Prince Edward Commodore RFA ???????

CEYLON220
20th June 2007, 09:49
(Jester) (Jester) Prince Edward attending the Falkland Anniversary in the uniform of Commodore of the RFA, what a bl---y farce, he was only in training with the Royal Marines for 3 weeks and cried to get out, too tough for the "nancy boy", the only Royal who should have been there should have been Andrew as he took part in the freeing of the Falklands.
Wearing any uniform for this guy is a blight on the service that he is head of, I wonder what ex-RFA members think about it, it niggles me as an ex-RN member seeing Princess Anne in the uniform of an Admiral she never saw any service and then we`ve got Charlie as an Admiral of the Fleet, the Navy only let him loose with a small minesweeper, could`nt be trusted with anything larger but there again Im no fan of the Royals--- too many scroungers in the family.(Jester) (K)

sparkie2182
20th June 2007, 17:47
you are pushing against an open door here ceylon..........

but one point springs to mind...........

is this RFA appointment a PAID one? as i remember, an R.F.A. masters pay is not exactly breadline.......so, i wonder how it works for the senior commodore.

i dont wish to be controversial...or spark a royalist/republican war......but it is a point.

Duncan112
20th June 2007, 20:43
At least Prince Charles had command experience, and one assumes his bridge watchkeeping and Ocean Navigation certificates. In the companies I have had the privlidge to serve with the Commodore Master has considerable experience in command, which required the qualification of a Master (FG) certificate (or its new STCW namesake - enough in other threads about that!!) As far as I am aware Prince Edward has no certificates of competency and insufficient sea time to sit for them. A lounge suit would have been the correct attire in his case.

sparkie2182
20th June 2007, 23:06
no c of c.......no sea time........

more like a boiler suit duncan

Lancastrian
4th July 2007, 15:26
At the risk of upsetting the diehard republicans above, I would like to point out that there is a long tradition of appointing members of the Royal Family to honorary senior positions in the armed forces. They are not expected to be professionally qualified nor are they paid as such.
Prince Edward is in fact Commodore in Chief of the RFA which clearly indicates an honorary appointment and he is also Patron of the RFA Association. I am sure the majority of serving and former members welcome this new appointment as a recognition of our Service.
Prince Charles is not yet an Admiral of the Fleet! (Smoke)

sparkie2182
4th July 2007, 16:01
well..........

im just pleased they are not paid.............:)

the rest is just fancy dress then.

K urgess
4th July 2007, 16:58
Always was fancy dress, sparkie.
At least it gives the organisation concerned a high profile face to do all the Remembrance Day jobs and bring in the cash by their sponsorship.

slick
4th July 2007, 21:04
All,
Just say to yourself silently in moments of quiet reflection, President Prescott!!
Yours aye,
Slick

sparkie2182
4th July 2007, 21:09
at least you can vote him out...............

trotterdotpom
5th July 2007, 00:44
Didn't Prince Eddy get some seatime in HMS Pinafore at one stage?

John T.

Mick Spear
5th July 2007, 01:34
We heard, that for years all he wanted for Christmas was a cowboy outfit. So he was given the RFA! For the senior RFA people on this site, that's meant as a joke.

Mick S

slick
5th July 2007, 07:36
All,
Apologies,after "President Prescott" add "for life!!
Yours aye,
Slick

CEYLON220
5th July 2007, 10:05
Maybe Charlie boy is not yet an Admiral of the Fleet Lancastrian, give him time maybe on the next parade, their promotions come quick,he does have the pick of uniforms for each inspection and as for Edward being made Commodore of the RFA someone with full time service in the forces would have fitted the bill more than he did, but I forgot, Mummy is head of all forces,===="What do you want to be next Eddie, how about General of the SAS, oh! sorry someone has already got that, how about the Girl Guide movement, that would be more to your liking,son" Yes I am a true Republican

CEYLON220
5th July 2007, 10:17
Sparkie old mate --I hope you don`t mind me calling you mate but to put one point that you made about Edward not getting paid for the job, he does get paid, you and the rest of the country pay for him and the rest of the scroungers down at Buck House--£37MILLION was paid to the Royal household this year--why? NO BODY IS WORTH THAT MONEY,and some bright spark (sorry not you my friend!) is going to come back and say that everyone only pays 67p towards that contribution----they should try living on Old Age Pension which this government hands out to it senior citizens.

Lancastrian
5th July 2007, 11:21
Peanuts compared to what President Prescott would cost us! (Smoke)

clankie
5th July 2007, 12:19
Only The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Queen reimburses the annual parliamentary allowances received by other members of the Royal Family.

sparkie2182
5th July 2007, 15:25
to be honest....as i am not r.f.a........never have been, im probably not really qualified,in retrospect, to comment on an r.f.a. matter.
i just hope, in future ceremonials, that it is made clear to all that he is representing the r.f.a.........not the merchant navy.
i want the red duster represented by someone commanding respect without question. i know there are many members of s.n. who qualify in this regard ,so they dont need to look too far to make an appointment.

best regards to all....................

CEYLON220
6th July 2007, 08:54
At least with a President at the helm we the tax payers would only forking out for one person and not for the off springs as well,that idiot Edward has been reading the manual again on how to produce another addition to the Royals for us to foot the bill. As an ex RN I always thought that MN men manned RFA ships, the RFA lads that I knew always classed themselves as MN or am I getting in too dangerous waters again---- no doubt that being ex RN I`ll go down with all guns blazing, so as the man said "let battle commence"

CEYLON220
6th July 2007, 09:06
My old man was MN thro and thro and when I went to the recruiting office in Carlisle and signed on for 12 years at 16 he went crazy and got on the next train to Carlisle went to the RN recruiting office and told them that he had`nt given his permission for me to join-- apparently the RN Chief did`nt want to take on the MN and tore my papers up.To get around this hiccup I told my father that my intentions on joining the RN was to get experience of sea time then I would go into the MN, this was given the ok providing the outcome was me joining his old shipping company after----------- I served 20 years in the RN and still never got around to joining the MN, I regret that to this day,too late now tho unless some companies are recruiting 71 year olds!!!!

sparkie2182
6th July 2007, 14:13
hi ceylon........

probably is getting into deeper water than i want to go.....but when i think of m.n..........i think of a red ensign.

this means no disrespect to the r.f.a........but i dont want the commodore in chief of the r.f.a. representing the red ensign at ceremonials.
if nothing else, this would deprive a long serving merchant seaman of the honour.......which cant be right.

