|
Post by chefmate on Apr 23, 2010 13:53:21 GMT
It ain't just Spencer DNA, mouse..... Surely you've noticed that fly-boy Harry looks more like a certain soldier nah he is the image of his aunty. and one of his cousins ..and very much like earl spencer round the chin /jaw unless they were all playing away.....which really wouldnt come as any suprise given spencer history....harry in skin and looks and behaviour is a spencer pitty wills got the windsor hair... I noticed a long time ago he looks like his aunt but I still wonder about the parentage and I don't suppose dna will ever be done so everyone can know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 23, 2010 16:05:03 GMT
You can be as anti monarchy as you like; and there is certainly an argument in favour of republicanism . But the manner in which you approach the subject reveals that you are a repulsive little slug at heart; and when I say "little" I do not mean your stature!
Have a nice day!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 16:05:15 GMT
nah he is the image of his aunty. and one of his cousins ..and very much like earl spencer round the chin /jaw unless they were all playing away.....which really wouldnt come as any suprise given spencer history....harry in skin and looks and behaviour is a spencer pitty wills got the windsor hair... I noticed a long time ago he looks like his aunt but I still wonder about the parentage and I don't suppose dna will ever be done so everyone can know for sure. he is in the army..they will have his blood group etc in case of acidents..we of course will never know...but i dont thinlk EVEN dianna would have been that stupid...she wanted to be queen far too much and a by blow would have scuppered that even faster than affairs
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 23, 2010 17:04:38 GMT
You can be as anti monarchy as you like; and there is certainly an argument in favour of republicanism . But the manner in which you approach the subject reveals that you are a repulsive little slug at heart; and when I say "little" I do not mean your stature! Have a nice day! Ah, sinking to a certain person's level, I see Plus ca change. I wonder why you villify a family that has 7 kids and lives on benefits, yet support another family with umpteen hangers-on that lives on, er handouts. Now that is funny.
|
|
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Apr 23, 2010 20:56:45 GMT
QUOTE: you are a repulsive little slug at heart; and when I say "little" I do not mean your stature! now this kind of reply seems to help those who arent really in control of their emotions .. which is quite weak
|
|
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Apr 23, 2010 20:59:25 GMT
It ain't just Spencer DNA, mouse..... Surely you've noticed that fly-boy Harry looks more like a certain soldier nah he is the image of his aunty. and one of his cousins ..and very much like earl spencer round the chin /jaw unless they were all playing away.....which really wouldnt come as any suprise given spencer history....harry in skin and looks and behaviour is a spencer pitty wills got the windsor hair... quite frankly i think he looks kinda different than the other "royal" inbreds .. he looks like a young James Hewitt .. ever seen childhood pics of Hewitt??
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 23, 2010 21:11:06 GMT
I have no strong feelings on the monarchy because they exercise no political power to any significant degree (and on the whole what little influence they do have is for the good.)
On the other hand I am profoundly opposed to all forms of authority and if I dared to express myself more openly would undoubtedly come under considerable attack.
Government, large corporations, and similar types of criminal enterprise are the problems.
The royal family is simply an anachronistic irrelevance - about as relevant to the modern world as the nation state, the European Union or the United Nations (or, as I prefer to refer to it, the Untied Nations.)
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 23, 2010 21:14:11 GMT
nah he is the image of his aunty. and one of his cousins ..and very much like earl spencer round the chin /jaw unless they were all playing away.....which really wouldnt come as any suprise given spencer history....harry in skin and looks and behaviour is a spencer pitty wills got the windsor hair... quite frankly i think he looks kinda different than the other "royal" inbreds .. he looks like a young James Hewitt .. ever seen childhood pics of Hewitt?? Bingo!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 21:20:15 GMT
nah he is the image of his aunty. and one of his cousins ..and very much like earl spencer round the chin /jaw unless they were all playing away.....which really wouldnt come as any suprise given spencer history....harry in skin and looks and behaviour is a spencer pitty wills got the windsor hair... quite frankly i think he looks kinda different than the other "royal" inbreds .. he looks like a young James Hewitt .. ever seen childhood pics of Hewitt?? i havent seen pics of hewitt but have of the spencers aunts..cousins etc strong likeness the york girls also look quite different as do the phillips two...and suprising so does edwards son although the daughter looks remarkably like the queen..so exactly which inbreds you refer to which look alike i really dont know....
