In This Thread, we post sensational rumors about the British Royal Family

stevet

Established member
917 5
Trader333

absolutly and it maybe a fact that the majority do prefer to live their lives through other peoples lives and like to feel subservient to others

and if the majority feel that - thats how it should be

but out of a million - how many were just up for a day out and might have gone to see micky mouse if he was doing some cart wheels down the mall

would be interesting to see what woudl happen if a vote based on the royal family having to give up using the states property and it was put to real use for the people of the country, and they had to pay all the back tax they screwed the country out of and which again could be used for maybe helping poor people and etc etc

and before we hear all they do - i could handle a job where the main points are travelling everywhere 1st class and stuffing my face with the best food and my biggest problem is having to wipe my own bum - thats if they do - hence the latest scandals about to erupt!

for sure when the latest stuff comes out - its gonna be real hard to continue the monarchy as an institution

and yep, you are right about americans wanting their own royal family - thats why disney land was built and if they had the choice - they woudl stick with disney land as its more real than the "Royal" family

and for sure they like the UK having a royal family as then the yanks get to laugh at us !
 
Last edited:

suggy

Active member
133 0
I do have a great deal of respect for the Queen as I believe she has done as her post requires of her and always acted in a professional manner. Unfortunately the other royals have let the side down rather badly, wot wot, and have really destroyed most peoples perceptions of the royal family.

doubtless they have always done much worse, but that was before the age of mass media.
 

Bigbusiness

Experienced member
1,408 23
Does seem a strange argument that because a majority might want to keep the Royal family we should continue with this lot. I can't remember the majority voting them in. Perhaps my history is poor but aren't they a bunch of Germans who changed their name to Windsor?

We should have two votes, one to decide if we want to keep the monarchy and another to decide if we want to keep the present family who seem to be setting bad examples to all of us.

Giving them to the US would be a great idea.
 

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8
stevet said:

and for sure they like the UK having a royal family as then the yanks get to laugh at us !

just wanna clarify a point here

as an American i don't think the British Royal Family is something to laugh at, and my thread certainly wasn't an exercise for some gratuitous Royal bashing

we Americans are rather fond of the Royal Family, and i think it's a great institution that's rich in history and intrigue blah, and i don't think for a second that this current debacle is gonna be the end of yuor monarchy, far from it

this whole biz about Charles, Lady Di, the butler, the horsey woman Camilia and so on and so forth is an international soap opera of the highest order. Yuo couldn't make up sh!t like this! It has everything. Sex, scandal, suspicious deaths, court hearings blah blah blah, rather like our own home bred soap opera a few years back titled "Behind the Oral Office" staring The Clintons

stories like these generate interest in the Royal Family, and yuo can bet yuor ass that decades from now, the Royal Family will still be going strong, and moranic American tourists like myself will still be queueing at the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, blah, getting ass-reamed as we hand over our bucks. Now compare all of this with say the Dutch Royal Family. Who are they? exactly, no knows who they are or cares coz they're boring

sex, scandal, intrigue blah = good for sustained international interest in the Royal Family = good for UK Tourist Biz = GOOD FOR YUO BRITS!
 

stevet

Established member
917 5
Car Key Boi

yep - you proved my point!

and you want tourism - open up buckingham palace to all - its owned by the people of this country and there are a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, layabouts squatting there - i thought they brought out the squatting laws to get rid of that sort of thing!

and the papers have so much dirt on the royal family now collected over many many years and they are sensing the public changing their loyalty - that its just gonna come flushing out - hard to see them continuing as the heads of the country and legal system - it just wont happen

and when loyal people turn - they turn big time!
 

alanb41252

1
264 0
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 November, 2003, 15:24 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Newspaper can name royal servant


An injunction banning The Guardian newspaper from naming a former royal servant has been lifted by the High Court.
The newspaper told the court it had no intention of repeating allegations about the servant.

The newspaper's lawyers went before a judge on Wednesday over a temporary injunction served against it on Monday night.

It followed a similar injunction issued against the Mail on Sunday, preventing it from publishing a story about the same former royal servant.

It is understood The Guardian will only publish the name of the former servant in relation to him obtaining an injunction against the Mail on Sunday.

That injunction remains in place.

The royal servant has argued that his name should not be revealed as the publication of the story would seriously libel him.
 

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1079163,00.html

Guardian victory

Thursday November 6, 2003

The Guardian has won the right to identify Michael Fawcett, one of Prince Charles' former top aides, as the man who has succeeded in obtaining a libel injunction banning publication in a Sunday paper of an article about him.

Such injunctions are only exceptionally granted when the court is satisfied that the allegations are untrue and the newspaper does not seek to say that the allegations are true.

Mr Fawcett, who says the contents of the banned article would have been untrue and damaging, has now lost an unprecedented legal fight to keep secret his identity as the libel claimant.

The Guardian argued before Mr Justice Tugendhat that it had the right, under normal court procedures, to tell the public who was being granted unusual injunctions by the courts, particularly if the interests of the royal family were involved.



This newspaper is not publishing the actual allegations. Not only do they differ from the highly coloured rumours about royal affairs which have surfaced recently in the tabloids: but we also have no reason to believe the allegations are true.

The saga shows, however, the extraordinary lengths to which both sides are going in the current bitter battle between scandal-hungry tabloids and an increasingly bruised royal household.

The Mail on Sunday, which is said to offer up to £500,000 a time for material from royal servants, told the palace at the weekend that it was preparing to print a sensational 3,000-word article based on an interview and an affidavit from one of them.

In the wake of Paul Burrell's recent memoirs exploiting intimate letters from Diana and Prince Philip, the Mail on Sunday clearly found the temptation irresistible. Mr Fawcett went to the courts and last Saturday was granted an injunction by the duty judge, Mr Justice McKinnon, banning publication.
 

Car Key Boi

Well-known member
396 8

Salty Gibbon

Experienced member
1,535 6
entry from "Popbitch" today:

>> Sex Degrees of Prince Charles <<
Follow the sperm from father to son

Prince Charles was reluctantly married to...

Princess Diana, who had sex with...

Bryan Adams, who had it off with...

Tara-Palmer Tompkinson, who de-virginised...

...Prince William!
 

dolton

Member
69 0
Funny though...........when I was working in our dreadful capital city the shirt lifting rumour hitting the street concerned a certain rock star and a palace resident
 

Skimbleshanks

1
2,325 16
You're all wrong! Sir Michael Peat has just issued a statement from Clarence House denying that Prince Charles was involved in an incident with a palace servant. So there.
 
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock