Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The BBC has waived any license fee requirement for public showing of the wedding - mainly for street parties of which a surprisingly large number have been declared in Bromley, apparently. Clearly ED republicanism isn't replicated further south and east.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The BBC has waived any license fee requirement for

> public showing of the wedding - mainly for street

> parties of which a surprisingly large number have

> been declared in Bromley.


I'm not that surprised. True blue in Bromley.

Are you mixing up your princes, uncleglen? The OP is about the wedding of the sixth in line to the throne (the one whose provenance has been questioned for 30 years) to the American divorcee (the one who wants to be royal so she can 'give women a voice' (eh?) but who doesn't want to follow royal protocols on dress and behaviour).

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> anywhere in the 'hood showing or commemorating

> this offensive event will be added to the

> household blacklist



M&S are selling tins of biscuits with Harry and Meghan wedding details on it, presumably commemorative?

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> anywhere in the 'hood showing or commemorating this offensive event will be added to the

> household blacklist


I have little interest in the event, but 'offensive'? Really?


Bit of a hypersensitive reaction to a wedding.

siousxiesue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > anywhere in the 'hood showing or commemorating this offensive event will be added to the

> > household blacklist

>

>

> M&S are selling tins of biscuits with Harry and Meghan wedding details on it, presumably

> commemorative?


I bet they're not as good as this...


1523610674060.jpg

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have a huge respect for the Queen herself but

> I'd like to see an end to the practice of awarding

> titles and honours to her family. So

> anachronistic.


Could be Duchess of Connaught - now would that be a nod to Ireland or a bit of an insult.

but I'd like to see an end to the practice of awarding titles and honours to her family.


Sorry, but the very basis of a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise, is that children of monarchs, and grandchildren, become princes and princesses (although in Russia they were Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses). If you think that, and a title which doesn't give you a seat in the lords, is meaningful in anyway other than as ceremonial flummery then you are subscribing to the old deference society. Calling people Mr and Mrs is a shortened form of Master and Mistress - do you rate this at all nowadays? (The peasantry if called anything might be 'Goodman' and 'Goodwife') The Princess Royal (Anne) chose for her children not to be royally entitled. Good for her, of course, but it don't matter a hill 'o beans really.


People who like titles and honorifics (not really honours in the sense of rating merit) can enjoy these, people who don't can ignore them.


People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding' (or the royal anything) should surely be left to do so - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it. We aren't being forced onto the streets to praise our masters (unlike so many societies elsewhere). Be grateful for that.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...