View Full Version : A Woman Wearing Trousers In The Presence Of The Queen, How Dare She!!!
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071128/3/2rmh.html
The texting during the Queen's address seems quite inappropriate, though unless that newspaper can provide photographic evidence I'm a bit skeptical (NZ reporters can't since there is now a law against it :wall:) though if she was then a big thumbs down to her.
But what I don't get is the focus on what she was wearing. I know our Prime Minister can be a bit manly at times :sweatdrop: but I don't see why her wearing trousers seems to be such an issue to the British press. And I hardly think the Queen expects everyone to conform to a Victorian standard of dress.
I know the trousers story was from 2002 but what do people think of this? (either the texting or the dress code)
40 lashes for the sluts who wear trousers! 200 lashes if they name their teddy bears Elizabeth.
ICantSpellDawg
11-29-2007, 01:02
40 lashes for the sluts who wear trousers! 200 lashes if they name their teddy bears Elizabeth.
The queen and her family are landmarks that, unfortunately, have voices.
Mouzafphaerre
11-29-2007, 01:27
.
Is there any chance that a male homo-sapiens is elected PM in Kiwiland? :inquisitive:
On topic, what's wrong with texting, if it's important enough not to pretend to be listening to the address, as opposed to talking on the phone, which would be a shame anywhere, any time?
Oh, down with dress code anywhere, any time! :rtwno:
.
Louis VI the Fat
11-29-2007, 01:29
I know the trousers story was from 2002 but what do people think of this? (either the texting or the dress code)Well that was very inappropriate of your Prime Minister and a diplomatic affront and
The sooner NZ leaves this Muppet show the better. I don't understand why people tolerate a monarch in 2007. Why they would tolerate one 20000 kilometers away is entirely beyond me.
Ties with the old mother country? Just play cricket. Incomprehensible sports that last for three days and end in 517 - 42 (81.2 overs) are irrefutable proof that you are in the Commonwealth.
Papewaio
11-29-2007, 01:33
The mention of Miss Clark was in a report about Commonwealth prime ministers snubbing Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles by arriving late or not turning up at all to a banquet in their honour.
I find it interesting that democratically elected leaders should be chastised for not attending a banquet of the unhonourable unchaste. Honour the honourable and the sooner we get a republic the better... then we can vote in our own adulterers... ones that at least look palatable. :laugh4:
Gregoshi
11-29-2007, 02:38
The press has a thing about wrinkled pants...but I'm sure they'll iron it all out in the end.
Pharnakes
11-29-2007, 02:47
:furious3:
:laugh4:
As TuffStuffMcGruff said, so who really cares?
The noraml people just get to laugh at the dignities, again.
The press has a thing about wrinkled pants...but I'm sure they'll iron it all out in the end.
I don't see why they're getting so steamed about this. Someone should just flatten the issue then move on.
Papewaio
11-29-2007, 02:59
You must be an agent for the conspiracy you seem to just want to clean this up with a whitewash.
Don't mess with me buddy! I'll wash your mouth out with detergent and then hang you up to dry!
No one here in Blighty cares enough about a Kiwi politician to put her through the wringer.
Papewaio
11-29-2007, 03:38
There certainly is an increased thread count on this one lately. Looks like a lot of people have cottoned on to Gregoshi's way of weaving prose.
Well that was very inappropriate of your Prime Minister and a diplomatic affront and
The sooner NZ leaves this Muppet show the better. I don't understand why people tolerate a monarch in 2007. Why they would tolerate one 20000 kilometers away is entirely beyond me.
Ties with the old mother country? Just play cricket. Incomprehensible sports that last for three days and end in 517 - 42 (81.2 overs) are irrefutable proof that you are in the Commonwealth.
Because of the Treaty of Waitangi. It's a rather long story but basically it was an agreement between the British Crown and the Maori tribes of NZ in 1840. If NZ becomes a republic then where will Maori be left? Maori families and iwi who had land confiscated would no longer be compensated since there the treaty would be rendered invalid by a new constitution. And I doubt that a new constitution would be designed to rectify crimes committed against Maori in the name of the British Crown which is very unlikely it would.
I think I explained that right, and hopefully it makes sense.
Personally I don't think we need to withdraw from the Commonwealth. We aren't shackled with the chains of colonial oppression. We're a free country, well, slightly less free than 2 years ago, but still free. Until the wrongdoings of the past are rectified, which the Waitangi Tribunal is slowly managing, becoming a republic would just cause more harm than good.
Oh, and New Zealanders aren't really into cricket. Yes we have a cricket team but the game isn't really that popular here. :tongue2:
El Diablo
11-29-2007, 05:20
I am into cricket Hepcat. We (NZ) are just no good at it! :laugh4:
As for the British press they are the bastions of keeping things "proper".
I remeber when I was there they had a 10 minute discussion on the news about how the Williams sisters should be introduced as they walked onto the court at Wimbledon. Being that Venus was older and there is apparently a difference as one is Miss and the other Mss or something. Was not really listening then and surely am not now.
With how tough Helen Clarke is they are lucky she did not spend her time cracking her knuckles and staring out the beefeaters looking for a fight.
Being in the commonweath means nothing. The biggest joke was that our highest court (WAS) the Privey Council but that was not the highest court in the UK as the EU court was.
Plus if we were to leave how could the Brits call us "Colonials"?
Papewaio
11-29-2007, 05:28
Because of the Treaty of Waitangi. It's a rather long story but basically it was an agreement between the British Crown and the Maori tribes of NZ in 1840. If NZ becomes a republic then where will Maori be left? Maori families and iwi who had land confiscated would no longer be compensated since there the treaty would be rendered invalid by a new constitution. And I doubt that a new constitution would be designed to rectify crimes committed against Maori in the name of the British Crown which is very unlikely it would.
Be it an international corp for their factory or it is traditional owners of the land
I don't think a change in who the head is would change what we owe.
Justiciar
11-29-2007, 07:05
As for the British press they are the bastions of keeping things "proper".
Ssssure.. :inquisitive:
Being in the commonweath means nothing.
Quite.
Plus if we were to leave how could the Brits call us "Colonials"?
Note the Yanks.
IrishArmenian
11-29-2007, 07:40
NZ needs to tell the Queen to (flower smiley) off. Why keep folding--oh, my sides!--under pressure from the Queen of England? New Zealand really has to buckle down on the flak they get from their oh-so-distant-are-they-even-related-anymore-relatives.
Justiciar
11-29-2007, 10:44
NZ needs to tell the Queen to (flower smiley) off. Why keep folding--oh, my sides!--under pressure from the Queen of England? New Zealand really has to buckle down on the flak they get from their oh-so-distant-are-they-even-related-anymore-relatives.
Bollocks.
I'm all for our Oceanic brethren going republican. But this breed of indignant, self-righteous drivvel gets on my nerves, tbh. What pressure? What flak?
Flog the whore!!!
dang, Lemur beat me to it
damned kiwi's had better learn some manners! :furious3:
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 14:15
Hmm, I didn't think we showed respect to people who have spend their entire lives mooching off tax payers money and never working a day in their life...
Hmm, I didn't think we showed respect to people who have spend their entire lives mooching off tax payers money and never working a day in their life...
Hell yeah, parasites. Dutch royal family is filthy rich but yet their yaght has to be payed from the defence budget, their estate, their trips, all from ministeries that have nothing to do with it, an that on of the already insane amount of money they already get for, what exactly? Ok good ambassadors, more flash then a minister.
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 14:42
EDIT: At first I thought my comment to be rather witty, now I feel ashamed by it... So away it goes!
Vladimir
11-29-2007, 14:48
https://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1992/freakylf6.jpg
What the hell?!
https://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1992/freakylf6.jpg
What the hell?!
tea --> screen
Hmm, I didn't think we showed respect to people who have spend their entire lives mooching off tax payers money and never working a day in their life...
I think you would find that they work considerably harder than you, nearly every day of the year, and for decades after most people have retired.
I don't think you will ever be in a position to mock the work ethic of the Queen and Phil without looking like a prat.
I doubt any of us here will ever work harder, longer, and more ceaselessly than the Queen.
I doubt any of us will ever be able to say we did more to benefit charitable causes than Phil.
I realise they may appear to be anachronisms in your fantasy egalitarian world, but that does not mean they are not a net benefit to Great Britain.
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 16:32
I think you would find that they work considerably harder than you, nearly every day of the year, and for decades after most people have retired.
i don't think you will ever be in a position to mock the work ethic of the Queen and Phil without looking like a prat. i doubt any of us here will ever work harder, longer, and more ceaselessly than the queen.
