jimserac
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored
Are we talking about the recent Polish influx?
Or the Muslim one of a decade and more ago?
Or the Hungarian one of half century ago?
Or the India one of ten years before that?
Or is it those bloody Normans again...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Actually it was probably those bloody Romans or those Anglo Saxons.
Ah the Romans! Praeclara est recuperatio libertatis!

Citizen Jimserac
Robert Peffers
2007-11-20 23:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.
The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.
The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.
Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.
Citizen Jimserac
Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them exist on
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the World.
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is none
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family owns
much land and property in their own right.
They would, most certainly, not be poverty stricken without the Public's
contribution.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
CJ Buyers
2007-11-21 10:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since
it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be
too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of
matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.
The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.
The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.
Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.
Citizen Jimserac
Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them exist on
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the World.
Really, the source for your research please?
Post by Robert Peffers
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is none
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family owns
much land and property in their own right.
Again, the source of your research?

Or is Mrs H Regina a large hill farmer in Scotland?
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 14:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since
it
snip
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them exist on
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the World.
Really, the source for your research please?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article267201.ece
And that is only what she gets from the taxpayer. What about the tax free
gifts she at every public appearance gets that are stored away in the
palace?
What about the income from her lands all over the UK and other parts of the
World?
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Robert Peffers
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is none
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family owns
much land and property in their own right.
Again, the source of your research?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1443893,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1443893,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1443893,00.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jack_thurston/2007/11/a_load_of_cap.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jack_thurston/2007/11/a_load_of_cap.html
Post by CJ Buyers
Or is Mrs H Regina a large hill farmer in Scotland?
Among her other farming interests in the UK she most certainly is.
See here - http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our_portfolio.htm
Remember too the Prince Charles also has great tracts of land under the
Duchy of Cornwall, (Tax free, by the way).
and there are other duchies.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-11-21 11:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant
since
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would
be
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of
matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.
The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.
The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.
Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.
Citizen Jimserac
Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them exist on
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the World.
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is none
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family owns
much land and property in their own right.
They would, most certainly, not be poverty stricken without the Public's
contribution.
--
Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let alone
whatever else.

Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 12:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant
since
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would
be
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he
accedes
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure
he
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's
abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of
matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually
acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the
adverse
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In
an
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so
easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism
and
so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as
it
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the
way
of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the
Royals
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme
(and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.
The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.
The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.
Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.
Citizen Jimserac
Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them exist
on
Post by Robert Peffers
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the World.
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is
none
Post by Robert Peffers
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family owns
much land and property in their own right.
They would, most certainly, not be poverty stricken without the Public's
contribution.
--
Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let alone
whatever else.
Surreyman
That might be true if you were actually dealing with correct figures.
For example, as you are lecturing me on the subject of the costs to the
public of the royals, give me an answer to this?

Last week we had a report of a certain young royal's private executive jet
making an emergency landing at Edinburgh Airport.
He had been jaunting around, as usual, for his own enjoyment.
So are the costs of this spoilt brat's use of such transport, the cost of
that emergency and the ongoing costs of this bloody parasite born by the
royal purse or from the public purse?
In any event, if the royals can afford to finance such extravagant
lifestyles, do the really need support from the public purse that underfunds
what was shown this week to be Europe's very worst state retirement pension?
Cut them loose, charge them income tax like everyone else, and put the,
"Jobs", they undertake for the UK out to tender. I'm sure Vera Duckworth,
Emily Bishop, Ken Barlow, David Beckham or any other overpaid, "Celeb",
would be only too glad to undercut the royals fee for launching some ship or
other and Terry Wogan could perhaps, waive his fee, as he did for, "Children
in need", to deliver the Christmas message.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-11-21 14:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant
since
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would
be
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he
accedes
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure
he
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy
is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in
Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's
abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling
of
matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually
acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the
adverse
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the
normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations.
In
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
an
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so
easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the
Queen,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism
and
so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as
it
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the
way
of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the
Royals
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme
(and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.
The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.
The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.
Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.
Citizen Jimserac
Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them exist
on
Post by Robert Peffers
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the World.
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is
none
Post by Robert Peffers
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family owns
much land and property in their own right.
They would, most certainly, not be poverty stricken without the Public's
contribution.
--
Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let alone
whatever else.
Surreyman
That might be true if you were actually dealing with correct figures.
For example, as you are lecturing me on the subject of the costs to the
public of the royals, give me an answer to this?
Last week we had a report of a certain young royal's private executive jet
making an emergency landing at Edinburgh Airport.
He had been jaunting around, as usual, for his own enjoyment.
So are the costs of this spoilt brat's use of such transport, the cost of
that emergency and the ongoing costs of this bloody parasite born by the
royal purse or from the public purse?
In any event, if the royals can afford to finance such extravagant
lifestyles, do the really need support from the public purse that underfunds
what was shown this week to be Europe's very worst state retirement pension?
Cut them loose, charge them income tax like everyone else, and put the,
"Jobs", they undertake for the UK out to tender. I'm sure Vera Duckworth,
Emily Bishop, Ken Barlow, David Beckham or any other overpaid, "Celeb",
would be only too glad to undercut the royals fee for launching some ship or
other and Terry Wogan could perhaps, waive his fee, as he did for, "Children
in need", to deliver the Christmas message.
--
I agree entirely with stopping any extravagant use of the public purse where
that happens.
As to the rest, what's the point. It's just your extreme opinion, and by no
means everyone else's.

Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 17:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant
since
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam
would
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
be
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he
accedes
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm
sure
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
he
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened
monarchy
is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150
years
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in
Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's
abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's
handling
of
matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually
acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the
adverse
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter
after
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the
normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations.
In
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
an
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos
statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to
so
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of
major
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the
Queen,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism
and
so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong
as
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
it
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the
way
of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the
Royals
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme
(and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.
That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.
The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.
The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.
Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.
It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.
Citizen Jimserac
Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them
exist
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
on
Post by Robert Peffers
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the
World.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is
none
Post by Robert Peffers
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family
owns
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
much land and property in their own right.
They would, most certainly, not be poverty stricken without the
Public's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
contribution.
--
Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let alone
whatever else.
Surreyman
That might be true if you were actually dealing with correct figures.
For example, as you are lecturing me on the subject of the costs to the
public of the royals, give me an answer to this?
Last week we had a report of a certain young royal's private executive jet
making an emergency landing at Edinburgh Airport.
He had been jaunting around, as usual, for his own enjoyment.
So are the costs of this spoilt brat's use of such transport, the cost of
that emergency and the ongoing costs of this bloody parasite born by the
royal purse or from the public purse?
In any event, if the royals can afford to finance such extravagant
lifestyles, do the really need support from the public purse that
underfunds
Post by Robert Peffers
what was shown this week to be Europe's very worst state retirement
pension?
Post by Robert Peffers
Cut them loose, charge them income tax like everyone else, and put the,
"Jobs", they undertake for the UK out to tender. I'm sure Vera Duckworth,
Emily Bishop, Ken Barlow, David Beckham or any other overpaid, "Celeb",
would be only too glad to undercut the royals fee for launching some ship
or
Post by Robert Peffers
other and Terry Wogan could perhaps, waive his fee, as he did for,
"Children
Post by Robert Peffers
in need", to deliver the Christmas message.
--
I agree entirely with stopping any extravagant use of the public purse where
that happens.
As to the rest, what's the point. It's just your extreme opinion, and by no
means everyone else's.
Surreyman
In the first place I made no claim whatsoever the views being express
belonged to everyone.
In the second what makes them extreme?
In the third place where is there clear proof that I am in the minority?
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Renia
2007-11-21 14:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let alone
whatever else.
It's amazing how many people are totally unaware of this, that more than
2 centuries ago, the Crown gave property to the nation, in exchange from
an income from the Civil List.

Had the Crown kept their property, they probably would have been far
wealthier than they are now.
John Briggs
2007-11-21 16:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by a.spencer3
Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to
the state long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let
alone whatever else.
It's amazing how many people are totally unaware of this, that more
than 2 centuries ago, the Crown gave property to the nation, in
exchange from an income from the Civil List.
More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs. Who
do you think got a better deal?
Post by Renia
Had the Crown kept their property, they probably would have been far
wealthier than they are now.
Had the native Americans kept Manhattan, they probably would have been far
wealthier than they are now.
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-21 16:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs.
Not in England.
William Black
2007-11-21 16:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs.
Not in England.
True

We used an axe.

Or a red hot poker up the bum...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
John Briggs
2007-11-21 16:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs.
Not in England.
Exactly - QED.

It is said that Queen Charlotte wanted to enclose St James's Park, and asked
the Prime Minister how much it would cost?

"Three Crowns, Ma'am" was the answer...

[Because of a discrepancy over the number of crowns, the original story may
have been Queen Mary II or Queen Anne and Hyde Park...]
--
John Briggs
Robert Peffers
2007-11-20 23:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually
acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
I'm not as it is the population of the UK that is over 60,000,000.

The figures for all four countries is ---
(mid 2006)
England - 50,762,900
Northern Ireland - 1,741,600
Scotland - 5,116,900
Wales - 2,965,900
United Kingdom - 60,587,600
a.spencer3
2007-11-21 11:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes
to
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he
has
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
no
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years
ago.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/
Balmoral
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after
Diana's
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this
is
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it
was
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of
the
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Turenne
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway.
Post by Robert Peffers
--
Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.
Surreyman
Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.
OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme (and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!
Surreyman
I'm not as it is the population of the UK that is over 60,000,000.
The figures for all four countries is ---
(mid 2006)
England - 50,762,900
Northern Ireland - 1,741,600
Scotland - 5,116,900
Wales - 2,965,900
United Kingdom - 60,587,600
OK - so you think that the Welsh & Northen Irish love Royalty. Fair enough!

Surreyman
Renia
2007-11-19 17:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
Believe me that after 50 odd years in the MOD there were very few I met who
were just there to fight for her Majesty.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-20 12:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Turenne
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.
Richard Lichten
Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter after Diana's
death.
The question arises, how much weakening?
As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations. In an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.
But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to so easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the Queen, this is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself. Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism and so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong as it was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.
It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the way of the day.
Surreyman
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals anyway.
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
Believe me that after 50 odd years in the MOD there were very few I met who
were just there to fight for her Majesty.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Thank you for confirming Citizen Jimserac's opinion, foreigner though
he
may be.

And to the other poster, THAT is what I meant by weakness of the
royal family.

Citizen Jimserac
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 01:27:18 UTC
Permalink
I think Renia is absolutely correct here.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the Royals
anyway. [Robert Peffers]
That is rubbish. (Oh, I forgot, I was ignoring you.)
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:16:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:59:45 -0800, Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
Citizen Jimserac
Boy, we're really up to our necks in crap tonight , aren't we!
Breton
2007-11-14 17:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
As usual you missed the point. The point was not about the merits or
otherwise of Diana and Charles. The point was: why post in a group if
you think the topic (in this case, Royalty, has no merit and is not
worth discussing?

As you your comments about Prince Charles "abdicating", he can't. This
has been explained to you. Charles will become King by virtue of
operation of law when Queen Elizabeth dies.l

That's all you need to know.

Breton
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 12:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
As usual you missed the point. The point was not about the merits or
otherwise of Diana and Charles. The point was: why post in a group if
you think the topic (in this case, Royalty, has no merit and is not
worth discussing?
As you your comments about Prince Charles "abdicating", he can't. This
has been explained to you. Charles will become King by virtue of
operation of law when Queen Elizabeth dies.l
That's all you need to know.
Breton
I stand enlightened.

Thanks, Mssr.

Citizen Jimserac
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:13:29 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Citizen Jimserac <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> On Nov 8, 6:57 pm, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
:
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
:
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
:
: Citizen Jimserac

The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
allan connochie
2007-11-17 07:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.

Allan
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-17 07:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
[sop]
True.
Post by allan connochie
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though
that in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Also True.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
The Highlander
2007-11-17 18:02:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: Citizen Jimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.

It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.

There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"

The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."

The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"

I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Turenne
2007-11-17 18:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.

Richard Lichten
The Highlander
2007-11-18 00:53:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.
Richard Lichten
You're English! That subtle blend of ignorance, bad manners,
pretentiousness and need to be noticed brands you instantly as home
county Anglotrash. Probably born in Croydon, living in Surbiton and
doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.

Doesn't it embarrass you make a fool of yourself on Usenet? Because
you just did, with your invented claims above.
j***@bigpond.com
2007-11-18 09:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.
Richard Lichten
You're English! That subtle blend of ignorance, bad manners,
pretentiousness and need to be noticed brands you instantly as home
county Anglotrash. Probably born in Croydon, living in Surbiton and
doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
Doesn't it embarrass you make a fool of yourself on Usenet? Because
you just did, with your invented claims above.
I think he is in fact Mancunian.
The Highlander
2007-11-18 17:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@bigpond.com
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Macbeth.......squire......headmaster.....etc....."Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I guessed right away the little bugger >had done it!"
Have you any other hoary old apocryphal stories to regale us with?
That one was probably hilarious in 1870 when it was already 30 years
old.
Richard Lichten
You're English! That subtle blend of ignorance, bad manners,
pretentiousness and need to be noticed brands you instantly as home
county Anglotrash. Probably born in Croydon, living in Surbiton and
doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
Doesn't it embarrass you make a fool of yourself on Usenet? Because
you just did, with your invented claims above.
I think he is in fact Mancunian.
Ah yes - "What Manchester does today, London does tomorrow!"

(A Mancunian slogan).
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 13:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!

Citizen Jimserac
The Highlander
2007-11-18 17:19:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-18 17:47:47 UTC
Permalink
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.

Score one for Citizen Jimserac.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by The Highlander
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 18:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.
Score one for CitizenJimserac.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), CitizenJimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
CitizenJimserac
You're the expert!
Finally! Praise for something!

Citizen Jimserac
James Hogg
2007-11-18 18:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Temporarily putting aside his X-rated popcorn box,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.
Come on, Davey, you can't expect everyone to demonstrate your
extraordinary skills in the cut and thrust of wit and repartee.

It's especially difficult to emulate your skills since they have yet
to be demonstrated.

Pointing out that someone has reversed two letters and writing
"Hilarious" doesn't count.

Sorry.

James
Renia
2007-11-18 22:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
Temporarily putting aside his X-rated popcorn box,
I like it!
The Highlander
2007-11-19 07:25:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:47:47 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.
Don't you think it's time for you to die? Your usefulness has expired.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Score one for Citizen Jimserac.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by The Highlander
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
Turenne
2007-11-18 18:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Probably born in Croydon,
No, Northumberland
Post by The Highlander
...living in Surbiton
No, Cheshire
Post by The Highlander
..and doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
And succeeding...

Richard L
The Highlander
2007-11-19 07:27:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:22:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
Post by Turenne
Post by The Highlander
Probably born in Croydon,
No, Northumberland
Post by The Highlander
...living in Surbiton
No, Cheshire
Post by The Highlander
..and doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.
And succeeding...
Richard L
In a nutshell, a nobody.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-18 18:38:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), CitizenJimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
CitizenJimserac
You're the expert!
Hah!

Citizen Jimserac
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 17:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
Post by allan connochie
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
:> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>
:> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>
: Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
: importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
: LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
: With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
: obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
: weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
: CitizenJimserac
The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
Allan
I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
"Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.
There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
English landed gentry.
Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!
Citizen Jimserac
You're the expert!
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the minutes
silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when any royals
are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
William Black
2007-11-19 17:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks

The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.

That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Renia
2007-11-19 17:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
William Black
2007-11-19 17:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it certainly wasn't
on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it certainly
wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
Renia
2007-11-19 21:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it certainly
wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
Turenne
2007-11-19 22:03:48 UTC
Permalink
...However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
This excerpt is telling:

"First, on the faith, prayer, and self-dedication of the King himself;
and on that it would be improper for me to say anything except to
commend him to God's grace, which he will so abundantly need, as we
all need it - for the King is a man like ourselves - if he is to do
his duty faithfully. We hope that he is aware of his need. Some of us
wish that he gave more positive signs of such awareness."

The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.

Richard L
David
2007-11-20 02:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
...However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
"First, on the faith, prayer, and self-dedication of the King himself;
and on that it would be improper for me to say anything except to
commend him to God's grace, which he will so abundantly need, as we
all need it - for the King is a man like ourselves - if he is to do
his duty faithfully. We hope that he is aware of his need. Some of us
wish that he gave more positive signs of such awareness."
The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.
Richard L
That should perhaps read: "...and, as AGw suggests, not for his
relationship with Mrs Simpson." Otherwise the sentence is ambiguous.
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-11-20 04:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Turenne
However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had
nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.
That should perhaps read: "...and, as AGw suggests, not for his
relationship with Mrs Simpson." Otherwise the sentence is ambiguous.
Ah, so is *that* what Richard meant?


--
AGw.
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-11-20 04:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
However, my understanding is that his swipe at the King had
nothing to do with his relationship with Mrs Simpson,...
"First, on the faith, prayer, and self-dedication of the King himself;
and on that it would be improper for me to say anything except to
commend him to God's grace, which he will so abundantly need, as we
all need it - for the King is a man like ourselves - if he is to do
his duty faithfully. We hope that he is aware of his need. Some of us
wish that he gave more positive signs of such awareness."
The bishop was condemning Edward for his lack of interest in attending
church, and not, as AGw suggests, his relationship with Mrs Simpson.
Is there an error in that last sentence? What you've stated me as
having "suggested" is the exact opposite of what I said, as can be
seen from my text as quoted in your own post!


--
AGw.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 01:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it certainly
wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local but
has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies, among
them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not sure
about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off the ITV
net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some do these as
inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more about them here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Renia
2007-11-21 01:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
a.spencer3
2007-11-21 11:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 13:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel.
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.
Surreyman
Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national happenings
are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and check out
that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and these too often show
different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different area,
"Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we Scots get
on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of the Day", but
instead that of an English Premiership match, usually London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs from that
of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and weather, while
the network usually shows the London area news, sport and weather from the
London Studio.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Renia
2007-11-21 14:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by The Highlander
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel.
Post by The Highlander
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite >
distinct
Post by Robert Peffers
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more
about
Post by Robert Peffers
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.
Surreyman
Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national
happenings are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and check
out that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and these too
often show different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different area,
"Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we Scots
get on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of the Day",
but instead that of an English Premiership match, usually London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs from
that of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and
weather, while the network usually shows the London area news, sport and
weather from the London Studio.
You are teaching grandma to suck eggs.

As usual, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 18:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by The Highlander
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel.
Post by The Highlander
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite >
distinct
Post by Robert Peffers
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more
about
Post by Robert Peffers
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.
Surreyman
Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national
happenings are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and check
out that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and these too
often show different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different area,
"Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we Scots
get on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of the Day",
but instead that of an English Premiership match, usually London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs from
that of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and weather,
while the network usually shows the London area news, sport and weather
from the London Studio.
You are teaching grandma to suck eggs.
As usual, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Aw! Come on! In a discussion about how almost all terrestrial channels carry
the Queen's Christmas message live. You wrote this, "It covers all the
Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it doesn't depend on where
you are".
Considering that even the BBC1 has 18 different areas that do NOT carry
identical programmes that was a rather mistaken claim to make. Especially as
you seemed to be arguing the point with me just for the sake of it.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Renia
2007-11-21 19:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message
and
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and
change
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in
December.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the >>>>
Newborough
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella,
so it
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite
local
Post by Robert Peffers
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national >
companies,
Post by Robert Peffers
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite >
distinct
Post by Robert Peffers
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff
off
Post by Robert Peffers
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more
about
Post by Robert Peffers
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.
Surreyman
Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national
happenings are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and
check out that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and
these too often show different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different
area, "Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we
Scots get on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of
the Day", but instead that of an English Premiership match, usually
London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs
from that of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and
weather, while the network usually shows the London area news, sport
and weather from the London Studio.
You are teaching grandma to suck eggs.
As usual, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Aw! Come on! In a discussion about how almost all terrestrial channels
carry the Queen's Christmas message live. You wrote this, "It covers
all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it doesn't
depend on where you are".
Considering that even the BBC1 has 18 different areas that do NOT carry
identical programmes that was a rather mistaken claim to make.
Especially as you seemed to be arguing the point with me just for the
sake of it.
Are you as unpleasant as this in real life?
a.spencer3
2007-11-21 14:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel.
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.
Surreyman
Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national happenings
are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and check out
that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and these too often show
different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different area,
"Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we Scots get
on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of the Day", but
instead that of an English Premiership match, usually London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs from that
of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and weather, while
the network usually shows the London area news, sport and weather from the
London Studio.
--
No, it doesn't surprise me.
And we often have Scottish events replacing English events filched by Sky.
It's how they work, unfortunately.

Surreyman
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-21 21:25:02 UTC
Permalink
We note with approbation that Surreyman does not write "PROGS"...

DSH
Post by a.spencer3
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.
Surreyman
Renia
2007-11-21 21:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
We note with approbation that Surreyman does not write "PROGS"...
So? How do you know how he speaks in his living room?

We not you are the only person here who uses the word "pogue" and other
such silliness.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Post by a.spencer3
And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.
Surreyman
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 13:19:45 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local but
has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not sure
about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off the ITV
net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some do these
as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more about them
here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
Indeed they do all come under the ITV umbrella but which, "Umbrella"?
Is it the generic term ITV for , "Independent Television", or the specific
term of the private limited company known as, " ITV plc"?

If the former then it does as they are all independent Television companies.
If the latter then it most certainly does not.

However, I was not correcting that part of your erroneous post that claimed
they all were independent TV companies but the bit I have starred in your
post below -

"It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, **** so it
doesn't depend on where you are"****.

It is obvious to everyone, except you, that if they are all running there
own local area programmes and only inserting certain network items they do
not show the same programmes.
They do, also, often show the same items at different programme times in
different areas.
Thus even an idiot can see that, "so it doesn't depend on where you are", is
wrong and requires to be corrected for the benefit of the people who have no
knowledge of the UK's independent TV setup.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Renia
2007-11-21 14:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
snip
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national
companies, among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were
quite distinct companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part
of SMG. I'm not sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but
also take stuff off the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local
news and sport, but some do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You
can find out much more about them here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
Indeed they do all come under the ITV umbrella but which, "Umbrella"?
Is it the generic term ITV for , "Independent Television", or the
specific term of the private limited company known as, " ITV plc"?
If the former then it does as they are all independent Television companies.
If the latter then it most certainly does not.
However, I was not correcting that part of your erroneous post that
claimed they all were independent TV companies but the bit I have
starred in your post below -
"It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, **** so
it doesn't depend on where you are"****.
You misunderstood my post or you are trying to move the goalposts. Sky
TV, Living TV, and other independent channels don't come under the ITV
umbrella, so I was specifying only the ones that do.
Post by Robert Peffers
It is obvious to everyone, except you, that if they are all running
there own local area programmes and only inserting certain network items
they do not show the same programmes.
They do, also, often show the same items at different programme times in
different areas.
Thus even an idiot can see that, "so it doesn't depend on where you
are", is wrong and requires to be corrected for the benefit of the
people who have no knowledge of the UK's independent TV setup.
Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that
some progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years.
I know how it works.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-21 17:28:18 UTC
Permalink
PROGS for PROGRAMS.

Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.
William Black
2007-11-21 18:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
PROGS for PROGRAMS.
Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?
It's spelled 'programmes'.

Programs are things that run on computers.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Renia
2007-11-21 19:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
PROGS for PROGRAMS.
Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?
No, it's an abbreviation, rather like photos.

(only without the apostrophe)
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-21 21:09:12 UTC
Permalink
DEFINITELY...

Infra Dig...

Like saying "Phillie" for Philadelphia...

Or...

"Frisco" for San Francisco...

Further...

There's no apostrophe in PHOTOS.

