ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Man, look at that totally informal reply. Sheesh.
Cras wrote:
TheFireFaerie wrote:
Not really... it is her name! If I got married I wouldn't want them to say Kat at the ceremony, for example.
Whereas I was grinding my teeth at the fact they insisted on calling me Nicholas (given that, as previously discussed, that only gets used when I'm being sent to the naughty step
). I should get it changed officially, really.But then how would your mummy tell you off?!
Not even my mother calls me Nicholas!
Cras wrote:
Not even my mother calls me Nicholas!
Mine does
You mother calls me what I tell her to call me.
Cras wrote:
You mother calls me what I tell her to call me.
Your mother won't stop calling me.
That's because you didn't pay her.
Cras wrote:
That's because you didn't pay her.
I paid her what it was worth
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
In all of my work emails I'm strictly formal. Every email begins with a 'Dear' and ends in a 'Best', or 'Regards'. I never break from this.
Dear ElephantBanjoGnome,
Signing off by just writing 'best' is not acceptable.
Best.
See? It looks odd; like you forgot to write 'wishes'.
With kind regards
Ian
Cras wrote:
The fact that Kate Middleton became Duchess Catherine infuriates me. If she wanted to be called Catherine she wouldn't have spent 20-odd years getting people to call her Kate.
Incidentally, I knew a Kate Middleton at university 10 years ago.
I was very disappointed when I discovered that Prince Whatever wasn't marrying that Kate Middleton, but some other random with the same name.
Kern wrote:
I think you'll find it's spelt Kaiser
Kern wrote:
It might still be a queen.
We won't know for a while!
Blimey! You could have made a fortune on that. Bookies were absolutely sure it was a girl!
I can't believe that even an unborn foetus knows that the bet thing to do is troll David Cameron.
So, I guess the only question now is whether they go for Agamemnon or Richard Gaywood.
Or 'Boomfang'
They should call the baby boy 'Stark'.
Nothing ever goes wrong for noble families called Stark.
Nothing ever goes wrong for noble families called Stark.
cras wrote:
Whereas I was grinding my teeth at the fact they insisted on calling me Nicholas (given that, as previously discussed, that only gets used when I'm being sent to the naughty step ). I should get it changed officially, really.
hooray! Now I don't need to reply! ). I should get it changed officially, really.
They have to call the boy Titus. There's no other option.
Damnitt, it's an awesome name - from Northern Victorian-Era social-engineering Industrialists (Titus Salt) to rebellious heirs refusing to shoulder the burden of the throne of a mad, hidebound, ritualistic dynasty (Titus Groan) through to blood soaked Shakespearan Roman General who through an absurdly gory revenge plot ends up being involved in the deaths of pretty much everyone around him in a series of improbably increasingly gory ways - from slitting throats to baking people in pies (Titus Andronicus).
Yep, no doubt about it. The name Titus rocks.
I imagine the Royal Birth was something like this - one minute onwards.
Damnitt, it's an awesome name - from Northern Victorian-Era social-engineering Industrialists (Titus Salt) to rebellious heirs refusing to shoulder the burden of the throne of a mad, hidebound, ritualistic dynasty (Titus Groan) through to blood soaked Shakespearan Roman General who through an absurdly gory revenge plot ends up being involved in the deaths of pretty much everyone around him in a series of improbably increasingly gory ways - from slitting throats to baking people in pies (Titus Andronicus).
Yep, no doubt about it. The name Titus rocks.
I imagine the Royal Birth was something like this - one minute onwards.
They're going to call it Ross.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Awesome.
MissChap has just been in tears shouting at me because I wouldn't sit on the sofa with her and watch news coverage of the damn thing.
So fuck you, Prince Cambridge.
So fuck you, Prince Cambridge.
Mr Dave wrote:
They're going to call it Ross.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Yes.. They should.
GazChap wrote:
MissChap has just been in tears shouting at me because I wouldn't sit on the sofa with her and watch news coverage of the damn thing.
So fudge you, Prince Cambridge.
So fudge you, Prince Cambridge.
Instadumpworthy.
My life feels that bit emptier now that the ROYAL FUTURE KING TO BE has arrived. I don't have that feeling of antcipation. if anything, I'm a little let down.
There's the naming, the christening, the first day of school, theOHGODKILLMENOW
And then the BIG ROYAL WEDDING.
Or even the BIG FABULOUS GAY ROYAL WEDDING.
Or even the BIG FABULOUS GAY ROYAL WEDDING.
MaliA wrote:
My life feels that bit emptier now that the ROYAL FUTURE KING TO BE has arrived. I don't have that feeling of antcipation. if anything, I'm a little let down.
You don't feel anticipation? They haven't yet presented the half man half unicorn baby and you're not excited?
Everyone knows it'll be a being of pure energy, the next stage of human evolution, here to lead us to ever-higher levels of enlightenment.
I was going to comment last night, but didn't have the energy to type a lengthy post on a tablet, and now don't have the energy to do anything... but...
Did anyone see Newsnight last night? Any views on the opinions expressed by the republican woman?
Did anyone see Newsnight last night? Any views on the opinions expressed by the republican woman?
What were said views?
Curiosity wrote:
What were said views?
I'm guessing anti-abortion, small government, low taxes, etc.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
I was going to comment last night, but didn't have the energy to type a lengthy post on a tablet, and now don't have the energy to do anything... but...
Did anyone see Newsnight last night? Any views on the opinions expressed by the republican woman?
Did anyone see Newsnight last night? Any views on the opinions expressed by the republican woman?
My only view was how dull and inane her views were articulated...they really need to get some peeps with a bit of pep and most importantly a sense of humour.
The more interesting points came from the Editor of Vanity Fair whose point could be summarised as "The US is interested in your Royal Family as they provide an ongoing soap opera", which of course the dozy republican woman didn't pick up on.
In the end though, it's been my belief for years that it won't be a wave of republicanism that will remove the royal family in this country but the royal family and it's supporters that will destroy the monarchy in the this country probably following some ridiculous crisis in the future...or summat.
SilentElk wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
What were said views?
I'm guessing anti-abortion, small government, low taxes, etc.
Soundly struck, sir. Bravo.
Curiosity wrote:
What were said views?
A lot of stuff. But the key takeaway was that we should scrap the monarchy for the following reasons.
"This baby means that we'll have no female monarch for 90 years and is hence sexist" (it was then pointed out to her that we've had only a queen for 61 years but this was unimportant).
"This baby casts into stark daylight the fact that it is highly unlikely that we'll have a black or asian king, or a gay one for that matter in our lifetimes."
I'm very much in favour of no discrimination or equal opportunities, indeed I've long argued that women should be treated as if they are equal, but this did seem like crowbarring equal rights in to justify her cause, as she had few other anti monarchy views to express. Indeed this was shown up when one of the other panellists said that the reason British people like the monarchy is that it prevents circumstances like 'President Blair' and she then went off into a long rant saying that President Blair would not happen, as people don't like him now and wouldn't vote him in. I believe that the interview was conducted in London, and that relative to her, the President Blair point must have passed by somewhere north of Glasgow.
I was previously no ardent monarchist or republican, but this discussion had me siding for the rest of my life with the simpering cunt that was the BBC royal watcher correspondent. That takes some doing.
There was also, apparently, some suggestion by her that if we must have a monarchy, then we should choose him like they choose the Dalai Lama. I was ramming a cleaver into my face at this point however so missed it.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
"This baby casts into stark daylight the fact that it is highly unlikely that we'll have a black or asian king, or a gay one for that matter in our lifetimes."
Christ, her Gaydar must be superb.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
What were said views?
A lot of stuff. But the key takeaway was that we should scrap the monarchy for the following reasons.
"This baby means that we'll have no female monarch for 90 years and is hence sexist" (it was then pointed out to her that we've had only a queen for 61 years but this was unimportant).
"This baby casts into stark daylight the fact that it is highly unlikely that we'll have a black or asian king, or a gay one for that matter in our lifetimes."
I'm very much in favour of no discrimination or equal opportunities, indeed I've long argued that women should be treated as if they are equal, but this did seem like crowbarring equal rights in to justify her cause, as she had few other anti monarchy views to express. Indeed this was shown up when one of the other panellists said that the reason British people like the monarchy is that it prevents circumstances like 'President Blair' and she then went off into a long rant saying that President Blair would not happen, as people don't like him now and wouldn't vote him in. I believe that the interview was conducted in London, and that relative to her, the President Blair point must have passed by somewhere north of Glasgow.
I was previously no ardent monarchist or republican, but this discussion had me siding for the rest of my life with the simpering cunt that was the BBC royal watcher correspondent. That takes some doing.
There was also, apparently, some suggestion by her that if we must have a monarchy, then we should choose him like they choose the Dalai Lama. I was ramming a cleaver into my face at this point however so missed it.
Superb. That left leaning BBC, eh?
Yes, it's a load of nonsense, and as a republican I think we'd be better off without them. But, barring some kind of 'To Play the King' style constitutional crisis where the monarch enters politics, it's the kind of issue I'd only get round to dealing with in my 6th term as Prime Minister, once I'd solved the more pressing problems facing the realm.
Although, if asked what to replace them with, I don't think there's anything in their duties which the Speaker couldn't do in his spare time. Or have a quiet and forgettable figurehead, like the German president. Not keen on presidentialism; parliamentary government = best government. At least today.
Although, if asked what to replace them with, I don't think there's anything in their duties which the Speaker couldn't do in his spare time. Or have a quiet and forgettable figurehead, like the German president. Not keen on presidentialism; parliamentary government = best government. At least today.
She also implied that there were no crowds at the Palace yesterday and that there was no proof that tourists came to London to see the Royal Family!
Malc
Malc
ROYAL BABY IS HERE HOW CAN SHE NOT BE HAPPY????!?!???
Anyone win a penny?
Kern wrote:
Anyone win a penny?
Radio 4 said this morning there were 2,600 other people born yesterday. Then there was some discussion about names. I had a shower after that.
Malc wrote:
She also implied that there were no crowds at the Palace yesterday and that there was no proof that tourists came to London to see the Royal Family!
Malc
Malc
She's obviously never tried to walk past Buckingham palace during the changing of the guard. It's like a tourist maze.
Kern wrote:
Or have a quiet and forgettable figurehead, like the German president. Not keen on presidentialism; parliamentary government = best government.
Parliamentary republics FTW.
All the greatest countries are parliamentary republics (e.g. Germany).
Page 10 of 21 [ 1043 posts ]