I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
Yes - I think, for a certain category of people, their pre-existing views on the monarchy will inform their opinion of the book.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
Aiui from the last thread, Spare was actually written by Harry's expensive and acclaimed ghost writer, so if what you read was badly written, your pirated text might not have been genuine.
I don't know whether you are being serious. Many ghosted books are badly written. Most books are badly written. This one certainly is. It's obviously mainly based on taped interviews, given how he corrects words he's used. Nonetheless he's got guts and he's made a good effort. I'm only a short way in. I may post some more when I've finished it.
PS It would be interesting if someone had gone to the bother of making a fake version, but AFAIAA they haven't.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Yet both George V and George VI were second sons and there are other examples from British history.
Perhaps things go wrong at the point when realistic aspiration of becoming monarch disappears. That's the point when there's questioning about purpose, identity, role etc.
We may one day have a similar conversation about Charlotte or Louis - who knows?
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
I've got my protests sorted for the coronation.
'Take back control from our unelected rulers' and 'Adulterers are twats'
Should people in glass houses throw stones?
I'm not the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
Yes - I think, for a certain category of people, their pre-existing views on the monarchy will inform their opinion of the book.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Mirror mirror on the wall
Tell me you don't stand to attention when the national anthem is played on the wireless. I dare you.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Harry is easily the most intelligent out of himself, his brother, his moronic father, and his uncle Andrew. But that isn't saying much.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
Catherine was very beautiful up to a few years ago - age is catching up but she’s still good looking. Meghan is very pretty. But I don’t think there’s that much between them, and certainly wasn’t five years ago.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Whereas Charles and William are what, Platonic philosopher kings, only cleverer?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
I’ll be astonished if it lasts 10 years.
What is their source of income now? AIUI she is no longer working in film/TV. He’s out of the Royal money. Are they living on the accumulated wealth?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
Catherine was very beautiful up to a few years ago - age is catching up but she’s still good looking. Meghan is very pretty. But I don’t think there’s that much between them, and certainly wasn’t five years ago.
Meg will age OK. Kate is getting the face she deserves. Psychotic deaths head look.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Whereas Charles and William are what, Platonic philosopher kings, only cleverer?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
Hypergamy, innit? Now she's got the fame she never had as a z list actress, she'll ditch him for someone much, much richer. No more need to grub around for netflix money.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
Catherine was very beautiful up to a few years ago - age is catching up but she’s still good looking. Meghan is very pretty. But I don’t think there’s that much between them, and certainly wasn’t five years ago.
Meg will age OK. Kate is getting the face she deserves. Psychotic deaths head look.
Did she poo-poo you at a social occasion? Don’t get the Kate hatred.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Sorry! Try this instead. An uncharacteristically witty review on 'Spare' from the BBC
"What other royal recollection would cover losing his virginity behind a pub, or go into such prolonged detail about a frost-bitten penis? This royal appendage gets more lines than many of his relatives......"
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
I've got my protests sorted for the coronation.
'Take back control from our unelected rulers' and 'Adulterers are twats'
Should people in glass houses throw stones?
I'm not the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Oh, but if you were - the column inches that would fill....
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Yet both George V and George VI were second sons and there are other examples from British history.
Perhaps things go wrong at the point when realistic aspiration of becoming monarch disappears. That's the point when there's questioning about purpose, identity, role etc.
We may one day have a similar conversation about Charlotte or Louis - who knows?
I wonder if personalities are settled fairly early in life.
It's already pretty clear to me that Princess Charlotte would make a bloody good Queen, for example.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
Catherine was very beautiful up to a few years ago - age is catching up but she’s still good looking. Meghan is very pretty. But I don’t think there’s that much between them, and certainly wasn’t five years ago.
Meg will age OK. Kate is getting the face she deserves. Psychotic deaths head look.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else. Stormtrooper.
Catherine was very beautiful up to a few years ago - age is catching up but she’s still good looking. Meghan is very pretty. But I don’t think there’s that much between them, and certainly wasn’t five years ago.
