Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The T

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
D. Spencer Hines

Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 nov 2007 20:52:58

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
------------------------------------------

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:AIHYi.9746$ib1.5758@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bgFYi.9718$ib1.3944@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

Hal

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Hal » 09 nov 2007 00:15:11

On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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?

Baldoni

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Baldoni » 09 nov 2007 00:57:43

Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

--
Count Baldoni

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 09 nov 2007 02:31:12

"Baldoni @gmail.com>" <baldoniXXV<nientespam> wrote in message
news:mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co...
Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

--
Count Baldoni



Who really cares anyway?

Whack all imperialists

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Whack all imperialists » 09 nov 2007 02:45:45

On Nov 9, 1:31 am, "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Baldoni @gmail.com>" <baldoniXXV<nientespam> wrote in message

news:mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co...





Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

--
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

The Doctor

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Doctor » 09 nov 2007 05:16:02

In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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 doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!

Baldoni

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Baldoni » 09 nov 2007 10:33:52

Robert Peffers expressed precisely :
"Baldoni @gmail.com>" <baldoniXXV<nientespam> wrote in message
news:mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co...
Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

-- Count Baldoni



Who really cares anyway?

Exactly.

--
Count Baldoni

Olivier

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Olivier » 09 nov 2007 12:01:54

On 9 nov, 04:19, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81...@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.
--
And William is a descendant of king Charles II by his mother !!

Dave

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Dave » 09 nov 2007 14:43:27

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
<baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:

Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.

Breton

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Breton » 09 nov 2007 14:44:37

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?

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.

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

David

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av David » 09 nov 2007 16:27:37

On Nov 8, 1:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

As has been pointed out, this is not particularly relevant.

I'm not sure why Princess Elizabeth chose the name "Charles" in 1948
-- perhaps it seemed more romantic -- but it's a little late to go
back now.

Anyway, there's a big difference between being a Charles and being a
George --

Random entry from the diary of a Charles:

CHARLES: London rioted again today. Some fool of a Puritan minister
(Dr. Morefruit Muddifoot, perhaps) says that after burning the
Catholics they will come and chop off my head. Ha, ha! What an
amusing people I rule.

GEORGE: Unable to hunt again due to the GOUT!!!! Mem: Find good
excuse to HANG that Scotch dog of a doctor!!!! Also, add another
course of meat pies to breakfast.

Baldoni

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Baldoni » 09 nov 2007 16:44:39

Breton presented the following explanation :
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?

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.

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av David » 09 nov 2007 18:52:08

On Nov 9, 9:44 am, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
Breton presented the following explanation :



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?

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.

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 09 nov 2007 22:11:06

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:fh0jjo$4gu$7@gallifrey.nk.ca...
In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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 doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@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.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 09 nov 2007 22:13:52

"Breton" <royalistperson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194615877.499188.24790@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
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?

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.

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Baldoni » 09 nov 2007 22:22:56

It happens that Breton formulated :
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?

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.

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Breton » 09 nov 2007 22:28:04

On Nov 9, 4:22 pm, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
It happens that Breton formulated :





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?

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.

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

George Knighton

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av George Knighton » 10 nov 2007 14:11:41

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 17:01:05

What has he said about George III?

DSH

"George Knighton" <georgeknighton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194700301.447819.272900@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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.

Citizen Jimserac

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Citizen Jimserac » 12 nov 2007 13:59:45

On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <royalistper...@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

Turenne

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Turenne » 12 nov 2007 19:56:34

Citizen Jimserac wrote:

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

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 05:19:09

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@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.
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" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:AIHYi.9746$ib1.5758@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bgFYi.9718$ib1.3944@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 Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 05:21:30

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
<peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:fh0jjo$4gu$7@gallifrey.nk.ca...
In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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 doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@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.

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 05:22:38

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:43:27 GMT, Dave <dave@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:

Hal expressed precisely :
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.

