Cable Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Charlie Farley (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711871)

Jaymoss 06-05-2023 09:39
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Interesting bit of history here (well I found it interesting anyway)

Apparently if you trace back through the family tree of Princess Diana you can find she descended from not one but two sons of Charles II. He had many mistresses no legitimate children and gave a lot of them Dukedoms and Earldoms

This means when William becomes King he will be directly descended from Charles II making him not only a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) King but also a Stewart King

Sephiroth 06-05-2023 09:46
Re: Charlie Farley
 

I’d rather tell you what Charlie should not be doing. He should not pander to other cultures. He should herald British values, traditions, history and so on.

There is no need for me to be definitive about British culture, which I have explained before in terms of our sense of humour, tolerance, inventiveness and so on - values which one or two other cultures lack and which threaten our culture.

There’s no need to vexatiously pin me down on a definition of British culture; Brits know in the back of their heads what our culture is.


Hugh 06-05-2023 09:48
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151335)
I knew that dumb Hugh type question would come. I’d define it like any other reasonable Brit would.

There’s no need to pander to other cultures in the UK.
That’s impressive - two fallacies in one short post.

Ad Hominem and Petitio Principii - well done, you…

Sephiroth 06-05-2023 09:49
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36151339)
Interesting bit of history here (well I found it interesting anyway)

Apparently if you trace back through the family tree of Princess Diana you can find she descended from not one but two sons of Charles II. He had many mistresses no legitimate children and gave a lot of them Dukedoms and Earldoms

This means when William becomes King he will be directly descended from Charles II making him not only a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) King but also a Stewart King
A sort of Scottish/Kraut blend? And yes - interesting indeed.

Chris 06-05-2023 09:51
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151340)

I’d rather tell you what Charlie should not be doing. He should not pander to other cultures. He should herald British values, traditions, history and so on.

There is no need for me to be definitive about British culture, which I have explained before in terms of our sense of humour, tolerance, inventiveness and so on - values which one or two other cultures lack and which threaten our culture.

There’s no need to vexatiously pin me down on a definition of British culture; Brits know in the back of their heads what our culture is.

I don’t know if it’s possible to wear out a dog whistle but you may find out if you keep this up.

Hugh 06-05-2023 09:53
Re: Charlie Farley
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151340)

I’d rather tell you what Charlie should not be doing. He should not pander to other cultures. He should herald British values, traditions, history and so on.

There is no need for me to be definitive about British culture, which I have explained before in terms of our sense of humour, tolerance, inventiveness and so on - values which one or two other cultures lack and which threaten our culture.

There’s no need to vexatiously pin me down on a definition of British culture; Brits know in the back of their heads what our culture is.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1683363161

Mr K 06-05-2023 09:55
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36151344)
Is he blowing that one again? ;)

Chris 06-05-2023 10:03
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Look away now Seph, johnny foreigner’s walking into the Abbey in his funny robes.

Hugh 06-05-2023 10:16
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36151346)
Look away now Seph, johnny foreigner’s walking into the Abbey in his funny robes.
I’m sure Seph will be humorous and tolerant about that - you know, those "British" characteristics he’s renowned for… ;)

Chris 06-05-2023 10:24
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Some Greek bloke’s son has just appeared in a gaudy coach on the mall. Disgrace.

Paul 06-05-2023 11:42
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Thats enough nonsense I think.

papa smurf 06-05-2023 11:59
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36150874)
We get an extra day off.
A day off retirement wooo hooo :woot:

Sephiroth 06-05-2023 12:32
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36151343)
I don’t know if it’s possible to wear out a dog whistle but you may find out if you keep this up.
A difference of opinion is nothing to do with a dog whistle.You could try to understand this.

Jaymoss 06-05-2023 13:50
Re: Charlie Farley
 
One of the guests on ITV just had to come out and play the race card. What an absolute git

Pierre 06-05-2023 20:25
Re: Charlie Farley
 
God save the King.

Nobody does it like we do. Only the most dull, dour, joyless, boring (insert similar epithet) person could think our country would be better without that pomp.

Mad Max 06-05-2023 20:33
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36151378)
God save the King.

Nobody does it like we do. Only the most dull, dour, joyless, boring (insert similar epithet) person could think our country would be better without that pomp.
Well said, but be careful you'll have the culture police on your tail soon..;)

Damien 06-05-2023 20:44
Re: Charlie Farley
 
They did a good job as usual but I do wonder why they decided May instead of June when there was less chance of rain.

Chris 06-05-2023 20:53
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36151381)
They did a good job as usual but I do wonder why they decided May instead of June when there was less chance of rain.
May is on average drier and sunnier than June.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...United_Kingdom

The summer months are warmer but slightly wetter across the whole UK, althoughthe difference is probably more notable in northern Scotland than you’re aware of down south.

Damien 06-05-2023 22:13
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36151382)
May is on average drier and sunnier than June.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...United_Kingdom

The summer months are warmer but slightly wetter across the whole UK, althoughthe difference is probably more notable in northern Scotland than you’re aware of down south.
Well I didn't know that! :shocked:

Guess it was just bad luck that is rained then.

Hugh 06-05-2023 22:23
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36151371)
One of the guests on ITV just had to come out and play the race card. What an absolute git
One of the guests on GBNews just had to come out and play the race card. What an absolute git.

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/s...Fx9lsEXWlOa1jg

Re the Prime Minister reading from the Epistle to the Colossians* during the service.

Quote:
For example, should we have heathens reading the Epistle? Is it appropriate for a heathen Prime Minister to be reading a Gospel Reading?
*not a Gospel reading

Chris 06-05-2023 22:53
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36151384)
One of the guests on GBNews just had to come out and play the race card. What an absolute git.

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/s...Fx9lsEXWlOa1jg

Re the Prime Minister reading from the Epistle to the Colossians* during the service.



*not a Gospel reading
Any Christian should be delighted at a Hindu reading the Gospel, or indeed a passage from Colossians that asserts Jesus is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist”.

But it’s not really about defending the Gospel from heathens is it, it’s about preserving “British Culture” …

denphone 07-05-2023 06:09
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36151378)
God save the King.

Nobody does it like we do. Only the most dull, dour, joyless, boring (insert similar epithet) person could think our country would be better without that pomp.
Indeed it was a magnificent bit of pomp and pageantry.

Pierre 07-05-2023 10:02
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36151384)
One of the guests on GBNews just had to come out and play the race card. What an absolute git.

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/s...Fx9lsEXWlOa1jg

Re the Prime Minister reading from the Epistle to the Colossians* during the service.



*not a Gospel reading
One of the guests on the BBC just had to come out and play the race card. What an absolute git.

Re the Royal Balcony being “White”

https://youtu.be/S_JsNndjECM

Hugh 07-05-2023 10:42
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36151402)
One of the guests on the BBC just had to come out and play the race card. What an absolute git.

Re the Royal Balcony being “White”

https://youtu.be/S_JsNndjECM
And her comment is as stupid as Calvin’s…

Sephiroth 07-05-2023 14:15
Re: Charlie Farley
 

The idiot that called Sunak a heathen should take a look at the definition. But I wouldn’t have called him racist.

I actually felt for Sunak because he couldn’t have believed in what he was told to say.



---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 ----------


Another thought. If king trumps queen now but Elizabeth’s consort was a prince, why isn’t Camilla a princess? Sort of thing -

Jaymoss 07-05-2023 15:30
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151407)

The idiot that called Sunak a heathen should take a look at the definition. But I wouldn’t have called him racist.

I actually felt for Sunak because he couldn’t have believed in what he was told to say.



---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 ----------


Another thought. If king trumps queen now but Elizabeth’s consort was a prince, why isn’t Camilla a princess? Sort of thing -
She should never be the Queen without consort on the end. This is a change they made for her and I think it is 100% wrong. I dunno if it is true but it is said Anne is not happy about it either

Sephiroth 07-05-2023 16:13
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36151411)
She should never be the Queen without consort on the end. This is a change they made for her and I think it is 100% wrong. I dunno if it is true but it is said Anne is not happy about it either

And you are 100% right.

Also, Harry's not happy about it. Nor am I.

Chris 07-05-2023 16:52
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36151411)
She should never be the Queen without consort on the end. This is a change they made for her and I think it is 100% wrong. I dunno if it is true but it is said Anne is not happy about it either
She is indeed ‘Queen Consort’ because this distinguishes her from ‘Queen Regnant’ which is what her mother in law was. Constitutionally she is still Queen Consort and will always be so. It’s just an accurate description of her position.

However, by convention the wife of the King has always been styled ‘Queen’. Before George VI died and she became Queen Mother, Elizabeth (Bowes Lyon) was simply known as Queen Elizabeth or ‘the Queen’. It was the express wish of the late Queen Elizabeth that Camilla should be styled Queen Consort in order to maintain a subtle distinction, by way of continuing to acknowledge that she was a divorcee, a mistress, a second wife, and not the mother of the future king. Basically a way of placating those who always said ‘Camilla will never be Queen’. Styling her Queen Consort would simply have been an accurate description of her constitutional role, but spelling it out was meant to give the illusion of difference even where there was none.

They kept the pretence up for as long as they thought decent after Elizabeth II died, but they have now gone against her express wishes by declaring Camilla should be styled simply ‘Queen’. Note they have gone against Liz 2’s wishes, but we don’t live in ancient Persia and the decrees of one monarch aren’t binding on their successors, so Charlie Farley can do as he chooses.

Constitutionally, Camilla is Queen Consort. Her style, as decreed by Charles, will simply be ‘Queen’, as has been the case for Kings’ wives since forever, AFAIK.

Jaymoss 07-05-2023 16:56
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36151413)
She is indeed ‘Queen Consort’ because this distinguishes her from ‘Queen Regnant’ which is what her mother in law was. Constitutionally she is still Queen Consort and will always be so. It’s just an accurate description of her position.

However, by convention the wife of the King has always been styled ‘Queen’. Before George VI died and she became Queen Mother, Elizabeth (Bowes Lyon) was simply known as Queen Elizabeth or ‘the Queen’. It was the express wish of the late Queen Elizabeth that Camilla should be styled Queen Consort in order to maintain a subtle distinction, by way of continuing to acknowledge that she was a divorcee, a mistress, a second wife, and not the mother of the future king. Basically a way of placating those who always said ‘Camilla will never be Queen’. Styling her Queen Consort would simply have been an accurate description of her constitutional role, but spelling it out was meant to give the illusion of difference even where there was none.

They kept the pretence up for as long as they thought decent after Elizabeth II died, but they have now gone against her express wishes by declaring Camilla should be styled simply ‘Queen’. Note they have gone against Liz 2’s wishes, but we don’t live in ancient Persia and the decrees of one monarch aren’t binding on their successors, so Charlie Farley can do as he chooses.

Constitutionally, Camilla is Queen Consort. Her style, as decreed by Charles, will simply be ‘Queen’, as has been the case for Kings’ wives since forever, AFAIK.
Another reason not to respect him and denounce him as not my King then :)

Sephiroth 07-05-2023 17:25
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36151407)

The idiot that called Sunak a heathen should take a look at the definition. But I wouldn’t have called him racist.

I actually felt for Sunak because he couldn’t have believed in what he was told to say.



---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 ----------


Another thought. If king trumps queen now but Elizabeth’s consort was a prince, why isn’t Camilla a princess? Sort of thing -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36151414)
Another reason not to respect him and denounce him as not my King then :)

Unfortunately, Charley Farlie is my king.


Hugh 07-05-2023 17:46
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36151414)
Another reason not to respect him and denounce him as not my King then :)
That’s like saying the current (or any of the previous) Prime Minister(s) is/are not your PM - they are whether one likes or not…

It’s not a personal choice (much as we’d like it to be), just a matter of fact. ;)

Jaymoss 07-05-2023 17:51
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36151416)
That’s like saying the current (or any of the previous) Prime Minister(s) is/are not your PM - they are whether one likes or not…

It’s not a personal choice (much as we’d like it to be), just a matter of fact. ;)
I pay my dues to Caesar but my King is Jesus and above him only God. I would stand by Jesus and Jehovah's laws rules and principles even if I lose my liberty for doing so. Charles III is not my King

pip08456 07-05-2023 18:35
Re: Charlie Farley
 
AFAIK all regaila bestowed on Camilla was Queens Consort. However I agree with those that as Phil the Greek was feferred to as Prince then Camilla should also be referred to as Princess.

Charles may be my King (which I agree with) but Camilla will never be my Queen. King's Consort IMHO fits better than Queen Consort.

I'm a member of the RAOB GLE Ltd. and stated my commitment to the Crown and constitution of this Country.

Paul 07-05-2023 19:09
Re: Charlie Farley
 
If its been decreed she will be Queen, so be it.
It wont make any difference to my life, so I dont really care.

pip08456 07-05-2023 19:21
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36151426)
If its been decreed she will be Queen, so be it.
It wont make any difference to my life, so I dont really care.
Legally she will never be Queen. If/when Charles dies the Monarchy will be passed on to William. She won't even be referred to as Kings Mother.

Mr K 07-05-2023 19:23
Re: Charlie Farley
 
The Russians had the right idea about royalty.

Hugh 07-05-2023 21:11
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36151432)
The Russians had the right idea about royalty.
You’re just being a Richard now…

Chris 07-05-2023 22:59
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36151431)
Legally she will never be Queen. If/when Charles dies the Monarchy will be passed on to William. She won't even be referred to as Kings Mother.
She is Queen, because that is the correct style and title for a King’s wife. Constitutionally she is Queen Consort, not Queen Regnant (as Elizabeth II was) but it is not typical to always say ‘Consort’.

Phil the Greek was a Prince because in noble rank a King outranks a Queen, and as Elizabeth inherited the British Crown he could never be made King without also being made co-regent. That would have been unacceptable because he had no claim to the British throne. The only time that has ever been done is in 1689 when Parliament contrived to have James II/VII deposed by declaring he’d abandoned the Kingdom and installed his daughter in his place as Mary II and her Husband William of Orange as William III of England (The Scottish parliament cooperated and also declared him William II of Scotland otherwise the Union of the Crowns would have ended there and then, less than 90 years after it began).

Though William was in the line of succession as a grandson of Charles II, Mary’s claim was stronger as James’ daughter. So it suited Parliament to crown them both jointly because they got the most legitimate heir in Mary and a massive Protestant and enemy of France in William.

ianch99 09-05-2023 16:33
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36151416)
That’s like saying the current (or any of the previous) Prime Minister(s) is/are not your PM - they are whether one likes or not…

It’s not a personal choice (much as we’d like it to be), just a matter of fact. ;)
I think you have misinterpreted Jaymoss's comment. He is making a symbolic statement, rather than a literal, legal one. I am 100% with him on this.

Ms NTL 18-05-2023 17:45
Re: Charlie Farley
 
The Middletons went belly up...

https://news.sky.com/story/princess-...vency-12883612

Carole and Michael Middleton, as future Queen mother/father, should be offered a 1-2 million per year, the taxpayer can afford to feed another two semi-royal bums.

ianch99 18-05-2023 18:17
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36152112)
The Middletons went belly up...

https://news.sky.com/story/princess-...vency-12883612

Carole and Michael Middleton, as future Queen mother/father, should be offered a 1-2 million per year, the taxpayer can afford to feed another two semi-royal bums.
You're funny :D

Maggy 19-05-2023 09:05
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36151432)
The Russians had the right idea about royalty.
Really? Look at what they have instead.Doesn't seem any better a proposition.:rolleyes:

ianch99 19-05-2023 10:01
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36152142)
Really? Look at what they have instead.Doesn't seem any better a proposition.:rolleyes:
Maybe France is the better example

Sephiroth 19-05-2023 10:10
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152149)
Maybe France is the better example
I take your remark as rhetoric, Ian. You wouldn’t wsnt to chop off hi head, would you?

Maybe surgically widen the gap between his eyes!

ianch99 19-05-2023 10:48
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36152152)
I take your remark as rhetoric, Ian. You wouldn’t wsnt to chop off hi head, would you?

Maybe surgically widen the gap between his eyes!
Only in a metaphorical sense :)

Removing the Monarchy is important as it is the keystone that holds our rigid class system in place. Without it, the class system would crumble over time.

Hom3r 20-05-2023 16:44
Re: Charlie Farley
 
These "Not my King" idiots should note that as a British subject he IS your King.


He can only stop being King if you emigrate to a non commonweatlh country.

ianch99 20-05-2023 22:40
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36152251)
These "Not my King" idiots should note that as a British subject he IS your King.


He can only stop being King if you emigrate to a non commonweatlh country.
You are missing the nuance and symbolism. Definition of "my":

Quote:
of or relating to me or myself especially as possessor, agent, object of an action, or familiar person
He may be yours but he is not mine. Also, there is no need to be insulting about it ....

Sephiroth 21-05-2023 13:35
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152158)
Only in a metaphorical sense :)

Removing the Monarchy is important as it is the keystone that holds our rigid class system in place. Without it, the class system would crumble over time.

I agree that the monarchy holds the rigid class system in place, although Charlie might weaken it because he’s such a Burke.

Though, if you look at countries without monarchy, say Austria (which I know something about) a new hierarchy and thus class structure emerges because of the honours system. Elites always set something up for themselves.

Sin, if we lose the monarchy, we lose the tourist attraction and the substitution won’t benefit us one jot.

Paul 21-05-2023 16:19
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152271)
He may be yours but he is not mine. Also, there is no need to be insulting about it ....
Well yes he is, simply saying otherwise doesnt make it so, any more then you can break the law and claim "its not my law".

Mad Max 22-05-2023 20:44
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36152325)
Well yes he is, simply saying otherwise doesnt make it so, any more then you can break the law and claim "its not my law".
Good point.

ianch99 22-05-2023 23:00
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36152325)
Well yes he is, simply saying otherwise doesnt make it so, any more then you can break the law and claim "its not my law".
You are being literal. I was being figurative but everyone on this thread knows this :)

ianch99 23-05-2023 11:33
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36152314)

I agree that the monarchy holds the rigid class system in place, although Charlie might weaken it because he’s such a Burke.

Though, if you look at countries without monarchy, say Austria (which I know something about) a new hierarchy and thus class structure emerges because of the honours system. Elites always set something up for themselves.

Sin, if we lose the monarchy, we lose the tourist attraction and the substitution won’t benefit us one jot.
Let's get the old "we lose the tourist attraction" trope out of the way first. The ex-royal palaces of Versailles and, which you should know well, The Hofburg in Vienna are ones of the most visited tourist attractions in Europe.

As for your replacement theory, the main difference is that you can legislate to moderate any artificial structures that try and form. This is something you cannot do when the monarchy is effectively outside of the constraints you might put in place for the population. For example, I believe no inheritance tax was paid on personal wealth handed down from the late Queen. You also have the anomaly that is the Crown Estates & Duchy of Cornwall - again outside of the normal governance applied to the population as a whole.

For example,

https://www.accountancydaily.co/pac-...ments-medieval

Quote:
An aide to Prince Charles has admitted that his estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, has a 'very unusual' tax status but denied that it was a 'medieval anomaly' in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

William Nye, Prince Charles' private secretary, described it as a 'private estate' which is 'a force for social good' and could not be compared to a conventional corporation or commercial entity. While Prince Charles voluntarily pays income tax on the Duchy's annual surplus the estate itself is exempt from capital gains and corporation taxes and is worth an estimated £762m.

Maggy 24-05-2023 09:16
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Oh yes let's blame the royal family for all the ills of the country instead of the present government that really has the power to change everyone's lives for the better.Not exactly doing a terrific job at present are they?

ianch99 24-05-2023 09:48
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36152572)
Oh yes let's blame the royal family for all the ills of the country instead of the present government that really has the power to change everyone's lives for the better.Not exactly doing a terrific job at present are they?
No one is doing this :rolleyes:

Sephiroth 24-05-2023 10:54
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152580)
No one is doing this :rolleyes:
Correct.

Ms NTL 29-05-2023 11:07
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36152251)
These "Not my King" idiots should note that as a British subject he IS your King.
William & Kate will be OUR King and Queen too mate. The future Queen mother and Queen father left a gift for you

Mod edit (Chris): Please take care with image sizes. If you choose to re-upload the one I’ve removed, use the option to re-size it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...sold-tr2t2qf0k

It's only £220K. Cough up pronto! Balloons are complimentary.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/05/8.jpg

Who is the idiot mate?

ianch99 29-05-2023 17:18
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36152917)
William & Kate will be OUR King and Queen too mate. The future Queen mother and Queen father left a gift for you

Mod edit (Chris): Please take care with image sizes. If you choose to re-upload the one I’ve removed, use the option to re-size it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...sold-tr2t2qf0k

It's only £220K. Cough up pronto! Balloons are complimentary.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/05/8.jpg

Who is the idiot mate?
I'm afraid that is how the system works. They spend, we pay. Don't worry, I am sure you could wave a little flag if you have one :D

Paul 29-05-2023 18:22
Re: Charlie Farley
 
This has nothing at all to do with the royal family - it was coronavirus loan from Natwest.
I'm sure lots of [business] people took them out, and I'm quite sure that others failed as well.

The company was formed over 35 years ago, and basically failed due to the pandemic, not the first.
The fact they were Kates parents appears totally irrelevant, unless you think the royals should have bailed them out ?

Jaymoss 29-05-2023 19:00
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36152936)
This has nothing at all to do with the royal family - it was coronavirus loan from Natwest.
I'm sure lots of [business] people took them out, and I'm quite sure that others failed as well.

The company was formed over 35 years ago, and basically failed due to the pandemic, not the first.
The fact they were Kates parents appears totally irrelevant, unless you think the royals should have bailed them out ?
Bottom bit all depends on if it was a viable business or not

Chris 29-05-2023 19:09
Re: Charlie Farley
 
We used to get stuff for our kids’ parties from Party Pieces all the time. It was a good idea, lots of party ideas all in one place and it wasn’t a rip off either.

Ms NTL 29-05-2023 20:14
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152930)
I'm afraid that is how the system works. They spend, we pay. Don't worry, I am sure you could wave a little flag if you have one :D
:D I want the balloons!

Octopus promised me a fluffy octopus, I never got one! :D

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152930)
I'm afraid that is how the system works. They spend, we pay. Don't worry, I am sure you could wave a little flag if you have one :D

Exactly. Why don't they put one of their houses for sale to cover the loses?
James Matthews (Pipa's husband :rolleyes:) bailed James Middleton umpteen times. Millions....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...istration.html

James's great ideas:personalised marshmallows, Nice Cakes, Nice Wine and Nice Group ...and of course Ella & Co – a company for the ‘happiness and wellbeing’ of dogs. All belly up

Imagine you and I, asking Venture capital managers to fund such daft ideas, like James's, they will tell us to get lost. But James has the links...

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36152936)
This has nothing at all to do with the royal family - it was coronavirus loan from Natwest.
I'm sure lots of [business] people took them out, and I'm quite sure that others failed as well.

The company was formed over 35 years ago, and basically failed due to the pandemic, not the first.
The fact they were Kates parents appears totally irrelevant, unless you think the royals should have bailed them out ?
It was a joke Paul. Free balloons for £220K?

They can sell one of their houses to cover the bill or ask Matthews (again) to pay up:D

---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36152939)
Bottom bit all depends on if it was a viable business or not

They got a loan, they have the money, just pay up!

OLD BOY 29-05-2023 23:24
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36152572)
Oh yes let's blame the royal family for all the ills of the country instead of the present government that really has the power to change everyone's lives for the better.Not exactly doing a terrific job at present are they?
Austerity? Covid? Putin?

Maggy 30-05-2023 08:37
Re: Charlie Farley
 
If you took everything from the Royal family how much of the national debt would be paid off?Apparently they have around $34 billion in assets..I suspect that it just wouldn't be enough to help out..

Government debt? Hard to find out the total.

This is the best I could find.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...nment-debt-uk/

So I guess raiding Charley's coffers just won't cover it..

ianch99 30-05-2023 09:10
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36152969)
Austerity? Covid? Putin?
You missed one out :D

OLD BOY 03-06-2023 14:13
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36152976)
You missed one out :D
Ah, yes. Labour’s obsession with cakes!

Hugh 03-06-2023 14:23
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36153217)
Ah, yes. Labour’s obsession with cakes!
Labour’s obsession?

Posted by you in the last week…

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36152996)
I know what it was, but it was still a social event that went on the the wee small hours, and some were worse for wear when they departed. There was no falsehood in my post.

I don’t see how any of you can view that as not being worse than Boris receiving a cake just as he was assembling for a pre-planned meeting.

But there you go…
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36152968)
But it was the cake what clinched it. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36152932)
Boris should have eaten all the cake instead of leaving it behind as evidence. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36152940)
Are you sure about that, Dave? There are a lot of people who think that eating cake or drinking alcohol are proof of a party.

Clearly, that is not the case, but it appears to have swayed the Met. If there hadn’t been cake, Boris would not have been fined. Ridiculous, I know, but true.

It’s also true that Kier attended a function with curry and alcohol at a party member’s house. Police reaction? Move on, nothing to see here….

The ONLY difference apart from the fact that Kier was at a social event and Boris was at a work event was that Boris had cake.

Think about it. If it wasn’t so glaringly obvious and tragic, it would make a hilarious comedy. How to make something out of nothing, and do it so inconsistently, citing cake as the final arbiter when cake isn’t even mentioned in the rules. Yet a social event is OK, when it really isn’t!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36152947)
Thank you, Hugh. Glad I nailed that one first. :D

It’s the logical conclusion. If there hadn’t been cake, Boris would not have been fined. Why else was he fined?

Mr K 03-06-2023 14:25
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Bet OBs favourite is Fruit cake ;)

OLD BOY 03-06-2023 19:53
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36153218)
Labour’s obsession?

Posted by you in the last week…
My point being, of course, that it was the cake that appears to have ‘proved’ in the eyes of the Met that this was a social event. It was Labour’s leader constantly banging on about the blasted cake that eventually led to this nonsense being played out.

I am the only one on here to claim that the cake was irrelevant and that we should be looking at what was actually happening - Boris had arrived for a legitimate meeting. The cake did not make that a social event.

Unlike Kier’s curry and booze evening…

Hugh 03-06-2023 21:33
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36153225)
My point being, of course, that it was the cake that appears to have ‘proved’ in the eyes of the Met that this was a social event. It was Labour’s leader constantly banging on about the blasted cake that eventually led to this nonsense being played out.

I am the only one on here to claim that the cake was irrelevant and that we should be looking at what was actually happening - Boris had arrived for a legitimate meeting. The cake did not make that a social event.

Unlike Kier’s curry and booze evening…
Please provide the evidence to support this proposition…

It was the fact that he attended a a pre-planned non-work event that got him fined - even he accepted that (unless you are calling him a liar?). As previously posted (many, many times) "Mr Johnson said "in all frankness at that time it did not occur to me that this might have been a breach of the rules".

After the fine, however, he "now humbly accepts" he did breach COVID-19 laws."

1andrew1 04-06-2023 08:55
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36153225)
My point being, of course, that it was the cake that appears to have ‘proved’ in the eyes of the Met that this was a social event. It was Labour’s leader constantly banging on about the blasted cake that eventually led to this nonsense being played out.

I am the only one on here to claim that the cake was irrelevant and that we should be looking at what was actually happening - Boris had arrived for a legitimate meeting. The cake did not make that a social event.

Unlike Kier’s curry and booze evening…
You're the only one on here to claim the cake was relevant. A birthday celebration was deemed as a social event, post work meal was not deemed as one.

Sephiroth 04-06-2023 10:05
Re: Charlie Farley
 


Where was Charlie on his birthday during Covid lockdown?

ianch99 04-06-2023 13:23
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36153242)


Where was Charlie on his birthday during Covid lockdown?
Eating Out?

Paul 04-06-2023 13:44
Re: Charlie Farley
 
How about we dont descend into the gutter.

Ms NTL 04-06-2023 18:54
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36153256)
How about we dont descend into the gutter.
Fine by me :). Please note that King Charles said that, I merely repeated it, google camillagate

jfman 04-06-2023 19:34
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Paul means the post i deleted.

Paul 04-06-2023 20:29
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36153275)
Paul means the post i deleted.
Actually, no, I deleted a post by Ms NTL that I presume you didnt see.

---------- Post added at 20:29 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36153273)
Fine by me :). Please note that King Charles said that, I merely repeated it, google camillagate
I'm perfectly aware what it was, if you want to sink into the depths, twitter awaits you.

Ms NTL 04-06-2023 20:51
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36153242)


Where was Charlie on his birthday during Covid lockdown?
Pizza Express in Woking? Apparently, he was avoiding sweating in the hot weather. :D

Did you spot him?;) It's about 25 min from your place.

Maggy 05-06-2023 08:45
Re: Charlie Farley
 
What or who the hell is this thread actually about now?

ianch99 05-06-2023 09:40
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36153296)
What or who the hell is this thread actually about now?
It is about the unsuitability (or not) of the current incumbent of the office of constitutional monarch.

Coincidentally, there is a new book out that adds to the debate:

Abolish The Monarchy : Why we should and how we will

Quote:
The 2020s should be the decade when we finally get to decide who we have as our elected head of state. The accession of King Charles has fundamentally changed the monarchy and the public’s relationship with it. Charles is controversial, outspoken and far less popular than his mother ever was. Prince Andrew remains a person of interest in a criminal investigation. And Harry and Meghan continue to show that monarchy isn't just bad for Britain, it's bad for the royals too.

The country needs an honest, grown-up debate about the monarchy. We need to stop and ask ourselves: Can't we just choose our next head of state?

Abolish The Monarchy renews and informs the debate, eviscerating the nonsensical claims of the royalists and setting the tone for a full-throated challenge to the monarchy. The book also sets out a clear blueprint, not just of what kind of republic we should aspire to be – something that is often lacking in other republican texts – but also of the road to that republic. How we get there and where we end up are crucial issues that must be addressed if we’re to get people away from the dead-end debates about tourism, celebrity and warring royal houses.

Mr K 05-06-2023 20:55
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Well he's been a bit of a disappointment so far hasn't he ? No ones seen him since he was given that crown, Questions should be asked, and Crimewatch alerted.

Maggy 06-06-2023 12:10
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36153304)
It is about the unsuitability (or not) of the current incumbent of the office of constitutional monarch.

Coincidentally, there is a new book out that adds to the debate:

Abolish The Monarchy : Why we should and how we will
Personally I think we should be more concerned about the suitability of our actual voted for government. Charles has no real chance of screwing up the economy and country.

Sephiroth 06-06-2023 13:36
Re: Charlie Farley
 

I suspect that he’s getting used to being as non-influential as the Archkent of Cant except with his flunkies.

It’s interesting, thiugh. Queenie came to the throne in the near-immediate post- war years. Little TV - just the radio and newspapers. The royals were held in great respect. She grew into the role as Empire ceased and Commonwealth formed, where she was a centrepiece.

Charlie Farley was in her shadow and his prominence arose out varying degrees of cretinousness. Such as talking to vegetables, stiffing Diana, eyes too close together, publicly ill tempered.

So, nothing important to do.


ianch99 06-06-2023 17:00
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36153341)

I suspect that he’s getting used to being as non-influential as the Archkent of Cant except with his flunkies.

It’s interesting, thiugh. Queenie came to the throne in the near-immediate post- war years. Little TV - just the radio and newspapers. The royals were held in great respect. She grew into the role as Empire ceased and Commonwealth formed, where she was a centrepiece.

Charlie Farley was in her shadow and his prominence arose out varying degrees of cretinousness. Such as talking to vegetables, stiffing Diana, eyes too close together, publicly ill tempered.

So, nothing important to do.

I would agree with this analysis. He is the perfect incumbent to accelerate the demise of the "firm" and bring the country into the 21st century.

Sephiroth 06-06-2023 19:37
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36153346)
I would agree with this analysis. He is the perfect incumbent to accelerate the demise of the "firm" and bring the country into the 21st century.
I mostly agree with you, Ian. "... bring the country into the 21st century" isn't what the firm's demise would achieve. It would casue a huge upheaval. He will make the monarchy irrelevant during his reign and the next king will have his work cut out to impress the nation.

ianch99 07-06-2023 09:45
Re: Charlie Farley
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36153349)
I mostly agree with you, Ian. "... bring the country into the 21st century" isn't what the firm's demise would achieve. It would casue a huge upheaval. He will make the monarchy irrelevant during his reign and the next king will have his work cut out to impress the nation.
The only meaningful "upheaval" as you describe it would be for the Establishment which would be long overdue.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum