 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / April 2005OT Royal Wedding
I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I think). But it kind of makes her look like a porcupine. I personally think she should have worn some kind of subtle pink or rose or something. Ah well. Everyone's a critic. >I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I > thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I > think). But it kind of makes her look like a porcupine. I personally think > she should have worn some kind of subtle pink or rose or something. Ah > well. > Everyone's a critic. As long as we're being catty. I couldn't get over some of the hats/clothes the younger women were wearing. The one blonde who was walking to the chapel with Harry and William was dressed like a trollop. Short multi-coloured frock and go-go boots. -- Bill, who was just flipping channels and not actually 'watching' the royal fuss. :) >> I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I >> thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bill, who was just flipping channels and not actually 'watching' the royal > fuss. :) I didn't get to see the crowds. Sounds interesting. I did finally see what she wore to the civil ceremony. That was better. It was the outfit for the church blessing I couldn't figure out. I did like that it was simple and I can't say I disliked it overall, but on her it seemed much to bland of a color and the headpiece, well, not sure I would like that on anyone. The boys looked strapping. >I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I > thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I > think). But it kind of makes her look like a porcupine. I personally think > she should have worn some kind of subtle pink or rose or something. Ah > well. > Everyone's a critic. Yes, I suspect she will take a lot of flak from the press for that hat (and it doesn't take much for that to happen). At first glance, I thought it was an extremely windy day and her hair had been caught in a cyclone effect! MaryL >>I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I >>thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > MaryL Shame she didnt get given a tiara.  SignatureBadger Badger Badger > I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I > thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I > think). But it kind of makes her look like a porcupine. I personally think > she should have worn some kind of subtle pink or rose or something. Ah well. > Everyone's a critic. It was sweeping feathers. Actually, (just my 2p-worth), I thought she looked very elegant and appropriate in the long pale jade gown and headdress for the blessing. Each to their own :-) Deb. Signaturehttp://www.scientific-art.com "He looked a fierce and quarrelsome cat, but claw he never would; He only bit the ones he loved, because they tasted good." S. Greenfield >> I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I >> thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Deb. Oh wow. It was pale jade? Well, yes, that would be good. Really, the color looked like kind of an oatmeal/beige color on my TV. See, that probably looks much better in person. Yeah, I just felt she needed color, and it didn't look any kind of jade! I do like the line of the dress. (Still not sure about that headpiece!) >> I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I >> thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > looked very elegant and appropriate in the long pale jade gown and > headdress for the blessing. Each to their own :-) I thought that she was dressed very nicely for both ceremonies, but there again, I'm a Brit like you ;-) The blonde who was "dressed like a trollop" was the Queen's granddaughter, Zara Phillips. I thought she looked okay, she is young and modern. Despite all their wealth and so called privilege, I wouldn't want to lead the life of a royal for the world. Tweed >>> I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a moment, I >>> thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Tweed It does have to suck pretty badly. Worse than any other celebrity status for "living in a fish bowl". At least there is Scotland to retreat to. >I thought that she was dressed very nicely for both ceremonies, but there >again, I'm a Brit like you ;-) >The blonde who was "dressed like a trollop" was the Queen's granddaughter, >Zara Phillips. I thought she looked okay, she is young and modern. That's Anne's daughter, right? Did Anne and her ex- ever decide to allow their kids to have any sort of title, if only "The Honourable"? (IIRC at one time they said they weren't going to do so) Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha ============ http://www.jhedge.com >>I thought that she was dressed very nicely for both ceremonies, but there >>again, I'm a Brit like you ;-) >>The blonde who was "dressed like a trollop" was the Queen's granddaughter, >>Zara Phillips. I thought she looked okay, she is young and modern. > > That's Anne's daughter, right? Yes. >Did Anne and her ex- ever decide to > allow their kids to have any sort of title, if only "The Honourable"? > (IIRC at one time they said they weren't going to do so) As far as I know, neither Zara, nor her brother Peter have a title. Zara is now a fine horsewoman, like her mother. Tweed >>> I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a >>> moment, I thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Tweed Did anyone else notice, half the union flags being waved by the crowd, were upside down? It was not mentioned on any of the television reports I saw. The union flag upside down is supposed to be a distress signal, I don't think I'd rely on it if I were in trouble. ;-) SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) A house is not a home, without a cat. >>>>I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a >>>>moment, I thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I saw. The union flag upside down is supposed to be a distress signal, I > don't think I'd rely on it if I were in trouble. ;-) I'm sorry to say I wasn't paying that much attention to the flag-waving crowds. As someone who used to live in Windsor, I was watching mainly out of interest to see what had changed in the last 27 years or so (not much in that part of town, but the place did look quite a bit cleaner than it used to). Also my music teacher as a kid had been one of the St George's Chapel organists, and I was wondering if he'd be playing (he wasn't). >>>>> I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a >>>>> moment, I thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > one of the St George's Chapel organists, and I was wondering if he'd > be playing (he wasn't). Thinking about it, it must be about 27 years since I was last in Windsor. I wonder if I ever saw you. :-) SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) A house is not a home, without a cat. >>>>>>I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? For a >>>>>>moment, I thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Thinking about it, it must be about 27 years since I was last in > Windsor. I wonder if I ever saw you. :-) Heh heh, that Windosr Girls' School uniform would have been pretty unforgettable :) <snip> > Heh heh, that Windosr Girls' School uniform would have been pretty > unforgettable :) Do you still wear it? JPEGs? SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) A house is not a home, without a cat. > <snip> > >>Heh heh, that Windosr Girls' School uniform would have been pretty >>unforgettable :) > > Do you still wear it? JPEGs? Only if I'm promised a really good spanking :) >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Only if I'm promised a really good spanking :) What a shame you live 11,000 miles away. ;-) SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) A house is not a home, without a cat. > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Only if I'm promised a really good spanking :) ROTFLMAO! Helen! Please........ details!!! ;> Hugs, CatNipped > Did anyone else notice, half the union flags being waved by the crowd, > were upside down? It was not mentioned on any of the television reports You mean the British flag has a right-side-up? I always thought it was symmetrical... SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com >> Did anyone else notice, half the union flags being waved by the crowd, >> were upside down? It was not mentioned on any of the television reports > > You mean the British flag has a right-side-up? I always thought it was > symmetrical... Yes, it has a right side up. You can tell by the two diagonal crosses (one's white, one's red). The white one is symmetrical, but the red one isn't, so there's a wider white stripe on one side of the red diagnoal cross than on the other. The wider white stripe should be towards the top on the side of the flag that's attached to the flagpole. (gah... the stuff you remember from British primary school... this one's especially amusing to me as I'm now one of the many in the land of Oz who wouldn't mind getting that British flag off the top corner of ours) >>> Did anyone else notice, half the union flags being waved by the crowd, >>> were upside down? It was not mentioned on any of the television reports [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > especially amusing to me as I'm now one of the many in the land of Oz who > wouldn't mind getting that British flag off the top corner of ours) Well you gotta admit, as a distress signal putting it upside down is kinda too subtle. Jo >>> Did anyone else notice, half the union flags being waved by the >>> crowd, were upside down? It was not mentioned on any of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of Oz who wouldn't mind getting that British flag off the top corner > of ours) I find it quite sad that this sort of thing is no longer taught, I doubt many britons would know these days. SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) A house is not a home, without a cat. Hmmmm, Me too, Debbie. Criticizing Royal hats has become a British passtime. (To be fair, they've come up with some miraculously unattractive ones.) Camilla's hat was rather nice and stylish, I thought. And I thought her dress and coat were pretty, and appropriate for the occasion. I wish the couple well. I just REALLY hope we'll never have to hear more pirated tapes of their loving conversations. Some things really ARE better off left to the imagination. =o) I read an article recently that said Charles got his marriages backwards. He married his trophy wife first, and his "first wife" second. Melissa > Hmmmm, Me too, Debbie. Criticizing Royal hats has become a British > passtime. (To be fair, they've come up with some miraculously > unattractive ones.) Camilla's hat was rather nice and stylish, I > thought. And I thought her dress and coat were pretty, and appropriate > for the occasion. Oh it wasn't the hat from the civil wedding, but the headpiece at the blessing. > I wish the couple well. I just REALLY hope we'll never have to hear > more pirated tapes of their loving conversations. Some things really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Melissa >> Hmmmm, Me too, Debbie. Criticizing Royal hats has become a British >> passtime. (To be fair, they've come up with some miraculously [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh it wasn't the hat from the civil wedding, but the headpiece at the > blessing. I guess you really don't want to see some of my antique/vintage hats that have feathers on them! LOL Jill >> I wish the couple well. I just REALLY hope we'll never have to hear >> more pirated tapes of their loving conversations. Some things really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Melissa >>> Hmmmm, Me too, Debbie. Criticizing Royal hats has become a British >>> passtime. (To be fair, they've come up with some miraculously [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jill I don't think it was the feathers so much as the angle of the photography. Some of the photographs -- especially those shown from the side -- made the hat/headpiece look like it was really badly wind-blown hair. Since then, I have seen other photos where it actually looked rather nice (and I suppose that would have been true if it were viewed in person). MaryL > Hmmmm, Me too, Debbie. Criticizing Royal hats has become a British > passtime. (To be fair, they've come up with some miraculously > unattractive ones.) There were certainly some strange things attached to some people's heads yesterday, how some of them stayed on I will never know! :-) > I wish the couple well. I just REALLY hope we'll never have to hear > more pirated tapes of their loving conversations. Some things really > ARE better off left to the imagination. =o) I read an article recently > that said Charles got his marriages backwards. He married his trophy > wife first, and his "first wife" second. Certainly agree with that. I think if royal protocol and high parental expectations with a touch of historical bias hadn't got in the way 30 years ago, Charles would have married Camilla either before or after he went into the Forces, saving everyone a lot of heartache. I wish them every happiness now - they have apologised in front of the world for their sins and been forgiven by the head of the Church of England, surely that is enough. Deb. Signaturehttp://www.scientific-art.com "He looked a fierce and quarrelsome cat, but claw he never would; He only bit the ones he loved, because they tasted good." S. Greenfield > Certainly agree with that. I think if royal protocol and high parental > expectations with a touch of historical bias hadn't got in the way 30 > years ago, Charles would have married Camilla either before or after he > went into the Forces, saving everyone a lot of heartache. I wish them And that's why I have no respect whatsoever for Charles. He wasn't man enough to stand up to his mother, like a former King did, and marry who he loved. SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com >> Certainly agree with that. I think if royal protocol and high parental >> expectations with a touch of historical bias hadn't got in the way 30 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > enough to stand up to his mother, like a former King did, and marry who he > loved. That's an extremely simplistic view of it. Charles is the heir to the throne, and he must do his duty, which he did, by marrying a virgin and producing two sons. Against his heart, I'm sure. David, (Edward VIII) put himself first. He was never forgiven by the royal family and had to live in exile in France. There's a lot more to it than this, like how David was supposed to marry Elizabeth of Glamis (the Queen Mother) but she eventually had to settle for his younger brother, who became King anyway on David's abdication. I feel sorry for Charles, actually. Torn between his heart and his duty, he did his duty. Which is what being royal is all about. Like I said, I wouldn't want their lives of wealth and privilege in exchange for my freedom to choose who I want to love, walk down the street incognito and go shopping, and not think the whole world smells of fresh paint. Tweed I couldn't get BBC to watch it live, so had to settle for many still photos....I have respect for what you Brits have to say re opinions of Charles' choices in wives, behavior, etc. as I have always been positive citizens in his realm know far more about the lot of them than we former colonists here. I love English royal history, and like to ponder how much your rulers have tamed down since the days, say, of Eliz. 1 and Henry VIII. The present family is positively benign disposition-wise. I didn't see anything wrong w/Camilla's headgear, but in one color photo her bangs are sticking straight up like Cameron Diaz' in "There's Something About Mary"........ >>> Certainly agree with that. I think if royal protocol and high parental >>> expectations with a touch of historical bias hadn't got in the way 30 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Tweed [...] > I didn't see anything wrong w/Camilla's headgear, but in > one color photo her bangs are sticking straight up like > Cameron Diaz' in "There's Something About Mary"........ It was *very* windy on Saturday. Tweed >>> Certainly agree with that. I think if royal protocol and high parental >>> expectations with a touch of historical bias hadn't got in the way 30 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Tweed He did his duty?? -- married a young girl who was expected to be a virgin and bear his children, while he felt free to carry on with his mistress both before and after marriage. *That* is what I find most objectionable about this whole thing -- not the question of divorced people marrying but the fact that he deliberately went into his first marriage with the full knowledge that he was not going to give it a change. Diana made many mistakes, but she could have been a "saint" and still would not have had a chance in the world under circumstances like these. Yes, I sympathize with Charles' position because he was placed in such an unpalatable place simply because "he will be king," but he treated Diana in an abominable fashion by marrying her under those circumstances. MaryL >>>>Certainly agree with that. I think if royal protocol and high parental >>>>expectations with a touch of historical bias hadn't got in the way 30 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > MaryL Are we meant to believe that the very intelligent Diana had no idea what she was getting into? SignatureBadger Badger Badger > chance in the world under circumstances like these. Yes, I sympathize with > Charles' position because he was placed in such an unpalatable place simply > because "he will be king," but he treated Diana in an abominable fashion by > marrying her under those circumstances. And Diana agreed to the marriage, having grown up not only in Britain, but in the same social circle as the royals, and therefore knowing what to expect. The assumption that Diana was some kind of helpless innocent because she was barely and adult and virginal doesn't do her justice - and I say that as someone who didn't much care for her. I don't like seeing any adult assumed to be so helpless as that, and I don't think it could possibly have been true in Diana's case, given her background. SignatureCheryl >> chance in the world under circumstances like these. Yes, I sympathize with >> Charles' position because he was placed in such an unpalatable place simply [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > assumed to be so helpless as that, and I don't think it could possibly > have been true in Diana's case, given her background. Yeah, but I just remember how "dumb" I was at 19 particularly when it came to boys, despite be really intelligent. I have to wonder myself if she really understood. Not that it really matters now I guess. > Yeah, but I just remember how "dumb" I was at 19 particularly when it came > to boys, despite be really intelligent. I have to wonder myself if she > really understood. Not that it really matters now I guess. But that's part of life - when you're 90, you'll still be making important decisions, and you might make bad ones. I'm not arguing that she wouldn't or didn't or shouldn't make a bad decision, but that she was old enough and had enough information to make a decision. She wasn't just a passive little virgin who had no strengths and no responsibilities for her life decisions. It's not important to Diana now, of course, but I don't like the implication that someone who is of age is automatically excused from any responsibility for a decision that didn't work out on the grounds that she's female, young, and with a public image as a helpless naif. It doesn't help that she was widely publicized to be a virgin at the time - there's an idea in our cultures that virgins, particularly virginal princesses in fairy tales, are helpless passive creatures who just languish around being manipulated or rescued by others. That's a stereotype I think should be done away with, and which doesn't have a whole lot of connection with reality in this case. Diana was very active on her own behalf. SignatureCheryl >>> chance in the world under circumstances like these. Yes, I >>> sympathize with Charles' position because he was placed in such an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to boys, despite be really intelligent. I have to wonder myself if > she really understood. Not that it really matters now I guess. When I was 19, I didn't fight hard enough to keep the man who is now after 25 years back in my life. When I was 21 I married an absolute jerk. A Prince he was not, and I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person. IMHO, no one really knows who they are at 19. Jill > That's an extremely simplistic view of it. Charles is the heir to the > throne, and he must do his duty, which he did, by marrying a virgin and > producing two sons. Against his heart, I'm sure. Did his duty include keeping a mistress? > David, (Edward VIII) put himself first. He was never forgiven by the royal > family and had to live in exile in France. He was honest. I happen to value honesty. SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com >> David, (Edward VIII) put himself first. He was never forgiven by the royal >> family and had to live in exile in France. > He was honest. I happen to value honesty. I value other things too, like responsibility and consideration for others. SignatureCheryl >> That's an extremely simplistic view of it. Charles is the heir to the >> throne, and he must do his duty, which he did, by marrying a virgin and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He was honest. I happen to value honesty. Let us agree to differ in our opinion on this. Tweed > That's an extremely simplistic view of it. Charles is the heir to the > throne, and he must do his duty, which he did, by marrying a virgin and > producing two sons. Against his heart, I'm sure. > I feel sorry for Charles, actually. Torn between his heart and his duty, > he did his duty. Which is what being royal is all about. . I realize you are upset by the lack of respect shown here for the royal family. But what you have written above is to me as strong an Indictment against the royal family as I've ever read. It would appear to justify a person who one would expect to have some principles, marrying someone they did not love. Of making vows of love and fidelity before God and country they did not intend to honor. Charles is not Elizabeth's only child. The future of the monarchy did not and does not rest solely on his shoulders. Jo > And that's why I have no respect whatsoever for Charles. He wasn't man > enough to stand up to his mother, like a former King did, and marry who > he loved. I really wouldn't put said former king up as someone worthy of respect. I'd say he showed the political sense of a very self-centred slug, since it appears that he thought that those in power actually would accept Mrs. Simpson if he stamped his foot hard enough. He left a terrible mess behind him, and I believe his sister-in-law (not his mother) never forgave him because the whole mess landed in her husband's lap and she thought it shortened his life. Of course, given his political leanings, and Mrs. Simpsons' domineering but essentially superficial personality, maybe it was just as well politically that he was out of the picture in the end. I don't have a whole lot of respect for Charles, Camilla or Diana, but I don't think Charles is quite as bad as the Edward ?? (forget the number, VIII?) was. SignatureCheryl Hey, here's irony: British public *is* accepting Camilla! Old Ed was just whole bunches of years ahead of his time in expecting them to accept Wallis. I think the two ladies had about the same facial expressions, but Wallis had a helluva lot better taste in clothes and especially jewelry. BTW I can't wait to see what the Royal Ring set or whatever Camilla got from Charles' heirloom stash. Diana's drove the price of sapphires up globewide, and Fergie's made Burmese rubies almost impossible to obtain unless you're filthy rich..... >> And that's why I have no respect whatsoever for Charles. He wasn't man >> enough to stand up to his mother, like a former King did, and marry who [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > don't think Charles is quite as bad as the Edward ?? (forget the > number, VIII?) was. > Hey, here's irony: British public *is* accepting Camilla! > Old Ed was just whole bunches of years ahead of his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Fergie's made Burmese rubies almost impossible to obtain unless you're > filthy rich..... I've read that they can now make excellent and cheap artificial rubies. SignatureCheryl > Fergie's made Burmese rubies almost impossible to obtain unless you're > filthy rich..... Well, unless you go to Burma and buy them for a few dollars at the gem market in Yangon! -- Britta "There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -- Unknown Check out pictures of Vino at: http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album I watched the wedding, and enjoyed it very much. I like Camilla - she looks like a normal person, and her outfits were in very good taste. I'm not up on the Royals..but when Charles married Diana - wasn't Camilla married already? Then she would not have been available for Charles to marry. Did Camilla get married first, before Charles? If she did, then it was Camilla who was not true to Charles, as opposed to Charles who was not true to Camilla. Well, whatever, it's all over with, now. Heaven help either one of them if they start to have affairs! They were certainly quivering visibly when they stood in the chapel, taking about forsaking their "wickedness"!!! > I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? It looks like she got her hair caught in a Cuisinart mixer before she had to run out to get married. ;p >For a moment, I > thought she had twigs in her hair. Then I realized they were feathers (I > think). But it kind of makes her look like a porcupine. She will always be the Pitbull in my book. -L. (In honor of my beloved Diana) > > I have just one question. What is that thing on her head? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -L. I agree, Lyn. Bow wow. But then, IMO, I can't look at him without thinking about a Basset Hound's face. Thank God for Diana's genetic input. Her boys are quite handsome. Sherry > I agree, Lyn. Bow wow. But then, IMO, I can't look at him without > thinking about a Basset Hound's face. Thank God for Diana's genetic > input. Her boys are quite handsome. > > Sherry That William is a lady killer, eh? Makes me wish I was 20 years younger... -L. > I agree, Lyn. Bow wow. But then, IMO, I can't look at him without > thinking about a Basset Hound's face. Thank God for Diana's genetic > input. Her boys are quite handsome. We saw a picture of them on the paper yesterday and Tom mentioned: those sure are unattractive people, I hope they never breed. :) SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should conjure up a pic of what their offspring might look like, it shouldn't be too hard if you know what you're doing......LOL. >> I agree, Lyn. Bow wow. But then, IMO, I can't look at him without >> thinking about a Basset Hound's face. Thank God for Diana's genetic >> input. Her boys are quite handsome. > > We saw a picture of them on the paper yesterday and Tom mentioned: those > sure are unattractive people, I hope they never breed. :) > ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; > they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should > conjure up a pic of what their offspring might look like, it shouldn't be > too hard if you > know what you're doing......LOL. This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as you Merkins ridicule the Royal family of England that you think you know about, and you don't have a clue. I mean it. Don't dare when you have a corrupt republic. Tweed <---- livid >>> I agree, Lyn. Bow wow. But then, IMO, I can't look at him without >>> thinking about a Basset Hound's face. Thank God for Diana's genetic >>> input. Her boys are quite handsome. >> >> We saw a picture of them on the paper yesterday and Tom mentioned: those >> sure are unattractive people, I hope they never breed. :) >> ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; >> they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and you don't have a clue. >I mean it. Don't dare when you have a corrupt republic. Does this mean the Royal Canadian Air Farce can't make any more fun of the British Royals either, or just 'Merkins? Honestly Tweed, do you seriously think there is ANY government at any level on the face of the planet that ISN'T corrupt to one extent or the other? Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha ============ http://www.jhedge.com >>> ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; >>> they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > level on the face of the planet that ISN'T corrupt to one extent or > the other? The Royal family are not corrupt. I don't extend that opinion to include Tony Blair's government. Tweed We're corrupt all right but don't *you* call us a "republic"...this is a *democracy* and you're right...we really don't have a clue. Your royals to us are kinda like movie stars - celebrities - to Merkins but your country has a very long and interesting history and they are something else entirely to Brits. Please accept my sincere apology for irreverent post. I wouldn't presume to know who's corrupt across the pond. Our slick color magazines in USA constantly print "doctored" photos of what this or that celebrity's offspring would look like if combined w/another; so do our women's mags. No offense really intended. >> ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; >> they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> We saw a picture of them on the paper yesterday and Tom mentioned: those >>> sure are unattractive people, I hope they never breed. :) > We're corrupt all right but don't *you* call us a "republic"...this is a > *democracy* and you're right...we > really don't have a clue. The framers of the U.S. Constitution would be very surprised to learn we are not a republic. You might want to take a closer look at that document. MaryL >> We're corrupt all right but don't *you* call us a "republic"...this is a >> *democracy* and you're right...we [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > MaryL This is true. I had a lesson on that once on the internet, I am abashed to say. I'm just terrible with stuff like that. LOL I don't have a copy of the Constitution handy and if I did doubt if I'd read it (see, I really *am* corrupt like she says) but if you say it says we're a republic then I'll take your word for it. All I could think of was, "Republic of China", "Republic of Korea", U.S.S.R. (another "republic") and it doesn't sound good..... >>> We're corrupt all right but don't *you* call us a "republic"...this is a >>> *democracy* and you're right...we [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This is true. I had a lesson on that once on the internet, I am abashed to > say. I'm just terrible with stuff like that. > LOL I don't have a copy of the Constitution handy and if > I did doubt if I'd read it (see, I really *am* corrupt like she says) but > if you say it says we're a republic then I'll > take your word for it. All I could think of was, "Republic > of China", "Republic of Korea", U.S.S.R. (another "republic") and it > doesn't sound good..... Here is a brief dictionary definition of "republic." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=republic MaryL > LOL I don't have a copy of the Constitution handy and if > I did doubt if I'd read it (see, I really *am* corrupt like she says) but > if you say it says we're a republic then I'll > take your word for it. All I could think of was, "Republic > of China", "Republic of Korea", U.S.S.R. (another "republic") and it > doesn't sound good..... LOL. Are the following words familiar? "And to the republic for which it stands" Jo Yeah! One nation, under God.... But whoa, I was willing to agree w/the dictionary/encyclopedia readers that if we don't have a monarch then ok we must be a republic like it says. I hate to admit we are the same thing as those other countries I named, though. Wierd. >> LOL I don't have a copy of the Constitution handy and if >> I did doubt if I'd read it (see, I really *am* corrupt like she says) but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jo > LOL I don't have a copy of the Constitution handy and if > I did doubt if I'd read it (see, I really *am* corrupt like she says) > but if you say it says we're a republic then I'll > take your word for it. All I could think of was, "Republic > of China", "Republic of Korea", U.S.S.R. (another "republic") and it > doesn't sound good..... Ahem. "I pledge allegience to the flag... and to the *Republic*, for which it stands..." Jill >>>> We're corrupt all right but don't *you* call us a >>>> "republic"...this is a *democracy* and you're right...we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> This is true. I had a lesson on that once on the internet, I am >> abashed to say. I'm just terrible with stuff like that. > We're corrupt all right but don't *you* call us a "republic"...this is a > *democracy* and you're right...we Actually, if you check the true definition we are NOT a democracy, we're actually a federal republic. We like to call ourselves a democracy, but we aren't. > really don't have a clue. Your royals to us are kinda like > movie stars - celebrities - to Merkins but your country has a very long and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > if combined w/another; so do > our women's mags. No offense really intended. I agree. I'd say that we of the US really can't cast aspersions at the leaders of other countries, given that all of our Presidents have been at least to some degree dishonorable. >> ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; >> they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tweed <---- livid I'm sorry. I shouldn't have started the thread. (I honestly would have done the same had they been as big a couple in the U.S. getting married.) I'm thrilled they have finally gotten hitched and high time. I imagine there was a lot of pressure to do things a certain way when he was younger that led to the whole marrying out of order business. I do think Prince Charles seems a little cranky lately regarding interviews and pictures (seems to be really sick of "stupid photographs" from comments he has been making etc. but he *is* the Prince and it *is* a big event so I'm not sure why he is upset having to pose with his boys and stuff). Still I should have realized this would be touchy and I do apologize. Believe me, I certainly know that we have our own problems as well (one of the biggest who made me VERY disgusted this morning but I don't want to touch off yet another thread and get people het up.). I can only say I'm sorry to have brought it up. If it's any consolation in pictures I've seen since, the color really was off on the footage I originally saw of the Church events. The dress was a soft green and not the beige I had thought it was which probably looked really nice in person. >>>ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; >>>they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > *is* the Prince and it *is* a big event so I'm not sure why he is upset > having to pose with his boys and stuff). Because the press keep bringing up the past and judging every move he makes on the past. I'd be seriously fed up if people kept asking questions about an ex when I was happily getting married again. Still I should have realized this > would be touchy and I do apologize. Believe me, I certainly know that we > have our own problems as well (one of the biggest who made me VERY disgusted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and not the beige I had thought it was which probably looked really nice in > person. SignatureBadger Badger Badger > > ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; > > they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should > > conjure up a pic of what their offspring might look like, it shouldn't be > > too hard if you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tweed <---- livid How is it any different from the endless Bush-bashing? Or the comments made by you, yourself...what was your term for Bush? Mentally challenged? Nobody intends to offend or annoy you personally by remarks made about Charles/Camilla than they intend to annoy or offend the Americans here with the remarks about Bush, or our government. You're just turning it into a personal affront, and it's not. The Royal Family has been fodder for public comment *exactly* the same way Bush and other aspects of America have been. Frankly, your tone and language offend *me*--besides the fact that you used an opinion on the royal couple to swing an insult about "corruption." And you top it off with a threat to "Don't dare--I mean it." Sherry > This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. I'm sorry to hear that. > I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as you > Merkins ridicule the Royal family of England that you think you know about, > and you don't have a clue. I'm not an american, but a mexican, thank you very much. > I mean it. Don't dare when you have a corrupt republic. Excuse me? SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com > This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. > I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tweed <---- livid Don't you think "Merkins" is a form of ridicule? MaryL Hey, these folks talk funny anyway and I'd never take anything they say for an insult. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that they think *we* talk funny, too. They just didn't realize that our view of their royalty, since we don't have any, is something like - forgive me, Pius - non-Catholics regard the Pope.....no personal feelings for nor sentimentality toward. >> This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. >> I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > MaryL > > This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. > > I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > :-) Actually, it is a quite correct term for describing certain specialized hairpieces. >> This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. >> I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > MaryL Well, no. The first time I ever heard the term is when several of you USA citizens used it to describe yourselves on this group, so I thought it was exactly the same as me calling myself a Brit. Isn't it? Tweed >>Don't you think "Merkins" is a form of ridicule? >> > Well, no. The first time I ever heard the term is when several of you USA > citizens used it to describe yourselves on this group, so I thought it was > exactly the same as me calling myself a Brit. Isn't it? Indeed it is. I use it frequently. Dan >>>Don't you think "Merkins" is a form of ridicule? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Dan Me too, on this and other multi-national groups. Theresa Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com >>>>Don't you think "Merkins" is a form of ridicule? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh > My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com I tend to use "Merakin" myself. But that's only because a friend informed me that merkin is a word. It is an obsolete word, but is a word. It is the name of a, um, wig for one's, um, nether regions. My friends have such interesting vocabularies. - Denise Brennasmeowmy > I tend to use "Merakin" myself. But that's only because a friend > informed me that merkin is a word. It is an obsolete word, but is a > word. It is the name of a, um, wig for one's, um, nether regions. My > friends have such interesting vocabularies. A WIG??? The function of which would be___?? >>I tend to use "Merakin" myself. But that's only because a friend >>informed me that merkin is a word. It is an obsolete word, but is a >>word. It is the name of a, um, wig for one's, um, nether regions. My >>friends have such interesting vocabularies. > > A WIG??? The function of which would be___?? Not something I've pondered in depth. Apparently some people wanted more hair there. One theory I've heard is that certain diseases would, supposedly, cause baldness in the aflicted region, thus if one had hair there, they were healthy. Or something. > >>I tend to use "Merakin" myself. But that's only because a friend > >>informed me that merkin is a word. It is an obsolete word, but is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not something I've pondered in depth. Well I can understand that. :) Apparently some people wanted > more hair there. One theory I've heard is that certain diseases would, > supposedly, cause baldness in the aflicted region, thus if one had hair > there, they were healthy. Or something. Ahhh. I see. >> I tend to use "Merakin" myself. But that's only because a friend >> informed me that merkin is a word. It is an obsolete word, but is a >> word. It is the name of a, um, wig for one's, um, nether regions. My >> friends have such interesting vocabularies. > >A WIG??? The function of which would be___?? Used be prostitutes in days gone by. The genital region may have had to be shaved to eliminate lice, and a merkin would disguise this. They would also disguise scarring resulting from the wearer having caught something a tad nastier than lice. SignatureCathi > >> I tend to use "Merakin" myself. But that's only because a friend > >> informed me that merkin is a word. It is an obsolete word, but is a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would also disguise scarring resulting from the wearer having caught > something a tad nastier than lice. Thank you, Cathi! Fascinating. I imagine they had to be glued on! The stuff I learn on this ng! What a "merkin" really is (LOL) and that I do indeed live in a "republic" in spite of putting us in category of other republics like China, Korea, and USSR as "republics". Upon much reflection I can see why CW was "livid" as our irreverent discussion of living representatives of an ancient tradition in her country was getting pretty dicey, not to mention discussion of who cheated on whom first, which I didn't join in. BTW the only thing I really and truly understand re the Chas/Camilla/Diana triangle so much discussed here is why he had to marry Diana re his destiny; it was all about traditional matters of his country. How can people here in a land where someone like Britney Spears' marriages go on and former Prez Clinton/Monica mess are front-page news possibly throw mud @ Brit royals for straying from vows?! Again, I meant no insult to our rpca Brit friends re their royalty from ignorance (yes!) on my part as we have no such respected folks here....and I'd never consider political leaders as comparative as our nation is only..... somewhat over 200 years old, a youngster in history. >>> This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. >>> I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Tweed How can people here in a land where someone > like Britney Spears' marriages go on and former Prez > Clinton/Monica mess are front-page news possibly throw > mud @ Brit royals for straying from vows?! I do not believe people's personal lives should be tossed about in public, and if they are, I do not hold whatever allegedly goes on against them. I didn't hold it against President Clinton, either. The fact that most Americans would not hold it against him is what necessitated the entrapment by which he was induced to lie under oath. > Again, I meant no insult to our rpca Brit friends re their > royalty from ignorance (yes!) on my part as we have no > such respected folks here....and I'd never consider political leaders as > comparative as our nation is only..... > somewhat over 200 years old, a youngster in history. I wish Charles all the best. Diana is dead. I hope for her boys. >>> This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. >>> I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Tweed I have never seen any American spell "American" as "Merkin." We do have different dialects (just as in Britain), so pronunciations will vary differently, depending on the region of the country...just as for numerous other names of locations (such as Louisiana, Los Angeles, New Orleans, etc.). I notice from some other messages that some others apparently have heard Americans use the term "Merkins" -- but I still wonder if that isn't pronunciation rather than printed (where I am possibly drawing too fine a distinction, but I have noticed that "Merkin" seems to be used in a derogatory sense by many non-Americans, in the same way that some Americans use derogatory terms for other nationalities). MaryL > I have never seen any American spell "American" as "Merkin." We do have > different dialects (just as in Britain), so pronunciations will vary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > MaryL There is another group I read that was the first place I ever saw "Merkin" and I never got that it was supposed to be derogatory. (Which does not mean that it was not meant that way, just that I did not pick it up.) For fans of breakfast and fun: alt.2eggs.sausage.beans.tomatoes.2toast.largetea.cheerslove A place where the "FEB" ["Full English Breakfast, as listed in the name of the group] and other types of breakfast are celebrated. People from all over the world participate. :) > I have never seen any American spell "American" as "Merkin." We do have > different dialects (just as in Britain), so pronunciations will vary [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > derogatory sense by many non-Americans, in the same way that some Americans > use derogatory terms for other nationalities). I think 'Merkin = American' is a Usenet colloquialism; I first encountered it some years ago on another group where it was used by Americans and non-Americans as a good-natured nickname, like 'Brit'. The other meaning was also known, but I always assumed it was coined as a shortening of the pronunciation of American that sounds like 'Ah-murr-eh-can' (I can't do proper phonetics), and it was just a coincidence that it turned out the same as an extremely obscure term for a specialized type of wig. I'm sure there may be places where it is used in a derogatory sense - there are thousands of Usenet groups of which I freqent a very small number, and the term may even have escaped into the world at large. But I didn't hear it used that way. SignatureCheryl >>> This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't >>> continue. I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tweed Try looking it up in the dictionary. ;-) SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) A house is not a home, without a cat. >> ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; >> they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tweed <---- livid Being an ex-German, Canadian citizen living in Thailand who has intentions of becoming an Aussie, I have no vested interest in the Royal Family or the Bush family or what government is corrupt, etc. But I do think that everyone has the right to criticize anyone they want to. That is what a democracy is about, freedom of speech, etc. I am very offended when someone tries to control that. I have seen enough BBC where the British go on and on about Hollywood stars, US govt. families, etc. Do they have a clue, really? Why can the favour not be returned? The Royals are in the public eye and looks and clothes bashing is to be expected. -- Britta "There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -- Unknown Check out pictures of Vino at: http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album > >> ROFL, Victor...it's unlikely unless they get a surrogate; > >> they're in their late 50's......somebody w/computer know-how should [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > -- > Britta Very sensible thoughts, Britta. I am not easily offended but I do take offense when someone on this very group tries to forbid discussion about the "royals" when other people in the public eye have been fair game all along. Sherry > This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. > I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tweed <---- livid Then you must understand how we Americans get annoyed when we and our government are ridiculed by others around the world. Hugs, CatNipped >> This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. >> I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >CatNipped We're such a big target, I'm sure it can be hard to remember that not every individual is responsible for everything that goes on. I think our closest friends and allies have parliamentary systems where minorities have much more of a voice than our winner-take-all system, where a minority can be numerically very significant, but still pretty much defanged. I think that it can be hard to appreciate from the outside that we aren't a huge monolith, when that is what we look like. I am very critical of the present administration; I think a lot of Americans are-- that's what the numbers support. The problem, though, with discussions with others, is that we are still Americans, of course, and we still love this country-- it's because of that love that many of us seem so shell-shocked at this moment. It's kind of a different dynamic to get into a critical conversation about the US with someone from another country, who criticizes the US as an entity, as something even evil in itself. Then even healthily critical Americans get forced into a defensive position by their natural loyalties. Theresa Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com > >> This is beginning to offend and annoy me now. Please don't continue. > >> I rarely get cross, almost never in fact, but I can feel it coming on as [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Americans get forced into a defensive position by their natural > loyalties. Very perceptive of you, and a wonderfully articulate post. > We're such a big target, I'm sure it can be hard to remember that not > every individual is responsible for everything that goes on. I think [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Theresa That's very true, Theresa. I am also highly critical also of the present Administration, but do get tired of hearing criticism of our country other people. One thing I will admit though, is that Americans do love to wallow around in the dirt. Let one of our elected officials commit some sordid indescretion, and we're all over it, it's splashed on TV night and day and we just can't enough of the dirty details. Sherry > > We're such a big target, I'm sure it can be hard to remember that not > > every individual is responsible for everything that goes on. I [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > commit some sordid indescretion, and we're all over it, it's splashed > on TV night and day and we just can't enough of the dirty details. It is disgusting, but it beats sweeping it under the rug, as was done in past generations. If only we could do *something* half way--it is always one extreme or another--which I think is what moves some of my European and UK acquaintances to comment on what a "young: country we are. Actually, I suspect it is the standard response of the French, especially, to an American who is tacky enough to criticize his own country around them. lol! >> I agree, Lyn. Bow wow. But then, IMO, I can't look at him without >> thinking about a Basset Hound's face. Thank God for Diana's genetic >> input. Her boys are quite handsome. > > We saw a picture of them on the paper yesterday and Tom mentioned: those > sure are unattractive people, I hope they never breed. :) IMHO They are just average looking people. I think we get used to the beauty we see in movies, TV and magazines. If you go to the Mall, the grocery store or just walk down a city street, you see "average looking" people. The Royal family , IMO, is just that: average. They are clean, neat, well dressed and are probably sick of people looking at them MLB > IMHO They are just average looking people. I think we get used to the > beauty we see in movies, TV and magazines. If you go to the Mall, the > grocery store or just walk down a city street, you see "average looking" > people. The Royal family , IMO, is just that: average. They are clean, > neat, well dressed and are probably sick of people looking at them MLB Yes, I agree with this. I really don't see that Camilla is so ugly as to be compared to a dog. She's a plain woman, and probably doesn't have much interest in fashion (something I can identify with!). But she's not really ugly. SignatureCheryl <C&C being average> >Yes, I agree with this. I really don't see that Camilla is so ugly as to >be compared to a dog. She's a plain woman, and probably doesn't have much >interest in fashion (something I can identify with!). But she's not really >ugly. I don't even think she's plain. When I've seen footage of her, she's always had a glowing, peachy complexion, which to me seems very attractive. SignatureMogget Hasn't anyone ever noticed what I call the "gorgeous English complexion" on many Brit women? All the Brit friends I've had over the years have that beautiful skin and oftimes rosy cheeks that you only see artificially created in cosmetic-sponsored photo magazine shoots. Every one I asked about it says they can't think of anything responsible except the cool, moist atmosphere where they come from in England...and these women came from Manchester, Liverpool, Wales, and London. Being a FL native I can conclude that the sun really does do a destructive # on your skin. > <C&C being average> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > always had a glowing, peachy complexion, which to me seems very > attractive. That's why they call them English Roses. > Hasn't anyone ever noticed what I call the "gorgeous > English complexion" on many Brit women? All the Brit [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > always had a glowing, peachy complexion, which to me seems very > > attractive. >> IMHO They are just average looking people. I think we get used to the >> beauty we see in movies, TV and magazines. If you go to the Mall, the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interest in fashion (something I can identify with!). But she's not really > ugly. Yes, I think this is very true. I heard this morning she had a 102 degree fever all day!!! THAT had to suck. My gosh, probably all she wanted to do was take a nap! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message