Jump to content

The Royal Family

whelk

By whelk
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

spyinthesky

spyinthesky

Posted
Posted
On 11/04/2021 at 14:48, ecuk268 said:

When she goes, we should have King Harry and Queen Meghan, just to see the Daily Mail readership spontaneously combust.

The Mail would probably like Katie Price as our Monarch given the profile they give her on their media stream

rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

With Anne and Charles up front I don't see where the goals are going to come from, they probably went to finishing school but there's no pace.

Harry and William out wide makes sense but Peter Phillips in that holding role will have to go long ball and hope for the best.

Andrew won't be breaking sweat to create anything either. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

With Anne and Charles up front I don't see where the goals are going to come from, they probably went to finishing school but there's no pace.

Harry and William out wide makes sense but Peter Phillips in that holding role will have to go long ball and hope for the best.

Andrew won't be breaking sweat to create anything either. 

Fear not. Nobody will even try to get past Mike Tindall at the back unless they want their leg broken . With him at the centre of defence the Queen in goal won't be troubled.

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

With Anne and Charles up front I don't see where the goals are going to come from, they probably went to finishing school but there's no pace.

Harry and William out wide makes sense but Peter Phillips in that holding role will have to go long ball and hope for the best.

Andrew won't be breaking sweat to create anything either. 

The atmosphere is going to be deathly. Like Fratton for a league 1 game 

revolution saint

revolution saint

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, rallyboy said:

With Anne and Charles up front I don't see where the goals are going to come from, they probably went to finishing school but there's no pace.

Harry and William out wide makes sense but Peter Phillips in that holding role will have to go long ball and hope for the best.

Andrew won't be breaking sweat to create anything either. 

Youth team will be pretty quick though.

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ChrisPY said:

Anybody know what kit we’re playing in tomorrow?

I believe the home team are the Queen’s Royal Lancers, against the Provisional IRA in their usual camo.

  • Like 2
Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Chapel End said:

Ĺoads at this funeral, any one else did they would be arrested 

Proper amount at the funeral itself isn't it? What happened outside the venue is essentially people just lining the street, whilst socially distanced, which would be allowed. 

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Proper amount at the funeral itself isn't it? What happened outside the venue is essentially people just lining the street, whilst socially distanced, which would be allowed. 

It's people at work. Which, last I looked, is permitted under the regulations.

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Chapel End said:

Ĺoads at this funeral, any one else did they would be arrested 

I haven't seen anyone - what channel are you watching, or are you in Windsor?

rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

My Dad did four decades of service to Queen and country but it seems he missed the majority of the medals that were being dished out.

By the amount of bling on display today, those Royals saw way more service than I realised...

  • Haha 2
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...
Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Lizzie ill again, seems to be following a similar pattern to Philip pulling out of engagements at short notice....

Sounds like she's struggling with guilt for the way Meghan and Harry were treated.

whelk

whelk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Queen Is the last of the royals that has genuine respect of the nation. 

I am no royalist but she has been a trooper. Will be v sad day when she passes

  • Like 2
  • 1 month later...
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted

Good news for Andrew, maybe they'll let him back into the family now....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Quote

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 settlement of her Florida damages claim against the sex offender shows.

The prince's lawyers say this previously-secret 2009 deal means she cannot sue him

 

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Pretty sure everyone has figured out that he did.  He just can't be sued for it....

Plenty of lawyers arguing to and fro over it at the moment. Is the 'agreement' viable in Federal or other State jusrisdictions, or is it limited to Florida ? Does it have value if alleged offences took place outside of US territory, as is claimed ?

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Plenty of lawyers arguing to and fro over it at the moment. Is the 'agreement' viable in Federal or other State jusrisdictions, or is it limited to Florida ? Does it have value if alleged offences took place outside of US territory, as is claimed ?

The full document is here

It specifically states :

Quote

HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, Giffure_email_002095 Case 1:21-cv-06702-LAK Document 32-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 12 specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have, or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release

Which would suggest it is viable in both state and federal and seems pretty much all encompassing!

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The full document is here

It specifically states :

Which would suggest it is viable in both state and federal and seems pretty much all encompassing!

As I said, plenty of lawyers currently arguing over it, so let's wait and see what the Judge says tomorrow.

Edited by badgerx16
kyle04

kyle04

Posted
Posted

Of course they are, and getting richer by the minute as they do so. I assume any lawsuit would carry some burden of proof, or whatever passes for proof in US law, or would it potentially come down to he said she said and whoever the judge/jury believe. Prince Andrew will never be in the dock that's for sure, but his continued relationship with Epstein even after he was jailed for soliciting under-age girls alone has cost him dear. These people think they can so anything with impunity, but they were wrong. Andrew's reputation is in tatters as he spends his days moping around Windsor, and his pal ends up disgraced and murdered in a US jail (yes he was), also Maxwell is soon to be swapping ball gowns for prison overalls for many years.

Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Good news for Andrew, maybe they'll let him back into the family now....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

 

The point of having to be legally described as a 'potential defendant in a sexual offence case' isn't great for his or the RFs reputation and then to be one protected by gagging clause paid for by a convicted sex offender, compounds the issue. He is fucked if he wins on this point and fucked if it goes further.

rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

I can understand why an offender might demand that no one else is sued over the exact same offence, but surely you can't just issue random bits of paper that say you can't be charged with anything vaguely-related, ever?

And I thought Andrew had nothing to do with Epstein?

Now he wants to clarify how close he was to him...close enough to be covered by an admission of guilt in compensation form.

What a clusterfuck of a royal.

 

 

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

I can understand why an offender might demand that no one else is sued over the exact same offence, but surely you can't just issue random bits of paper that say you can't be charged with anything vaguely-related, ever?

And I thought Andrew had nothing to do with Epstein?

Now he wants to clarify how close he was to him...close enough to be covered by an admission of guilt in compensation form.

What a clusterfuck of a royal.

 

 

Definitely not guilty, m'lud - it says so in the 'document'

Quote

is further agreed that this Settlement Agreement represents a final resolution of a disputed claim and is intended to avoid litigation. This Setttement Agreement shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party

Although I suspect it has more to do with the 500,000 not so random bits of paper rather than this one random one as to why she cannot bring charges....

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

One interesting comment from the Judge presiding over the dispute today;

"Judge Kaplan said that the wording could mean that both Epstein and Ms Giuffre had to jointly agree to whether or not the settlement could be used to release other potential defendants from facing court. "

 

He can't, and she won't.

Edited by badgerx16
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Warriorsaint said:

I’d be quite happy for the lot of them to be lined up and beheaded. High time this country was a republic.

Bit harsh, just stop the Civil List, remove all privilege, and make them pay their way. The big issue is what to replace them with; elected Presidencies generate their own form of corruption, patronage, and croneyism. Which would you prefer, King Charles III or our own version of Donald Trump ?

 

Edited by badgerx16
  • Like 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Bit harsh, just stop the Civil List, remove all privilege, and make them pay their way. The big issue is what to replace them with; elected Presidencies generate their own form of corruption, patronage, and croneyism. Which would you prefer, King Charles III or our own version of Donald Trump ?

 

Neither. Any other options?

revolution saint

revolution saint

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Bit harsh, just stop the Civil List, remove all privilege, and make them pay their way. The big issue is what to replace them with; elected Presidencies generate their own form of corruption, patronage, and croneyism. Which would you prefer, King Charles III or our own version of Donald Trump ?

 

We don't need to replace them with anything.  We already have a democratically elected leader (OK I know the prime minister doesn't technically need to be an elected MP).  Thing is that even if we did decide to have an elected ceremonial figure as president - they wouldn't need to have any constitutional powers.  They can just be a figurehead if that's what people really want.  I don't see the need for it but the beauty is that we can replace them whenever we get tired of them.  We wouldn't have a Donald Trump because they wouldn't have any power (and you can argue we got our Trump with Boris anyway).

  • Like 1
Warriorsaint

Warriorsaint

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

We don't need to replace them with anything.  We already have a democratically elected leader (OK I know the prime minister doesn't technically need to be an elected MP).  Thing is that even if we did decide to have an elected ceremonial figure as president - they wouldn't need to have any constitutional powers.  They can just be a figurehead if that's what people really want.  I don't see the need for it but the beauty is that we can replace them whenever we get tired of them.  We wouldn't have a Donald Trump because they wouldn't have any power (and you can argue we got our Trump with Boris anyway).

Yep, what he said 👏

Hard to argue with President Micheal D Higgins in Ireland as an example. Purely a figurehead and beloved.

Why are Royalty and Despots the only choice?

 

Manuel

Manuel

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Warriorsaint said:

I’d be quite happy for the lot of them to be lined up and beheaded. High time this country was a republic.

In the mean time you'd probably get away with chucking statues of them in the Thames.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Warriorsaint said:

Why are Royalty and Despots the only choice?

They aren't, there are many variations on the theme, including religious theocracy ( Afghanistan ) and military junta ( Myanmar ). What would your alternative be to granting the Prime Minister absolute control over our ( unwritten ) constitution ? I assume you want the Lords to be dissolved as well - replaced by what ? Following the Bolshevik policies of 1918, or the French in 1793, only creates more problems. It is easier for countries like Australia and Barbados to declare themselves a republic as their Monarch was only ever at arms length, and their constitutional apparatus is a far more modern design than ours.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...