I think you may have misspelled "hysterical"...

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 06:14:47

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:22:56 GMT, Baldoni
<baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:

It happens that Breton formulated :
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?

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.

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.

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 06:16:12

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:59:45 -0800, Citizen Jimserac
<Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <royalistper...@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

Boy, we're really up to our necks in crap tonight , aren't we!

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 13 nov 2007 15:57:42

The Highlander wrote:

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:


"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:fh0jjo$4gu$7@gallifrey.nk.ca...

In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:

Hal expressed precisely :

On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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 doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@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.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 13 nov 2007 21:10:54

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:k38ij35snb1nt7ta3ss04dr3aqnlkig23v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@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.
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" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:AIHYi.9746$ib1.5758@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bgFYi.9718$ib1.3944@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



By the way he goes on now he seemes to have already lost much of its
contents.

Breton

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Breton » 14 nov 2007 18:00:14

On Nov 12, 7:59 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 8:44 am,Breton<royalistper...@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.

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

Breton

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Breton » 14 nov 2007 18:02:04

On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
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

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 17 nov 2007 02:08:47

In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <baldoniXXV <nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
: Hal expressed precisely :
:> On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 17 nov 2007 02:10:45

In alt.talk.royalty Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
: The Highlander wrote:
:
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:> <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
:>>news:fh0jjo$4gu$7@gallifrey.nk.ca...
:>>
:>>>In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
:>>>
:>>>>Hal expressed precisely :
:>>>>
:>>>>>On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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 doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@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.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 17 nov 2007 02:13:29

In alt.talk.royalty Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <royalistper...@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.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 17 nov 2007 02:16:32

In alt.talk.royalty George Knighton <georgeknighton@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.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 17 nov 2007 02:18:02

In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
: <panther@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" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
:>news:AIHYi.9746$ib1.5758@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
:>>
:>> "Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
:>> news:bgFYi.9718$ib1.3944@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.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 02:33:59

Louis Epstein wrote:

In alt.talk.royalty Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
: The Highlander wrote:
:
:> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:> <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:
:
:
:>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
:>>news:fh0jjo$4gu$7@gallifrey.nk.ca...
:
:>>>In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
:
:>>>>Hal expressed precisely :
:
:>>>>>On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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 doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@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.

I'm talking about the Civil List.

Sacha

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Sacha » 17 nov 2007 02:44:02

On 17/11/07 01:33, in article fhlgch$c3u$1@mouse.otenet.gr, "Renia"
<renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
<snip>
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.'

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 17 nov 2007 08:37:41

"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
: <panther@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.

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

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 17 nov 2007 08:43:03

"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:vo-dnZVv2aak3aPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <royalistper...@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 fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
in itself was probably inevitable anyway.

Allan

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 nov 2007 08:58:07

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:jYw%i.8275$dN2.3208@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

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

True.

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 17 nov 2007 19:02:55

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
<conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:vo-dnZVv2aak3aPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <royalistper...@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 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.

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 18 nov 2007 01:53:06

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
<richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:

The Highlander wrote:

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.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 18 nov 2007 15:03:27

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 18 nov 2007 18:16:41

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:43:32 -0800 (PST), jellore@bigpond.com wrote:

On Nov 18, 11:53 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne

richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
The Highlander wrote:

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).

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 18 nov 2007 18:19:31

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
<Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 17, 1:02 pm, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"



conncoh...@noemail.com> wrote:

"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:vo-dnZVv2aak3aPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <royalistper...@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.
:
: 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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 nov 2007 18:47:47

VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.

Score one for Citizen Jimserac.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:6vs0k3lo8rtlttapqhlju2pu3bqsbeivk0@4ax.com...

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 02:03:03

The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large part,
as concerns these events.

DSH

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8568dbd1-f597-451f-8918-dde29713ad27@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.

Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.

Citizen Jimserac

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 19 nov 2007 08:25:32

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:47:47 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.

