No Show..

JohnC6

JohnC6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,799
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Here are the names of top artists who have declined an invitation from the Palace to perform at the forthcoming coronation.

Kylie Minogue ..citing growing Australian republican sentiment but wished Charles well.

Elton John. I do wonder if it's because of his well-documented friendship with Diana and he played his version of 'Candle in the Wind' at her funeral . He said this of Diane in his autobiography "

"Over the years I knew her, she was fabulous company, the best dinner party guest, incredibly indiscreet, a real gossip: you could ask her anything and she'd tell you". He is also good friends with Harry and Meghan who said this re Elton John's farewell tour. "“Hi Elton! We just want to say congratulations We are just so proud of you and grateful that we were able to see you on your farewell tour.” Also,Elton John rescheduled two of his Las Vegas concerts to perform at the lunchtine reception for Harry and Meghan's wedding.

Also declining an invitation are...

The Spice Girls (they had/have a close relationship with Harry).

Harry Styles..an old friend of Prince Harry before Harry met Meghan.

The last three, Elton John...The Spice Girls and Harry Styles cited 'a busy schedule' as the reason for declining the invitation .

Adele...has a strong friendship with Meghan Markle.

Ed Sheeran... maybe he really is too busy.

I expect Brian May will be there as he's just been knighted and by Charles and they'll probably ask if he wouldn't mind bringing along his guitar... :D
 
All maybe doing Charles a favour...

the only one I have time for is Sir Brian...
 
Elton John is on his Farewell Tour in Germany.

I think the dates for this have been set since before the Queen died.
 
There does seem to be an increasing amount of "not my king" posts around social media.
When he came to MK recently, and it might have just been the camera angles, there seemed to be equal amounts of protesters and well wishers.

It seems to me that the monarchy pretty much ended ( is ending) with Queen Elizabeth II
 
Cobra said:
It seems to me that the monarchy pretty much ended ( is ending) with Queen Elizabeth II
Click to expand...
I'm no monarchist but I'm not sure of what we can replace it with - presidents, on the whole, have a record just as bad as royalty. :(
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm no monarchist but I'm not sure of what we can replace it with - presidents, on the whole, have a record just as bad as royalty. :(
Click to expand...
I'm not a royalist either, but for now its better than the possible alternatives.
 
Dale. said:
Still waiting on my invite.
Click to expand...
I have it on good authority that HRH is a member here, just tell him you are "staff" and you'll get in (y)

:D
 
Just tell 'em you're 'Arry's candyman...
 
My personal thought is Charles is not well liked by the general public due to Diana - tree hugging — big ears .. camilla etc if he had decided to step aside and let William and Kate become king and queen then it would have been a popular move all round .
There are to many unanswered questions hanging over Charlie boys head
 
Cobra said:
There does seem to be an increasing amount of "not my king" posts around social media.
When he came to MK recently, and it might have just been the camera angles, there seemed to be equal amounts of protesters and well wishers.

It seems to me that the monarchy pretty much ended ( is ending) with Queen Elizabeth II
Click to expand...

They have too much to lose to allow that to happen tbh. Charles is giving a nod in that directioin by 'slimming down' the monarchy. By the way..Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has just inherited from the Queen, although he has volunteered to follow the Queen' own decision to pay income tax. Very decent of him to do that.. :rolleyes:

Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% taxation rate applied to assets valued at more than £325,000. Do you recall that Charles, back in January, publicly, via a Palace spokesperson, agreed to return excess revenues generated by the Crown Estate's wind farm investments which amounted to a million pounds to the Treasury (Exchequer) It was a con, really because back in the days of yore Crown Estates surpluses were given to the Treasury in return for a fixed payment which these days is part of the sovereign grant to cover royal households official operating expenses so these surplus revenues weren't Charles's to give to the Exchequer anyway. The Estates give the surplus to the Exchequer who gives it to the royal hopusehold in the form of that sovereign grant.It was just a cynical PR exercise. in which they wanted to have parliament and the public believe that the sovereign grant was paid for out of the monarchy's own income rather than taxation. I keep an eye on these matters :D In 2011 a scheme was devised under which the sovereign grant would be presented as a set percentage of ther Crown Estate surplus. That's a con,too because some years more funding to allocate to Crown properties than others. I'm thinking of the 'Great fire of Windsor'..1992. Infact John Major told the Queen we..the 'hard-working' public would foot the bill for the renovation of Windsor castle. You may recall that there was such a public outcry that the Queen ended up paying for it herself. . 1992 was described by the Queen as an "annus horibbilis" Just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong. The marriages of three of her four children ended, the publication of a 'spicy' book and leaked phone conversations from Princess Diana and Prince Charles to their lovers—known as the “Squidgygate Tapes” and “Camillagate,” respectively not to forget a photo of Fergie having her feet kissed by her lover...lol. You couldn't make it up.

Just another couple of quickies. A law came in a few years ago in Scotland that required landowners to allow pipework to cross their land. Eg In Scotland a small number of houses were being built on the land of the Balmoral Estate to deliver hydrogen for heating. It was a 'green' initiative. The Queen did not want to be in a position that 'required' her to give permission. She may well have given it voluntarily but didn't want to be required to do so . To that end she managed to get the SNP to exclude Crown land.

Charles got wind of new legislatiuon that required..they hate that term..lol..landlords to allow tenants to buy their property. Charles immediately saw the likelihood of diminishing rents returns from his Duchy of Cornwall homes so he went to his mom and when she perused this law, as is the norm before it's given Royal assent and enacted she 'suggested' ,once again, that Crown properties were exempt. Bingo. Job done. That was the doing of John Major's government.

Whilst we're talking about them. .I have to say that I'm quite annoyed and fed up (with the manipulation) at the incessant coverage that William and Kate are getting these days .I call it 'brainwashing, indoctrination even . It's almost on a daily basis. Opening this, visiting that and when there are no events like that the Palace PR team generate something like photos of them or the children....anything to keep them in the public eye..like this just two days ago https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...day-school.html?ico=topics_pagination_desktop

In the interests of fairness I have to declare that I'm not a Royalist :D
 
the black fox said:
if he had decided to step aside and let William and Kate become king and queen then it would have been a popular move all round .
Click to expand...
Harry & Meghan would have been much more fun though :D

JohnC6 said:
Yes,but at least we can vote out a president ...:)
Click to expand...
Unless they are as slippery as BoJo who then decrees they can't be voted out.
or like sleepy Joe and rigs the election, <Controversial> :D
 
Cobra said:
Harry & Meghan would have been much more narcissistic though :D


Unless they are as slippery as BoJo who then decrees they can't be voted out.
or like sleepy Joe and rigs the election, <Controversial> :D
Click to expand...

FTFY. ;)

I quite get that old money gets up the noses of republican folks, and on that basis alone the monarchy are worth keeping. :ROFLMAO:
 
Perhaps we could make everyone happy by offering Charles a really good deal: he hands over all the palaces and estates and goes to live, rent free, in a house in a Midlands town - we don't stage a live repeat of events in 1649... :naughty: :exit:
 
Cobra said:
There does seem to be an increasing amount of "not my king" posts around social media.
When he came to MK recently, and it might have just been the camera angles, there seemed to be equal amounts of protesters and well wishers.

It seems to me that the monarchy pretty much ended ( is ending) with Queen Elizabeth II
Click to expand...

No man is better than me or should hold themselves above me by accident of birth or because his ancient ancestors were good at stealing land.
 
the black fox said:
My personal thought is Charles is not well liked by the general public due to Diana - tree hugging — big ears .. camilla etc if he had decided to step aside and let William and Kate become king and queen then it would have been a popular move all round .
There are to many unanswered questions hanging over Charlie boys head
Click to expand...
I am not sure why Charles is not so well liked but I agree that it would have been best for Charles to step aside and let William and Kate take over. The last thing we need is a president. My Wife was invited to the Palace for a Royal Garden party with the Queen and my Daughter received her Duke of Edinburgh's Gold from William though the Duke was present. They found it a great experience and really felt rewarded. Receiving an Award from President Blair or Johnson would feel like an insult rather than an award. While it is hard to logically state why this particular family should be Royal, it is the fact that they are not politicians which is the real advantage. Could we elect non-politicians for President; it wont happen as the political parties jump in. It was intended that Police Commissioners would be non-political and the first one in my area was but then the parties moved in and politics took over again.

Dave
 
Steep said:
No man is better than me or should hold themselves above me by accident of birth or because his ancient ancestors were good at stealing land.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

The very strange thing is that both the American and French revolutions were ostensibly staged to achieve that state in government. Yet, within a few years of their success, both countries created hierarchies as pronounced as the royals that the revolutions had set out to banish! :thinking:
 
Dave Canon said:
I am not sure why Charles is not so well liked but I agree that it would have been best for Charles to step aside and let William and Kate take over. The last thing we need is a president. My Wife was invited to the Palace for a Royal Garden party with the Queen and my Daughter received her Duke of Edinburgh's Gold from William though the Duke was present. They found it a great experience and really felt rewarded. Receiving an Award from President Blair or Johnson would feel like an insult rather than an award. While it is hard to logically state why this particular family should be Royal, it is the fact that they are not politicians which is the real advantage. Could we elect non-politicians for President; it wont happen as the political parties jump in. It was intended that Police Commissioners would be non-political and the first one in my area was but then the parties moved in and politics took over again.

Dave
Click to expand...
Yes PCCs are a good example. The problem is that only the political parties have the backup to properly camapign in an election, and the Independent PCC candidates just weren‘t able to compete.

Now PCC elections are just another ridiculous slugfest of Party versus Party. Ideology versus Ideology, and pragmatism out the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top