the queen is dead

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I also saw a clip of The Queen and Prince Harry smirking at a video of this fool, who I think was making some kind of sports challenge. They were laughing at this gesture he likes to often make, at public expense since those things cost money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSGBct3RgX0

It's not even real you idiot.

That's not the clip they were smirking at, you moron.

It was another video, a sports challenge and some big lunk behind Barry said "boom," after Barry made his challenge, then Harry, was sitting to the left of the Queen while they looked at a phone video transmission by BO, turned to the camera and simulated the patented Barry mic drop. The Queen looked at Harry, grinned, and mouthed, "Boom," imitating the big lunk.

The queen was far too polite and well brought up to smirk at someone.

It's odd the way Americans never had a clue how to act around her. How hard could it be to not touch another person or invade their personal space? That's pretty basic. Why on earth would Michelle Obama think the queen wants her hand on her back?

[Age]

I have absolutely NO idea WHY the some human being laughed like that, NOR WHY you have NOT seen it 'again', if you really did see 'it' the first time. So, I do NOT know 'why this is so'. Therefore, we do NOT KNOW why 'this' is so.

In fact what is the 'this' word, even in relation to, or referring to, EXACTLY, here?

Eventually all the dots will connect to all the other dots at the same time. Studying each leaf will take you to the essence of the root, glasshopper, but it will take such a long time unless you're already in the home stretch. What to do? Place attention on the root.

So, you are just USELESS and INCAPABLE of just informing 'me' of what the 'this' word here refers to, EXACTLY.

So, let us endeavor to play the ASSUMING game that 'you', adult human beings, so LOVE to play.

If I was to ASSUME that what you are referring to when you say and CLAIM 'you know', 'I know', and therefore 'we ALL supposedly know' WHY "walker" has NOT, again, seen some, could be IMAGINED, film footage, then I, for one anyway, am still at a complete and utter LOSS as to WHY you have NOT again seen 'that footage'.

If you will NOT inform me if this is what you were referring to, but 'it' ACTUALLY IS, then will you explain what the REASON is for you NOT seeing where the queen was SUPPOSEDLY laughing AT something "donald trump" said, or maybe was just laughing AT "donald trump", itself?

After all there is a GREAT DEAL to be laughed AT, in regards to 'that human being'.

[Walker]

The queen was far too polite and well brought up to smirk at someone.

That's true. It was a genuine laugh, and I think she meant no malice.

[Walker]

So, you are just USELESS and INCAPABLE of just informing 'me' of what the 'this' word here refers to, EXACTLY.

You have shamed me. Look away, I am hideous.

[reasonvemotion]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

It would be interesting and amazing if now-King Charles could think & speak with the intellectual freedom of a Jonathan Bowden.
King Charles and the "Firm" have a job to do and get well paid to do it.

reasonvemotion wrote:
Sacrifices have to be made (and in his case I would not say "intellectual" if one has read "the Tampongate Scandal") but there may well be a curb on his freedom.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Could that be called a 'scandal'?

You may have noticed it is in quotes "the Tampongate Scandal" as it came from the source below. They seemed to think the word Scandal was a worthy description.

Esquire
Culture The Crown

What Was the Tampongate Scandal and Why Isn't 'The Crown' Covering It?
Prince Charles's cringeworthy phone call with Camilla Parker-Bowles was exposed through the British tabloids
By Laura Martin
20 Nov 2020

Another snippet from the article.......hilarious

"The Crown is sometimes accused of overly sensationalising the real-life stories of the Royal family, but there’s one famous moment from the 80s that even series writer Peter Morgan chose to steer clear of.

Had Morgan dreamt up the storyline and dialogue of Prince Charles telling his then-mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, that he wished he could be reincarnated as a tampon, so he could live inside her, the audience would have surely deemed it crass and too far-fetched.

But, as we’ve often found out by running to Wikipedia at the end of each episode, the truth is much stranger than fiction. And, absolutely mortifying to all involved, Tampongate was one bloody scandal that rocked British society in January 1993."

[attofishpi]

The queen was far too polite and well brought up to smirk at someone.

It's odd the way Americans never had a clue how to act around her. How hard could it be to not touch another person or invade their personal space? That's pretty basic. Why on earth would Michelle Obama think the queen wants her hand on her back?

The video I saw years ago, and recently aired again of former Oz PM Paul Keating with his arm around her waist, for ages...like she was a silly old woman that needed his guidance...really pissed me off!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The queen was far too polite and well brought up to smirk at someone.

It's odd the way Americans never had a clue how to act around her. How hard could it be to not touch another person or invade their personal space? That's pretty basic. Why on earth would Michelle Obama think the queen wants her hand on her back?

The video I saw years ago, and recently aired again of former Oz PM Paul Keating with his arm around her waist, for ages...like she was a silly old woman that needed his guidance...really pissed me off!

Yes. I remember that. Very patronising.

[attofishpi]

Loving the TV coverage..."We're watching the Beefeaters now, as they march away from the extremely annoying vegans."

[Age]

So, you are just USELESS and INCAPABLE of just informing 'me' of what the 'this' word here refers to, EXACTLY.

You have shamed me. Look away, I am hideous.

And you are STILL just to USELESS and to INCAPABLE of just TELLING us what you, SUPPOSEDLY, 'know', which you CLAIM we ALL 'know' AS WELL.

You STILL have NOT YET CLARIFIED if what you CLAIM here is in relation to the REASON WHY you have NOT seen some 'film footage', which may or may not EVEN EXIST, let alone MOVED ONTO what the REASON is for WHY 'you' have NOT seen 'it' AGAIN. Which you CLAIM we ALL KNOW the reason WHY.

I think the REASON you are NOT OPEN and Honest here is BECAUSE 'you' KNOW that we have absolutely NO idea NOR clue what the reason is WHY you have NOT seen that 'film footage', again.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So, you are just USELESS and INCAPABLE of just informing 'me' of what the 'this' word here refers to, EXACTLY.

You have shamed me. Look away, I am hideous.

And you are STILL just to USELESS and to INCAPABLE of just TELLING us what you, SUPPOSEDLY, 'know', which you CLAIM we ALL 'know' AS WELL.

You STILL have NOT YET CLARIFIED if what you CLAIM here is in relation to the REASON WHY you have NOT seen some 'film footage', which may or may not EVEN EXIST, let alone MOVED ONTO what the REASON is for WHY 'you' have NOT seen 'it' AGAIN. Which you CLAIM we ALL KNOW the reason WHY.

I think the REASON you are NOT OPEN and Honest here is BECAUSE 'you' KNOW that we have absolutely NO idea NOR clue what the reason is WHY you have NOT seen that 'film footage', again.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

It would be interesting and amazing if now-King Charles could think & speak with the intellectual freedom of a Jonathan Bowden.
King Charles and the "Firm" have a job to do and get well paid to do it.

reasonvemotion wrote:
Sacrifices have to be made (and in his case I would not say "intellectual" if one has read "the Tampongate Scandal") but there may well be a curb on his freedom.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Could that be called a 'scandal'?

You may have noticed it is in quotes "the Tampongate Scandal" as it came from the source below. They seemed to think the word Scandal was a worthy description.

Esquire
Culture The Crown

What Was the Tampongate Scandal and Why Isn't 'The Crown' Covering It?
Prince Charles's cringeworthy phone call with Camilla Parker-Bowles was exposed through the British tabloids
By Laura Martin
20 Nov 2020

Another snippet from the article.......hilarious

"The Crown is sometimes accused of overly sensationalising the real-life stories of the Royal family, but there’s one famous moment from the 80s that even series writer Peter Morgan chose to steer clear of.

Had Morgan dreamt up the storyline and dialogue of Prince Charles telling his then-mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, that he wished he could be reincarnated as a tampon, so he could live inside her, the audience would have surely deemed it crass and too far-fetched.

But, as we’ve often found out by running to Wikipedia at the end of each episode, the truth is much stranger than fiction. And, absolutely mortifying to all involved, Tampongate was one bloody scandal that rocked British society in January 1993."

But the thing is, that's not what he said at all. I've heard the recording. In fact he said the OPPOSITE of wanting to be reincarnated as a tampon. It was also a private conversation, illegally recorded. How many private conversations would NOT be embarrassing if broadcast? I suppose the only 'scandal' part is that he was married to Diana at the time.

''CHARLES: Oh, God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!

CAMILLA (laughing): What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? (Both laugh). Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers.

CHARLES: Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)''

I don't understand how that got 'interpreted' as him wanting to be a tampon. Just shows the lack of comprehension skills in the general population.

[attofishpi]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

It would be interesting and amazing if now-King Charles could think & speak with the intellectual freedom of a Jonathan Bowden.
King Charles and the "Firm" have a job to do and get well paid to do it.

reasonvemotion wrote:
Sacrifices have to be made (and in his case I would not say "intellectual" if one has read "the Tampongate Scandal") but there may well be a curb on his freedom.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Could that be called a 'scandal'?

You may have noticed it is in quotes "the Tampongate Scandal" as it came from the source below. They seemed to think the word Scandal was a worthy description.

Esquire
Culture The Crown

What Was the Tampongate Scandal and Why Isn't 'The Crown' Covering It?
Prince Charles's cringeworthy phone call with Camilla Parker-Bowles was exposed through the British tabloids
By Laura Martin
20 Nov 2020

Another snippet from the article.......hilarious

"The Crown is sometimes accused of overly sensationalising the real-life stories of the Royal family, but there’s one famous moment from the 80s that even series writer Peter Morgan chose to steer clear of.

Had Morgan dreamt up the storyline and dialogue of Prince Charles telling his then-mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, that he wished he could be reincarnated as a tampon, so he could live inside her, the audience would have surely deemed it crass and too far-fetched.

But, as we’ve often found out by running to Wikipedia at the end of each episode, the truth is much stranger than fiction. And, absolutely mortifying to all involved, Tampongate was one bloody scandal that rocked British society in January 1993."

But the thing is, that's not what he said at all. I've heard the recording. In fact he said the OPPOSITE of wanting to be reincarnated as a tampon. It was also a private conversation, illegally recorded. How many private conversations would NOT be embarrassing if broadcast? I suppose the only 'scandal' part is that he was married to Diana at the time.

''CHARLES: Oh, God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!

CAMILLA (laughing): What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? (Both laugh). Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers.

CHARLES: Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)''

I don't understand how that got 'interpreted' as him wanting to be a tampon. Just shows the lack of comprehension skills in the general population.

It's deplorable that the general population should be entitled to anyones private conversations (and think they have the right to mock it). To bring it back to a Christ's perspective "He that casts the first stone..."

Fucking ridiculous - like none of have said fucked up shit over the phone!

[promethean75]

https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ ... cult/82101



Yammi tell you why royalty would do this stuff IF they did this stuff? Or course there are religious reasons but those are contingencies... ceremonial sacrifice is done by cultures that have little religious similarity, so the satanism is irrelevant here.

Rather a secret society of people who feel superior to ordinary people have to collectively announce that superiority, symbolically, somehow. The act that would best accomplish this would be one that was the most henious and with the most disregard for the common morality. In commiting such an act together, i.e., the ceremony, the people involved are initiated, made guilty of partaking in the criminal act, and become condemned together through the emancipatory act.


That's really what's driving it. Not all the ritualistic bullshit and the satanic beliefs (which are nonsense). It's a kinky, pseudo-erotic charade - think bohemian grove stuff - where well mannered nobles and wealthy elite get drunk and pretend to be savages for a few hours.

[attofishpi]

https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ ... cult/82101



Yammi tell you why royalty would do this stuff IF they did this stuff? Or course there are religious reasons but those are contingencies... ceremonial sacrifice is done by cultures that have little religious similarity, so the satanism is irrelevant here.

Rather a secret society of people who feel superior to ordinary people have to collectively announce that superiority, symbolically, somehow. The act that would best accomplish this would be one that was the most henious and with the most disregard for the common morality. In commiting such an act together, i.e., the ceremony, the people involved are initiated, made guilty of partaking in the criminal act, and become condemned together through the emancipatory act.


That's really what's driving it. Not all the ritualistic bullshit and the satanic beliefs (which are nonsense). It's a kinky, pseudo-erotic charade - think bohemian grove stuff - where well mannered nobles and wealthy elite get drunk and pretend to be savages for a few hours.

Yep!! This is the tripe that morons that smoke weed all day and the other ones that make web articles with fuck all by way of confirmed facts - spread across this new medium - IT'S CALLED THE INTERNET - where any fucking wanker can create what appears to be concise reasonable accounts of ANYTHING because SAPS smoke weed and think it's the truth and vote for fuckwits like Trump.

I do have a couple of friends that piss me off when they call me from wherever they are intoxicated with their conspiracy shit from. One of themm, just a few weeks ago asked me, "How is it, if there is a vacuum in space that everything is not flying out into space"

Space...the final dyson vacuum cleaner...ffs. Eventually I managed to explain it, not sure he still doesn't believe David Iyke re the Queen is a reptile...but cbf...I am way overdue for new friends (once they get that dooooopid)

[promethean75]

I find it rather odd that a fellow with such beliefs about panpsychic god computers in a cyberdimensional war between good and evil, would find a simple theory about royalty involved in ritual murder to be Incredible.

not sayin' it's true. i highly doubt it's true. im just noting on what basis Christians consider a theory plausible or not.

justifiable true belief is a strangely difficult thing for Christians I've observed.