/rant
Never have I been so utterly disgusted with the british press in my entire life. What on earth gives some scummy sub editor the right to headline the Daily Sport tabloid with "OLD GITS TO WED".
What on earth gives Julie Birchill (writing for the Times) the ancestral and genetic knowledge to be able to refer to the Windsors as "a bunch of inbred, bone-headed knuckle draggers." As she rants on about the Divine right of kings being an insult to the protestant national church, she fails to realise that the monarchy do not claim that, nor is the monarch the actual head of the Church - instead the monarch is the supreme governer. Effectively therefore, the monarch's job is simply to constitutionally protect the church, and the monarch has now power over the Church.
I am all for freedom of speech, and the ability to express one's views, but is there really such a need to do it in such a crass, ignorant and ultimately ignorant way??
Whether you are a republican or a monarchist, pro or anti the union, the man wanted to marry C.P.B. from the start, and should have been allowed to do so. He isn't even going to get the satisfaction of being King for very long with the rate Elizabeth is still flying around at.
Yes they are in the public eye, yes it will be a public wedding, and yes there will be national commentary on everything involved, from flowers to dresses, but can we not refer to the future Princess Consort as having a face like "Iggy Pop's bum" in the national press, and accept the fact that all this should have been done from the start, and let them get on with it.
/rant
Sorry for all that but really needed to get it off my chest...
Don't forget they're all Germans too! ;) :devil:
(the British royal family changed their last name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917)
True, but then the last English king was back in the 1600s no??
QuoteOriginally posted by A Twig@Feb 11 2005, 05:35 PM
True, but then the last English king was back in the 1600s no??
[post=76984]Quoted post[/post]
The last truly English King of England was Harold in 1066!
No, the Tudors were English. The stuarts who came next were Scottish. After that in came the Germans, with the hanoverians, and s-c-g and Windsors
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Feb 11 2005, 05:36 PM
The last truly English King of England was Harold in 1066!
[post=76985]Quoted post[/post]
I thought that was Benny? Or is he the King of something else? ;)
What cracked me up is when the news said that all the american channels are running the story are saying "It is a very happy day for Britain"
Really?
I couldnt give a toss who marries who in that family, for all i care charlie can marry 1 of the corgi dogs....well hes nearly there.....
Waste of money the lot of em!!!!
Here endeth :lmfao:
Can't believe Charlie actually admitted to have an affair with .......THAT .....whilst he was married to Di !!!!!!!!!
:lmfao: :lmfao:
GODAWFUL UGLY !!!!!!!!!!! :blink:
QuoteOriginally posted by A Twig@Feb 11 2005, 05:44 PM
No, the Tudors were English. The stuarts who came next were Scottish. After that in came the Germans, with the hanoverians, and s-c-g and Windsors
[post=76986]Quoted post[/post]
The first Tudor King, Henry VII, descended from Edward III, descended from Edward II, descended from Edward I, descended from Henry III, descended from John, descended from Stephen, Descended from William the Conqueror (Quod Erat Demonstrandum)
Even Harolds lineage is dodgy as he was descended from Harald Bluetooth King of Denmark!
QuoteOriginally posted by MAD_ness@Feb 11 2005, 06:26 PM
Can't believe Charlie actually admitted to have an affair with .......THAT .....whilst he was married to Di !!!!!!!!!
:lmfao: :lmfao:
GODAWFUL UGLY !!!!!!!!!!! :blink:
[post=77003]Quoted post[/post]
i to that ..a face like a bosted orange :blink:
QuoteOriginally posted by MAD_ness@Feb 11 2005, 06:26 PM
Can't believe Charlie actually admitted to have an affair with .......THAT .....whilst he was married to Di !!!!!!!!!
:lmfao: :lmfao:
GODAWFUL UGLY !!!!!!!!!!! :blink:
[post=77003]Quoted post[/post]
Pot - kettle, kettle - pot. Perhaps she gives great h...... I mean looks aren't everything. If they were most of us would be up the Swanee. (except VincentVega of course. Damned fine looking chap! :winkiss: )
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman@Feb 11 2005, 07:13 PM
Pot - kettle, kettle - pot. Perhaps she gives great h...... I mean looks aren't everything. If they were most of us would be up the Swanee. (except VincentVega of course. Damned fine looking chap! :winkiss: )
[post=77011]Quoted post[/post]
:blush: :blush: oh stop it ron..
no go on keep it up :dribble:
QuoteOriginally posted by Vincentvega@Feb 11 2005, 07:10 PM
i to that ..a face like a bosted orange :blink:
[post=77009]Quoted post[/post]
A bosted orange? Naval, Seville, Jaffa............no, don't recall Bosteds. Do Sainsburys have them?
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman@Feb 11 2005, 07:15 PM
A bosted orange? Naval, Seville, Jaffa............no, don't recall Bosteds. Do Sainsburys have them?
[post=77015]Quoted post[/post]
its chesterfield term for burst ...and its more like a ruby red bosted orange
:blink:
QuoteOriginally posted by Vincentvega@Feb 11 2005, 07:14 PM
:blush: :blush: oh stop it ron..
no go on keep it up :dribble:
[post=77013]Quoted post[/post]
I can't get it up these days much less KEEP it up!
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman@Feb 11 2005, 07:16 PM
I can't get it up these days much less KEEP it up!
[post=77017]Quoted post[/post]
sorry to here that ron :whistle:
QuoteOriginally posted by Doorman@Feb 11 2005, 07:16 PM
I can't get it up these days much less KEEP it up!
[post=77017]Quoted post[/post]
:lmfao: :lmfao:
:blink:
Bringing the thread back to some sense of normality:
If person A announces their engagement to person B then it may warrant some congratulations from their compatriates. Nobody, of whichever family, should have to put up with the sniping from the piblic or press, netierh of whom knwo the first thing about them.
Let he who is innocent cast the first stone.........
I wish all couples the best of luck.
TL.
I didn't really care about anything to do with the Royal family before
care even less now !!!
;)
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Feb 11 2005, 06:46 PM
The first Tudor King, Henry VII, descended from Edward III, descended from Edward II, descended from Edward I, descended from Henry III, descended from John, descended from Stephen, Descended from William the Conqueror (Quod Erat Demonstrandum)
Even Harolds lineage is dodgy as he was descended from Harald Bluetooth King of Denmark!
[post=77008]Quoted post[/post]
Henry VII had no direct blood claim to the throne - as Burke's peerage puts it:
QuoteEarl of Richmond in s. to his father, 3 Nov 1456, King of England by conquest
Therefore not really related to Willy Conk AFAIK
Info on his father.
His father was Edmund Tudor, a Welshman of Welsh royal lineage, but that was not too important as far as his claim to the English throne went. What was important though was his heritage through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, a descendant of Edward III. This descent from King Edward was through his third son, John of Guant. John's third wife, Katherine Swynford had borne him several children as his mistress before he married her. The children born before the marriage were later legitmized, but barred from the succession. Margaret Beaufort was descended from one of the children born before the marriage of John and Katherine. The family Beaufort name being lost through the marriage, thus he is English, as his tie to the royal bloodline is by merit of an "in-law" status...
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Feb 11 2005, 06:46 PM
Even Harolds lineage is dodgy as he was descended from Harald Bluetooth King of Denmark!
[post=77008]Quoted post[/post]
Which obviously means that the Danes were overun by the Swedes (Vikings) so in fact Dr Sadako should be the next King of England....makes sense to me, he is a Doctor after all?!! <_< :D