Oh yes I see
Why you need Royal families
-
Online
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2103 times
- Been thanked: 868 times
Re: Why you need Royal families
No no no. I brought the discussion back to Queen.
Of course she was alive. I was making a cheap joke. Royals don't engage in perverse activities. Duh! Another one.
Of course she was alive. I was making a cheap joke. Royals don't engage in perverse activities. Duh! Another one.
-
Online
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2103 times
- Been thanked: 868 times
Re: Why you need Royal families
Sorry Ally I gave you more credit than you were due. I was thinking someBODY to love
Re: Why you need Royal families
That too! If you look you'll see I set it to start at 52 seconds. "Find me some body to love" without the preamble.
PS Ally's top tip of the day: To start a YouTube video at specified point append the following to the URL
#t=x
where x = the number of seconds from the beginning to your intended start point.
Minutes and seconds is possible but more can go wrong with the syntax.
-
Online
- Posts: 1290
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:15 pm
- Location: Pas de Calais
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 166 times
Re: Why you need Royal families
We have to separate the Head of State from the hangers on.
Nobody can say that out Queen has anything but a brilliant job, as did her father.
The hangers on are a different matter; there is a strong case for a slimmed down Royal Family of say monarch, partner and heir with family. The rest can work for a living as many do or opt to take on duties, but not if they want a free ride. Princess Anne seems to do a good job, though.
Presidents vary, depending on the constitution and what duties they have . But, I cannot think of anyone in Britain fit for the office at present, particularly if he or she or unknown had some executive powers.
Oh yes, perhaps Attenborough, but then, who wants a saint.
Nobody can say that out Queen has anything but a brilliant job, as did her father.
The hangers on are a different matter; there is a strong case for a slimmed down Royal Family of say monarch, partner and heir with family. The rest can work for a living as many do or opt to take on duties, but not if they want a free ride. Princess Anne seems to do a good job, though.
Presidents vary, depending on the constitution and what duties they have . But, I cannot think of anyone in Britain fit for the office at present, particularly if he or she or unknown had some executive powers.
Oh yes, perhaps Attenborough, but then, who wants a saint.
-
- Posts: 11829
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:22 pm
- Location: Picardie and occasionally Sussex
- Has thanked: 2130 times
- Been thanked: 1649 times
Re: Why you need Royal families
Looks like for once my enquiring nature has got me ahead of the IT game, I have found if you right click on a Youtube video it gives you the option to copy the URL and also copy the URL to start at this point/time.Ally wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:54 pmPS Ally's top tip of the day: To start a YouTube video at specified point append the following to the URL
#t=x
where x = the number of seconds from the beginning to your intended start point.
Minutes and seconds is possible but more can go wrong with the syntax.
You just pause it where you want and then do the business.
This should be the video from the 3 minute mark:
-
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:30 pm
- Location: St Jean d'Angely (17)
- Been thanked: 401 times
Re: Why you need Royal families
You mean just as weak and lazy as Mysty using a corrupt Royal to infer that they're all like that.Ally wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:25 amIt's a weak and lazy argument to point to some less than perfect individual and infer that that is the only alternative to a monarchy, especially one as top heavy as the UKs. Trump's time is limited. The Irish, for example, have had a long line of uncontentious presidents. It also a bit rich to point at others as a Brit when you consider the regime in place in London.tim17 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:23 amI've always thought the UK should become a republic so we can elect a head of state who are usually squeaky clean just like the current incumbent of the White House.![]()
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... n-new-york
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2016 ... 55ee351261
A bit dated, but I don't see any evidence of improvement in the intervening years. Of course the fantastically wealthy Windsors who still take from the public purse in good times and bad will be far removed from any shenanigans.

As for the 'bit rich' comment, why shouldn't a Brit comment about other heads of state?