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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

.
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:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hepcat

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.

Quote:

---

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:

The press has a thing about wrinkled pants...but I'm sure they'll iron it all out in the end.

:furious3:


:laugh4:


As TuffStuffMcGruff said, so who really cares?


The noraml people just get to laugh at the dignities, again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hepcat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

As for the British press they are the bastions of keeping things "proper".

---

Ssssure.. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Being in the commonweath means nothing.

---

Quite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Plus if we were to leave how could the Brits call us "Colonials"?

---

Note the Yanks.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

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:

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

EDIT: At first I thought my comment to be rather witty, now I feel ashamed by it... So away it goes!

https://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1992/freakylf6.jpg

What the hell?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

https://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1992/freakylf6.jpg

What the hell?!

---

tea --> screen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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/page4...=Enter+keyword
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3950.asp
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3957.asp