Jump to content

Because The British Royal Family


DougRichards

Recommended Posts

I don't think that we really needed to hear as much, or indeed anything, about young Harry's sexual experiences.  At least Liz Hurley has decried those rumours and clearly stated that it was not her.  I mean, having a Prince and the King of Spin (Shane Warne) sharing a lover would have been a bit much for any tabloid.

There was another rumour going around some years ago that Harry's first experience was with someone very close to his then future step mother, but even that is really weird.

But there is little that isn't weird about the British Royal Family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 784
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well yes, at this point it probably is appropriate to compare him to the Kardashians.

It's not that I don't think the media bears some responsibility, it undoubtedly does. But rather like his mother, its difficult to have great sympathy for someone complaining about the media, who spends quite so much effort trying to get into it. And at least his mother, God bless her, was often considerably more classy how she did it. She spent far more time on good causes than whining about her misfortune.

If anyone wanted confirmation of what a deeply strange world in which we live, after his announcement of killing 25 Taliban, the Taliban announce they want to try him for war crimes...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/they-were-not-chess-pieces-senior-taliban-leader-hits-out-at-prince-harry-over-25-kills-12780942

 

 

 

 

Let them have him.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Princess" Harry seems to have some sort of issues.

After all, he was in military, which I do appreciate, but his break from "establishment" seems to show him as whiny little bitch.

While I don't doubt he has some real grievances, some of those seem to be...well...what spoiled brat would say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Princess Harry thinks he is war hero...but his behaviour makes him more like ginger bell-end...

Hollywood has a saying; the camera adds 10 pounds. For most people, it seems to subtract 10 IQ points. All too often we see the evolutionary sequence normie => celebrity => twat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I saw CBS morning news breathlessly hyping the Harry and Megan show, and how this would destroy the Royal Family, and just maybe Harry will be the next King since William and Kate are totally discredited!  The black female host was just heaving over how brave poor Megan is.  

So is it torches and pitchforks over in Jolly Old England attempting to get rid of the evil King Charles with the wicked stepmother?  Also the brother standing in the way of his innate greatness?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Murph said:

Well, I saw CBS morning news breathlessly hyping the Harry and Megan show, and how this would destroy the Royal Family, and just maybe Harry will be the next King since William and Kate are totally discredited!  The black female host was just heaving over how brave poor Megan is.  

So is it torches and pitchforks over in Jolly Old England attempting to get rid of the evil King Charles with the wicked stepmother?  Also the brother standing in the way of his innate greatness?

 

Well, the last two King Charles - the first and second didn't have a good reign. History may repeat itself with King Charles the Third  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles II was OK. The only thing he did wrong was not having a legitimate  heir and passed the throne onto his ill equipped brother.

Truth be told, we are thoroughly  bored with all of it. We have been hearing variations on these stories for over a decade. I knew he was a drunk, because I live near Highgrove and stories of his Hal like behaviour were known for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Charles II was OK. The only thing he did wrong was not having a legitimate  heir and passed the throne onto his ill equipped brother.

Truth be told, we are thoroughly  bored with all of it. We have been hearing variations on these stories for over a decade. I knew he was a drunk, because I live near Highgrove and stories of his Hal like behaviour were known for decades.

I can well imagine how sick and tired you must be of the antics of the Markle family business.  Charlie the Dos was not a bad king, and he was the original party animal.  I rather liked him as a general rule.  I am actually rooting for Charles III since I think he is being treated poorly by his whinging, pathetic second son.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Yeah ... I have to ask, is this "Telegraph" one of these "I saw Elvis while being abducted and probed by aliens" type of publications, or is everyone in the royal family simply a loon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Murph said:

I can well imagine how sick and tired you must be of the antics of the Markle family business.  Charlie the Dos was not a bad king, and he was the original party animal.  I rather liked him as a general rule.  I am actually rooting for Charles III since I think he is being treated poorly by his whinging, pathetic second son.    

He rebuilt London after it burned down. He guided the country through the Black Death. He put the Navy on a sound fiscal footing that was built on later. And most underratedly, he reopened the theatres. I would contend that quite a lot of the revival of Shakespere and the greatness of later playwrights owes a lot to Charles II. And yes, he was a fornicating bastard, and who doesnt like a bad boy, right? :D

The BBC dramatisation had it right, a Merry Monarch. And after the misery of Cromwells rule, that must have been very welcome.

Charles will do OK. Anyone who doubted that he could keep his mouth shut and make like his mother should have little doubt after going through this. Talk about Baptism of fire.

Harry was also taking a swipe at the Queen in his Mein Kampf. I swear he must see conspiracies under every shrubbery.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/queen-elizabeths-cryptic-response-prince-193523536.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Coldsteel said:

Yeah ... I have to ask, is this "Telegraph" one of these "I saw Elvis while being abducted and probed by aliens" type of publications, or is everyone in the royal family simply a loon?

You will find its part of their charm. Its sort of like 'Blandings', but without the pig.

Although they do have Andrew I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Telegraph used to be a rather staid, conservative-oriented broadsheet. It also pioneered free-to-view mainstream online news, but has a subscription model now.

I think that it's gone down the clickbait route (albeit firewalled) of most other media, exacerbated by the way the google news aggregator works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. So

... he thought at that moment that the Duchess “really is magic” ... It could have been a stupid superstition, but I didn’t care ... attracting them to a bloody death ... likely to die out in the coming decades because of a build-up of carcinogenic PCBs in their bloodstreams ... incapable of successfully reproducing ... selkies ... being forced into relationships with men ... Ayuverdic doctor, a traditional Hindu form of medicine ... the Duke resorted to further supernatural measures ... a lock of his dead mother’s hair ... tests displayed positive, the Duke writes, he thanked both his mother and the selkies.

