They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

Broadback Wrote in message:
They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style


US taxpayers? Subsidies? We must be told! Goddamit etc etc
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 09/01/2020 12:10, Broadback wrote:
They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

and the rest of the royal family, are currently being thrown under the
bus to stop the press talking about something else happening at the end
of the month.

1) Self assessment tax returns
2) Leaving the EU
3) Windows 7
4) WW III

--
Adrian C

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 07:47:52 +0000, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

On 09/01/2020 12:10, Broadback wrote:
They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

and the rest of the royal family, are currently being thrown under the
bus to stop the press talking about something else happening at the end
of the month.

1) Self assessment tax returns 2) Leaving the EU 3) Windows 7 4) WW III

Just because one person gets assassinated, doesn't mean there will be a
world war.

Oh, wait...



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 09/01/2020 12:10, Broadback wrote:
They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

How much invisible earnings does the UK Royal family make for
our balance of payments ?.

I thought you lived in a tax haven, so you don't pay any
tax ??.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:31:21 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/01/2020 12:10, Broadback wrote:
They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

How much invisible earnings does the UK Royal family make for
our balance of payments ?.

I thought you lived in a tax haven, so you don't pay any
tax ??.

Er, I think you're getting mixed up with me. But I totally agree with
NP on this matter. I also find it extremely vexing when this pair are
described in the media as "senior royals." That term really only
properly applies to the Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne. Neither Harry
nor what'sername are royal, in fact. Harry is the fruit of another
man's loins and that man was a commoner. And giving them the dukedom
of Sussex - wtf? What connection have either of them got to the
county? They pay lip service and visit it once; doesn't mean a damn
thing. So they can relinquish those titles as well as pack in sucking
on the public teat for everything else AFAIC.
Like many others I knew Harry had made a giant chump of himself
getting hitched up to an American divorcee Hollywood actress. What
could possibly go wrong? Plenty still to come I reckon.
--

No deal? No problem! :-D

Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:31:21 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/01/2020 12:10, Broadback wrote:
They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

How much invisible earnings does the UK Royal family make for
our balance of payments ?.

I thought you lived in a tax haven, so you don't pay any
tax ??.

Er, I think you're getting mixed up with me. But I totally agree with
NP on this matter. I also find it extremely vexing when this pair are
described in the media as "senior royals." That term really only
properly applies to the Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne. Neither Harry
nor what'sername are royal, in fact. Harry is the fruit of another
man's loins and that man was a commoner.

Legally, for a very long time, a child belongs to the husband regardless
of genetics. The alternative would be too complicated and disruptive,
certainly before DNA.


And giving them the dukedom
of Sussex - wtf? What connection have either of them got to the
county? They pay lip service and visit it once; doesn't mean a damn
thing. So they can relinquish those titles as well as pack in sucking
on the public teat for everything else AFAIC.
Like many others I knew Harry had made a giant chump of himself
getting hitched up to an American divorcee Hollywood actress. What
could possibly go wrong? Plenty still to come I reckon.


--

Roger Hayter

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:24:22 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Legally, for a very long time, a child belongs to the husband regardless
of genetics. The alternative would be too complicated and disruptive,
certainly before DNA.

Indeed. Anyway, for many very good reasons that boy must be a grave
disappointment to Major Hewitt.
--

No deal? No problem! :-D

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:10:29 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

Yet another opportunity to test the bounds of human ire.
--

Mike

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:30:31 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:10:29 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

They are welcomed to go anywhere and do whatever they want, As long as
us taxpayers no longer subsidise their high life style

Yet another opportunity to test the bounds of human ire.

Harry and whatserface saying they're going to leave the Royal
Household but take all the family silver with them is akin to the UK
saying 'we're leaving the EU but we're going to continue to have a
rewarding and cordial relationship. In both cases, you need the
consent of the other party before you lay out how it's going to be.
Harry has been a *massive* chump and this woman has quite turned his
head.
cue-up 'when a man loves a woman' by Percy Sledge

--

No deal? No problem! :-D

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Er, I think you're getting mixed up with me. But I totally agree with
NP on this matter. I also find it extremely vexing when this pair are
described in the media as "senior royals." That term really only
properly applies to the Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne.

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider him
a senior royal? Senior as in important?

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider him
a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Reports say one of the reasons the royals are so ****ed off with this
week's developments is that they were planning on slimming down and
Harry/Meghan were going to be part of the cuts anyway. FFS if he's got
£30m in the bank, what's he worried about?

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 12:33:32 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

FFS if he's got
£30m in the bank, what's he worried about?

Nothing he *should* be; that much is clear.

