|
The Queen's speech
I always find it interesting to compare the Queen's speech with that of the Spanish king.
Hers was short, barely 6 minutes, and talked of family values, the simple things that children can teach us and of course the baby in Bethlehem. His was long, almost 12½ minutes, devoid of anything meaningful and really could have been written for almost any European Republic. I just hope Felipe listens and learns. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by Retired in Euskadi
(Post 13083833)
I always find it interesting to compare the Queen's speech with that of the Spanish king.
Hers was short, barely 6 minutes, and talked of family values, the simple things that children can teach us and of course the baby in Bethlehem. His was long, almost 12½ minutes, devoid of anything meaningful and really could have been written for almost any European Republic. I just hope Felipe listens and learns. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by Retired in Euskadi
(Post 13083833)
I always find it interesting to compare the Queen's speech with that of the Spanish king.
Hers was short, barely 6 minutes, and talked of family values, the simple things that children can teach us and of course the baby in Bethlehem. His was long, almost 12½ minutes, devoid of anything meaningful and really could have been written for almost any European Republic. I just hope Felipe listens and learns. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by Chipmonk
(Post 13083839)
I thought Felipe's speech was modern and extremely diplomatic. Even the main parties applauded it. It didnt rely on emotion and sentiment but firm allegiance to the constitution with an indirect criticism of his father, sister and brother-in-law. The Queen's speech for me just seemed like an extension of Netflix's The Crown.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
She's doing something right, she's still very very popular in international polls as are all the working Royals, with William and Kate shooting up in popularity. Her speech we concise and well delivered as usual. Given the year she's had with loosing Phillip and the appalling behaviour of Meghan and Harry Windsor its a wonder she's still with us.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by bob_bob
(Post 13083925)
She's doing something right, she's still very very popular in international polls as are all the working Royals, with William and Kate shooting up in popularity. Her speech we concise and well delivered as usual. Given the year she's had with loosing Phillip and the appalling behaviour of Meghan and Harry Windsor its a wonder she's still with us.
Quite. I rate her. We both thought she had lost far too much weight though. |
Re: The Queen's speech
She's had medical issues recently so any weight loss may well be due to a change in diet/eating habits; we know she's had to cut down on alcohol so thats a chunk of calories she's lost per day and the quacks will have ordered a reduction in fats so there goes the afternoon cream cakes etc
At her age she could go to bed and just not wake up but I sincerely hope she sees it through the celebrations next year. Harry and Meghan did so much harm these last months but in a way positive things have come from that, Charles and Camilla have stepped up to the plate and William and Kate are shinning through, all of them have raised their public profiles and the public are far more aware of the the work they do...never thought we'd see the Queen having video/zoom calls, its great stuff. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Could someone tell me why so many English hate Harry and his wife? I haven't lived in the UK for more than 20 years and don't understand why Harry has gone from being a war hero in Afghanistan to a hate figure. Thanks.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084281)
Could someone tell me why so many English hate Harry and his wife? I haven't lived in the UK for more than 20 years and don't understand why Harry has gone from being a war hero in Afghanistan to a hate figure. Thanks.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by CamemBert
(Post 13084414)
Is that a serious question? It has a lot to do with his self-obsessed public emoting and his attacks on his family. Oh, and the fake do-gooding while he seeks lucrative contracts wherever he can. There really isn’t much to like. I suspect the dislike of Harry also extends to the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish. I won’t comment on the “war hero”.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by bob_bob
(Post 13083925)
She's doing something right, she's still very very popular in international polls as are all the working Royals, with William and Kate shooting up in popularity. Her speech we concise and well delivered as usual. Given the year she's had with loosing Phillip and the appalling behaviour of Meghan and Harry Windsor its a wonder she's still with us.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084281)
Could someone tell me why so many English hate Harry and his wife? I haven't lived in the UK for more than 20 years and don't understand why Harry has gone from being a war hero in Afghanistan to a hate figure. Thanks.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084482)
It was a serious question. I left the UK more than 20 years ago and the last time I read anything in the English press about Harry he was being lauded for fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan. I was wondering why he had suddenly (or not so suddenly as it seems) he had become such a hate figure. As for seeking lucrative contracts, I'm sure Charles and Andrew have done plenty of that but don't get the same criticism. But I could be wrong!
|
Re: The Queen's speech
I do read the English press, but I only scan it for the politics, the royal family never had much interest for me. Obviously I've seen some of the hate comments, I just never understood why they appeared or could be bothered to find out, until now. When there's a paedophile (or good friend of one) in the family I wonder why most of the criticism goes on Harry. I'll leave it there, I think I've got the message.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Seems to be problem with the British press more than anything else...
Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084507)
I do read the English press, but I only scan it for the politics, the royal family never had much interest for me. Obviously I've seen some of the hate comments, I just never understood why they appeared or could be bothered to find out, until now. When there's a paedophile (or good friend of one) in the family I wonder why most of the criticism goes on Harry. I'll leave it there, I think I've got the message.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by DLC
(Post 13084508)
Seems to be problem with the British press more than anything else...
Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by CamemBert
(Post 13084515)
It wasn’t the British press that forced the poor darlings to flog Sussex Royal socks and erasers, though, was it?
Queen forced to sell own socks in ‘bizarre’ scheme to ‘plug’ giant Royal Family cash hole There's a whole ecosystem of nonsense that's sprung up around the Royal Family because it gets readers/viewers/clicks. Probably best to avoid it all. By the way, if anyone here wants my socks I'll sell them for half-price, 35 quid. |
Re: The Queen's speech
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by CamemBert
(Post 13084514)
The title of this thread makes it clear that it’s about the royal family.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084590)
That's why I asked my question here. If there hadn't been a thread about the royal family I wouldn't have bothered.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by CamemBert
(Post 13084599)
Except that you say you skip press articles on the royal family because you’re not interested. Just seems strange to wait all those years for this thread.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084281)
Could someone tell me why so many English hate Harry and his wife? I haven't lived in the UK for more than 20 years and don't understand why Harry has gone from being a war hero in Afghanistan to a hate figure. Thanks.
They slam the family and yet live off their titles (who'd employ plain old Harry and Meghan Windsor) and have now being shown to be liars to the media and the British people. War hero ? LOL He was second in command of a gun ship and when he flew he had to be protected which often meant men on the ground actually fighting lost air cover, plus he had a special forces close protection ten in camp so no, not a hero and not popular with some veterans. He vowed to spend his life promoting and fighting for the well being of veterans and yet gave more money in one week to Afghan refugees than he's ever put in a veteran charity box. So he and his wife are as popular as a fart in a space suit and I hope you can now see why. |
Re: The Queen's speech
I was going to leave this but I do remember getting the impression that the english press used to love Harry for his service in Afghanistan. Now he's unpopular all that seems to be forgotten. How fickle are the monarchist supporters! I've just seen the verdict in New York about Andrew's good friend Ghislaine Maxwell. I'm sure the most corrupt of the royal family is quaking in his boots atm. If he's got nothing to hide, he should get over there and answer a few questions! If he'd been the first born, imagine how the popular the monarchy would be with King Andrew replacing the current incumbent.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by Retired in Euskadi
(Post 13083833)
... talked of family values, the simple things that children can teach us.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
SteveDW, did you read my post ? The press may have called him a 'hero' but he was never in harm's way and this was common knowledge in the army. The Invictus Games? A new name on an American project. They are a pair of grifters living off the Royal connection Harry still has.
Andrew is an idiot who like Harry hated playing No2 to his big brother. Maxwell is as guilty as sin but what did Andrew actually do? He slept with young prostitutes provided by an expensive pimp. It will be interesting to see if Americans can actually find a criminal charge to slap on him, they've yet to charge him and the met dropped their investigation due to lack of evidence. I find it interesting that his main accuser has only pinpointed him or is that down to a non disclosure agreement and cash pay off she received from others who'd used the prostitutes while Andrew never payed into the pot of silence so is still fare game? |
Re: The Queen's speech
Andrew actually do? He slept with underage prostitutes provided by an expensive pimp. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by missile
(Post 13084764)
No mention of what Edward teaches the children <LOL>
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by bob_bob
(Post 13084767)
SteveDW, did you read my post ? The press may have called him a 'hero' but he was never in harm's way and this was common knowledge in the army. The Invictus Games? A new name on an American project. They are a pair of grifters living off the Royal connection Harry still has.
Andrew is an idiot who like Harry hated playing No2 to his big brother. Maxwell is as guilty as sin but what did Andrew actually do? He slept with young prostitutes provided by an expensive pimp. It will be interesting to see if Americans can actually find a criminal charge to slap on him, they've yet to charge him and the met dropped their investigation due to lack of evidence. I find it interesting that his main accuser has only pinpointed him or is that down to a non disclosure agreement and cash pay off she received from others who'd used the prostitutes while Andrew never payed into the pot of silence so is still fare game? |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084814)
I don't doubt for a minute that Harry was never in harm's way. The point I was making was the total about turn of the press from 'hero' to 'zero' once people started to dislike his wife. And however you want to play it, Andrew invited the paedophile Espstein and his enabler Maxwell to the royal palaces. There are photos of them lounging around together at Balmoral. Andrew surely only extends that invitation to close friends? And if he didn't have any inkling of what their game was, after spending time on Epstein's island and other properties, and travelling with them, then he has to be dumber than a rock or, heaven forbid, he actually knew but didn't care. Or he actually participated. If he is innocent surely he would be willing to help police with their enquires to bring down the sex traffickers and abusers of young girl? Let's face it, if he wasn't the Queen's favourite son, he'd already be being questioned by the boys in blue. But, the English press, and I've been an avid reader since this story blew up, prefer to talk about what Kate's wearing rather than the possibility of a peado in their midst. Obviously far more important.
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by missile
(Post 13084778)
That is OK then?
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084814)
I don't doubt for a minute that Harry was never in harm's way. The point I was making was the total about turn of the press from 'hero' to 'zero' once people started to dislike his wife. And however you want to play it, Andrew invited the paedophile Espstein and his enabler Maxwell to the royal palaces. There are photos of them lounging around together at Balmoral. Andrew surely only extends that invitation to close friends? And if he didn't have any inkling of what their game was, after spending time on Epstein's island and other properties, and travelling with them, then he has to be dumber than a rock or, heaven forbid, he actually knew but didn't care. Or he actually participated. If he is innocent surely he would be willing to help police with their enquires to bring down the sex traffickers and abusers of young girl? Let's face it, if he wasn't the Queen's favourite son, he'd already be being questioned by the boys in blue. But, the English press, and I've been an avid reader since this story blew up, prefer to talk about what Kate's wearing rather than the possibility of a peado in their midst. Obviously far more important.
Meghan's rep started dropping when all the rumours (some now confirmed) started about her being rude to staff (basic Royal rule, don't be rude to staff), difficult to work with, demanding and unhappy with Royal traditions and protocols changing to suit her, many believe she honestly thought she could have the wedding and change things and of course that was never going to happen. I don't see how she could ever have been expected to fill the role of Princess, she's American, no knowledge of the UK, its language, traditions, history and the restrictions the job places on every member of the family. She could not hack it, Harry has wanted out for years so she was the perfect excuse he'd needed and they threw toys out of pram and ran to the USA. If they'd stayed and withdrawn slowly over several years and then relocated they would have had the blessings of the family and the people but the way they've behaved means bridges are burnt and there is no coming back so I hope it works out for them in the USA but would be happier if they rescinded their titles and stopped using them to earn money plus it would free Harry to become an American citizen and for Meghan to run for high office. Hope it works out well for them and the Royal Family in the future. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by bob_bob
(Post 13084874)
You and I have absolutely no idea who members of the Royal family invite round to stay do we so lets quit speculation. I'm not aware of any claims of paedophilia being levelled at idiot Andrew but no doubt he slept with young prostitutes supplied by his pimp Epstein and given the size of the sex industry millions of other men also pay for sexual favours and not all prostitutes are forced into the job by any means. The main accuser was paid off and locked down by contract stopping her talking about them by some of her customers, for all we know she's spent the cash and needs a payoff now. Its all speculation until any legal proceedings are over but one thing for sure is that I'd not give Andrew the steam off my breath, he's a man of weak character who took advantage of all the 'goodies' on offer, not a nice fella IMO.
Meghan's rep started dropping when all the rumours (some now confirmed) started about her being rude to staff (basic Royal rule, don't be rude to staff), difficult to work with, demanding and unhappy with Royal traditions and protocols changing to suit her, many believe she honestly thought she could have the wedding and change things and of course that was never going to happen. I don't see how she could ever have been expected to fill the role of Princess, she's American, no knowledge of the UK, its language, traditions, history and the restrictions the job places on every member of the family. She could not hack it, Harry has wanted out for years so she was the perfect excuse he'd needed and they threw toys out of pram and ran to the USA. If they'd stayed and withdrawn slowly over several years and then relocated they would have had the blessings of the family and the people but the way they've behaved means bridges are burnt and there is no coming back so I hope it works out for them in the USA but would be happier if they rescinded their titles and stopped using them to earn money plus it would free Harry to become an American citizen and for Meghan to run for high office. Hope it works out well for them and the Royal Family in the future. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by bob_bob
(Post 13084874)
I'm not aware of any claims of paedophilia being levelled at idiot Andrew
. |
Re: The Queen's speech
This is one of the images that's been all over the world's press in the last few years. Andrew, one of the accusers, and Ghislaine Maxwell who's just been found guilty of sex trafficking children.
https://i2-prod.rsvplive.ie/news/cel...nce-Andrew.jpg |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by SteveDW
(Post 13084879)
Wow. Even my 96 year old mother has read these claims, and seen them aired on tv. Have you been living in a cave for the last few years? This comment has to be satire surely!
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by IminSpain
(Post 13084875)
Andrew slept with young prostitutes, nah mate he raped kids … Google it, TICK TOCK #REPUBLIC
I'm not defending anything other than innocent until proven guilty. When he's tried and found guilty I'll join the rest of the indignant keyboard SJW's in condemning him. All there is no doubt about is he went with young, not underage prostitutes. |
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by bob_bob
(Post 13084930)
Care to share the links?
|
Re: The Queen's speech
I was going to edit my last post to remove the last sentence but I got called away and left it too late (there's a two hour time limit to edit posts). I have deleted it for you
Here's one: There are literally hundreds of links to the claims. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-mansion.html |
Re: The Queen's speech
if you are going to publish this picture please show the full picture where you can see (badly photoshopped) a hand around the girls waist which if belonging to Andrew would have made him distinctly deformed
|
Re: The Queen's speech
Originally Posted by rspltd
(Post 13085046)
if you are going to publish this picture please show the full picture where you can see (badly photoshopped) a hand around the girls waist which if belonging to Andrew would have made him distinctly deformed
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.