Alright, he's not the actual heir to the throne, as was the eponymous subject of Shakespeare's play, but he's letting off steam as did the future King henry IV!
tinyurl.com/9kcwrlg
That's really being caught with one's trousers down!
|
I had a foto taken exactly like that 1st one in c1974 but, when they all came back from Boots, that one was missing!
I never did get to the bottom of it.
|
I suspect a lot of middle-aged ladies, who were acquanted with a certain cavalry officer, will be having a look and saying 'well... he's certainly his father's son'...
*mods feel free to delete this thread in case it upsets sensibilities of the royalists, or interferes with what 95% of the world population actually believes regarding parenthood accusations etc etc etc etc.
|
|
Nice friends he's got, selling a picture to the media.
|
>> Nice friends he's got, selling a picture to the media.
>>
Anything for a buck, mark...
And i'm sure he has a fair idea where the pics were taken, and who was present.
maybe he'll get MI5 to bump them off, as Mohamed Fido alleged was the case with ... oh, wait...
|
The same thing always occurs to me when you read "sources close to xxxx said that.....".
Its got to be *****. Surely all celebrities can't have crap mates? So either the celebrity concerned has engineered the "leak" or the paper is lying through their teeth (as if!).
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Sep 12 at 01:39
|
You'd be surprised. Or not.
We often get people phoning with stories/photos - 'how much you going to pay me?'
There's also, obviously, a lot of engineering/pap stuff. Just look at the Sun - their endless pics of pneumatically enhanced bimbettes 'caught on camera in the riviera/jamaica/bognor regis'.
From my experience, celeb visitors to this city come and go as they please, without too much hassle from the press. Unless THEY want it.
Visions of birds with no knickers getting out of cars? Old hat! But for a time it was THE way to get maximum exposure - in more ways than one - to enhance a jaded career.
Like the 'golden' footballer... it is almost as if his fish-faced missus had said ' Oi! you ain't in the papers as much these days - get another stupid tattoo, or a dumbass haircut, or wear a dress or something - we need the publicity!'
|
Do journalists buy newspapers to read themselves?
I remember when I first started in broadcasting I was warned that never again would I beieve anything I saw on the box - rubbish, I thought.
And they were right.
|
For anyone on twitter its worth following @charles_HRH - its a spoof account and very witty.
This afternoons tweet "Text from Prince Harry: "So much for Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas". Awkward."
|
Prince Harry?
Looks more like Prince Willy to me.
|
|
Didn't he prance before in a Nazi uniform? We pay for his antics who cares.
|
|
Partying hard is a Royal Tradition, nothing new.
|
The Royal Household has successfully censored the UK press on the matter. Why ? When the photos are easily accessible on the net with the BBC and DM et all telling people where to look. How dumb do they think their "subjects" are ?
A new take on the King's new clothes tale !
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 07:37
|
>> The Royal Household has successfully censored the UK press on the matter. Why ?
>>
Matter of principle. Photos were taken in private location.
>> the photos are easily accessible on the net with the BBC and DM et all
>> telling people where to look. How dumb do they think their "subjects" are ?
>>
>>
Yes, maybe accessible to the Apple generation.
A large proportion of elderly Royalists do not have access to t'internet (silver non-sulfers).
Photos of William and Kate on a public beach while on honeymoon were on t'internet elsewhere, but UK press did not re-publish them.
Censorship is dead on the internet. For those who want to see anything, however gross or indecent, it can be found on the web. You may risk going to jail for some images, but if you are determined to find it, anything you want can be can be found.
Edit: apparently The Sun has got around the problem by getting actors to pose in a re-enactment.
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/22/the-sun-recreates-harry-pics.html
Last edited by: John H on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 08:10
|
A large proportion of elderly Royalists do not have access to t'internet (silver non-sulfers).
Is a non sulfer someone who thinks the element is bad for you?
|
Let's cut the boy some slack. None of us get long to be young and foolish and this was behind doors he reasonably thought were closed.
Better idea: let's get naked billiards adopted as an Olympic sport. Given that it started among the privileged few, like rowing and riding, it should be a gift to Team GB's medal tally next time round.
|
>> Let's cut the boy some slack. None of us get long to be young and
>> foolish and this was behind doors he reasonably thought were closed.
>>
By many accounts, Harry's antics are doing him no harm in public opinion stakes and may even be getting a positive boost.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 09:38
|
I'll go with that suggestion WdeB!
Pat
|
>> A large proportion of elderly Royalists do not have access to t'internet (silver non-sulfers).