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 21:23:34 GMT
depends really what you call hand outs ...they show a proffit and turn a proffit still preferable to blair brown etc etc and others on offer..i mean can you imagine harpic as our top representative...ughghghgh
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 23, 2010 21:23:48 GMT
I have no strong feelings on the monarchy because they exercise no political power to any significant degree (and on the whole what little influence they do have is for the good.) On the other hand I am profoundly opposed to all forms of authority and if I dared to express myself more openly would undoubtedly come under considerable attack. Government, large corporations, and similar types of criminal enterprise are the problems. The royal family is simply an anachronistic irrelevance - about as relevant to the modern world as the nation state, the European Union or the United Nations (or, as I prefer to refer to it, the Untied Nations.) I can see a reason to keep them on in a ceremonial function, but when Parliament went badly off the rails it was the duty of a head of state to act on behalf of the people. She can't; its Crown against State. Apart from 3 Labour sacrificial lambs, the establishment is now off the hook and you can forget all this talk of reform, its just that; talk. Once the election is out of the way it will be business as close to usual as they can get away with.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 23, 2010 21:51:24 GMT
depends really what you call hand outs ...they show a proffit and turn a proffit still preferable to blair brown etc etc and others on offer..i mean can you imagine harpic as our top representative...ughghghgh Yes mouse, they really are a chip off the old block Prince Charles makes £43 million profit from property deals In the last Budget the Treasury granted Prince Charles tax relief worth hundreds of thousands of pounds by saying he could deduct his sons’ official expenses from his tax return. The expenses are to fund Princes William and Harry’s newly created office at St James’ Palace, which has six staff members to organise the princes’ public duties. The office is paid for from their father’s £16 million-a-year income from the Duchy of Cornwall estate. PRINCE Charles faces new scrutiny over his accounts as MPs demand to know why his main income benefited from tax exemptions. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has written to the Treasury questioning why the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster do not pay corporation or capital gains tax. When Charles didn't like a "modernist" development near London's St Paul's cathedral in 2005.... Mike Hussey, then the London director of Land Securities, told Britain's Guardian newspaper: "He wrote to me at the time we selected Nouvel and suggested we should meet his preferred architects. "He hadn't seen the scheme, he just complained about the selection of the architect. He didn't want a modernist." Hussey says Charles was concerned the chosen design wouldn't "allow St Paul's to shine bright". Sunand Prasad, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, branded Charles' 2005 intervention "brazen" and called for him to "step back" from the architectural sphere. "The prince has an unusual amount of power which, under our constitution, is not designed to be used to interfere with the running of everyday affairs in this country for the simple reason that the prince is not accountable. This is a dangerous course to go down. There was an open competition for this building and then along comes somebody with special powers seeking to influence the outcome in a blatant intervention." It's wasn't the first time Charles caused controversy in the architecture world. He was accused of "single handedly destroying" the Chelsea Barracks development project after he wrote a letter to the Qatari royal family - which owns the site - to complain about the "modernist" look of the proposed buildings. His actions led to the £3 billion proposals being abandoned, just days before it was due to be considered by Westminster council. The general aim is... Qatari Diar, the state of Qatar's property investment arm, owns Project Blue (Guernsey) Limited (PBGL), the company which bought the barracks site between Sloane Square and the River Thames. A PBGL spokesman said it was now working with a range of stakeholders to find a new design including the Prince's planning and design charity the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment. Now there's a surprise. One can have one's cake and eat it.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 22:13:24 GMT
as i said before i really dont care enogh much to really argue the toss one way or another...but prefer the queen to etc etc etc i would very much like to blow the whole sorry governing body sky high...replace with what i know not....BUT the system and systems around the world stink to high heaven...too many people..too much unfairness and too man y see the people as pawns in their personal greater game
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 23, 2010 22:19:06 GMT
as i said before i really dont care enogh much to really argue the toss one way or another...but prefer the queen to etc etc etc i would very much like to blow the whole sorry governing body sky high...replace with what i know not....BUT the system and systems around the world stink to high heaven...too many people..too much unfairness and too man y see the people as pawns in their personal greater game Its when she's gone that counts, she could just be the last.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 22:37:42 GMT
she could indeed.....a bit like the population.. i cant see the relevence the English monarchy and English history to the changed population of England and i cannot see the relevence of the British monarchy and united history to a Britain that has been deliberately fractured and fragmented and its whole population/social/religious/historical demographics changed beyond beliefe i think i have become weary of it all...the lies..the sell outs...the social enginering..the dishonesty......it all gets too much
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 24, 2010 14:09:40 GMT
You can be as anti monarchy as you like; and there is certainly an argument in favour of republicanism . But the manner in which you approach the subject reveals that you are a repulsive little slug at heart; and when I say "little" I do not mean your stature! Have a nice day! Ah, sinking to a certain person's level, I see Plus ca change. I wonder why you villify a family that has 7 kids and lives on benefits, yet support another family with umpteen hangers-on that lives on, er handouts. Now that is funny. Not like you to miss the point, Fretty. I am not supporting the Royal Family. In fact my sympathies are towards republicanism (although the manner in which we would replace the Queen as head of state with some political appointee is far from clear). I was vilifying the clown who thought it funny to say "F*ck the queen". And I make no apologies for that.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 24, 2010 14:23:35 GMT
Ah, sinking to a certain person's level, I see Plus ca change. I wonder why you villify a family that has 7 kids and lives on benefits, yet support another family with umpteen hangers-on that lives on, er handouts. Now that is funny. Not like you to miss the point, Fretty. I am not supporting the Royal Family. In fact my sympathies are towards republicanism (although the manner in which we would replace the Queen as head of state with some political appointee is far from clear). I was vilifying the clown who thought it funny to say "F*ck the queen". And I make no apologies for that. Not like me at all, Ben. The manner of restructuring the system of democracy in this country is a blank sheet of paper at this point, but I personally favour a written constitution - approved by referendum - and replacing the Human rights act with a bill of rights based on said constitution. Everything must change, you can't tinker here and there because of the knock-on of consequences. I thought it could have been pitched a little less provocatively. Long live the republic!
|
|
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Apr 24, 2010 20:44:10 GMT
Ah, sinking to a certain person's level, I see Plus ca change. I wonder why you villify a family that has 7 kids and lives on benefits, yet support another family with umpteen hangers-on that lives on, er handouts. Now that is funny. Not like you to miss the point, Fretty. I am not supporting the Royal Family. In fact my sympathies are towards republicanism (although the manner in which we would replace the Queen as head of state with some political appointee is far from clear). I was vilifying the clown who thought it funny to say "F*ck the queen". And I make no apologies for that. that clown was me ... thats what i think about her .. my opinion and i use to voice my opinion .. yours is obviously a different one which is your right .. so why would you even consider an apology .. i didnt feel offended .. my previous comment was a general one.. i myself dont care for criticism unless it comes from personal friends or family ..
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 25, 2010 13:24:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Apr 25, 2010 16:14:33 GMT
|
|