On Sun 7 Mar at 11:50pm IDM wrote:
Am I the only resident of our fair county who is becoming increasingly exasperated by the actions of a certain US/Canadian couple? I wish I could rid myself of my connection with people so self-promoting and media grabbing (surely self-effacing and committed to privacy - ed).
Yes, HRH and patronages gone. But there are not many Dukes and Duchesses over there and being so distinctive will not harm their commercial endeavours. I would start a petition to the Appointments Committee (?); But as I assume that this was in the personal gift of Her Maj we would not get very far
On Mon 8 Mar at 7:00am David Stanley wrote:
Maybe get a hobby....
On Mon 8 Mar at 9:57am Formerly AC-T wrote:
I find it hard to give a monkey's about the psychodramas of this dysfunctional family, tbh. We should get rid of the archaic institution of royalty on the death of the current monarch imo.
We could then elect a head of state. If the current heir to the throne fancied the gig, then he could stand for election and if there was enough support, he'd win. Personally, I'd prefer a head of state who's achieved something more with their life than just being born into a particular family, maybe someone with a background in science, the arts or charity.
I want to be a citizen, not a subject.
On Mon 8 Mar at 11:55am Nevillman wrote:
I concur with you on your lack of concern for what any of the individuals get up to Formerly. As long as I am not paying for them, they can do what they like. I'm not sure I agree about an elected head of state though. I think we are better with someone without expertise in any area who is happy to quietly fulfill their constitutional and ceremonial duties while leaving the business up to elected people. This has been the strength of the Queen and a concern about Charles in many people's minds.
Changing from a monarchy to an elected head of state would be disruptive, divisive and open up many fresh cans of worms. If Charles is able to become more like the Queen I would prefer to see him take over rather than face the possibility of a head of state who interferes and with whom I disagree. With a monarchy we may be called subjects by some and I can see how that might annoy but in reality they do not affect our freedom, whatever we are called.
We should certainly only be paying for very few members of the royal family who actually do anything useful.
On Mon 8 Mar at 6:23pm Father Hackett wrote:
Off with their heads. All of them.
Viva El Presidente!!
On Mon 8 Mar at 7:24pm Hyena wrote:
Tom Pain, time to put your hat into the ring?
On Mon 8 Mar at 8:27pm Formerly AC-T wrote:
Given Charles' history with the "black spider memos", I'm not sure that I trust him not to interfere, @Nevillman!
On Mon 8 Mar at 10:51pm IDM wrote:
David Stanley - anyone indulging in extensive discussions on here has a hobby. Fortunately, I have others.
On Tue 9 Mar at 10:35am Nevillman wrote:
I hadn't realised that having an opinion on royalty and having a hobby were mutually exclusive. I've just read a brief precis of the interview. Sounds to me like being a minor royal is a strange job with many benefits and drawbacks (like most jobs). Harry and Meghan didn't like it and have looked for alternative employment elsewhere. They have done the interview as part of that alternative employment and also to put the boot in on their previous employers (who hasn't wanted to do that?). Have I missed anything?
On Tue 9 Mar at 12:14pm Tom Pain wrote:
I'll keep my hat on hyena and hope you can overcome your reticence and give us the benefit of your opinion.
On Wed 10 Mar at 11:08am The Old Mayor wrote:
Winston Churchill said he thought maybe Mrs Simpson was an experienced fellatrix. Maybe Megan is too ?
On Wed 10 Mar at 1:21pm Basil wrote:
Off with their heads.
On Wed 10 Mar at 1:22pm Basil wrote:
The Old Mayor wrote: 'Winston Churchill said he thought maybe Mrs Simpson was an experienced fellatrix. Maybe Megan is too ?'
Surely the minimum skill required of a chancer.
On Wed 10 Mar at 11:52pm IDM wrote:
Churchill overlooked Lady Hamiltion's experience at fellhoratio.
On Thu 11 Mar at 6:47pm Tom Pain wrote:
For sure Elizabeth the First would have had the present incumbent's head years ago with foul scorn for what she's done, what with Spain and Palma and the rest.
On Thu 11 Mar at 7:12pm Nevillman wrote:
If you have a criticism of Meghan will you please say it rather than criticise her by trying to imply she is good at oral sex and is therefore is in some way a bad person. Some very nice people are good at it. Incidentally Tom, in what sense are you using the word 'head' in your post?
On Thu 11 Mar at 11:12pm Tom Pain wrote:
Being as she's a lady, it seems obvious. I must have missed the double e.
On Fri 12 Mar at 8:46am The Old Mayor wrote:
Of course, you'll be aware this is actually her third marriage, the first to Joe Giuiiano which was annulled, so legally doesn't actually count !!! (Huzzah) then Trevor Engelson for two years before divorcing. I'm sure she's a very nice person, but just not to live with. Double Huzzah !! Plus I suspect Winston was implying Edward had never had it so good !
On Sun 14 Mar at 10:16am IDM wrote:
Glad to see the reference to annulment The Old Mayor. Reference to Henry VIII's six wives always gives me the gripes.
On Mon 15 Mar at 6:36pm Dr. Livingstone wrote:
Well I'm blowed if I believe Winnie said that.
On Tue 16 Mar at 8:27pm Tom Pain wrote:
I believe the evidence was orally delivered, nothing was taken down, Doctor.
On Thu 25 Mar at 6:50pm IDM wrote:
I am predicting that the media will be free of Covid-19 before Sussex-21.