>>
>> Is a non sulfer someone who thinks the element is bad for you?
>>
;-)
American auto-correct must have got in there somehow - the "l" and "r" keys are so far apart that I can't blame it on a typo!.
|
|
Nope - that would have made it 'sulfur'.
|
>> Nope - that would have made it 'sulfur'.
>>
Blame it on lisp?
|
>> The Royal Household has successfully censored the UK press on the matter.
>>
No longer
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19364261
The Sun has published the naked pictures of Prince Harry, making it the first British newspaper to do so.
Owner News International said it was making the move despite warnings from the Royal Family's lawyers that it would be an invasion of his privacy.
The Sun said the images were widely available around the world and its readers had a right to see them.
|
|
One day offer only but I agree with NI and the Sun. Who do they think they are ? They are effectively public property and the public has a right to know etc etc.
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 24 Aug 12 at 07:36
|
>> Partying hard is a Royal Tradition, nothing new.
>>
Yes, and still at our expense. Other publicly funded officials, such as MPs, would probably have to resign because of something like this. But, with the "Royals", we're stuck with paying the blighters to show us up.
Diamond Jubilee - 1952-2012 - 60 years of being better than you.
They continue to take the mick at our expense, and the public lap them up. Staggering.
|
|
Which bit do you think we paid for? The Windsors have enormous private wealth, so unless you take the 'property is theft' view (which is probably worth a thread of its own) it's hard to see that we pay for the royals' private foolishness.
|
|
Made me smile when it was mentioned on the telly the Queen was worth 300 million,more like 300 billion.
|
Private wealth? How did they come by this private wealth? Are they entrepreneurs? Are they CEOs of large conglomerates? Or are they the descendants of warlords, appointed to their wealth, privilege and power under the cover of anointment by "God"?
They have no private wealth. Until such time as I see them down Slough job centre accepting a job there is no method at all by which they will come by their wealth privately. They are public figures, and should be held to account as such.
Besides, if they have such enormous private wealth as you postulate, why do we continue to fund them out of national tax revenues? If pensioners need to be means tested to receive public funding for their care, should this not apply to the royal family?
You think Prince Henry pays his hotel bills out of his own pocket? Do me a favour.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 10:22
|
|
So what statement on that site do you believe to be incorrect?
|
>> So what statement on that site do you believe to be incorrect?
>>
It does not state all the public costs associated with the royals, as per my Telegraph link below. It is economical with the truth, telling only that which suits.
|
>> A real fact. Henry alone (ALONE - one of them) costs us £120m a year
>> in Security costs. Does your website speak of this?
>>
LOL
If that is what you call "real fact", no wonder you are against the Royals.
£329,000 a day to protect "Henry"? (assuming he needs protection 365 days of the year, even while he is on duty surrounded by his Army colleagues).
You gotta be kidding. He He Ha Ha.
I thought you were better informed than some of the rabid republican left wing loonies who rant and rave against the Royals, but now I have seen the "facts" you use to support your views, I am convinced otherwise.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 11:03
|
>> >> A real fact. Henry alone (ALONE - one of them) costs us £120m a
>> year
>> >> in Security costs. Does your website speak of this?
>> >>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> If that is what you call "real fact", no wonder you are against the Royals.
Did you read the Telegraph article? Obviously not. It states it quite clearly and unequivocally therein. From a horse's mouth.
|
>> Did you read the Telegraph article? Obviously not. It states it quite clearly and unequivocally
>> therein. From a horse's mouth.
>>
Oh really? My understanding of English must be poor.
|
My reading of the Telegraph article is that the £120 million is for royal protection, not for Harry alone. I think you may have been misled by the opening sentence of the article.
I can't see any evidence that the trip he was on to Las Vegas was anything other than a holiday which I would expect he paid for himself.
|
"We are paying huge amounts of money for this young man to be followed everywhere he goes by security, which costs so much," Mr Davies told the Telegraph.
"British security costs in excess of £120 million a year"
I don't see him expanding that to cover other roylas, and as you say the opening line indicates that the estimated cost is for Harry alone.
Whether he paid for the holiday himself or not (I can't imagine he did for many, many reasons - if you owned a hotel would you give such a person a freebie and consider it as publicity, for example?), he will not have paid for the security associated. This is out of our pockets, as clearly indicated by the Telegraph, that notorious rabid, loony left wing institution.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 11:19
|
>> This is out of our pockets, as clearly indicated by the Telegraph,
>> that notorious rabid, loony left wing institution.
>>
You would presumably rather leave the royal family unprotected, the security bill is for their protection from terrorists, kidnappers, loonies etc., and is probably, like any other public expense subject to regular review.
|
>> >> A real fact. Henry alone (ALONE - one of them) costs us £120m a
>> year
>> >> in Security costs.
Not actually correct though is it. Mr Davies actually states that the cost of protecting the ENTIRE royal family, not just Harry is £120m per year.
www.entertainmentwise.com/news/85542/Prince-Harry-A-Security-Nightmare-Party-Loving-Royal-Costs-Millions-To-Protect-
|
>> They are public figures, and should be held to account as such.
But that is a job though, isn't it? Not a job I'd fancy, despite the 'perks'.
|
|
You may not fancy it, but others might. Where do they apply? Slough job centre?
|
I did a post here last night saying that after clicking on the OP link, I realised I couldn't be bothered (er, a r s ed) to look at the pix.
That was censored or somehow lost. Why on earth has Alanovic's dreary two-dimensional rationalising been left alone? We've seen all this silly carp before dozens of times.
Alanovic: define a State.
|
>> Alanovic: define a State.
>>
That which I shall be in after three days at Reading Festival this weekend.
|
>> Why on earth has Alanovic's dreary two-dimensional rationalising
Come on then AC, let's have some interesting three-dimensional rationalising from ya.
BTW, I haven't seen these "pix". And I don't want to.
|
>> BTW, I haven't seen these "pix". And I don't want to.
>>
>>
Reminds me of justice in some less liberal countries - condemn someone without looking at the evidence, sorry, "facts".
Last edited by: John H on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 11:07
|
>> Reminds me of justice in some less liberal countries - condemn someone without looking at
>> the evidence, sorry, "facts".
>>
That the best you can do? There exist many picture of naked men on the internet, I am inclined to look at none of them.
You are missing the point entirely.
|
>> You are missing the point entirely.
>>
I don't have to do any better.
You destroyed all credibility for any and all of your arguments as soon as you said you believed in a Tory journo and posted your interpretation that " ... "Henry" alone (ALONE - one of them) costs us £120m a year in Security costs. ... ".
"Gullible" - that would be a compliment.
End of.
|
Oops, yes, I do appear to have got that one wrong in haste.
Still, the £120m is a real public cost, and I don't see it quoted on CGN's official Monarchist website. What other hidden costs to the public purse do they not tell us about I wonder?
End of what?
|
"Still, the £120m is a real public cost, and I don't see it quoted on CGN's official Monarchist website. What other hidden costs to the public purse do they not tell us about I wonder?"
Well you tell us. Presumably your alternative head of state and family will not be protected so will incur no security costs. There are economic benefits provided to the economy in the form of increased tourism arising from an endless fascination by foreigners with the royal family so don't forget to account for those in your profit and loss.
There are of course many reasons to argue for a republic over a monarchy and I am personally inclined to a republic but the cost argument does really fall flat.
|
>> There are economic benefits provided to the economy in the form of increased tourism arising from an endless fascination by foreigners with the royal family
Countries which don't have monarchy often get more tourists. Most tourists will come to UK anyway even if monarchs are not there. How many tourists actually see any royal family members? Tourists are more interested in seeing royal buildings rather than royal family.
PS:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings
Last edited by: movilogo on Thu 23 Aug 12 at 12:46
|
|
Bit of a difficult one the tourism thing, they may well come here because we have a living Royal family. People might go to France because their royal family is a bit of history or it may be a factor in neither countries tourists decision making. It's very hard to make a decision on how much of a factor Royalty is.
|
Seems to me that if your only decision point is cost, then thats a little sad.
I like living in a Monarchy, and I like having a Monarch. I don't know if they're a net cost, nor do I care.
They're part of what makes the country what it is. As are, unfortunately, whinging, whining complaining moaning people who want everything, but will give nothing.
|
>> I like living in a Monarchy,
Why is it that every time something happens involving the Royals, half of Britain has a wobbly, and spews the same BS about the costs etc etc etc, yet everyone else in the world is glued to the telly, going oooh, and aaaah at the pomp and pageantry!
(Admittedly I had a bit of an oooh over pippa's bum, but....)
Same as the negativity of the Olympics, which everyone was moaning and groaning about.
Guess what Britain, you lads put on a good show!
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Sep 12 at 01:39
|
>> >> I like living in a Monarchy,
>>
>>
There was a limerick about King Carol of Rumania and his mistress in the 1930s;
Have you heard about Magda Lupescu:
Who came to Romania's rescue?
It's a wonderful thing
To be under a king —
Is democracy better, I esk you?
King Carol was famously well endowed, requiring his mistress to undergo an accommodating operation.
|
|
With a name like Carol you'd have to be.
|
Yes - I imagine the cost of security for an elected president and his hangers-on is pretty alarming, too. I wonder how much the American President's security costs. Billions of $$$, I guess.
What I object to really, is not so much a Head of State, by inheritance - although I do rather question the need for such any such position - but the thought that "ordinary" folk should grovel and defer to other people simply because of those people's accident of birth.
Why should I bow, or address them as "Your Majesty", "Your Royal Highness", "Your Lordship", et al, thus indicating and accepting a lower status, just because of whom their progenitors were?
|
>> Yes - I imagine the cost of security for an elected president and his hangers-on
>> is pretty alarming, too. I wonder how much the American President's security costs. Billions of
>> $$$, I guess.
>>
>> What I object to really, is not so much a Head of State, by inheritance
>> - although I do rather question the need for such any such position - but
>> the thought that "ordinary" folk should grovel and defer to other people simply because of
>> those people's accident of birth.
>>
>> Why should I bow, or address them as "Your Majesty", "Your Royal Highness", "Your Lordship",
>> et al, thus indicating and accepting a lower status, just because of whom their progenitors
>> were?
>>
>>
>>
Generally speaking it's the post they rather than themselves, but I suppose you don't have to if you don't want.
|
...why do we continue to fund them out of national tax revenues?
If you mean the Civil List, that's intended to cover the expense of official duties, such as parachuting out of a helicopter into the Olympic stadium, and they've taken some big cuts in that recently, and taken some minor royals off the list altogether.
As for where their family wealth came from, how far back do you want to go? The queen hasn't stolen anything; she's merely inherited wealth that arguably was taken by force centuries ago. Should we close down those modern institutions built on the proceeds of the slave trade?
I have a lot of sympathy with your wish for a more egalitarian society, but treating any act by a member of the privileged minority as if they were picking your pocket doesn't do much to advance the case.
|
>> treating any act by a member of the privileged minority as if they were picking
>> your pocket doesn't do much to advance the case.
>>
Er, why? It's a small part of the big picture.
|
Naked Billiards as an Olympic sport sounds more intriguing than Beach Volleyball.
By the way, weren't girl athletes naked in the original Olympics?
|
I was trying to divert Alanovic from putting the world to rights in 10 angry seconds...it didn't work;)
Pat
|
|
All the athletes at the ancient Olympics were naked - and male.
|
|
That's why they didn't have hurdling.
|
|
What about sprint relays? You'd have to be careful passing the baton.
|
|
He is young and having fun, and the press should just leave him alone. It was not like he was caught sticking coke up his nose.
|
Monarchy concept is so archaic in modern era.
|
|
So are lots of things, but not everyone is a logicbot, people like tradition and the familiar.
|
It says in today's DT that his security minders were present in the room but did not intervene as his life was not in danger.
Cue image of two naked policemen, modestly covering themselves with their helmets, with "it's all in a day's work" looks on their faces.
|
|
Time for Alanovic' to take a chill pill. He'll have a heart attack if he continues to worry about other people he perceives as more privileged than he is.
|
|
Alanovic, if you find the Telegraph left wing, with its pro-Royalty, pro-business and pro-rich- and-famous bias, which British journal do you consider to be right wing?
|
>> Alanovic, if you find the Telegraph left wing, with its pro-Royalty, pro-business and pro-rich- and-famous
>> bias, which British journal do you consider to be right wing?
I think he was being sarcastic ie. even the (notoriously right wing) Telegraph is objecting(?) to the fact that we are paying for it.
|
|
I have my own views about the monarchy which I've expressed before. Anti monarchs have been around for a long time, everyone's entitled to their opinion, because we live in a democracy etc. Each to his own belief. I've listened to the pros and cons all my life, I drew my own conclusion a long time ago. The arguments won't and haven't changed but to put some perspective on it. It was summed up to me at the time of the last Queen's speech, there is something very odd about a head of state who arrives at the seat of Government to announce policies of austerity wearing a multi million pound hat....something very odd.
|
>> there is something very odd about a head of state who arrives at the seat of Government to announce policies of austerity wearing a multi million pound hat....something very odd.
Doesn't seem odd to me, but then I'm more used to it than you by a few years Rob. And anyway, what's wrong with 'odd'? Would it seem less odd if the monarch donned a cloth cap to announce the savage pauperization of the working class? Or a jousting helmet perhaps?
I just don't understand why people seem so down on the petty details of monarchy, while spouting generally inaccurate rubbish about how much it costs us and appearing embarrassed by its very existence. Perhaps all you easily-embarrassed people will eventually get your way and we will have a grey, dreary presidency which will cost more and help start the (evidently much desired) slide into some sort of fascism. You'll really love that, won't you? Not our country any more, not our bizarre constitution, not much fun. But you won't be embarrassed any more so that's all right then. Of course you could all sod off and live in some republic better than your own country. There must be lots of those. Off you go.
TCHAH!
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 24 Aug 12 at 13:21
|
>>I think he was being sarcastic ie. even the (notoriously right wing) Telegraph is objecting(?) to the fact that we are paying for it.<<
I have to pay for unelected eurocrats like Barroso and Ashton. I find that far more objectionable since they dont even pay income tax, unlike the Royal Family, but by all means go for the low hanging fruit if you must :-)
|
>> but by all means go for the low hanging fruit if you must :-)
(That was just my interpretation BTW.)
|
Given that the Telegraph, under the ownership of the shadowy Barclay brothers, (yes, I know it was under a previous, less than upright, ownership of one C. Black) by and large, supports today's Cameron- Conservative party, I don't think it can be called right-wing.
|
I understand Prince Harry is in the Army.
How much time does he actually spend at his regiment?
|
|
This being the government that wants to dismantle the NHS - and which has Michael Gove in it? I dread to think what kind of markets-with-everything Rogerocracy you'd prefer, but Cameron's shower are rightwing by any sane definition.
|
>>but Cameron's shower are rightwing by any sane definition.<<
You might have some difficulty convincing his party of that. Liberal mole is a term often used in the same sentance as the Dear Leader.
|
|
It wouldn`t be so bad if we were ruled by a "Monarchy", but we`re not. We are ruled by a bunch of conniving, dishonest cheats and scoundrels, called Parliament! - when was the last time "Her Maj" (or any other Royal) yelled "Orf with his head"?
|
>> when was the last time "Her Maj" (or any other Royal) yelled "Orf with his head"?<<
Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat (a Scot) was the last man to be beheaded in England, on 9 April 1747.
:}
|
|
I commented above about the Telegraph's facsination with the rich and famous. Referring again to the naked billiards, it has on todays' front page "Mr Landon, who is worth more than £200 milllion..." To emphasise the point, it has on page 4 a continuation of the same item with "Mr. Landon, 30, who inherited more than £200 million..." Neither his money nor his age has any relevance to the rest of the item.
|
>> I commented above about the Telegraph's facsination with the rich and famous. Referring again to
>> the naked billiards, it has on todays' front page "Mr Landon, who is worth more
>> than £200 milllion..."
Prince Harry has got his standards right. He's not going to cavort naked with a penniless tramp.
|
>> Telegraph, under the ownership of the shadowy Barclay brothers, (yes, I know it was under a previous, less than upright, ownership of one C. Black) by and large, supports today's Cameron- Conservative party, I don't think it can be called right-wing.
Not a regular reader then Rastaman? I am, and my impression is that the owners and senior management of the Terrorflag can barely contain their hostility to Cameron whom they see as wet, and rather vaingloriously have the same sort of criticisms of the present US president that one hears from the deplorably loopy Republican right.
Of course the editorial staff, below the very top echelon, have much more nuanced, even liberal attitudes to everything. Some carphounds among them, but they range from Catholics to 'out' gays and are much like any other broadsheet staff really. All the broadsheets are shadows of their former selves. As a result general coverage is less right-wing than it was in Bill Deedes's day. He had some right tasty fascizing columnists, at least two of them women.
|
|
I couldn't give a stuff what he does. He's a young bloke having fun and good luck to him. He's also in the public eye and as such needs to accept that there will be those with nothing better to do or with a personal financial reward agenda who will use his fame and status to further their own ends. 'twas ever thus. Big deal. Next question?
|
|
Welcome back, Humph. Been away?
|
No sadly, just been working more hours than a herd of junior doctors recently. Today is my first "day off" including weekends for 3 weeks. Anyone got a violin?
:-)
|
>> just been working more hours than a herd of junior doctors recently.<<
Thought you'd gone train-spotting with Zero...
|
A couple of weeks after embarrassing the Royal family with his Vegas pictures, Prince Harry has been deployed to Afghanistan.
Nice one Philip, that'll look a bit less suspicious than another car crash.
|
Prince Hal! - Dog