DSH
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
PROGS for PROGRAMS.
Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?
No, it's an abbreviation, rather like photos.
(only without the apostrophe)
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-21 21:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
PROGS for PROGRAMS.
Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?
No, it's an abbreviation, rather like photos.
(only without the apostrophe)
Touche' Madame, touche'!

Citizen Jimserac
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 18:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
snip
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by Robert Peffers
Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.
It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.
It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite
distinct companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG.
I'm not sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take
stuff off the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport,
but some do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much
more about them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.
Indeed they do all come under the ITV umbrella but which, "Umbrella"?
Is it the generic term ITV for , "Independent Television", or the
specific term of the private limited company known as, " ITV plc"?
If the former then it does as they are all independent Television companies.
If the latter then it most certainly does not.
However, I was not correcting that part of your erroneous post that
claimed they all were independent TV companies but the bit I have starred
in your post below -
"It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, **** so
it doesn't depend on where you are"****.
You misunderstood my post or you are trying to move the goalposts. Sky TV,
Living TV, and other independent channels don't come under the ITV
umbrella, so I was specifying only the ones that do.
Post by Robert Peffers
It is obvious to everyone, except you, that if they are all running there
own local area programmes and only inserting certain network items they
do not show the same programmes.
They do, also, often show the same items at different programme times in
different areas.
Thus even an idiot can see that, "so it doesn't depend on where you are",
is wrong and requires to be corrected for the benefit of the people who
have no knowledge of the UK's independent TV setup.
Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.
The point is you wrote this, "It covers all the Independent channels under
the ITV umbrella, so it doesn't depend on where you are".
Even just considering the Independent Television networks this is quite
wrong. In fact the terrestrial companies don't even show the same ads in the
areas they cover. It thus does matter where you are.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
By the way Scotch cannot watch TV and we Scots have known this for many
years.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 01:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Robert Peffers is quite correct here.

Pogue Black, the Englishman, should go back to school and learn the
difference between and among SCOT, SCOTTISH and SCOTCH.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Renia
Post by William Black
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch [sic]
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
Isn't it on ITV any more?
By the way Scotch cannot watch TV and we Scots have known this for many
years.
William Black
2007-11-20 08:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Robert Peffers is quite correct here.
Pogue Black, the Englishman, should go back to school and learn the
difference between and among SCOT, SCOTTISH and SCOTCH.
I know exactly the difference.

It's possibly too subtle an insult for your feeble brain to encompass.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-19 19:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs and many
also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote when they
see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the volume either.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
William Black
2007-11-20 08:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs and
many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote when they
see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the volume either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech on TV.

You're either a liar or a fool.

Which is it to be?
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Renia
2007-11-20 09:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs
and many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote when
they see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the volume
either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech on TV.
You're either a liar or a fool.
Which is it to be?
Personally, I think he's a fool.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 01:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs and
many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote when they
see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the volume either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech on TV.
You're either a liar or a fool.
Which is it to be?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Actually I'm probably both, but that doesn't make my claims any less true.
There are very few rabid loyalists in the UK and every single one of them
are dreadful bores.
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football match on
the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same time, how many
folks would be watching HRH?
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
John Briggs
2007-11-21 02:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel. That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like
icecream on the beach Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs
and many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote
when they see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the
volume either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech
on TV. You're either a liar or a fool.
Which is it to be?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough
gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the
beach Time for tea.
Actually I'm probably both, but that doesn't make my claims any less
true. There are very few rabid loyalists in the UK and every single
one of them are dreadful bores.
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football
match on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same
time, how many folks would be watching HRH?
None - it's HM :-)
--
John Briggs
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 13:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel. That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like
icecream on the beach Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital TVs
and many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes attached.
It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for the remote
when they see the Royals on the box, and it is not to turn up the
volume either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech
on TV. You're either a liar or a fool.
Which is it to be?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough
gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the
beach Time for tea.
Actually I'm probably both, but that doesn't make my claims any less
true. There are very few rabid loyalists in the UK and every single
one of them are dreadful bores.
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football
match on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same
time, how many folks would be watching HRH?
None - it's HM :-)
--
John Briggs
As I said, "Who cares anyway", and those who do are crashing bores - as your
pedantic post has just confirmed.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
John Briggs
2007-11-21 16:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by John Briggs
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel. That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if
you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like
icecream on the beach Time for tea.
You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital
TVs and many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes
attached. It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for
the remote when they see the Royals on the box, and it is not to
turn up the volume either.
You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech
on TV. You're either a liar or a fool.
Which is it to be?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough
gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the
beach Time for tea.
Actually I'm probably both, but that doesn't make my claims any less
true. There are very few rabid loyalists in the UK and every single
one of them are dreadful bores.
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football
match on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same
time, how many folks would be watching HRH?
None - it's HM :-)
As I said, "Who cares anyway", and those who do are crashing bores -
as your pedantic post has just confirmed.
It's accuracy that we pedantic bores care about :-)
--
John Briggs
William Black
2007-11-21 06:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football match
on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same time, how
many folks would be watching HRH?
An interesting selection of programmes.

All cheap, all minority interest, all either hated or loved.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 13:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football match
on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same time, how
many folks would be watching HRH?
An interesting selection of programmes.
All cheap, all minority interest, all either hated or loved.
Cheap, they are not, minority, they are not and viewing figures prove they
are far more loved than they are hated.
Post by William Black
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
2007-11-21 16:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football
match on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same
time, how many folks would be watching HRH?
An interesting selection of programmes.
All cheap, all minority interest, all either hated or loved.
Cheap, they are not, minority, they are not and viewing figures prove they
are far more loved than they are hated.
Sport is by far the cheapest television with mass market appeal.

Closely followed by soap operas which have low overheads for costume,
locations and actors fees on a 'screen time per £' basis.

The Queen should be cheaper than both as she doesn't get a fee, provides
her own costume and set and the OB unit doesn't need expensive weathproofing
gear.

No UK television programme can be said to be popular with a majority of the
people. The days when half the country watched any programme are long gone.

The last such programme was, I believe, 'I Claudius'.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
allan connochie
2007-11-19 23:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has always
been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best solution
is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)


Allan
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 02:01:55 UTC
Permalink
We seem to have a very small Anti-Royalist claque here -- crawling out of
the woodwork with their amusing Republican [in the British sense] ideas and
brain farts.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has always
been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best solution
is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
allan connochie
2007-11-20 07:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
We seem to have a very small Anti-Royalist claque here -- crawling out of
the woodwork with their amusing Republican [in the British sense] ideas
and brain farts.
On the contrary I may lean towards Republicanism but it is a vert soft
Republicanism at that and I'm quite happy to go on with what the majority of
the state wants. Like most of the British who are neither rabid Republicans
or Royalists. The system kind of works mostly because the monarch, who has a
couple of theoretical powers which will probably never be used, just doesn't
get involved in the running of the country. If she did then people would
seriously question the right of an unelected person to do so. Real power
lies within the Prime Minister's grasp and the pertinent question is whether
that position has gained too much power.

However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law. The main piece of interest seems to be as
to what she is dressed like! I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about
everyone else in my various circles, not a dot!


Allan
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has
always been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best
solution is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-20 07:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law.
Well, they remember the War Years and the binding forces of the British
Monarchy.

You don't have the benefits of that historical foundation.

They sound like the sort of Real Brits I should prefer to meet and avoid
_hoi polloi_.

Christmas is about more than just "festivities".

Cheers,

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
a.spencer3
2007-11-20 10:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by allan connochie
However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law.
Well, they remember the War Years and the binding forces of the British
Monarchy.
You don't have the benefits of that historical foundation.
They sound like the sort of Real Brits I should prefer to meet and avoid
_hoi polloi_.
Christmas is about more than just "festivities".
Good Lord ... Hines isn't approving of me at last, is he?
I must re-examine my values.

Surreyman
allan connochie
2007-11-20 23:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by allan connochie
However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law.
Well, they remember the War Years and the binding forces of the British
Monarchy.
Well that may have been true for my grand-mother! The others only have vague
recollections of being an infant at that time. Now do you think she'll be
wearing blue or what this year? I just can't wait to find out.

Allan
Robert Peffers
2007-11-21 01:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by allan connochie
However just because the monarch is in place it doesn't mean we have to
actually interupt our Christmas festivities by listening to her waffle on
about her family etc. The only persons I knew, in our inner circle, who
bothered were my mother and grand-mother; the only one person I know who
watches now is my mother-in-law.
Well, they remember the War Years and the binding forces of the British
Monarchy.
You don't have the benefits of that historical foundation.
They sound like the sort of Real Brits I should prefer to meet and avoid
_hoi polloi_.
Christmas is about more than just "festivities".
Cheers,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Actually you hold almost as much interest for the average Briton as do the
royals, and for almost the very same reason.
CJ Buyers
2007-11-20 12:52:17 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 20, 7:28 am, "allan connochie" <***@noemail.com> wrote:
" I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about everyone else in my
various circles, not a dot!"

Probably because, like most Brits, they sense a republican about to
mount his soapbox, mumble a mild agreement and move on for the sake of
peace and harmony.
allan connochie
2007-11-20 23:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
" I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about everyone else in my
various circles, not a dot!"
Probably because, like most Brits, they sense a republican about to
mount his soapbox,
Nah. Soap suds. I'll be washing the dishes.

Allan
CJ Buyers
2007-11-21 08:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by CJ Buyers
" I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about everyone else in my
various circles, not a dot!"
Probably because, like most Brits, they sense a republican about to
mount his soapbox,
Nah. Soap suds. I'll be washing the dishes.
No doubt that is what the rest of them hand in mind for you anyway.
allan connochie
2007-11-21 16:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by allan connochie
Post by CJ Buyers
" I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about everyone else in my
various circles, not a dot!"
Probably because, like most Brits, they sense a republican about to
mount his soapbox,
Nah. Soap suds. I'll be washing the dishes.
No doubt that is what the rest of them hand in mind for you anyway.
It is a good trick though. Time the table to be cleared for the Speech and
there is always a host of volunteers willing to wash up :-)

Allan
Andrew Chaplin
2007-11-21 10:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has always
been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best solution
is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
What time is it broadcast in the U.K.? Here it comes on in the late morning,
usually as one is preparing the midday meal.

(Yes, I watch or listen it, usually with my mum-in-law from Belfast.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
William Black
2007-11-21 11:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has
always been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best
solution is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
What time is it broadcast in the U.K.? Here it comes on in the late
morning, usually as one is preparing the midday meal.
It used to be 3:00PM, the exact time the pubs were due to close...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
a.spencer3
2007-11-21 11:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has always
been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best solution
is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
What time is it broadcast in the U.K.? Here it comes on in the late morning,
usually as one is preparing the midday meal.
(Yes, I watch or listen it, usually with my mum-in-law from Belfast.)
--
About 3 p.m. I thought - you must have an early lunch!

Surreyman
Andrew Chaplin
2007-11-21 12:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels
when
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice
except
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by allan connochie
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
Aye but I've never had even the choice of the off button. There has
always
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by allan connochie
been at least one old matriarch who insists on having it on. Best
solution
Post by Andrew Chaplin
Post by allan connochie
is to head for the kitches and get stuck into the dishes :-)
What time is it broadcast in the U.K.? Here it comes on in the late
morning,
Post by Andrew Chaplin
usually as one is preparing the midday meal.
(Yes, I watch or listen it, usually with my mum-in-law from Belfast.)
--
About 3 p.m. I thought - you must have an early lunch!
It takes a while to prepare, and Mum likes to lunch at the unseemly hour of
noon. The Queen's message is aired here at the same time as you see it,
although I think the news is still broadcast on the hour.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Nebulous
2007-11-20 07:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and the
minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change channels when
any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a choice except
the off button.
Bollocks
The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV channel.
That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're some Scotch
tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...
I'm pretty sure it is on at least three terrestrial channels imcluding ITV.
The difference now is that it is not shown at the same time. I think it is
around 6pm on ITV.

Neb
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:08:47 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <baldoniXXV <nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
: Hal expressed precisely :
:> On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> I'll spare the Irish.
:>
:>> It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>> Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>>
:> Why?
:
: Why indeed !
:
: All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
: somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
: becomes King.