best regards to all ......... m.n. r.n. r.f.a. royal marines fishing fleet
sea cadets and anyone else i have missed out.

william dillon
6th July 2007, 21:54
Sparkie old mate --I hope you don`t mind me calling you mate but to put one point that you made about Edward not getting paid for the job, he does get paid, you and the rest of the country pay for him and the rest of the scroungers down at Buck House--37MILLION was paid to the Royal household this year--why? NO BODY IS WORTH THAT MONEY,and some bright spark (sorry not you my friend!) is going to come back and say that everyone only pays 67p towards that contribution----they should try living on Old Age Pension which this government hands out to it senior citizens.
This is not a government hand out, the people who get it have earned it and are entitled to it.(Cloud)

benjidog
6th July 2007, 23:26
I think it is outrageous that the Royal Family get paid nearly as much as a Premier League footbal player. What is the world coming to?(Cloud)

I think we should employ a cheaper Polish Royal Family as their rates tend to be a lot lower than English ones. I would suggest the minimum wage plus 25% as we don't want to be too mean. (Jester)

Brian

K urgess
6th July 2007, 23:33
No good, Brian.
The Poles wouldn't allow them to leave.
They're getting worried now about the football championship or something they're hosting because there aren't enough builders, plasterers, etc., left in Poland to complete the job(LOL)
(courtesy of Classic FM news today)

Kris

sparkie2182
6th July 2007, 23:51
im outa here............:)

BEST regards to everyone.............:)

CEYLON220
7th July 2007, 08:43
I should have named this forum "Royalists v Republicans", this forum is starting to get heated,before I go, one last dig---I still say that the money we contribute to the Royal Family is way over the top and they certainly don`t earn it, sorry Billy but I`m not with you on that score unless you were meaning that us OAPs earn it.
God Bless all mariners past and present.

clankie
7th July 2007, 14:01
If you have such a great problem with payments/allowances being made to the Royal family, and Earl of Wessex being made Commodore in Chief RFA then may I be so impertinent as to suggest to the two biggest whiners on this site that they both, in writing put their greivences to both their MP's, the Prime Minister and the two people to whom they so dearly love to whine about.

sparkie2182
7th July 2007, 14:12
" i disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

voltaire

CEYLON220
17th July 2007, 10:42
Every one has their own opinion of the Royals,as I am not a Royalist I still say that they receive funds from this government for doing sod all, I agree with Clankie on one point and that is that I am one of his so called "WHINERS" only where the Royals are concerned and I still say that Edward was a great mistake making that idiot a Commodore in Chief of the RFA and if I was a member of that group I would be showing my disaproval at his appointment by writing to the head of the Royal Family but of course you are put in touch with one of the secretary only so no doubt my complaint would not be seen, as for the MPs well they are in the government for what they can get out of the job and not listening to the people who voted them in---there now thats the end of my "whining" for today,Clankie old mate, no hard feelings I hope.

trotterdotpom
17th July 2007, 11:18
Ceylon220 - why so cynical? Up spirits, I say.

John T.

clankie
17th July 2007, 12:13
As I said previously if you have a complaint, or grievance that you believe to be genuine then complain to the people who can address that grievance. Don't come on to this or any other website and, for the want of a better word, "slander" people when they can't defend themselves or have the right of reply. Your "beef" or multiple "beefs", you seem to have several, should be put in writing to your MP, the PM or/and the people in question. It's no good coming up with the excuse "they would'nt reply". (Thats an excuse I heard from the "lower deck" many times in my 32 years, in fact I still get them now in my capacity as a trade unionist). If you don't try you'll never know. One thing I do know is that if you write to the PM or/and your MP you will get a reply. When you do, you can let us all know just what the reply was.
I'm not a Royalist, neither do I complain about whatever, without first trying to correct that matter or event which I consider to be an injustice.

You of course have your opinion, buts its only YOUR opinion, other people have theirs.

CEYLON220
17th July 2007, 16:36
Enough said,I always believed in free speech, I started this forum and from the replies that came in on the subject we all have our opinions on the matter, as for writing in to MPs and others this I have done on other matters and not once have I had a reply from the person concerned this has been passed to one of their clerks and as the same as you Clankie I was a shop convenor with GEC for 15 years and I`ve heard all the excuses, mate, from your reply it seems as if I`ve caused you some upset ,this was not intended.

clankie
17th July 2007, 18:36
You certainly haven't upset me I couldn't care less.

sparkie2182
17th July 2007, 22:03
is it not the point of the mess deck to air and test views?

K urgess
17th July 2007, 22:23
It certainly is, Sparkie.
There are only a few rules one of which is don't get too serious, life is too short.[=P]

sparkie2182
17th July 2007, 23:49
thought so........:)

tee hee

CEYLON220
18th July 2007, 08:35
Seems as if I`ve ruffled a few feathers here, just let us get back to having points of view on the matter at hand ie, C of the RFA, in fact I think its run its course,we`ve all expressed our views and maybe a couple of us have gone over the edge---thats life

HOW DO TO YOU GET PROMOTED FROM JUST BEING A MEMBER TO A SENIOR MEMBER maybe I don`t qualify being a "Whiner"--just joking!!!!!!!!

K urgess
18th July 2007, 08:56
It's automatic, Ceylon.

When you've made 100 posts it changes to senior member.

Only 13 to go!(Thumb)

Cheers
Kris

CEYLON220
18th July 2007, 20:20
It's automatic, Ceylon.

When you've made 100 posts it changes to senior member.

Only 13 to go!(Thumb)

Cheers
Kris

Thanks for that Marconi Sahib, 13 is`nt too bad, I`ll try and keep from "winding " people up with my future forums, must keep off saying things about our Royals though-----just joking,mate(Thumb)

Bill Lambert
18th July 2007, 20:46
I don't think you'd call the so Poles much if you knew what the Russians did to them. They put mop heads on them.

HarbourCam
29th July 2007, 18:10
Princess Ann served in the WRNS and hence her uniform used to have blue stripes before the WRNS was amalgamated with the RN.

wa002f0328
29th July 2007, 18:21
The world is mad Benji,
What a sad state of affairs,good job we are sane!!! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, cos after her maj we have a bunch of T--------,(Thumb)

seahawk261
31st July 2007, 20:24
(Jester) (Jester) Prince Edward attending the Falkland Anniversary in the uniform of Commodore of the RFA, what a bl---y farce, he was only in training with the Royal Marines for 3 weeks and cried to get out, too tough for the "nancy boy", the only Royal who should have been there should have been Andrew as he took part in the freeing of the Falklands.
Wearing any uniform for this guy is a blight on the service that he is head of, I wonder what ex-RFA members think about it, it niggles me as an ex-RN member seeing Princess Anne in the uniform of an Admiral she never saw any service and then we`ve got Charlie as an Admiral of the Fleet, the Navy only let him loose with a small minesweeper, could`nt be trusted with anything larger but there again Im no fan of the Royals--- too many scroungers in the family.(Jester) (K)
i'm ex rn and ex rfa....charlie was in command of hms jupiter and got her stuck on london bridge...got a slapped wrist for that....another capt did the same and lost hi seniority...back to the bottom of the promotion list....and andrew ran his sweeper aground.....slapped wrist again....its not what u know..its who u know....and i wouldnt trust edward in command of a rowing boat.....lol

Keltic Star
1st August 2007, 06:53
If you have such a great problem with payments/allowances being made to the Royal family, and Earl of Wessex being made Commodore in Chief RFA then may I be so impertinent as to suggest to the two biggest whiners on this site that they both, in writing put their greivences to both their MP's, the Prime Minister and the two people to whom they so dearly love to whine about.

Up the Whiners,
They have drawn more response on this website to the problem of providing B.S. appointments to incompetent royal tosspots than any letter to an MP would ever do.

Lancastrian
1st August 2007, 09:36
i'm ex rn and ex rfa....charlie was in command of hms jupiter and got her stuck on london bridge...got a slapped wrist for that....another capt did the same and lost hi seniority...back to the bottom of the promotion list....and andrew ran his sweeper aground.....slapped wrist again....its not what u know..its who u know....and i wouldnt trust edward in command of a rowing boat.....lol

Check your facts before committing libel! "Charlie's" only command was HMS Bronington. As previously explained "Edward's" appointment is an honorary one. He is not in command of anything.
I'm fairly certain "Anne" did not actually serve in the WRNS. (Smoke)

trotterdotpom
1st August 2007, 12:56
Check your facts before committing libel! "Charlie's" only command was HMS Bronnington. As previously explained "Edward's" appointment is an honorary one. He is not in command of anything.
I'm fairly certain "Anne" did not actually serve in the WRNS. (Smoke)

Correctomundo, although for some reason I too thought HRH's ship was "Jupiter". On investigation, "Jupiter" was a frigate and the star of the TV series "HMS Hero".

HMS Bronington is the star of the show at Birkenhead - lets hope she's doing better than HMS Kennington which was purchased by Stockton-on-Tees sea cadets, locked in by the Tees barrage, and has been so badly vandalised that she's in danger of sinking. "Rum, sodomy and the lash" - bring it back!

John T.

PS What was Helicopter Pilot Andrew doing in charge of a minesweeper? Some of these stories are up there with the Queen's varnished poo on a wall in a Pompey pub.

Lancastrian
1st August 2007, 14:04
When FAA pilots get to old or too senior to fly they graduate to proper jobs like driving ships.

Prince Charles was Comms Officer of Jupiter in 1974, so I dont think he can be blamed for the Bridge incident as this happened in 1984.
Prince Andrew commanded HMS Cottesmore in 1993-4, having previously passed the Ship Command Examination.

johnalderman
1st August 2007, 14:14
Andrew did watchkeeping duties on a number of frigates.

Duncan112
1st August 2007, 14:32
Correctomundo, although for some reason I too thought HRH's ship was "Jupiter". On investigation, "Jupiter" was a frigate and the star of the TV series "HMS Hero".

HMS Bronington is the star of the show at Birkenhead - lets hope she's doing better than HMS Kennington which was purchased by Stockton-on-Tees sea cadets, locked in by the Tees barrage, and has been so badly vandalised that she's in danger of sinking. "Rum, sodomy and the lash" - bring it back!

John T.

PS What was Helicopter Pilot Andrew doing in charge of a minesweeper? Some of these stories are up there with the Queen's varnished poo on a wall in a Pompey pub.

There is a thread on this site concerning the sad, and disgraceful state of affairs with the ex historic warships collection at Birkenhead. I fear HMS Bronington is little better off than HMS Kennington.(Cloud)

slick
3rd August 2007, 16:01
All,
(For Ceylon 220)
Prince Edward is not an Honorary Commodore of the RFA but and Honorary Captain, something about not outranking other members of his family, now ,now Ceylon don't fall off your perch!!
Yours aye,
Slick

trotterdotpom
3rd August 2007, 16:17
Aren't all Captains in the RFA "honorary"? Presumeably, not being commissioned naval officers, they are actually "Ships' Masters". Would it be a demotion for Prince Edward to become Master Windsor?

John T.

Lancastrian
3rd August 2007, 19:31
Aren't all Captains in the RFA "honorary"? Presumeably, not being commissioned naval officers, they are actually "Ships' Masters". Would it be a demotion for Prince Edward to become Master Windsor?

John T.

No! In accordance with a Defence Council Instruction issued in 1992, persons in charge of RFAs have the appointment of Commanding Officer and the rank of Captain RFA.
So there!
For many years Masters of the Merchant Navy, have enjoyed the title of "Captain Bloggs" and why not?
The Queen's Commission has nothing to do with it.
Regarding Prince Edward, he holds the honorary appointment of Commodore in Chief, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, but has the rank of Captain, and if you find that confusing, see this link which will make you even more so! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore-in-Chief .(Smoke)

CEYLON220
3rd August 2007, 20:41
Slick mate ,the paper that i read had him down as a Commodore of the RFA even tho you have pointed out that he only sports 4 rings on his tailor made to royal standards uniform but a Commodore is really a senior captain or is someone going to tell me that i am wrong---by gum this thread is certainly showing interest, comments for and against and one more word for my mate
Clankie, i did write about my grievence of the payments to the Royals and to my MP but to date these letters have been ignored ----but i am not getting into an arguement about it as people take things to heart to easily. Ipromised the moderator that i would`nt wind people up once i was promoted to "senior" member----well not for the next 24 hours. Up spirits!!!!!!!!

gil mayes
3rd August 2007, 21:21
A Commodore's substantive rank is Captain.
Gil.

sparkie2182
3rd August 2007, 22:46
in the end.............

it is simply about unearned respect.

some people have no problem with it....... others do.

