Downham Online Discussion

Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bel on April 04, 2005, 09:55:06 PM

Title: THE wedding
Post by: Bel on April 04, 2005, 09:55:06 PM
just wondered if you had an invite Dickie living in WIndsor??
Title: Re: THE wedding (That wedding )
Post by: Anonymous on April 06, 2005, 11:27:25 PM
Quote from: Bel
just wondered if you had an invite Dickie living in WIndsor??
Sorry Bel I will not be attending,or even go "Goofing" because frankly although I am a Monarchist  I am NOT a "Royalist .   Dickie.........
Title: THE Wedding
Post by: Pauline on April 08, 2005, 08:17:05 AM
I couldn't go because I had to clean out my glove box.
Title: Re: THE Wedding (That wedding)
Post by: Anonymous on April 08, 2005, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Pauline
I couldn't go because I had to clean out my glove box.
Ha! I assume you are not a horse lover then? or is it like me you have had enough of the usurpist Hapsburgh / Battenburgh undesirables ?
Title: THE wedding
Post by: Bel on April 08, 2005, 08:28:28 PM
Likewise Pauline.   I am fed up with reading about this wedding . I have to wash my hair tomorrow so of course the invitation (which I presume got lost in the post) had to be declined.  Bel
Title: MONARCHIST versus ROYALIST
Post by: Graham on April 09, 2005, 07:13:46 PM
I am confused..... I thought they are one of the same?

The synonym of Monarchist is Royalist..... Perhaps someone will enlighten me....Thanks
Title: Re: MONARCHIST versus ROYALIST
Post by: dickie eagle on April 10, 2005, 08:08:19 AM
Quote from: Graham
I am confused..... I thought they are one of the same?

The synonym of Monarchist is Royalist..... Perhaps someone will enlighten me....Thanks
 Synonims, antonims  ! The understanding of the term "Monarchist" is one who supports ones Monarch and their immediate successor, but not the whole crowd of hangers on with their sticky fingers in the Privy purse,including all the acolytes and hooray henries,that go with them. We can ship 'Em all out to Oz where sensibly they would know what to do with them . An asidemate, I do admire your present immigration control, I envy you mate   Dickie..............
Quote
Title: Re: MONARCHIST versus ROYALIST
Post by: Bren4 on April 11, 2005, 11:09:43 PM
Quote from: dickie eagle
Quote from: Graham
I am confused..... I thought they are one of the same?

 The understanding of the term "Monarchist" is one who supports ones Monarch and their immediate successor, but not the whole crowd of hangers on with their sticky fingers in the Privy purse,including all the acolytes and hooray henries,that go with them.

Ah, so now we know.  I, like Graham, had thought the words meant the same thing.  Actually, isn't the business of royal hangers-on changing these days?  I am sure, eventually, the British Monarchy will be only the monarch and direct heirs.

Personally, although I realise the 'royal' business is a bit of an - forgotten the word - in this day and age, I do still feel a strong fondness for the Queen and I love a bit of pomp and pageantry.  I imagine she will be the last of the really royal kind though, don't you?
Title: THE wedding
Post by: Bel on April 12, 2005, 11:10:24 AM
I too have a lot of respect for the queen, but as for the rest of them, I must admit I do not have a lot of time .  I was disappointed that the Queen gave permission for Charles to wed again without giving up his right to the  throne. Let him wed again certainly, but he cant have his cake and eat it to, but then again that is what he has done. Glad to  see you are up and 'running' again Brenda............Bel
Title: Re: MONARCHIST versus ROYALIST
Post by: dickie eagle on April 16, 2005, 09:38:13 PM
[quote="Bren?
Ah, so now we know.  I am sure, eventually, the British Monarchy will be only the monarch and direct heirs.
Personally, although I realise the 'royal' business is a bit of an - forgotten the word - in this day and age, I do still feel a strong fondness for the Queen and I love a bit of pomp and pageantry.  I imagine she will be the last of the really royal kind though, don't you?[/quote] Well I prefer a Queen to a President.and Heaven forfend we should have a President , take Bush, (ole mista Dubblyuh himself !), and not B-liar either. The Queen is, as you say an anachromism and only became Queen because her father George VI was called in whe Edward had to abdicateprior to that Edward VII took the throne when Victoria died in spite of not being next in line as he had an older sister (Alice ?) who was the rightful heir to the throne. Wish I could get in on some of those rackets !  Dickie.............
Quote
[/code]