Right.

OK so his dead mother, and/or possibly a selkie, got his mrs (who is basically Snow White but for seals not birds) magically preggers one night at an outdoors scottish concert. Are we really sure at this point that the PCBs in the nine remaining orcas haven't, you know, leached elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NickM said:

Well like my little pony says: friendship is magic

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Coldsteel said:

Yeah ... I have to ask, is this "Telegraph" one of these "I saw Elvis while being abducted and probed by aliens" type of publications, or is everyone in the royal family simply a loon?

Yes....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

He rebuilt London after it burned down. He guided the country through the Black Death. He put the Navy on a sound fiscal footing that was built on later. And most underratedly, he reopened the theatres. I would contend that quite a lot of the revival of Shakespere and the greatness of later playwrights owes a lot to Charles II. And yes, he was a fornicating bastard, and who doesnt like a bad boy, right? :D

The BBC dramatisation had it right, a Merry Monarch. And after the misery of Cromwells rule, that must have been very welcome.

Charles will do OK. Anyone who doubted that he could keep his mouth shut and make like his mother should have little doubt after going through this. Talk about Baptism of fire.

Harry was also taking a swipe at the Queen in his Mein Kampf. I swear he must see conspiracies under every shrubbery.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/queen-elizabeths-cryptic-response-prince-193523536.html

 

 

My favorite Professor in University like Charles II and she was appalled that anyone would be down on him for just doing what men in his century did, and apparently none of his mistresses complained that he was "mansplaining", or forcing them to bow to the "Patriarchy".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Murph said:

My favorite Professor in University like Charles II and she was appalled that anyone would be down on him for just doing what men in his century did, and apparently none of his mistresses complained that he was "mansplaining", or forcing them to bow to the "Patriarchy".  

As far as I am aware he treated them very well even on his deathbed 

King Charles died on 6 February 1685. James II, obeying his brother's deathbed wish, "Let not poor Nelly starve," eventually paid most of Gwyn's debts and gave her an annual pension of £1,500. He also paid off the mortgage on Gwyn's Nottinghamshire lodge at Bestwood, which remained in the Beauclerk family until 1940.[55] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell_Gwyn#Relationship_with_King_Charles_II

And in relation to what came before...well do you want Christmas outlawed

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/heritage-highlights/did-oliver-cromwell-really-ban-christmas

I mean that is not the worst of Cromwell's crap and his son was even worse 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Murph said:

My favorite Professor in University like Charles II and she was appalled that anyone would be down on him for just doing what men in his century did, and apparently none of his mistresses complained that he was "mansplaining", or forcing them to bow to the "Patriarchy".  

I dont believe Nell Gwyn ever was known to complain. :D

20 minutes ago, johnthejock said:

As far as I am aware he treated them very well even on his deathbed 

King Charles died on 6 February 1685. James II, obeying his brother's deathbed wish, "Let not poor Nelly starve," eventually paid most of Gwyn's debts and gave her an annual pension of £1,500. He also paid off the mortgage on Gwyn's Nottinghamshire lodge at Bestwood, which remained in the Beauclerk family until 1940.[55] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell_Gwyn#Relationship_with_King_Charles_II

And in relation to what came before...well do you want Christmas outlawed

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/heritage-highlights/did-oliver-cromwell-really-ban-christmas

I mean that is not the worst of Cromwell's crap and his son was even worse 

Ah, now thats a gent and thats a fact.

There is only one thing Ill hold against Charles II. He searched down all the people who had signed his fathers death warrant and had them excecuted. On the one hand yes, I get it, its his dad, and he was annoyed. But as far as healing rifts, it was not really the way to go, something belatedly he seems to have understood and stopped doing it. It did get a little excessive too, he actually had people in North America searching for the ones who had fled there.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/31/charles-killers-in-america-matthew-jenkinson-review

I idly wonder if this is what started the split that turned into independence just a hundred some years later. Maybe that sounds like a stretch, but Americans were actually hiding these guys out.

Ive always been conflicted on Cromwell. Yes, he was an utter bastard, and he was an English Farmer, whom are generally known as bastards.  On the other hand, he did more than anyone else to underline the Constitutional in Constitutional Monarchy. Though he never seems to have neglected actually writing it down. Bastard.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive always been conflicted on Cromwell. Yes, he was an utter bastard, and he was an English Farmer, whom are generally known as bastards.  On the other hand, he did more than anyone else to underline the Constitutional in Constitutional Monarchy. Though he never seems to have neglected actually writing it down. Bastard.

I've never been conflicted 41% loss of population in ireland over the times of the wars of the three kingdoms sort of says a lot to me....guess who did the most to reach thoat figure? The aftermath of Naesby, the mutilation, rape and murder of the welsh camp followers ... and you know a man by the company he keeps .... i.e. King Campbell only being one.  then there are the levellers and the diggers and what about the fifth monarchists ! 

The only reason that he did not proclaim himself king was the Army would have strung him up and rightly so! 

Yet, he is highly quotable my fave is not probably most people's idea of quotable but its the meaning and context that matters to me 

“Is it therefore infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”–Oliver Cromwell, letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland (3 August 1650)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...