Extramarital Dating since 2001
Here at Affairs Ltd we have been helping people find extramarital affairs since 2001. We are very well established and have built up a huge number of users. We started in the UK and have expanded worldwide. So wherever you live, you can find an affair near you.
home
/ Extramarital Affairs
News
/ archive
/ 12th
nov
/ Royalty stumbles on, up to its plus-fours in tacky innuendo 
Extramarital Affairs News
Royalty stumbles on, up to its plus-fours in tacky
innuendo
The argument goes something like this: Okay, he's a
bit of a loose cannon, and she only really relates to horses and dogs.
Fair dos - the old mum was a lush with a sumptuous lifestyle and
a fabulous overdraft, and the late sister had been around the block more
than once. True, the boy-children turned out a bit dodgy, especially the
one with the penchant for bimbos, and the girl didn't manage to get herself
born first.
As for the kids' first choice life partners . . . let's not go there.
But then, chorus the unshakeable monarchists: "If we didn't have
a royal family, we'd surely have something much worse." The "much
worse" would then be named, according to the times and political
inclination, as, say, Margaret Thatcher or Neil Kinnock.
Today, as one of the royal households finds itself once more up to the
business end of its plus-fours in tacky innuendo, you do have to ask yourself
exactly how we could possibly find a family which could manage the same
degree of dysfunctionality.
So let's, for just a moment or two, turn that whole proposition on its
head and ask, who could be worse than the Windsors? Let's transplant the
episodes of the past two decades or so on to some of the people who would
allegedly be so much more demeaning a symbol of a modern constitutional
democracy if we went down the route of a president operating as a figure-head,
rather than a political player.
It's not easy to imagine a Kinnock or a Blair, or, for that matter, a
Clarke or a Howe, requiring a staff of 85 to keep them functioning daily
as a fully-clothed adult with their teeth brushed. You cannot, somehow,
envisage Cherie or Glenys or Norma having their toes sucked pool-side
with the latest lover while the weans gambolled cheerfully nearby.
In fact, if you were a mother from the wrong side of the tracks, you might
well imagine, in similar circumstances, someone coming up with a parenting
order to take the kids into care until you were satisfied they were not
being exposed to moral danger or lack of due care and attention. It is
difficult to envisage Tony or Gordon running an extra-marital affair,
or fantasising down the phone about an alternative life as a tampon. Both
denizens of Downing Street, you suspect, would not require butler service
to provide a sample when inconvenienced by the temporary loss of a functioning
upper limb. John Major may have had his well publicised fling with Edwina
- to each their own - but if half of what is speculated about
the Queen's consort in his heyday is true, (or a quarter of what is alleged
about her second son), then the former PM isn't at the races in the randy
stakes. And if we want positive precedents for going down the presidential
route, the Irish Republic has turned out a respectable line in recent
times; the work rate without the wacky and expensive appendages.
The next argument routinely advanced for the status quo is that the current
monarch is a national treasure, whose worth and commitment were spontaneously
celebrated at the milestone of her golden jubilee. Few would be curmudgeonly
enough to deny that she made many personal sacrifices to fulfil the destiny
placed on her at birth. However, the sheer scale of the wealth and privilege
attached to the post and the distance the latter places between her life
and anything resembling reality, should not be a tradition continued into
a new century.
If you believe that it is untenable to have hereditary peers in a second
parliamentary chamber in a modern democracy, then by what logic do you
defend the divine right of kings and queens to have their first-born offspring
rule in perpetuity? Whether or not you think a monarchy desirable, you
cannot defend one which requires several palaces and its own train in
order to undertake what is essentially a part-time post. Over the year,
the down-time enjoyed by the bulk of this family is nothing short of remarkable.
In the case of the most senior royals, you may argue that we should not
expect more from an elderly couple. I agree. They should retire gracefully
and enjoy their rural leisure. The question is, what next? Speculation
about ditching Charles and wheeling in the glamorous grandson entirely
misses the point. This family is not suffering from a recent bout of bad
luck - go back along the dynasty and it's shot through with thoroughly
disreputable behaviour, mostly unleavened by any modest intellectual capacity.
They are very rich, they are mostly dim, they have more skeletons in the
closet than the V and A, and they are serially subsidised by a populace
which can't seem to shake off is knee-jerk subservience. The other night,
the latest slice of televised royal history gave us a portrait of the
Queen's uncle, the Duke of Kent, as a drug-abusing, bisexual adulterer
with alcohol dependency on the side. The other uncle famously chucked
the throne for an American divorcee and thought that Hitler chap the coming
man. A generation before, royal mistresses and illicit progeny seemed
almost de rigueur. Deference is a dubious virtue at the best of times,
but it is entirely misplaced when people who work hard and honestly to
raise families decently feel obliged to doff their caps in the presence
of badly dented coronets. Again, transpose this
family's moral template on to your own. Would you feel the slightest smidgin
of respect for relations who had quite as many accidents with their good
name? No wonder Brookside went out of business - the scriptwriters
must have felt constantly outflanked by the real-life capers of the first
family.
Frankly, I don't much care who did what to whom in St James Palace. I
care very much that Clarence House was the latest pied-a-terre
to be given a multi-million pound makeover principally at the expense
of the public purse. That's your purse, and mine. I mind that people being
paid to be global ambassadors are now little more than scandal-fodder
for the more prurient foreign publications. What exactly does this haphazard
collection of psychologically-flawed, immensely privileged products of
a feudal mind-set have to get up to before we find the pride and the guts
to remember that our betters should be just that; people whose conduct
commands instinctive respect. Every fresh debacle brings new predictions
that "this will finish the monarchy". It never does somehow.
So long as British citizens feel comfortable to be cast as subjects, the
monarchy may stumble on. Conversely, if we ever acknowledge that "the
rank is but the guinea stamp", we may be on the way to growing up
into a respected republic.
If young William is as pleasant as generally reported, he'll be well out
of it all.
The argument goes something like this: Okay, he's a bit of a loose cannon,
and she only really relates to horses and dogs. Fair dos - the old
mum was a lush with a sumptuous lifestyle and a fabulous overdraft, and
the late sister had been around the block more than once. True, the boy-children
turned out a bit dodgy, especially the one with the penchant for bimbos,
and the girl didn't manage to get herself born first.
As for the kids' first choice life partners . . . let's not go there.
But then, chorus the unshakeable monarchists: "If we didn't have
a royal family, we'd surely have something much worse." The "much
worse" would then be named, according to the times and political
inclination, as, say, Margaret Thatcher or Neil Kinnock.
Today, as one of the royal households finds itself once more up to the
business end of its plus-fours in tacky innuendo, you do have to ask yourself
exactly how we could possibly find a family which could manage the same
degree of dysfunctionality.
So let's, for just a moment or two, turn that whole proposition on its
head and ask, who could be worse than the Windsors? Let's transplant the
episodes of the past two decades or so on to some of the people who would
allegedly be so much more demeaning a symbol of a modern constitutional
democracy if we went down the route of a president operating as a figure-head,
rather than a political player.
It's not easy to imagine a Kinnock or a Blair, or, for that matter, a
Clarke or a Howe, requiring a staff of 85 to keep them functioning daily
as a fully-clothed adult with their teeth brushed. You cannot, somehow,
envisage Cherie or Glenys or Norma having their toes sucked pool-side
with the latest lover while the weans gambolled cheerfully nearby.
In fact, if you were a mother from the wrong side of the tracks, you might
well imagine, in similar circumstances, someone coming up with a parenting
order to take the kids into care until you were satisfied they were not
being exposed to moral danger or lack of due care and attention. It is
difficult to envisage Tony or Gordon running an extra-marital affair,
or fantasising down the phone about an alternative life as a tampon. Both
denizens of Downing Street, you suspect, would not require butler service
to provide a sample when inconvenienced by the temporary loss of a functioning
upper limb. John Major may have had his well publicised fling with Edwina
- to each their own - but if half of what is speculated about
the Queen's consort in his heyday is true, (or a quarter of what is alleged
about her second son), then the former PM isn't at the races in the randy
stakes. And if we want positive precedents for going down the presidential
route, the Irish Republic has turned out a respectable line in recent
times; the work rate without the wacky and expensive appendages.
The next argument routinely advanced for the status quo is that the current
monarch is a national treasure, whose worth and commitment were spontaneously
celebrated at the milestone of her golden jubilee. Few would be curmudgeonly
enough to deny that she made many personal sacrifices to fulfil the destiny
placed on her at birth. However, the sheer scale of the wealth and privilege
attached to the post and the distance the latter places between her life
and anything resembling reality, should not be a tradition continued into
a new century.
If you believe that it is untenable to have hereditary peers in a second
parliamentary chamber in a modern democracy, then by what logic do you
defend the divine right of kings and queens to have their first-born offspring
rule in perpetuity? Whether or not you think a monarchy desirable, you
cannot defend one which requires several palaces and its own train in
order to undertake what is essentially a part-time post. Over the year,
the down-time enjoyed by the bulk of this family is nothing short of remarkable.
In the case of the most senior royals, you may argue that we should not
expect more from an elderly couple. I agree. They should retire gracefully
and enjoy their rural leisure. The question is, what next? Speculation
about ditching Charles and wheeling in the glamorous grandson entirely
misses the point. This family is not suffering from a recent bout of bad
luck - go back along the dynasty and it's shot through with thoroughly
disreputable behaviour, mostly unleavened by any modest intellectual capacity.
They are very rich, they are mostly dim, they have more skeletons in the
closet than the V and A, and they are serially subsidised by a populace
which can't seem to shake off is knee-jerk subservience. The other night,
the latest slice of televised royal history gave us a portrait of the
Queen's uncle, the Duke of Kent, as a drug-abusing, bisexual adulterer
with alcohol dependency on the side. The other uncle famously chucked
the throne for an American divorcee and thought that Hitler chap the coming
man. A generation before, royal mistresses and illicit progeny seemed
almost de rigueur. Deference is a dubious virtue at the best of times,
but it is entirely misplaced when people who work hard and honestly to
raise families decently feel obliged to doff their caps in the presence
of badly dented coronets. Again, transpose this
family's moral template on to your own. Would you feel the slightest smidgin
of respect for relations who had quite as many accidents with their good
name? No wonder Brookside went out of business - the scriptwriters
must have felt constantly outflanked by the real-life capers of the first
family.
Frankly, I don't much care who did what to whom in St James Palace. I
care very much that Clarence House was the latest pied-a-terre
to be given a multi-million pound makeover principally at the expense
of the public purse. That's your purse, and mine. I mind that people being
paid to be global ambassadors are now little more than scandal-fodder
for the more prurient foreign publications. What exactly does this haphazard
collection of psychologically-flawed, immensely privileged products of
a feudal mind-set have to get up to before we find the pride and the guts
to remember that our betters should be just that; people whose conduct
commands instinctive respect. Every fresh debacle brings new predictions
that "this will finish the monarchy". It never does somehow.
So long as British citizens feel comfortable to be cast as subjects, the
monarchy may stumble on. Conversely, if we ever acknowledge that "the
rank is but the guinea stamp", we may be on the way to growing up
into a respected republic.
If young William is as pleasant as generally reported, he'll be well out
of it all.
Full credit for this news article goes to: The Herald
Three Easy Steps to Get Started 1. Register a few simple details. You can be as anonymous as you wish but we will need an email address to confirm who you are.
2. Chose what you would like people to see. The more you tell people about who you are and what you are looking for, the more people will get in touch.
3. Get looking for an affair. You can browse through other peoples photos and information to see what takes your fancy.
It's quick, free and private to get started
|
