Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 16 2010, 12:31 PM

I see that William and Kate have announced their intention to marry next year. Let's hope that he is more commited to making it work than his father was. The way Charles conducted himself was a disgrace.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 16 2010, 12:50 PM

Quite interesting that West Berks has now produced a Prime Minister and a future Queen in the space of a year.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2010, 02:00 PM

Of course we will be getting another Public holiday to go with the Queens Diamond Jubilee Public Holiday on Tuesday the 5th June. At this rate we may catch up with France (NOT!)

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 06:21 PM

And what about Princess Diana?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 06:25 PM

I think to condemn people without all the facts is risking coming to a wrong conclusion.

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 06:56 PM

True, but who says they haven't got all the facts?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 16 2010, 06:57 PM

Always get William and Harry confused.

Which is the one that's Charlies and which is the one that's Hewitts? ( the one with his father's red hair)

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 07:19 PM

On the balance of probability: me.

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 08:07 PM

Good - after all, this is what these forums are about; challenging and learning.

Posted by: Strafin Nov 16 2010, 09:29 PM

Exactly!

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 10:03 PM

Princess Diana was no snow white, and if she was once upon a time, then she had drifted.

Posted by: Jayjay Nov 16 2010, 10:04 PM

Got nothing against the royals or the wedding, but am sick of it already and we have a least another six months to go.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 10:05 PM

This is the point I mean. How are we to really know what went on? 'Héll hath no fury', and all that.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2010, 10:11 PM

The landlord of the Bladebone will do well for a few months anyway!
It was packed out tonight as soon as the locals realised it was on South Today!

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 10:11 PM

Well, we can only go by what is reported, but that goes for everything. If you are saying we should only comment on hard provable facts then we wouldn’t comment on anything and all forums and newspapers would close down... then we’d all be bored and probably join a fascist party planning to dominate the world. Do you really want that Iommi? Well, do you? The other alterative is everybody writing crap and fictionalised rubbish (I suppose a bit like what we’ve already got... you can't win really, can you?).

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2010, 10:12 PM

What the hĕll is that font you are using??

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 10:17 PM

I'm not saying any of that. I'm just not going to jump to conclusions about people based on a media that makes money out of mischief and misery. Do we really know enough about the truth behind the Charles and Diana story? I doubt it.

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 10:23 PM

Do we actually care?

Assumptions are probably a lot better than the truth anyway.

If you didn’t jump to conclusions on this forum then there isn’t much point in being on here... apart from that you will probably end up being the odd one out.... and does odd suit you? OK, carry on (I never liked being part of a clique either).

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 10:24 PM

Lucida calligraphy it says. I hate conformity.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 10:32 PM

I've never thought that. Assumptions should only be made for the sake of expedience, I think.


Jumping to conclusions about people is often ugly, in my view.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 16 2010, 10:40 PM

Good grief! Even his font is irritating

Posted by: spartacus Nov 16 2010, 10:45 PM

Reuters have just announced that 'The Wedding' is due to take place at St Mary's church in Bucklebury village in August so that it doesn't clash with the village fete....... subject to there not being a funeral on the same day...


hmmm... Not entirely taken with the Garamond font but it might grow on me....

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 11:02 PM

But... not as irritating as you.

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 11:04 PM

They say everything grows on you if you give it time. Didn’t they say the same thing at Guantanamo bay?

Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2010, 11:06 PM

‘Thinking’ can be good... I like your thinking.








Exactly, so don’t do it my friend... I think too highly of you to see your reputation continually going down the pan.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 11:23 PM

You need not worry about me; warts and all.

Posted by: user23 Nov 17 2010, 07:44 AM

Doesn't anyone know why Prince William's last name seems to be Wales?

Surely it should be Windsor?

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 17 2010, 08:37 AM

I have always had a high regard for the Queen and a great deal of respect for the job she does.(Yes, I know about the perks). However I have been wholly disappointed with the generations that have followed on. I have found it al shabby and cheap. But now after listening to these two young people being very honest and sensible about their relationship and the challenges of the future I find myself being very happy about it. I for one wish them every happiness and look forward to seeing how they grow.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2010, 10:00 AM

I wonder if 'OK' will get the frist pictures

Seriously, I do hope that they have a happy day but really hope that the media lay off the story a bit. I'm bored already!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 17 2010, 10:22 AM

What ever happened to 'this is what I was told'

Posted by: Iommi Nov 17 2010, 10:46 AM

Agreed, but even that can be a work of fiction, some times. People often draw conclusions, despite the facts and fiction. I find people often 'interpret' information to suit their hunch, or belief. Not necessarily the other way round.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 17 2010, 10:56 AM

That is exactly what I meant - GMR often falls back on 'this is what I was told' when coroborating his claims. Quite a handy way as the source is un-verifiable. And yet he expects us to take it as gospel.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 17 2010, 11:01 AM

Very complicated this.
Prince Phillip was Greek but gave up his family name to become Mountbatten, his maternal name, before marrying Elizabeth.
William gets the Wales name from Charles who is the Prince of Wales.
The Royals were known as Sax-Coburg-Gotha but this was changed to Windsor in 1910.
It seems that there is a acceptance that the royals can adopt names and vacant titles providing it is constitutionally acceptable.
Really all of the chaps should be the Mountbatten boys.

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 17 2010, 12:44 PM

I knew of the German link but didn't know that was the name. What I do know and this is ironic but there was a German made bomber used in World War 1 call the Gotha that bombed parts of England, perhaps that's why they changed their name to Windsor.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 17 2010, 12:53 PM

That's exactly correct. The name was changed to avoid any problem with the British public at the time. Having a German king was a bit sensitive.
Kaiser Willhem of Germany was Queen Victoria's nephew who we were at war with in 1914.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 17 2010, 01:44 PM

And of course, Mountbatten itself was an Anglicisation (word?) of the German Battenberg.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 17 2010, 02:06 PM

Exactly, his mother Princess Allice of Batternburg, Hesse.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 17 2010, 02:49 PM

Well said - I share your sentiments

Posted by: Newbury Expat Nov 17 2010, 06:00 PM

Captain Darling: But I'm as British as Queen Victoria!

Captain Blackadder: So your father's German, you're half German and you married a German.

Posted by: noobree Nov 17 2010, 06:11 PM

Is this a re-run of the 1980s?

Tory government: check
Royal wedding: check
Young Irish people emigrating in droves: check

All we're missing is Duran Duran and a Falklands conflict, although ex senior naval officers are doing their best to provoke the latter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11723589

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 17 2010, 07:32 PM

Duran Duran's new single is due for release next month

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/EntertainmentNews.aspx?Section=2&Id=1479447&SM=1

Posted by: spartacus Nov 17 2010, 11:30 PM

We were ALSO at war with them in 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 194.............

Posted by: noobree Nov 18 2010, 05:34 AM

Oh my god, you're right: http://www.duranduran.com/wordpress/?page_id=14246 !

This is exactly like an episode of Life On Mars! Only difference is that instead of the increasingly insane Thatch in charge we have that nice Mr Cameron at the helm.

And here I have a confession to make: I actually quite like Cameron. Labour voter all my life until I moved to Newbury and started supporting the (as it turns out) bloody useless Libdems after I discovered that the local labour party was a joke, as Mr Garvie seems determined to confirm. Now I find myself actually liking a tory leader. How embarrassing!

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 18 2010, 08:48 AM

Yes, I think most of us probably knew that.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 18 2010, 10:43 AM

Kaiser Bill is not a them - we were only at war with him from 1914 until he abdicated and went into exile in 1918.

Posted by: Gumbo Nov 18 2010, 12:04 PM

Is her Diamond Jubilee not 2012? Silver was 1977, Golden was 2002.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 18 2010, 12:12 PM

Well if she was married to Phillip in 1952 which I think is correct then the Diamond anniversary is 60 years on, 2012.
Can you imagine what Phillip must be thinking contemplating the sort of diamond gift to buy her. I can just see him now looking in Earnest Jones window and counting his change.

Posted by: Gumbo Nov 18 2010, 12:33 PM

I don't think this is anything to do with her wedding anniversary, as she married in 1947 (63 years ago). As I understand it the anniversary is linked to when she bacame queen. Still I think Phil will have to get her a little something, maybe in these times though he will go to H Samuel rather than Ernest Jones.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2010, 07:18 PM

What a load of old monarchs!

Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2010, 07:36 PM

But love does make us worry

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2010, 07:38 PM

Do you hang your keys on the left or right?

Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2010, 07:47 PM

Is that a euphemism for something else?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2010, 07:49 PM

I wouldn't say euphemism; more an announcement.

Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2010, 08:18 PM

Engagement?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2010, 08:44 PM

Could we offer the Royal couple GMR as a wedding gift?

Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2010, 09:09 PM

Of course we could: Iommi

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2010, 09:38 PM

He was talking about offering you, but I think it would be mean to them.

Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2010, 09:41 PM

Of course it wouldn't be mean; in fact it would be a very nice present. At least they would have something nobody else has got.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2010, 09:43 PM

That's evidently not true, is it?

Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2010, 09:45 PM

Of course it is... who else would have me if they had me?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 19 2010, 10:58 AM

Does the Royal Houshold still have a need for a Court Fool?

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 19 2010, 11:03 AM

The "Your Vote" poll does not give the choice I need to vote.
Why is there not a "couldn't give a toss" button?

Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2010, 05:27 PM

Why? Do you want the job then? I must say you would be very well qualified for the task (in fact over qualified).

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 19 2010, 08:28 PM

Who?

Since Diana was not of Royal birth, she was not a princess except by virtue of marriage. Her correct form of address was Diana, Princess of Wales.

Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2010, 08:31 PM

She was still called Princess Diana though, whatever her correct title was.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 19 2010, 08:36 PM

Only by the tabloids and those too ignorant to know better

Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2010, 09:00 PM

Whether they were ignorant or not still doesn't change the fact she was called it. And besides, does it really matter? Unless you are a Royal loyalist.