--

No deal? No problem! :-D

On 11/01/2020 12:33, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider
him
a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6?Â* Not so much.

Reports say one of the reasons the royals are so ****ed off with this
week's developments is that they were planning on slimming down and
Harry/Meghan were going to be part of the cuts anyway.Â*Â* FFS if he's got
£30m in the bank, what's he worried about?


Surely Meghan has a bit of money making potential, with her Hollywood
connections. They could probably do a reality tv show, like The
Osbournes. The series finale could be Harry meeting his real dad.

If that wasn't to their taste, Harry could do an investigation series
into who murdered his mum. Probably good to get that one underway ASAP
before the main suspect pops off. A second series could investigate the
Epstein connection.

I know Gore Vidal said the royals were exceptionally boring people, but
I think, with the right writers, Harry could make a good fist of it.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 12:33:32 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider him
a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Number 2 surely, after Charles.

In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 12:33:32 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider
him a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Number 2 surely, after Charles.

who is #1, Andrew #2, Harry #3 (but the his brother had children)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider
him a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Eh? What has changed?

Reports say one of the reasons the royals are so ****ed off with this
week's developments is that they were planning on slimming down and
Harry/Meghan were going to be part of the cuts anyway. FFS if he's got
£30m in the bank, what's he worried about?

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

charles wrote:

Scott wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Number 2 surely, after Charles.

who is #1, Andrew #2, Harry #3 (but the his brother had children)

Charles is #1, William #2, William's sprogs #3,4,5, hence Harry is #6

Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Eh? What has changed?

His brother's kids displace him (even the female one now)

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 12:33:32 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would
consider him a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Number 2 surely, after Charles.

who is #1, Andrew #2, Harry #3 (but the his brother had children)

Don't think so. If Charles were to die before his mother, the next in line
would be Wills.

--
*Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Eh? What has changed?

His brother's kids displace him (even the female one now)

Your snipping removes the thread context.

I was replying to Doom who said Anne was more senior than Wills. While
that is obviously true in age, so are many others. In terms of succession,
she isn't.

--
*WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Your snipping removes the thread context.

I was replying to Doom who said Anne was more senior than Wills. While
that is obviously true in age, so are many others. In terms of succession,
she isn't

The names "Anne" or "Wills" didn't appear in your message I replied to...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider
him a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Eh? What has changed?

Bill's brats.

Reports say one of the reasons the royals are so ****ed off with this
week's developments is that they were planning on slimming down and
Harry/Meghan were going to be part of the cuts anyway. FFS if he's got
£30m in the bank, what's he worried about?

On 11/01/2020 13:40, charles wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 12:33:32 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would consider
him a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Number 2 surely, after Charles.

who is #1, Andrew #2, Harry #3 (but the his brother had children)

surely not. wills is #2, then his kids


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 03:42:49 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

03:42??? AGAIN? LMAO!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:10:27 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

Scott wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6? Not so much.

Number 2 surely, after Charles.

who is #1, Andrew #2, Harry #3 (but the his brother had children)

Charles is #1, William #2, William's sprogs #3,4,5, hence Harry is #6

And Beatrice is #8!!!



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 1/11/2020 2:10 PM, Bob Eager wrote:

Charles is #1, William #2, William's sprogs #3,4,5, hence Harry is #6

And Beatrice is #8!!!

Archie is #7, Andrew is #8, then Beatrice.

Unless the new guidelines which apply to William's daughter, also apply
retroactively to Anne and her kids.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:17:24 -0500, S Viemeister wrote:

On 1/11/2020 2:10 PM, Bob Eager wrote:

Charles is #1, William #2, William's sprogs #3,4,5, hence Harry is #6

And Beatrice is #8!!!

Archie is #7, Andrew is #8, then Beatrice.

Forgot Archie.

Unless the new guidelines which apply to William's daughter, also apply
retroactively to Anne and her kids.

No, she is in line after Edward and his children.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 11/01/2020 12:55, Pancho wrote:
On 11/01/2020 12:33, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Given William is in the direct line of succession, most would
consider him
a senior royal? Senior as in important?

When he was #3 maybe, but now he's #6?Â* Not so much.

Reports say one of the reasons the royals are so ****ed off with this
week's developments is that they were planning on slimming down and
Harry/Meghan were going to be part of the cuts anyway.Â*Â* FFS if he's
got £30m in the bank, what's he worried about?


Surely Meghan has a bit of money making potential, with her Hollywood
connections. They could probably do a reality tv show, like The
Osbournes. The series finale could be Harry meeting his real dad.

If that wasn't to their taste, Harry could do an investigation series
into who murdered his mum. Probably good to get that one underway ASAP
before the main suspect pops off. A second series could investigate the
Epstein connection.

