Buckingham Palace emergency meeting?

The_Kew_Tour

Beefy78 wrote: »

Enjoy your enlightened flawless Republic lads.

Nobody said it aint, but we don't bow down to people who ancestors made Millions of people slaves and murdered innocent people for bit of land either.

Mrs OBumble

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Nobody said it aint, but we don't bow down to people who ancestors made Millions of people slaves and murdered innocent people for bit of land either.

Ahh, three quarters of ye still say you're Catholic.

And in Ireland that means thinking of bishops as princes of the Church and the pope as the king.

Beefy78

neverever1 wrote: »

Uh oh! We've got a fawner here!

Proud one.

Beefy78

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Nobody said it aint, but we don't bow down to people who ancestors made Millions of people slaves and murdered innocent people for bit of land either.

Good for you guy.

Stars and Stripes

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The guy is 95! It's an impressive retirement age.

Retire from what exactly? The old bast@rd has not done a days work in his life.

topper75

The Queen's husband is retired. God save the Queen's husband.

Or something like that.

The_Kew_Tour

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, three quarters of ye still say you're Catholic.

And in Ireland that means thinking of bishops as princes of the Church and the pope as the king.

again nobody is saying its flawless. hear outrage about New Maternity hospital?

Yourself isit

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, three quarters of ye still say you're Catholic.

And in Ireland that means thinking of bishops as princes of the Church and the pope as the king.

Ye? I thought you were a Galway bogger.

To defend catholicism a bishop is not really a prince in the normal sense, although kissing the ring etc was total nonsense.

neverever1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, three quarters of ye still say you're Catholic.

And in Ireland that means thinking of bishops as princes of the Church and the pope as the king.

Ohhhhhh no! Don't ever question our precious queen.

The_Kew_Tour

Beefy78 wrote: »

Good for you guy.

You can counter the argument if you like, but you don't seem to be able to.

neverever1

Beefy78 wrote: »

Proud one.

You have my pity.

Shurimgreat

He described himself best when he said he was the "World's most experienced plaque unveiler".

Nice work if you can get it.

Yourself isit

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Retire from what exactly? The old bast@rd has not done a days work in his life.

I personally would hate his non-job. 100s of appointments a year, the vast majority of them boring and worthy and dull.

blinding

Yourself isit wrote: »

I personally would hate his non-job. 100s of appointments a year, the vast majority of them boring and worthy and dull.

You should be allowed to shoot a few Peasants ........Pheasants,,,,Pheasants afterwards to unwind......;);)

Ragnar Lothbrok

“The King’s life is moving peacefully towards its close,” was the final notice issued by George V’s doctor, Lord Dawson, at 9.30pm on the night of 20 January 1936. Not long afterwards, Dawson injected the king with 750mg of morphine and a gram of cocaine – enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight.

What a pity that doctor isn't around today to give the whole scrounging lot of them the same treatment.

Shurimgreat

I think at this stage the UK is a republic in all but name. The monarchy are symbolic more than anything with little say over the daily running of the country.

Its a country where the people have far more rights and protections than alleged republics like North Korea and Syria. In fact many Republics around the world are anything but and are ruled at the brutal whim of a strongman who persecutes at will.

Hande hoche!

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think at this stage the UK is a republic in all but name. The monarchy are symbolic more than anything with little say over the daily running of the country.

Its a country where the people have far more rights and protections than alleged republics like North Korea and Syria. In fact many Republics around the world are anything but and are ruled at the brutal whim of a strongman who persecutes at will.

In the case of the latter, they often include the words democratic or people's in their official nomenclature.

FrancieBrady

Man who never worked a day in his life - retires.

ScumLord

Yourself isit wrote: »

To defend catholicism a bishop is not really a prince in the normal sense, although kissing the ring etc was total nonsense.

Aren't the Catholic churches roles carry on's from Roman religious positions, the pope is a title that goes way back, I think Caesar was the pope at one stage. They were positions of power given to elites, so the next best thing to royalty.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Not long afterwards, Dawson injected the king with 750mg of morphine and a gram of cocaine – enough to kill him twice over –

That's like breakfast for Charlie Sheen.

Fratton Fred

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

“The King’s life is moving peacefully towards its close,” was the final notice issued by George V’s doctor, Lord Dawson, at 9.30pm on the night of 20 January 1936. Not long afterwards, Dawson injected the king with 750mg of morphine and a gram of cocaine – enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight.

What a pity that doctor isn't around today to give the whole scrounging lot of them the same treatment.

classy :rolleyes:

seagull

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Man who never worked a day in his life - retires.

