 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do you listen to him then?" Was happy listening to radio 2, he came on, didn't realise he was going to talk nonsense for an hour. He's completely out of touch, time for a President | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... He's completely out of touch, time for a President " Now THERE'S a non sequitur! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's going to be worse when attention seeking narcissist William takes over." He'll have us all travelling around on electric scooters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous " I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for" If Charles abdicated the throne would still pass to William. Edward didn't have kids so the throne passed to his brother. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for If Charles abdicated the throne would still pass to William. Edward didn't have kids so the throne passed to his brother." Which Edward, you talking about for clarication | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do you listen to him then? Was happy listening to radio 2, he came on, didn't realise he was going to talk nonsense for an hour. He's completely out of touch, time for a President " Who? Fucking Starmer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for If Charles abdicated the throne would still pass to William. Edward didn't have kids so the throne passed to his brother." Quite correct Edward VIII didn’t have children. The decision was taken by parliament that there could be no interruption or contest to the succession at any time in the future. Hence the decision was taken. That when a crowned or uncrowned Monarch abdicates they abdicate their lineage. In the past there have been pretenders to the throne and a decision was made that only the direct linage of William and Mary of the Protestant faith could succeed. Edward later the Duke of Windsor threw a spanner in the works. The decision was taken and approved by both Houses of Parliament that abdication means abdicating your line. So if you want King Andy. Then Chuckles only has to step down. It’s a constitutional Monarchy not who you think should get the job. Frankly IMHO the French had the right idea | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Get rid of the Royal Family. Then the House of Lords. Then kick this corrupt puppet regime out of Westminster and start to put the GREAT back into Britain" 👇👇👇 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for If Charles abdicated the throne would still pass to William. Edward didn't have kids so the throne passed to his brother. Quite correct Edward VIII didn’t have children. The decision was taken by parliament that there could be no interruption or contest to the succession at any time in the future. Hence the decision was taken. That when a crowned or uncrowned Monarch abdicates they abdicate their lineage. In the past there have been pretenders to the throne and a decision was made that only the direct linage of William and Mary of the Protestant faith could succeed. Edward later the Duke of Windsor threw a spanner in the works. The decision was taken and approved by both Houses of Parliament that abdication means abdicating your line. So if you want King Andy. Then Chuckles only has to step down. It’s a constitutional Monarchy not who you think should get the job. Frankly IMHO the French had the right idea" If Charles abdicates, Parliament will again have to sign off where the line of succession shifts to. As that line is already there, Parliament is unlikely to shift it anywhere else. It's just rubber stamped to William. There is zero risk of it going to paedo Andy, as he is not currently in the line of succession high enough with William and Harry and their crotch-goblims preceding him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for If Charles abdicated the throne would still pass to William. Edward didn't have kids so the throne passed to his brother. Quite correct Edward VIII didn’t have children. The decision was taken by parliament that there could be no interruption or contest to the succession at any time in the future. Hence the decision was taken. That when a crowned or uncrowned Monarch abdicates they abdicate their lineage. In the past there have been pretenders to the throne and a decision was made that only the direct linage of William and Mary of the Protestant faith could succeed. Edward later the Duke of Windsor threw a spanner in the works. The decision was taken and approved by both Houses of Parliament that abdication means abdicating your line. So if you want King Andy. Then Chuckles only has to step down. It’s a constitutional Monarchy not who you think should get the job. Frankly IMHO the French had the right idea If Charles abdicates, Parliament will again have to sign off where the line of succession shifts to. As that line is already there, Parliament is unlikely to shift it anywhere else. It's just rubber stamped to William. There is zero risk of it going to paedo Andy, as he is not currently in the line of succession high enough with William and Harry and their crotch-goblims preceding him." You really should read the act of abdication and even perhaps the parliamentary debates that preceded it. Of course Parliament could do whatever it considers correct. It would take a deep parliamentary debates they could of course reset all the rules. However that would be challenged in the Supreme Court. Why wouldn’t it be. Parliament has set the precedent and laud down the ground rules for future abdications. More likely they would dissolve The Charles linage and pass emergency legislation removing Andrew from the succession. Then the present Duke of Edinburgh would succeed. You don’t get to choose your next Monarch that decision is already made. Being Monarch isn’t a democratic choice it’s birthright. Get over it Easy answer pass a law declaring the Kingdom’s of Great Britain a republic. Let the constituent countries decide if they wish to remain part of the new Republic. Then elect a president. Then you have a say in who the head of State is and you don’t have to make sh@t to fit your argument | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for If Charles abdicated the throne would still pass to William. Edward didn't have kids so the throne passed to his brother. Quite correct Edward VIII didn’t have children. The decision was taken by parliament that there could be no interruption or contest to the succession at any time in the future. Hence the decision was taken. That when a crowned or uncrowned Monarch abdicates they abdicate their lineage. In the past there have been pretenders to the throne and a decision was made that only the direct linage of William and Mary of the Protestant faith could succeed. Edward later the Duke of Windsor threw a spanner in the works. The decision was taken and approved by both Houses of Parliament that abdication means abdicating your line. So if you want King Andy. Then Chuckles only has to step down. It’s a constitutional Monarchy not who you think should get the job. Frankly IMHO the French had the right idea If Charles abdicates, Parliament will again have to sign off where the line of succession shifts to. As that line is already there, Parliament is unlikely to shift it anywhere else. It's just rubber stamped to William. There is zero risk of it going to paedo Andy, as he is not currently in the line of succession high enough with William and Harry and their crotch-goblims preceding him. You really should read the act of abdication and even perhaps the parliamentary debates that preceded it. Of course Parliament could do whatever it considers correct. It would take a deep parliamentary debates they could of course reset all the rules. However that would be challenged in the Supreme Court. Why wouldn’t it be. Parliament has set the precedent and laud down the ground rules for future abdications. More likely they would dissolve The Charles linage and pass emergency legislation removing Andrew from the succession. Then the present Duke of Edinburgh would succeed. You don’t get to choose your next Monarch that decision is already made. Being Monarch isn’t a democratic choice it’s birthright. Get over it Easy answer pass a law declaring the Kingdom’s of Great Britain a republic. Let the constituent countries decide if they wish to remain part of the new Republic. Then elect a president. Then you have a say in who the head of State is and you don’t have to make sh@t to fit your argument " Oh you are quite funny. We need a round of applause icon  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain never was particularly great - it was a mistranslation of the French - and should read Big Brittany. (Grand Bretagne)" The name Great Britain refers to the primary island of the British Isles. I believe during the Stuart reign it was illegal to refer to it as such. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for" Edward VIII is not the only monarch to abdicate. William would still be next in line should Charles abdicate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for Edward VIII is not the only monarch to abdicate. William would still be next in line should Charles abdicate. " The line if succession was established during the reign of William and Mary. The only abdications before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established in 1707 were John Balliol (King of Scots, 1296): Forced to abdicate by Edward I of England during the First War of Scottish Independence. Edward II (King of England, 1327): Deposed and forced to abdicate by his wife, Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer. Richard II (King of England, 1399): Forced to abdicate by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), after being captured. Mary, Queen of Scots (Queen of Scots, 1567): Compelled by Scottish lords to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James VI. James II (King of England & Scotland, 1688): Fled England during the Glorious Revolution, leading Parliament to declare the throne vacant and deem him to have abdicated. Edward VIII (King of the UK, 1936): Voluntarily abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson, as the marriage was deemed unsuitable by the government and Church of England. As you can see the others were forced abdications. They were also outwith the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was established in 1707 which was different from the union if Crowns. The reason the succession was set during the reign of William and Mary was to establish in law where the succession would go and the faith of the country. In fact catholics were barred from the succession. When Edward threw a spanner in the works there was no law established in the UK dealing with an abdication. Hence the linage question came up. Although Edward had no children at the time of the abdication. He could have subsequently had one. It was established by parliament that when abdicating you abdicate your line. So there can be no pretenders to the throne. It’s easy to check. The Hansard records of the debates are available as is the act of abdication. Personally I couldn’t care less. I have been and always will be a republican. However, can’t believe the amount of sh@t monarchists make up to further their point of view. If you are correct about William succeeding on Charles’ abduction. Please point out to me the little piece of law that makes it so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for Edward VIII is not the only monarch to abdicate. William would still be next in line should Charles abdicate. The line if succession was established during the reign of William and Mary. The only abdications before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established in 1707 were John Balliol (King of Scots, 1296): Forced to abdicate by Edward I of England during the First War of Scottish Independence. Edward II (King of England, 1327): Deposed and forced to abdicate by his wife, Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer. Richard II (King of England, 1399): Forced to abdicate by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), after being captured. Mary, Queen of Scots (Queen of Scots, 1567): Compelled by Scottish lords to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James VI. James II (King of England & Scotland, 1688): Fled England during the Glorious Revolution, leading Parliament to declare the throne vacant and deem him to have abdicated. Edward VIII (King of the UK, 1936): Voluntarily abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson, as the marriage was deemed unsuitable by the government and Church of England. As you can see the others were forced abdications. They were also outwith the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was established in 1707 which was different from the union if Crowns. The reason the succession was set during the reign of William and Mary was to establish in law where the succession would go and the faith of the country. In fact catholics were barred from the succession. When Edward threw a spanner in the works there was no law established in the UK dealing with an abdication. Hence the linage question came up. Although Edward had no children at the time of the abdication. He could have subsequently had one. It was established by parliament that when abdicating you abdicate your line. So there can be no pretenders to the throne. It’s easy to check. The Hansard records of the debates are available as is the act of abdication. Personally I couldn’t care less. I have been and always will be a republican. However, can’t believe the amount of sh@t monarchists make up to further their point of view. If you are correct about William succeeding on Charles’ abduction. Please point out to me the little piece of law that makes it so. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for Edward VIII is not the only monarch to abdicate. William would still be next in line should Charles abdicate. The line if succession was established during the reign of William and Mary. The only abdications before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established in 1707 were John Balliol (King of Scots, 1296): Forced to abdicate by Edward I of England during the First War of Scottish Independence. Edward II (King of England, 1327): Deposed and forced to abdicate by his wife, Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer. Richard II (King of England, 1399): Forced to abdicate by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), after being captured. Mary, Queen of Scots (Queen of Scots, 1567): Compelled by Scottish lords to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James VI. James II (King of England & Scotland, 1688): Fled England during the Glorious Revolution, leading Parliament to declare the throne vacant and deem him to have abdicated. Edward VIII (King of the UK, 1936): Voluntarily abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson, as the marriage was deemed unsuitable by the government and Church of England. As you can see the others were forced abdications. They were also outwith the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was established in 1707 which was different from the union if Crowns. The reason the succession was set during the reign of William and Mary was to establish in law where the succession would go and the faith of the country. In fact catholics were barred from the succession. When Edward threw a spanner in the works there was no law established in the UK dealing with an abdication. Hence the linage question came up. Although Edward had no children at the time of the abdication. He could have subsequently had one. It was established by parliament that when abdicating you abdicate your line. So there can be no pretenders to the throne. It’s easy to check. The Hansard records of the debates are available as is the act of abdication. Personally I couldn’t care less. I have been and always will be a republican. However, can’t believe the amount of sh@t monarchists make up to further their point of view. If you are correct about William succeeding on Charles’ abduction. Please point out to me the little piece of law that makes it so. " I think you will find that the United Kingdom (which included Ireland, now only Northern Ireland) didn’t officially come into being until 1st January 1801. The 1701 Act of Union which you refer to is when the Scottish and English parliaments and crowns merged to form Great Britain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous I don’t think it’s a job you can easily resign from. The only time that’s happened in the past was Edward VIII. The act of abdication dissolved his accession to the throne and because of previous pretenders it also dissolved his line. By Chuckles resigning or abdicating he and his line goes. That rules out William and his kids. Henry and has kids. Oh let’s see who’s next in line. Oh yes it’s the former Prince Andrew former everything's except for being 8th in line to the Throne. I get some people don’t like Chuck and pine for his former English Rose wife. Who died when on a night out with her boyfriend of the time. However you should be careful what you wish for Edward VIII is not the only monarch to abdicate. William would still be next in line should Charles abdicate. The line if succession was established during the reign of William and Mary. The only abdications before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established in 1707 were John Balliol (King of Scots, 1296): Forced to abdicate by Edward I of England during the First War of Scottish Independence. Edward II (King of England, 1327): Deposed and forced to abdicate by his wife, Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer. Richard II (King of England, 1399): Forced to abdicate by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), after being captured. Mary, Queen of Scots (Queen of Scots, 1567): Compelled by Scottish lords to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James VI. James II (King of England & Scotland, 1688): Fled England during the Glorious Revolution, leading Parliament to declare the throne vacant and deem him to have abdicated. Edward VIII (King of the UK, 1936): Voluntarily abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson, as the marriage was deemed unsuitable by the government and Church of England. As you can see the others were forced abdications. They were also outwith the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was established in 1707 which was different from the union if Crowns. The reason the succession was set during the reign of William and Mary was to establish in law where the succession would go and the faith of the country. In fact catholics were barred from the succession. When Edward threw a spanner in the works there was no law established in the UK dealing with an abdication. Hence the linage question came up. Although Edward had no children at the time of the abdication. He could have subsequently had one. It was established by parliament that when abdicating you abdicate your line. So there can be no pretenders to the throne. It’s easy to check. The Hansard records of the debates are available as is the act of abdication. Personally I couldn’t care less. I have been and always will be a republican. However, can’t believe the amount of sh@t monarchists make up to further their point of view. If you are correct about William succeeding on Charles’ abduction. Please point out to me the little piece of law that makes it so. I think you will find that the United Kingdom (which included Ireland, now only Northern Ireland) didn’t officially come into being until 1st January 1801. The 1701 Act of Union which you refer to is when the Scottish and English parliaments and crowns merged to form Great Britain." It came into being with the Treaty of Union 1706 and the acts of union 1707 ratified that treaty and was passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 1707 and ratified by the English Parliament shortly thereafter. The Country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into being on the 1st of May 1707. You are quite correct although it contained Ireland at the time on the 3rd of May 1921 the country became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When Ireland was partitioned. The union of Crowns happened in 1603 when James VI of Scotland ascended the English throne as James I of England | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Get rid of the Royal Family. Then the House of Lords. Then kick this corrupt puppet regime out of Westminster and start to put the GREAT back into Britain" Suppose you want Herr Farage as Fuehrer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Get rid of the Royal Family. Then the House of Lords. Then kick this corrupt puppet regime out of Westminster and start to put the GREAT back into Britain Suppose you want Herr Farage as Fuehrer." Maybe become a republic like France? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ooh no did I miss him talking lol oh dam " Fear not! It's available for you on YouTube - search "The Kings Christmas Broadcast 2025 - BBC", the wonders of the technology! 😃 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To set the record straight, The King's Speech is written by the PM, setting out the government's legislative plans for the year ahead, typically delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. When HM appears on TV at Christmas, it's known as the King's Christmas Message, which usually reviews aspects of the preceding year and ties in with the special spiritual time of year at Christmas. " Correct, but what is The King’s “Speach”? 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To set the record straight, The King's Speech is written by the PM, setting out the government's legislative plans for the year ahead, typically delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. When HM appears on TV at Christmas, it's known as the King's Christmas Message, which usually reviews aspects of the preceding year and ties in with the special spiritual time of year at Christmas. Correct, but what is The King’s “Speach”? 🤣" A case of erroneous spelling it seems - not everyone finds it easy to spell, and that's acceptable in today's more understanding world, we all have our talents and limitations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. " Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. " This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever." Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? " You dont get to police what people say, nor how they say it. Its a public forum on a sex hook up site after all. The fact you've taken part in the thread proves my point perfectly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? You dont get to police what people say, nor how they say it. Its a public forum on a sex hook up site after all. The fact you've taken part in the thread proves my point perfectly." And neither do you, but apparently you don’t take your own advice. Another rush without thought? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? You dont get to police what people say, nor how they say it. Its a public forum on a sex hook up site after all. The fact you've taken part in the thread proves my point perfectly. And neither do you, but apparently you don’t take your own advice. Another rush without thought?" Quite right i dont have any say in what or how people exchange on an informal public discussion. I have the intelligence and compassion to accept that some people can't spell, or have dyslexia, or simply dont care. Calling out grammar policing does have certain comedy value afaic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To set the record straight, The King's Speech is written by the PM, setting out the government's legislative plans for the year ahead, typically delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. When HM appears on TV at Christmas, it's known as the King's Christmas Message, which usually reviews aspects of the preceding year and ties in with the special spiritual time of year at Christmas. Correct, but what is The King’s “Speach”? 🤣 A case of erroneous spelling it seems - not everyone finds it easy to spell, and that's acceptable in today's more understanding world, we all have our talents and limitations. " Yes but you felt it necessary to distinguish between the “King’s speech” and the “Kings Christmas message” Surely that error is also acceptable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? You dont get to police what people say, nor how they say it. Its a public forum on a sex hook up site after all. The fact you've taken part in the thread proves my point perfectly. And neither do you, but apparently you don’t take your own advice. Another rush without thought? Quite right i dont have any say in what or how people exchange on an informal public discussion. I have the intelligence and compassion to accept that some people can't spell, or have dyslexia, or simply dont care. Calling out grammar policing does have certain comedy value afaic. " But (contrary to your own stance) you feel it ok to call out me on something that doesn’t affect you. Your own form of policing? I wasn’t “calling out grammar policing” (That’s what you are doing) It would be either “calling out grammar errors” or “grammar policing” Another rushed indignation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? You dont get to police what people say, nor how they say it. Its a public forum on a sex hook up site after all. The fact you've taken part in the thread proves my point perfectly. And neither do you, but apparently you don’t take your own advice. Another rush without thought? Quite right i dont have any say in what or how people exchange on an informal public discussion. I have the intelligence and compassion to accept that some people can't spell, or have dyslexia, or simply dont care. Calling out grammar policing does have certain comedy value afaic. But (contrary to your own stance) you feel it ok to call out me on something that doesn’t affect you. Your own form of policing? I wasn’t “calling out grammar policing” (That’s what you are doing) It would be either “calling out grammar errors” or “grammar policing” Another rushed indignation?" Nope, I'm calling out your grammar police bullying. Pedantic belittling of another individual is bullying. A bully doesn't get to play the victim when their bullying is pointed out. You knew what and why you did it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? You dont get to police what people say, nor how they say it. Its a public forum on a sex hook up site after all. The fact you've taken part in the thread proves my point perfectly. And neither do you, but apparently you don’t take your own advice. Another rush without thought? Quite right i dont have any say in what or how people exchange on an informal public discussion. I have the intelligence and compassion to accept that some people can't spell, or have dyslexia, or simply dont care. Calling out grammar policing does have certain comedy value afaic. But (contrary to your own stance) you feel it ok to call out me on something that doesn’t affect you. Your own form of policing? I wasn’t “calling out grammar policing” (That’s what you are doing) It would be either “calling out grammar errors” or “grammar policing” Another rushed indignation? Nope, I'm calling out your grammar police bullying. Pedantic belittling of another individual is bullying. A bully doesn't get to play the victim when their bullying is pointed out. You knew what and why you did it." And what are you doing now? Not just pointing it out are you? You are now attempting to bully me. You really aren’t learning from this are you? By the way, did the OP request your interference on their behalf or are you just a self appointed forum police officer? I’m sure you won’t leave it there, but you can have the last word if it makes you feel superior. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would appear every knew precisely what the topic subject was, even with the spelling mistake. Spelling has little importance into today's world outside of formal correspondence. Read your first line and then tell me I am wrong about rushing to post. 🤣🤣🤣 Spelling does not have little importance in today’s world. It’s one of the cornerstones of education. This isnt school. We're adults who are perfectly capable of interpreting what is said and getting our view across without having to worry about a pedant bullying them. Its not clever. Yes we are all adults. So you jump in on something not addressed to you. A pedant bullying? Also not clever and in fact also bullying maybe? Another rush to post? You dont get to police what people say, nor how they say it. Its a public forum on a sex hook up site after all. The fact you've taken part in the thread proves my point perfectly. And neither do you, but apparently you don’t take your own advice. Another rush without thought? Quite right i dont have any say in what or how people exchange on an informal public discussion. I have the intelligence and compassion to accept that some people can't spell, or have dyslexia, or simply dont care. Calling out grammar policing does have certain comedy value afaic. But (contrary to your own stance) you feel it ok to call out me on something that doesn’t affect you. Your own form of policing? I wasn’t “calling out grammar policing” (That’s what you are doing) It would be either “calling out grammar errors” or “grammar policing” Another rushed indignation? Nope, I'm calling out your grammar police bullying. Pedantic belittling of another individual is bullying. A bully doesn't get to play the victim when their bullying is pointed out. You knew what and why you did it. And what are you doing now? Not just pointing it out are you? You are now attempting to bully me. You really aren’t learning from this are you? By the way, did the OP request your interference on their behalf or are you just a self appointed forum police officer? I’m sure you won’t leave it there, but you can have the last word if it makes you feel superior. " And there's the comedy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To set the record straight, The King's Speech is written by the PM, setting out the government's legislative plans for the year ahead, typically delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. When HM appears on TV at Christmas, it's known as the King's Christmas Message, which usually reviews aspects of the preceding year and ties in with the special spiritual time of year at Christmas. Correct, but what is The King’s “Speach”? 🤣 A case of erroneous spelling it seems - not everyone finds it easy to spell, and that's acceptable in today's more understanding world, we all have our talents and limitations. Yes but you felt it necessary to distinguish between the “King’s speech” and the “Kings Christmas message” Surely that error is also acceptable?" Correct spelling is of course often very important, but let's keep it in perspective here - this is a general open forum for people of all academic abilities. The original OP's message was clear despite the titular spelling error. Condescension is unnecessary and often has the opposite effect of its intention in highlighting the inadequacies of its originator. I was merely clarifying the important difference between The King's speech in Parliament and The King's Christmas Address, not criticising, far from it. There's a big difference. My comment had a genuine purpose in helping others, not to bolster an apparent flagging ego. Perhaps we can now move on to more cordial matters without further ado? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To set the record straight, The King's Speech is written by the PM, setting out the government's legislative plans for the year ahead, typically delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. When HM appears on TV at Christmas, it's known as the King's Christmas Message, which usually reviews aspects of the preceding year and ties in with the special spiritual time of year at Christmas. Correct, but what is The King’s “Speach”? 🤣 A case of erroneous spelling it seems - not everyone finds it easy to spell, and that's acceptable in today's more understanding world, we all have our talents and limitations. Yes but you felt it necessary to distinguish between the “King’s speech” and the “Kings Christmas message” Surely that error is also acceptable? Correct spelling is of course often very important, but let's keep it in perspective here - this is a general open forum for people of all academic abilities. The original OP's message was clear despite the titular spelling error. Condescension is unnecessary and often has the opposite effect of its intention in highlighting the inadequacies of its originator. I was merely clarifying the important difference between The King's speech in Parliament and The King's Christmas Address, not criticising, far from it. There's a big difference. My comment had a genuine purpose in helping others, not to bolster an apparent flagging ego. Perhaps we can now move on to more cordial matters without further ado? " Surely the original OPs intention regarding the topic was also clear given its timing to coincide with the Christmas message. There was no need for you to mention the difference which in itself bordered on condescension. You then attempt to justify your input by insulting me. Maybe your message of future cordial issues is something you should take on board yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To set the record straight, The King's Speech is written by the PM, setting out the government's legislative plans for the year ahead, typically delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. When HM appears on TV at Christmas, it's known as the King's Christmas Message, which usually reviews aspects of the preceding year and ties in with the special spiritual time of year at Christmas. Correct, but what is The King’s “Speach”? 🤣 A case of erroneous spelling it seems - not everyone finds it easy to spell, and that's acceptable in today's more understanding world, we all have our talents and limitations. Yes but you felt it necessary to distinguish between the “King’s speech” and the “Kings Christmas message” Surely that error is also acceptable? Correct spelling is of course often very important, but let's keep it in perspective here - this is a general open forum for people of all academic abilities. The original OP's message was clear despite the titular spelling error. Condescension is unnecessary and often has the opposite effect of its intention in highlighting the inadequacies of its originator. I was merely clarifying the important difference between The King's speech in Parliament and The King's Christmas Address, not criticising, far from it. There's a big difference. My comment had a genuine purpose in helping others, not to bolster an apparent flagging ego. Perhaps we can now move on to more cordial matters without further ado? Surely the original OPs intention regarding the topic was also clear given its timing to coincide with the Christmas message. There was no need for you to mention the difference which in itself bordered on condescension. You then attempt to justify your input by insulting me. Maybe your message of future cordial issues is something you should take on board yourself. " I'm really unsure just why you should feel insulted, that wasn't my intention, indeed far from it. If that's how it came across, please accept my sincere apologies. Reading your various Forum postings you do come across as a very temperamental character with much inherent angst. Perhaps it's time to address that issue - hate and angst are self-harming and futile emotions. Hope you accept this with its good and well intended sentiments, and on that note I can only offer my best wishes, Happy St. Stephen's Day. 😊 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The kings speech is written by the government anyway so I never listen to it" Its written by the king but the government have to approve it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The kings speech is written by the government anyway so I never listen to it" Actually, the King's Christmas Message is usually written by the monarch themselves, with input from their family and advisors, not by the government. Please see my previous post on the difference between The King's Speech and The King's Christmas Message - (Sometimes called the King's Christmas Address or Broadcast). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do you listen to him then? Was happy listening to radio 2, he came on, didn't realise he was going to talk nonsense for an hour. He's completely out of touch, time for a President " No presidents here tyvm. Charles is a nincompoop, only useful for keeping the seat warm for William. However I still would prefer him to any notion of a president. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To set the record straight, The King's Speech is written by the PM, setting out the government's legislative plans for the year ahead, typically delivered at the State Opening of Parliament. When HM appears on TV at Christmas, it's known as the King's Christmas Message, which usually reviews aspects of the preceding year and ties in with the special spiritual time of year at Christmas. Correct, but what is The King’s “Speach”? 🤣" The capital S is a mistake. The King's Peach is a fruit grown by His Majesty at Highgrove. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will someone please close this thread!" Only another 104 responses to go yet!😊 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really love the way alot of old queen's on here have run the Kings speech down. Love him or hate him we are bloody lucky still to have him and not idiots like Putin,Trump,and that other guy that would love to be king Farage " Hear! Hear! God Save The King! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really love the way alot of old queen's on here have run the Kings speech down. Love him or hate him we are bloody lucky still to have him and not idiots like Putin,Trump,and that other guy that would love to be king Farage Hear! Hear! God Save The King! " Amen to that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So if you want King Andy. Then Chuckles only has to step down. It’s a constitutional Monarchy not who you think should get the job." That will NEVER happen. The Royals (or "The Firm" as they call themselves) have historically been tone-deaf regarding their public image, and very slow to react to change, but they recognise an existential threat when they eventually see one. For obvious reasons they and their supporters within the Parliamentary establishment are now acutely aware of the declining popularity of monarchy as an institution, and in particular how much Mr Mountbatten-Windsor has contributed to that decline. Their first priority has always been survival - the late Queen, in particular, was very adept at knowing when to draw back from a position and give ground. i remember the photo of nervous faces peering out of the window of Buck House during the outrage that followed their lack of reaction to Diana's death. That was hastily redressed following critical tabloid reaction. i also recall after the fire at Windsor Castle their swift withdrawal from the original proposition that we, the taxpayers, should pay for its restoration, and the agreement that the Queen should pay tax (but it wasn't nearly enough, of course, and we did pay for most of it.) There can be nobody who is now unaware that as far as their image is concerned, Mr M-B is now toxic, and rather than allow him to assume the throne, they will find a way to drive a bulldozer through whatever obstructions there may be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do you listen to him then? Was happy listening to radio 2, he came on, didn't realise he was going to talk nonsense for an hour. He's completely out of touch, time for a President " It was literally 10 minutes. Did you have it on repeat?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if you want King Andy. Then Chuckles only has to step down. It’s a constitutional Monarchy not who you think should get the job. Frankly IMHO the French had the right idea." In Mountbatten-Windsor's case, that would be chopping off the wrong bit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never listened to so much rubbish, it's about time he resigned he's totally out of touch with the populous " BTW it’s “speech”, not “speech”, to use the King’s English. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do you listen to him then? Was happy listening to radio 2, he came on, didn't realise he was going to talk nonsense for an hour. He's completely out of touch, time for a President " He somehow managed to engage you for an hour, there are other channels available | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if you want King Andy. Then Chuckles only has to step down. It’s a constitutional Monarchy not who you think should get the job. Frankly IMHO the French had the right idea. " About 150 years before the French revolutionary government deposed and executed Louis XVI on trumped up charges and English revolutionary government executed Charles I on trumped up charges. In neither case was it the end of the monarchy. We have had 18 monarchs since and France, believe it or not, has had three kings and two emperors since. France finally became a republic in 1870 but only after the would-be Henri V refused the throne on the then government's terms. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do you listen to him then?"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do you listen to him then? Was happy listening to radio 2, he came on, didn't realise he was going to talk nonsense for an hour. He's completely out of touch, time for a President It was literally 10 minutes. Did you have it on repeat??" I’m not sure it even made 10 mins. Who was he listening to for an hour as it clearly wasn’t Charles III… It was probably Alan Titchmarsh. So - either someone listened to the wrong person… but thought they’d have a rant about the monarchy. Or they never listened to the speech and just made up a foolish timing, and thought they’d have a rant about the monarchy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I nearly chocked when he said that he met the fucking pope. What a waste of breath talking to him Fen,.on bastard " That was the head of two religions meeting. He's also visited mosques and synagogue in attempt to bring people of different religions together. I'm in no way religious, but its a positive step. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Get rid of the Royal Family. Then the House of Lords. Then kick this corrupt puppet regime out of Westminster and start to put the GREAT back into Britain" And replace with? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best plan I find is not to watch it if you don't like the content. It's something I would forget the next day, so I don't bother. At least we still have choice. The alternative one if that's your thing." Excellent point. I make a point of watching the King's Christmas Broadcast to the Nation. Always have done. No one is compelled to in the same way that I don't watch Ant 'n Dec, Strictly Come Prancing, Eastenders, Call the Midwife, Mrs Brown's Boys and all the other programmes I dislike. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Get rid of the Royal Family. Then the House of Lords. Then kick this corrupt puppet regime out of Westminster and start to put the GREAT back into Britain" You do realise that once "they" have put all the people you don't like into concentration camps, the next lot they will come for will be gay men? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... He's completely out of touch, time for a President Now THERE'S a non sequitur!" How strange there’s a crazy president in the USA who wants to be a king and another in Russia | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May be Randy Andy should subtly get rid of the successions above him and proclaim himself King! He'd certainly liven things up again" Maybe that’s why he has had his firearms licence revoked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree , I have no time for our current monarch , he’s a first degree hypocrite, so I don’t watch his Christmas message . I used to watch his mothers and if I’m around will watch his sons. But Tampax1 , never! " I don’t believe he is any more of a hypocrite than his mother…or any of the rest of them. With the possible exception of the Andrew formerly known as prince. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
