MrsTrellisfromNorthWales Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 Royals as product placement? I like that idea. Do you reckon they get free Weetabix too, since it has the "by royal appointment" thing on it? I think I'll try that. I'm going to write to McVitie's and see if I can get free Hobnobs if they write "by Mrs Trellis's appointment" on the packet. Wish me luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Good Luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 The Queen Mother (or her flunkeys) used to write to people who had sent her stuff she had asked for. The letter stated that if they wished to send a bill they could, but if they wished for the item to be a gift, they could do that too. Made it very difficult for some people to ask for the money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsTrellisfromNorthWales Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 And Coutt's didn't moan about her £3m overdraft, either. You've got to admire her. Truly the entamoeba histolytica of the royal family. She did say something about "looking the East End in the eye" once. And, er, re-used the same hat pattern hundreds of times. Very economical. And er, apart from that, er . . . wasn't very good with fish bones. Poor love. And, er . . . Anyone got any more ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 =MrsTrellisfromNorthWales,Jan 14 2005, 04:22 PM] Eton is not subsidised directly. But many in the royal family - including Charlie - are. So it's subsidised indirectly by the taxpayer when the royals send their brats there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This has to count as one of the single most ludicrous comments I have ever heard. By extension that would mean we are indirectly subsidising everything the Royals pay for ... including their knickers. This is quite obviously not true. Many of them have their own private money, earned just as we earn our money, in legitimate ways. It's grossly unfair and laughable to boot when people like yourself simply pick up a large stinking clump of prejudice and misinformation and lob it at The Royal Family without bothering to think in specifics or consider whether there is even a grain of truth in what they are saying. And I hate it when the quote box thing goes wrong. (Fixed) WD Awww ... thanks, WD. You're my hero! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 . . . Anyone got any more ideas? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Saved a fortune on toothpaste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsTrellisfromNorthWales Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 This has to count as one of the single most ludicrous comments I have ever heard. Stick around. By extension that would mean we are indirectly subsidising everything the Royals pay for ... including their knickers. Yes. That's exactly what I mean. This is quite obviously not true. Many of them have their own private money, earned just as we earn our money, in legitimate ways. It's grossly unfair and laughable to boot when people like yourself simply pick up a large stinking clump of prejudice and misinformation and lob it at The Royal Family without bothering to think in specifics or consider whether there is even a grain of truth in what they are saying. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let's think how they "earn" their money. Charles gets money from the public list. But he also collects rents from the Duchy of Cornwall and other land. Inherited wealth. He's not a self-made man, is he? Edward tried to earn money by going into television. But in spite of his fantastic connections, he was a flop, so desperate to make money that he spied on his nephew, doing something that none of the redtop tabloids did during William's time at St Andrew's. Sophie was even more blatant in using her royal connections to make her PR company work. She was exposed and had to give up work. So how do they get their income now? Mummy pays. Where does Mummy get her money from? The UK taxpayer and her own inherited wealth. A couple of grains of truth there. What's truly laughable is that otherwise intelligent people believe they are somehow inferior to these people and should pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 What's truly laughable is that otherwise intelligent people believe they are somehow inferior to these people and should pay for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do not consider myself inferior to any member of the Royal Family. To be honest, I am not even particularly interested in the Royal Family. But everyone should be given a fair hearing before they are condemned. Which is not happening here. The Royals do a difficult job, a job I would certainly never wish to do, and they do it in the constant glare of media attention. One of the key ways in which the Royals are useful is as patrons of major charities and, whilst they may not often get their hands dirty, they do raise charity profiles with their presence - which enables charities to help those less fortunate than any of us on this forum. I'm not trying to sound pious here either. But I do believe the Royals deserve credit for the good things they do, and it's pretty pathetic for you to be knocking them in this snide anonymous manner, secure in the knowledge that none of them will knock at your door tomorrow and ask why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Biffo Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 James must be so proud of his son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 James must be so proud of his son. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I once spoke to a soldier who was one of Charles' gang, when he came to visit (forget which year it was). I asked him about Harry and James, and he says Harry was born at the wrong time to be a product of that affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsTrellisfromNorthWales Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 The Royal family do some good charity work, it's true. But then so does Noel Edmonds. The difference is that Noel had to have some talent (imagine my disbelief as I think about the implications of this sentence) to get where he is. And he does other things too. Well, he used to. The royals happened to be in the right womb at the right time. We're either an open, democratic society or we're not. In an open society, public figures are open to scrutiny. That includes the family that is meant to be at the very top of it. That's the tough media glare. Democracy and monarchy are always going to be unhappy bedfellows. But, hey, if the royals don't like it, let's let them "resign". Do a Duke of Windsor if they want to. Of course, I'd like to just pension them all off. I'm not talking firing squad here, you'll be glad to hear. As for the snide thing. Fair enough. Pathetic? I think my views hold water. I've used humour. But I've substantiated them. And anonymity? It's an internet forum, for Pete's sake! I doubt your name is really Hollandaise. I hold these views and spout them freely to friends, family and strangers frequently. If Prince Charles is reading, he can reply and put me right, calling himself "Ermintrude" if he likes. Meanwhile, the royals moan on about having no right to reply. What nonsense! What was Fergie doing this morning all over the telly? What was that Charles and Jonathan Dimbleby, Charles and Penny Junor, Diana and Andrew Morton etc. thing all about? If Prince Charles rang Paul Dacre (editor of the Daily Mail) tonight, do you think Dacre would tell him to go away because the royals have "no right to reply"? He'd happily run stories from him (just like he has done many times) using phrases like "sources close to the prince" "a close friend of the prince" etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Yack, yack, yack. EDITED TO SAY: B***** hell, why do I keep spelling things wrong?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 This is quite obviously not true. Many of them have their own private money, earned just as we earn our moneyWriting mucky novels ? Do cigarette packets still carry a Royal crest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Writing mucky novels ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I resemble that remark. You can find them on the top shelf at WHSmiths. Purfickly legitimate. I can tell you're a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.