quenn elizabeth Beaumaris bangor colwyn bay llanfairpwll 2002
david abbot
the queen starts her day at Llnfairpwll railway station at 10am menai
band will
be playing. then she leaves for beaumaris
she is visiting the castle for a craft exhabiton. she arives at
10.30am. there will be a gun salute. the beaumaris band will be
playing. She then leaves for Bangor cathedral for a thanksgiving
service.
lunch at Penrhyn castle
then on to Colwyn bay Eirias park.
there will be road closures at beaumaris and bangor and colwyn bay
so expect long delays. buses will be runing late or cancelled.
most roads will be closed from betwen 9am to 2pm.
redcat
"david abbot" <dab...@orange.net> wrote in message
news:b6fb08bb.02060...@posting.google.com...
> The queen is visiting Beaumaris on tuesday june 11 2002
> the queen starts her day at Llnfairpwll railway station
snip
I hope she knows to visit Pringles!
redcat
david abbot
> I hope she knows to visit Pringles!
>
she canot go every ware
redcat
> >
> > I hope she knows to visit Pringles!
> >
> pringles thats not on her tour
> she canot go every ware
The train stops right in their parking lot. Well, it's over now, anyway.
I'll be stopping in Pringles this Fall!
redcat
Livelyone
at the employers expense. Invoke martial law...........the queen of
england is coming.
Huw Waters
celebrate the Saudi and Dutch Royal Family?
Same principle. It's a different country.
Huw
Livelyone <xd...@ramspamadam.dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3d0799ed$0$8505$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Dewi
<huww...@btopenworldNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Why is everyone making a fuss over the Queen of England? Why don't we
>celebrate the Saudi and Dutch Royal Family?
>
>Same principle. It's a different country.
>
>Huw
I'm sure we would if they had been there 50 years and were doing a
similar visit...........
Dewi
Abergele
(Remove spin for email)
Jack Sais
(in message <ae8akd$7bi$1...@paris.btinternet.com>):
> Why is everyone making a fuss over the Queen of England? Why don't we
> celebrate the Saudi and Dutch Royal Family?
>
> Same principle. It's a different country.
>
> Huw
Another clue for the clueless Huw - she's the Queen of the United Kingdom,
which is also your country whether you like it or not.
>
> Livelyone <xd...@ramspamadam.dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:3d0799ed$0$8505$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>> Yes yes.close all the road. Close down the country. Make it a public
> holiday
>> at the employers expense. Invoke martial law...........the queen of
>> england is coming.
>>
>>
>
>
==============================================================
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
==============================================================
Tracy
news:ae8akd$7bi$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> Why is everyone making a fuss over the Queen of England? Why don't we
> celebrate the Saudi and Dutch Royal Family?
>
> Same principle. It's a different country.
The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State
Wales is part of the United Kingdom, therefore she is your Head of State
Tracy
redcat
"Jack Sais" <engli...@wales.org> wrote in message
news:01HW.B92DA0920...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:23:42 +0100, Huw Waters wrote
> (in message <ae8akd$7bi$1...@paris.btinternet.com>):
>
> > Why is everyone making a fuss over the Queen of England? Why don't we
> > celebrate the Saudi and Dutch Royal Family?
> >
> > Same principle. It's a different country.
> >
> > Huw
>
> Another clue for the clueless Huw - she's the Queen of the United Kingdom,
> which is also your country whether you like it or not.
Is that the actual designation? "Queen of the British Empire" comes to mind
instead. What say?
redcat
Huw Waters
is only a part of England through the puritans which is the Parliament not
Absolute Rule.
Huw
Jack Sais <engli...@wales.org> wrote in message
news:01HW.B92DA0920...@news.freeserve.net...
Huw Waters
Parliament.
Huw
Tracy <n...@here.please> wrote in message
news:ae8occ$hkl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Tracy
> She's the Queen of England. Her family have been for all these years.
Wales
> is only a part of England through the puritans which is the Parliament not
> Absolute Rule.
Wales is a part of England?
Tracy
Jack Sais
(in message <aeai0n$cu5$2...@paris.btinternet.com>):
> The Queen is head of state. She passes laws etc. but Wales is part of the
> Parliament.
>
> Huw
>
She's the Head of State. The State on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland is governed by Parliament. You are British. Just because you
don't like something doesn't mean it's not true.
> Tracy <n...@here.please> wrote in message
> news:ae8occ$hkl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> "Huw Waters" <huww...@btopenworldNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>> news:ae8akd$7bi$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>>> Why is everyone making a fuss over the Queen of England? Why don't we
>>> celebrate the Saudi and Dutch Royal Family?
>>>
>>> Same principle. It's a different country.
>>
>> The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State
>>
>> Wales is part of the United Kingdom, therefore she is your Head of State
>>
>> Tracy
>>
>>
>
>
==============================================================
Tracy
> The Queen is head of state. She passes laws etc. but Wales is part of the
> Parliament.
>
> Huw
And your point is???
The Queen is Head of State of the UK
Like it or not, Wales is part of the UK (and not part of England as you
declared in a previous post!)
Therefore the Queen is your Head of State
If people want to make a fuss over the fact that their Head of State has
been in the job 50 years, there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't
If you don't like it, try directing your complaints to more suitable
people - there's no point whinging to newsgroups, when there's absolutely
nothing we can do here to change it!
Tracy
Huw Waters
I don't mind being part of the United Kingdom. It's just that I'd like Wales
to have a law making Parliament.
Huw
Jack Sais <engli...@wales.org> wrote in message
news:01HW.B92EB2430...@news.freeserve.net...
Ken Down
<engli...@wales.org> wrote:
> Another clue for the clueless Huw - she's the Queen of the United Kingdom,
> which is also your country whether you like it or not.
And if Huw thinks the disruption caused by the Queen's visit was excessive,
he should see what goes on when the American president tours!
Incidentally, all the recent fuss about the cost of Kensington Palace: does
anyone have any comparative figures on the cost of the White House and Camp
David? (Or the Elysee or anywhere else?) The idea that the monarchy is
uniquely expensive seems total nonsense to me.
Ken Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Flying Rat
digg...@argonet.co.uk says...
> Incidentally, all the recent fuss about the cost of Kensington Palace: does
> anyone have any comparative figures on the cost of the White House and Camp
> David? (Or the Elysee or anywhere else?) The idea that the monarchy is
> uniquely expensive seems total nonsense to me.
>
> Ken Down
Not comparable really.
Camp David does host meetings and is used by the Head of State.
The White House is an office block with some private rooms, as is No.10
Kensington Palace is used by flunkies and parasites who do SFA in
constructive roles. Even Buck House is used for State occasions and is
open to the public. KP is therefore redundant and should be the subject
of a highly public eviction event.
If the Gummint want to do something with it, then turn it into a hospice
and let the terminally ill spend time in a building they probably spent
years paying for.
FR
--
All killer no filler
ratty at flyingrat.net
New webthingy is www.flyingrat.net
Dewi Gwyn
: I am of British citizenship, but Welsh nationality.
:
: I don't mind being part of the United Kingdom. It's just that I'd like
Wales
: to have a law making Parliament.
Snap
Roger Richards
writes
<snip>
>
>If you don't like it, try directing your complaints to more suitable
>people - there's no point whinging to newsgroups, when there's absolutely
>nothing we can do here to change it!
>
>Tracy
>
No whinging in newsgroups - now there's an original idea!
--
Roger Richards
Tracy
news:86UpUcBj...@rogertv.com...
I don't mind a good whinge now and again - but he's got the same whinge over
and over and over and over ........
;o)
Tracy
Witchee Poo
I will not condone *that*! Shocking!
--
Witchee
Roger Richards
writes
He obviously needs some form of disciplining ;-)
--
Roger Richards
Ken Down
<red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Is that the actual designation? "Queen of the British Empire" comes to
> mind instead. What say?
Er - the "queen" of an empire is an empress.
Mr Ng
>
> Like it or not, Wales is part of the UK (and not part of England as you
> declared in a previous post!)
Come one now everyone!
You're all correct. Lizzie IS the Queen of England. But she is also
the Queen of the UK. ... and of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The
Falkland Islands etc.
And she's the Queen of Wales.
MN
Ken Down
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Kensington Palace is used by flunkies and parasites who do SFA in
> constructive roles. Even Buck House is used for State occasions and is
> open to the public. KP is therefore redundant and should be the subject
> of a highly public eviction event.
This is really silly. Every head of state has "flunkies and parasites" - do
you think George Bush and his missus do their own cooking or sweeping? - and
they are paid for by the state. As any employer knows, there are two ways of
accommodating people: you provide subsidised housing and lower wages, or you
pay higher wages and let people find their own housing. The Americans
probably go for the latter, the British - mainly for historical reasons - do
the former.
The cost to the tax-payer is probably slightly more under the American
system.
Flying Rat
digg...@argonet.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.17731fea4...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Flying Rat
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Kensington Palace is used by flunkies and parasites who do SFA in
> > constructive roles. Even Buck House is used for State occasions and is
> > open to the public. KP is therefore redundant and should be the subject
> > of a highly public eviction event.
>
> This is really silly. Every head of state has "flunkies and parasites" - do
> you think George Bush and his missus do their own cooking or sweeping?
Nor does Princess Michael cook the Queen's breakfast. Or do anything at
all, come to think of it, apart from contribute to the gas bill for an
apartment that could fetch thousands a week on the open market.
So does GB's staff live in the most exclusive and historic apartments in
Washington then? Rent free?
> - and
> they are paid for by the state. As any employer knows, there are two ways of
> accommodating people: you provide subsidised housing and lower wages, or you
> pay higher wages and let people find their own housing. The Americans
> probably go for the latter, the British - mainly for historical reasons - do
> the former.
>
> The cost to the tax-payer is probably slightly more under the American
> system.
Absolute drivel. The US does not pay for minor royals to live in luxury
at practically rent-free arrangements in the most expensive area of the
Capital. What do you think KP is? Sheltered housing in a concrete tower
block? It is a historic building which is, for all intents, priceless.
Maintaining it and security are both astronomic bills.
redcat
"Ken Down" <digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.6c23c74b46....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <aea7hh$pms$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, "redcat"
> <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Is that the actual designation? "Queen of the British Empire" comes to
> > mind instead. What say?
>
> Er - the "queen" of an empire is an empress.
That's true, that's true... but wasn't the empress title reserved for
Empress of India or something like that? I think they can make up titles as
they go along. For example, Philip is "Prince", but could also be "Queen
Consort", no?
redcat
Tracy
news:aefk6k$rsu$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
No - he'd be Prince Consort - the wife of a King would be a Queen Consort
Tracy
Ken Down
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Absolute drivel. The US does not pay for minor royals to live in luxury
> at practically rent-free arrangements in the most expensive area of the
> Capital.
Only because they don't have minor royals. Instead they have White House
aides and so on.
> What do you think KP is? Sheltered housing in a concrete tower
> block? It is a historic building which is, for all intents, priceless.
> Maintaining it and security are both astronomic bills.
And your solution is? Kick its present occupants out and leave it empty for
the squatters to move in?
Ken Down
<red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> That's true, that's true... but wasn't the empress title reserved for
> Empress of India or something like that?
Only because, in those happy days, India was the only part ruled as an
empire. Places like Australia and Canada were colonies.
> I think they can make up titles as they go along. For example, Philip is
> "Prince", but could also be "Queen Consort", no?
No. Queen anything would be the wrong sex. His correct title would, I think,
be "Prince Consort".
redcat
"M˛ T..." <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1777c1691...@news.tesco.net...
> Cor, look what Ken Down wrote ...
>
>
> > > Absolute drivel. The US does not pay for minor royals to live in
luxury
> > > at practically rent-free arrangements in the most expensive area of
the
> > > Capital.
> >
> > Only because they don't have minor royals. Instead they have White House
> > aides and so on.
>
>
> money. Sometimes they are sponsored by a company for obvious reasons -
> other times they earn their keep by doing a Monica.
Monica came from a very rich family. It's true that interns work for little
or no money, but it's mainly family support (which can be called company
sponsorship as well; same diff) that gets them the jobs and keeps them in
the proper kit. Same goes for other glamor jobs: publishing, pr, and
advertising (for example). So, often the rich subsidise intern and glamorous
entry level jobs for their kids. The system works.
redcat
redcat
> In article <aefk6k$rsu$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "redcat"
> <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > That's true, that's true... but wasn't the empress title reserved for
> > Empress of India or something like that?
>
> Only because, in those happy days, India was the only part ruled as an
> empire. Places like Australia and Canada were colonies.
>
> > I think they can make up titles as they go along. For example, Philip is
> > "Prince", but could also be "Queen Consort", no?
>
> No. Queen anything would be the wrong sex. His correct title would, I
think,
> be "Prince Consort".
>
partner, say (but instead of saying "the Queen's Consort" the term is
reduced to "Queen Consort"). Although, of course, Prince Consort is
sensible. Anyway... Philip is not called by that title anywhere, is he? What
was the Queen Mother called before she became a mother? And would she have
been called the uneuphonic King Mother had Elizabeth been born a boy?
Thanks!
redcat
Dewi Gwyn
"Ken Down" wrote
: Instead they have White House aides and so on.
I didn't know you could catch HIV from whitewash.
redcat
> Cor, look what redcat wrote ...
>
> >
>
> > Monica came from a very rich family. It's true that interns work for
little
> > or no money, but it's mainly family support (which can be called company
> > sponsorship as well; same diff) that gets them the jobs and keeps them
in
> > the proper kit. Same goes for other glamor jobs: publishing, pr, and
> > advertising (for example). So, often the rich subsidise intern and
glamorous
> > entry level jobs for their kids. The system works.
>
>
> Then we're told the merkins don't have a class system.
> My arse.
I didn't say for whom the system works, because I assumed people would
figure that out on their own. Yes, the system works for the rich. However:
You're not born into a caste in the US from which you can never depart.
It is generally difficult to earn enough money to rise from "poverty" to the
"middle class" to the "upper middle class" and beyond to "independently
wealthy", but it happens. (I don't know why there isn't another noun in
popular usage, btw, instead of the misunderstood "class" when describing
people of a certain income level. That is a problem.)
Generally, Americans are not concerned with class as it applies to
birthright. Having class means having good manners. And having money is
better than not having money. These are facts.
Try hard as you like, but you're not going to find a British style class
system functioning in America.
redcat
Ken Down
<red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Oh, OK -- I thought the Consort "belongs" to the Queen, he's the Queen's
> partner, say (but instead of saying "the Queen's Consort" the term is
> reduced to "Queen Consort"). Although, of course, Prince Consort is
> sensible. Anyway... Philip is not called by that title anywhere, is he?
Not often; his official title is the Duke of Edinburgh. You could say that
"Prince Consort" is his job description.
> What was the Queen Mother called before she became a mother? And would she
> have been called the uneuphonic King Mother had Elizabeth been born a boy?
No, the Queen Mother was simply "the Queen" until the death of her husband
the King. After that she became "the Queen Mother" simply to distinguish her
from the Queen - and that would have applied whether the succession had
devolved on a male (who would have had a wife) or a female.
"Queen Mother" is not an abbreviation of "Queen's Mother".
Ken Down
<Dewi...@CYMRUbtinternet.com> wrote:
> I didn't know you could catch HIV from whitewash.
You live and learn, Dewi. You live and learn.
redcat
> In article <aekn2l$nep$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "redcat"
> <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, OK -- I thought the Consort "belongs" to the Queen, he's the Queen's
> > partner, say (but instead of saying "the Queen's Consort" the term is
> > reduced to "Queen Consort"). Although, of course, Prince Consort is
> > sensible. Anyway... Philip is not called by that title anywhere, is he?
>
> Not often; his official title is the Duke of Edinburgh. You could say that
> "Prince Consort" is his job description.
>
> > What was the Queen Mother called before she became a mother? And would
she
> > have been called the uneuphonic King Mother had Elizabeth been born a
boy?
>
> No, the Queen Mother was simply "the Queen" until the death of her husband
> the King. After that she became "the Queen Mother" simply to distinguish
her
> from the Queen - and that would have applied whether the succession had
> devolved on a male (who would have had a wife) or a female.
>
> "Queen Mother" is not an abbreviation of "Queen's Mother".
>
So, if Queen Elizabeth abdicates in favor of Charles or William she will
techinically be called the Queen Mother? Although I'm sure most would
continue to call her Queen Elizabeth, because that's been her title for so
long. Not that this scenario is likely to happen. And I'm glad -- for the
simple, personal reason that when I'm the Queen's age I'd like to feel I can
still run an office that big.
redcat
Dewi Gwyn
"Ken Down" wrote
: In article <aelag7$hpb$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, "Dewi Gwyn"
: <Dewi...@CYMRUbtinternet.com> wrote:
:
: > I didn't know you could catch HIV from whitewash.
:
: You live and learn, Dewi. You live and learn.
I'm getting worried now Ken because, theoretically, as a Gwyn my home is the
White house ;-)
Jack Sais
(in message <aen9h8$hrb$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>):
Presumably this would only be necessary if William marries a girlie called
Elizabeth, otherwise there won't be a problem distinguishing between Queen
Elizabeth and Queen Camilla (cringe...)
==============================================================
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
==============================================================
Jack Sais
(in message <aelkfr$u3o$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>):
I think you're probably wrong - as far as my experience goes, the "class
system" in the UK really only applies to the titled nobility - the rest of us
are fully mobile (e.g. in my own experience my grandfather was a painter &
decorator, but I'm professionally qualified). The hereditary principle
clearly is active in the US, otherwise how would a talent-free fool become
head of state? (Clue - not by democratic means...) The standard route for
such morons is through a monarchy.
redcat
"Jack Sais" <engli...@wales.org> wrote in message
news:01HW.B9353DA10...@news.freeserve.net...
I 'm glad to hear that. (But the nobility still doesn't mix with the
not-titled, do they?)
(e.g. in my own experience my grandfather was a painter &
> decorator, but I'm professionally qualified). The hereditary principle
> clearly is active in the US, otherwise how would a talent-free fool become
> head of state? (Clue - not by democratic means...) The standard route for
> such morons is through a monarchy.
Money buys influence. Once there's family money there's nothing one cannot
do. **But it's nothing to do with title or nobility**, which I what I
believe M2T was saying up thread. We haven't got titles that pass on through
birth.
Regarding the US election. It'll be easy to show what the outcome "should
have been". Each party will, next time, put up the person they think will
win the election. The "better man" will win. I say this with certainty
because I am hoping by then the voting process will be updated and made
water-tight to the point where there can be no mistakes. It'll be
interesting to see if the same two people run for the presidency again. As
they say, Watch This Space! ;-)
redcat
redcat
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:36:58 +0100, redcat wrote
> (in message <aen9h8$hrb$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>):
>
>>
> >
>
> Elizabeth, otherwise there won't be a problem distinguishing between Queen
> Elizabeth and Queen Camilla (cringe...)
>
Elizabeth" and the new Queen will have the Queen title also. Hey, how about
in the case of Diana. Wasn't there some question about whether she would be
Queened? So, maybe you'd only get "Princess Camilla". (sorry! <g>)
redcat
Jack Sais
(in message <aeo57c$4tq$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>):
One would assume that Lizzie-babes will go on until she kicks the bucket -
public duty and all that. Since she's got her mum's genes that could be
*another* 25 years, thus potentially by-passing Charles altogther (good idea
- hums nat. anthem to himself). On reflection, I recall that abdication dumps
the title - Eddie VIII became the mere Duke of Windsor, so I suppose it won't
arise. Diana *would* have been Queen if they hadn't divorced - what was the
problem you came across?
JS
redcat
"M˛ T ..." <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3d0f9eb3$0$81654$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Cor, look what redcat wrote ...
>
>
> > system functioning in America.
>
>
You're not paying attention ;-) Seriously, it's old family money. And every
so often a story comes out about how the money is getting awfully dilute.
That some of them went into politics doesn't make them titled or of another
class (well, others may argue that point. Many will put politicians into the
same class as your average garden slug). Politics was simply the family
business. No matter what they go into, they have money, friends and
influence. If you invented, say, something phenomenal and made a few
billion bucks you'd have money and influence as well. But by this stage of
the game you'd already know who your friends are.
Beside the Kennedys, there's the phenomenon of Hollywood families as well --
like the Barrymores. Or any family in any big, closely held industry. None
of them are noble. The common theme is money.
Time to fill out my lottery ticket!
redcat
redcat
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:22:59 +0100, redcat wrote
> (in message <aeo57c$4tq$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>):
>
> >
> > "Jack Sais" <engli...@wales.org> wrote in message
> > news:01HW.B9353BDC0...@news.freeserve.net...
> >> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:36:58 +0100, redcat wrote
> >> (in message <aen9h8$hrb$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>):
> >>
> >
> public duty and all that. Since she's got her mum's genes that could be
> *another* 25 years, thus potentially by-passing Charles altogther (good
idea
> - hums nat. anthem to himself). On reflection, I recall that abdication
dumps
> the title - Eddie VIII became the mere Duke of Windsor, so I suppose it
won't
> arise. Diana *would* have been Queen if they hadn't divorced - what was
the
> problem you came across?
>
wouldn't be titled Queen even if Charles was King. Maybe that got sorted
out, or was never a problem to begin with. Just something I heard. It's a
pity we never got to find out.
I had thought the spouse of the monarch doesn't automatically get the Queen
or, heavens, King title, do they? Obviously, Philip isn't "King". Would the
spouse of the next King automatically become "Queen"? Was Victoria's husband
King? No, he was Prince. I don't want to get into the sexism that is
apparent here: that the title King trumps Queen, so the husband of the
ruling monarch should never get a title higher than the monarch herself --
or everything will be lopsided. Here's a simple yes or no, since I don't
want to impose on your good nature in answering my queries. Does the King's
spouse always become Queen? And (another one) does the Queen's spouse always
remain Prince?
Separately, if it holds even in the case of an ageing Queen (let's say when
Elizabeth is 95) that abdication means a dumping of the title, then I bet
she'll never, ever abdicate. No way is she going to give up that title. And
I say right on! (just putting myself in her shoes).
redcat
Jack Sais
(in message <aeobje$qqs$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>):
Ooer, I never thought I'd put myself in the position of British
Constitutional Expert :-/ It's clear that the sexism bit is the important
part here - King trumps Queen, so if the Queen is head of state, there can't
be a King too, but if there's a King as head of state, then he's allowed to
call his wife Queen. Sad but true...
================================================================
Hogwasher: You don't have to sacrifice friendliness for power
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
================================================================
Ken Down
<red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> So, if Queen Elizabeth abdicates in favor of Charles or William she will
> techinically be called the Queen Mother? Although I'm sure most would
> continue to call her Queen Elizabeth, because that's been her title for so
> long. Not that this scenario is likely to happen. And I'm glad -- for the
> simple, personal reason that when I'm the Queen's age I'd like to feel I
> can still run an office that big.
An interesting question. Yes, Her Majesty could continue to be known as
Queen Elizabeth, but it would be incorrect to refer to her as "the Queen"
(in the scenario you describe) because that title would apply to the wife of
Charles or William.
Which is why I hope it is William who gets the throne, not Charles.
Ken Down
<Dewi...@CYMRUbtinternet.com> wrote:
> I'm getting worried now Ken because, theoretically, as a Gwyn my home is
> the White house ;-)
Well, at least you'd be an improvement on the present resident.
Mind you, a moron from the local lunatic asylum would be an improvement.
Richard H Huelin
> In article <aenp1k$p3i$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, "Dewi Gwyn"
> <Dewi...@CYMRUbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm getting worried now Ken because, theoretically, as a Gwyn
my home is
> > the White house ;-)
>
> Well, at least you'd be an improvement on the present resident.
>
> Mind you, a moron from the local lunatic asylum would be an
improvement.
Don't be so cruel to poor little Huw.
Ken Down
<allspam...@planefacts.co.uk> wrote:
> Don't be so cruel to poor little Huw.
Does Huw live in a white house? Or, more specifically, the White House?
Richard H Huelin
> In article <102459645...@demeter.uk.clara.net>, "Richard
H Huelin"
> <allspam...@planefacts.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Don't be so cruel to poor little Huw.
>
> Does Huw live in a white house? Or, more specifically, the
White House?
I don't know, but I thought that the fact that he is a moron was
not in dispute.
Witchee Poo
>> <allspam...@planefacts.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't be so cruel to poor little Huw.
>> Does Huw live in a white house? Or, more specifically,
>> the White House?
>I don't know, but I thought that the fact that he is a moron was
>not in dispute.
Mia-ow.
Huw's very young, what's your excuse? <g>
--
Witchee
Alec Owen
"Tracy" <n...@here.please> wrote in message
news:aej8bk$irm$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
He could be if he was gay. Queen Victoria was Empress of India. On the old
pennies were the words
"Ind Imp: which was a Latin abbreviation meaning "Empress of India".
A Owen
Message for Sharon and other modern Israelites:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing
evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases
hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding
deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.