You might like to look up his military record some time.

LordSutch

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The guy is 95! It's an impressive retirement age.

Retire from what exactly? The old bast@rd has not done a days work in his life.

Such ignorance.

The_Kew_Tour

LordSutch wrote: »

Such ignorance.

go on....... tell us all about it.

the solider he was and all that

seamus

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Retire from what exactly? The old bast@rd has not done a days work in his life.

I'm certainly no fan of the royals, but I wouldn't trade my life for his.

Constantly under the media glare, every stupid comment of yours immortalised in lists of "top ten times when Prince Philip insulted everyone", practically every day of your life condensed into a routine of what you do, when you eat, sleep and sh1t? No opportunity to say, "Ah fnck it, I'm going to sit on the couch in my boxers, drink beer and watch Family Guy this evening".

I'll take anonymity, personal independence and just enough money to live thanks. No amount of ivory back scratchers and fancy homes can make up for a living a life that's not your own.

Jawgap

Yourself isit wrote: »

I personally would hate his non-job. 100s of appointments a year, the vast majority of them boring and worthy and dull.

Definitely, the opulence he/they live in is very much a gilded cage.....that they choose to remain in it always struck me as bizarre, almost as bizarre as the apparent willingness of the UK taxpayers to fund a good chunk of that lifestyle.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

“The King’s life is moving peacefully towards its close,” was the final notice issued by George V’s doctor, Lord Dawson, at 9.30pm on the night of 20 January 1936. Not long afterwards, Dawson injected the king with 750mg of morphine and a gram of cocaine – enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight.

What a pity that doctor isn't around today to give the whole scrounging lot of them the same treatment.

Spongers? Yes
Parasites? Yes
Scroungers? Yes
Winners of the lucky sperm club?

Deserving of euthanasia? Really? It's not like they are keeping themselves in that position by force of arms.....I'm guessing if the UK voted to become a republic tomorrow they'd toddle off without too much fuss........with the best wishes of President Blair, Major or Cameron echoing in their ears

Jawgap

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

go on....... tell us all about it.

the solider he was and all that

sailor actually.....

Philip joined the Navy as a cadet after leaving Gordonstoun School in 1939. In January 1941 he joined the battleship HMS Valiant in Alexandria and was in charge of its searchlight control during the night action off Cape Matapan, for which he was mentioned in dispatches. After serving aboard the Wallace, he was appointed first lieutenant of HMS Whelp, which was present in Tokyo Bay when the Japanese signed the surrender.

....who seems to have been reasonably well regarded by his men.....

Hargreaves was a yeoman aboard the destroyer HMS Wallace on which Philip, son of Prince Andrew of Greece, had been appointed first lieutenant - second-in-command - at the age of 21. In July 1943, engaged in the Allied landings in Sicily, the ship came under repeated bombardment at dead of night and its crew realised that they would probably lose their lives.

It was then Philip conjured up a plan to throw overboard a wooden raft with smoke floats that would create the illusion of debris ablaze on the water. As he hoped, the German plane was fooled into attacking the raft while the Wallace sailed to safety under cover of darkness.

Stars and Stripes

seagull wrote: »

You might like to look up his military record some time.

Just another UK family living entirely on welfare all their life :rolleyes:, who really cares about them apart from old dears in England and our unionist friends in the six counties with their "poor but still loyal" humbleness with their cheesy Charles and Diana wedding mugs etc

ohnonotgmail

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Just another UK family living entirely on welfare all their life :rolleyes:, who really cares about them apart from old dears in England and our unionist friends in the six counties with their "poor but still loyal" humbleness with their cheesy Charles and Diana wedding mugs etc

I'm sure they are devastated at your stinging critique. Devastated.

FrancieBrady

seagull wrote: »

You might like to look up his military record some time.

I did. Something he did for a year or two 70 years ago doesn't exactly constitute a 'working life'.
But hey, don't let me get in the way of the fawning and looking the other way.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did. Something he did for a year or two 70 years ago doesn't exactly constitute a 'working life'.
But hey, don't let me get in the way of the fawning and looking the other way.

i was wondering when you were going to show up.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i was wondering when you were going to show up.

Why do you do that? A bit odd, no?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why do you do that? A bit odd, no?

nothing odd about it.

ceadaoin.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did. Something he did for a year or two 70 years ago doesn't exactly constitute a 'working life'.
But hey, don't let me get in the way of the fawning and looking the other way.

In fairness, he did 200+ public engagements last year. More than some of the younger members of the royal family. You might not see it as a job but it's got to be tiring for a 94 year old.

Agricola

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont remember being told where to go and who to meet when i'm a tourist. You must go on different holidays to me.

No. I'm just not single!

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nothing odd about it.

You wonder 'when somebody (in particular) will turn up' on a public internet forum and it is nothing odd?

I beg to differ.

FrancieBrady

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In fairness, he did 200+ public engagements last year. More than some of the younger members of the royal family. You might not see it as a job but it's got to be tiring for a 94 year old.

Forgive me if I find being shunted around in luxury without having to organise a thing (or even having to remember to bring so much as a wallet with you) uninspiring or even worthy of pity.
He could have retired at 65 and the world would have spun merrily on.

I find the notion of royalty to be disgusting in this day and age to be perfectly frank. Sure, preserve the history of it and the buildings, but cosseting and privileging a whole plethora of people just because of who they are is obscene.

infogiver

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Man who never worked a day in his life - retires.

Do you do much work yourself francie?

infogiver

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Forgive me if I find being shunted around in luxury without having to organise a thing (or even having to remember to bring so much as a wallet with you) uninspiring or even worthy of pity.
He could have retired at 65 and the world would have spun merrily on.

I find the notion of royalty to be disgusting in this day and age to be perfectly frank. Sure, preserve the history of it and the buildings, but cosseting and privileging a whole plethora of people just because of who they are is obscene.

It's just as well you don't have to live there then or pay anything towards it or be affected in any way by the goings on of any Royal family anywhere.

Fratton Fred

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Just another UK family living entirely on welfare all their life :rolleyes:, who really cares about them apart from old dears in England and our unionist friends in the six counties with their "poor but still loyal" humbleness with their cheesy Charles and Diana wedding mugs etc

you do, it seems

FrancieBrady

infogiver wrote: »

It's just as well you don't have to live there then or pay anything towards it or be affected in any way by the goings on of any Royal family anywhere.

How do you know where I pay taxes or where I have lived?

And it's an irish forum and I will not have my opinion proscribed by those who want to fawn and doff, thank you very much.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know where I pay taxes or where I have lived?

And it's an irish forum and I will not have my opinion proscribed by those who want to fawn and doff, thank you very much.

Can you quote the post where this has been suggested?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can you quote the post where this has been suggested?

Why would 'my paying taxes or living under royalty' have anything to do with the points i made about the archaic and obscene syatem of 'royalty' in this day and age?
The poster is clearly trying to stop the debate on royalty developing by attacking/turning the spotlight on the poster.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would 'my paying taxes or living under royalty' have anything to do with the points i made about the archaic and obscene syatem of 'royalty' in this day and age?
The poster is clearly trying to stop the debate on royalty developing by attacking/turning the spotlight on the poster.

they are doing nothing of the sort. just trying to ascertain why you are so exercised by the existence of the british royalty.

riffmongous

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are doing nothing of the sort. just trying to ascertain why you are so exercised by the existence of the british royalty.

What sort of rational modern person wouldn't be? The whole concept is from another age

infogiver

Between the praying in the Dail and the fondness for Prince Philip the "triggering" here on AH today is at epic levels.
The outrage and offence is off the scale!!!

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are doing nothing of the sort. just trying to ascertain why you are so exercised by the existence of the british royalty.

You are free to see it as you want, I see it as an atempt to deflect away from any criticism of royalty.

As I say, it's an Irish forum with thousands of threads on thousands of subjects, no doubt we will have a fawner/defender of the realm on, claiming 'the irish are obsessed with etc etc etc ....yawn. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

riffmongous wrote: »

What sort of rational modern person wouldn't be? The whole concept is from another age

You dont think there are more important things for an irish person to be exercised over?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are free to see it as you want, I see it as an atempt to deflect away from any criticism of royalty.

As I say, it's an Irish forum with thousands of threads on thousands of subjects, no doubt we will have a fawner/defender of the realm on, claiming 'the irish are obsessed with etc etc etc ....yawn. :rolleyes:

ah the ad hom has come out. If you are vociferously condemning the british royalty you must be fawning over them. Thats a very black & white, almost childish, view of the world.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah the ad hom has come out. If you are vociferously condemning the british royalty you must be fawning over them. Thats a very black & white, almost childish, view of the world.

I think the notion of 'royalty' British or otherwise to be obscene in this day and age.

Correct: it is a very b/w opinion.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You dont think there are more important things for an irish person to be exercised over?

Ah, the 'obsession' implication. Didn't take long. :rolleyes: