Queen Elizabeth II

Mr Kobayashi said:
Incredibly ill thought out, was obvious she'd provoke mob justice, even more illogical to it front of her own business.



Disagree with the original point though, not sure what this woman's personal issue with the Queen is, so don't understand it or believe that behaviour to be justified. But I'll definitely be celebrating when either of the arseholes next door to us die.

Sometimes nasty people deserve a nasty response.
Click to expand...

What have they done to cause that reaction mate?
 
I didn’t think much of the TV saturation when it started last week until I happened upon a clip on CNN when I was channel hopping.

CNN are reporting on the Queen’s death with as much deference as the UK companies so it was all the more surprising when Christiane Amanpour commented that some of the televised appearances of the royal family were choreographed to ensure that the continuation of the monarchy was indelibly stamped on the British consciousness.

Whilst the Queen was still alive many - not all, ‘neutrals’ held the view that once she passed, that should be the end of the monarchy; basically, they had no interest in Charles and eventually William taking over.

The tidal wave of affection for Charles started as soon as he got out of the car when he arrived back at Buckingham Palace and greeted the public outside - and it has continued to swell ever since.

I had a lot of respect for the Queen and was 50/50 on Charles but found myself leaning towards ‘giving him a chance’ so to speak.

However, I will wait to see if he allows Andrew to keep his role of Councillor of State which allows him to stand in for the King in his absence.

It was one thing for the Queen to allow him to keep that role - after all, he was her favourite son and a mother’s love can be blind.

However, Charles should be under no illusion that the public’s renewed affection for the monarchy does not extend to Andrew - and it never should, given his nefarious connections to a sex offender after he had been convicted.

It will be interesting to see whether Andrew remains in the background or if he is allowed to creep back in, on a slow but carefully manipulated basis.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I thought they did.

I must have missed King Oscar to, although he may have had to abdicate when he mistook his partner having a shit with burglars.
Click to expand...
ha ha, let’s all hope that misogynistic fuckwit Pistorius stays in prison a very long time yet, although I’m sure he put in an appeal recently.
 
jitsubluedan said:
I didn’t think much of the TV saturation when it started last week until I happened upon a clip on CNN when I was channel hopping.

CNN are reporting on the Queen’s death with as much deference as the UK companies so it was all the more surprising when Christiane Amanpour commented that some of the televised appearances of the royal family were choreographed to ensure that the continuation of the monarchy was indelibly stamped on the British consciousness.

Whilst the Queen was still alive many - not all, ‘neutrals’ held the view that once she passed, that should be the end of the monarchy; basically, they had no interest in Charles and eventually William taking over.

The tidal wave of affection for Charles started as soon as he got out of the car when he arrived back at Buckingham Palace and greeted the public outside - and it has continued to swell ever since.

I had a lot of respect for the Queen and was 50/50 on Charles but found myself leaning towards ‘giving him a chance’ so to speak.

However, I will wait to see if he allows Andrew to keep his role of Councillor of State which allows him to stand in for the King in his absence.

It was one thing for the Queen to allow him to keep that role - after all, he was her favourite son and a mother’s love can be blind.

However, Charles should be under no illusion that the public’s renewed affection for the monarchy does not extend to Andrew - and it never should, given his nefarious connections to a sex offender after he had been convicted.

It will be interesting to see whether Andrew remains in the background or if he is allowed to creep back in, on a slow but carefully manipulated basis.
Click to expand...
My guess is the latter.
 
jitsubluedan said:
I didn’t think much of the TV saturation when it started last week until I happened upon a clip on CNN when I was channel hopping.

CNN are reporting on the Queen’s death with as much deference as the UK companies so it was all the more surprising when Christiane Amanpour commented that some of the televised appearances of the royal family were choreographed to ensure that the continuation of the monarchy was indelibly stamped on the British consciousness.

Whilst the Queen was still alive many - not all, ‘neutrals’ held the view that once she passed, that should be the end of the monarchy; basically, they had no interest in Charles and eventually William taking over.

The tidal wave of affection for Charles started as soon as he got out of the car when he arrived back at Buckingham Palace and greeted the public outside - and it has continued to swell ever since.

I had a lot of respect for the Queen and was 50/50 on Charles but found myself leaning towards ‘giving him a chance’ so to speak.

However, I will wait to see if he allows Andrew to keep his role of Councillor of State which allows him to stand in for the King in his absence.

It was one thing for the Queen to allow him to keep that role - after all, he was her favourite son and a mother’s love can be blind.

However, Charles should be under no illusion that the public’s renewed affection for the monarchy does not extend to Andrew - and it never should, given his nefarious connections to a sex offender after he had been convicted.

It will be interesting to see whether Andrew remains in the background or if he is allowed to creep back in, on a slow but carefully manipulated basis.
Click to expand...
Nah, won’t be back.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
What have they done to cause that reaction mate?
Click to expand...

Just being general cunts.The bloke once threatened to sue us for damage to his conservatory done by a leg of lamb (sort sold in pet stores), with no evidence and despite the fact the only dogs we had were miniature dachshunds the same size as that bone.

Even threatened he was going to get the dogs saliva DNA tested.

Could go on. Small minded people deserve a small minded reaction.

Aggressive little bloke who I've nicknamed Creacher (ugly snobbish house elf in Harry potter) and Gobbo (goblin in nodddy land) due to the facial resemblance.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Just being general cunts.The bloke once threatened to sue us for damage to his conservatory done by a leg of lamb (sort sold in pet stores), with no evidence and despite the fact the only dogs we had were miniature dachshunds the same size as that bone.

Even threatened he was going to get the dogs saliva DNA tested.

Could go on. Small minded people deserve a small minded reaction.

Aggressive little bloke who I've nicknamed Creacher (ugly snobbish house elf in Harry potter) and Gobbo (goblin in nodddy land) due to the facial resemblance.
Click to expand...

Damage done to his conservatory with a leg of lamb :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.