9 hours ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

No, he arrived by road with usual security and on arrival switched to a crappy electric scooter to be videoed riding around the quad to the meeting point. Choreographed entry.

Get yourself to Villa Park, with a bit of luck you will stand near him on the terraces with the rest of the fans.

7 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Well, what else then? For what is he necessary? 

Instead of calling me "sad" please answer my question.......if you can? Can't you?

Say that to a Thai about Thai Royalty. Maybe you ask them what they do for work.

5 hours ago, EastBayRay said:

He should take his ginger bro back to uk we are sick of him and the valley girl 

 

trump should have deported him already for the drugs he took in the book

 

terrible how they disrespected the queen horrible couple 

 

 

Was only a matter of time Trump was mentioned in a thread with nothing to do about America.

These Yanks have never had a royal family or a king and Queen just a president that is likely the target of an Assasin. So they don't understand Monarchy it was only a couple of hundred years ago your average Yank was scalpinfg white men. You have no history to look back on but us in England can look back over a thousand years. So untill you understand the British Monarchy i wouldnt listen to your nonsense about things you will never understand.

17 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

For what?

Who needs a King.

Go to work and earn your living !

Let's start with a certain country with the likes of a useless PM like Keir Starmer

2 hours ago, Luuk Chaai said:

Let's start with a certain country with the likes of a useless PM like Keir Starmer

Obviously this certain country doesn't have a better choice?

6 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Say that to a Thai about Thai Royalty. Maybe you ask them what they do for work.

We're talking about that prince in UK, don't we?

6 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

When he was finishing saving lives as a Helicopter Pilot Newbee. How many lives have you saved ?. Prince Harry was on Active duty in Helmand Newbee were you ?. The only reason William was refused to fly in Afgahn was a future king could not put put in Danger. Your only jealouse of our Monarchy.

 

6 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

When he was finishing saving lives as a Helicopter Pilot Newbee. How many lives have you saved ?. Prince Harry was on Active duty in Helmand Newbee were you ?. The only reason William was refused to fly in Afgahn was a future king could not put put in Danger. Your only jealouse of our Monarchy.

I don't know how many lives I saved. Hundreds? Thousands? But that's not the point. 

My question was: what does he do earning his living? You didn't answer.

6 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

These Yanks have never had a royal family or a king and Queen just a president that is likely the target of an Assasin. So they don't understand Monarchy it was only a couple of hundred years ago your average Yank was scalpinfg white men. You have no history to look back on but us in England can look back over a thousand years. So untill you understand the British Monarchy i wouldnt listen to your nonsense about things you will never understand.

Indeed, we have traditions, they have habits: some of them rather unpleasant!😀

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

Well theoretically Harry would be charged with Regicide (The killing of a King and again in theory, he could/would be executed). I think that the last Regicide in the UK was that of Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland back in 1660.

 

The AI overview (Not generated by me)  says

 

The last "Regicide" in the UK, meaning someone who participated in the execution of a king, is considered to be John Cook, who was executed on October 16, 1660, after the restoration of the monarchy. Cook was a lawyer who prosecuted King Charles I and was executed for high treason by the restored royalists

Okay, but in this theoretical case, after committing regicide, Harry would then be the King. Is the King subject to prosecution like this?

12 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

 

So, by your definition, royals are no people? 😆 

Yes, my limited understanding is that royals are not subject to all the laws and prosecution as the common man (people). Is that true? 

20 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

For what?

Who needs a King.

Go to work and earn your living !

The main importance of the monarch is that the armed forces and members of parliament swear loyalty to the monarch who in turn swears to uphold the constitution (not documented) of common law and traditional rights and freedoms. Any attempt at a military coup  would be instantly illegal as would any Trump like speeches to the military. The monarch by his/her existence alone is a guaranty of political stability, governments come and go, the monarch remains and has the duty and ability through years of experience with different governments to 'advise and warn'. Apart from giving social coherence through tradition the monarch also projects 'soft power' due to their status and this is often used by the government to achieve certain international goals, eg internationally reviled Trump visited the monarch in the UK which stroked his ego and allowed lower than expected tariffs. Often a visit to a foreign country preceding diplomatic consultations can lower tensions. 

3 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The main importance of the monarch is that the armed forces and members of parliament swear loyalty to the monarch who in turn swears to uphold the constitution (not documented) of common law and traditional rights and freedoms. Any attempt at a military coup  would be instantly illegal as would any Trump like speeches to the military. The monarch by his/her existence alone is a guaranty of political stability, governments come and go, the monarch remains and has the duty and ability through years of experience with different governments to 'advise and warn'. Apart from giving social coherence through tradition the monarch also projects 'soft power' due to their status and this is often used by the government to achieve certain international goals, eg internationally reviled Trump visited the monarch in the UK which stroked his ego and allowed lower than expected tariffs. Often a visit to a foreign country preceding diplomatic consultations can lower tensions. 