I know Gore Vidal said the royals were exceptionally boring people, but
I think, with the right writers,


"Harry could make a good fist of it."

But could Megan take it and would enough people pay to watch that?


--
Adam

S Viemeister wrote:

Andrew is #8, then Beatrice.

Unless the new guidelines which apply to William's daughter, also apply
retroactively to Anne and her kids.

Don't think it does.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:37:52 +0000, ARW
wrote:


But could Megan take it and would enough people pay to watch that?

Apparently KY Jelly works wonders.
--

No deal? No problem! :-D

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 13:29:10 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

William is #2, and Harry was #3 until William and Kate started their
family, now 3 in number, thus relegating Harry to #6.

Kate's rumoured to be up the duff again, so he might end up #7. Maybe
that's why he's given up and wants to move abroad!
--

No deal? No problem! :-D

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:15:26 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I was replying to Doom who said Anne was more senior than Wills.

Er, no I didn't.
--

No deal? No problem! :-D

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:15:26 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I was replying to Doom who said Anne was more senior than Wills.

Er, no I didn't.

**************



From: Cursitor Doom
Subject: Those 2 royals
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:45
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

I also find it extremely vexing when this pair are
described in the media as "senior royals." That term really only
properly applies to the Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne.

**********

Both Wills and Harry are more senior than Anne in terms of accession.
Despite your hypothesis about the parentage of Harry.

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Cursitor Doom wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

William is #2, and Harry was #3 until William and Kate started
their family, now 3 in number, thus relegating Harry to #6.

Kate's rumoured to be up the duff again, so he might end up #7.
Maybe that's why he's given up and wants to move abroad!

More likely he's noticed how stupid the job has always
been for the minor royals who have no chance at all of
ever being the king. And is unlikely to actually be stupid
enough to want to be king either.,

On 12/01/2020 09:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

S Viemeister wrote:

Andrew is #8, then Beatrice.

Unless the new guidelines which apply to William's daughter, also
apply retroactively to Anne and her kids.

Don't think it does.

No, it only applies to recently-born girls, such as Charlotte.

Good job the main heirs are all male: or there'd be Pretenders who don't
hold with this women's lib malarky.

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:12:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

From: Cursitor Doom
Subject: Those 2 royals
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:45
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

I also find it extremely vexing when this pair are
described in the media as "senior royals." That term really only
properly applies to the Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne.

Ah, okay now I have the context I can see what you mean.


Both Wills and Harry are more senior than Anne in terms of accession.
Despite your hypothesis about the parentage of Harry.

Not my hypothesis, Dave. Pretty much an established fact!

--

No deal? No problem! :-D

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:26:11 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

04:26??? IOW, you have decided that you will be trolling ALL NIGHT LONG, yet
again! ****ing hilarious! LOL

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On 12/01/2020 19:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:12:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

From: Cursitor Doom
Subject: Those 2 royals
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:45
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

I also find it extremely vexing when this pair are
described in the media as "senior royals." That term really only
properly applies to the Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne.

Ah, okay now I have the context I can see what you mean.


Both Wills and Harry are more senior than Anne in terms of accession.
Despite your hypothesis about the parentage of Harry.

Not my hypothesis, Dave. Pretty much an established fact!

Fact?

Here's a few facts. Harry born Sep 1984 which, unless royals are indeed
lizards, means he was conceived around Christmas 1983.

Diana met Hewitt for the first time in Summer 1986.

Maybe they're time travelling lizards?

Still it's good for selling papers and keep conspiracy theorists happy.
Oh, and those who can't do maths.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:17:22 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:24:22 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Legally, for a very long time, a child belongs to the husband regardless
of genetics. The alternative would be too complicated and disruptive,
certainly before DNA.

Indeed. Anyway, for many very good reasons that boy must be a grave
disappointment to Major Hewitt.

They're both a grave disappointment to anyone.

Well, you're one of the sharpest observers on this group, Tim, so I
fear when you say that, you're probably right; certainly if not
already then in the near future anyway.

I see video on Twitter of Harry touting for Disney voiceovers for
Meghan. I read on the Beeb that they have or want to team up with Oprah
Winfrey, FFS. Meghan it seems has a "love of writing" and had a
"lifestyle blog where she shared beauty, fashion and travel tips". I
can see that these two are intellectual giants and we'll soon be
hanging on their every word. Give me strength.

It's ironic. They claim they want to give up and **** off to N.
America and it would be fantastic for the Royal Family and discerning
people the world over if they could just disappear into obscurity and
never be heard from again. But it ain't gonna happen.


--

No deal? No problem! :-D