I can't agree with you more, the whole thing is becoming a farce!

Alan

"Sacha" wrote ..

"alan.holmes" said:


I can't agree with you more, the whole thing is becoming a farce!



LOL!! But not gardening, Alan. ;-)) Farcical it is, however!

Is it available on the internet? Don't take the DM.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

"Sacha" wrote in message

(snip) I just got sick & tired of these ridiculous polls
about whether William should skip over Charles to become King etc.

To continue an OT comment but this story has had me fascinated now for
years......

Decades ago, when Charles was still a confirmed bachelor and the press was
hounding him to find a bride and produce an heir but he was still happily in
hot pursuit of ladies of a more racy nature, one of the women's magazine's
in Aus printed the usual dopy New Year's predictions from Astrologers/Seers
and other assorted fringe loonies.

Dianna was not on the scene and neither was any other contender who could in
any way be considered seriously to be a future wife of the POW. This
particular magazine included comments from a chap from the Sub continent who
gave predictions covering a much longer timeframe than just the year ahead.
He predicted that the next Monarch would be called William.

Since there was no such person called William anywhere in the Royal family
this was memorable at the time. Years later a member of my staff also
recalled this article and she made a comment about William being the next
king because..... and repeated the story.

"Sacha" wrote ...

"Bob Hobden" said:

"Sacha" wrote ..
"alan.holmes" said:


I can't agree with you more, the whole thing is becoming a farce!



LOL!! But not gardening, Alan. ;-)) Farcical it is, however!

Is it available on the internet? Don't take the DM.

I don't know, Bob. I just got sick & tired of these ridiculous polls
about whether William should skip over Charles to become King etc. and
wrote saying so. Our constitution doesn't work like that so I have no
idea why these polls even bother, except of course if they're promoting
a republican agenda of 'voting' for a monarch which instantly nullifies
the entire point of a dynastic monarchy. That, I suspect, is their
agenda. The pollsters make none of that clear to the individuals who
respond to the polling questions. You *cannot* 'vote' for a monarch in
UK nor can you ditch one in favour of someone else. Edward VIIII had
to become King before he could abdicate his responsibilities, for
example. He could not just 'step aside' as some newspaper polls
suggest to the public for Charles and William and that was a poll taken
by the NoTW in the immediate wake of the engagement of a very young and
attractive couple. If our country's future depends on a soap-opera
reaction, heaven help us all!

My letter was very pruned because I asked, too, how it is that the DM,
which is part of the group that owns the Western Morning News, often
takes pics and stories from the WMN feed but *never* the stories of how
well Charles has been received in the west country, how he visited
during the recent floods, was photographed visiting homes and
businesses, or how a lot of people here think highly of him, with
quotes from some of those people. The DM has a republican agenda,
IMO, despite its apparent right wing tendency and never misses a chance
to diminish all members of the royal family, other than the Queen, who
they know is sacrosanct to most of their readers! Whatever one's
personal sympathies, it's dishonest and sneaky, imo and finally, I was
sufficiently irritated to write saying something about it.

My bit about the WMN was cut out - what a surprise! I dislike this
form of manipulation very much and even while I know that all
newspapers do it to some extent, living here and reading both the DM
and the WMN makes it extremely clear to us what is going on in this
regard. We have a dynastic monarchy, not a pick'n'mix set up or, as I
said in the bit that wasn't published, Strictly Come Reigning'. A
ridiculous article elsewhere asked if people would 'vote' for Prince
WIlliam as next monarch over Prince Charles. The entire point is you
don't 'vote' for a dynastic monarch, you get what there is and IMO,
what there is is coming along is just fine. Now - if you don't like
the monarchical set up and you want something different, go to work
through the ballot box, but don't manipulate and obfuscate to achieve
your ends by manipulating us through the newspapers. That really makes
me mad!

I totally agree, thought for years something sinister was going on pandering
to the brain dead who don't have a clue about how this country and our
monarchy works. Look at all the chatter about the cost of policing the
wedding, most is for the benefit of those lining the route not the couple.
Another reason why I haven't bought a newspaper for decades, look who owns
them. Wouldn't even trust the date at the top.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

In article , Sacha wrote:

Unfortunately, I think the British have something of a tendency towards
political laziness. I don't know if you read any of the articles
online but Julie Burchill's article in The Independent was one of the
most disgustingly spiteful things I've ever read. She came across as a
spoiled, lazy child sticking her tongue out and using naughty words.
Julie B writing on the subject of marriage and dysfunctional families
is like Herod advising on childcare - not fit for purpose.

That seems a farly accurate review, though a less polite one would
also be possible.

As I have posted before, the Independent maintains its neutrality
by including, as columnists, a carefully balanced collection of
unbalanced loons. Julie Burchill doesn't need balancing, as she
is self-satirising.

I rarely read her columns as, if I take notice of her views, I
get seriously annoyed - and she isn't even funny.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

(large snip)

.... I'm sure this is a silly question, Sacha, but if you dislike the way the
newspapers manipulate via their content quite so much ... why do you buy
them? ;-)

In article , Sacha wrote:

[ The Independent ]

It's hardly any wonder that their circulation and readership figures
are bad. Journalists have taken a big step downhill in latter years,
imo and have allowed their personal prejudices and grudges or shoulder
chips to come to the fore. ...

Well, it isn't, but you have mistaken the reason.

One of the reasons that I can't stand the Daily Torygraph is the
way that it has always published bare-faced lies in its leaders
and 'factual' articles in order to promote its bigotry. The other
broadsheets never used to (though the Gnurdian tended to get its
facts completely confused and few of them did any more than very
shallow investigation), but that has changed since Murdochisation.

Something that is very disturbing is the way that certain very
important issues are quietly suppressed. The BBC used to be better
than most, but Hutton more-or-less told it to toe the government
line. There are some critical national issues that I have certain
knowledge of from other sources that I have never seen MENTIONED
anywhere except the Independent - and even it doesn't dare raise
them too loudly.

The trouble is that shallow bigotry is what this country wants,
whether that means the government or public.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , FarmI
writes
He predicted that the next Monarch would be called William.

Since there was no such person called William anywhere in the Royal family
this was memorable at the time. Years later a member of my staff also
recalled this article and she made a comment about William being the next
king because..... and repeated the story.


Several astrologers 'prophesied the same story, from what my distant
memory remembers and I believe when Charles was born Indian astrologers
said he might not be king.
However i expect there were also astrologers who said that everything in
the garden would be rosy and his one and only marriage would be happy
and he would reign for a long time

That's what's useful about horoscopes, you can believe the bits you like
and scoff at the rest...

I'm not one to want to meet famous people per se and so I stayed in the
background but I have to say that his visit to the War Widows Annual
Dinner on 13th November absolutely made several ladies' dreams come
true. He was polite and charming to those he met and took immense care
to try and speak to all those who were eager to meet him. I know at
least one who went online the minute the pictures were up and now has
the photograph of her shaking his hand in pride of place in her hall!
Whatever we might think, to many people meeting the Royal Family is a
joy and a cherished ambition.

Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article ,
Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , FarmI
writes
He predicted that the next Monarch would be called William.

Since there was no such person called William anywhere in the Royal family
this was memorable at the time. Years later a member of my staff also
recalled this article and she made a comment about William being the next
king because..... and repeated the story.

memory remembers and I believe when Charles was born Indian astrologers
said he might not be king.

Oh, reely! Has everybody forgotten?

That had damn-all to do with him not being the next monarch, and a
great deal to do with the chattering classes blithering that the
name Charles was unlucky. They speculated that he might take the
name William on accession, just as his grandfather Albert took the
name George. It's as simple as that.

I can believe that Indian astrologers made a more specific prediction,
but what I described is what went on in the West.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote in message ...
In article ,
Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , FarmI
writes
He predicted that the next Monarch would be called William.

Since there was no such person called William anywhere in the Royal
family
this was memorable at the time. Years later a member of my staff also
recalled this article and she made a comment about William being the next
king because..... and repeated the story.

memory remembers and I believe when Charles was born Indian astrologers
said he might not be king.

Oh, reely! Has everybody forgotten?

That had damn-all to do with him not being the next monarch, and a
great deal to do with the chattering classes blithering that the
name Charles was unlucky. They speculated that he might take the
name William on accession, just as his grandfather Albert took the
name George. It's as simple as that.

I can believe that Indian astrologers made a more specific prediction,
but what I described is what went on in the West.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


What did they say about gardening?

Kindest possible regards

Mike

--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...


Stuff deleted

I totally agree, thought for years something sinister was going on
pandering to the brain dead who don't have a clue about how this country
and our monarchy works. Look at all the chatter about the cost of policing
the wedding, most is for the benefit of those lining the route not the
couple.
Another reason why I haven't bought a newspaper for decades, look who owns
them. Wouldn't even trust the date at the top.

The only reason I buy the DM is for the codeword puzzle!

Alan

On Nov 25, 6:29*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
wrote in ....
In article ,
Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , FarmI
writes
He predicted that the next Monarch would be called William.

Since there was no such person called William anywhere in the Royal
family
this was memorable at the time. Years later a member of my staff also
recalled this article and she made a comment about William being the next
king because..... and repeated the story.

memory remembers and I believe when Charles was born Indian astrologers
said he might not be king.

Oh, reely! *Has everybody forgotten?

That had damn-all to do with him not being the next monarch, and a
great deal to do with the chattering classes blithering that the
name Charles was unlucky. *They speculated that he might take the
name William on accession, just as his grandfather Albert took the
name George. *It's as simple as that.

I can believe that Indian astrologers made a more specific prediction,
but what I described is what went on in the West.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

What did they say about gardening?

Kindest possible regards

Mike



Possibly something about Sweet Williams.

"Dave Hill" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 6:29 pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
wrote in ...
In article ,
Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , FarmI
writes
He predicted that the next Monarch would be called William.

Since there was no such person called William anywhere in the Royal
family
this was memorable at the time. Years later a member of my staff also
recalled this article and she made a comment about William being the
next
king because..... and repeated the story.

memory remembers and I believe when Charles was born Indian astrologers
said he might not be king.

Oh, reely! Has everybody forgotten?

That had damn-all to do with him not being the next monarch, and a
great deal to do with the chattering classes blithering that the
name Charles was unlucky. They speculated that he might take the
name William on accession, just as his grandfather Albert took the
name George. It's as simple as that.

I can believe that Indian astrologers made a more specific prediction,
but what I described is what went on in the West.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

What did they say about gardening?

Kindest possible regards

Mike



Possibly something about Sweet Williams.

.................................................. .............

Well at least that has brought something gardening into the newsgroup.

Have you noticed, nobody ever brings up the subject of my letters in the
newspapers? I wonder why ;-}

Kindest regards

Mike
--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2010-11-24 23:13:21 +0000, "Bob Hobden" said:



"Sacha" wrote ..
"alan.holmes" said:


I can't agree with you more, the whole thing is becoming a farce!



respond to the polling questions. You *cannot* 'vote' for a monarch in UK
nor can you ditch one in favour of someone else. Edward VIIII had

I can't help feeling you have put three to many 'III's in there!(:-)

Alan

to become King before he could abdicate his responsibilities, for example.
He could not just 'step aside' as some newspaper polls suggest to the
public for Charles and William and that was a poll taken by the NoTW in
the immediate wake of the engagement of a very young and attractive
couple. If our country's future depends on a soap-opera reaction, heaven
help us all!

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , FarmI
writes
He predicted that the next Monarch would be called William.

Since there was no such person called William anywhere in the Royal family
this was memorable at the time. Years later a member of my staff also
recalled this article and she made a comment about William being the next
king because..... and repeated the story.


Several astrologers 'prophesied the same story, from what my distant
memory remembers and I believe when Charles was born Indian astrologers
said he might not be king.

:-)) You too remembered that and, no doubt like me, hope you live long
enough to find out whether the prediction was true or not. :-))

However i expect there were also astrologers who said that everything in
the garden would be rosy and his one and only marriage would be happy and
he would reign for a long time

I quite agree with you, however when the name William was mentioned and
there was a not a William in the family one has to wonder. Why not pick
Henry or David or Ambrose?

That's what's useful about horoscopes, you can believe the bits you like
and scoff at the rest...

I'm not one to want to meet famous people per se and so I stayed in the
background but I have to say that his visit to the War Widows Annual
Dinner on 13th November absolutely made several ladies' dreams come true.
He was polite and charming to those he met and took immense care to try
and speak to all those who were eager to meet him. I know at least one who
went online the minute the pictures were up and now has the photograph of
her shaking his hand in pride of place in her hall!
Whatever we might think, to many people meeting the Royal Family is a joy
and a cherished ambition.

My only claim to fame with Royals is that my bottom and the Queen's bottom
have both been in the same seat.