I don't think he has given serious thought to being anything but
Charles III but the newspapers need to fill their space...

: In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.

Why do you say that?
I'm not aware that he has had significant health problems.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
George Knighton
2007-11-10 13:11:41 UTC
Permalink
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.

It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:01:05 UTC
Permalink
What has he said about George III?

DSH
Post by George Knighton
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:16:32 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty George Knighton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
: the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
:
: It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
: pick that name for his reign.
:

George.
I don't think there's a serious chance that he will pick any name
other than Charles.

Of course he is two months from the age at which Edward VII acceded,
and seems likely to break the record for age at accession now held
by William IV.

Will he break the record for time as The Prince of Wales (50 years
next year,I think only George IV and Edward VII were Prince longer
than that)?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

Interesting Connection...

Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>

DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Feck all sassanaigh
2007-11-10 16:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:17:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:50:24 -0800, Feck all sassanaigh
Post by Feck all sassanaigh
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
Even despite your example, I find that unlikely.
Turlough
2007-11-10 18:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
jl
2007-11-12 10:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
Turlough
2007-11-12 11:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?
I'm afraid we'll never know, Jochen. The man is quite shy, you
understand. You have a great web site though... :>)
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Turlough
2007-11-13 11:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
The Highlander
2007-11-13 16:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
That's very caring of you, Turlough! Here's how it works:

soc.culture.scottish and soc.culture.irish are irresistible targets
because they are two of the world's most interesting cultures.

In both groups the same agendas are at work. They are as follows:

People who are of Scottish or Irish descent who want to connect with
their roots.

People who aren't of Scottish or Irish descent but would love to be.

People with an axe to grind, aka "The English" and "The Australians".

People overcome with envy because the Scots can move smoothly into sex
mode by merely flipping up their kilts instead of spending hours
trying to disentangle their Y-fronts from their Doc Martins while
hobbling after their encounter of the evening, shouting, "Come back!
I love you! Didn't I buy you two rum and cokes!"

Irish people overcome with envy because the Scots have the knack of
wheedling free drinks out of tourists.

Scots overcome with envy because the Irish can blow up pubs where
tourists don't offer them free drinks and get away with it. "It was da
Rah, yer honour!"

Specialized agendas:

Men who want to be Braveheart.

Women who want to be interfered with by Braveheart.

Men who want to have a shower with Braveheart.

Men who want to join an IRA Active Service Unit.

Men who read Ray's memoirs and decide to pass.

Men who are drawn to the Scots/Irish image of unlimited violence.

Women who believe that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

Men who hope that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

People who think the Scots and Irish are "cute".

People who hate the Scots and the Irish for being "cute".

People who want to wear skirts but are afraid their mothers will find
out, unless there is an excuse, like "wearing the dress of my
ancestors!" (Fashion warning: a cute little summer number with polka
dots and a low bustline just isn't going to cut it, If you decide to
go for it anyway, at least shave your chest.)

People who want to spend the rest of their lives in a drunken stupor
shouting "Fuck the Bastard English!" or "Feck da Prods/Taigs!"

People who are bored with soc.culture.british and want more out of
Usenet than whining in four-part harmony.

People who are demented and think scs/sci can be a home on the Net.

People who get off on tormenting the demented.

People like you and I who watch all this with bemused wonder.
Leticia Cluff
2007-11-13 16:45:49 UTC
Permalink
[newsgroups trimmed]
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
soc.culture.scottish and soc.culture.irish are irresistible targets
because they are two of the world's most interesting cultures.
People who are of Scottish or Irish descent who want to connect with
their roots.
People who aren't of Scottish or Irish descent but would love to be.
People with an axe to grind, aka "The English" and "The Australians".
People overcome with envy because the Scots can move smoothly into sex
mode by merely flipping up their kilts instead of spending hours
trying to disentangle their Y-fronts from their Doc Martins while
hobbling after their encounter of the evening, shouting, "Come back!
I love you! Didn't I buy you two rum and cokes!"
Irish people overcome with envy because the Scots have the knack of
wheedling free drinks out of tourists.
Scots overcome with envy because the Irish can blow up pubs where
tourists don't offer them free drinks and get away with it. "It was da
Rah, yer honour!"
Men who want to be Braveheart.
Women who want to be interfered with by Braveheart.
Men who want to have a shower with Braveheart.
Men who want to join an IRA Active Service Unit.
Men who read Ray's memoirs and decide to pass.
Men who are drawn to the Scots/Irish image of unlimited violence.
Women who believe that Ireland is the land of the fairies.
Men who hope that Ireland is the land of the fairies.
People who think the Scots and Irish are "cute".
People who hate the Scots and the Irish for being "cute".
People who want to wear skirts but are afraid their mothers will find
out, unless there is an excuse, like "wearing the dress of my
ancestors!" (Fashion warning: a cute little summer number with polka
dots and a low bustline just isn't going to cut it, If you decide to
go for it anyway, at least shave your chest.)
People who want to spend the rest of their lives in a drunken stupor
shouting "Fuck the Bastard English!" or "Feck da Prods/Taigs!"
People who are bored with soc.culture.british and want more out of
Usenet than whining in four-part harmony.
People who are demented and think scs/sci can be a home on the Net.
People who get off on tormenting the demented.
People like you and I who watch all this with bemused wonder.
A very entertaining and no doubt astutely observed list,
but of little relevance to soc.genealogy.medieval.

And--yes--I know you didn't start the crossposting.
These things always begin in Hawaii.

:-)

Tish
The Highlander
2007-11-17 18:38:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:45:49 -0400, Leticia Cluff
Post by Leticia Cluff
[newsgroups trimmed]
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
soc.culture.scottish and soc.culture.irish are irresistible targets
because they are two of the world's most interesting cultures.
People who are of Scottish or Irish descent who want to connect with
their roots.
People who aren't of Scottish or Irish descent but would love to be.
People with an axe to grind, aka "The English" and "The Australians".
People overcome with envy because the Scots can move smoothly into sex
mode by merely flipping up their kilts instead of spending hours
trying to disentangle their Y-fronts from their Doc Martins while
hobbling after their encounter of the evening, shouting, "Come back!
I love you! Didn't I buy you two rum and cokes!"
Irish people overcome with envy because the Scots have the knack of
wheedling free drinks out of tourists.
Scots overcome with envy because the Irish can blow up pubs where
tourists don't offer them free drinks and get away with it. "It was da
Rah, yer honour!"
Men who want to be Braveheart.
Women who want to be interfered with by Braveheart.
Men who want to have a shower with Braveheart.
Men who want to join an IRA Active Service Unit.
Men who read Ray's memoirs and decide to pass.
Men who are drawn to the Scots/Irish image of unlimited violence.
Women who believe that Ireland is the land of the fairies.
Men who hope that Ireland is the land of the fairies.
People who think the Scots and Irish are "cute".
People who hate the Scots and the Irish for being "cute".
People who want to wear skirts but are afraid their mothers will find
out, unless there is an excuse, like "wearing the dress of my
ancestors!" (Fashion warning: a cute little summer number with polka
dots and a low bustline just isn't going to cut it, If you decide to
go for it anyway, at least shave your chest.)
People who want to spend the rest of their lives in a drunken stupor
shouting "Fuck the Bastard English!" or "Feck da Prods/Taigs!"
People who are bored with soc.culture.british and want more out of
Usenet than whining in four-part harmony.
People who are demented and think scs/sci can be a home on the Net.
People who get off on tormenting the demented.
People like you and I who watch all this with bemused wonder.
A very entertaining and no doubt astutely observed list,
but of little relevance to soc.genealogy.medieval.
I note that you are posting from alt.fan.crossposting, and
alt.support.crossdressing and will adjust my headers accordingly, as
your interests and mine do not coincide. I have added
soc.genealogy.medieval so you will know that I gave you the courtesy
of a reply.
Post by Leticia Cluff
And--yes--I know you didn't start the crossposting.
These things always begin in Hawaii.
News of a sudden death in Kailua will brighten my day immeasurably.
Post by Leticia Cluff
:-)
Tish
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:19:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
died without legitimate issue.

Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Robert Peffers
2007-11-13 20:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
died without legitimate issue.
Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
By the way he goes on now he seemes to have already lost much of its
contents.
Louis Epstein
2007-11-17 01:18:02 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
: <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:
:>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>
:>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
:>was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
:>twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:
: Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
: Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
: of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:
: Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
: would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:
: Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.

That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.

: Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
: entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
: short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
: vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
: ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
: insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
:>
:>However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
:>FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
:
: There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
: Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
: inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
: died without legitimate issue.
:
: Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
:
:>DSH
:>
:>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
:>------------------------------------------
:>
:>"allan connochie" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
:>news:AIHYi.9746$***@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
:>>
:>> "Brian Sharrock" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
:>> news:bgFYi.9718$***@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
:>
:>>> The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
:>>> as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
:>>> 'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
:>>> presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
:>>> Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
:>>> bet as to which it might be.
:>>
:>> Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
:>> Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
:>>
:>> Allan
:>
:

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
allan connochie
2007-11-17 07:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
:>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:>
:>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
:>was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
:>twice removed to the throne in 1603.
: Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
: Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
: of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
: Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
: would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
: Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
The Arbroath Letter states categorically that if the monarch isn't acting on
behalf of the Scottish people then they can be deposed. King Robert himself
must have agreed to this contractual monarchy even if he wasn't happy about
it. However James VII was actually thrown off the throne by the Scots
(admittedly they could only safely do this once he'd lost his English power
base) and was proclaimed a traitor. Again it was spelt out clearly what a
monarch must do to hold the crown and that was they had to be of the
Scottish royal line, be of the Protestant faith and swear the Coronation
Oath guaranteeing the Presbyterian settlement in Scotland. So the idea that
it is contractual with the people as to who gets to sit on the throne is as
old as the hills, in England as well as in Scotland. As to the monarchy
itself, no matter what you think, or wish, the case to be, the fact is that
if the British people decided they wanted a Republic (a mighty big if but
I'm talking hypothetically) then a Republic there would be!

Allan
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-21 21:16:45 UTC
Permalink
DEFINITELY...

Infra Dig...

Like saying "Phillie" or "Philly" for Philadelphia...

Or...

"Frisco" for San Francisco...

Further...

There's no apostrophe in PHOTOS.

DSH
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
PROGS for PROGRAMS.
Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?
No, it's an abbreviation, rather like photos.
(only without the apostrophe)
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.
Ray O'Hara
2007-11-21 22:03:32 UTC
Permalink
his name isn't george.
allan connochie
2007-11-21 22:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray O'Hara
his name isn't george.
One of his names is George.

Allan
kim
2007-11-22 01:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray O'Hara
his name isn't george.
Neither was George VI's name "George". It was "Albert".

(kim)
Renia
2007-11-22 01:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kim
Post by Ray O'Hara
his name isn't george.
Neither was George VI's name "George". It was "Albert".
Same with Edward VII. His first name was Albert. Even Queen Victoria's
first name was Alexandrina.
David
2007-11-22 04:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by kim
Post by Ray O'Hara
his name isn't george.
Neither was George VI's name "George". It was "Albert".
Same with Edward VII. His first name was Albert. Even Queen Victoria's
first name was Alexandrina.
If "Drina" had been crowned as Queen Alexandrina, would we speak of
the Alexandrinan, the Alexandrinian, or the Alexandrine Era?

I cannot always find suitable nominal adjectives for proper names: I
know Caroline, Edwardian, Elizabethan, Georgian, Henrician, Jacobean,
Marian, Ricardian, and Victorian but I don't know the proper adjective
for "William" which I suppose will, before very long, again become
relevant. ("Gulielmian" sounds like someone choking to death, perhaps
on a very long and eccentric word.) Nor do I know the proper
adjectives for "Stephen" and "John" ( Stephanian? Johannine? ) though
one doesn't need to use those very much. I'm not even sure it's
possible to create an adjective for "Anne" -- I believe one always
speaks of the "Age of Anne", and not the Annan or Annean or Annine Age.
Continue reading on narkive: