Cross Her Britannic Majesty at your peril imo. She doesn't fúck about.
I'm glad they're büggering off. He's got as little royal blood in him as I have and she's a Septic. It just worries me that they'll now do their best to destroy the institution by doing interviews with Septic telly and the like.Originally Posted by Burney
The whole thing's gone tits up quicker than even I anticipated. I was extremely pessimistic, but even I thought it'd take at least five years for her profound awfulness to fúck things up good and proper.
Prince Phillip should have her whacked imo. Or just do the job himself. After all, he can't have long to go, can he? Taking her with him would be a superb finale.
Oh she's an Epstein in waiting
As Michael Corleone said to Fredo, "You never take sides against the family!"
Someone needs to take Harry out fishing on Lake Tahoe imo.
It amuses me that neither of these references will mean anything to Sir C because - like a massive spacker - HE'S NEVER SEEN THE GODFATHER!
WTF!!! Godfather 2 is of course better
Someone needs to take Harry out fishing on Lake Tahoe imo.
It amuses me that neither of these references will mean anything to Sir C because - like a massive spacker - HE'S NEVER SEEN THE GODFATHER!
Meh. Yankee nonsense. Can't be doing with it.
Someone needs to take Harry out fishing on Lake Tahoe imo.
It amuses me that neither of these references will mean anything to Sir C because - like a massive spacker - HE'S NEVER SEEN THE GODFATHER!
HMQ should do it herself. She'd be fine if she whacked them in Canada. It's crown territory and you can't have a Regina vs Regina court case. Though if Phil did it, could she just say that Regina doesn't want to press charges in this instant?
I wasn't a monarchist until recently when hanging around with my commie raver mate in Paris.
He couldn't believe that the courts here would prosecute politicians. I explained that HM's courts are older than HM's parliament (1066 and before vs 1265), let alone than the PM (1720). So if one of HM's politicians lets down the state (Thomas Moore, Thomas Cromwell, Jeffrey Archer, the Lib minister and recent Lab bint who lied about driving offences etc) then HM's courts will try them.
When we discussed HM's troops being loyal to the monarch, not the president or PM, my French commie mate and this English anarchist both decided that perhaps monarchs weren't such a bad thing after all.
Btw, he supports Melenchon {France Insoumise}, whose policies at the last election were to create a 6th republic, resign and call fresh elections.
He wanted a titular president, with the PM and executive drawn from and answerable to parliament. Basically the UK system - or more the Indian/Italian one where the monarch is replaced by powerless president as head of state.
I said to him "That's what we've been telling you to do since before your revolution. You should have listened to us 200 years ago."
He said "That's the trouble. We only ignored it as we didn't want to admit England was right."
Whereas ironically, I want a 2nd Empire here, with me as emperor, with lots of great art, literature and boulevards. I may send you to a re-education camp, but at least it will be modelled on Haussman.
You might also have pointed out that Constitutional monarchies are by some distance the most liberal countries on Earth. And the French system is barely a democracy at all, since they effectively castrated the legislature with the advent of the Fifth Republic.
Oh, he doesn't consider France a democracy. And after the last 2-3 years hanging around with him again after a 2 decade hiatus, I'm inclined to agree.
Their tv news BFM is now known as Télé-Macron because of its bias. He knew the BBC was decent, but shocked to find that all tv stations here, including Sky, have to be politically impartial and have special rules during election time.
We were talking lots about politics, especially the rule by decree "ordonances" bit. And eventually he was saying that De Gaulle's stuff, while far from perfect, at least made sense during a war. It was Hollande and then Macron who've been cheating the system, when it was only intended for national security issues.
I said to him "If I'd told you in '93 than you'd be defending de Gaulle in 25 years time, you wouldn't have believed me". He said "I'd have punched you."
But that's the thing about history, when you put aside your prejudices and look objectively. You see the other side.
Hence him praising de Gaulle (in comparison with later 5th Rep presidents) and me praising the monarchy (in comparison with presidential democracies.)
We found it so confusing, we had to get a kilo of fillet and just eat steak tartare for two days.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote