[News] Duke & Duchess of Sussex

[Cowfold Seagull]

Sorry, I agree with a lot of what you say but when it comes to royalty you're a complete sycophant. Prince Andrew probably put his penis in a child. He used mummy's £12m to make it go away. When the cost of the civil list rose by £15m the following year, you were very quick to make excuses and reassure everyone there was nothing to see here. Well there was.


We should be cutting off the heads of the whole lot of them. They're a stain on democracy and our quite unpleasant class system will never go away all the while they are at the top of the tree, with the Queen vetting every single law on the statute book to ensure it doesn't apply to her and her family, with Charles only paying tax if he wants to, and with Andrew shagging minors.

A couple of things you said in your post could be downright libellous, l'd be very careful what you say in here if l were you.

I don't much care for Andrew either, and agree he has been more than stupid by allowing himself to be taken in by Epstein and his wife, but l can't believe he went as far as you are stating.

 

[Questions]

A quick question.

If she annoys you so much, why do you open a thread which is so obviously about the Duke and Duchess?


I couldn’t give 2 hoots about the whole family, but I do love to read the ranting about 2 people who have absolutely zero impact on 99.9% of the population of these sceptered Isles.

I’m learning to not give a monkeys as I get older but I do enjoy the ranting, yes
Hansy keeps reiterating how little he cares and Simster wouldn’t have shagged the 17 year old blonde….. because she is a child.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A couple of things you said in your post could be downright libellous, l'd be very careful what you say in here if l were you.

I don't much care for Andrew either, and agree he has been more than stupid by allowing himself to be taken in by Epstein and his wife, but l can't believe he went as far as you are stating.

I agree. A 17 year old isn’t a child, even though there was a large age gap. He was very wrong but it isn’t paedophilia.
[MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION] please edit your post.

The civil list is called the Sovereign Grant from income from the Crown Estates.

 

[Questions]

……edit

 

[drew]

Sorry, I agree with a lot of what you say but when it comes to royalty you're a complete sycophant. Prince Andrew probably put his penis in a child. He used mummy's £12m to make it go away. When the cost of the civil list rose by £15m the following year, you were very quick to make excuses and reassure everyone there was nothing to see here. Well there was.


We should be cutting off the heads of the whole lot of them. They're a stain on democracy and our quite unpleasant class system will never go away all the while they are at the top of the tree, with the Queen vetting every single law on the statute book to ensure it doesn't apply to her and her family, with Charles only paying tax if he wants to, and with Andrew shagging minors.

Let's be honest, they are merely ceremonial heads of state. They have no power and, contrary to what you say, will sign any law that is placed before them.

If we were starting a fresh, I doubt many would advocate this as a system and whilst I would readily admit it is far from perfect, the thought that our head of state would be someone like Johnson with more power fills me with dread.

 

[drew]

The main thing I object to is the use of the Sussex title I would much prefer someone who actually lives in and a hives some success for the people of Sussex to hold the title which should also be not hereditary

I'm guessing the people of Norfolk feel the same!

 

[Simster]

Let's be honest, they are merely ceremonial heads of state. They have no power and, contrary to what you say, will sign any law that is placed before them.

If we were starting a fresh, I doubt many would advocate this as a system and whilst I would readily admit it is far from perfect, the thought that our head of state would be someone like Johnson with more power fills me with dread.

Let's be honest, you're wrong.

The Queen does not sign any law put in front of her, which is why the royal family are exempt from so many of them:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ge...-news/queen-exempt-more-160-laws-24498521.amp

Not democracy is it? Anyway, I'm derailing this thread so I'll bow out now.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

https://people.com/royals/meghan-ma...rica-tour-prince-harry-podcast-debut-episode/

Meghan Markle Reveals She Had to Continue Africa Tour Despite a Fire Breaking Out in Archie's Room

Meghan said everyone was "in tears" and "shaken" by the incident, but they had to leave for another scheduled engagement.

"I was like, 'Can you just tell people what happened?' And so much, I think, optically. The focus ends up being on how it looks instead of how it feels," she said. "And part of the humanizing and the breaking through of these labels and these archetypes and these boxes that we're put into is having some understanding on the human moments behind the scenes that people might not have any awareness of and to give each other a break. Because we did — we had to leave our baby."

She continued, "And even though we were being moved to another place afterwards, we still had to leave him and go do another official engagement."

That is just a jumble of words.

The future King is moving into a humble, for them cottage, no room for extras to live in. They will pay the going rent.

He and his wife understand the future. No hangers on and be their to represent their country.

The rest can duck off.

 

[MattBackHome]

Let's be honest, you're wrong.

The Queen does not sign any law put in front of her, which is why the royal family are exempt from so many of them:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ge...-news/queen-exempt-more-160-laws-24498521.amp

Not democracy is it? Anyway, I'm derailing this thread so I'll bow out now.

Shame, I thought your pegging bit was the high point of the thread to be honest. I hadn't heard that rumour and now it makes me think slightly more of our dauphin's dauphin.

It also bemuses me why people insist on getting so performatively titsy about Meghan.

 

[drew]

Let's be honest, you're wrong.

The Queen does not sign any law put in front of her, which is why the royal family are exempt from so many of them:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ge...-news/queen-exempt-more-160-laws-24498521.amp

Not democracy is it? Anyway, I'm derailing this thread so I'll bow out now.

Have you got any examples of a law that the Queen has refused to sign?

Edit: Just to help you out, the last law not to receive royal assent was the The Scottish Militia Bill, about 244 years before she came to the throne!!!!

She is exempt from speed restrictions when being driven by the Police and she was never required to pay taxes but voluntarily does since the mid 1990s..

I never said it was democratic but I would be fearful of the calibre of individual that would get elected to be head of state, especially if was based on how much money they could throw at their election and on whom the right wing media decided to back.

 

[The Clamp]

Let's be honest, they are merely ceremonial heads of state. They have no power and, contrary to what you say, will sign any law that is placed before them.

If we were starting a fresh, I doubt many would advocate this as a system and whilst I would readily admit it is far from perfect, the thought that our head of state would be someone like Johnson with more power fills me with dread.

You should have a look at some of the laws the queen has made sure don’t apply to the royals. I’m on way to work but if I get time later I’ll post some links.

She has a lot more influence than most people think. And she does not use it in our best interests.

 

[Icy Gull]

No rants about the Queen from me only respect

 

[The Clamp]

No rants from me but let’s have the facts straight.

 

[drew]

You should have a look at some of the laws the queen has made sure don’t apply to the royals. I’m on way to work but if I get time later I’ll post some links.

She has a lot more influence than most people think. And she does not use it in our best interests.

I'm aware that the royal household has negotiated exemptions but the fact remains that the Queen has never failed to sign her assent to a law put before her.

 

[The Clamp]

I'm aware that the royal household has negotiated exemptions but the fact remains that the Queen has never failed to sign her assent to a law put before her.

I didn’t comment on that. You claimed the royal family are “merely ceremonial heads of state”.

When in fact the Queen has far more influence than people think. That influence is mainly focussed on making sure her and her wretched family of sex pests, media whores and tax avoiders, get to amass and keep hold of wealth and assets that can’t be touched by the state.

She’s as bad as any of the world’s Philip Greens, manoeuvring around laws to protect her own interests.

And she’s got away with it for 70 years. Something to be investigated, not celebrated.

Get rid.

 

[The Clamp]

As If MM is the only royal to “use their position” to gain money. That is literally what the entire royal family exist for. It’s what they do. It’s all most of them do. Some people simply don’t like MM because she’s a woman of colour.

The same people can’t give the late Diana enough praise. Wonderful lady, they say. She was the people’s Princess, they say. She did far more to court the media than MM but she was white. So that’s okay.

 

[Icy Gull]

As If MM is the only royal to “use their position” to gain money. That is literally what the entire royal family exist for. It’s what they do. It’s all most of them do. Some people simply don’t like MM because she’s a woman of colour.

The same people can’t give the late Diana enough praise. Wonderful lady, they say. She was the people’s Princess, they say. She did far more to court the media than MM but she was white. So that’s okay.

Personally wasn’t a fan of Diana either but in her defence her life was somewhat fecked up by Wingnut carrying on with his first love from day one of their marriage. I had quite a bit of sympathy for her run to the media, I have none for Meghans, it’s all about money, ego and more fame imo.

 

[The Clamp]

Personally wasn’t a fan of Diana either but in her defence her life was somewhat fecked up by Wingnut carrying on with his first love from day one of their marriage. I had quite a bit of sympathy for her run to the media, I have none for Meghans

Ah, I thought there might be mitigating circumstances for the Queen of Hearts

 

[Icy Gull]

Ah, I thought there might be mitigating circumstances for the Queen of Hearts

Yep Charles behaved like a dick, doesn’t appear that Harry has done any more than be led by the nose. I could be very wrong

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm aware that the royal household has negotiated exemptions but the fact remains that the Queen has never failed to sign her assent to a law put before her.

And amendments it would seem before giving her consent...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

Not to mention being immune from laws that apply to the rest of us...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property