IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: What the hell is this?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Honey |
robbiex wrote:
Honey wrote:
Margrave wrote:
Honey wrote:
I really cant see that being interested in the Royals (and therefore history) is any more "sad" than obsessing about a TOTP show that finished donkeys years ago, a music industry that is deader than dead, fishing, stamp collecting, or painting gnomes.
You're right - all those are about the same.
Royals have two groups - those who do good (and are relevant) - and those who don't.
The first group includes the Queen, Charles and William.
And the second - Andrew, Harry and Edward.
What did Edward do to be lumped in with Andrew and Harry?  I know that he was a bit of a wally once or twice, but he seems to be doing very well and working hard now?
And you forgot the magnificent Anne. 
As far as I can see, Edward has little or no royal duties. I can't remember the live time I saw him in public.
Well you are not very likely to see him down the Co-Op. 
He seems to do a lot more than expected. 
www.macleans.ca/royalty/2018-royal-work-...r-congrats-your-maj/
This ranks the royals for 2018, but him and Sophie do a lot of Meghan and Harry's share now.
He also runs the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme. (I think he will be The D.O.E when Charles is king, and of course Charles has the title now) |
|
robbiex |
Honey wrote:
Margrave wrote:
Honey wrote:
I really cant see that being interested in the Royals (and therefore history) is any more "sad" than obsessing about a TOTP show that finished donkeys years ago, a music industry that is deader than dead, fishing, stamp collecting, or painting gnomes.
You're right - all those are about the same.
Royals have two groups - those who do good (and are relevant) - and those who don't.
The first group includes the Queen, Charles and William.
And the second - Andrew, Harry and Edward.
What did Edward do to be lumped in with Andrew and Harry? I know that he was a bit of a wally once or twice, but he seems to be doing very well and working hard now?
And you forgot the magnificent Anne.
As far as I can see, Edward has little or no royal duties. I can't remember the live time I saw him in public. |
|
Honey |
Margrave wrote:
Honey wrote:
I really cant see that being interested in the Royals (and therefore history) is any more "sad" than obsessing about a TOTP show that finished donkeys years ago, a music industry that is deader than dead, fishing, stamp collecting, or painting gnomes.
You're right - all those are about the same.
Royals have two groups - those who do good (and are relevant) - and those who don't.
The first group includes the Queen, Charles and William.
And the second - Andrew, Harry and Edward.
What did Edward do to be lumped in with Andrew and Harry? I know that he was a bit of a wally once or twice, but he seems to be doing very well and working hard now?
And you forgot the magnificent Anne. |
|
Green Man |
Honey wrote:
[quote]robbiex wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9454659...e-Prince-Philip.html
Thank you for your service?  The nasty gets!
Why is that nasty?. Thank you is usually considered complementary? I would be hard pushed to figure out exactly what Phillip's contribution was. Maybe he didn't like his grandad, he wasn't exactly a ray of sunshine? Most of the British public are indifferent or against him. Only a few saddoes who collect royal tea-towels and mugs really care and are pouring over these endless tribute programmes.[/quote
Well, for a start, whoever wrote it got his name wrong, and you don't thank someone for their "service" if they are ranked higher than yourself.
I really cant see that being interested in the Royals (and therefore history) is any more "sad" than obsessing about a TOTP show that finished donkeys years ago, a music industry that is deader than dead, fishing, stamp collecting, or painting gnomes.[/quote]
When I see new pressings of vinyl old albums that I owned on CD or on vintage pressings I do say say to myself “what’s the point” ?
I stick to my vintage LPs I want to hear how how it should sound no how they want to hear. Charlie Daniels remastered is awful compared to the original versions. |
|
Margrave |
Honey wrote:
I really cant see that being interested in the Royals (and therefore history) is any more "sad" than obsessing about a TOTP show that finished donkeys years ago, a music industry that is deader than dead, fishing, stamp collecting, or painting gnomes.
You're right - all those are about the same.
Royals have two groups - those who do good (and are relevant) - and those who don't.
The first group includes the Queen, Charles and William.
And the second - Andrew, Harry and Edward. |
|
|
|
|
