On 03/05/15 13:24, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 12:41, Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/05/2015 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 12:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 09:27, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem
quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously
****ed
up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.


The vast majority of people in this country thought she was great
and
she
was extremely popular all over the world. Only the blind couldn't
see
that.

Only the ones that never met her.


Most people never met her, but they still thought she was great.

Most people correctly think that she was a slut.


Well I wasn't going to actually say that.

I am afraid she was pretty representative of a not very intelligent but
grasping and devious Sloane Ranger of that era.

Who after maturing would rather not have been married to Prince Charlie.

The fact he needed to rekindle his relationship with Camilla shortly
after the royal wedding speaks volumes.

Not Diana's fault if Charles prefers women to look like horses ;-)
It is if she married him expecting him to prefer Barbie plastic dolls
with out brains

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/15 14:03, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

[21 lines snipped]

Take out the dross and make newspapers print useful info rather than
dross about who's shagging who.

The dumbclucks wouldn't buy such a paper. That sort of individual never
watches or listens to news or reads anything other than dross
newspapers and magazines.

Fraid you're on to a loser there.

Quite so. Never forget that half the population has an IQ less than 100.

I think its actually more than that

Never confuse the mean with the median in a skewed distribution





--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/15 14:21, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 12:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 09:27, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem
quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously
****ed
up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.


The vast majority of people in this country thought she was great and
she
was extremely popular all over the world. Only the blind couldn't see
that.

Only the ones that never met her.


Most people never met her, but they still thought she was great.

Most people correctly think that she was a slut.


Well I wasn't going to actually say that.

I am afraid she was pretty representative of a not very intelligent but
grasping and devious Sloane Ranger of that era.

Who after maturing would rather not have been married to Prince Charlie.

The fact he needed to rekindle his relationship with Camilla shortly after
the royal wedding speaks volumes.

The relationship with Camilla did not need rekindling, he never stopped
shagging her.

Oh he did for a bit.

Royals are like that.





--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 14:21, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 12:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 09:27, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem
quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously
****ed
up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.


The vast majority of people in this country thought she was great
and
she
was extremely popular all over the world. Only the blind couldn't
see
that.

Only the ones that never met her.


Most people never met her, but they still thought she was great.

Most people correctly think that she was a slut.


Well I wasn't going to actually say that.

I am afraid she was pretty representative of a not very intelligent but
grasping and devious Sloane Ranger of that era.

Who after maturing would rather not have been married to Prince Charlie.

The fact he needed to rekindle his relationship with Camilla shortly
after
the royal wedding speaks volumes.

The relationship with Camilla did not need rekindling, he never stopped
shagging her.

Oh he did for a bit.

Nar.

Royals are like that.





--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare
story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. - Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/15 13:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

On 03/05/15 10:23, Tim Streater wrote:
60.67, -1.07

How was the horizontal rain?

Actually on that particular day it was brilliantly sunny. We were
visiting a bloke who runs a large ancestry database to consult about
SWMBO's antecedents who come from those isles. Running on about six or
seven MacPros.


Lucky - and very cool

On 03/05/2015 08:05, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2015 21:51:42 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Broadback scribbled


Oh, more tax waste then?


One retail expert has already estimated that the new princess will be
worth in the region of £150?million a year to the economy ? mainly as a
benefit to the fashion and beauty industry.

Much of which will leave the Country to pay for cheap imported Tat
G.Harman

I have no real objection to the monarchy (except possibly Jug ears).
However my objection is to the hangers on. Fatso's 2 daughters
contributed nothings to the the world yet have police protection while
they perform. It is a shame that the law was not changed earlier, Anne
would have made IMHO a good queen, her two boys seem trouble free,
certainly not as high maintenance as the two ugly sister.

In article , Broadback
wrote:
On 03/05/2015 08:05, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2015 21:51:42 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Broadback scribbled


Oh, more tax waste then?


One retail expert has already estimated that the new princess will be
worth in the region of £150?million a year to the economy ? mainly as
a benefit to the fashion and beauty industry.

Much of which will leave the Country to pay for cheap imported Tat
G.Harman

I have no real objection to the monarchy (except possibly Jug ears).
However my objection is to the hangers on. Fatso's 2 daughters
contributed nothings to the the world yet have police protection while
they perform. It is a shame that the law was not changed earlier, Anne
would have made IMHO a good queen,

[Snip]

Anne is younger than Charles so changing the law earlier wouldn't have made
any diffwerence.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , gareth
wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.
The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham
House.
All the others are owned by the British state.
But the British State is a monarchy.
A constitutional monarchy. Not the same thing.
Au contraire, for we Brits are condemned to be second-class citizens
compared
to the rest of Europe in that we can never aspire to be head of state, and
those
who kowtow to the infestation of monarchy by becoming MPs are obliged to
swear allegiance to that desperate disease.

Emigrate.

A rather silly rejoinder.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.

Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.

If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's
no two ways about it.

In article ,
gareth wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.

Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.

If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's no two ways about it.


Not in the version of "head of state" used in the UK, Responsibility of
this sort rests with the Prime Minister.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
gareth wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.

Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as
any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.

If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's no two ways about it.

Not in the version of "head of state" used in the UK, Responsibility of
this sort rests with the Prime Minister.

The PM reports to the monarch, and the monarch may depose him.

In a time when sexual peccadilloes of 30, 40 and 50 years ago on the
part of entertainers are being examined by the courts, there is no reason
not
to look at Lilibet Windsor's approval of all the warring actions taken in
her time.

Either you are the head, or you or not.

On 03/05/15 17:25, charles wrote:
In article ,
gareth wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.

Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.

If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's no two ways about it.


Not in the version of "head of state" used in the UK, Responsibility of
this sort rests with the Prime Minister.

hang the SOBs!


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/15 17:11, gareth wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.

Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.

If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's
no two ways about it.




What the hell are you smoking?

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 17:11, gareth wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.
Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as
any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.
If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's
no two ways about it.

What the hell are you smoking?

Argumentum ad hominem.

Stupid child.

PLONK!

On 03/05/15 09:32, gareth wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.

The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House.
All the others are owned by the British state.

But the British State is a monarchy.


There is a distinction to be drawn between 'the crown' i.e. the state,
and the private person who is the monarch.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 12:13, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 10:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 23:00, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-02,
wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2015 13:55:00 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
And if we emulated the French

What would you like to emulate about the French?

Their cheese.


The French are now preferring our English cheeses, like Cheddar.

BULL****.

British cheese makers: Why even France wants a bite of our cheese:
http://www.theguardian.com/small-bus...france-exports


Nothing like the original claim.

How British cheese took over the world (even the French love it):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddr...h-love-it.html


Again, nothing like the original claim.

British artisan cheese makers beat the French at their own game

You haven't provided any evidence of that.

Cheese making in the UK is at an all-time high with more varieties being
produced by artisans here than in France

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Brit...05488031821824

Again, nothing like the original claim.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 12:41, Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/05/2015 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 12:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 09:27, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 06:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/15 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 18:24, Fredxxx wrote:

Maybe, but I hate the idea of a president even more.

Me too.

Anyway, apart from Charlie boy, Princess Kate and Willie seem
quite
popular. Kate seems to have Diana's touch without the naivety.

Diana's touch? Like the Glove of Death? That was one seriously
****ed
up
female.

I met here once.
She was great.


The vast majority of people in this country thought she was great
and
she
was extremely popular all over the world. Only the blind couldn't
see
that.

Only the ones that never met her.


Most people never met her, but they still thought she was great.

Most people correctly think that she was a slut.


Well I wasn't going to actually say that.

I am afraid she was pretty representative of a not very intelligent but
grasping and devious Sloane Ranger of that era.

Who after maturing would rather not have been married to Prince Charlie.

The fact he needed to rekindle his relationship with Camilla shortly
after the royal wedding speaks volumes.

Not Diana's fault if Charles prefers women to look like horses ;-)

Prefers a woman with someone thing viable between the
ears who his stupid relatives wouldnt let him marry initially.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 12:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 12:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 10:20, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 22:31, alan_m wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:45, Bod wrote:

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more
money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

Is it 62p? Have you seen the amount security that accompanies a
Royal
when they turn up anywhere?

The same number of tourists would visit if we didn't have a Royal
Family. Chinese tourists appear to be bussed out on mass to
out-of-town
retail outlets on trading estates.

Hmm!
"A new report today reveals that Buckingham Palace is the "dream"
activity for people in 15 out of 19 countries surveyed by tourist
chiefs at Visit Britain, including Australians, Americans, the
Chinese, Italians and the Mexicans."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-tourists.html




Only because there isn't much else worth looking at for most.

That has to be a joke. We have some the best museums in the world,

Yes, but most tourists don’t go to Britain for those.

plus a plethora of stately homes, Kew gardens etc. The list goes on
and on.

What matters is what the tourists bother with.

I've just pointed them out for you.

No you didn’t. What matters is how many of them
bother to go to Britain for those, as opposed to
visiting them when they are there already.


You obviously missed this bit:

No I didn’t, I commented on it explicitly.

"A new report today reveals that Buckingham Palace is the "dream"
activity for people in 15 out of 19 countries surveyed by tourist
chiefs at Visit Britain, including Australians, Americans, the
Chinese, Italians and the Mexicans."

I'd moved on to comment on that other stuff you waved around.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 09:32, gareth wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.

The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham
House. All the others are owned by the British state.

But the British State is a monarchy.

You won't be happy until you are president. Anything less and you still
have someone with more than you telling you what to do.

No president tells anyone what to do in any decent modern democracy.

You're excluding France and the USA, then, where the President is Head
of State *and* Head of Government.

No, they dont tell anyone but their personal
servants and people like that what to do.

Which means that they very much *do* tell people what to do.

No they do not.

The Yanks copied, and then froze, the system we had back in 1776 or so,
except that they elect their King every four years.

The power the president has today is nothing like what the King had then.

Otherwise, it's quite similar to here in 1776,

Nothing like it in fact.

when the monarch was very much involved in the government.

Quite differently to how the president is today.

Our system has evolved considerably since then.

So have both of theirs.

One particular bifurcation point being when Victoria was persuaded by that
Cherman princeling she married, to stop interfering in politics by openly
preferring one party leader over another.

And no modern president has anything like the power she had in that regard.

They dont even get to decide who is prime minister or have the prime
minister waste his time visiting and grovelling every now and then.

On 03/05/15 19:04, gareth wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 17:11, gareth wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.
Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as
any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.
If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's
no two ways about it.

What the hell are you smoking?

Argumentum ad hominem.

Stupid child.


No, you're talking ********.

And I know you won't see this but whatever...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , gareth
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , gareth
wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.

The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham
House.
All the others are owned by the British state.

But the British State is a monarchy.

A constitutional monarchy. Not the same thing.

Au contraire, for we Brits are condemned to be second-class citizens
compared to the rest of Europe in that we can never aspire to be head
of state, and those who kowtow to the infestation of monarchy by
becoming MPs are obliged to swear allegiance to that desperate disease.

You want to be head of state?

No evidence that he does.

You must be completely hatstand.

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years

And managed fine without continuity before she showed up.

and may need to do so even more in the coming months.

Not a chance.

When she pegs it, with any luck Brian will abdicate immediately in favour
of William.

Not a chance, he's too much of a posturing fool for that.

And Bill is completely useless anyway.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 08:05, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2015 21:51:42 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Broadback scribbled


Oh, more tax waste then?


One retail expert has already estimated that the new princess will be
worth in the region of £150?million a year to the economy ? mainly as a
benefit to the fashion and beauty industry.

Much of which will leave the Country to pay for cheap imported Tat
G.Harman

I have no real objection to the monarchy (except possibly Jug ears).
However my objection is to the hangers on. Fatso's 2 daughters
contributed nothings to the the world yet have police protection while
they perform. It is a shame that the law was not changed earlier,

Wouldn’t have made any difference, she's younger than big ears.

Anne would have made IMHO a good queen,

If you want a chain smoking drunk for a queen.

her two boys seem trouble free,

But it's less clear if they would have been if she had become queen.

certainly not as high maintenance as the two ugly sister.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
gareth wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years and may need to do so
even more in the coming months. When she pegs it, with any luck Brian
will abdicate immediately in favour of William.

Lilibet Windsor has been responsible for as many wartime atrocities as
any
other dictator, and it is high time that she was arraigned as a war
criminal.

If you're the head of state, then you're the head of responsibility, and
there's no two ways about it.

Not in the version of "head of state" used in the UK, Responsibility of
this sort rests with the Prime Minister.

The PM reports to the monarch,

Not in the sense that the monarch decides what happens in wartime.

It was Blair that decided to get involved in Iraq, not Liz.

and the monarch may depose him.

Only in special circumstances.

In a time when sexual peccadilloes of 30, 40 and 50 years ago on the
part of entertainers are being examined by the courts, there is no reason
not to look at Lilibet Windsor's approval of all the warring actions taken
in her time.

She had no say on what happened in Kenya, Malaya, Iraq etc.

Either you are the head, or you or not.

It is nothing like as black and white as that.

"DJC" wrote in message ...
On 03/05/15 09:32, gareth wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.
The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham
House.
All the others are owned by the British state.
But the British State is a monarchy.
There is a distinction to be drawn between 'the crown' i.e. the state, and
the private person who is the monarch.

There is no distinction

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 09:32, gareth wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mr Pounder Esquire" writes:
Their castles, not our castles. Their palaces, not our palaces.

The only ones which are theirs are Balmoral Castle and Sandringham
House. All the others are owned by the British state.

But the British State is a monarchy.

You won't be happy until you are president. Anything less and you
still have someone with more than you telling you what to do.

No president tells anyone what to do in any decent modern democracy.

You're excluding France and the USA, then, where the President is Head
of State *and* Head of Government.

No, they dont tell anyone but their personal
servants and people like that what to do.

You obviously don't know how the French and US governments work.

I do actually.

And no modern president has anything like the power she had in that
regard.

They dont even get to decide who is prime minister or have the prime
minister waste his time visiting and grovelling every now and then.

The French President appoints the French Prime minister.

But doesnt get to appoint anyone he likes. And the
US president doesnt get to appoint any equivalent.

The President has *considerably* more power than, say, the President of
Germany (the power there resides with the Chancellor).

And the Irish president has very little power at all.

Why d'ye think it's always Hollande and Merkel? Because they hold the
power.

They dont actually. Its the parliaments that have the power.

The US president appoints all the cabinet members of the US government.
These have to be approved by Congress.

And he doesnt get to tell anyone much to do anything.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years

And managed fine without continuity before she showed up.

Ah, you mean you think there was no monarch before Brenda?

No, that there wasnt much continuity with those.

It was really only Vicky that provided much continuity similar to what Liz
has.

On 03/05/15 23:37, Simon Brown wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years

And managed fine without continuity before she showed up.

Ah, you mean you think there was no monarch before Brenda?

No, that there wasnt much continuity with those.

It was really only Vicky that provided much continuity similar to what
Liz has.

well given that expected life span is a lot longer these days, actually
that aint nothing special:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ength_of_reign


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 23:37, Simon Brown wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years

And managed fine without continuity before she showed up.

Ah, you mean you think there was no monarch before Brenda?

No, that there wasnt much continuity with those.

It was really only Vicky that provided much continuity similar to what
Liz has.

well given that expected life span is a lot longer these days, actually
that aint nothing special:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ength_of_reign

It isn't just the life span that matters, its also when they get to become
monarch.

Big ears doesnt have any chance of anything like what his mother managed.

On 03/05/2015 23:37, Simon Brown wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years

And managed fine without continuity before she showed up.

Ah, you mean you think there was no monarch before Brenda?

No, that there wasnt much continuity with those.

It was really only Vicky that provided much continuity similar to what
Liz has.

Ted didn't last very long.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 23:37, Simon Brown wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Brenda has provided continuity these 60 years

And managed fine without continuity before she showed up.

Ah, you mean you think there was no monarch before Brenda?

No, that there wasnt much continuity with those.

It was really only Vicky that provided much continuity similar to what
Liz has.

Ted didn't last very long.

Yeah, didnt even manage a year.

On 03/05/15 23:17, gareth wrote:

There is a distinction to be drawn between 'the crown' i.e. the state, and
the private person who is the monarch.

There is no distinction

Troll, plonk.

On 04/05/2015 09:49, DJC wrote:
On 03/05/15 23:17, gareth wrote:

There is a distinction to be drawn between 'the crown' i.e. the
state, and
the private person who is the monarch.

There is no distinction

Troll, plonk.

"The Queen does not herself judge any case nor does she play any part in
the judicial process."

"In the area of law, as in her other public actions, The Queen acts
solely on the advice of her Ministers. For example, although The Queen
appoints senior judges, she does so on the advice of the Prime Minister."

In effect, the Queen is merely symbolic.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Qu...ofJustice.aspx

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-05-04, Bod wrote:
On 04/05/2015 09:49, DJC wrote:
On 03/05/15 23:17, gareth wrote:
There is a distinction to be drawn between 'the crown' i.e. the
state, and
the private person who is the monarch.
There is no distinction
Troll, plonk.
"The Queen does not herself judge any case nor does she play any part in
the judicial process."
"In the area of law, as in her other public actions, The Queen acts
solely on the advice of her Ministers. For example, although The Queen
appoints senior judges, she does so on the advice of the Prime Minister."
In effect, the Queen is merely symbolic.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Qu...ofJustice.aspx

Well, she can symbolically manage without the Civil List, then. And pay
the back taxes from the Restoration forwards. And hand over all the Royal
Palaces to the NT (or English Heritage).

Those fools who prefer to elevate other families than their own have many
such
specious arguments, arguments which any right-thinking Brit rejects
out-of-hand as just so
much make-believe.

Insofar as those who ride the monarchy gravy train do make-believe that they
are somehow in a better position, try thinking about a similar state of
make-believe
and whenever you see the word, "royal", try substituting in your own mind
the
word, "masturbating" for a new perspective on reality.

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

You obviously don't know how the French and US governments work.

"Simon Brown" is actually Rod Speed, who lives in Australia and knows
**** all about anything.

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::