[even *I* use the ol' Electrolux on Jim's rug once a month!]
Posted on 05/01/2009 11:06:20 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Prince Harry has reportedly owned up to his friends that he has not washed his hair for two years.
The Mirror online reports, the 24-year-old is said to have made the startling admission on a night when he was out drinking with his army mates.
"It's been two years since I last washed my hair," he blurted out.
He was out celebrating at the Tally-Ho pub in Sleaford, Lincs, with fellow trainee pilots after completing the first stage of Army Air Corps training at RAF Barkston Heath.
Two years! I wonder what he was drinking at the time. And this fellow might be king someday! Maybe he should shave his head whiles he’s about it just to keep down the lice.
Right, and after a day my hair looks like an oil slick. Am I supposed to go around looking like I dunked my head in WD-40 all the time?
Gordon Brown has put forward to the Queen concerning her successor the dismantling of England’s old law of primogenature and accession to the Throne.
Princess Anne is the likely candidate. The unknown
powers that be want nothing to do with Charles and his brood
of two and his horse-faced wife Camilla Parker-Bowles if this were to occur ,there is a great stain on Charles -(death of Princess of Wales, Diana) Princess Anne would still get to run around on current husband #2 with Andrew Parker- Bowles (she’s at him for years)
Nonwithstanding primogenature, Harry will still have to
toe the line and eventually wash his hair someday. It’s
only a matter of time.
It doesn’t seem that long ago that shower caps were common so people wouldn’t get their hair wet in the shower - I still see them used in old movies and TV shows. Shampooing was rare. I don’t remember washing my hair much when I was a teenager with a fairly long DA, maybe the grease protected it?
Today I couldn’t go for more than a couple days - my scalp starts itching. If I didn’t use a conditioner I’d never get a brush or comb through it when I got out of the shower.
[send me your address and I will provide funds.]
Obama, is that you? ;)
Don't worry, sooner or later these folks always get "caught". Can't tell you how many fellas we saw in the ER that had zippered a vital part of their anatomy. lol
If he had a crew cut, not using shampoo would be no big deal. This mop however definitely needs regular washing.
Interesting...in my case my hair is so wavy I need to wash it in the morning or it looks like a Brillo pad. My wife teases me about the bed-head I get in the morning. :)
This inbred heir to a "kingdom" probably thinks it is his birth right to find some nubile young maiden to wash it for him, anyway.
William Wallace (the original, not the Mel Gibson version) had it right in his descriptions of the royal fools.
I cannot understand the fascination with these royal idiots and the likes of that obama bunch.
Weak minded idiots, all.
Part of the reason why many feel the time is right now to abolish primogeniture is the fact that it probably wouldn't make any difference to currently living royals - The Princess Royal would only become Queen if the Prince of Wales and both his sons predeceased her, which is not likely. Making a change at a time when it would change the likely future Monarch is likely to be much more difficult and controversial.
Besides which, even if there are some people who would prefer the Princess Royal on the throne to her brother the Prince of Wales, there's a substantial problem with that idea - and that is that her two children, Peter and Zara have not been trained for the type of role that would thrust on them. Neither are titled - a deliberate choice on the part of their mother, who didn't want them raised in that role. Peter, the Queen's eldest grandchild, doesn't carry out any official engagements. Zara does occasionally do so. But neither of them would be considered suitable choices as Monarch - if it happened through some disaster, the establishment would do its best to deal with it, but even if they really liked the idea of Anne on the throne (and I think that she would probably be an excellent Queen), her children are not what they would want.
As somebody who actually knows quite a few of them, they are not weak minded idiots.
I can understand a person not thinking the whole idea of royalty has any place in the modern world, but that is completely separate from the people themselves.
They are fiercely patriotic, generally conservative, utterly dedicated to the idea of doing their duty to God and to their country, and ready to fight and die in its defence if needed.
Nearly all the men have served in the British Armed Forces, including Prince Harry who is a currently serving officer and veteran.
I don’t think they’re particularly smart, but none of them are stupid. They seem to have the normal intellect of just about any family, but they also have the advantage of extremely good educations on top of that.
wow! i luv what you wrote- so here’s a funny comment- Anne succeeds even tho her children do not have titles- now- in some odd way that’s an opt out isn’t it? from the very beginning they’ve had no royal duties so we’ll call them slouchy. It wouldn’t make any diff to throne or not, would it ,,, The Slouchy Throne,,,
What is Gordon Brown’s impetus behind his idea? I’m truly curious aren’t you.
Here’s the big secret of the year now that I can blab to you altho you may already be aware ....David Cameron will replace Gordon Brown once Brown’s time is up.
But if they didn't do the job required of them (and they might very well do it - just because they haven't been trained to it, doesn't mean they couldn't rise to it - most of it is a matter of being willing to do what is needed - George VI was regarded as unprepared and untrained but came to be regarded as a great King) then they might well endanger the Monarchy. The reason the Monarchy is so strong in Britain today is simply that the last two Monarchs (Elizabeth II and George VI) have served their nation so well. Edward VIII would have been a disaster - his abdication was the greatest service he could do the crown - but before him, George V and Edward VII had served well, as did Victoria in the last part of her reign (she was very unpopular in the 1860s and 1870s during her long period of mourning when she didn't seem to do anything, but that changed after she emerged from seclusion following her golden jubilee.) The point is, the Monarchy has been popular for about 120 years now because there's been a succession of Monarchs (with the brief interruption of Edward VIII) who have clearly dedicated their lives to their nation. A single lazy (or 'slouchy') Monarch could easily destroy all that goodwill.
The establishment in Britain might not care all that much who the Monarch is, but they want a Monarchy. It's what gives them their clout and the mechanisms they need to be the establishment. They wouldn't throw it away.
Anne's children don't have titles because she knew at the time they were born, that they were unlikely to have to be royals - she was already fourth in line when Peter was born, with three brothers ahead of her, so she knew that while she had to live the life of a royal, they had a choice. They had a chance to be free of that responsibility and duty - now bear in mind that in 1977 when Peter was born, besides the issues surrounding her previous relationship with Andrew Parker Boyle, she had been the recent victim of a kidnap attempt in which shots were fired (her chauffer and bodyguard were wounded, along with another policeman who responded), it's not all that hard to see why she might have wanted to keep her children away from that.
Why is Gordon Brown pushing the abolition of primogeniture? Simple - it's a distraction from the fact his government is becoming increasingly unpopular. He's trying to create another political issue on which he would have a lot of public support, especially when it is also linked to the abolition of the laws preventing Catholics or those married to Catholics ascending to the throne. Virtually everybody agrees that the laws of succession should be free of gender bias and religious bias - if he could turn this into a significant political issue, he'd be championing a political cause with at least 80% support in the electorate.
As for David Cameron - well, yes, he is the most likely next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - he's the Leader of the Opposition and Labour is expected to lose government at the next election. That's hardly a secret - it's the way the British government works and it's what the opinion polls are indicating is likely to happen - the Conservatives are 18 points ahead in the polls.
Prince Harry hasn't washed his hair for two years.
I don't know, is it just me or is there a slight disparity there?
As if they couldn't figure it out, from the stench.
If your hair is approx. 40 inches long, I do *not* advise the “let it clean itself” approach....:)
I've said a lot of things at these times. Just can't remember them. Or at any other time in my older years. What was the topic again?
That could never happen — it would also affect the inheritance of land, which is ruled by the same law.
And Prince Charles is actually very popular with the English people, his son even more so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.