Don't you think it's time for you to die? Your usefulness has expired.
Score one for Citizen Jimserac.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:6vs0k3lo8rtlttapqhlju2pu3bqsbeivk0@4ax.com...

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like you're standing in more crap!
It is now all the way up to your head!

Citizen Jimserac

You're the expert!

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 19 nov 2007 08:27:32

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:22:44 -0800 (PST), Turenne
<richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:

The Highlander wrote:

Probably born in Croydon,

No, Northumberland

...living in Surbiton

No, Cheshire

..and doing your best to pass yourself off as middleclass.

And succeeding...

Richard L

In a nutshell, a nobody.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 13:41:31

Don't miss _The Queen_.

It's on DVD.

Helen Mirren -- Best Actress Academy Award.

DSH

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:75914ddc-1afd-402b-a9dc-f0602259722a@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 18, 8:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large
part, as concerns these events.

DSH

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8568dbd1-f597-451f-8918-dde29713ad27@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.

Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.

CitizenJimserac

I've not seen it and probably won't.

However, the two recent Elizaabeth films are, I've
been told, quite good, though of course there
are going to be alterations of historical fact.
I'll probably see those when an opportune
moment arises.

Cit. J.

James Hogg

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av James Hogg » 19 nov 2007 13:58:53

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:41:31 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Don't miss _The Queen_.

It's on DVD.

Helen Mirren -- Best Actress Academy Award.

Have you seen the new version of Lady Chatterley's Lover with that
wonderful performance by Jean-Louis Coulloc'h as the gamekeeper?

Tish

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 15:52:05

You're Welcome.

_The Queen_

Superior Film.

DSH

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:378b9594-9f72-4b52-932f-2bd95172e373@f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 19, 7:41 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Don't miss _The Queen_.

It's on DVD.

Helen Mirren -- Best Actress Academy Award.

DSH

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:75914ddc-1afd-402b-a9dc-f0602259722a@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 18, 8:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

The excellent film, _The Queen_ is allegedly quite accurate in large
part, as concerns these events.

DSH

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8568dbd1-f597-451f-8918-dde29713ad27@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

I will not repeat the name of the now deceased
royal family member that was the inspiration
for this conception so as not to
disturb those who dogmatically
continue their cherished
delusion that she was of absolutely
no socio-political importance whatsoever.

Neither shall I entertain thoughts regarding
the Queen's supposed political aloofness
in contradistinction to the reality
which, I suspect, is quite different
but which we, of course, are not privy.

CitizenJimserac

I've not seen it and probably won't.

However, the two recent Elizaabeth films are, I've
been told, quite good, though of course there
are going to be alterations of historical fact.
I'll probably see those when an opportune
moment arises.

Cit. J.

Oh, Helen Mirren is an oustanding actress,
perhaps I will view it.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 19 nov 2007 18:13:21

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 19 nov 2007 18:20:59

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 19 nov 2007 18:25:04

Robert Peffers wrote:

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...


"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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.)

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 19 nov 2007 18:25:32

William Black wrote:

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 19 nov 2007 18:35:04

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

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.

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 20 nov 2007 00:42:30

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 nov 2007 02:27:18

I think Renia is absolutely correct here.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgt8$tki$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

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.)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 nov 2007 02:55:58

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

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ia2dnaMfkNj8ddzanZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d@bt.com...

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:

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.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 nov 2007 03:01:55

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

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:Gbp0j.40775$9Y3.34649@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

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 :-)

William Earl Haskell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Earl Haskell » 20 nov 2007 06:22:24

Baldoni <baldoniXXV wrote:

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.

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 20 nov 2007 08:28:08

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Ger0j.729$Ig4.2576@eagle.america.net...
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



DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:Gbp0j.40775$9Y3.34649@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 nov 2007 08:46:14

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:c0w0j.41365$T8.10271@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
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

Nebulous

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Nebulous » 20 nov 2007 08:47:45

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
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

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 20 nov 2007 09:55:04

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:i9r0j.728$Ig4.2984@eagle.america.net...
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.

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 20 nov 2007 09:57:02

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aaqdnYpjNdCQddzanZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d@bt.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 20 nov 2007 10:14:04

William Black wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aaqdnYpjNdCQddzanZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d@bt.com...

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

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.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 20 nov 2007 11:47:31

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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



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

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 20 nov 2007 11:50:07

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:qmw0j.743$Ig4.3013@eagle.america.net...
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:c0w0j.41365$T8.10271@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

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

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 20 nov 2007 13:30:05

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:47 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...> "a.spencer3"
a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...



On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 20 nov 2007 15:37:02

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 20 nov 2007 16:55:51

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhur2n$qkv$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 20 nov 2007 17:01:01

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2cecf1e-7515-456b-a59c-43c9237e49b3@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 9:30 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 20 nov 2007 18:26:09

William Black wrote:
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2cecf1e-7515-456b-a59c-43c9237e49b3@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 20, 9:30 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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.


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.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 nov 2007 22:47:49

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 20 nov 2007 23:59:02

"CJ Buyers" <susuhanan@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e047c8aa-27f3-4fc9-a330-93f540409f3d@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 7:28 am, "allan connochie" <conncoh...@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,

Nah. Soap suds. I'll be washing the dishes.

Allan

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 21 nov 2007 00:02:02

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:qmw0j.743$Ig4.3013@eagle.america.net...
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:c0w0j.41365$T8.10271@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

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

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 00:17:03

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...


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?

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 00:29:12

"William Earl Haskell" <forban@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:47426f18$0$59473$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
Baldoni <baldoniXXV wrote:


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).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 00:50:29

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7Xy0j.413$8k2.310@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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



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

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 00:58:30

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:47 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...> "a.spencer3"
a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...



On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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

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).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 01:00:19

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhur2n$qkv$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 01:03:35

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2cecf1e-7515-456b-a59c-43c9237e49b3@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 9:30 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 01:09:10

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhv09l$e2t$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2cecf1e-7515-456b-a59c-43c9237e49b3@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 9:30 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 01:58:56

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhv59l$ssj$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
William Black wrote:

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2cecf1e-7515-456b-a59c-43c9237e49b3@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 20, 9:30 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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.


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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 02:21:03

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

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).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 02:26:17

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:qmw0j.743$Ig4.3013@eagle.america.net...
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:c0w0j.41365$T8.10271@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

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.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 02:30:03

Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

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.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 02:33:20

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhu78a$lge$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aaqdnYpjNdCQddzanZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d@bt.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 21 nov 2007 02:58:01

Robert Peffers wrote:
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhu78a$lge$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aaqdnYpjNdCQddzanZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d@bt.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
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

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 21 nov 2007 07:59:03

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:mfGdnWsCd5lxF97anZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com...

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.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 21 nov 2007 11:11:05

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhvprl$5qo$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...


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

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 21 nov 2007 12:17:12

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:PbednRY2-dRI797anZ2dnUVZ8qWhnZ2d@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7Xy0j.413$8k2.310@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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



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

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 21 nov 2007 12:20:46

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:w9WdnTUe1fEu6d7anZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d@bt.com...
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:47 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...> "a.spencer3"
a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message


news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...



On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net
wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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

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

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 21 nov 2007 12:24:35

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

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

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 13:50:28

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iwU0j.40915$9Y3.7798@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:w9WdnTUe1fEu6d7anZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d@bt.com...
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:47 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...> "a.spencer3"
a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message


news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...



On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net
wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
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

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



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).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 14:19:45

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
snip


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).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 14:41:02

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

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



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).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 14:43:52

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JiM0j.736$B97.374@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhu78a$lge$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aaqdnYpjNdCQddzanZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d@bt.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
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).

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»