Harry is marrying Ms Merkel?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Ok sensationalism.

I am not sure about the union, harry is harry, least likely to last I.M.O.
What just cousins....you are lucky

[Cunobelin]

Parallel thread. But maybe it was an ironic post?

Ian

So not really relevant as it stands?

Perhaps better discussed in that thread, or if to be discussed here, then please quote my whole post, and place it in context with regard to the thread it was in

If I argued black was white in one thread, then on the same topic in a different thread argues black was black would people assume I was being ironic (or just inconsistent).

This is daft. You were arguing that the Royals were porfitable with reagrd to tourism; your complete quote

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

So what were you arguing? 'cos you've loat me completely and I can no longer really understand what point you are making as we seem to be getting flip flopping all over the place, sometimes denied because it's apparently "irony", other times because it's in a different thread on the same subject.

Ian

Simply that this in a discussion n context of another thread, quite happy to discuss it in the thread it was posted

[Psamathe]

From this thread:

So I assume that your comments about the Royals being a highly profitable tourist attraction were irony as well. Of all you've said on this thread I now have no idea what is irony and what is your assertion.

Ian

You will need to point that one out, the only comment I recollect (or comes up on search) on this thread about tourism was:

.....
If only all spongers were so profitable!

From "the other thread"

.....

..... Keeping them on as a tourist attraction ought, to a monarchist, be an insult.

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

Both threads were discussing the royals and their impact on tourism. The topic being discussed had become the same at those points. But I give-up now because question one of your assertions and it suddenly becomes "irony", question another and it's excluded because same subject but different thread. You are flip-flopping so far all over the place I no longer have any idea what you do or don't think. You've lost me with all your "all over the place" so expect no further responses 'cos I'd have no idea if I'm responding to a view only applicable to a single thread or irony (and thus not your view atall) or a true opinion or anything.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

From this thread:

So I assume that your comments about the Royals being a highly profitable tourist attraction were irony as well. Of all you've said on this thread I now have no idea what is irony and what is your assertion.

Ian

You will need to point that one out, the only comment I recollect (or comes up on search) on this thread about tourism was:

.....
If only all spongers were so profitable!

From "the other thread"

.....

..... Keeping them on as a tourist attraction ought, to a monarchist, be an insult.

.....
Its a bit like "road tax" in it depends what you want add in

Estimates show that income from Tourism alone benefits the Country's economy by more than we pay out.

If only all spongers were so profitable!

Both threads were discussing the royals and their impact on tourism. The topic being discussed had become the same at those points. But I give-up now because question one of your assertions and it suddenly becomes "irony", question another and it's excluded because same subject but different thread. You are flip-flopping so far all over the place I no longer have any idea what you do or don't think. You've lost me with all your "all over the place" so expect no further responses 'cos I'd have no idea if I'm responding to a view only applicable to a single thread or irony (and thus not your view atall) or a true opinion or anything.

Ian

All sorts of misconceptions on your part, and you are continuing to combine posts that are not connected and partially quote me out of context in order to support your own agenda

I am not going to discuss the matter out of the context in which it was posted.

Any further misquotation, or contrived post will be a matter for the moderators

[Cunobelin]

Hi,
Ok sensationalism.

I am not sure about the union, harry is harry, least likely to last I.M.O.
What just cousins....you are lucky

I have been involved in cases where the actions of a sibling have resulted in assumptions about relatives who have had nothing to do with the incident.

Worse case was a family that had to leave the village after a nephew had stolen a car locally.

Any reasonable, sane and sensible person realises that these individuals act on their own, and blaming relatives just because it suits your personal prejudices as this journalist did says all that needs to be said about the accuser

[Cyril Haearn]

Meghan has a birthday, +37!

God shave Her Royal Highness!

[Cunobelin]

Meghan has a birthday, +37!

God shave Her Royal Highness!

That explains Truefit and Hill's Royal Warrant then......

[Cyril Haearn]

Another member of the Windsor family just got married, down near Slough, the town was in lockdown

God shave The Royal Family plc!

[661-Pete]

So I heard. Princess somebody-or-other, umpteenth in line to the British throne allegedly.

Reminds me of the occasion, back in my primary-schooldays, when our headteacher announced a break from lessons and shepherded us all into her living-room which housed the only TV set in the school. The reason: a certain Princess Margaret was getting hitched. Great event of state? History in the making? Certainly it was put across thus to us kids. And I suppose I was persuaded, back at the time, that I was being shown something important.

Of course the merest suspicion that that marriage might break down - like several subsequent ones involving other royals - was never mooted...

[kwackers]

God shave Her Royal Highness!

All the fashion these days I believe.

[Cunobelin]

Of course the merest suspicion that that marriage might break down - like several subsequent ones involving other royals - was never mooted...

Nor mooted for commoners, same sex marriages or civil partnerships....... why should only the Royals be expected to exclusively add such a clause

[mercalia]

how many more of them are there? breed like rabbits? I hope not

[Psamathe]

how many more of them are there? breed like rabbits? I hope not

And whilst they are enjoying having a town shutdown for their wedding others are struggling with increasing use of food banks, increasing rent arrears, etc. And again the public pick-up significant costs for 9th inline to a supposedly ceremonial role. Something very wrong with our priorities.

Makes you wonder if the Royals in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their subjects.

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

Surely not

[Cunobelin]

how many more of them are there? breed like rabbits? I hope not

And whilst they are enjoying having a town shutdown for their wedding others are struggling with increasing use of food banks, increasing rent arrears, etc. And again the public pick-up significant costs for 9th inline to a supposedly ceremonial role. Something very wrong with our priorities.

Makes you wonder if the Royals in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their subjects.

Ian

Makes you wonder if footballers in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their fans?