Duke of Edinburgh dies

[Elwood Blues]

Going back to my post about the miracle of Royals knowing how to cook things on a barbecue and the lunacy of people complaining about a complaints procedure because it was too easy, it was posted as a joke and so I was taken aback, not annoyed, by your first reply because you had misjudged my motive in posting it.

My first reply was based on my assumption that you seemed to want to argue with what I said just for the sake of it, but it seems I was wrong in that judgement, you were being serious. I apologise for my last sentence, but I still was a bit gobsmacked at your willingness to continue things when I was struggling to see what the "argument" was supposed to be about - the message that, apparently, got you upset, was meant to reflect my incredulity as much as anything.

The way you argue in favour of Prince Philip suggests you think that I dislike him. I can understand that to a degree, but I don't think you'll find anything in this thread, or others, from me to that effect. I'm anti Royalists, but not because I hate them as individuals (well, apart from Prince Andrew who I've never liked), it's just that they don't interest me in the slightest as people.

I actually think that, if we have to have a monarch, then the Queen has been a good one, but to illustrate my level of disinterest in them, I don't know if Andrew and Anne have remarried, I don't know which one is which with William and Harry, I have no clue as to the name of any of the Queen's other grandchildren apart from Zara Phillips who, i believe once won Sports Personality of the Year for some reason.

As for your "forelock tugging", I can only go by what you write on here and in the last day in your efforts to defend the principle of Royalty, you've denounced Republicanism and appeared to say that you're in favour of the class system. Also, in your seeming determination to portray the population of this country as staunch Royalists, you've now gone to what seems to me to be extreme lengths of quoting You Tube watches back at me. I agree that 8 million extra UK watchers who have looked at the video on You Tube because they missed the funeral live for whatever reason would be impressive, but we both know it's not that don't we. Unless I'm very much mistaken that 8 million is a worldwide figure and I daresay it includes a fair proportion of people who watched the whole thing live on telly as well - the same applies to viewings on things like IPlayer and the ITV Hub.

Based on the last paragraph, I think "forelock tugging" is justified.

I apologise for taking so long to respond to this Bob.

As I pointed out in another thread I have been unwell recently (in fact for
over a week but the antibiotics I am taking for a nasty leg infection seem to have helped the problem but have caused their own problems in particular chronic indigestion which has mad me rather grumpy and was particularly bad in the last couple of days - and I am only halfway through the course!!).

This meant that a couple of responses of mine were slightly intemperate. If so I also apologise but I still think I was making some valid comments if in one case, (my point about the 100 who complained about BBC's complaints procedure) was in retrospect an example of angels dancing on the head of a pin!

To discuss these previous points any further would probably lead to Line of Duty scales of confusion and I would have drawn a line under this now

Except that you then again raise the canard of my being a "forelock tugger" again.

With flimsy evidence to go on.

Denounced republicanism?? Rubbish. I did point out that Republics don't always work and that the amount of poor ones probably outweigh the decent ones. I also said

"It(a republic) may well happen one day. Not in my lifetime ( I am 67).And it may all go very well.
But it will not necessarily be the Utopia that some looking forward to"

Nothing denouncing republicanism there. The theory is one I agree with. It's the implementation that often causes the problems.

As for staunch royalist - you seem to have missed this from my earlier post

"However I am not ( despite what you seem to have picked up from somewhere???) an unconditional monarchist. Even though Philip modernised them, they may still need to take a hard look at themselves when the Queen passes away. Not a republic in my view but certainly a streamlining - do they really need so many houses????"

I mean to add " at this time" after republic and "and some of the other trappings of royalty" after houses. Even so I am barely giving royalty a ringing endorsement here am i?

Then there is my "seeming determination to portray the population as staunch royalists". and "extreme lengths"(?) in quoting Youtube figures. Actually I was being a bit mischievous, because I am well aware that Youtube represents world wide figures and that some people will have watched it again on there and on Iplayer and ITV hub. Nonetheless some extra will have watched at least some of it for the first time on those platforms or on the multifarious news broadcasts but whether they were royalists or not I couldn't really care, I wasn't trying to make a point just being a bit pedantic. I really wasn't trying to make a royalist or republican post. I meant to get rid of the last sentence about perspective on reflection but I was too late and missed the edit window.

If you can point to anything I wrote as being a republican denouncer or staunch royalist please point it out.

Based on what I have just said calling me a "forelock tugger " is, to quote Jim Hacker a load of round objects.

[the other bob wilson]

I apologise for taking so long to respond to this Bob.

As I pointed out in another thread I have been unwell recently (in fact for
over a week but the antibiotics I am taking for a nasty leg infection seem to have helped the problem but have caused their own problems in particular chronic indigestion which has mad me rather grumpy and was particularly bad in the last couple of days - and I am only halfway through the course!!).

This meant that a couple of responses of mine were slightly intemperate. If so I also apologise but I still think I was making some valid comments if in one case, (my point about the 100 who complained about BBC's complaints procedure) was in retrospect an example of angels dancing on the head of a pin!

To discuss these previous points any further would probably lead to Line of Duty scales of confusion and I would have drawn a line under this now

Except that you then again raise the canard of my being a "forelock tugger" again.

With flimsy evidence to go on.

Denounced republicanism?? Rubbish. I did point out that Republics don't always work and that the amount of poor ones probably outweigh the decent ones. I also said

"It(a republic) may well happen one day. Not in my lifetime ( I am 67).And it may all go very well.
But it will not necessarily be the Utopia that some looking forward to"

Nothing denouncing republicanism there. The theory is one I agree with. It's the implementation that often causes the problems.

As for staunch royalist - you seem to have missed this from my earlier post

"However I am not ( despite what you seem to have picked up from somewhere???) an unconditional monarchist. Even though Philip modernised them, they may still need to take a hard look at themselves when the Queen passes away. Not a republic in my view but certainly a streamlining - do they really need so many houses????"

I mean to add " at this time" after republic and "and some of the other trappings of royalty" after houses. Even so I am barely giving royalty a ringing endorsement here am i?

Then there is my "seeming determination to portray the population as staunch royalists". and "extreme lengths"(?) in quoting Youtube figures. Actually I was being a bit mischievous, because I am well aware that Youtube represents world wide figures and that some people will have watched it again on there and on Iplayer and ITV hub. Nonetheless some extra will have watched at least some of it for the first time on those platforms or on the multifarious news broadcasts but whether they were royalists or not I couldn't really care, I wasn't trying to make a point just being a bit pedantic. I really wasn't trying to make a royalist or republican post. I meant to get rid of the last sentence about perspective on reflection but I was too late and missed the edit window.

If you can point to anything I wrote as being a republican denouncer or staunch royalist please point it out.

Based on what I have just said calling me a "forelock tugger " is, to quote Jim Hacker a load of round objects.

Although I'm not totally succeeding, I'm trying to cut down on my political posts on here, so I'm going to leave this conversation now Elwood - we're just going around in circles.

Glad to hear you're feeling better now.

[Elwood Blues]

Although I'm not totally succeeding, I'm trying to cut down on my political posts on here, so I'm going to leave this conversation now Elwood - we're just going around in circles.

Glad to hear you're feeling better now.

Thank you for your good wishes Bob

I'm not sure we are going round in circles. I wasn't expecting a long answer, just an acknowledgement that the "Forelock Tugger" was unjustified. I don't think you would like it if a disparaging term like that was used unfairly. - My post would have relatively brief and brought this thread to a natural end if it hadn't been for this