Cookie? 
No, thanks. 
And now this, from People: Prince Harry’s Fight for His Future Exposes Deepening Rift with King Charles: ‘They Are Distant,’ Source Says
“Hi there! The page you’re looking for does not exist. Try searching or check out the stories below.”
Perhaps you could summarize the contents of what you attempted to link to?
Sorry. Link fixed.
So still not willing just to summarize what you’re talking about?
The headline is pretty straightforward.
According to Harry, he and Charles aren’t on speaking terms. There’s some sort of issue regarding security teams when Harry’s family is in the UK which is more complicated than it seems on the surface.
Another rumour that I saw somewhere was that Edward was an avid foot fetishist, and that Wallis indulged him fully in this passion. I don’t really understand that – I mean, Wallis had feet, and wasn’t that all that was required, while Edward did all the work?
Though frankly, I don’t really grant that much credence either. This is not the sort of information that could reliably leak.
I had not read “lubricious”" before so I asked Oxford:
showing a great interest in sex in a way that is considered unpleasant or unacceptable
Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale - American Psycho): “Do you like Phil Collins?”
He hasn’t been Kinging around much. I have a 50 pence coin of his yet supposedly he’s on the other plastic money too yet I only handle filthy lucre for haircuts and other “cash only” outfits and so far QEII sttil reigns there.
I was very annoyed when in the dual Starmer / trump Starmer was asked what King Charles might think of losing one of his “realms” (meaning Canada) and Starmer started off with a perfectly reasonable answer, “You’re asking a question that doesn’t exist…,” before trump cut him off with “That’s enough. Next question” and the former prosecutor Starmer was visibly stunned looking.
Dunno if that question ever reached KCIII. Doesn’t really matter what his “feelings” are as he has no voice in the matter.
So I’ve no probs with KCIII, and I hope Phillip is not lubey in any way yet I am sure, somehow, I will like him less.
I’d have expected Starmer to say something like that. The one thing you don’t do is to drag the monarch into a live political controversy - that it was T who cut it off seems odd, given his usual logorrhoea.
I suspect the cancer limits his ability to get around.
Didn’t know that was a “thing”. And Starmer was not answering for KCIII - he was clearly amidst (and about done answering before rudely being cutoff).
his (Trump I assume?) usual logorrhoea.
Another word I had to ask Oxford to define. That word otfen related to loquaciousness (or good smart talking-type people), which if I were Shakespeare I could somehow make a pun to the usual verbal diarrhea of Trump.
I’ll be clear: In this case, Trump was a rude mother fucker yet Starmer (knighted for his prosecutorial prowess) was a guest and not in any of KCIII’s “realms”.
ETA: And Starmer’s rather soft answer, something like “You’re asking a question to something that doesn’t exist” is really kind of BS as it is indeed a question that “exists”. Dunno if the tariffs or whatever are all on Trump’s mind, yet he only has one thing on his mind at at a time. Ukraine? Greenland? Canada? Tariffs? Deportation of more illegals to El Salvador?
Can you really think he considers all of these in any given 24 hour period?
You have to know these things when you’re King… er, Prime Minister.
[“he” being trump]
Given that each one can only occupy ~10 seconds of thought in his toddler mind, I think he’s got enough mental bandwidth to handle, oh, about 8,640 wacky stupid thoughtless policies per day.
Less a few for when he’s sleeping. Assuming he does.
Yes, that’s one of the basic principles of Westminster parliamentary systems: the king doesn’t comment on political matters. That’s what the elected government is for.
Allied with that idea is that the elected government doesn’t put words in the monarch’s mouth.
Which the question invited Starmer to do to KCIII. Which trap Starmer immediately recognized and diplomatically parried. Before the Oaf-in-Chief shit in the conversation.
Ignore. I don’t know how to quote other posts properly.
Blue-highlight the part you want to quote with your cursor. A box will pop up with options for quoting. If you click on “Quote” a new reply box will pop open with the quote embedded and you can write whatever you wish below that.
If you want to insert multiple quotes in your post, choose “Copy quote”, open a fresh reply box, and paste what you’ve quoted in. Write what you want to say, follow the same procedure for any other quote you want to address, and so on.
/https://youtu.be/GHyDGWxhlyY?t=936/
Dunno if that youtube liink will expand or not, yet it starts just about when Trump says he’d have been President 20 years ago if he had that “beautiful accent” which is about as condescending as he can get. Somehow with his 300 word vocabulary and repeating things he just said, often as if they’re some new knowledge, he still became president. Though 20 years ago he’d have had a different wife, one less kid and three fewer bankruptcies and 27 fewer felony convictions and more brain cells (“Can you believe there are billions of brain cells? More than 100 billion, I just learned today. Not many know this.”)
Could not find a transcript on whitehouse.gov
Yet here’s Reuter’s fact checking:
The Independent’s White House correspondent Andrew Feinberg was the reporter, and he told Reuters that Trump’s comment was directed at him.
Feinberg said in an email: “I was trying to respond to Starmer accusing me of trying to find a divide between him and Trump. I believe I had started to say ‘No, sir, that’s not my intention at all’ when POTUS ‘shushed’ me.”
He added: “It was clear to me and to anyone else who was there that POTUS was telling me — not the PM — to stop talking.”
VERDICT
Missing context. U.S. President Donald Trump did cut over British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, but a wider camera angle shows Trump was addressing a reporter in the audience. The reporter addressed by Trump said the U.S. president “shushed” him as he began replying to Starmer.
In the wide shot I can’t really see Starner react in any visible manner but quietly STFU. As said above, there was no more to be said about KCIII’s opinion yet he clearly had not finished his sentence.
Denmark also has a Monarchy / Representative Democracy and one hopes for their sake nobody shows up in the Oval to get double-teamed by trump-jd and threatened to sleep on the floor in a concrete cell in El Salvador with an aluminum blanket. ICE ICE!
The King refers to himself as King of Canada in speech to the Italian Parliament, before attending ceremony commemorating the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Ravenna by British and Canadian troops.