Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 7:07 AM   
 By:   Thomas   (Member)

Everyone saw those little fingers sort of waving over the edge of his blanket, but did you notice that the little imp shot the finger at everybody? I haven't seen any of the talk shows pick up on that (thought sure Jon Stewart would catch it) but there it was, clear as day for all the world to see, if they were paying attention.

Jon Stewart is on holiday. John Oliver has been guest host since June...

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 8:10 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

It's important because it will be part of history in 400 years time. If you don't know who Henry VIII was married to, and how his children (Henry the 9th and then the 10th) came to power, you are extremely ignorant of British history and the shaping of its culture. So if in 400 years time people don't know that Harry and Katy had a Boy George, then they will be deemed nincompoops.

I don't know anything about that stuff and don't give a hoot. I don't care if I'm a nincompoop because of my ignorance. I think you are joking about Henry the 9th and 10th. Not sure though.

As for the current lot, I mean - what's the attraction? I genuinely can't find or feign the slightest scintilla of interest in the Royal Family.

Still, if it keeps the tourists coming ...



Total agree, it could not be less relevant these days. Perhaps it WAS important in history, that does not mean the current royal family is important, because it is a mere facade of what it was. it is such a meaningless thing, such a huge public expense.

When people are googly eyes over the royal family, especially outside of England, it equates to everyday celebrity gawking, except our celebrities are probably more interesting.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 8:26 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

It's important because it will be part of history in 400 years time. If you don't know who Henry VIII was married to, and how his children (Henry the 9th and then the 10th) came to power, you are extremely ignorant of British history and the shaping of its culture. So if in 400 years time people don't know that Harry and Katy had a Boy George, then they will be deemed nincompoops.



I have always thought so!

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 12:18 PM   
 By:   Donna   (Member)

....as have I, Ron!

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 12:37 PM   
 By:   Kev McGann   (Member)

I actually have no axe to grind with the Royals (despite growing up in a anti-Royal house...my dad was NOT a fan).
Kate and Wills actually seem like a nice couple and I bear them no ill will.
I just hate the fact this kind of stuff (kings/queens/princes/parasites) is still going on in this day and age! It's like we haven't moved out of the Middle Ages!
Kinda embarrassing!

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 1:03 PM   
 By:   Timmer   (Member)

It's important because it will be part of history in 400 years time. If you don't know who Henry VIII was married to, and how his children (Henry the 9th and then the 10th) came to power, you are extremely ignorant of British history and the shaping of its culture. So if in 400 years time people don't know that Harry and Katy had a Boy George, then they will be deemed nincompoops.



I have always thought so!


Hewitt supposedly has a massive ding-a-ling, I wonder if Harry inherited it? He's certainly not inherited the receeding royal hairline. big grin

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 1:07 PM   
 By:   Timmer   (Member)

..as for baby George, I'm glad he's healthy and wish him all the best but I also pity him, who would really want that life thrust upon them without any say in the matter.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 1:19 PM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

..as for baby George, I'm glad he's healthy and wish him all the best but I also pity him, who would really want that life thrust upon them without any say in the matter.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 1:25 PM   
 By:   Graham S. Watt   (Member)

This reminds me of a conversation several decades ago between my Royalist aunt and my non-Royalist one. You can guess which one is saying what...

"Oh, the Queen! It must be hard for her. I wouldn't want her life".

"Aye, an' she widnae want mine"!

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 2:03 PM   
 By:   Ian J.   (Member)



I have always thought so!


Hewitt supposedly has a massive ding-a-ling, I wonder if Harry inherited it? He's certainly not inherited the receeding royal hairline. big grin


Actually, he is going bald, apparently:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331136/After-years-ribbing-brother-Prince-Harrys-thinning-too.html

But it seems to be at a slower rate than William, which is slightly unusual, given that in general younger brothers seem to lose hair sooner and more quickly than their older brothers.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 2:33 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

LOL I liked the one pic that looked like Harry was gonna punch the baby. Too funny! Good to see a sense of playfulness there.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2013 - 6:54 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

Everyone saw those little fingers sort of waving over the edge of his blanket, but did you notice that the little imp shot the finger at everybody? I haven't seen any of the talk shows pick up on that (thought sure Jon Stewart would catch it) but there it was, clear as day for all the world to see, if they were paying attention.

Jon Stewart is on holiday. John Oliver has been guest host since June...


He's not on holiday, actually, but rather is off directing a film (something apparently he has always wanted to do).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/jon-stewart-taking-hiatus-from-daily-show-to-direct-film-rosewater-this-summer_n_2812933.html

In any event, I doubt that Stewart is being held incommunicado.

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2013 - 2:29 AM   
 By:   Thomas   (Member)

He's not on holiday, actually, but rather is off directing a film (something apparently he has always wanted to do).

In any event, I doubt that Stewart is being held incommunicado.


If you knew all this, why did you allude to in your earlier post that he hadn't mentioned it on his talk show? Leads one to believe that in fact, you didn't know...

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2013 - 2:58 AM   
 By:   BillCarson   (Member)

I dont have too many feelings one way or the other and we have had to put up with some fking wastes of space like queen of the ya-yas fergie over the years, but, if you imagine a Britain without a royal family, however silly and antiquated the concept of a 'royal,' there would be a peculiar void.

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2013 - 3:59 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

It's important because it will be part of history in 400 years time. If you don't know who Henry VIII was married to, and how his children (Henry the 9th and then the 10th) came to power, you are extremely ignorant of British history and the shaping of its culture. So if in 400 years time people don't know that Harry and Katy had a Boy George, then they will be deemed nincompoops.


Hey, there may have been no Henry IX yet, but there was a ninth Henry. Back in 1170, Henry II's first son was crowned, coz Henry II was so anxious to have a successor he wanted him corwned while he himself was still alive. He has no regnal number, because he kicked the bucket in a French dungeon in 1183 and his dad outlived him. He's generally known as Henry the Younger or Young King Henry. His death resulted in all the wranglings you see in 'The Lion in Winter'. Thomas a Becket was against the crowning.


I can't get into this argument either way. I'm easy either way re royalty. I see the advantages and the disadvantages. It's worth remembering that they have no 'power', and very regimented lives.

As for the stuff above re Britain being an 'oppressive nation that we rejected', I'm always delighted to find that there are good people who've managed to attain the ripe old age of 250 among us. It's heartening. Why, there are people here who fought in WWII, and WWI and all the George wars, and the Civil War, and probably rode up San Juan Hill. It's good to know that film-music brings such longevity.

's funny y'know. People talk about being 'proud of their country'. I mean, there's two ways to take that. Semantic problem. You can be proud of a pie you've cooked, because you cooked it, like an achievement. But you can't be proud of your country that way, because you did nothing to MAKE that country. All you can say really is that you're THANKFUL and GRATEFUL that you live in this or that country, no more. You're standing on the heads of giants. Anything else is hot air and tribalism from not nice people. That's probably why the man said patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I'm just thinking: when did various oppressive nations abolish slavery? And segregation? 'Just wondering about that. Sittin' round the old teepee 'n all, counting my wampum.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2013 - 5:13 AM   
 By:   Graham S. Watt   (Member)

I've often wondered about the "pride" issue myself, William. People say they are "proud to be British" (or American or whatever), but it's a simple accident of birth. What about the poor sods who had the misfortune to be born in a shit country?

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2013 - 8:17 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

There are good and bad in every ethnic group in this world. There are good and bad people in every country in the world. There are good and bad people in every race and religion in the world. There are good and bad males and females. However there are certain people in power who create certain systems which stink and should be dealt with accordingly. Finite.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.