Thank you. But all what I can read is based on outdated customs  

How can you respect someone who robbed and exploited you some years ago? And make himself extremely comfortable in a hammock of illegitimate wealth?

How can you respect someone who doesn't earn his own money for living?

And why nobody got the guts to force those to give back their wealth where it was coming from? The people!

Give it back or sell the gold or jewelry to feed the poor and have money to give to those poor to pay the heating expenses in winter time?

2 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Thank you. But all what I can read is based on outdated customs  

How can you respect someone who robbed and exploited you some years ago? And make himself extremely comfortable in a hammock of illegitimate wealth?

How can you respect someone who doesn't earn his own money for living?

And why nobody got the guts to force those to give back their wealth where it was coming from? The people!

Give it back or sell the gold or jewelry to feed the poor and have money to give to those poor to pay the heating expenses in winter time?

What happened in the past stays in the past. All huge companies and banks that exist today came about through unscrupulous practices in the past, think of the great oil companies, railway companies, the land in America, Australia, Canada etc. stolen from the indigenous people or JP Morgan bank which could hold the American government hostage to its own desires for instance, will you now destroy them? It has been calculated (about 30 years ago) that the royal family costs every man woman and child about 2 cents a year, not a lot for a stable system to live in. I myself am not a great fan of the royals but if there is to be a monarch then he/she should be upheld as one with fairy tale like status and esteem, I hate more the pompous hangers on with no real duties. An alternative would be a dignified president as in Germany, appointed by political parties, unlike the undignified hypocritical method used in the USA but who even knows his name outside of Germany, where is the mystic and awe, he's just a figurehead as impotent as that on the prow of a ship. The British monarchy has the aura of permanence and stability, it was Churchill who said that at the turn of the century the only kings and queens left will be in a pack of playing cards and the British royal family.

12 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

What happened in the past stays in the past. All huge companies and banks that exist today came about through unscrupulous practices in the past, think of the great oil companies, railway companies, the land in America, Australia, Canada etc. stolen from the indigenous people or JP Morgan bank which could hold the American government hostage to its own desires for instance, will you now destroy them? It has been calculated (about 30 years ago) that the royal family costs every man woman and child about 2 cents a year, not a lot for a stable system to live in. I myself am not a great fan of the royals but if there is to be a monarch then he/she should be upheld as one with fairy tale like status and esteem, I hate more the pompous hangers on with no real duties. An alternative would be a dignified president as in Germany, appointed by political parties, unlike the undignified hypocritical method used in the USA but who even knows his name outside of Germany, where is the mystic and awe, he's just a figurehead as impotent as that on the prow of a ship. The British monarchy has the aura of permanence and stability, it was Churchill who said that at the turn of the century the only kings and queens left will be in a pack of playing cards and the British royal family.

Back to the future?

It's all old fashioned and the "Royals" are like pets. However, not allowed to come nearer or touch them, as it is allowed in Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Those "Royals" you can meet on the market when buying groceries e.g. 

The function is like a greeting clown. For me, there should not anyone "higher" than his neighbor. Equality, as it is written in many constitutions.

And the income, "earned" through land and properties should go to the public but not to maximize the wealth of the "Royal" family. They are parasites, freeloaders or spongers. Not even the most intelligent ones. No qualification. 

For me it's just a Madame Tussaud's freak show.

 

16 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Back to the future?

It's all old fashioned and the "Royals" are like pets. However, not allowed to come nearer or touch them, as it is allowed in Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Those "Royals" you can meet on the market when buying groceries e.g. 

The function is like a greeting clown. For me, there should not anyone "higher" than his neighbor. Equality, as it is written in many constitutions.

And the income, "earned" through land and properties should go to the public but not to maximize the wealth of the "Royal" family. They are parasites, freeloaders or spongers. Not even the most intelligent ones. No qualification. 

For me it's just a Madame Tussaud's freak show.

 

Well we all have our concepts. Equality isn't real even if it is enshrined in law, Elon Musk wouldn't consider his workers as equal partners, nor would any manager come to think of it, would a policeman speak in the same to a homeless person as he would to a bank manager? Would a Muslim immigrant be as welcome as a white Christian? It's all about reality, the British royal family knows it is only tolerated as long as it gives value for money, they are always just a parliamentary vote away from irrelevance, they have to obey their instructions from the government, they aren't even allowed to write their own speeches. Yes of course it's all show and pageantry, 'trooping of the colours' watched by millions around the world, enthralled tourists watching the changing of the guard, it's all part of the mystic, it's open air magic. I spent most of working life in Germany and read a newspaper article there that was so true, only Queen Elizabeth was called simply 'the queen' when she visited Germany, no further qualification was needed, the queen of Holland would be announced in the newspaper as 'the queen of Holland' only HRH Elizabeth would be called simply 'the queen' as if she was the queen of the world everybody knew who was meant.....that is true 'soft power'. Incidentally she could be met in public, an amusing incident.....The crown owns several parks in London, a tourist American couple chanced upon her walking her dogs and being American and not recognizing her fell into conversation with her, when they asked her if she had ever met the queen, she pointed to her bodyguard a few meters away and said talk to him, he has met her on many occasions.

7 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

..that is true 'soft power

well, if you spent many years in Germany you realized that soft power could also means......the Chancellor comes....and if it comes to Dr. Merkel or Dr. Kohl it will be a longer time than your Charles will "rules".

And those earned their living over decades.

That is soft power by effectiveness, not heritage or breed.

6 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

well, if you spent many years in Germany you realized that soft power could also means......the Chancellor comes....and if it comes to Dr. Merkel or Dr. Kohl it will be a longer time than your Charles will "rules".

And those earned their living over decades.

That is soft power by effectiveness, not heritage or breed.

Politicians come and go, they are praised and criticized, ridiculed and admired, they all have a used by date, kings and queens are above such earthly tussles, the rule in the house of Windsor is 'never complain, never explain' as such they can be ridiculed in such TV Programmes as 'Spitting Image' or criticized in newspapers but they never stoop to defend themselves, never criticize their opponents, that aloofness is an aura of invincibility, they can be attacked but not hurt and when politicians have long since been voted out of office they are still there, waiting to appoint the next prime minister, graciously accepting the credentials of the new diplomats.

7 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

above such earthly tussles, the rule in the house of Windsor is 'never complain, never explain'

Well. for me a drone in a beehive. Nothing more. Useless unless for reproduction for another useless generation.

Sorry, but you can't convince me to understand why UK needs someone to bow their heads. 

And we shall it leave as it is for today. Have an enjoyable Sunday with some stories about your "Royals" as published in the "Yellow Press".🙏

Yes leave it Newbee you have no idea what a Royal is. I asked you about a Royal family closer here and you quickly ducked the Answer. Us in the UK can critisize our Royal Family try it here and you will be locked up why ?? because there Royalty. Its your belief to ridicule my king and Queen because you have no idea what Monarchy or Royalty is and you will never grasp it.

On 10/4/2025 at 10:26 PM, pl8lad said:

Harry is probably the best bloke for the job, that's if the way way outdated clown like monarchy continues, instead of just dying a natural death. He seems to understand normal life more than the stuffed up, dressed like clowns, that the rest of them are.

Harry...the ginger whinger married to a Nigerian scammer...I can't wait to see what she'd do with the jewel collection 

On 10/4/2025 at 12:11 PM, newbee2022 said:

For what?

Who needs a King.

Go to work and earn your living !

You’re joking right? William’s a decent sort, certainly when compared with his numpty of a brother or wayward uncle. The rescue piloting aside when he had a ‘real’ job, go have a look at his schedule and see what they have to do. No thanks. I’d prefer my day job and switch off. They can’t. As for monarchy itself, each to their own but it’s a nice buffer against the corruptability of your presidents and prime ministers, where they are absolute and don’t have to explain themselves to anyone. Yours is typical of the kneejerk numpty response with no real clue what it’s all about. You probably also think they are funded by the taxpayer. It’s the other way around. Crown Estate payments to government coffers have been well over and above monarchy budget for generations. 

54 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

You’re joking right? William’s a decent sort, certainly when compared with his numpty of a brother or wayward uncle. The rescue piloting aside when he had a ‘real’ job, go have a look at his schedule and see what they have to do. No thanks. I’d prefer my day job and switch off. They can’t. As for monarchy itself, each to their own but it’s a nice buffer against the corruptability of your presidents and prime ministers, where they are absolute and don’t have to explain themselves to anyone. Yours is typical of the kneejerk numpty response with no real clue what it’s all about. You probably also think they are funded by the taxpayer. It’s the other way around. Crown Estate payments to government coffers have been well over and above monarchy budget for generations. 

They have blindfolded you perfectly.

The Crown Estate...what is that? Is this the robbed land from your family? Or ancestors?. 

Sure, to live from robbery guarantees a good life. For me a kind of corruption.

I'm surprised that you like that and defend it.

But I'm not British but waiting for the day of a reunited Ireland. As a Republik, of course 

10 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

 

But I'm not British but waiting for the day of a reunited Ireland. As a Republik, of course 

 

   I favour a 2 state solution