Meg will age OK. Kate is getting the face she deserves. Psychotic deaths head look.
Did she poo-poo you at a social occasion? Don’t get the Kate hatred.
She has a Nazi stepford wife vibe. Google pics of her on remembrance Day.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
"God save the Queen, the fascist regime She made you a moron, potential H bomb"
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
William was good looking when he was younger and still had hair.
I don't think there's anything special about Harry. I've seen better looking blokes in my local pub.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Harry is easily the most intelligent out of himself, his brother, his moronic father, and his uncle Andrew. But that isn't saying much.
I obtained surveillance footage of the self-driving Tesla that abruptly stopped on the Bay Bridge, resulting in an eight-vehicle crash that injured 9 people including a 2 yr old child just hours after Musk announced the self-driving feature.
I'm no fan of Musk but there's very little evidence presented there of what actually happened.
Is there any evidence that it was in FSD? Does that even work in a tunnel with no GPS? It looks like an attempt to pull over for some reason. Perhaps the driver fell asleep and the car did its best to come to a halt?
The crash itself was caused by the cars following behind too close, as usual.
FSD is supposed to work in tunnels with no GPS. Indeed, the vast majority of FSD is done from cameras.
In this case, the allegation is that the Tesla was in FSD mode and that the vehicle suddenly changed lanes to the left and then braked hard, resulting in a following vehicle going into it.
Now, all we know right now is that the driver claims it was in FSD mode. That may (or may not) be true.
However, this is the kind of situation where FSD/Autopilot has struggled in the past. In particular, the reliance on cameras over technologies like LIDAR means that there is less certainty about distance, and it is more possible for shadows to confuse the sensors and systems.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the driver probably accidentally hit the turn signal, and that the car did what it was supposed to in that circumstance, and changed lanes. The issue is that changing lanes in the tunnel is prohibited, and it is likely that the following vehicle (that went into the Tesla) was probably not expecting it.
Edit to add: I've had one scary Tesla FSD experience. The car was traveling at 65 on a typically very bumpy California highway. As it crested a hill the wheels lost a little bit of traction, and the car veered to the edge of the lane. The car applied a very large left input, and it veered rapidly towards the other side of the lane. I yanked back control slowed it down, and all was well. But for a second, it looks like there would be one of those oscillating issues where each correction was bigger than the lasyt.
That sounds pretty plausible.
I've had a brown trouser moment with oscillation (fishtailing) under human control (me). Someone randomly pulled into my lane on the M62 without looking and would have hit the front of my car if I hadn't braked hard. Unfortunately I didn't have ABS and it was wet.
The key is to get off the brake and keep the front wheels pointing forwards when the back end swings back in to line, otherwise you end up amplifying the problem in the opposite direction and spinning out. It took a few goes to get it fully under control...but no harm was done in the end.
I'd hope a computer could do a better job.
It does seem odd that Tesla got rid of LIDAR though. Surely it isn't _that_ expensive now?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
Indeed. It's a cliché but true that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
I’ll be astonished if it lasts 10 years.
What is their source of income now? AIUI she is no longer working in film/TV. He’s out of the Royal money. Are they living on the accumulated wealth?
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Are you a member of that collective, or do you just purport to speak on their behalf from afar?
Even from here, Rishi looks crap.
He speaks very highly of you I am sure.
BTW, are you actually Bartholomew Roberts with a changed political affiliation? I used to think that only Barty stayed on this site 24/7 ? You seem to have stolen his title as PB's Most Prolific Poster of Pointless Points of View ?
You’ve posted more often than me, on average, since you joined.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
I’ll be astonished if it lasts 10 years.
What is their source of income now? AIUI she is no longer working in film/TV. He’s out of the Royal money. Are they living on the accumulated wealth?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Yet both George V and George VI were second sons and there are other examples from British history.
Perhaps things go wrong at the point when realistic aspiration of becoming monarch disappears. That's the point when there's questioning about purpose, identity, role etc.
We may one day have a similar conversation about Charlotte or Louis - who knows?
Maybe a step forward would be an elected Monarchy. Instead of George getting the gig automatically there could be some sort of contest to choose the heir from among the three children - George, Charlotte and Louis. That way the spares still have a chance for the top job, and it gives the people a chance to dodge a real wastrel. People often say that Anne was the pick of the bunch of her generation - would we be better if she had been elected Queen?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Yet both George V and George VI were second sons and there are other examples from British history.
Perhaps things go wrong at the point when realistic aspiration of becoming monarch disappears. That's the point when there's questioning about purpose, identity, role etc.
We may one day have a similar conversation about Charlotte or Louis - who knows?
Maybe a step forward would be an elected Monarchy. Instead of George getting the gig automatically there could be some sort of contest to choose the heir from among the three children - George, Charlotte and Louis. That way the spares still have a chance for the top job, and it gives the people a chance to dodge a real wastrel. People often say that Anne was the pick of the bunch of her generation - would we be better if she had been elected Queen?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
Indeed. It's a cliché but true that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
There are some commonalities, but that special spark that sets off fireworks is quite subjective.
MM is beautiful - a beautiful woman. She is not 'extraordinarily' beautiful, any more than Charles is 'extraordinarily' evil. We must just assume that Beindarg is getting to the end of 'E' as he devours the OED at bedtime.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
William was good looking when he was younger and still had hair.
I don't think there's anything special about Harry. I've seen better looking blokes in my local pub.
Harry has a more manly look and a certain ruggedness and sex appeal . William looks a bit pretty and smooth . If you’re a woman and want good sweaty sex or a gay man then who can resist a guy that looks good in uniform !
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I can watch Camping, Up the Khyber, Cleo, Follow That Camel over and over again. But if you start thinking watching Sid James (50+?) lusting over teenage girls in Camping is almost a morality tale of our age.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I can watch Camping, Up the Khyber, Cleo, Follow That Camel over and over again. But if you start thinking watching Sid James (50+?) lusting over teenage girls in Camping is almost a morality tale of our age.
Carry on Screaming and Don't Lose Your Head are both very good.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Yet both George V and George VI were second sons and there are other examples from British history.
Perhaps things go wrong at the point when realistic aspiration of becoming monarch disappears. That's the point when there's questioning about purpose, identity, role etc.
We may one day have a similar conversation about Charlotte or Louis - who knows?
Is there a chunk of the moment and the role making the monarch? Though if so, it doesn't work the same way for Prime Ministers. Remember the early talk of how Boris would undergo a Prince Hal to King Henry transition?
But yes, a system where people are born, literally to be a spare, and then after a while they are redundant... That's enough to send most people dolally, I'd have thought.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I can watch Camping, Up the Khyber, Cleo, Follow That Camel over and over again. But if you start thinking watching Sid James (50+?) lusting over teenage girls in Camping is almost a morality tale of our age.
Carry on Screaming and Don't Lose Your Head are both very good.
It didn't do so well at the Box office, but I love "Carry on at Your Convenience" which is a beautiful slice British social history.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I can watch Camping, Up the Khyber, Cleo, Follow That Camel over and over again. But if you start thinking watching Sid James (50+?) lusting over teenage girls in Camping is almost a morality tale of our age.
James had a charm and charisma that made up for him being an old perv imo. It's funny what feels dated now due to sexual politics - the character of Danny Riggs (Mel Gibson) in Lethal Weapon, when I was watching that the other day, did seem (I'm ashamed to admit) 'toxically masculine' in parts. I just noticed him being a bit of a bully in places that never even entered my head at the time. But still enjoy the Carry Ons - I like the costumed epics the best, and the old black and white ones have an innocent charm. Don't really watch the decline and fall ones.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I can watch Camping, Up the Khyber, Cleo, Follow That Camel over and over again. But if you start thinking watching Sid James (50+?) lusting over teenage girls in Camping is almost a morality tale of our age.
Carry on Screaming and Don't Lose Your Head are both very good.
It didn't do so well at the Box office, but I love "Carry on at Your Convenience" which is a beautiful slice British social history.
Yes, I caught some of it over Christmas. Perhaps could serve as a primer for British 1970’s industrial relations.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
Indeed. It's a cliché but true that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
There are some commonalities, but that special spark that sets off fireworks is quite subjective.
MM is beautiful - a beautiful woman. She is not 'extraordinarily' beautiful, any more than Charles is 'extraordinarily' evil. We must just assume that Beindarg is getting to the end of 'E' as he devours the OED at bedtime.
Maybe. Let's see if he calls out your extraneous criticism next.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
Indeed. It's a cliché but true that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
There are some commonalities, but that special spark that sets off fireworks is quite subjective.
MM is beautiful - a beautiful woman. She is not 'extraordinarily' beautiful, any more than Charles is 'extraordinarily' evil. We must just assume that Beindarg is getting to the end of 'E' as he devours the OED at bedtime.
Maybe. Let's see if he calls out your extraneous criticism next.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I can watch Camping, Up the Khyber, Cleo, Follow That Camel over and over again. But if you start thinking watching Sid James (50+?) lusting over teenage girls in Camping is almost a morality tale of our age.
James had a charm and charisma that made up for him being an old perv imo. It's funny what feels dated now due to sexual politics - the character of Danny Riggs (Mel Gibson) in Lethal Weapon, when I was watching that the other day, did seem (I'm ashamed to admit) 'toxically masculine' in parts. I just noticed him being a bit of a bully in places that never even entered my head at the time. But still enjoy the Carry Ons - I like the costumed epics the best, and the old black and white ones have an innocent charm. Don't really watch the decline and fall ones.
Yes the use of the Egyptian sets etc for Cleo elevates it. I love that camping was filmed during a really cold spring, with painted green grass over the mud.
Royal chat is UK displacement activity. The book has worked a treat.
I think that's right. A few toasts to Prince Harry in Downing Street tonight. Sunak has to try hard to keep a straight face about it when he next sees the King.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
But if the pegsters and their three wains died tomorrow in a freak gardening accident you would be doctrinally obliged to have a stiffy like the Eiffel tower for her. Nowt so queer as monarchists.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
Can we choose for you?
Not thinking specifically of CR here: but the chatter today has made me reflect that it's curious how many PB royalists feel that they can pick and choose from amongst the RF. Completely misses the logic, indeed USP, of having a royal family.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
I’ll be astonished if it lasts 10 years.
What is their source of income now? AIUI she is no longer working in film/TV. He’s out of the Royal money. Are they living on the accumulated wealth?
They'll have made a few quid from the book / Netflix series / podcast.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
Hypergamy, innit? Now she's got the fame she never had as a z list actress, she'll ditch him for someone much, much richer. No more need to grub around for netflix money.
I doubt that: she's not the springest of chickens for a start.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
Indeed. It's a cliché but true that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
There are some commonalities, but that special spark that sets off fireworks is quite subjective.
MM is beautiful - a beautiful woman. She is not 'extraordinarily' beautiful, any more than Charles is 'extraordinarily' evil. We must just assume that Beindarg is getting to the end of 'E' as he devours the OED at bedtime.
Sophisticated 30s couple trick only just not teenage idiot into marriage for utterly cynical reasons is not evil?
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
Hypergamy, innit? Now she's got the fame she never had as a z list actress, she'll ditch him for someone much, much richer. No more need to grub around for netflix money.
I doubt that: she's not the springest of chickens for a start.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
Hypergamy, innit? Now she's got the fame she never had as a z list actress, she'll ditch him for someone much, much richer. No more need to grub around for netflix money.
I doubt that: she's not the springest of chickens for a start.
Forecasts of the collapse of the H and M marriage are as perennial as forecasts of the imminent collapse of the EU.
They look pretty well suited as far as I can see. In one of my mother's Lancastrian barbs "They make a lovely couple, they don't spoil another one".
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
I’ll be astonished if it lasts 10 years.
What is their source of income now? AIUI she is no longer working in film/TV. He’s out of the Royal money. Are they living on the accumulated wealth?
$100 million from Neflix takes a while to spend.
I don't believe for a second they got $100m from Netflix.
They will have a contract with a minimum (which is probably not more than $2-3m), and then an escalator depending on performance criteria. In the event that all are met (which undoubtedly includes a second or third series), then they might get up to $100m.
But "up to" is a long, long way from "actually recieved up front."
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
Indeed. It's a cliché but true that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
There are some commonalities, but that special spark that sets off fireworks is quite subjective.
MM is beautiful - a beautiful woman. She is not 'extraordinarily' beautiful, any more than Charles is 'extraordinarily' evil. We must just assume that Beindarg is getting to the end of 'E' as he devours the OED at bedtime.
Sophisticated 30s couple trick only just not teenage idiot into marriage for utterly cynical reasons is not evil?
I am glad I'm not you.
I don't think people taking the path of least resistance is evil; it's certainly not extraordinarily evil.
I also don't think even a devoted Charles marrying in good faith would have worked out eventually for Diana. She'd lost her mother and understandably become extremely (dangerously) attached to her father, and was always looking for someone to fill a void in her life, which nobody ever could. She was an addict.
If anyone deserves blame, it's HMQ and Phillip for thinking that a sniff of Diana would make him forget about the horsey old divorcee forever. It was a catastrophic failure to understand his feelings and work with them.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
It's curious - arguably one of the most vilified individuals for decades. "Everyone" apparently hates him and yet we can't enough of Harry.
All over the front pages - who cares about the NHS, rail strikes or the Ukraine when we've got the second son of the King holding forth?
There’s a lot of people out there. I have no interest in all the royal crap. I think the protesters who called out ‘not in my name’ at Charles’s proclamation had a point. Love it hate the PM, at lest you get some say, at some point. Who elected the King? But there are more than enough who love all this bollocks and the media knows it. Fine. I wouldn’t waste time finding a pdf - just wait a couple of weeks and the charity shops will be giving the book away, just as they did with The Da Vinci Code, and probably The Ice Twins.
Each to their own. I can’t stand Strictly but it gives pleasure to millions.
Wife and I were wondering last night if / when MM finally ditches Harry. He's obviously keen on her and has gone full in but she has a track record of t cutting her exes off pretty sharpish. Many of her Hollywood 'friends' have been noticeably silent and I'm not getting the impression Spare is winning them new converts to the cause in the US. Plus Harry's comments might put the HRH / Duchess of Sussex title at risk, in which case she might think 'can I get anyone better?'
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
I’ll be astonished if it lasts 10 years.
What is their source of income now? AIUI she is no longer working in film/TV. He’s out of the Royal money. Are they living on the accumulated wealth?
$100 million from Neflix takes a while to spend.
I don't believe for a second they got $100m from Netflix.
They will have a contract with a minimum (which is probably not more than $2-3m), and then an escalator depending on performance criteria. In the event that all are met (which undoubtedly includes a second or third series), then they might get up to $100m.
But "up to" is a long, long way from "actually recieved up front."
Enough to buy a lot of replacement dog bowls.
I don't think they will run out of money any time in the foreseeable future.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
To be fair, Bernard Breslaw was a film star.
Different age. I often think an updated Carry On film could be fun, but then when you watch one of them, you realise just how much what’s acceptable in the modern world has changed.
Yes. The chance of seeing a shadow of Babs Windsors nipple doesn't have the same frisson it once did. Today's Britain needs its own cycle of comedy films, and that shouldn't try to take on the Carry On mantle.
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
I can watch Camping, Up the Khyber, Cleo, Follow That Camel over and over again. But if you start thinking watching Sid James (50+?) lusting over teenage girls in Camping is almost a morality tale of our age.
James had a charm and charisma that made up for him being an old perv imo. It's funny what feels dated now due to sexual politics - the character of Danny Riggs (Mel Gibson) in Lethal Weapon, when I was watching that the other day, did seem (I'm ashamed to admit) 'toxically masculine' in parts. I just noticed him being a bit of a bully in places that never even entered my head at the time. But still enjoy the Carry Ons - I like the costumed epics the best, and the old black and white ones have an innocent charm. Don't really watch the decline and fall ones.
Carry on Sergeant is also one of the innocent early ones - surprisingly interesting as a social observation of National Service - both the physical aspect but also the futility of much of NS in the 1950s economy and technology.
(I had a distinct memory that some of the squaddies were returned reservists rather than NS neophytes, called up for their regular refresher, but on checking that was the Tommy Trinder film You Lucky People. Not a CD I felt I needed to keep.)
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
Yes I'm a No now having been an Ok I Guess before. The institution feels inappropriate, silly and wrong.
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
Did Hunt say or hint he wanted to rejoin the EU?
He was explicit - said UK needs unfettered’ trade with EU. That can only be one thing, can’t it?
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
Did Hunt say or hint he wanted to rejoin the EU?
He was explicit - said UK needs unfettered’ trade with EU. That can only be one thing, can’t it?
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
Did Hunt say or hint he wanted to rejoin the EU?
He was explicit - said UK needs unfettered’ trade with EU. That can only be one thing, can’t it?
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head of state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
Quite. It has never really worked because of the inexplicable inability of monarchs to produce offspring as and when required - think how many times and with what consequences they have died without heirs. If Elizabeth I had got her knickers off we wouldn't have the current Scottish problem for starters. And when sausage fingers goes out of his way to find a brood mare we get problems of a different kind. Enough.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
Quite. It has never really worked because of the inexplicable inability of monarchs to produce offspring as and when required - think how many times and with what consequences they have died without heirs. If Elizabeth I had got her knickers off we wouldn't have the current Scottish problem for starters. And when sausage fingers goes out of his way to find a brood mare we get problems of a different kind. Enough.
On the other hand you might have a Catalunyan problem ...
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
Charles is at least as creepy as Ed VIII and might conceivably have gone the same way if he hadn't been allowed to marry Horseface.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
Charles is at least as creepy as Ed VIII and might conceivably have gone the same way if he hadn't been allowed to marry Horseface.
Didn't see him hanging around Putin like Edward did with Hitler though
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
Charles is at least as creepy as Ed VIII and might conceivably have gone the same way if he hadn't been allowed to marry Horseface.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
Charles is at least as creepy as Ed VIII and might conceivably have gone the same way if he hadn't been allowed to marry Horseface.
Charles would have become a Nazi? Surely not!
Normally called Tories these days, or so I've been told.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
Royal chat is UK displacement activity. The book has worked a treat.
Well of course it is. It's a very basic human need to tell sad stories of the death of kings; what do Oedipus, Agamemnon, Lear, Macbeth and Hamlet have in common? Where are the great tragedies about democratically elected presidents?
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
William seems to have been way ahead of the curve in finding his brother insufferable and giving him a smack around the head. He'll do.
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
Did Hunt say or hint he wanted to rejoin the EU?
He was explicit - said UK needs unfettered’ trade with EU. That can only be one thing, can’t it?
No. We could have unfettered trade with the EU by a number of routes. The most obvious is joining the EEA via EFTA. There is absolutely no need to rejoin the EU for that.
Oh and Robert is right, you are not using 'explicit' in its proper meaning. I believe what you should have said was 'implicit'.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
Charles is at least as creepy as Ed VIII and might conceivably have gone the same way if he hadn't been allowed to marry Horseface.
Didn't see him hanging around Putin like Edward did with Hitler though
No. He set his sights lower and went for Jimmy Savile.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
I have discovered another gem in my wanderings in the undergrowth of 19th century classical music, Piano Concerto in E minor by Mihaly Mosonyi. That was his stage name - he was born Michael Brand ( but still Hungarian). His symphony No. 1 is also good. Now looking at Ludwig Spohr ( sometimes called Louis). He wrote 18 violin concertos and was said to rival Beethoven.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
They aren't invisible, the King is the most globally recognised head of state in the western world after President Biden
Royal chat is UK displacement activity. The book has worked a treat.
Well of course it is. It's a very basic human need to tell sad stories of the death of kings; what do Oedipus, Agamemnon, Lear, Macbeth and Hamlet have in common? Where are the great tragedies about democratically elected presidents?
Comments
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
PS It would be interesting if someone had gone to the bother of making a fake version, but AFAIAA they haven't.
Perhaps things go wrong at the point when realistic aspiration of becoming monarch disappears. That's the point when there's questioning about purpose, identity, role etc.
We may one day have a similar conversation about Charlotte or Louis - who knows?
If MM has gotten the ambitions everyone says she has, we can see her turning round and using some sort
of "he just became too much" excuse and throwing him under the bus.
Tell me you don't stand to attention when the national anthem is played on the wireless. I dare you.
Watch my first broadcast to the nation as Prime Minister, tomorrow on BBC and ITV 👇
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1612895953555689472/video/1
And is it a Party Political Broadcast?
What is their source of income now? AIUI she is no longer working in film/TV. He’s out of the Royal money. Are they living on the accumulated wealth?
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
It's already pretty clear to me that Princess Charlotte would make a bloody good Queen, for example.
She made you a moron, potential H bomb"
Very prescient of Mr Rotten.
I don't think there's anything special about Harry. I've seen better looking blokes in my local pub.
I've had a brown trouser moment with oscillation (fishtailing) under human control (me). Someone randomly pulled into my lane on the M62 without looking and would have hit the front of my car if I hadn't braked hard. Unfortunately I didn't have ABS and it was wet.
The key is to get off the brake and keep the front wheels pointing forwards when the back end swings back in to line, otherwise you end up amplifying the problem in the opposite direction and spinning out. It took a few goes to get it fully under control...but no harm was done in the end.
I'd hope a computer could do a better job.
It does seem odd that Tesla got rid of LIDAR though. Surely it isn't _that_ expensive now?
The originals hold up quite well if you're in the mood though.
MM is beautiful - a beautiful woman. She is not 'extraordinarily' beautiful, any more than Charles is 'extraordinarily' evil. We must just assume that Beindarg is getting to the end of 'E' as he devours the OED at bedtime.
'Nuke plot defused' would work too.
But yes, a system where people are born, literally to be a spare, and then after a while they are redundant... That's enough to send most people dolally, I'd have thought.
The book has worked a treat.
I am glad I'm not you.
They look pretty well suited as far as I can see. In one of my mother's Lancastrian barbs "They make a lovely couple, they don't spoil another one".
They will have a contract with a minimum (which is probably not more than $2-3m), and then an escalator depending on performance criteria. In the event that all are met (which undoubtedly includes a second or third series), then they might get up to $100m.
But "up to" is a long, long way from "actually recieved up front."
I also don't think even a devoted Charles marrying in good faith would have worked out eventually for Diana. She'd lost her mother and understandably become extremely (dangerously) attached to her father, and was always looking for someone to fill a void in her life, which nobody ever could. She was an addict.
If anyone deserves blame, it's HMQ and Phillip for thinking that a sniff of Diana would make him forget about the horsey old divorcee forever. It was a catastrophic failure to understand his feelings and work with them.
I don't think they will run out of money any time in the foreseeable future.
(I had a distinct memory that some of the squaddies were returned reservists rather than NS neophytes, called up for their regular refresher, but on checking that was the Tommy Trinder film You Lucky People. Not a CD I felt I needed to keep.)
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11452001/Brexiteer-Tory-MPs-demand-Jeremy-Hunt-personally-deny-wanting-Swiss-style-EU-economic-deal.html
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head of state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
Oh and Robert is right, you are not using 'explicit' in its proper meaning. I believe what you should have said was 'implicit'.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.