On 24/7/08 12:25, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:53:45 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 24/7/08 09:43, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:59:40 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 23/7/08 20:32, in article
, "Judith
in
France" wrote:

On Jul 23, 1:31 pm, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:28:31 +0100, Sacha
wrote:
A local WI went recently so it seems to be a case of belonging to a
certain
group which then applies but there's a long waiting list. The famous
tulip
'walk' has just about gone btw. It took something like ten thousand
bulbs
every year and was just too labour intensive. Our guide told us that
the
Prince has been given 30,000 (she thinks but surely not?!) snakeshead
fritillary bulbs by the pop star, Sting and these will be planted in
that
area.

The Keukenhof plants several million bulbs every year. If they can do it,
Prince
Charles should be able to manage 10,000.

How did his afternoon tea compare with your own cream teas?
--

Martin

I've been to the Keukenhof , I loved the Acers.

Judith

I've never been there but I think they probably have more workers on the
land and of course, it's commercial. ;-)

They use casual labour to do the planting when required.

The PoW is hardly hard up.

It isn't a question of being hard up but you must know his finances are
scrutinised closely. If he employed 40 extra workers to plant tulip bulbs
*every year* there would be some very critical comment.

Not if it was for a few weeks and the people were on the dole.

You can't *make* people on the dole work at what you want them to work at
plus I can see the headlines now "Prince takes advantage of plight of
jobless". And of course, planting them properly is important so it would
still need to be casual labour with some small knowledge.

How is he going to plant 30,000 snakeshead fritillary bulbs?

Very, very slowly - see below! Perhaps as a one off they willl employ extra
staff or perhaps Sting will lend his gardeners. ;-))

As it is, I think
there are 9 gardeners there but I'm not at all sure of that number. The
previous head gardener used to give some of the gardeners a thousand tulip
bulbs each and tell them they could go home when they'd planted them all!
snip


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 24/7/08 12:27, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:17:42 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 24/7/08 10:54, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and Di got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any marriage.

I think the point here is that almost everyone was buying into the fairytale
at the time - they *wanted* it to work and be the happy ever after thing.
Even the Archbishop that married them made some such comment.

I don't agree, I and many others foresaw the result too.

I did say 'almost' everyone. One wise old lady said to me that she didn't
buy into the 'shy Di' looking up under the eyelashes thing for one minute.
I maintained at the break up and still do now that they 'thought' themselves
into being in love because it was what both wanted, one way or the other.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 24/7/08 14:39, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:46:36 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 24/7/08 12:27, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:17:42 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 24/7/08 10:54, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and Di
got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any marriage.

I think the point here is that almost everyone was buying into the
fairytale
at the time - they *wanted* it to work and be the happy ever after thing.
Even the Archbishop that married them made some such comment.

I don't agree, I and many others foresaw the result too.

I did say 'almost' everyone. One wise old lady said to me that she didn't
buy into the 'shy Di' looking up under the eyelashes thing for one minute.
I maintained at the break up and still do now that they 'thought' themselves
into being in love because it was what both wanted, one way or the other.

My opinion was that she probably was and that he was doing what his dad told
him
to do.

That was a story spread around at the time of the bust up ad not a very
credible one, IMO. He has been reported as telling a few people that they
genuinely in love - I think it was probably an illusion for both of them but
nonetheless sincerely meant in its origins. I don't think either are 'bad'
people but I really cannot, just can't go in for the Charles/bad, Diana/good
thing. And I truly never did get that whole public grief. I think her
death was a real tragedy - for her family.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and Di got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any marriage.

But given that the common herd can divorce and thus end the disaster it is
immaterial what happens in the rest of UK marriages.

Have you actually done the stats on the failures of Royal marriages that
have ended in divorce? It'd have to be less than 1% I would have thought.

Did you foresee Camilla marriage too?

No, but then I doubted there would ever be a divorce given the precedents.

A marriage can be disasterous without it involving a divorce. The two were
so unalike that it was bound to end in misery. I thought that she would be
the one to suffer most. She did suffer, but she learned some good avenge
tactics along the way.

What do you foresee happening next?

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.

"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:46:36 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

I did say 'almost' everyone. One wise old lady said to me that she didn't
buy into the 'shy Di' looking up under the eyelashes thing for one minute.
I maintained at the break up and still do now that they 'thought'
themselves
into being in love because it was what both wanted, one way or the other.

My opinion was that she probably was and that he was doing what his dad
told him
to do.

She was certainly young and inexperienced enough to convince herself that
she was. He was far more guarded in how he reacted to her in public (no
surprises there given his media experience) so it was far harder to tell
about him.

On 25/7/08 23:46, in article
, "FarmI"
ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and Di got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any marriage.

But given that the common herd can divorce and thus end the disaster it is
immaterial what happens in the rest of UK marriages.

Have you actually done the stats on the failures of Royal marriages that
have ended in divorce? It'd have to be less than 1% I would have thought.

Did you foresee Camilla marriage too?

No, but then I doubted there would ever be a divorce given the precedents.

A marriage can be disasterous without it involving a divorce. The two were
so unalike that it was bound to end in misery. I thought that she would be
the one to suffer most. She did suffer, but she learned some good avenge
tactics along the way.

What do you foresee happening next?

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.


Not if you think Charles will step aside for him. Not only is he unlikely
to do so, because he's trained for the job all his life, he would have to
become monarch before he could give up the throne anyway. And IMO, William
won't want it before he has to take it on.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

"Sacha" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Hmmmmm Wonder if he'd consider having some County Women's Association
visitors? That org is the equiv of the WI and I'm a memeber and have
been
for years.

I don't see why not. I can email you the name of the tours organiser, if
you like though it's probably on the internet somewhere.

Thank you. I'm still on the same e-mail if you can find it in the bowels of
your computer.

I have actually seem garden visitors peer through windows that weren't
curtained. I was gobbsmacked at such rudeness.


Some do it here and it makes me extremely cross.

As it should!

Luckily, we have a deep
flower border all the way round the house which prevents them from walking
right up to the windows. But my son opened his garden for charity some
years ago and my daughter in law, who was outside, saw some people going
up
the drive on the way out, walk right up to the windows, put their hand to
the pane of glass to shield their eyes and peer right in. She asked them
what on earth they thought they were doing and they said quite coolly that
they just wondered what 'the place is like inside'. She asked them to
move
on and they looked at her as if she was quite mad to object to their
behaviour. It makes you despair as to what peoples' normal boundaries are
these days. The thing is that if we visited their house and peered in the
window there would be shrieks of outrage.

Yes indeed. We live on a busy road and have a long driveway leading from
the front gate to the house. There are public toilets 10 minutes drive in
one direction and half an hour in the other. The number of times I've seen
people climb the gate (the gate!!!! don't these idiots know aobut the damage
that does to gate hinges!) to dive into the shrubbery to relieve themselves
astoudns me.

I run down the road screaming like a banshee when I see it. They usually
leave PDQ but I've been flipped the bird a few times by offenders. I wonder
how they'd like it if I pooped in their front yard under their trees?

They seem to think that just because it's a farm, they have every right to
do as they please.

My daughter even found a couple of blokes in one of our paddocks one day
hitting golf balls. We were away at the time. She gave them a right
bollocking and asked for their names so we could send them a bill if there
was any damage caused to the insides of a cow if it ate a golf ball. She
didn't get such details but she made her point.

It's like the woman here who was
overheard telling her small son to go and pee in our garden because she
couldn't be bothered to get up and take him to the loo. And the people
who
become furious when we tell them dogs are not allowed on the premises.
Our
usual answer to those who rudely persist is to ask them if they take their
dogs to Tesco or Marks and Spencer! For years we did allow dogs in but
got
fed up with piles of visiting cards all over the place and never cleared
up
by the owners, dog fights or a few near misses and dogs let off the lead
to
run over the flower beds, so we stopped it altogether.

And who could blame you. That is appalling behaviour on the part of the
owners.

The only time I don't try to control our dogs is when the Jehovah's
Witnesses come here and drag along their poor wee children as a marketing
ploy. Whilst I feel sorry for the kids, I never stop my usually muddy dogs
from jumping on the kids or the women. It makes me furious that safe inside
the car is the 'man' but he sends the women and kids out to do the dirty
work of recruiting converts.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:10:01 +0100, FarmI wrote
(in article ):

"Sacha" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

Hmmmmm Wonder if he'd consider having some County Women's Association
visitors? That org is the equiv of the WI and I'm a memeber and have
been
for years.

I don't see why not. I can email you the name of the tours organiser, if
you like though it's probably on the internet somewhere.

Thank you. I'm still on the same e-mail if you can find it in the bowels of
your computer.

I have actually seem garden visitors peer through windows that weren't
curtained. I was gobbsmacked at such rudeness.


Some do it here and it makes me extremely cross.

As it should!

Luckily, we have a deep
flower border all the way round the house which prevents them from walking
right up to the windows. But my son opened his garden for charity some
years ago and my daughter in law, who was outside, saw some people going
up
the drive on the way out, walk right up to the windows, put their hand to
the pane of glass to shield their eyes and peer right in. She asked them
what on earth they thought they were doing and they said quite coolly that
they just wondered what 'the place is like inside'. She asked them to
move
on and they looked at her as if she was quite mad to object to their
behaviour. It makes you despair as to what peoples' normal boundaries are
these days. The thing is that if we visited their house and peered in the
window there would be shrieks of outrage.

Yes indeed. We live on a busy road and have a long driveway leading from
the front gate to the house. There are public toilets 10 minutes drive in
one direction and half an hour in the other. The number of times I've seen
people climb the gate (the gate!!!! don't these idiots know aobut the damage
that does to gate hinges!) to dive into the shrubbery to relieve themselves
astoudns me.

I run down the road screaming like a banshee when I see it. They usually
leave PDQ but I've been flipped the bird a few times by offenders. I wonder
how they'd like it if I pooped in their front yard under their trees?

They seem to think that just because it's a farm, they have every right to
do as they please.

How about a prominent notice informing them of CCTV cameras? Wicked grin


--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Posted through uk.rec.gardening

On 26/7/08 09:04, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:54:47 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:46:36 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

I did say 'almost' everyone. One wise old lady said to me that she didn't
buy into the 'shy Di' looking up under the eyelashes thing for one minute.
I maintained at the break up and still do now that they 'thought'
themselves
into being in love because it was what both wanted, one way or the other.

My opinion was that she probably was and that he was doing what his dad
told him
to do.

She was certainly young and inexperienced enough to convince herself that
she was. He was far more guarded in how he reacted to her in public (no
surprises there given his media experience) so it was far harder to tell
about him.


and that he was still having a relationship with Camilla?


We're wildly OT now so all I'm going to say is that this is open to
speculation and started with Diana's assertions. He has asserted otherwise.
I really didn't think me telling urg we'd visited Highgrove was going to
lead to a discussion about divorce or its causes. Only the people behind
their own front door know that.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

"Sally Thompson" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:10:01 +0100, FarmI wrote

Yes indeed. We live on a busy road and have a long driveway leading from
the front gate to the house. There are public toilets 10 minutes
drive in
one direction and half an hour in the other. The number of times I've
seen
people climb the gate (the gate!!!! don't these idiots know aobut the
damage
that does to gate hinges!) to dive into the shrubbery to relieve
themselves
astoudns me.

I run down the road screaming like a banshee when I see it. They usually
leave PDQ but I've been flipped the bird a few times by offenders. I
wonder
how they'd like it if I pooped in their front yard under their trees?

They seem to think that just because it's a farm, they have every right
to
do as they please.

How about a prominent notice informing them of CCTV cameras? Wicked grin

:-)) Good sugestion but given our location they wouldn't believe it because
of the cost of getting such things there. And the alternative is that some
tea leaf would probably just be tempted to try to steal it anyway.

"Sacha" wrote in message
"FarmI"
ask@itshall be given wrote:

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.


Not if you think Charles will step aside for him.

I don't think that at all. I just have this sneaking feeling that Charles
won't make old bones.

"Martin" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:46:34 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and Di
got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any
marriage.

But given that the common herd can divorce and thus end the disaster it is
immaterial what happens in the rest of UK marriages.

Divorce is common in the royal family.

But till the divorce of Charles and Di, it wasn't common for the heir to the
throne. There was no precedent.

Have you actually done the stats on the failures of Royal marriages that
have ended in divorce? It'd have to be less than 1% I would have thought.

almost the whole of the current generation have divorced.

Indeed. But if we look at how many current royals have divorced and how far
removed they are from succession, and compare that with what has happened in
the past for that same profile, I suspect my figure of 1% would be a high
one.

Probably more murders or 'accidents' to get rid of inconvenient spouses than
Henry's total divorces which is the only precedent for divorce.

Did you foresee Camilla marriage too?

No, but then I doubted there would ever be a divorce given the precedents.

Like Princess Margaret, Anne, Prince Andrew ...

None of whom had a realistic chance of succeeding to the throne...

A marriage can be disasterous without it involving a divorce. The two
were
so unalike that it was bound to end in misery. I thought that she would
be
the one to suffer most. She did suffer, but she learned some good avenge
tactics along the way.

What do you foresee happening next?

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.

Amazing! but not king of Oz?

'Monarch' would apply to us too. Oz won't do anything about getting rid of
the monarchy till the Queen dies (much to my disgust) and then we'd have to
have a referendum and to stage that would take so long that a new monarch
would already be a reality.

