View Full Version : "That Bloody Man"

cessna l plate
31st Mar 2005, 18:59
Well, it had to happen eventually, Prince Charles proves he is after all a chip off the old block. I bet Prince Phil is wetting himself over at Buck house about this one!

Can't blame the bloke really, can't even have a holiday in peace, but then you do expect better standards of discretion from our future king!

31st Mar 2005, 19:52
But it was a pre-arranged photocall, with questions vetted and agreed with Prince Biffo's staff in advance - not an ambush by steely-eyed ninja paparazzi.

In my job, I have to take the sh*t along with the sugar just like the rest of us. Just how cushy does the Heir Apparent actually want it?

31st Mar 2005, 20:02

Expand a little......

Bo Nalls
31st Mar 2005, 20:03
Try this (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3111375) :O :O

31st Mar 2005, 20:15
Aaahhh, Now I see....

....But having read it I kinda get his point..:hmm:

31st Mar 2005, 21:31
Well, if you had to choose, Prince or Press ? What would it be??

31st Mar 2005, 21:38
The man is clearly under stress - I would be if I had to go through the ceremony he has to shortly, with whom, in a back room office, and commit to spend the rest of his/her life together.

"I hate this bloody sort of thing"

31st Mar 2005, 21:46
I found the whole thing hilarious!

Let's be honest, the guy is a complete muppet. He is clueless. Personally I don't give a fiddlers fart about the royal family anyway. :}

1st Apr 2005, 00:04
Did a brief course once on "How to Handle the Press", assuming we had been involved in an incident, (aircraft etc), what to say, what not to say etc. Two points highlighted were that, a). The press can often lip-read and b). They will use spy type microphones to pick up asides and anything said quietly, not intended for publication.

HRH must be aware of this but what were the press doing using spy technology for a simple photo-call? If it were anyone else that had been spied upon there would be uproar from several quarters about infringing ones privacy, human rights, you name it etc. etc.

1st Apr 2005, 02:15
It would be hard to argue that the press were infringing your privacy on a pre-arranged media photocall. Schoolboy error to say such things in front of so many cameras and microphones. Charles is obviously under stress and was in a foul mood.

"Bloody people. I can't bear that man anyway. He's so awful, he really is"

Well, he was talking about Nicholas Witchell. Can't blame him really.

btw I am increasingly persuaded that there may be truth in the rumours over Harry's parentage ;)

1st Apr 2005, 07:04
Poor media types, must have really hurt their feelings. What a load of hyped bollocks. Reflects more on the w:mad: r journos in my opinion.

They are stupid enough to have a job that involves years of downtime waiting for some "celebrity" to drop a bollock, have an affair, sh:mad: t his pants, or some other mundane human activity that they can "scoop" for a totally bovine Joe Public who are trained by the very same media to think its important.

The use of directional mikes also shows that the media vultures contrived the whole incident knowing full well that any human being asked the inane sh:mad: e questions by amateur hour would respond accordingly.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

1st Apr 2005, 07:37
Pilgrim101 sums this up perfectly. We watched the ITV "News" last night in disbelief at the time given to this drivel. So, Prince Charles got fed up with something? So what? My job is "pre-arranged" doesn't mean I like it!

Just showed a human side if you ask me.

Send Clowns
1st Apr 2005, 07:41

(a) You chose your job. So did the reporters.

(b) The press broke the rules first. The point of the photocalls is that in return the family get some peace when they're in Klosters. William was not afforded that privilege, not even a little basic respect.

Wedge - sorry to disabuse you, but Harry's parentage is beyond question. It was addressed here before, and I believe pointed out that his mother didn't meet the revolting rupert until at least she had conceived Harry.

1st Apr 2005, 08:46

I have to say that in this instance I am with Pilgrim and Send Clowns.

I happened to catch the lunchtime news yesterday for C5, C4 and BBC1.

The frenzy that was whipped up was out of all proportion to the actual event.

Furthermore, the questions were moronic.



Send Clowns
1st Apr 2005, 08:57
Moronic indeed - why on Earth do the press ask "What do you feel about ...". We pay for that idiot with our licence fees.

1st Apr 2005, 09:24
I particularly like how the media (tabloid in particular) keep refering to this as a "rant!!"

They need a new dictionary!

Maude Charlee
1st Apr 2005, 09:28

I'm with you on this one. Will Harry Hewitt ever really be allowed to sit on the throne should events conspire to put him there? With all the fuss about the 'constitutional' correctness of Camilla's position, why the hell has nobody demanded a DNA test to prove the heritage of one of the potential heirs to the throne?

Happen to agree with Chuck though - Nicholas Witchell is a pratt. Like most Royal suck-up correspondents.

Send Clowns
1st Apr 2005, 09:37
Maude, hate to tell you this, but Dr Who is not true. There are no time machines. If Diana didn't sleep with Hewitt until after Harry was born, I am not sure how you suggest he may be the father!

1st Apr 2005, 13:04
and I believe pointed out that his mother didn't meet the revolting rupert until at least she had conceived Harry.

You believe it was pointed out? Must be true then.

If Diana didn't sleep with Hewitt until after Harry was born, I am not sure how you suggest he may be the father!

If, absolutely.

1st Apr 2005, 14:20
Charlie was spot on. Nicholas Witchel is a fecking weasel at the best of times and a complete anal orifice at the worst of times...


Send Clowns
1st Apr 2005, 14:57
So Wedge, you can make important accusations without a shred of evidence and expect to be taken seriously, but not feel the need to justify when someone points out a possible gaping error. However you expect that to be solidly justified. In other words I think you have the burden of evidence the wrong way round. In order to have any chance of being taken seriously you have to check your facts, and find out that Diana did sleep with Hewitt before Harry's conception.

If, absolutely. If he did sleep with her, it is conceivable (pun intended) that he is the father, although not nearly as likely as some here seem to assume.

Flying Lawyer
1st Apr 2005, 16:19
To those descending lower than tabloid levels .....

Harry was born in 1984.
The odious Hewitt didn't meet Diana until 1986.

The red hair which gossips seem to rely upon as 'proof' of their theory is a Spencer family characteristic, as this pic of Diana's brother shows.
If I could find one of him as a youngster, the red hair would be even more obvious.

I'm no fan of the Royals, vary between anti and indifference towards the Monarchy as an institution, and think the enormous perks of the job far more than compensate for the minor inconvenience of having to dop some 'work' now and again - photocalls, Royal visits etc - but I do think it's a pity when that rather offensive urban myth which was debunked years ago is dragged up again.

Why people are so fascinated by every trivial detail about the Royals is beyond me but, if they weren't, the journos and snappers wouldn't be there.
That said, I don't understand the fascination with similar trivia about the Beckhams either, so I'm the one out of step.

As an aspiring lawyer, you might want to concede graciously that SC makes a good point about evidence and the burden of proof. One of the golden rules of advocacy: When you've made a bad point, retract it as quickly as possible. ;)

1st Apr 2005, 16:59
Very well. I retract.

It was just a bit of light hearted mischief making, I have no evidence for the claim other than the apparent similarity in appearance.

And yes, I'd be offended if people said similar things about my parentage.

tony draper
1st Apr 2005, 17:27
So did Hewitt thankfully.

El Grifo
1st Apr 2005, 17:41
The Phone-in-Poll in this months edition of that highly esteemed organ, "Viz" says it all :-

Q. As divorcees, many have said that Charles and Camilla should not be allowed to marry in church. What couldn't you give whether they do or not.

A. A flying fcuk 0800 000 001

B. Two fcuking hoots 0800 000 002

C. A tupenny fart 0800 000 003

Worth the price of the subscription.

:ok: :cool: :ok:

Whilst I am on a roll, here is the results of an opinion poll commisioned by the self-same quality broadsheet.

Q. Should Camilla Parker-Bowles be allowed to use the title "Her Royal Highness"

40% - Couldn't give a sh*t

35% - Who gives a fcuk

23% - Fcuk knows

2% - Don't give a fcuking monkey's

So its official then ?


1st Apr 2005, 19:45
So...you're happy to discuss the tedious non-event that is Harry's parentage.

But then bash the tabloids for giving you exactly what you're interested in?

Proof (yet again) that the audience gets the media it deserves. :rolleyes:

2nd Apr 2005, 10:47
Amusing as it might be I think it does show how Charles percieves the hierarchy. Basically it is us the tax payer who keeps him where he is and the press are supposedly there to report news to us, right?

Don't think I need elaborate any further.


Paraffin Budgie
2nd Apr 2005, 11:01
It reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) comment made by Phil The Greek when asked by a reporter how his recently landed flight had been.

He retorted, "Have you ever flown? Yes? Well, it was like that"

2 sheds
2nd Apr 2005, 11:09
Don't give a monkey's about either the royals and their activities or the press. Do object strongly to the Beeb thinking that we want them to ask such bloody inane questions or that we will react with shock/horror at Charles' remarks - and that they then have the audacity to present this as news.

The presentation of the Pope's demise is particularly embarrassing. They have clearly come to the conclusion that they cannot waste time waiting for him to pass on, so are getting on with all the obituaries anyway. I have few religious feelings and care not a jot for the RC church but I do find the whole presentation distasteful and disrespectful.

Particularly so to watch Jeremy Bowen outside the Vatican the other night trying to squeeze every ounce of journalistic opportunism out of the poor old Pope being on his deathbed but not yet having the decency, for the media's sake, to pop his clogs.

"The Pope recently had", quoth said Ace Reporter, "a tube inserted into his neck (pointed to own neck for benefit of the Lowest Common Denominator Viewer) to help him breathe, and then another tube inserted up his nose (pointed to own right nostril, for similar reason) so that he could feed".

2nd Apr 2005, 15:19
Well, I'm happy for both him and his dad. I wish I could be as blunt about some of the mental berefts I come across. I'm pleased somebody calls a spade a f*8&£*g shovel these days.

4th Apr 2005, 06:15
...but why bother with the rest of the gang show?

Time to let poor old Charles Phillip Arthur George Windsor, Battenburg or whoever he really is, get on with his life....

...and for the rest us to be relieved of the trouble of paying for any small part of it. With a President we would only need to contribute to the president's elevated lifestyle and only one palace for him/her to live in. The president's family would be his own concern. The Commonwealth (whatever that is) could elect their own head and even kick Britain out if they so wished.

Royalty is such an awful anachronism. Once nature takes its course for Her Majesty, why would we need to continue with it?

4th Apr 2005, 07:19
Just think, "President Tony Blair"..... No, "President John Prescott" ..... "President Robin Cook"........ Let's have it for King Willy ! :E

Loose rivets
4th Apr 2005, 07:24
I've said all this before, but I recall thinking that if I had been the King and Queen during the war, I wouldn't have been climbing over bomb rubble in the East end of London when I could have been in Scotland or even Canada.

This meant so much to the people in the Blitz.

People now think that they don't need royalty or God...or anything really. Except perhaps a new telly and here, a truck the sise of a house.

I think that it is probably true that the Queen will be the last truly royal, Royal. But I remember Charles as a bright eyed young man, with all the expectations of a future king, and also the hopes of a normal youngster. He was a goon fan...remember the B&W film of him raising an axe to his flying instructor? He was a hoot.

If you keep, and I mean for 30 years, lampooning anyone, finally you will knock them off their perch; break their spirit and leave them not really caring for the ‘top job' in the same way that his predecessors would have done. Even his beloved Spike, turned on him in the most cruel way imaginable. The following banter was probably made with a heavy heart.

The infamous phone call? Well, just more Goonery. Just the sort of thing that I would have said to Mrs LR when we were courting. Come to think of it, I said a lot worse...in the name of humor. The people that re-promulgated it were the total B#$tards. " you be the judge" NO, you be the money orientated scum that snigger away at an indiscretion.. It reminded me of a story of a Chinese couple that had their room bugged on their wedding night. The post-nuptials were Tannoyed over the village. The bride killed herself. Our man saw it through.

The very nature of our island, with the Queen as its head, make us just a little different to many of the nations that we seem to be surreptitiously melding with. The royal family really do not place a significant NET financial burden on the British people. Look at some of the big British company names that invest here...they did until recently, exceed five other major investors including Germany and Japan. Perhaps we should be more concerned with some of the accounting associated with this kind of international business, rather than concern ourselves with people that have assets that make the public money look like loose change.

I know that some people would like to see the Monarchy stripped of their assets. Well, that's quite another argument. But suffice it to say that I was under the impression that we have spent a lot of lives fighting against people that had taken such action in recent history.

5th Apr 2005, 01:54
I'll grant you that the last time we got rid of a King we ended up with a load of miserable old b*ggers running the country. When Cromwell snuffed it, our forefathers decided to restore the monarchy because it would mean more fun and games, bright clothing and not having to spend all day Sunday on their knees. That was despite all the hundreds of thousands who died getting rid of the new King's father.

This time around we've already got the load of miserable b*ggers running the country before we start, so there's nothing to lose. George VI and his wife may have spent a lot of time symbolically crawling round the rubble of the East End, while spending their evenings safely tucked up in Windsor Castle, but it was Churchill who led the nation. Now, wouldn't President Churchill have been a better bargain than King George and his repulsive brother?

Loose rivets
5th Apr 2005, 07:11
George VI and his wife may have spent a lot of time symbolically crawling round the rubble of the East End, while spending their evenings safely tucked up in Windsor Castle,

They were certainly cared for, but still in substantially more danger than they need have been. While in the East end one time, someone said. "we're lucky to have you as King" And the King replied "we're lucky to have you as the people." Or words to that effect. Symbolic it may have been, but it meant so much to a beleaguered people.

......but it was Churchill who led the nation. Now, wouldn't President Churchill have been a better bargain than King George and his repulsive brother?

Removing his ‘repulsive brother' from the equation, the answer is an emphatic no! It was King George and the Queen who were the much loved ‘bargain' for the people. Churchill was a hard working and determined leader of the troops. If there had been any role reversal, it would have been disastrous.

The thing is, it's as though we have grown up; put away childish things if you like. We no longer need symbolism when there is good old materialism to keep us focused. The analogy can be pushed further. The average adult looks back on life through rose coloured specks at their childhood, and perhaps that's what I'm doing looking back at the UK when ideals and values seemed to make more sense. Apart from a few beautiful snowy days, it was always summer, there was no traffic, and the countryside looked like a Rupert annual.

Mmm, well perhaps not, but somehow there was a clarity of purpose in the post war years that we seem to have lost now. To remove our Royal family would be the final step in entering an age of rather uninteresting blandness. Even this would not be so bad if our successive governments were not all barking mad...very British, but utterly barking.

If we don't get a grip on the tiller again, we will not only be increasing the pantomime by an order of magnitude, but paying for it with sums of money that each month would pay for the Royals for a lifetime.

To suggest that we voters can effectively change major policies, is like entering a flight-deck and finding that there was nothing but one big switch. It is marked L and R, so you can move it one of two ways...but that's all. Sure, there is also a trio of other little switches, but they are never to be used.

I think we need the Royal family for domestic and diplomatic reasons, but then I also think that the country should tear itself away from Europe and make voting a series of referendums by folk who take the trouble to learn the basics. Indeed if there was any logic to it, they would have to pass some sort of test to qualify. You have to study to get a driver's licence, why should your qualification to help run a country be based on your opinion about the price of beer. Voting because some of ludicrous promise that suits one's immediate needs is, and always has been, absurd.

Solid Rust Twotter
5th Apr 2005, 11:28
For a well loved man, Churchill was ousted pretty sharpish, to be replaced by Clement Attlee.

No more use for a soldier, I suppose....:(

6th Apr 2005, 06:27
Churchill was chucked out as a political leader. Standing as a Presidential candidate for a constitutional position that had no executive power, he would have been a shoo-in.

George and Elizabeth Battenburg were a nice enough couple for the national leadership job. They kept their gambling, chain smoking, gin swigging real selves shielded from the public gaze and at least made some effort to provide moral leadership. The present shower can barely disguise their contempt for the masses and wish to enjoy the privileges of office while avoiding those restrictions necessary to preserve the 'mystery' of Royalty. Without that mystery, royal pageantry becomes no more than another soap opera and its actors mere celebrities.

Off with their heads!

Loose rivets
6th Apr 2005, 08:28
That's your knighthood up the chuff mate.

Pinky the pilot
6th Apr 2005, 12:28
Blacksheep mentioned part of it! I have wondered on occasion if at times Her Majesty has wished that the Monarch still had the power to order
'Take that man to the tower and off with his head!'
Would'nt be too many in the media left intact I would imagine!

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

tony draper
6th Apr 2005, 12:39
Well this system has worked reasonably well for close to 1300 years, if it int broke don't fix it

7th Apr 2005, 00:18
So, tell us Blacksheep , when you swore your oath of allegience to the Monarchy prior to joing HM forces, did you have your fingers crossed?;)

7th Apr 2005, 00:32
I'm sure the press (including Nicholas Witchell) say the same things about Charles as he said about them. Who cares.........? :rolleyes:

Dynamic Apathy
7th Apr 2005, 01:13
This may be a little contraversial but here goes:


He would make a good King.

And yes, I really believe that.

7th Apr 2005, 01:41
'Pon my oath Omark44 I only swore to loyally serve Her Majesty and Her heirs and successors for a period of twelve years starting upon my eighteenth birthday. The only excuse I can think of now is that being just sixteen at the time, I didn't know what I was doing.

I kept my side of the bargain, which is more than I can say for the other side.

tony you Geordie rascal, I wholeheartedly agree that "If it ain't broke don't fix it", but that's the problem. It broke a long time ago. Now the glue holding the broken bits together is coming undone. Its finally time to chuck the bits into the bin.