Re: Prince Harry : Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:02 am  

IR80 wrote:

Allegedly Rose Hanbury, but has been largely discredited a lies.

Well I have to say I have not heard a whistle about that - suppose he’s got to keep up the family tradition

Re: Prince Harry : Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:42 am  

ColD wrote:

Well I have to say I have not heard a whistle about that - suppose he’s got to keep up the family tradition

The apple never falls far from the tree.

Re: Prince Harry : Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:09 am  

King Street Cat wrote:

The apple never falls far from the tree.

No proof any apples fell anywhere on this one.

Re: Prince Harry : Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:16 pm  

I can imagine a conversation round the royal breakfast table going like....

Queen, "What are we going to do about Andrew, this wont blow over. We need something to distract the press from it"

Philip.."Get the ginger one to spit his dummy out and bugger off with his wife, that should keep the press busy and forget about Andrew""

Re: Prince Harry : Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:34 pm  

IR80 wrote:

Don't forget his adulterus mother and toe sucking aunt.

Yes, but the Princess of Hearts singlehandedly cleared all them minefields with just a visor and a metal-detector......Incredible,
As for the Princess of Pork, just an old free-loading munter who's still giving her 'unwavering support' to the pal of that deceased paedo.

Re: Prince Harry : Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:46 am  

WIZEB wrote:

Yes, but the Princess of Hearts singlehandedly cleared all them minefields with just a visor and a metal-detector......Incredible

And don't forget that she once actually touched an AIDS man; although I should point out that he had good AIDS - I'm pretty certain she never touched anyone with bad AIDS.

Re: Prince Harry : Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 am  

From the comments on here it would appear that the royal family plc doesnt have many fans. Yet the specialist royal reporters still talk in hushed tones on TV and the Daily Mail etc remain obsessed with royal stories. Why is that? Where are the royalists that lap up this nonsense?

Re: Prince Harry : Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:58 am  

silver2 wrote:

From the comments on here it would appear that the royal family plc doesnt have many fans. Yet the specialist royal reporters still talk in hushed tones on TV and the Daily Mail etc remain obsessed with royal stories. Why is that? Where are the royalists that lap up this nonsense?

I don't think there are that many 'royalists' left, outside of nursing homes and retirement communities - and most of the goodwill that exists towards them will die with the queen. (Magnificent woman, gawd bless her maj, hardworking, such a difficult year etc etc.)

What there are however, are great swathes of reality TV, gossip-obsessed numbskulls, who accept the royal family and their ultra privileged lifestyles at taxpayers expense, in return for lots of juicy goss; it's a version of Love Island, but with crowns and carriages, hence the industry that exists around them - and the fact that 'royal correspondent' is an actual paid job in 2020, rather than something that emotionally disturbed loners do in their spare room, via the medium of scrap-books and HTML blogs.

Harry and Meghan have probably accelerated what needed to happen anyway - the minor hangers on should fend for themselves, and the royal family should be significantly reduced in size and importance; transitioning towards a gradual phasing out altogether - which for mine, can't happen soon enough.

Re: Prince Harry : Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:08 pm  

silver2 wrote:

From the comments on here it would appear that the royal family plc doesnt have many fans. Yet the specialist royal reporters still talk in hushed tones on TV and the Daily Mail etc remain obsessed with royal stories. Why is that? Where are the royalists that lap up this nonsense?

The royalists who lap up this nonsense are more than likely the same people who have fallen for the tourism line. Those folk who live in places like Blackburn and Hartlepool who cheer lead the sales of miniature Union Jacks and I Love London t-shirts in Windsor and Covent Garden.

Re: Prince Harry : Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:27 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I don't think there are that many 'royalists' left, outside of nursing homes and retirement communities - and most of the goodwill that exists towards them will die with the queen. (Magnificent woman, gawd bless her maj, hardworking, such a difficult year etc etc.)

What there are however, are great swathes of reality TV, gossip-obsessed numbskulls, who accept the royal family and their ultra privileged lifestyles at taxpayers expense, in return for lots of juicy goss; it's a version of Love Island, but with crowns and carriages, hence the industry that exists around them - and the fact that 'royal correspondent' is an actual paid job in 2020, rather than something that emotionally disturbed loners do in their spare room, via the medium of scrap-books and HTML blogs.

Harry and Meghan have probably accelerated what needed to happen anyway - the minor hangers on should fend for themselves, and the royal family should be significantly reduced in size and importance; transitioning towards a gradual phasing out altogether - which for mine, can't happen soon enough.

They (the Royal Family) realised long, long ago that, by throwing the masses a few crumbs every now and then (weddings, christenings, funerals etc) keeps them on side and perhaps prevents too many questions about their relevance and value.
I think that you're right about things changing when The Queen abdicates.
For the older generation, I think that The Royal Family has given them something to hang on to when things weren't too great and a focal point when we are at war.
I have a discussion with my mother in law regularly about their worth and whilst it would be cringeworthy to have someone like Bojo as head of the nation, it doesn't seem to affect other countries that dont have a monarch.

Buckingham Palace would make a great hotel of some uber posh apartments or, just charge visitors for a look round.