Who is Prince Andrew's father?
Terrance
monarchy will last 1000 years.
"Red Dragon" <redr...@republicnow.org.uk> wrote in message
news:aqiqii$7s7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The following extract is taken from www.throneout.com in the interests of
> public debate.
>
> In 'Queen Elizabeth II, a woman who is not amused' Nicholas Davies writes
> (p.186): Elizabeth became romantically involved with another man, Henry
> George Reginald
> Molyneux Herbert, Earl of Carnarvon also known as Lord Porchester.
>
> Throughout the '50s and '60s Porchester and Elizabeth spent many, many
hours
> together discussing racing. But Davies writes (p.188): Elizabeth began to
> spend a
> great deal of time with Lord Porchester and they would frequently meet at
> Broadlands where Mountbatten would be their host. They would ride
together,
> walk for hours with the dogs and sit and chat into the night. Mountbatten
> was concerned that Elizabeth was infatuated with the handsome Harry
> Porchester, perhaps even emotionally involved. After much thought
> Mountbatten took the unprecedented step of writing her a letter of
warning.
>
> 'I urge you to be more discreet in your relationship with Porchy' wrote
> Mountbatten according to John Barratt. Mountbatten knew what was going on
> and was worried in case
> things got out of hand. He saw the way they were to each other, how close
> they had become,
> acting towards each other as though lovers. 'I think there was also a
sense
> of jealousy too.
> However, he was genuinely concerned that she and Porchy were spending too
> much time together
> at Broadlands and it was obvious that he believed they were becoming too
> involved. He told
> me so; he used to shake his head about it, not knowing how he should
tackle
> the situation.
> Elizabeth was so animated when Porchy was around and they got on so well
> together.'
>
> Elizabeth appeared to take little notice of Uncle Dickie's warning for she
> continued to see much of Harry Porchester but the couple spent fewer
> weekends at Broadlands. Later
> they would travel abroad together on racing business and spend weekends
> together. Since 1975
> Elizabeth and Porchy have often visited Kentucky together during the
spring
> yearling
> sales.
>
> On January 1,1990 the Cabinet papers of the Macmillan government released
> for the year 1959 (the year that Prince Andrew was conceived) confirmed
that
> the royal family
> was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions that year but the subject
matter
> was sufficiently
> sensitive for the government to order that it be kept secret for a much
> longer period than
> normal. One of the items was stamped with a 50 year embargo - as opposed
to
> the normal 30 years - and
> two items were locked away for 100 years not to be revealed until 2059.
>
> What could possibly be serious enough to warrant this kind of secrecy? It
> was virtually without precedent in times of normality. From recent times
> only the Cabinet documents relating to the Abdication remain precluded. In
> 1959 there were no wars, political upsets or constitutional crises.
'Prince
> Philip- a critical biography' by John Parker (p.200).
>
> In 'The Royals' Kitty Kelley writes (p.421): Prince Philip had agreed in
> 1993 to be profiled by journaliist Fiammenta Rocco in 'The Independent on
> Sunday.' The reporter
> referred to the allegation that Prince Andrew is not really Prince
Philip's
> son, that he is
> the son of Lord Porchester, the Queen's racing manager.
>
> Philip did not flinch. Knowing that any reaction would be front-page news,
> he said nothing. He sat as impassive as stone. "Like a child with porridge
> in his mouth" the
> reporter later told a colleague.
>
> She had addressed the issue of his son's paternity because it had been
> raised weeks before by Nigel Dempster in 'The New York Times Magazine.'
>
> "Get hold of a picture of Prince Andrew and then one of Lord Porchester at
> the same age" Dempster was quoted as telling writer Christopher Hitchens.
> "You'll see that
> Prince Philip could never have been Andy's father."
>
> The Palace did not challenge the published statement.
>
> In 'The Royal Marriages' Campbell writes (p.105): Baby Andrew was kept
under
> wraps as no other royal baby has been before or since. The world received
no
> glimpse of
> him, not even when he was christened, for there were no official
> photographers present to
> record what is normally a happy semi-official occasion shared by the royal
> family and the public
> alike. In public relations terms such secrecy was a disaster which would
> have long-term repercussions.
>
> In 'The Royal Marriages' Campbell writes (p.106): I had no idea how
> widespread the rumours about Andrew's paternity were until I visited
Ireland
> for the launch of
> 'Diana in private.' I had always assumed that what I had heard was
confined
> to the narrow circle
> surrounding the Queen, her court and her cousins, but, to my
consternation,
> Terry Keane of the
> prestigious Sunday Independent asked me if I could confirm whether it was
> true that Prince
> Andrew was Lord Porchester's and not Prince Philip's son.
>
> I mumbled something diplomatic and unquotable, hoping to sidestep the
issue
> as gently as possible. I was therefore astonished to pick up the paper the
> following day
> and read a graphic description of the whole encounter which left no doubt
in
> the readers' minds
> regarding Ms. Keane's views on the subject. In her book 'Elizabeth' Sarah
> Bradford also
> mentions the rumours about the paternity of Andrew (p. 284).
>
> Given all the recent Burrell trial, isn't it about time this particular
> rumour was put to rest?
>
> Red Dragon
>
>
>
oxymel of squill
and even Queen Victoria was illegitimate. The Royals are only people doing a
job....
GMK
"Terrance" the top posting cunt wrote
> If cheap gossip is the best republicans can come up with, then I believe
the
> monarchy will last 1000 years.
>
>
> well thank fuck you wont be around to see it you top posting twat
Jocko
>
Terrance
Insults and swearing don't impress. They just make you look like a looser.
Maybe you think its clever, but to the rest of us it just looks very
childish and sad.
"GMK" <gmksp...@planit.softnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aqj12p$mi5$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
Andy Dingley
<quis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Can't see that it matters a lot, Andrew is unlikely to inherit the throne
Assuming another drunken French chauffeur takes out Charles and the
kids, what is Andrew's position ? He's royalty for being Brenda's
sprog, not Phil's, so why should an excess of horse genes be any bar
to this ?
Ian Sharrock
<gmksp...@planit.softnet.co.uk> enlightened uk.media.radio.bbc-r4 by
saying
>
>"Terrance" the top posting cunt wrote
I've seen films where they attempt that. Most impressive.
Ian
--
"You're not one of us."
"I don't think I'm one of them, either," said Brutha. "I'm one of
mine."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Steve Brooks
> Try to understand GMK
I've tried and failed - I think it must be the accent.
> Insults and swearing don't impress. They just make you look like a
> looser.
A looser what?
> Maybe you think its clever, but to the rest of us it just looks very
> childish and sad.
Speak for yourself. There are far sadder and more childish things on
usenet. Top-posters for example.
--
SB
GMK
"Terrance" <terrance...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mc8z9.346$bi3.80777@newsfep2-gui...
> Try to understand GMK
>
> Insults and swearing don't impress. They just make you look like a looser.
>
> Maybe you think its clever, but to the rest of us it just looks very
> childish and sad.
>
>
FUCK ME YOU ARE STILL TOP FUCKING POSTING
I dont think swearing is clever, I dont think anything about it ,but I do
think
1.You are a top posting twat
2.What the fuck is a looser ?
3.Who is the "rest of us?" the rest of the paitents in your ward ,or do you
mean the rest of the Dirty Bunch that make up this mad newsgroup.One thing I
know the chances of everyone here agreeing on something is about as likely
as your stopping top posting
4.I think I am beggining to hate you more than I hate JAF
>
G
>
>
>
>
>
GMK
"Steve Brooks" <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aqjds6$am1k3$1...@ID-109455.news.dfncis.de...
> Terrance wrote:
>
> > Try to understand GMK
>
> I've tried and failed - I think it must be the accent.
>
> Thats racist that is, saying we Jockos canne speak the Queens ane English
dont you know
G
Steve Brooks
> "Steve Brooks wrote
>> Terrance wrote:
>>
>>> Try to understand GMK
>>
>> I've tried and failed - I think it must be the accent.
>>
>
> Thats racist that is, saying we Jockos canne speak the Queens ane
> English dont you know
Well why don't you then :-P
--
SB
GMK
you mean like Sean Connery,Jackie Stewart,Tom Conti etc etc?
>
Terrance
"JAF" <j....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iiqqsu00fibnjnn3o...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:47:55 -0000, "GMK"
> <gmksp...@planit.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I hate JAF
>
> That's a relief.
Are GMK and Honest Aryan Leon the same person?
Everyone else manages to chat without childish insults, swearing and poor
attempts at clever put downs. But these two usually end up insulting anyone
who dares to disagree with them.
Again the tired old 'you must be in an institution' line. Such a sad
attempt.
Very disappointing.
Steve Brooks
> "Steve Brooks" wrote
>> GMK wrote:
>>> "Steve Brooks wrote
>>>> Terrance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Try to understand GMK
>>>>
>>>> I've tried and failed - I think it must be the accent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thats racist that is, saying we Jockos canne speak the Queens ane
>>> English dont you know
>>
>> Well why don't you then :-P
>>
>
I meant 'you' GMK, not 'you' the people of Scotland.
--
SB
GMK
G
GMK
I think gives a better show of his thought than I do and as for Honest Aryan
I dont hold any particular opinion other than the names the clue.
I also have news for you everyone doesnt manage to chat without childish
insults or swearing eventualy most people put the boot in at some time
anyhoo
The only reason you got insulted in the first place was because you were a
top posting twat and having had this pointed out to you ,you showed the
depth and breadth of your wit by FUCKING DOING IT AGAIN.
Disappointed ,dont get me started ,you are fuckwit end of story
G
>
GMK
"Andy Dingley" <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:ig6qsuo1o410t323p...@4ax.com...
chinless RE teacher
G
Timothy Lee
<din...@codesmiths.com> writes
Shirley, it is Mr Parker-Bowles that is more likely to have an
'accident' since it would be less work for him to have an accident and
make his wife a widow and thus marriable than it would be to change the
constitution.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
Martin Underwood
news:p8oG6EAk...@town-village.demon.co.uk...
The problem is not that Camilla is a divorcee rather than a widow, it's that
she's Camilla! I've quite happy for Charles to marry her and for him to
still become king. But no way should Camilla ever inherit the title queen.
How come the sex discrimination people have never cleared up the unequal
treatment of the monarch's spouse: the wife of a king has the title queen,
but the husband of a queen doesn't have the title king. A bit of bias there,
I think!
Richard Caley
mu> How come the sex discrimination people have never cleared up the unequal
mu> treatment of the monarch's spouse: the wife of a king has the title queen,
mu> but the husband of a queen doesn't have the title king. A bit of bias there,
mu> I think!
I think tha anomoly comes from the assumption that the female titles
are of lower rank than the male parallels. Hence if you gave a
courtesy title to the husband they would outrank their wife's real
title. And then how would you decide who sat where and who could
decalre war on whom and such trivia.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Timothy Lee
>"Timothy Lee" <a...@wightproperty.com> wrote in message
>news:p8oG6EAk...@town-village.demon.co.uk...
>> 'accident' since it would be less work for him to have an accident and
>> make his wife a widow and thus marriable than it would be to change the
>> constitution.
>
>The problem is not that Camilla is a divorcee rather than a widow, it's that
>she's Camilla! I've quite happy for Charles to marry her and for him to
>still become king. But no way should Camilla ever inherit the title queen.
>
both of them were widows, which the cynically minded might think
explains them trying to force a change of policy on divorcees remarrying
in church onto the Church of England. Personally I also think it would
be quite entertaining if the Pope should strip our monarch of the title
Defender of the Faith.
Martin Underwood
I'd be delighted if the Pope did this: one person who is irrelevant to
modern life getting involved with another who is irrelevant to modern life!
Come to think of it, does the Pope actually have any say in the matter,
given Henry VIII's actions and that the majority of people in Britain (I
presume they are a majority) are not Catholic?
Andy Dingley
wrote:
>Personally I also think it would
>be quite entertaining if the Pope should strip our monarch of the title
>Defender of the Faith.
Given his behaviour so far, he's more likely to canonise St Diana of
the Tabloids than he is to defrock Louis Mountbatten for giving the
choirboys boat trips.
To paraphrase Stalin, "The Queen ? And how many congregations does
she have ?"
Timothy Lee
Underwood <martin.u...@virgin.NO-SPAM.net> writes
>
>"Timothy Lee" <a...@wightproperty.com> wrote in message
>> Maybe so but they have constitutional problems that would go away if
>> both of them were widows, which the cynically minded might think
>> explains them trying to force a change of policy on divorcees remarrying
>> in church onto the Church of England. Personally I also think it would
>> be quite entertaining if the Pope should strip our monarch of the title
>> Defender of the Faith.
>
>I'd be delighted if the Pope did this: one person who is irrelevant to
>modern life getting involved with another who is irrelevant to modern life!
>
>Come to think of it, does the Pope actually have any say in the matter,
>given Henry VIII's actions and that the majority of people in Britain (I
>presume they are a majority) are not Catholic?
Well the title 'Defender of the Faith' was given to Henry VIII for some
sort of treatise on the nature of the Sacraments and somehow or other
the title has become hereditary, so presumably the Pope could take the
title away again.
Alun Jones
>Well the title 'Defender of the Faith' was given to Henry VIII for some
>sort of treatise on the nature of the Sacraments and somehow or other
>the title has become hereditary, so presumably the Pope could take the
>title away again.
Unless Brenda was to hand in a really good piece of essay homework for R.E.
:-)
Alun.
~~~~
[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email al...@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | read details of WFTPD Pro for XP/2000/NT.
Richard Caley
tl> Well the title 'Defender of the Faith' was given to Henry VIII for some
tl> sort of treatise on the nature of the Sacraments and somehow or other
tl> the title has become hereditary, so presumably the Pope could take the
tl> title away again.
IIRC the pope _did_ remove it. However, the title was then given to
him by parliament. Since then it has been adopted by the monarchs as
part of their corronation oaths.
So, the pope no longer has anything to do with it.
Ian Sharrock
uk.media.radio.bbc-r4 by saying
>Come to think of it, does the Pope actually have any say in the matter,
>given Henry VIII's actions
No, but I bet he has an opinion :-)
>and that the majority of people in Britain (I
>presume they are a majority) are not Catholic?
There are more active UK Catholics then Church of England worshipers at
the moment. The CoE are in decline. For some strange reason the RC
community are growing.
There was some debate on Today quite a while ago (gosh, a R4 reference!)
about if the state should dump or share the Church of England links with
state government in favour of the RC Church.
Richard Caley
is> There was some debate on Today quite a while ago (gosh, a R4
is> reference!) about if the state should dump or share the Church of
is> England links with state government in favour of the RC Church.
Clearly, the religion with the most claim to established status is the
church of Camelot. Many more people believe in the national lottery
than in the last judgement, and with about the same chance of hitting
the jackpot. The twice weekly communion broadcst on BBC TV gets 10 or
20 times as many worshipers as the CofE.
Timothy Lee
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> writes
Well that is even sillier, in that case I am declaring tomorrow
International Egg Day and am conferring upon Boris Johnson the title of
'Ruddy Good Egg'
Richard Caley
tl> Well that is even sillier,
Why?
Titles are just labels people pin on other people. None of them are
meaningful in and of themselves.
Consider the fact that MPs are styled `honourable'. Given that any
other title/styling is comparatively sane.
Timothy Lee
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> writes
>In article <BYhbWLAx...@town-village.demon.co.uk>, Timothy Lee (tl) writes:
>
>
>tl> Well that is even sillier,
>
>Why?
>
>Titles are just labels people pin on other people. None of them are
>meaningful in and of themselves.
>
>Consider the fact that MPs are styled `honourable'. Given that any
>other title/styling is comparatively sane.
So organisation A confers title B on C, organisation A then removes that
title, so C instructs his servants to confer title B.
Richard Caley
tl> So organisation A confers title B on C, organisation A then removes that
tl> title, so C instructs his servants to confer title B.
He probably asked for money and they gave hi the title instead.
Alun Jones
>There are more active UK Catholics then Church of England worshipers at
>the moment. The CoE are in decline. For some strange reason the RC
>community are growing.
How does the line from Stilgoe And Skellern "Who Plays Wins" go?
Vicar: You've only got the rhythm - I bet it really irks.
Priest: But it makes lots and lots of Catholics, 'cos it never, ever works.
Ophelia
> Try to understand GMK
>
> Insults and swearing don't impress. They just make you look like a looser.
>
> Maybe you think its clever, but to the rest of us it just looks very
> childish and sad.
I don't remember giving you permission to speak for me.
Ophelia
Ophelia
"GMK" <gmksp...@planit.softnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aqjosl$j0o$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
Yes, Terrance is shown to be a racist Oh dear.. he has done it now.
Ophelia:)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not try to send mail to Ophelia_...@Hotmail.com.
If you need to mail me please ask
west.ender
> Try to understand GMK
i do, i do...
> Insults and swearing don't impress. They just make you look like a looser.
A looser what...?
> Maybe you think its clever, but to the rest of us it just looks very
> childish and sad.
Don't speak for me, pal
}o)
west.ender
"Ian Sharrock" <i...@sharrock.org> wrote in message
news:SLNfmoJE...@sharrock.org...
> In article <aqj12p$mi5$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, GMK
> <gmksp...@planit.softnet.co.uk> enlightened uk.media.radio.bbc-r4 by
> saying
> >
> >"Terrance" the top posting cunt wrote
>
> I've seen films where they attempt that. Most impressive.
>
> Ian
LOL yes, very good!
:o)
Steve Brooks
> "GMK" wrote
>> "Steve Brooks wrote
>>>
>>>> Try to understand GMK
>>>
>>> I've tried and failed - I think it must be the accent.
>>>
>>
>>> Thats racist that is, saying we Jockos canne speak the Queens ane
> English
>> dont you know
>
Actually O, that was G 'n' I messin' about. Terrance may be excessively
earnest, but I've seen no evidence so far that he is racist.. Even against
you Scots.
--
SB
Ophelia
Hmmmm you sure????????
O replacing her skean dubh back into her stocking top:)
Steve Brooks
> "Steve Brooks wrote
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> "GMK" wrote
>>>> "Steve Brooks wrote
>>>>> Terrance wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to understand GMK
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tried and failed - I think it must be the accent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thats racist that is, saying we Jockos canne speak the Queens ane
>>> English
>>>> dont you know
>>>
>>> Yes, Terrance is shown to be a racist Oh dear.. he has done it now.
>>
>> Actually O, that was G 'n' I messin' about. Terrance may be
>> excessively earnest, but I've seen no evidence so far that he is
>> racist.. Even against you Scots.
>>
>
>
Er, reasonably..
> O replacing her skean dubh back into her stocking top:)
I'll keep hold of that image.
--
SB