wolfie Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 I didn't realise the word "we" was reserved for royalty. Pathetic again. That's no way to talk about our Royal family asp. the royal we Pronoun used by royalty to indicate that they represent both the body natural and the body politic*. Thus, the usage of the personal pronoun 'we'. *the collective body of a nation or state as politically organized with the king/queen being viewed as the head, the peasantry being viewed as the legs etc. "We are not amused". Queen Victoria The royal we The We is the King or Queen and God. It was originally in recognition that royalty derives its power from appointment by God. "We are not amused." The King (or Queen) is acting as Gods representative on Earth and is letting the recipent know that neither of them are amused. the royal we And finally there is Cleo's version A way of saying "I" when you feel like sounding schitzophrenic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 the royal we And finally there is Cleo's version A way of saying "I" when you feel like sounding schitzophrenic I laughed so much tears ran down my legs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 I'm surprised you don't criticise her for her dress sense and choice of handbag while your about it. As I said - pathetic and childish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 I'm surprised you don't criticise her for her dress sense and choice of handbag while your about it. As I said - pathetic and childish. Totally forgot about that, but tell me, why is it pathetic and childish to criticise Thatcher? . Or is it more that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is childish and pathetic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 The one thing I thought about Mrs T is that she always dressed immaculately and smartly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 Wolfie, there is nothing wrong with criticising a politician on their policies or viewpoint if you disagree with them. But to criticise them on the way they speak is, to be frank, childish and pathetic. As for Mrs Thatcher, I find the cult of hatred against her to be completely over the top. I have to wonder what the state of the country today would be if she had never existed and we had carried on as a country the way we were. Does nobody remember the 3 day week? Neighbourhoods having to have meetings to discuss what actions to take in case of a house fire during the firemen's strike? I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 I think you are losing the plot asp to get so uptight over a simple comment that Thatcher saw herself as Royalty by using the same language as the Queen would. It was headline news at the time, and weren't your 'childish & pathetic' remarks made before I quoted her of using the Royal 'we'? btw. I had already agreed with you that the unions had become too strong, but I forgot that you couldn't be arsed reading that. the unions had grown too strong but the Miner’s Strike was bloody, divisive and ultimately wrecked many communities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 With hindsight , my view of Mrs Thatcher is that, rather than being so much a political manoeuvre, the crushing of the unions became too much of a personal vendetta & apparently if the warning signs had been heeded then the Falklands war could have been avoided.As it turned out the Falklands worked out ok for Thatcher but it could easily have blown up in her face.In a way the war was useful in that it provided an insight into modern warfare with missiles & it showed just how limited our defensive capability was at the time in terms of the ability of naval ships to stand up to missile attack.The shortcomings of our merchant fleet were also highlighted & if a similar situation occurred today we would be in dire straits with the state of today's merchant fleet. As for the unions...yes they were definitely too strong & needed curbing but as a result today there is very little employee protection in the workplace &, as anti European as i am , i hate to say that worker protection today comes only from the Working Time Directive & oppressive H & S laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 The airport in Stanley is more than capable of supporting huge Jumbo sized cargo and troop planes - which we still have a fair few, plus the defenses around the airport and islands in general would be enough to put off or hold up a fairly massive attack force before being over-run.... more than enough time to transport troops and equipment needed. The Argie scum would have to have a pretty sizeable force build up in order to launch an attack and our satellite capability is more than adequate to spot any build up of the size required.... Plus the new HMS Daring and a few submarines would scupper a few of their ships before they got anywhere near the danger zone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 I read a defence review recently which said that the Argentinian military is in a lot worse condition than it was in 1982 with outdated planes and ships, and a demoralised conscript army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Thought we were talking about the Wicked Witch 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Harriet Harperson? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Well, there was an interesting prog on TV about the Falklands War; and it seems it was a close run thing, a lot closer than we realised at the time. The only way to protect overseas interests, is to retain the ability to project air & sea power to the point of conflict, so making our servicemen redundant and not having a carrier, would seem rather irresponsible in respect of a rematch with the Argies. As for Maggie, as much as I may despise her; she was decisive (unlike most politicians), a trait required at the time of the War; and unlike Bliar Wars, a defence of British territory, not an invasion of others. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 It remains a fact, that when she breaths her last, their will be more people glad or indifferent to her passing, than people like Asp, who will be in tears. And their will be trouble if they try to give her any kind of state sponsored funeral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 She WILL be given a state funeral. Of that you can be sure. But let the woman die first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Just because the Mail has been advocating that she should have, does not make it so, but if she does their will be trouble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 It seems now that Jimmy Savile was a good friend of Margaret Thatcher.Just when we thought his reputation couldnt get any worse.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 It seems that Savile was friends with a lot of people in high places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Especially High Schools ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Just because the Mail has been advocating that she should have, does not make it so, but if she does their will be trouble Has the Mail really advocated a state funeral for her or is that just something you are guessing? Why will there be trouble? You know what kije....? You remind me of when I was my papa's little princess and if I was about to do something wrong, momma would tell me, "There will be trouble if you do!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Yes the Mail has!!!!! As too your other comments, You should have listened to your Papa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Momma, dear, not papa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Either or makes no difference to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Good. I would hate to think I caused you any sleepless nights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.