Posted on 05/28/2010 2:57:49 AM PDT by Scanian
Bloody cheek.
It's not every day a com moner is graced with the personage of a card-carry ing, blue-blooded, bone headed duchess. But Sarah Ferguson irritably dragged her hips into the Javits Center yesterday at the crack of 8:30, and proceeded to whine, kvetch and play the victim in a British accent as impenetrable as Scotland Yard.
And, judging from the crowd she attracted, which coated the convention center like a lover's saliva on Fergie's well-traveled toes, the world's greediest, tackiest and brokest royal is quickly accomplishing a feat that has eluded her back home in England, where the weary populace is ready to lop off her head: She's royally cashing in.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
So what. I like her and I think she’s hot. Not
every guy likes toothpick like models.
As for taking advantage of her husband’s “ROYAL” status to make money on it - GO TO IT.
If the royal-suckers-up are so demented as to want to spend money on their inebriation with this clan of inbred, arrogant, stupid, dull asses, let them!!!!
If the Brits were smart, they would strip the House of Hanover-Saxe-Coberg und Gotha-Windsor of all their loot and
holdings, kick their pompous equine-addicted butts out of Britain and bring back the Stewarts at 1/100th the cost and get a better bargain. They can’t have less functional brains than the Windsors (even a cabbage outdistances them in the I.Q. realm) and they come a lot cheaper.
British Royalty couldn’t get away with murder, rape, fraud, tax evasion, drunken driving, leaving pregnant women to drown in oldsmobiles and inciting violence against Jews.
That’s the sole prerogative of American Royalty.
Are you advocating that the Government should be allowed to simply confiscate private wealth and property?
A great analysis. Then on top of that, Orrin hatch just loved the murderous SOB.
Who is Sarah Ferguson?
The Queen is worth billions.
When Diana divorced Charles, she received millions in her settlement.
Sarah received about $20,000 when she divorced Andrew, and proceeded to lose $800,000 in a failed weight loss business here in the U.S.
Sarah wants to move to America and make some money. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, so I say more power to her if she can make some money in the good ‘ole U.S. of A. this time around.
“British Royalty couldn’t get away with murder, rape, fraud, tax evasion, drunken driving, leaving pregnant women to drown in oldsmobiles and inciting violence against Jews.”
You’re not serious are you?
I guess you are just referring to CONTEMPORARY British Royalty. All the above was pretty common in the old days - except for the car bit. The Tudors and Plantagenets didn’t have them. But at least the Plantagenets had CLASS and were really FEARLESS warriors for the most part.
In THAT case, I would have to agree with you. They are just guilty of gross stupidity and criminal consumption of national wealth - except maybe for being involved in killing Princess Diana.
On the other hand, by “American Royalty” I guess you refer to the Kennedy Klan. They aren’t royal in my book. But they are, apparently, in the minds of the American left - if you can consider the collection of distorted ganglia in their crania “brains”.
In the latter case I have to agree with you ALSO. They make the Windsors look good - and that’s not easy.
What the Winbdsors have is PUBLIC property. It belongs to the British People. To own Property you have to WORK for it.
I believe “work” is an alien term to the members of the Windsor-Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha-Windsors.
“Down with the Hunnish usurpers!”
Restoration of the Stuarts placemarker.
Betcha that Sarah AND Diana BOTH did wonders for the bloodline.
Too bad the idiots running the show now will destroy the monarchy before the next generation gets a chance to run it.
Andrea you silver-tongued devil!
lol
They could have done wonders for me!!!!
(Actually Queen Elizabeth was pretty hot when she was young.)
My sentiments entirely.
That little Dwarf William III was a stinking worm. King James II was a great man.
I’m a proud Jacobite!!!
I realized after posting that I had omitted the essential ingredient - a “/s” ...
Well you are mistaken. What House Windsor has is both public and private. The Queen USES, in trust, a great many things that are public property (for example, the crown jewels). HOWEVER, she also has a very large private fortune (based mostly on rents from land, property and investments) which the “public” (which is the way you say “government” when you actually support them taking something over) has no more right to than they have to my garden shed. Unless, of course, you wish to alter the law to allow that to happen. Personally, I think that would be a dangerous precedent to set. Would you allow Federal authorities to sieze private property owned by one section of society (the “rich”) in order to “redistribute” to the poor and needy? Oh wait...you do...
James II was an unwise King. And ultimately a cowardly one. In fact the Stuart dynasty generally was an unmitigated disaster, a fact readily apparent to the overwhelming majority of people at the time. A lot is said about the failures of the Jacobite rebellions, but ultimately they collapsed for one simple reason - lack of popular support. Most Britons just did not want them back on the throne.
Here's mine: As far as I know, the last few generations of the British Royal Family have been indeed, born in England, or Scotland. That would make them British,long removed from the house of Hanover-Saxe-Coberg and Gotha. Much the same way that I am personally removed from the house of various Scots who left in a hurry and landed here. That makes me an American.
Queen Elizabeth served her country in WWII when she didn't have to lift a finger. I suspect that she did that because she felt and thought that England was her country, her home and that was her duty. For that alone, I salute the Lady.
As one cannot choose one’s ancestors, one cannot choose one’s descendants, or who those descendants marry.
BTTT
James II failed because he was stabbed in the back by a number of people he helped, such as a John Churchill, a distant ancestor of Winston Churchill. James II wanted to extend religious toleration to Catholics in England, but fanatic Protestants found this toleration of Catholics unacceptable.
William III was a disgusting little dwarf who waged a brutal religious war in Ireland against the Catholics, having changed his own religion from Catholic to Protestant, to suit his own political needs.
His treatment of his father-in-law and treatment of her father by his consort were despicable.
If you are a fanatic Protestant, I guess you find William III a positive character and James II a negative one.
Considering what the Hanoverians did to Scotland, I find it rather odd you are defending them.
Most of the “atrocities” committed in Scotland were in the highlands, and most of them were committed by lowland Scots (who hated the highlanders).
I think you simplify James' religious policies. Our modern world has made tolerance the highest of all virtues, so stressing that his objective was extention of tolerance for Catholics makes him seem wonderful. In fact, Catholicism at the time was strongly tied to the most reactionary despotisms in Europe. People were really frightened that his tolerance for Catholics was the first step to a return of England to Catholicism, and thereby absolutist rule, and frankly they were probably right.
William was not an archetypal hero. He was short, he was stooped, his face was badly scarred from a bout of smallpox. He suffered from asthma and epilepsy and basically spent most of his life struggling with poor health. However, none of those things were in his control. Your assertion that he was a "disgusting little dwarf" is no better than condemning a man for having blue eyes, or black skin. And unlike James William did lead his troops from the front. He very nearly drowned crossing the Boyne.
It's not a question of being a fanatic protestant who finds William a positive character and James a negative one. Personally, I think they both had positive and negative features. But William was the better king, because basically he was prepared to take advice, whereas James (like most of the Stuarts) simply didn't.
I am not a Scot, I am an American. Those English and those Scots are long gone.
I admire the English, always have.
Have a great weekend.
Regards,
AR
If there were not an England, there would not have been an America.
I have no quarrel with the English - I just don’t like the House of Windsor or their Hanoverian Predecessors. I like the Stuarts and REALLY like the Plantagents - historical warts and all.
And I am an American too - first, last, always and exclusively.
Have a great Memorial Day Weekend also.
That’s quite detailed and I agree with some of it, possibly most of it.
We get into such interesting discussions on this forum.
The Scots referred to William, I believe as Wee Little Willie.
The thing that really repels me was William’s ability to change religion as advantage suited him, as well as the shabby way he treated his stepfather.
I understand the fear of the Papacy in England at the time,
but somehow I don’t think that the distinction between Protestant believers in freedom and Catholic supporters of Autocracy were as well-defined as we have been led to believe.
Henry VIII, the Founder of the Anglican Church, was as willing to burn what he viewed as Protestant Heretics at the stake as Catholics.
The connection between disloyalty to the ruler’s version of the true faith, and treason against the state was connected at the time.
I admit to a romantic attachment to the Stuarts. William III and the Hanoverians never appealed to me.
I am not in any way saying that Protestantism always equals freedom and Catholicism is neccesarily totalitarianism. But at that moment in history the great Catholic States were unashameadly absolutist monarchies. It was the protestant emphasis on the idea of a personal relationship with God that first put a crack in that paradigm, that was eventually to lead to the English Civil War, the glorious revolution and the American declaration of independence.
In any case, whether a Catholic return in England would have led to absolutism is immaterial. The point is that Englishmen at the time THOUGHT it would have. Just like today, politics is perception. :)
Reality is in the perception
Quite so. In fact, perception often MAKES reality.
Oh, never mind. I thought this was another Obama thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.