Social Democrats look like they’re about to burst out crying.
Liberals partying.
isn't there some rule about needing over 5% to get proportional seats? (I might be wrong) the liberals as just under that now, perhaps they know of more support coming and its just relief that they are over that threshold.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
I think a majority of Conservative PMs since Maggie have been adulterous, should you consider any of them great.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
Stuart is right. You could wait just a few days before re-starting your campaign.
Social Democrats look like they’re about to burst out crying.
Liberals partying.
isn't there some rule about needing over 5% to get proportional seats? (I might be wrong) the liberals as just under that now, perhaps they know of more support coming and its just relief that they are over that threshold.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
She will only "attend services". She never intended to "do walkabouts".
Chortle.
Meanwhile, the idea (perish the thought) that he was going to play a more active or involved role in governing the country than his mother did has also been reversed. He's going to be Scandinavian now, apparently. Or at least that's what Gordon Brown wants. It won't come to pass because he won't be able to resist kinging it and bossing everyone about, having tantrums, being mediaeval with family members he doesn't like, insisting king and country are one, etc., until one day - and that day could be soon - the whole nasty business will exist no more.
Social Democrats look like they’re about to burst out crying.
Liberals partying.
isn't there some rule about needing over 5% to get proportional seats? (I might be wrong) the liberals as just under that now, perhaps they know of more support coming and its just relief that they are over that threshold.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
So it's extra shitty. Seems like a difference of degree, not kind.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
De rigeur before Victoria. And later than that for politicians.
Social Democrats look like they’re about to burst out crying.
Liberals partying.
isn't there some rule about needing over 5% to get proportional seats? (I might be wrong) the liberals as just under that now, perhaps they know of more support coming and its just relief that they are over that threshold.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
Stuart is right. You could wait just a few days before re-starting your campaign.
No need to wait, we're not snowflakes. Someone misjudging the mood and moment faces its own consequence.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
De rigeur before Victoria. And later than that for politicians.
Social Democrats look like they’re about to burst out crying.
Liberals partying.
isn't there some rule about needing over 5% to get proportional seats? (I might be wrong) the liberals as just under that now, perhaps they know of more support coming and its just relief that they are over that threshold.
Very interesting thread which links in British efforts in WW2 to knock out German electricity infrastructure that I was not aware of previously. The Russians are plainly now just targeting civilian infrastructure.
Russia is not going to like Ukraine playing by Russia's rules on civilian power grids.
Russia's power grid is wide open to Ukrainian Alibaba drone/DYI cruise missile strikes.
The bit that thread misses about Operation Outward was that most of it was spare stocks of 100,000 weather balloons trailing 700ft cables, many with incendiary devices. Sent from Felixtowe.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
I think a majority of Conservative PMs since Maggie have been adulterous, should you consider any of them great.
Social Democrats look like they’re about to burst out crying.
Liberals partying.
isn't there some rule about needing over 5% to get proportional seats? (I might be wrong) the liberals as just under that now, perhaps they know of more support coming and its just relief that they are over that threshold.
It's 4%.
Interesting choice of threshold. Not that 5% is any more logical I suppose, anymore than 4 years being more 'normal' for an elected term of office.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
De rigeur before Victoria. And later than that for politicians.
And after Victoria. Certainly it seems to have been very normal for Royal males to have a mistress or mistresses. Not sure about the Queen's father, as he seemed particularly devoted to the Queen Mum.
Let's not forget that Charles would have married Camilla if he'd been allowed. It was the late Queen and Prince Phillip's whizz bang idea to dazzle Charles with a young (and much more suitable) Diana, and in a strange way it's almost to his credit that he remained besotted with Camilla.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Helpful. So more than a century. Britain going to the dogs... and over Camilla and Mark Field!
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
She will only "attend services". She never intended to "do walkabouts".
Chortle.
Meanwhile, the idea (perish the thought) that he was going to play a more active or involved role in governing the country than his mother did has also been reversed. He's going to be Scandinavian now, apparently. Or at least that's what Gordon Brown wants. It won't come to pass because he won't be able to resist kinging it and bossing everyone about, having tantrums, being mediaeval with family members he doesn't like, insisting king and country are one, etc., until one day - and that day could be soon - the whole nasty business will exist no more.
And why do you think that? Charles is not completely stupid, he knows what country and system he is king of. His mother, grandfather and great grandfather helped build the monarchy that we have today, and for some reason he is going to, rather than follow their example, seek to act like a medieval monarch? The crown have not been bossing things for hundreds of years, and he'd overturn that because?
Charles could well make a misstep which would undermine the balance of our constitutional monarchy. But to be an inevitability as you suggest he would need to have the intellect and judgement of a particularly silly tomato.
And the idea he would play a more active role has not been reversed - it was, for some, a fear he would seek to do that, never an expectation. The expectation was he would be a modern monarch, that is not actively involved. It was a question of whether he could keep schtum about his pet hobbies is all.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
You ought to meet some people who have been in genuinely awful situations.
When he was single he could have married any single woman he wanted, assuming she wanted to marry him. Easy-peasy: if mumsy objected, tell her to do one. If she still objected, go and spend 0.0001% of his wealth on marrying her abroad. If the Foreign Office refused to apostillise his birth certificate, take them to court.
Utilising some young woman who was found from somewhere and whom mumsy and pater thought was so eligible, letting love-of-his-life go and marry someone else, but continuing to screw her, never mind that said young woman who'd borne him two children was going crackers under the pressure, and could easily have topped herself - those aren't the actions of a reasonable person put in difficult circumstances. They're the actions of a weak immature creep who uses other people like objects and can't take responsibility for his own actions, always preferring to blame someone else, ostensibly because he was "born into" this, that, or the other - a complete lie because he can stick two fingers up at the whole show whenever he wants and he chooses not to. It's not other people who choose for him. He chooses. He may not seem like one, but he's a grownup man.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Social Democrats look like they’re about to burst out crying.
Liberals partying.
isn't there some rule about needing over 5% to get proportional seats? (I might be wrong) the liberals as just under that now, perhaps they know of more support coming and its just relief that they are over that threshold.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
I don't think Charles putting his affair partner on the throne makes his adultery any better.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
You ought to meet some people who have been in genuinely awful situations.
When he was single he could have married any single woman he wanted, assuming she wanted to marry him. Easy-peasy: if mumsy objected, tell her to do one. If she still objected, go and spend 0.0001% of his wealth on marrying her abroad. If the Foreign Office refused to apostillise his birth certificate, take them to court.
Utilising some young woman who was found from somewhere and whom mumsy and pater thought was so eligible, letting love-of-his-life go and marry someone else, but continuing to screw her, never mind that said young woman who'd borne him two children was going crackers under the pressure, and could easily have topped herself - those aren't the actions of a reasonable person put in difficult circumstances. They're the actions of a weak immature creep who uses other people like objects and can't take responsibility for his own actions, always preferring to blame someone else, ostensibly because he was "born into" this, that, or the other - a complete lie because he can stick two fingers up at the whole show whenever he wants and he chooses not to. It's not other people who choose for him. He chooses. He may not seem like one, but he's a grownup man.
Your first paragraph is preposterous.
I’m not defending him and would not have done what he did, but it wasn’t ‘simple’.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
You ought to meet some people who have been in genuinely awful situations.
When he was single he could have married any single woman he wanted, assuming she wanted to marry him. Easy-peasy: if mumsy objected, tell her to do one. If she still objected, go and spend 0.0001% of his wealth on marrying her abroad. If the Foreign Office refused to apostillise his birth certificate, take them to court.
Utilising some young woman who was found from somewhere and whom mumsy and pater thought was so eligible, letting love-of-his-life go and marry someone else, but continuing to screw her, never mind that said young woman who'd borne him two children was going crackers under the pressure, and could easily have topped herself - those aren't the actions of a reasonable person put in difficult circumstances. They're the actions of a weak immature creep who uses other people like objects and can't take responsibility for his own actions, always preferring to blame someone else, ostensibly because he was "born into" this, that, or the other - a complete lie because he can stick two fingers up at the whole show whenever he wants and he chooses not to. It's not other people who choose for him. He chooses. He may not seem like one, but he's a grownup man.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
I don't think Charles putting his affair partner on the throne makes his adultery any better.
But it does demonstrate that she was the love of his life.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
A reminder: any result we get tonight is preliminary only. Votes from Swedish citizens abroad and early voting ballots that didn’t make it to the polling stations in time for Election Day get counted on Wednesday and it takes a week to complete the final count. In the last election, three seats changed between Election Day and the final count, and this one looks set to go down to the wire. So the parties on both sides will be wise not to celebrate too much.
The right bloc is currently in the lead by one seat with about 1,500 districts left to declare.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
I don't think Charles putting his affair partner on the throne makes his adultery any better.
But it does demonstrate that she was the love of his life.
A reminder: any result we get tonight is preliminary only. Votes from Swedish citizens abroad and early voting ballots that didn’t make it to the polling stations in time for Election Day get counted on Wednesday and it takes a week to complete the final count. In the last election, three seats changed between Election Day and the final count, and this one looks set to go down to the wire. So the parties on both sides will be wise not to celebrate too much.
The right bloc is currently in the lead by one seat with about 1,500 districts left to declare.
Do we know what kind of districts they are? Urban/rural. Rich/poor. Native/immigrant?
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Unusually, not one single party leader has said a word yet. Result far too close.
Is there any chance of a sensible centrist government? Socialists, Moderates, Liberals, Centre?
Yes. But extremely slim.
For example, the Liberals have changed sides once too often already. If they do it yet again they’ll get murdered at the ballot box next time.
I’m sure an awful lot of Moderates prefer the Social Democrats to the Sweden Democrats, but they’ve made their bed, so they’ll just have to sleep in it now. Sleeping with a big, restless bear is unlikely to be a pleasant experience.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
It’s not a defence really, perhaps partial mitigation, but he was not allowed to marry the love of his life, who I note he is still with into his seventies. I would not have done what he did, but he was put in an awful situation.
I don't think Charles putting his affair partner on the throne makes his adultery any better.
But it does demonstrate that she was the love of his life.
There must be some reason why she stands there wearing a shit-eating grin when he disgraces himself in public, reprising Mike Pence for all she's worth.
She's being called "queen consort" too. I'm predicting she'll never just be called "queen". I reckon that in 1935 the notice announcing the death of the king said the (new) king and queen would do such-and such, not that the king and queen consort would. But I'm sure monarchist loons will say ah but you are such an idiot, Dynamo, because the outgoing monarch in 2022 was a queen regnant, yawn yawn. It's as if they forget nursery rhymes - the king does this, the queen does that - or what pass for "history" lessons in English schools - queen Anne Boleyn, etc. The king's wife is the queen FFS.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
She sent him a masturbation clip at 5x normal speed.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
According to rumour Truss has then carried on as before with a senior member of her government, though stress rumour not confirmed fact.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
The stories I've heard about the private life of our Prime Minister are .... mind-boggling.
Unusually, not one single party leader has said a word yet. Result far too close.
Is there any chance of a sensible centrist government? Socialists, Moderates, Liberals, Centre?
Yes. But extremely slim.
For example, the Liberals have changed sides once too often already. If they do it yet again they’ll get murdered at the ballot box next time.
I’m sure an awful lot of Moderates prefer the Social Democrats to the Sweden Democrats, but they’ve made their bed, so they’ll just have to sleep in it now. Sleeping with a big, restless bear is unlikely to be a pleasant experience.
Thanks. Really appreciate your knowledge and willingness to share it.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Donald Trump is claiming he was knighted in private.
This is actually true:
Trump and I were secretly taken to the Palace, where HM knighted us. Afterwards, we had an evening at Annabel's, where we celebrated our new knightly roles.
Congratulations Sir.
I bet that was an expensive night. Trump looks like a first out of the taxi, last to the bar kind of a guy.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
I expect they’ll all be invited.
It’s gonna be one helluva show. I might even watch it.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Apparently it is up to Biden who he invites in the US entourage, and there is some speculation he might invite all the former presidents, each of whom offered very generous tributes to the late Queen.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
A couple of those might come too. I think the Queen might have liked having five US Presidents at her funeral, but no doubt this has all already been worked out , along more conventional lines.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
I expect they’ll all be invited.
It’s gonna be one helluva show. I might even watch it.
It will likely be the biggest global gathering of Heads of State at a funeral since JFK's in 1963
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
Outrageous effrontery! By whom.
Yes Sir!
Good luck with the new job. I’m sure you’re an awesome teacher, if a little pedantic at times!
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
Quite agree. Some folk can't comment on the crowds (or otherwise) in Scotland without drawing wider conclusions about political support for the monarchy, or attacking the SNP ("Nits") when it was some republican grouping that was involved.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
The ship never existed.
I'm sure we'd like our leaders to have good personal morals, but very few if any would be faultless and many would be pretty awful. Yet still good at their actual jobs. It's always been excused.
It's not endorsement of them acting shittily to consider, especially with the long passage of time, that these things will be secondary.
Charles and Diana clearly made each other very unhappy, and he definitely behaved badly. Were it not for her tragic end I'd hope she would have found the happiness that Charles clearly has with Camilla.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
I expect they’ll all be invited.
It’s gonna be one helluva show. I might even watch it.
Hard to imagine any POTUS who gets invited to Liz's Last Hurrah NOT showing up. With possible exception of Jimmy Carter, for health reasons (his or Rosalynn's).
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Anna Lapwood @annalapwood This was so moving. Spontaneously stopped off at the London Bridge station organ to play a couple of pieces for the Queen. This lovely security guard, Marcella, asked if I could play Lascia ch'io pianga. Turns out she trained as a singer! ❤️😭
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
A couple of those might come too. I think the Queen might have liked having five US Presidents at her funeral, but no doubt this has all already already been worked out, along more conventional lines.
Fascinating to see who does not make the cut. All those tiny commonwealth states will need a representative, and that might mean someone else misses out.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
A couple of those might come too. I think the Queen might have liked having five US Presidents at her funeral, but no doubt this has all already already been worked out, along more conventional lines.
Every living commonwealth realm PM would fill out the seats pretty quick.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
A couple of those might come too. I think the Queen might have liked having five US Presidents at her funeral, but no doubt this has all already already been worked out, along more conventional lines.
Fascinating to see who does not make the cut. All those tiny commonwealth states will need a representative, and that might mean someone else misses out.
There are 196 countries in the world, of which 56 are Commonwealth countries, of which 15 are realms.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
Outrageous effrontery! By whom.
"Why does the word who exist if you're never allowed to say it?"
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
No, it's as good a time as any to debate it. HMQ is Sleeping the Big Sleep and doesn't give a toss one way or the other, and her son is a self regarding adulterous creep who deserves no quarter, after marrying with the full intention of carrying on with the Tampon Holder Consort during the actual engagement to poor old Di. What a monumental fucking arsewipe, and the THC doesn't look great either.
This is why you won´t get much of a hearing. You are not even prepared to observe a few common decencies. No one is perfect, and for every one of the supposedly unforgivable "crimes" you name, there are a thousand other examples of civic duty and public service that show a totally different view. So spew childish hate, by all means, but it will be greeted with "haters gonna hate" and a shrug. Your views are angry and perhaps a bit childish, but ultimately meaningless.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special, and not actually compensated by any amount of quote civic duty unquote. But you carry on with the invitation to your insect overlords to give it to as hard as they like, so typical of the non upper class English Tory.
"Marrying a halfwitted 19 year old while intending to shag your existing girlfriend before during and after, is really special"
Is it particularly special?
I think adultery is a really shitty thing to do, but I can't say I agree with the rather severe view that no amount of duty could every theoretically make up for being a shitty husband or wife.
Plenty of people we consider genuinely great might (and in some cases definitely were) complete shits in their personal lives.
Not the point. At all. Straying into adultery in the course of a marriage is one thing, entering a marriage with the preconceived intention of being adulterous is another.
When was the last time the UK had adulterers in both offices of Monarch and Prime Minister?
1906 to 1910.
Not sure re: Herbert Asquith. But Henry Campbell-Bannerman? Don't think so.
Asquith was a horndog.
He certainly had (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "lust in his heart". As per his letters to Venetia Stanley.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
Sepia dick pics.
Even someone like Boris is actually quite restrained, compared to the likes of Lloyd George, Lord Roseberry, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston.
Earl Grey was a player too. 4 years as PM, abolishing slavery and the Great Reform Act. And 15 children. And the Duchess of Devonshire and others. No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
Roseberry liked to flagellate young men, Melbourne liked to flagellate young maidservants.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Interesting update on the war situation in Ukraine. Russia seems to be in all sorts of trouble in the North as the forces they have left there haven't got any equipment as they didn't take it with them when retreating.
A little map of the situation in Northern Luhansk after the rout of the russian invaders from Kharkiv Oblast.
Black 1 = the Oskil River frontline russia tries to establish. Red 2s = the russian units retreating - those fleeing from Northern Kharkiv are on exterior lines and 1/n
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
A couple of those might come too. I think the Queen might have liked having five US Presidents at her funeral, but no doubt this has all already already been worked out, along more conventional lines.
Fascinating to see who does not make the cut. All those tiny commonwealth states will need a representative, and that might mean someone else misses out.
There are 196 countries in the world, of which 56 are Commonwealth countries, of which 15 are realms.
Yes, but there's going to be loads of UK people present, civic people, religious types, seats will become squeezed fast.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, but the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably would all attend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Apparently it is up to Biden who he invites in the US entourage, and there is some speculation he might invite all the former presidents, each of whom offered very generous tributes to the late Queen.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Reckon that, if it really is Biden's call then Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama AND Trump will be part of US delegation AND fly over together in Air Force One.
Always possible that Trump might refuse on those terms, and thus get zero invite.
But I doubt it.
EDIT - And Carter might not make it, due to health.
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
Yes it was brutal for Charles but the Queen was probably right for the institution.
Could you imagine if the Prince of Wales was now the son of Charles and Camilla not William? Diana brought the glamour and empathy the 21st century monarchy needed
There are arguments against adulterers taking part in public life (betray your spouse, and who else will you betray). But, that ship has long sailed.
I think public figures still rightly suffer a polling penalty from their cheating. At least Truss has apologized for hers, which I don't believe Charles has ever done.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
Told by who?
The Queen
Not a proud moment for the institution.
I suspect I'm being really dumb asking this, but what exactly was the problem with Camilla?
She was too "fast" for the Palace. Whereas Diana was a virgin.
Although it would be diplomatically irregular, the UK could score quite a coup by inviting both Trump and Obama as well as Biden, as given their recent statements they probably all would intend. Their presence together at the same event would then become something of a global event in itself, boosting Britain's prestige.
It't not likely I know, but interesting to think about.
Would also need GW and Carter and Clinton?
A couple of those might come too. I think the Queen might have liked having five US Presidents at her funeral, but no doubt this has all already already been worked out, along more conventional lines.
Fascinating to see who does not make the cut. All those tiny commonwealth states will need a representative, and that might mean someone else misses out.
There are 196 countries in the world, of which 56 are Commonwealth countries, of which 15 are realms.
Yes, but there's going to be loads of UK people present, civic people, religious types, seats will become squeezed fast.
Yes. There is seated capacity for 2,200 only. I would reserve something like 800 for various foreigners and 1400 for UKers.
Comments
That is less than optimal for Ukraine.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/liz-truss-not-accompanying-king-charles-on-uk-tour-says-no-10
She will only "attend services". She never intended to "do walkabouts".
Chortle.
Meanwhile, the idea (perish the thought) that he was going to play a more active or involved role in governing the country than his mother did has also been reversed. He's going to be Scandinavian now, apparently. Or at least that's what Gordon Brown wants. It won't come to pass because he won't be able to resist kinging it and bossing everyone about, having tantrums, being mediaeval with family members he doesn't like, insisting king and country are one, etc., until one day - and that day could be soon - the whole nasty business will exist no more.
Have you not seen Succession.
Charles is just like Shiv.
Mark Felton, the historian of WW2 obscure, did a video about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioshB6dhe-0
Let's not forget that Charles would have married Camilla if he'd been allowed. It was the late Queen and Prince Phillip's whizz bang idea to dazzle Charles with a young (and much more suitable) Diana, and in a strange way it's almost to his credit that he remained besotted with Camilla.
Charles could well make a misstep which would undermine the balance of our constitutional monarchy. But to be an inevitability as you suggest he would need to have the intellect and judgement of a particularly silly tomato.
And the idea he would play a more active role has not been reversed - it was, for some, a fear he would seek to do that, never an expectation. The expectation was he would be a modern monarch, that is not actively involved. It was a question of whether he could keep schtum about his pet hobbies is all.
When he was single he could have married any single woman he wanted, assuming she wanted to marry him. Easy-peasy: if mumsy objected, tell her to do one. If she still objected, go and spend 0.0001% of his wealth on marrying her abroad. If the Foreign Office refused to apostillise his birth certificate, take them to court.
Utilising some young woman who was found from somewhere and whom mumsy and pater thought was so eligible, letting love-of-his-life go and marry someone else, but continuing to screw her, never mind that said young woman who'd borne him two children was going crackers under the pressure, and could easily have topped herself - those aren't the actions of a reasonable person put in difficult circumstances. They're the actions of a weak immature creep who uses other people like objects and can't take responsibility for his own actions, always preferring to blame someone else, ostensibly because he was "born into" this, that, or the other - a complete lie because he can stick two fingers up at the whole show whenever he wants and he chooses not to. It's not other people who choose for him. He chooses. He may not seem like one, but he's a grownup man.
Team Kristersson: 49.7%
Team Andersson: 48.8%
I’m not defending him and would not have done what he did, but it wasn’t ‘simple’.
BUT not sure re: evidence that he went beyond rhetoric, or mere slap-and-tickle?
I'm sympathetic to PR, but this kind of stuff gives me pause for sure.
23:15 Still too close to call
A reminder: any result we get tonight is preliminary only. Votes from Swedish citizens abroad and early voting ballots that didn’t make it to the polling stations in time for Election Day get counted on Wednesday and it takes a week to complete the final count. In the last election, three seats changed between Election Day and the final count, and this one looks set to go down to the wire. So the parties on both sides will be wise not to celebrate too much.
The right bloc is currently in the lead by one seat with about 1,500 districts left to declare.
For example, the Liberals have changed sides once too often already. If they do it yet again they’ll get murdered at the ballot box next time.
I’m sure an awful lot of Moderates prefer the Social Democrats to the Sweden Democrats, but they’ve made their bed, so they’ll just have to sleep in it now. Sleeping with a big, restless bear is unlikely to be a pleasant experience.
S 33% up
M 17% down
SD 16% up
C 9% down
V 8% down
MP 7%
KD 5%
L4%
She's being called "queen consort" too. I'm predicting she'll never just be called "queen". I reckon that in 1935 the notice announcing the death of the king said the (new) king and queen would do such-and such, not that the king and queen consort would. But I'm sure monarchist loons will say ah but you are such an idiot, Dynamo, because the outgoing monarch in 2022 was a queen regnant, yawn yawn. It's as if they forget nursery rhymes - the king does this, the queen does that - or what pass for "history" lessons in English schools - queen Anne Boleyn, etc. The king's wife is the queen FFS.
Charles was also told to marry Diana essentially, left to his own devices he would likely have married Camilla in the first place
SD 25%
S 25%
M 21%
C 7%
V 6%
KD 5%
L 5%
MP 5%
M 24%
…
Sorry, missed the rest
Not something that's very likely I know, but interesting to think about.
And, thanks for your information.
Johan Pehrson, Liberals:
“We’ve done it!”
No wonder he needed a "special restorative brew."
I bet that was an expensive night. Trump looks like a first out of the taxi, last to the bar kind of a guy.
It’s gonna be one helluva show. I might even watch it.
By whom.
Personally I doubt it, because other countries might feel obliged to follow suit.
Good luck with the new job. I’m sure you’re an awesome teacher, if a little pedantic at times!
My criticism was directed at both sides.
I'm sure we'd like our leaders to have good personal morals, but very few if any would be faultless and many would be pretty awful. Yet still good at their actual jobs. It's always been excused.
It's not endorsement of them acting shittily to consider, especially with the long passage of time, that these things will be secondary.
Charles and Diana clearly made each other very unhappy, and he definitely behaved badly. Were it not for her tragic end I'd hope she would have found the happiness that Charles clearly has with Camilla.
Anna Lapwood
@annalapwood
This was so moving. Spontaneously stopped off at the London Bridge station organ to play a couple of pieces for the Queen. This lovely security guard, Marcella, asked if I could play Lascia ch'io pianga. Turns out she trained as a singer! ❤️😭
https://twitter.com/annalapwood/status/1568998632074145792
My stereotypical image of an overseas Swede is a Moderate voter. I might be wrong. I’m sure the boffins have done research on that.
Sir Edward Backhouse wrote of Roseberry "when a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister , it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi. In my case, passivity was invariably the order of the day.
Always possible that Trump might refuse on those terms, and thus get zero invite.
But I doubt it.
EDIT - And Carter might not make it, due to health.
Medics at nearby Guy’s and St Thomas’s hospitals are on standby in case those in the queue fall ill.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19776786/queues-the-queen-lying-in-state-12-hours-three-miles/
Could you imagine if the Prince of Wales was now the son of Charles and Camilla not William? Diana brought the glamour and empathy the 21st century monarchy needed
Absurd but true.
”We are not pleased…”
Very subdued.
Left 6.7% (8.0%)
Social Democrats 30.5% (28.3%)
Greens 5.0% (4.4%)
Centre 6.7% (8.6%)
Liberals 4.6% (5.5%)
Moderates 19.0% (19.8%)
Christian Democrats 5.4% (6.3%)
Sweden Democrats 20.7% (17.5%)
oth 1.5% (1.6%)
Turnout: ?
I would reserve something like 800 for various foreigners and 1400 for UKers.