Oh yes, it's sooooo hard to do the job of a king...
I mean, wearing all those ribbons! That's hard work!
Seriously, when did they ever do any work...? And no, chatting at parties doesn't count.
IrishArmenian
11-29-2007, 16:42
Bollocks.
I'm all for our Oceanic brethren going republican. But this breed of indignant, self-righteous drivvel gets on my nerves, tbh. What pressure? What flak?
I'm rambling for the sake of the pun.
Oh yes, it's sooooo hard to do the job of a king...
Seriously, when did they ever do any work...? And no, chatting at parties doesn't count.
oh dear, but we employ all those diplomats who just sit around and chat to people over a nice lunch, maybe we should ditch those too?
Come to think of it, pretty much any professional class of occupation really boils down to talking to other people, lets go all Cambodia on their ass and pile the worthless skulls high!
seriously, you could start here:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4057.asp?submitted=submit1&quick=lastweek&submit1=Submit&fromDay=&fromMonth=&fromYear=&toDay=&toMonth=&toYear=&MRF=&keywords=Enter+keyword
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3950.asp
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3957.asp
Monarchies for the history books.
Where's the logic of someone being able to be born into such positions. :confused:
oh dear, but we employ all those diplomats who just sit around and chat to people over a nice lunch, maybe we should ditch those too?
Come to think of it, pretty much any professional class of occupation really boils down to talking to other people, lets go all Cambodia on their ass and pile the worthless skulls high!
seriously, you could start here:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4057.asp?submitted=submit1&quick=lastweek&submit1=Submit&fromDay=&fromMonth=&fromYear=&toDay=&toMonth=&toYear=&MRF=&keywords=Enter+keyword
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3950.asp
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3957.asp
Of course they serve a purpose, a queen or prince is a much bigger gesture then a mere diplomate, but they are rich enough as they are, they take a little more financial freedom then their job allows or is reasonable in any way, like using their private plane to fly in their garderobe. It's complete bull that the army has to pay their yaght for example (talking dutch royal family here), if they would denounce that sort of practise they would earn my respect. I have more issues with them, there is Lockhead Martin connection, and the rather dubious role in WW2, and the costs.
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 17:20
Politicians actually do a lot of work, coming up with ideas on how to rule a country counts as work, and getting two foaming enemies to reconcile also counts.
However, our "beloved" monarchs doesn't do any of that. And they get paid 100 times more than our politicians. And most of our politicians aren't inbred or married to their cousins.
Justiciar
11-29-2007, 19:40
Monarchies for the history books.
Where's the logic of someone being able to be born into such positions. :confused:
Inbreeding. Makes 'em easier to control. :2thumbsup:
Mouzafphaerre
11-29-2007, 19:48
.
Where's the logic of someone being able to be born into such positions. :confused:
Wherever the logic of another idiot elected by idiotic mass deception is. :shrug:
.
Slug For A Butt
11-29-2007, 20:10
Oh yes, it's sooooo hard to do the job of a king...
I mean, wearing all those ribbons! That's hard work!
Seriously, when did they ever do any work...? And no, chatting at parties doesn't count.
Would you want that life? Really? I couldn't do it.
Now I appreciate that you obviously don't think you are working unless you are mending leaky pipes or felling trees with your bare hands, but does this also mean that you don't consider being a CEO of a multinational company hard work too?
The Queen is a figurehead, a role model and a workaholic who is dedicated to portaying Her country in the best possible light. Read some biographies if you are interested. She doesn't work Monday to Friday like most of us do. She doesn't finish work at 5pm like most of us do. She can't have days when She can get away with being grumpy like most of us do. She has no freedom to speak Her mind like most of us do. She is basically a 24 hour a day logo for Her country who has a very well catered for life but has no freedom of speech in public and is very restricted in what She can do with the little personal life offered to Her.
Imagine, you can't even fart in the privacy of your own home without people crying for you to lose your position. For me, the Queen performs a very difficult role with dignity, GOD BLESS THE QUEEN.
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 20:21
Would you want that life? Really? I couldn't do it.
Now I appreciate that you obviously don't think you are working unless you are mending leaky pipes or felling trees with your bare hands, but does this also mean that you don't consider being a CEO of a multinational company hard work too?
Nope, a CEO works.
The Queen is a figurehead, a role model and a workaholic who is dedicated to portaying Her country in the best possible light. Read some biographies if you are interested. She doesn't work Monday to Friday like most of us do. She doesn't finish work at 5pm like most of us do. She can't have days when She can get away with being grumpy like most of us do. She has no freedom to speak Her mind like most of us do. She is basically a 24 hour a day logo for Her country who has a very well catered for life but has no freedom of speech in public and is very restricted in what She can do with the little personal life offered to Her.
Imagine, you can't even fart in the privacy of your own home without people crying for you to lose your position. For me, the Queen performs a very difficult role with dignity, GOD BLESS THE QUEEN.
I didn't say she has an easy life, but it's still not work. I'm sorry, but chatting at tea parties does not equal working. And if she thinks that it isn't worth it, then it isn't hard to abdicate. Obviously though, they all think that the millions of our money they receive is worth the hassle... That a bunch of inbred idiots are able to the "job" says everything about how hard it is.
Behead the lot of 'em.
El Diablo
11-29-2007, 20:28
The Queen is fine with me. She does work hard no doubt. She can not go to the local for a pint can she? She must always keep up appearances 24/7 and that to me sounds like a prison sentence.
But she does portray aloof. I wish she was a bit more "blue collar" - is that the correct term.
Just picture her entertaining G W Bush over a traditional English "Tikka Masala" - getting a bit of gas, cocking her leg, letting one rip and then the smug look on her royal face as the tears build up in ol' GW eyes.
A curl of Liz's lips and the muttering of "thats a WMD Bushhey me boy".
That would be international relations.
As for us Kiwis and Alan Helen Clarke we don't care that she wore pants in front of the Queen or was texting, we are just stoked that she is over there, and hence not here...
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 20:40
The Queen is fine with me. She does work hard no doubt. She can not go to the local for a pint can she? She must always keep up appearances 24/7 and that to me sounds like a prison sentence.
No, not a prison sentence, she is in that "prison" entirely of her own will. If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to.
She does the things she does because she wants to. The beauty of being a monarch is that you can do absolutely everything you want, in this queen's case, what she wants is to play the grumpy old hag. And she's doing a wonderful job, if I may say so.
it is something called duty HoreTore.
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 20:54
it is something called duty HoreTore.
Duty is something you have to do, however a monarch is free to choose whether he wants to do it or not.
Slug For A Butt
11-29-2007, 20:56
Nope, a CEO works.
Define work then? Board meetings and PR is different to "tea parties" in what respect?
I didn't say she has an easy life, but it's still not work. I'm sorry, but chatting at tea parties does not equal working. And if she thinks that it isn't worth it, then it isn't hard to abdicate. Obviously though, they all think that the millions of our money they receive is worth the hassle... That a bunch of inbred idiots are able to the "job" says everything about how hard it is.
Behead the lot of 'em.
What "tea parties" does the Queen attend? Put some flesh on the bones please. I'd say She spends most of her time meeting,smiling at and being tolerant of people She would rather not.
And you obviously think that the Queen costs us "millions of our money", Hmm... Do a little research and let me know how much a) the Queen costs the taxpayer and b) the Queen makes this country because of the Jap and American (and the rest) tourists who visit this country wanting to see the Changing Of The Guards and buying "I SAW QUEEN LIZ II" novelty teacups etc. Or are you making this definitive statement without knowing the facts?
Before you make a sweeping statement about the cost of the (these days) very limited civil list, I'd like to see some facts please.
And what use is the "millions of our money" that She steals from our wallets for doing nothing? What can she do with it?
@Viking: Most of the Queens wealth is inherited. If your dad made a million should you be barred from inheriting it because you are born into it? That seem to be what you are saying.
Loved the scenario El Diablo. That would certainly cause a diplomatic stink.
Slug For A Butt
11-29-2007, 21:00
double post
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 21:03
Define work then? Board meetings and PR is different to "tea parties" in what respect?
You do realize that a CEO does a bit more than merely attending board meetings..? Oh, and you know that at those meetings they form strategies to make the company better, they don't sit around talking about the weather?
And yes, we may make more money from the royals than they get from us, however, that does not mean that they're actually working.
Having to wear fashionable dresses and smile at people doesn't constitute work.
Slug For A Butt
11-29-2007, 21:12
You do realize that a CEO does a bit more than merely attending board meetings..? Oh, and you know that at those meetings they form strategies to make the company better, they don't sit around talking about the weather? And you do realise that the Queen is involved in weekly meetings with the Slime Prime Minister discussing worldwide relations?
And yes, we may make more money from the royals than they get from us, however, that does not mean that they're actually working.
So your problem is actually with people that don't work, not the Queen. That's OK then. I thought for a minute you were having a go at the Queen for being paid by the state.
Obviously though, they all think that the millions of our money they receive is worth the hassle Oops, you were. :laugh4:
Having to wear fashionable dresses and smile at people doesn't constitute work.
You try it 24/7. Just that, without the rest of the crap She has to put up with. Mind you... maybe don't bother with the dress.
Now I won't presume to know what sort of royals you have in Norway, but I think my Queen is a rock. (Not sure about the ones to follow though).
EDIT:
Duty is something you have to do, however a monarch is free to choose whether he wants to do it or not.
Your duty of definition is wrong too, duty is doing what you feel you should do. And She is doing her duty.
HoreTore
11-29-2007, 21:21
And you do realise that the Queen is involved in weekly meetings with the Slime Prime Minister discussing worldwide relations?
If she has anything to say on that, I have serious doubts about your democracy.
So your problem is actually with people that don't work, not the Queen. That's OK then. I thought for a minute you were having a go at the Queen for being paid by the state.
I have a problem with people who are mooching off of our tax money, and that would include the monarchy.
You try it 24/7. Just that, without the rest of the crap she has to put up with. Mind you... maybe don't bother with the dress.
Oh yes, I can imagine how hard it must be... It's soooo hard to smile...
Seriously, if that inbred bunch can do it, anyone can.
Kralizec
11-29-2007, 23:12
Politicians actually do a lot of work, coming up with ideas on how to rule a country counts as work, and getting two foaming enemies to reconcile also counts.
However, our "beloved" monarchs doesn't do any of that. And they get paid 100 times more than our politicians. And most of our politicians aren't inbred or married to their cousins.
A hundred times? Either your politicians are piss poor, or your royal family exceptionally well paid.
Besides, have you looked into what the French or the Americans spend on their presidential office, versus what parliamentary countries spend on their prime ministers?
It doesn't float for the British Royal family, in any case. Duke Malcolm (a scottish forumer who hasn't been seen in a while) once explained here that the royal family lives entirely of their own property.
You do realize that a British Queen does a bit more than merely attending tea parties..? Oh, and you know that at those meetings they enact strategies to improve diplomatic/trade relations, they don't sit around talking about the weather?
And yes, we may make more money from the CEO's than they get from us, however, that does not mean that they're actually working.
Having to wear fashionable suit and smiling at people doesn't constitute work.
sounds just as facile when you reverse it. no useful content here then.
Papewaio
11-29-2007, 23:52
I think the Queen is fairly representative of what a British Queen does. And she is very impressive. I think Australia more so then NZ has to become a Monarchy... its so they can stop passing the buck. Its the Kings that one has to worry about... they look so second rate compared with Elizabeth I, II and Victoria.
I do wonder if Charles the Second might be worse for the monarchy then number 1 OR if he is a very good representative of the modern world, green, divorced, remarried, sick of the tabloid press.
Mouzafphaerre
11-30-2007, 02:12
.
I hate being arrogant but he'll be called either Charles III or Edward IX. The second Charlie was the Stu coming after Cromwell's incompetent son. :wall:
:sorry:
.
Papewaio
11-30-2007, 02:25
Whoops... so that makes 3 Charlies... whats that about things in 3s?
Gregoshi
11-30-2007, 03:26
Whoops... so that makes 3 Charlies... whats that about things in 3s?
He's a Raman? :inquisitive:
Well so long as he doesn't lose his head he'll have done better than half his namesake predecessors.
A question to the people of the commonwealth. Would you rather the Queen be more active in politics so that she earns her keep, or just keep it the way it is now, or of course scrub the monarchy altogether and try republicanism again?
Rodion Romanovich
11-30-2007, 09:32
Oh, down with dress code anywhere, any time! :rtwno:
I agree, I support those feminists who think it's reppression that females don't have the "right" to go around topless on the beach and in cities. I vote for liberation of those poor women, giving them the freedom to walk around topless, especially if they're 15 to 30, where they have the greatest need for fresh air and sunshine on the skin! :2thumbsup: :idea2:
It doesn't float for the British Royal family, in any case. Duke Malcolm (a scottish forumer who hasn't been seen in a while) once explained here that the royal family lives entirely of their own property.
and were does their property come from initially?
it doesn´t make much difference if they´re leeching off the public now or if they´re living from property that their ancestors leeched off the public....while taking time off from marrying each other aparently.
we take property rights fairly seriously here, by which light the Royal Family can be considered more than generous in giving the income from said property to the Gov't, a proportion of which is returned back to the royal family.
.
Wherever the logic of another idiot elected by idiotic mass deception is. :shrug:
.
At least those, ahem, idiots, can be voted out of office. :juggle2:
I agree, I support those feminists who think it's reppression that females don't have the "right" to go around topless on the beach and in cities. I vote for liberation of those poor women, giving them the freedom to walk around topless, especially if they're 15 to 30, where they have the greatest need for fresh air and sunshine on the skin!
I always had the feeling that I was a feminist. ~;)
Be it an international corp for their factory or it is traditional owners of the land
I don't think a change in who the head is would change what we owe.
That sounds reasonable and you may be right. But it still is a concern since the treaty of Waitangi is the only legal document that recognised Maori sovereignty.
The Queen is fine with me. She does work hard no doubt. She can not go to the local for a pint can she? She must always keep up appearances 24/7 and that to me sounds like a prison sentence.
But she does portray aloof. I wish she was a bit more "blue collar" - is that the correct term.
Just picture her entertaining G W Bush over a traditional English "Tikka Masala" - getting a bit of gas, cocking her leg, letting one rip and then the smug look on her royal face as the tears build up in ol' GW eyes.
A curl of Liz's lips and the muttering of "thats a WMD Bushhey me boy".
That would be international relations.
As for us Kiwis and Alan Helen Clarke we don't care that she wore pants in front of the Queen or was texting, we are just stoked that she is over there, and hence not here...
:laugh4:
That's very true. I think everyone's sick of her now after the many stupid laws being passed at the end of her term (even if it wasn't her fault they got passed). I suppose you're a National person?
.
I hate being arrogant but he'll be called either Charles III or Edward IX. The second Charlie was the Stu coming after Cromwell's incompetent son. :wall:
:sorry:
.
I remember reading that he'd probably take Edward or George, two of his 5 given names.
woad&fangs
12-01-2007, 19:20
Having to wear fashionable dresses and smile at people doesn't constitute work.
I believe people do that and they are called models. That basically is what the Queen is. She is a glorified model/diplomat. Companies use models to sell products. Britain uses the Queen to sell their ideaology.
Slug For A Butt
12-01-2007, 22:21
I believe people do that and they are called models. That basically is what the Queen is. She is a glorified model/diplomat. Companies use models to sell products. Britain uses the Queen to sell their ideaology.
Close, but the Queen doesn't sell ideology. She is considered above politics, She sells Britain as a whole, and She is damn fine at it. I just worry when that right royal Charlie comes to power and advocates talking to plants.
it's all right, once he ascends the throne he will automatically become more 'conservative'.
he knows that is what's coming so my guess is he is enjoying being outspoken while he still has the chance.
Mouzafphaerre
12-02-2007, 03:34
I remember reading that he'd probably take Edward or George, two of his 5 given names.
.
I sort of remember that too. Edvard IX of George VII then. :yes:
:laugh4: George VII of the United Kingdom redirects to him on Wikipedia.
.
I don't see why he doesn't just stick with Charles. I mean, I know the history of the previous two but frankly it has no bearing at all on the reign of the third.
Papewaio
12-03-2007, 22:10
Marketing... when the previous two editions bearing the same name are flops why attempt a third?
Maybe third attempt is the charm.
Louis VI the Fat
12-03-2007, 22:24
How abouts Charlie III the Flappy-eared?
El Diablo
12-03-2007, 23:50
Originally posted by Papewaio
Marketing... when the previous two editions bearing the same name are flops why attempt a third?
Tell that to the makers of Police Acadamy, Rambo, and lastly - the Rocky series.
Granted that the first in all these series was goodish- the rest *ahem*.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.