Obviously, he's never heard of The House of Windsor (Battenburg)
He wants to come to Britain. You Americans are said to lurve the
British Royals. You can 'ave 'em! A more dysfunctional, delusional,
untalented, unintelligent bunch of nomarks than this mob does not exist
If Charles "Dickhead Dumbo" Windsor was a roadbuilder and had his
family of misfits and ne'er do wells with him, he'd never get into
America. Because he is Royalty (allegedly),you fawn over him. With the
behaviour of his unruly family, you'd soon get sick of the lot of them.
In an age where the Monarchy is at an all time low in support,
appreciation and respect, this crowd thinks that all they have to do is
have a wedding and everyone will line the streets and cheer.
And they have an exaggerated view of their place in history. Just
because of the number of tourists. It hasn't occurred to them that when
foreign tourists visits Buck Pally, it's to get a feeling of British
pageantry and history, not to wonder at the splendor of the
Anyone remember the wedding of Dumbo and Ditzy Spencer? Allegedly 30
million Brits watched on TV as it occurred live (well, as live as Royal
weddings EVER get). Since then, the mystique of the Royals has been
eroded away, as the people have become sickened of their petulence and
disregard for the people they want to rule over. Tomorrow, Dumbo gets
spliced to Camilla "Camel Face" Parker-Bowles (Bowels?). Dumbo and
Camel Face. Made for each other.
They'll be lucky if 30 people watch that fiasco.
God save the Queen?
God help the rest of us!
b m o'b
> He wants to come to Britain. You Americans are said to lurve the
> British Royals. You can 'ave 'em! A more dysfunctional, delusional,
> untalented, unintelligent bunch of nomarks than this mob does not exist
What makes you think that's an alternative view? Sounds pretty mainstream to
Bog McBog O'Boggable wrote:
>They'll be lucky if 30 people watch that fiasco.
I beg to differ!
30 million will be watching just to see the sour vinegar look on the
Queen's face. I wouldn't miss it for the world.
Anyway, rumour has it he's got a stag night in Rome tonight. Half the
College of Cardinals are going to get him drunk, Ratzinger's
hand-cuffing him to a lamppost, but only after Clinton's taken him on a
tour of the red light district (where all leave has been cancelled,
reportedly) and Mugabe's giving him an inflatable sheep. Dubya will look
Betty Battenburg is turning into Queen Vic (I don't mean the
Eastenders' pub...or do I?)
Dumbo is turning into George III (as portrayed by N Hawthorne)
Randy Andy is another Nicholas II of Russia
"Jon E. Szostak, Sr." <jszostaks...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Isn't this kind of stuff supposed to be marked OT? And isn't this an
> 'opera' NG? I really don't mind the occasional OT...but lately there's
> more of that than 'opera'. What gives?
> Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
> "Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
The original wedding date (today, Friday) had a Thursday morning
rehearsal by Sir Charles Mackerras and then 2-to whenever
(OVERTIME!!!!) rehearsing with Mr Warren-Green for The Big Event.
Accordingly, the final Mackerras rehearsal for his 3 pm Sunday concert
at the Royal Festival Hall (Brahms Tragic, Dvorak Cello, Brahms 2) was
switched to Saturday 10-1, 2-5, the cellist not now arriving until late
When the departure of His Holiness caused Charles and Camilla to
rearrange things that left a sort of marooned cellist and a sort of
Of course the Philharmonia will play for the occasion
except....errr...most of them won't be from the Philharmonia.
Telephones rang, I imagine, with that slightly panic stricken voice
which begins: "Do you happen to be free Friday and Saturday. We can
offer a principal fee............"
I hope the music-making will be wonderful but I think I should warn you
that it may not be from the Philharmonia and if the orchestra are shown
on TV you, as a regular concertgoer, might recognise a few faces from
Alan M. Watkins
Ooh, I had a panic, but it's the London Phil I'm off to tomorrow night...
"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
SJT, not mentioning our tea-rooms
West End Theatre is overrated, anyway. Scotland is beautiful, I have to
> In an age where the Monarchy is at an all time low in support,
>appreciation and respect, this crowd thinks that all they have to do is
>have a wedding and everyone will line the streets and cheer.
The Australian Republican Movement is quietly rather chuffed with this
wedding - it furthers their cause enormously.
Michael Bednarek http://mbednarek.com/ "POST NO BILLS"
Isn't the OT-ness of the thread self-evident from it's title. I find it hard
to believe that adding the letters OT would make it any clearer. It's not so
long ago that this newsgroup was drowning in discussions about American
politics. The least you can do is to allow us Brits our moment in the sun!!
It's always vastly entertaining when complaints about OT threads emanate
from individuals who are perfectly happy to participate in them when it
suits their immediate purpose.
The pomp, ceremony and tradition are great. It's just the incumbents that
are the problem.
I know he posts on OPera L, but he annnoys everyone there as well
How long have you got?
Actually, opinion polls showed that the vast majority of the UK population
did support the monarchy until the debacle and never-ending soap
opera/tragedy of the marriage of Charles and Diana and all the associated
scandals. When Charles married Diana in 1981, one million people lined the
streets to wish them well. Articles in the British press this week have
shown that the cheering smiling faces you will see if you watch the
proceedings of today's royal wedding as the party makes it way from Windsor
Castle to the Guildhall are a "rent-a-crowd" of people associated with
charities supported by the Prince of Wales, including the Royal Opera and
the Royal Ballet, I am sorry to say, who were written to secretly by one of
Charles's aides and asked to send people along to stand outside and cheer
and wave to ensure that the route is not lined with anti-Charles and Camilla
> It seems like
> just about the best thing in Britain other than West End Theatre and
Fraid spoken theatre doesn't do it for me any more and I loathe ghastly
West End "musicals".Best things are London operatic and musical / night life
and beautiful landscapes, not just of Scotland, but Devon and Cornwall,
Wales, the Yorkshire moors and others.
"stephenmead" <ste...@mead9720.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
When Diana married Charles she was barely out of her teens, it was to
all intents and purposes an arranged marriage brought about by two
meddlesome conniving grandmothers. I don't suppose for a moment she had
any idea what she was letting herself in for; what her personality
became, good and bad, as most of us are, was a mixture of her
upbringing, the dreadful circumstances of her entire adult life, and,
no doubt, inherent characteristics.
I was appalled that in the supposedly enlightened 1980s it was still
acceptable to the vast majority of the population for a very young
woman to be sold into slavery as a brood mare. (Although I make no
claims to have had that insight or the ability to express it as a 13
year old; and I spent much of that summer in the company of many
anti-establishment cousins who were then much older than me than they
In many modern democracies, especially ones that have escaped from the
British system, or have been constructed by the Western Allies, there
is a clear separation between the elected Head of State and the elected
Head of Government. The ones that spring easiest to my mind are
Republic of Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany, both post-War
states (effectively), which have Taiseoch/Chancellor who are leaders of
the ruling party and separate Presidents who are above the
cut-and-thrust of partisan politics and to some extent are able to
embody the dignity of the State, the nation, without the messiness of
secondly, they consistently fail to explain what skills or experience William can possibly bring to the post, other than being intensely photogenic,
GeoffDavis - a connoisseur of tea-rooms
Erasmus Zacchary Drainpipe wrote:
I thought Edward VII had just turned up; turns out it's one of the Kents...
It's the difference between respect for the institution and contempt for
those (with the exception of the Queen) representing it. I believe you have
a similar problem over there. :-))
I got into the TV transmission from the Windsor chapel(?) after the actual wedding in the middle of a Russian hymn which reminded me very much of Boris Godunov and/or Borodin, with a very impressive alto soloist. Can anyone give me some details, as our Norwegian commentator was busy commenting on robes and hats.
"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
"Me? I like Camilla. It's Diana I couldn't stand. I wish Charles and
Camilla all the happiness in the world, which isn't much, I admit. And not
because they're "royals," either." david gable
SJT, who's always believed Diana to be the proof of Derrida's apercu
"Chaque victime trouve son bourreau"
I think that's a Foxworthy.
On 4/9/05 12:20 PM, in article d392tj$ns5$1...@hercules.btinternet.com,
A) She was smart enough to marry the heir apparent to the throne of
England...and yet NOT smart enough...by marrying the like of Charles. I
think they were pushed into the marriage by the monarchs.
B) I believe all of the...as you put it so gently...'screwing' commenced
when BOTH of them were bored to tears each with the other. And screwing is
screwing no matter what your title or place in society. They were both
wrong and that's plain and simple.
I further think she was a thoughtful mom to try to keep her sons as normal
as was possible for as long as possible. Plus she give of her time to many
Quite oddly enough...as I write this...MSNBC is showing...for some gawd
awful reason...the first marriage...and she is walking up the aisle with her
dad as Charles and the monarchs watch. Entirely too bizarre!
Having said all of that...I think Charlie & Camilla deserve each other...and
I mean that in all the best of ways. They are obviously friends and
lovers...and you simply cannot have a good marriage without being both.
They've been too long waiting for their union to be legalized. Good to them
That's my 2 cents...from the colonies.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"Nancy C Kenfield" <tremo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
"Stephen Jay-Taylor" <sjayt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> Speaking of messing around:
> What's the difference between "NAKED" and "NEKKID?"
> "Naked" means you have no clothes on.
> "Nekkid" means you have no clothes on and you're doing something you
> I think that's a Foxworthy.
The same observation is made in one of Tom Robbins' novels. It comes
up in a conversation the female protagonist has with her mother. I
think it's _Skinny Legs and All_.
That might not be the earliest occurrence, but it certainly predates
I understand that Cheryl Strudel will sing atr the wedding of you and a
But we do have same sex marrriages here...you married a goat with a
>It's always vastly entertaining when
Not nearly so (vastly) entertaining as when a sniping, vindictive
paradigm of hypocrisy such as yourself vainly attempts to mpugn the
integrity of its countless betters.
> blahblahindividuals who are
> perfectly happy to participate in them when it
> suits their immediate purpose.
Sounds far too much like you.
Res Ipsa, etc.
>Leonard Tillman wrote:
"An easiiy-entertained cackling hyaenid deviate exclaims: "
>even though it's true, you shouldn't denigrate
> the opera clown
Indeed, CH is no opera clown, as is the scum to which I referred.
>[CH] has thin skin and his head might just
The SS-Opera-Clown has no skin of worth, though its ear-to-ear
crud-loaded head is tightly sheathed by the capaceous bum of its FL
co-slime, who seems to enjoy the....er...."filling-feeling",
-experiencing regular and super-titillating storf-gasms as a result.
Hopefully, no x-ray images of the process exist, and won't, ever.
the fact remains that the opera clown is either banned from or held in
contempt - and ignored - on a number of opera forums, hardly lending
credibility to your statement. post after mind-numbing post on Opera-L
is ignored, their only viable option. not the case here, fortunately.
>Leonard Tillman wrote:
"Indeed, CH is no opera clown, "
>alas, and surprisingly, subjectivity issues cloud
> your assessment, one that i am far from being
> alone in making
Well, CH does post some REALLY silly stuff, but *compared to* the pack
of boob-onic, hypocritical, vicious bombastards I mentioned, -- he, you,
and I - are, each of us, virtually Maimonides, Moses, and Jesus
combined, whatever our all-too-human flaws.
Purely a matter of degree, we may suppose....
my buddy maimonides wrote the opera clown's handbook: the "guide for
the perplexed." jag
>the "guide for the
> perplexed." jag
"Purple-X", - what FinkLey and its co-slimes each sign with, no doubt.
They must keep their Crayolas® on hand.
>camilla was so poor growing up that if she
> hadn't been a boy she would have had
> nothing to play with. jag
Finley the Liar had that same problem....until one day when it
discovered the joys of playing handball with its didee's contents,
nevermind their constantly crash-landing right in his/its prevaricating
On 4/10/05 11:22 PM, in article 100420052122185341%mark...@earthlink.net,