On 26/7/08 11:32, in article
, "FarmI"
ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Sacha" wrote in message
"FarmI"
ask@itshall be given wrote:

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.


Not if you think Charles will step aside for him.

I don't think that at all. I just have this sneaking feeling that Charles
won't make old bones.


He's pretty fit and keeps himself in shape but the longevity gene is
certainly on the female side it seems!


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 26/7/08 12:55, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:51:24 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:46:34 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and Di
got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any
marriage.

But given that the common herd can divorce and thus end the disaster it is
immaterial what happens in the rest of UK marriages.

Divorce is common in the royal family.

But till the divorce of Charles and Di, it wasn't common for the heir to the
throne. There was no precedent.

Famous divorces in the royal family are
Henry VIII
Edward almost VIII

Edward VIII never got divorced. He married a divorcee.

Have you actually done the stats on the failures of Royal marriages that
have ended in divorce? It'd have to be less than 1% I would have thought.

almost the whole of the current generation have divorced.

Indeed. But if we look at how many current royals have divorced and how far
removed they are from succession, and compare that with what has happened in
the past for that same profile, I suspect my figure of 1% would be a high
one.

Probably more murders or 'accidents' to get rid of inconvenient spouses than
Henry's total divorces which is the only precedent for divorce.

Did you foresee Camilla marriage too?

No, but then I doubted there would ever be a divorce given the precedents.

Like Princess Margaret, Anne, Prince Andrew ...

None of whom had a realistic chance of succeeding to the throne...

It only needed a royal train or plane crash.

Which is why they don't all travel together.......


A marriage can be disasterous without it involving a divorce. The two
were
so unalike that it was bound to end in misery. I thought that she would
be
the one to suffer most. She did suffer, but she learned some good avenge
tactics along the way.

What do you foresee happening next?

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.

Amazing! but not king of Oz?

'Monarch' would apply to us too. Oz won't do anything about getting rid of
the monarchy till the Queen dies (much to my disgust) and then we'd have to
have a referendum and to stage that would take so long that a new monarch
would already be a reality.

I predict that you will wrong

*Somebody* will be monarch because the monarchy never dies. Le roi est
mort, vive le roi.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 26/7/08 14:39, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:01:16 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 26/7/08 12:55, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:51:24 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:46:34 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:11:55 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

Indeed! My ma-in-law is fond of reminding me that when Charles and Di
got
engaged and she asked me what I thought of it, I predicted that the
marriage
would be a disaster.

The odds on you being right are better than 50/50 in UK for any
marriage.

But given that the common herd can divorce and thus end the disaster it
is
immaterial what happens in the rest of UK marriages.

Divorce is common in the royal family.

But till the divorce of Charles and Di, it wasn't common for the heir to
the
throne. There was no precedent.

Famous divorces in the royal family are
Henry VIII
Edward almost VIII

Edward VIII never got divorced. He married a divorcee.

Yes. My mistake being compensated by Henry VIII doing it how many times )


Have you actually done the stats on the failures of Royal marriages that
have ended in divorce? It'd have to be less than 1% I would have
thought.

almost the whole of the current generation have divorced.

Indeed. But if we look at how many current royals have divorced and how
far
removed they are from succession, and compare that with what has happened
in
the past for that same profile, I suspect my figure of 1% would be a high
one.

Probably more murders or 'accidents' to get rid of inconvenient spouses
than
Henry's total divorces which is the only precedent for divorce.

Did you foresee Camilla marriage too?

No, but then I doubted there would ever be a divorce given the
precedents.

Like Princess Margaret, Anne, Prince Andrew ...

None of whom had a realistic chance of succeeding to the throne...

It only needed a royal train or plane crash.

Which is why they don't all travel together.......

!!!



A marriage can be disasterous without it involving a divorce. The two
were
so unalike that it was bound to end in misery. I thought that she would
be
the one to suffer most. She did suffer, but she learned some good avenge
tactics along the way.

What do you foresee happening next?

I predict that the next monarch will be named William.

Amazing! but not king of Oz?

'Monarch' would apply to us too. Oz won't do anything about getting rid of
the monarchy till the Queen dies (much to my disgust) and then we'd have to
have a referendum and to stage that would take so long that a new monarch
would already be a reality.

I predict that you will wrong

*Somebody* will be monarch because the monarchy never dies. Le roi est
mort, vive le roi.

Not of Oz it will become a Republic.

Yes but the point that Farm is making is that the preparations for such a
referendum and the implementing of it will mean that Australia *will* have
another monarch while waiting for the referendum to take place.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon