The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

For thof ye had as wise a snout on
As Shakespeare or Sir Isaac Newton,
Your judgment fouk wou'd hae a doubt on,
I'll tak my aith,
Till they cou'd see ye wi' a suit on
O' gude Braid Claith.
Pebble
Posts: 1934
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Pebble »

Jdsk wrote: 19 Sep 2022, 11:13pm For thof ye had as wise a snout on
As Shakespeare or Sir Isaac Newton,
Your judgment fouk wou'd hae a doubt on,
I'll tak my aith,
Till they cou'd see ye wi' a suit on
O' gude Braid Claith.
Indeed, revered by non other than Rabbie Burns
mumbojumbo
Posts: 1525
Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mumbojumbo »

Is the poet William Wordsworth-| am sure the statue is in Ambleside?
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Mick F »

Pebble wrote: 19 Sep 2022, 11:08pm anyone recognise which famous poet my bike is propped up alongside ?
That's not a poet.
It's a lump of cast bronze. :wink:
Stradageek wrote: 19 Sep 2022, 4:38pm 5hrs riding on deserted roads, easily as quiet as lockdown.
Not deserted here. I expected it to be so, but not deserted much at all.

Lorries, vans, cars. More like a Sunday morning than anything else.
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
Paulatic
Posts: 7804
Joined: 2 Feb 2014, 1:03pm
Location: 24 Hours from Lands End

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Paulatic »

Pebble wrote: 19 Sep 2022, 11:08pm
anyone recognise which famous poet my bike is propped up alongside ?
Image
I didn’t, yet I’ve cycled past it nearly every year for the last ten years. :x He must look like part of the crowd :lol:
A64C92DD-66AD-4F39-85EE-B8B93CC42030.png
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life

https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by pete75 »

pwa wrote: 19 Sep 2022, 8:13am
I think I probably did Nazi salutes as a child, back in the 1960s, and it meant nothing. Just kids mucking about. All I knew about Nazis then was that they were "the other side" in a War, the "baddies". We tended to call them "the Germans" in our games. So the Queen doing it as a child means nothing. Her mother doing it probably means nothing too, though with an adult you would need to know more to be sure. The Queen's uncle did have Nazi sympathies, and it would have been interesting to see how things would have played out if he had stuck with the job of being King. We dodged a bullet there.
There's a deal of difference between you doing it in a playground in the sixties and members of the ruling family doing it while Hitler was still in power. The former probably does mean nothing, the latter probably not. What puzzles me is why they filmed it in the first place and why they didn't destroy that film.
Much of the British aristocracy and establishment had a great deal of admiration for Hitler before the war.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by pwa »

pete75 wrote: 20 Sep 2022, 11:41am
pwa wrote: 19 Sep 2022, 8:13am
I think I probably did Nazi salutes as a child, back in the 1960s, and it meant nothing. Just kids mucking about. All I knew about Nazis then was that they were "the other side" in a War, the "baddies". We tended to call them "the Germans" in our games. So the Queen doing it as a child means nothing. Her mother doing it probably means nothing too, though with an adult you would need to know more to be sure. The Queen's uncle did have Nazi sympathies, and it would have been interesting to see how things would have played out if he had stuck with the job of being King. We dodged a bullet there.
There's a deal of difference between you doing it in a playground in the sixties and members of the ruling family doing it while Hitler was still in power. The former probably does mean nothing, the latter probably not. What puzzles me is why they filmed it in the first place and why they didn't destroy that film.
Much of the British aristocracy and establishment had a great deal of admiration for Hitler before the war.
I don't know for sure, but the Queen's mother may well have just seen it as mucking about. In the thirties, for many in the UK the Nazis, prancing about in their funny clothes, were comical. Something to laugh about. The horrific truth about what they were capable of had not dawned on most people. Her brother in law, on the other hand, is known to have been positively enthusiastic about Hitler.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 16 Feb 2022, 12:47pm
Jdsk wrote: 18 Nov 2021, 12:57pm
Jdsk wrote: 12 Nov 2021, 9:01am
Followed by the chief executive:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... urs-claims
And the Charity Commission has started an investigation:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/char ... foundation
And the Metropolitan Police have joined in:

"Met investigating cash-for-honours claims linked to Prince’s Foundation":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... foundation
“On Tuesday, 6 September, police interviewed a man aged in his 50s and a man aged in his 40s under caution in relation to offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... foundation

(I can't find the official statement.)

Jonathan
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

What are the new Royals playing at?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/25/uk-broadcasters-battle-monarchy-over-control-of-queens-memorial-footage wrote:British television channels are in a battle with the monarchy over who controls the historic record of Queen Elizabeth II’s commemorations, after Buckingham Palace insisted broadcasters could only retain an hour of footage for future use.

The BBC, ITV and Sky News have been given until Monday to produce a 60-minute compilation of clips they would like to keep from ceremonial events held across the 10 days of mourning for the Queen. The royal household will then consider whether to veto any proposed inclusions.
...
A member of the royal household would send a message every five minutes either approving or refusing the use of the previous block of video.
...
One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.

Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household.
...
Sounds to me worthy of North Korea. Public events, they expect the population to be heir subjects but subject to their censorship. To me shows self-interest rather than working for the good of the population.

Ian
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

Psamathe wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 5:11pm Sounds to me worthy of North Korea.
This is the new Godwin's Law.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 26 Sep 2022, 9:47am
Psamathe wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 5:11pm Sounds to me worthy of North Korea.
This is the new Godwin's Law.
The Second Law is already taken (and directly relevant to our new government). This would have to be the Third.

: - )

Jonathan
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

mattheus wrote: 26 Sep 2022, 9:47am
Psamathe wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 5:11pm Sounds to me worthy of North Korea.
This is the new Godwin's Law.
Where an unelected leader exerts (or tries to exert) control over the media.

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

Psamathe wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 5:11pm What are the new Royals playing at?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/25/uk-broadcasters-battle-monarchy-over-control-of-queens-memorial-footage wrote:British television channels are in a battle with the monarchy over who controls the historic record of Queen Elizabeth II’s commemorations, after Buckingham Palace insisted broadcasters could only retain an hour of footage for future use.

The BBC, ITV and Sky News have been given until Monday to produce a 60-minute compilation of clips they would like to keep from ceremonial events held across the 10 days of mourning for the Queen. The royal household will then consider whether to veto any proposed inclusions.
...
A member of the royal household would send a message every five minutes either approving or refusing the use of the previous block of video.
...
One particular bone of contention is the palace’s assertion that it has a veto over the use of footage of King Charles III’s accession council. This was the lengthy event where the new monarch was formally proclaimed in a televised ceremony involving leading politicians, overseen by Penny Mordaunt.

Broadcasters have been told they are allowed to retain a maximum of 12 minutes of footage from this constitutionally important occasion. Longer clips would need to be a cleared with the royal household.
...
Sounds to me worthy of North Korea. Public events, they expect the population to be heir subjects but subject to their censorship. To me shows self-interest rather than working for the good of the population.

Ian
That all said, all the broadcasters have to do is stuff a few single use carrier bags full of cash (preferably high denomination notes) and slip them to the Palace and ... sorted.

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

Excuses for not having your license taken for driving offences
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/26/duke-of-norfolk-sentenced-in-private-driving-offence-national-security wrote:The public and press were excluded from the sentencing of the Duke of Norfolk on grounds of national security as details of the coronation of King Charles III were to be discussed as part of his argument against losing his driving licence.
So he's using the coronation of the King as a justification for not losing his license! Bring in VSPs and let him drive a VSP.

Is he really going to be driving at the coronation? No chauffeur?

Edit: He got banned anyway, despite trying to hang on the coat-tail of the new King. He chose to use a mobile phone whilst driving and then tried to squirm out of it using King as a "cover".

Ian
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

Psamathe wrote: 26 Sep 2022, 4:19pm Edit: He got banned anyway, despite trying to hang on the coat-tail of the new King. He chose to use a mobile phone whilst driving and then tried to squirm out of it using King as a "cover".
So he was found guilty of an offence, just like any Joe Public driver should have been.

But you're STILL angry about the monarchy!!!
Post Reply