Pompeyfan
4th August 2007, 00:24
Hi Guys

Just type Prince Edward Commodore RFA into Google, and see what comes up, I think you will be surprised. Your comments are not only seen by SN members.

Those who accuse the Royal Family of being scroungers, or that Prince Edward has no right to be Commodore of the RFA are making comments without knowing the facts, or perhaps wanting to know the facts. So why do they do so. Is it jealousy, or what?. And on what evidence would this country be better served by a President?.

Great Briton has a long history admired by many others countries who love all the pomp and ceremony. They would not care a less if one of the Royals is head of this or that whether thay have earned that rank or not.

The Royals work very hard on our behalf. The Queens daily schedule for example would drain even the youngest members of this site, let alone an 80 year old lady. The Royals work long hours behind the scenes doing great work for our economy gaining exports from around the world on their travels etc. As a republic we could be far worse off in many ways. Those who criticise have no idea how hard they work. These critics have only one vision, tunnel vision seeing only what they want to see, and not what is really happening forming an opinion without knowing their facts or history.

And who would want to be a Royal anyway, however much wealth they may have or how they get it. They can't walk down the street like you or I. They are photographed wherever they go. Every move in captured. We have free speech, but they do not have that luxury. They can't make comment on the Government or anything else. Some try, Prince Charles does his best saying as much as he dare, but often accused of going too far as with his father. Say nothing and be dammed, and say something and be accused of putting their foot in it. They can't win.

Be thankful we have a monarchy, a system that has served us well throughout history. Why change something if it is not broken whether we think they have earned it or not. We should repect a well oiled system rather than individuals. The Queen serves her country, and we should all respect that.

So to all those who dislike the Royals, think they are scroungers and so on. Well, you may be poor, and never have their wealth. But you can do something they will never be able to, walk down the street unnoticed, and have freedom of speech. You don't know how lucky you are?!.

Money can buy many things, but it does not buy the freedom the majority of us enjoy. So don't be envious of the Royals, or criticise one of them for being Commodore of the RFA. Nobody would want to live their life, unless you don't mind living in a cage with the world looking on. David

GEORDIE LAD
4th August 2007, 03:16
Very well said David.The Royals have served us well over the years and I for one enjoy all the pomp and ceremony....Doug

trotterdotpom
4th August 2007, 06:22
No! In accordance with a Defence Council Instruction issued in 1992, persons in charge of RFAs have the appointment of Commanding Officer and the rank of Captain RFA.
So there!
For many years Masters of the Merchant Navy, have enjoyed the title of "Captain Bloggs" and why not?
The Queen's Commission has nothing to do with it.
Regarding Prince Edward, he holds the honorary appointment of Commodore in Chief, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, but has the rank of Captain, and if you find that confusing, see this link which will make you even more so! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore-in-Chief .(Smoke)

Thanks for the information, Lancastrian. I assumed that RFA ships, being manned by civilians, the personnel would be known by the same titles as other merchant ships.

I have never had any objection to ships' Masters being "Captains", that's what I always called them, nevertheless it is an honorary title. So there!

Furthermore, my comment was not meant to start a battle between the Red Raggers and the Forelock Tuggers - whoops!

John T.

Lancastrian
4th August 2007, 08:07
A Commodore's substantive rank is Captain.
Gil.

Not true. Since 1996, Commodore has been a substantive rank in the RN.

Before that there was a confusing history of 1st class, 2nd class and "whilst holding this appointment".

See this extract from Wikipedia as I cant get the link to work:
(Smoke)
The appointment of Commodore dates to the mid-17th century: it was first used in the time of William III. There was a need for officers to command squadrons, but it was not deemed desirable to create new admirals (as Post-Captains were promoted to Rear-Admiral in order of seniority). Captains assigned squadron command were given the title of Commodore, but it was not an actual rank. The officer so designated kept his place on the list of Captains. In 1748 it was established that Captains serving as Commodores were equal to Brigadier-Generals in the Army.

Commodores could revert to the rank of Captain at the end of their posting (and Captains could be promoted directly to Rear-Admiral without ever having served as a Commodore).

The Royal Navy Commodore was eventually split into two classes. Those of the first class had a Captain under them to command their ship and were allocated one-eighth of all prize money earned by ships under their command. Those of the second class commanded their own ship as well as the squadron. In 1783, Commodores of the first class were allowed to wear the uniform of a Rear-Admiral, a distinction which continued with some variation until the two classes of Commodore were consolidated in 1958.

By the 20th century, Commodores did not just command sea-going units (the naval barracks in the three main naval bases of Devonport, Portsmouth and Chatham were all commanded by Commodores, for instance) and the appointment of Commodore could also be held by specialist officers in certain positions as well as by line officers.

In 1996, Commodore was made a substantive rank in the Royal Navy.

sparkie2182
4th August 2007, 22:10
just to repeat..........

some people do not have a problem with unearned respect.........others do

sparkie2182
4th August 2007, 22:49
sorry pompey...........

i missed your point about google............

CEYLON220
5th August 2007, 00:24
just to repeat..........

some people do not have a problem with unearned respect.........others do

Well said Sparkie, could`nt have put it better myself --but no way am I going to respond to our friend who to me seems to be a right Royal subject who has been brainwashed----I still stand by what I said that it was a disgrace for ED to represent a fine service as the RFA---I rest my case.


(Thumb)

johnalderman
5th August 2007, 11:10
Free the royal family, give them the same rights as the rest of us, let them walk the streets unhindered, its a disgrace that they have to put up with their poor lives while the rest of us enjoy our freedom!(*))

Pompeyfan
5th August 2007, 11:57
Well said Jack.

Ceylon

I assume you are referring to me which if so, I find very sad and totally unjustified.

I am neither a Royalist or a Republican or jealous of those who have something I have not got or given a naval rank they are not entitled to.

Life is too short to be bitter, critical or jealous of others. When you have seen what I have in my medical career, you realize that tragedy is a great leveller. It comes in all shapes and forms from poor health to accidents which affects us all whether privileged or poor including the Royals who have had their own fair share of tragedy which their wealth or influence could not prevent.

My point was that the system in this country has worked well throughout history. I cannot see that a republican state would make it any better. If so then great, I would be all for it. But experienece of life, and seeing how others countries operate has taught me that we are better off as we are.

That is not being a Royalist or a Republican, but a Realist. Show me how better off we will be under a republic, and I will listen because my outlook on political systems or anything else is not set in stone hence my comment in my last post about tunnel vision because some people refuse to see the others point of view and would never change their opinon even if they know deep down they are wrong. I could never take a one sided view, but be prepared to change opinion and admit to being wrong at times unless of course completely certain of my facts.

My point also was that nobody would want to be a Royal.

I bitterly resent being accused of being brainwashed because I always try to state fact. It is not necessary my opinion, just pointing out the obvious.

The fact is that the Royals are born into something they would wish privately they were not. None of us would want to live the life they do. That is not being brainwashed, it is rock solid fact.

They are in effect living in a prison. A very nice prison, large mansions, palace's and castles with huge grounds. But in the broad shape of things in the size of the world we have free access to, their world/free space is very limited albeit luxurious. They don't have to worry about bills or where the next meal is coming from, but at what price to they have to pay to get this secluded luxury?.

Call them scroungers or whatever you like, but none of us would like that life. It is not living like we know it whether we are quite well off or very poor. We all have something no money in the world can buy. Freedom. The Royals can't go anywhere they like in this country like we can. They can't get on a plane to go abroad not being noticed. They could never go on a normal cruise for example and mix with others like we can.

Wherever they go they are surrounded by minders, and can't even say what they think. It's like living in a goldfish bowl, cameras always on you, shaking millions of hands, not too pleasant if you have rheumatics in the fingers. That is not living, it is pure hell. How can giving such plain facts that even the blind can see be see as being brainwashed on my part?!.

Princess Diana tried desperately to live as normal a life as possible bringing Prince William and Harry up as normally as possible and look where it got her. Her sons are now trying very hard to follow in her footsteps but face the same establishment problems as their mother. They grieve for her daily which is made worse by the media forever bringing their mother up. They would give their right arm to have been born in an ordinary family where they would have still had their mother rather than being punished daily when the media constantly brings their mother up. They have never been able to grieve properly like a normal person. Is that being privileged?. You would not wish that on your worst enemey whether Royal or not. Whatever they do is wrong, they will never win in the eyes of some.

I think you will find that not one Royal would have chosen to have been born a Royal. But those who have just get on with it without complaint having to put up with all those who despise them so much without being able to defend themselves. We can do that as I am now, but they can't.

I just wish people would leave others alone and live and let live. We all came the same way, and will all go the same way. So why be so bitter and critical of others in between.

I am not happy to have to write this to justify my other post. It is so unnecessary. But I will not be accused without response, even if not directly of being brainwashed. I do have a mind of my own, and quite willing to change my opinion if need be. How many others are willing to change their minds rather than having one view and never changing from cradle to grave. What a sad and boring life that would be?!. David

CEYLON220
5th August 2007, 15:31
Well said Jack.

Ceylon

I assume you are referring to me which if so, I find very sad and totally unjustified.

I am neither a Royalist or a Republican or jealous of those who have something I have not got or given a naval rank they are not entitled to.

Life is too short to be bitter, critical or jealous of others. When you have seen what I have in my medical career, you realize that tragedy is a great leveller. It comes in all shapes and forms from poor health to accidents which affects us all whether privileged or poor including the Royals who have had their own fair share of tragedy which their wealth or influence could not prevent.

My point was that the system in this country has worked well throughout history. I cannot see that a republican state would make it any better. If so then great, I would be all for it. But experienece of life, and seeing how others countries operate has taught me that we are better off as we are.

That is not being a Royalist or a Republican, but a Realist. Show me how better off we will be under a republic, and I will listen because my outlook on political systems or anything else is not set in stone hence my comment in my last post about tunnel vision because some people refuse to see the others point of view and would never change their opinon even if they know deep down they are wrong. I could never take a one sided view, but be prepared to change opinion and admit to being wrong at times unless of course completely certain of my facts.

My point also was that nobody would want to be a Royal.

I bitterly resent being accused of being brainwashed because I always try to state fact. It is not necessary my opinion, just pointing out the obvious.

The fact is that the Royals are born into something they would wish privately they were not. None of us would want to live the life they do. That is not being brainwashed, it is rock solid fact.

They are in effect living in a prison. A very nice prison, large mansions, palace's and castles with huge grounds. But in the broad shape of things in the size of the world we have free access to, their world/free space is very limited albeit luxurious. They don't have to worry about bills or where the next meal is coming from, but at what price to they have to pay to get this secluded luxury?.

Call them scroungers or whatever you like, but none of us would like that life. It is not living like we know it whether we are quite well off or very poor. We all have something no money in the world can buy. Freedom. The Royals can't go anywhere they like in this country like we can. They can't get on a plane to go abroad not being noticed. They could never go on a normal cruise for example and mix with others like we can.

Wherever they go they are surrounded by minders, and can't even say what they think. It's like living in a goldfish bowl, cameras always on you, shaking millions of hands, not too pleasant if you have rheumatics in the fingers. That is not living, it is pure hell. How can giving such plain facts that even the blind can see be see as being brainwashed on my part?!.

Princess Diana tried desperately to live as normal a life as possible bringing Prince William and Harry up as normally as possible and look where it got her. Her sons are now trying very hard to follow in her footsteps but face the same establishment problems as their mother. They grieve for her daily which is made worse by the media forever bringing their mother up. They would give their right arm to have been born in an ordinary family where they would have still had their mother rather than being punished daily when the media constantly brings their mother up. They have never been able to grieve properly like a normal person. Is that being privileged?. You would not wish that on your worst enemey whether Royal or not. Whatever they do is wrong, they will never win in the eyes of some.

I think you will find that not one Royal would have chosen to have been born a Royal. But those who have just get on with it without complaint having to put up with all those who despise them so much without being able to defend themselves. We can do that as I am now, but they can't.

I just wish people would leave others alone and live and let live. We all came the same way, and will all go the same way. So why be so bitter and critical of others in between.

I am not happy to have to write this to justify my other post. It is so unnecessary. But I will not be accused without response, even if not directly of being brainwashed. I do have a mind of my own, and quite willing to change my opinion if need be. How many others are willing to change their minds rather than having one view and never changing from cradle to grave. What a sad and boring life that would be?!. David

Sorry Pompeyfan i did`nt mean to be offensive,maybe brainwashed was the wrong word to use,i apologise for that, we all look at the Royals in different ways and i will admit all of them are not all bad,you mentioned 3, Diana, Harry, and Wills plus the Queen but for the rest, well---- and nothing will change my opinion of them-----this thread is becoming aggressive, how do we cancel it,any ideas?

CEYLON220
5th August 2007, 15:40
I apologise to all on this site if I have caused bad feelings to anyone,this I did not intend to do, as I said at first I was disgusted at this Royal in particular being given the honour of being the head of a fine service such as the RFA , nothing would have been said by me if the Duke of York had been given this honour-----anyway lads please accept my apologise. Dave W.

K urgess
5th August 2007, 15:48
Well said, Dave W.(Thumb)
Thanks for pouring oil on troubled waters.(Applause)

Kris

Pompeyfan
5th August 2007, 16:48
Hi Dave W

Apology accepted.

If ever we have another SN get together like we did when I organised a trip aboard Pride of Bilbao, I will tell you a few stories of those Royals you may not like as well as those who you do.

The great thing about this site is that we can have discussion, which often get heated. There is nothing wrong with that within limitation of course. It is no different to being at sea having a good old chin wag over a pint as we did on the SN get together.

I see no point in cancelling a thread just because a few of us have difference of opinion. But of course that is up to the owners and mods. My only concern is that you can type this thread title into Google, and it all comes up. I thought it was a member only site with only parts open to non members. David

sparkie2182
5th August 2007, 22:09
pompey.......

why the concern about google?

Pompeyfan
5th August 2007, 23:03
No concern, just surprised that everything we write can be seen by others when I thought it was a members only site. Have you typed the name of this particular thread into Google?. Not SN itself, just this thread. David

Hugh MacLean
6th August 2007, 17:16
The Google "bot" will crawl all websites that don't specifically deny it access. For example, you can tell it to trawl certain pages but deny it access to others.

If you put any topic that has been covered here in SN into Google then, chances are, that it will have been indexed and is available for all to see.

I suppose this will bring new members as they follow the search trail back to SN and maybe feel they would like to join the site. The downside is that your postings, which some of you probably thought were in house, are available to all the Internet.

Regards

Pompeyfan
6th August 2007, 17:44
Hugh

Thanks for explaining that. I personally am not bothered, it just surprised me knowing that SN is a members site. It certainly proves what a powerful search engine Google is. David

Sarazen
6th August 2007, 18:26
When King George V1 came to the throne in 1936, like many others of his ilk, he was stoney broke, his family having lost most of their lands and posessions in Germany in the war of 1914-1918. During that time his father conveniently changed the family name to Windsor.
When the present Queen took over in 1952, she did not have a great deal either (for a Royal). It did not take long for her to become one of the richest people in the world, quite an achievement during the impoverished days after the war of 1939-1945.
When her uncle the Duke of Windsor was in virtual exile in Paris, he was still entitled to his allowance, paid for by the British Government. At that time the amount of British currency allowed to be taken out of the country was £20.00, which was later increased to £200.00. He managed to get all of his allowance brought over to Paris in a Diplomatic Bag, which he changed on the Black Market into American dollars.

As to what we would do without them, and what would we have in place of them, the answer is simple, we would do well without them, and we don't need a figurehead anyway.

Sarazen

Lancastrian
6th August 2007, 19:07
Very interesting. But straying from the thread! Even Republicans need a figurehead. Look at all the pomp & circumstance that the Americans bestow on their President. " Hail to the Chief ". Alex Salmond for King ?
And where is your evidence for the wealth of the Royal Family from 1936?
(Smoke)

Pompeyfan
6th August 2007, 20:05
Quite right Lancastrian, it is straying from the thread, but those who object to Prince Edward being made Commodore has turned on the Royal Family in general.

And Sarazen, we do not know if we would be better off as a repbublic. We all have our opinions, but at the end of the day, we simply don't know. My own opinion is that we would be worse off, and would rather keep a system we know works, rather than trying a new one that may not.

We are close to losing our sovereignty as it is. Faceless bureaucrats in Brussels telling us what to do already which could get worse. It has been pointed out that we do not vote for the Royal Family, but we don't vote for the bureaucrats in Brussels either who could soon do what Hitler could never do without a shot being fired when we lose more, or indeed all of our rights and our identity as a sovereign state if we sign the Treaty(Constitution in all but name)without even a vote heading even closer to a European superstate.

So if anybody think it wrong that we don't vote for our Royal Family, wait until we are ruled completely by Brussels?!.

I am not into making predictions, I just look at what we have got, and what we have had. History shows that having a reigning monarch has been good for us whether they are only a figure head nowadays or not.

Who knows what the future holds, but there is an old saying: 'Better the devil you know'. I would prefer to leave things as they are, than change to something that could be far worse.

David

clankie
6th August 2007, 20:37
Sarazen you've made a statement but where's the evidence to back it up. Please tell me, as an 20th century historian I'd love to read it.

As for Alex Salmond, I like reading his pages in the Racing Post but as a leader of a country he'd be the captain of a sinking ship. (Cloud)

Sarazen
8th August 2007, 07:32
Gentlemen, I did not know that I would be "on trial" and required to give evidence. Any public library will provide you with sufficient knowledge on the finances of the present royal family. Many books and articles have been written about King George V and his family. His sons, The Prince of Wales and Duke of York are well documented, as are the financial arrangements for their upkeep. I have no particular axe to grind, (maybe that's a wrong thing to say in the light of Charles 1 ) but I like to know my subject and not ride upon the Victorian values that were pumped into us as children.

Lancastrian
8th August 2007, 09:46
Sarazen, you are being evasive and you were certainly grinding an axe in your first post implying that the Queen had somehow illegally acquired her personal wealth. We dont have time to go searching through public libraries.
20 minutes on Google has allowed me to learn that the allowance paid to the Duke of Windsor and subsequently his widow came personally from the Sovereign, not as you state, the taxpayer. (Source Wikipedia).

slick
8th August 2007, 10:48
All,
I think I can hear the Russian Revolutionary War Cry used as the Winter Palace was being stormed.
"Death to the Men with Gold on their Shoulders".
Yours aye,
Slick

Pompeyfan
8th August 2007, 18:28
It would seem there are two camps in this thread, one against and one for the Royal Family.

What I can't work out is are those against Royalty against them out of envy, believing we would be better off as a republic, or a bit of both. Or perhaps neither. Or are they just misinformed?.

The other is Royal wealth, how they got it, how they used to be, and how the present Queen got to be Queen and so on.

Well, lets not get too deep into the history of the present Royal Family or indeed any family. I expect we all have skeletons in the cupboard which we would rather forget. Nobody is perfect, never have been, and never will be.

Lets not worry about what was, and what could be if we become a republic or if we continue with our present Royal Family. Lets deal with fact as it is at present.

The fact is that Her Majesty is very prudent with her money. A very clever financier. The money she receives from the Civil List is used very wisely as well as her own personal wealth. Yet rather than being praised for showing such good judgement with both her own and state money, she is criticised as are the rest of the Royals who as I have said before bring good trade to this country especially when abroad.

Don't forget that the Queen has been on the throne for 54, a long time in which to build her fortune using her own good judgement. To even indicate that she acquired her wealth illegally is totally outrageous.

I am not taking sides, just pointing out plain fact as I know it.

As a medical profesional we only deal in fact, so I try to apply that to life in general if I am aware of the facts that is. If not, I either keep quite or just air an opinion leaving it at that.

I don't usually predict, but I am pretty sure of one thing, if we became a republic, a President would not be so prudent with the countries money at his own disposal as Her Majesty. And above all, not nearly as good a leader leading by example even if she is only a figure head.

She is admired the world over.

David

K urgess
8th August 2007, 19:11
I always thought that a lot of the Queen's wealth was the Nation's wealth and she was just the present custodian.

The Duke of Westminster seems to do quite well on the family fortune just like the Queen. Nobody complains about how much he's worth.

Is it normal to count in the Royal art collection and the Royal Palaces in the Queen's wealth?
I don't somehow think she would be allowed to sell the crown jewels if she fell on hard times.[=P]

johnalderman
8th August 2007, 19:42
For what its worth, my opinion is that in the 21st century there should be no place for a "Royal" family, people elevated to high office by birthright whether they are fit for office or not. I think the royal family should be allowed to pass into history with the passing of the present Queen. An elected figurehead accountable to the people at the ballet box seems to me a better system for modern times. France did away with its royal line, albeit by more violent means than I would favour, but France still attracts millions of visitors to its many palaces now preserved in fantastic condition by the state for the people.

Lancastrian
8th August 2007, 19:51
Good question Marconi Sahib. The answer is - "13. The Queen does not own the Royal Palaces, works of art from the Royal Collection or the Crown Jewels. These are held by Her Majesty as Sovereign and must be passed to her successor in due course." This comes from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4237.asp where all the Official Income & Expenditure is freely available. (It is no doubt also in Public Libraries which have not yet been taken over as DVD rental outlets and Internet Porn Research Establishments!)
Her personal wealth is derived from inheritance, the Duchy of Lancaster (see http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/output/page1.asp - I have a personal interest!) and no doubt shrewd investments over the years, but despite frequent speculation in certain publications , it is and should remain private. (Smoke)

Pompeyfan
8th August 2007, 21:18
Lancastrian is right.

The Queen for example does not own the Crown Jewels or Buckingham Palace etc. They belong to the state.

Her Majesty own places like Balmoral, Sandringham, both estates with areas of land, gardens and forest. She also owns private collections of art, furnature, jewels and horses etc.

Things are given to her over the years like we all get given something albeit at a far lesser scale. For example, very close to my own home when very young, Uffa Fox gave the then Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip a Flying Fifteen as a wedding present which he named Coweslip which was actually after the flower which grew above our gardens but with an e as in Cowes. He was our neighbour for years, and not at Cowes as many people thought, but the opposite end of the island. He bought the land off my father beneath Blackgang to build a house with a Lookout for his second wife who I often took dinners to cooked by my mother, but Uffa was often there walking into our house once(He just opened the main door and walked in as he often did) when I was having a bath coming straight making a comment about Chamber Pots under the bath referring to them as 'Thunder Mugs'!!. I was 7 or 8 and not too happy!. He later moved to Puckaster, also south of the island with us following when our houses was close to falling into the sea. We lived on the edge of the cliff. I can tell many stories?!. Uffa was sailing partner to Prince Philip

Anyway, back to the Queen. She has spent money wisely as I said, and invested wisely.

Presidents would be no different, in fact they may be too frivolous with the nations money. The Queen is just the opposite.

My own opinon without being biassed is that we are very lucky with the system we have got in this country. Our Queen has served us well, and make no mistake, she serves us working hours that would many half her age would find hard to cope with.

I cannot for the life of me see how a President would work as hard, or as dedicated to his/her subjects as our Queen.

One of the great downfalls of mankind is to be jealous of others. But as hard as I try, I cannot see how we would be better off as a nation and as individuals by scrapping the monarchy and becoming a republic.

Show me how we would all benefit, and I will listen because as I have said before, I am not a Royalist or a Republican bit a realist who think we are better off as we are.

David

Sarazen
8th August 2007, 21:26
My last on this subject.

I did not imply that H.M. Queen Elizabeth 11 in any way whatsoever attain her wealth by underhand means.

I have made no comment regarding Alec.Salmond.

I'm surprised that some public libraries have pornography available to the masses, and having enquired with my local librarian, my library doesn't stock that either. It is a pity that some people don't have the time to go to the library, a fountain of knowledge awaits.

Pompeyfan
8th August 2007, 21:37
Sarazen

I quite agree, and sorry if others have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

One of the problems with posts is often misinterpretation.

Please carry on making comment. It great to have open debate.

How boring life would be if we all agreed with each others opinion?!. David

sparkie2182
8th August 2007, 21:40
great thread..........keep it up...........:)

Peter4447
8th August 2007, 22:51
I have greatly enjoyed following this thread because any debate about the role of Royalty always brings out strong views either for or against and although I have misgivings about the amount of 'royals' I do believe that it will be a very sad day if ever we lose the Monarchy and either a King or Queen as head of state because what would take their place?

It has been suggested we should have an elected Head of State as in France - looking at the apathy of voters in this country I think that would only work if voting was made compulsory.

It is a very thorny issue but using this thread as a very rough indicator I wonder if this subject really does generate as much enthusiasm and interest as some would think.

We have 15,000 members and whilst this thread has been viewed 1757 times all of the comments that have been posted have been made by just 22 members.

It makes you wonder.......!

Peter4447(Thumb)

Pompeyfan
8th August 2007, 22:59
Peter

Do we know how many of the 15,000 members actually post at all?.

All of those that have post on this thread seem to post on all threads.

David

sparkie2182
8th August 2007, 23:16
thats right pompey..........

there is definately a silent majority...............

this is particularly true in the gallery section. when i take time to look closely at a pic.......i always try to leave a small note in the comments section.
this is just to acknowledge the time and trouble taken by the poster, which i feel is only right.
but some pics are viewed by many........and not one leaves a note of any kind.
this is disheartening for the poster.......who will doubtless stop posting altogether.

Peter4447
8th August 2007, 23:33
Hi David

I have not the faintest idea of how many of our 15,000 members actually post - its a bit like voting as it is entirely upto a members' individual choice.

Regards
Peter

sparkie2182
8th August 2007, 23:40
sarazen............

who needs a library when we have the internet?

a small piece from the "sunday times"........that hotbed of communist revolt.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Royal_Nazis.html

trotterdotpom
9th August 2007, 00:26
My last on this subject......

I'm surprised that some public libraries have pornography available to the masses, and having enquired with my local librarian, my library doesn't stock that either. It is a pity that some people don't have the time to go to the library, a fountain of knowledge awaits.

I think Lancastrian was referring to Internet availablilty in public libraries. Our local library has in "In" door and an "Out" door for bookworms and an "In-Out" door for internet viewers.

It is a pity that more folk don't use the public libraries - apart from the ones in dirty raincoats, you meet a nice type of person in there.

By the way, sorry to show my ignorance but who is Alec Salmond?

John T.

CEYLON220
10th August 2007, 09:28
When i started this thread i did`nt realise how much interest it would generate and how we all have divided opinions on the Royal Family
---what we need is another Oliver Cromwell to sort this out.
Say no more Dave, i`ve caused too much animosity between friends over this thread so i`ll keep quiet and read what every one else is putting forward---last word : UP THE REPUBLICANS! ha,ha,ha,

Pompeyfan
10th August 2007, 09:57
Ceylon

You have not caused anamosity, just good democratic debate. Don't stop making comment.

Everybody has their opinions rightly or wrongly, nothing wrong in that. As I said on another thread, it would be a boring life if we all agreed on everything.

The only exception is when people get personal.

Some people get upset because they have been fed wrong facts, often doing another great injustice out of nothing more than gossip.

I try to stick to facts, not listening to the grapevine which always distorts the truth, and gets worse as the story gathers pace.

The bottom line is don't believe everything you read especially from a source who delight in finding all the muck they can to justify their dislike of a particular subject, people or persons.

At the end of the day, judge people from your own experience of them, not what others say.

David

sparkie2182
10th August 2007, 17:51
very true.......

there are no definative rights or wrongs anyway......just opinions.
the only important thing is that people DO make their views known.....which ties up with pompeys post (above).
i have been online now for over 12 years, and have seen many a good bulletin board die.....simply because the members have presumably lost interest, and stopped posting.
this doesnt happen immediately....a slow but sure lethargy creeps in, and it doesnt take long for a vibrant site to die.
a fresh input from new or previously silent (lurkers ....i believe they are called in internet jargon) members to keep the site fresh of ideas is vital.
this particular thread has been successfull as it is of a theme which is a common bone of contention......monarchy.
but if we look back through it.....we all have said our bit.....and we all know where each other stands on the topic......and thats fine as far as it goes.
but it tends to take the form of a "circular converstation" after a while, and becomes old very quickly without fresh input.
as peter 4447 said......it is a members choice to post or not.
but i for one would like to see more participation from members other than we......the "usual suspects".........:)

on the topic of posts becoming insulting.....this is obviously at least a logging offence, and if persistant....leaving on the beach with a d/c. in the discharge book.... and few would question it.
not being too thin skinned is also a virtue.....but both these points are common to all internet bulletin boards, on whatever topic.

best regards to all cavalier and roundheads................

sparkie2182

Keltic Star
11th August 2007, 04:08
All I want to know is what royal toss pot decided to make the w----r Commodore of the RFA.
Duck, incoming.

Lancastrian
11th August 2007, 07:21
If you read the previous posts more carefully you wouldnt need to ask your offensive and completely unnecessary question.

Pompeyfan
11th August 2007, 10:47
Keltic Star

I think you will find the Lord High Admiral may have had something to do with the appointment of Prince Edward as Commodore in Chief, Royal Fleet Auxillary.

I think you will also find that this is a recently created role, and Prince Edward represented the Lord High Admiral in the Falkland Islands in his new role to mark the 25th anniversary of the conflict.

Senior Royals are often given a role as head of an armed service. Some have ranks of their own, others not. They respresent the role in their Royal capacity.

For example Princess Anne is Colonel-in-Chief to The Kings Royal Hussars. And in yours neck of the woods Keltic Star, she is Colonel-in-Chief to the 8th Canadian Hussars(Princess Louise's). And Prince Edward is Colonel-in-Chief to The Saskatchewan Dragoons.

Hope this anwers your question, but neither would be ammused at the names you called them.

It would seem that all those who are anti Royal will never change their minds. That is why I take no side because I would hate to think that I was so one sided in my thinking that I could never change my mind, or see anothers point of view.

As a medical professional not being able to change my opinion, would be professional suicide.

That is why in life in general I try to see anothers point of view. Not stick to one tradition, possibly handed down through the family such as voting for one political party for example and refusing to change come what may. I like to think I have a mind of my own and willing to change if need be hence often using the phrase 'tunnel vision'. I hope I never fit into that group. Mind you, some may say I already do?!!.

David

benjidog
11th August 2007, 15:19
This thread is now getting repetive and boring.

I suggest it is now allowed to die quietly unless someone has something new to say that is not insulting to others.

Regards,

Brian

Pompeyfan
11th August 2007, 18:31
Brian

You are quite right, the thread is becoming repetative and boring.

For those not sure, the Lord High Admiral is Her Majesty The Queen.

Since they cannot defend themselves, it is up to those who are aware of the facts to do so for them. Beyond that, I make no further comment.

David

HENNEGANOL
11th August 2007, 20:46
In view of the foregoing remarks I call on the Moderators to close this thread, as there is little point in continuing in the present vein.

Whilst bearing in mind that they who claim to be republicans are invariably the first to thrust themselves forward, when there is a chance of gratifying themselves with the very people they claim to despise. President Blair and Cherie, god help us!

Gerry.

sparkie2182
11th August 2007, 21:24
lets let this one go........................