I'm thoroughly in favour of our monarchy; in general I think hereditary monarchies have more good than bad points.

So is James Gilby (ask Diana ... oh, no you cant can you ...)

Diana was correct..she was the best thing to happen to that family

ITK's solution..send in Jim Henson

Harry seems like just another hooray henry to me. And why do they always go into the armed forces? Do we nearly need any more inbreds in the armed forces? 'Trouble in Iraq? Let's find someone whose parents are cousins!' Why can't these wasters do proper jobs? Or maybe they could teach each other The History of Art - the degree of choice for the royals.

Harry Hewitt!! Oh no. Thats always been denied hasnt it?

Prunella Minge wrote:
And why do they always go into the armed forces?

They represent the nation and they cannot ask the people to put their lives on the line unless they are prepared to do so themselves. They lead by example. But of course its not just about combat, the armed services teach a whole range of skills which help prepare them for all life situationals.

As for them doing proper jobs - they mean 9-5 as opposed to 24hr. Yes, darn them for keeping all the 24/7 from the jobs for them themselves.

Prunella Minge wrote:
Harry seems like just another hooray henry to me. And why do they always go into the armed forces? Do we nearly need any more inbreds in the armed forces? 'Trouble in Iraq? Let's find someone whose parents are cousins!' Why can't these wasters do proper jobs? Or maybe they could teach each other The History of Art - the degree of choice for the royals.

I've seen him in a Sydney pub with a bunch of pals getting drunk and I have to agree..although he seems like a nice chap..the whole Hooray Henry buffoonish image fits to a tee.

giles2008 wrote:
Harry Hewitt!! Oh no. Thats always been denied hasnt it?

Children, of course, brings us onto that enduring rumour about the parentage of Prince Harry. Hewitt has in turn robustly denied it - pointing out that the 24-year-old's Hewitt-alike reddish locks are clearly inherited from Diana's side of the family, the Spencers, who also have vibrant red locks in their genes.

Four years ago, he was hypnotised for a television programme in which he 'revealed' that his affair with Diana had begun earlier than he had previously stated, commencing in 1982, not 1986 - before the birth of Prince Harry.

Recently, he seems to have adopted a deliberately ambivalent approach to the question, with comments such as: 'I can answer most things, but when it's so close to you and it's also so far from you. . . so I don't know how much there is in that.'


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11671...y.html#ixzz1oST5c7Md

Prunella Minge wrote:
Why can't these wasters do proper jobs?

Well, Pru .... Princess Beatrice was front page headline in the Express last Saturday saying she wanted a proper job !!!

Must have been an awful shock for her parents - Fat Andy, the Duke of Pork and "Freebie" Fergie !

Pumpkinhead wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
And why do they always go into the armed forces?

They represent the nation and they cannot ask the people to put their lives on the line unless they are prepared to do so themselves. They lead by example. But of course its not just about combat, the armed services teach a whole range of skills which help prepare them for all life situationals.

As for them doing proper jobs - they mean 9-5 as opposed to 24hr. Yes, darn them for keeping all the 24/7 from the jobs for them themselves.

Oh what a load of creepy nonsense! And don't you think people know this kind of argument? What are you going to 'explain' to people next: how to boil an egg?

Pumpkinhead wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
And why do they always go into the armed forces?

They represent the nation and they cannot ask the people to put their lives on the line unless they are prepared to do so themselves.

Really? Well by the same logic they should 'represent' the nation by doing more humane jobs. Why don't they go into banking? That seems quite a task. Maybe they could 'lead' the nation into that.

I think it's great when young people express opinions on all kinds of things, but when they presume we're not aware of what Basil Fawlty (sitcom character, mid-1970s, m'lud) would call the 'bleeding obvious' it does get a bit galling. I know what the royals are supposed to do - I've read Bagehot - but that doesn't really justify the ludicrous posturing in the armed forces where they have to be protected in order to ensure there's no international incident.

I like Harry & Wills and despite Harry coming across as a Hooray Henry..he still seems like a good bloke (after all..some of my best friends are hooray henries!! )

but ITK..Prince Andrew does have a job (promoting British industry) albeit meeting with dodgy people.

Sarah gets no state payment and has fended for herself for years and you should be applauding those 2 girls for wanting careers

I think they could be hat models

then again you want the Royal Family outsourced

Prunella Minge wrote:
but that doesn't really justify the ludicrous posturing in the armed forces where they have to be protected in order to ensure there's no international incident.

Prince Philip saw real combat during WW2.
Prince Andrew acted as a live target to draw enemy fire so that his comrades could get to safety.
Prince Harry was in Afghanistan until sections of the media compromised that particular operation.

Of course there is protection for particular high profile ranks and individuals, but the reason is so 'bleeding obvious' I wonder why you bothered trying to make the point. Or is it the case that you so disapprove of the Royal Family that it doesn't matter what they do.

As one of our local bin men pointed out, both he and the Queen get paid by the system. The only difference is that he has more job security.

veritas wrote:
but ITK..Prince Andrew does have a job (promoting British industry) albeit meeting with dodgy people.

I thought he got the sack from that ... but continues to do it anyway !!!

Sarah gets no state payment and has fended for herself for years

"I'm Sarah - where's my free upgrade?"

Yes - she fends for herself all right (how much was she asking for "access" to Andy ???)

and you should be applauding those 2 girls for wanting careers

I did ... see above.

Pumpkinhead wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
but that doesn't really justify the ludicrous posturing in the armed forces where they have to be protected in order to ensure there's no international incident.

Prince Philip saw real combat during WW2.
Prince Andrew acted as a live target to draw enemy fire so that his comrades could get to safety.
Prince Harry was in Afghanistan until sections of the media compromised that particular operation.

Of course there is protection for particular high profile ranks and individuals, but the reason is so 'bleeding obvious' I wonder why you bothered trying to make the point. Or is it the case that you so disapprove of the Royal Family that it doesn't matter what they do.

As one of our local bin men pointed out, both he and the Queen get paid by the system. The only difference is that he has more job security.

A bit intolerant, old fruit. Anyway: Prince Charles always parades around with a mass of medals on his chest. How, pray, did he win them?

Prunella Minge wrote:
Prince Charles always parades around with a mass of medals on his chest. How, pray, did he win them?

Several were awarded (I'm told) for being a good loyal husband LOL!