AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Didn't he die years ago?It’s telling us Paul is dead…
I remember coming across that conspiracy theory a few years ago and being flabbergasted.
Didn't he die years ago?It’s telling us Paul is dead…
I read an entire book about it Conspiracy theories fascinated me for a long time*, and that was one of my favouritesI remember coming across that conspiracy theory a few years ago and being flabbergasted.
They're was a whole "thing" about the dashing, sainted Kate using a natural card while the horrible, alien Meghan dared to use her computer.They released a Christmas card...?
(I know it's intentional from the Mail to stir up bullshit...)
Yeah, quite.I read an entire book about it Conspiracy theories fascinated me for a long time*, and that was one of my favourites
*just the existence and 'lore' of them, not actually believing them
If you cover royal stories, you will be familiar with an all-too-common conversation. People will say they have zero interest in what's being said about the royals - and then they'll talk for ages, in excessive detail, about what they think about the latest royal news frenzy. And then they'll say, again, that no one is really interested, or the royals should be left alone; and then talk about all the wild assertions they've seen on social media, and the in-depth articles they've read about them.
I have a stake in the constitutional organisation of the country I live in. It matters that the top job is a hereditary position, that we are told that one family just plain matters more than the rest of us. It makes a difference to me that I am expected to kowtow to this individual and recognise them as somehow better than me. So for those reasons, yes, I am interested when that family reveals itself to be morally bankrupt or a pack of liars or corrupt. I think that’s worth talking about, regardless of how little I’m interested in their daily lives.
And the discussion itself merits discussion, because public disdain, tolerance or veneration towards the Mountbatten-Windsor scions is directly relevant to practical republican politics.
And the discussion about the discussion about the discussion is vital in a constitutional monarchy.And the discussion itself merits discussion, because public disdain, tolerance or veneration towards the Mountbatten-Windsor scions is directly relevant to practical republican politics.
And the discussion about the discussion about the discussion is vital in a constitutional monarchy.
Why? That's definitely Paddington, I'm 100% certain of this.View attachment 415779
I've got some suspicions about this one.
Looks like someone at the BBC has been reading this thread
Why? That's definitely Paddington, I'm 100% certain of this.
I've got some suspicions about this one.
Why? That's definitely Paddington, I'm 100% certain of this.
More than one of my aunts are on FB. Which one do you mean?Yes leave paddington alone It's a lovely photo and i don't understand what everyone's complaining about. (Your aunt on facebook)
The one who goes around saying "a handbag? a handbag?" all the time.More than one of my aunts are on FB. Which one do you mean?