Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Possibly because Covid is rampant in London and they don't want her to catch it and die? " Don't be silly, must be conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. " Are you saying a communist plan is afoot to murder the royal family.? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Possibly because Covid is rampant in London and they don't want her to catch it and die? Don't be silly, must be conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy "Shall we warn her? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Possibly because Covid is rampant in London and they don't want her to catch it and die? Don't be silly, must be conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy
Shall we warn her?"Nah | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Possibly because Covid is rampant in London and they don't want her to catch it and die? Don't be silly, must be conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy
Shall we warn her?
Nah
"Ok, but I'm sending a text to William and Kate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Possibly because Covid is rampant in London and they don't want her to catch it and die? Don't be silly, must be conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy
Shall we warn her?
Nah
Ok, but I'm sending a text to William and Kate. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is basically her office. Windsor is her home. She is working from home." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Queen is fancy enough to have more than one residence. It doesn't effect her position or anything like that. It's not like Boris decided that he's going to hold Parliament in a student union bar (although he... possibly could? I dunno. I'm not sure to what extent procedure is required in order to fulfil the law)" Probably has to be in a secret place with lots of security, and cheap refreshments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is basically her office. Windsor is her home. She is working from home."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is basically her office. Windsor is her home. She is working from home." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better! "Who would you want as President? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Queen is fancy enough to have more than one residence. It doesn't effect her position or anything like that. It's not like Boris decided that he's going to hold Parliament in a student union bar (although he... possibly could? I dunno. I'm not sure to what extent procedure is required in order to fulfil the law) Probably has to be in a secret place with lots of security, and cheap refreshments. " There'll presumably be legal requirements as to what mechanics are required in order to make a law. I'm being a nerd sorry | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously OP Without taking the piss why do you care? "This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President? "No need for a president. But if you insist, I’m happy to do it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President? "I think there's going to be an unemployed President available shortly  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
I think there's going to be an unemployed President available shortly "We should rally around and get an invite sent out to him tout suite; before another country snaps him up! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
No need for a president. But if you insist, I’m happy to do it! "El Presidente!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President? "Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them... "Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them... "Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them... "Like Donald Trump? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age"Arm wrestle her for the job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President? "Why would you need a president? And if you did they would be elected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away."What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away."Lots of people do charity work. Slavery is part of our heritage too and we abolished that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong"Couldnt agree more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. " Is there a slaps forehead emoji? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong"But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. Are you saying a communist plan is afoot to murder the royal family.?" Corbyn plotting it right now! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. Are you saying a communist plan is afoot to murder the royal family.? Corbyn plotting it right now! " Shakes fist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to a video on YouTube" Must be true, then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Doesn't she spend most of her time at Balmoral or Sandringham anyway? She always has. The Royal Family aren't that keen on Buckingham Palace as I understand it." I'm not surprised. When I watched Andrew being interviewed it looked like it was part of a Wetherspoons chain. All those gold tables and fancy carpet | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either."Bill Gates and Ellon Musk earned everything, crucial difference. We don’t live in the 1500’s any more, it’s ridiculous. Get shot of the lot of them. Harry knows it’s and he’s done the right thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either."You can be born into wealth You cant be born into deference where you are meant to be addressed in a certain way and people bow when they meet you. It's an anachronism. Was prince phillip moderated by strict rules? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away."Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty. Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace. Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation. The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
You can be born into wealth
You cant be born into deference where you are meant to be addressed in a certain way and people bow when they meet you.
It's an anachronism.
Was prince phillip moderated by strict rules?"Sorry Andrew | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. Are you saying a communist plan is afoot to murder the royal family.? Corbyn plotting it right now! " Corbyn for El Presidente! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not. "
Several thumbs up from me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. Are you saying a communist plan is afoot to murder the royal family.? Corbyn plotting it right now! Corbyn for El Presidente!" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. Is there a slaps forehead emoji?" I know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bill Gates and Ellon Musk earned everything" Did they fuck. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not. "Yea, but the French Royalty were bleeding an already dying country dry. The people had no choice. Maybe we should overthrow the Government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thats it I'm going back in the virus forum" Wash your hands, wear your mask and no kissing strangers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not. "You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
Several thumbs up from me"You have more than 2 thumbs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
Yea, but the French Royalty were bleeding an already dying country dry. The people had no choice.
Maybe we should overthrow the Government. "Coup d'etat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either."Being born into wealth is one thing, and inequality can be addressed. Kate peeing on a stick and knowing that her not even a bump (George) is ordained to be King over many countries, head of the Church, exempt from laws, etc etc etc... Is a whole other level of not acceptable in the 21st century. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Being born into wealth is one thing, and inequality can be addressed.
Kate peeing on a stick and knowing that her not even a bump (George) is ordained to be King over many countries, head of the Church, exempt from laws, etc etc etc... Is a whole other level of not acceptable in the 21st century."Only in the opinion of some. Others believe it is right to continue with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. Are you saying a communist plan is afoot to murder the royal family.?" I've seen dafter conspiracies on the forums.
E | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Being born into wealth is one thing, and inequality can be addressed.
Kate peeing on a stick and knowing that her not even a bump (George) is ordained to be King over many countries, head of the Church, exempt from laws, etc etc etc... Is a whole other level of not acceptable in the 21st century.
Only in the opinion of some. Others believe it is right to continue with. "Agreed. I believe it's antithetical to democracy. Some enjoy being subjects. Fortunately, as I'm not British, I'm a citizen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Being born into wealth is one thing, and inequality can be addressed.
Kate peeing on a stick and knowing that her not even a bump (George) is ordained to be King over many countries, head of the Church, exempt from laws, etc etc etc... Is a whole other level of not acceptable in the 21st century.
Only in the opinion of some. Others believe it is right to continue with.
Agreed. I believe it's antithetical to democracy. Some enjoy being subjects.
Fortunately, as I'm not British, I'm a citizen."Anyway, it's been fun debating but I've other important work to do ... I have a dick pic thread that isn't going to maintain itself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism."Communism! Haha. I’ve heard it all now! You do know there are other countries in the world who don’t have monarchy, and aren’t communist? And they also do just fine. You’re still talking about money etc, I’m talking about morals. It is morally wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away."I can't applaud this loudly enough. Well said. E | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
Yea, but the French Royalty were bleeding an already dying country dry. The people had no choice.
Maybe we should overthrow the Government.
Coup d'etat "Yea, strongest army wins, then appoints someone as leader, and then their kid becomes leader after them ad infinitum. That could work and save all the arguments as to who is boss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism.
Communism! Haha. I’ve heard it all now! You do know there are other countries in the world who don’t have monarchy, and aren’t communist? And they also do just fine.
You’re still talking about money etc, I’m talking about morals. It is morally wrong "In your opinion. Morals by definition represent the opinion of one person. Ethics are the agreed societal views of right and wrong. And it isn't ethically wrong or society would have deemed it so. I can point out many a democratic country where the elected leader displays more dangerous power than our Queen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
Several thumbs up from me
You have more than 2 thumbs? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age"Yeah that's working well rioters in states, France and so it continues. No let's get Freddie Flintoff then we can have his blimp baby flying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism.
Communism! Haha. I’ve heard it all now! You do know there are other countries in the world who don’t have monarchy, and aren’t communist? And they also do just fine.
You’re still talking about money etc, I’m talking about morals. It is morally wrong "Like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism.
Communism! Haha. I’ve heard it all now! You do know there are other countries in the world who don’t have monarchy, and aren’t communist? And they also do just fine.
You’re still talking about money etc, I’m talking about morals. It is morally wrong
In your opinion. Morals by definition represent the opinion of one person. Ethics are the agreed societal views of right and wrong. And it isn't ethically wrong or society would have deemed it so. I can point out many a democratic country where the elected leader displays more dangerous power than our Queen "Legally the Queen owns all UK property and she has absolute power to pass or deny any law. She doesn't do so because of convention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism."You can't address the world's ills by getting rid of the royal family but I think national symbols are important. The royal family fall firmly into that category. People talk about presidents, or Gates, or Musk, or any other powerful figure in society. A child born today in any circumstance has the potential to achieve those positions of power. The societal framework is there, even though the reality might make it virtually impossible. All newborn babies have that same set of rights, except royals... who have greater rights. I ask myself, why? Why should they be given legally enshrined advantages over everyone else? It's ridiculous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age
Yeah that's working well rioters in states, France and so it continues.
No let's get Freddie Flintoff then we can have his blimp baby flying. "Yeah, of course we've never had riots in the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Bill Gates and Ellon Musk earned everything, crucial difference. We don’t live in the 1500’s any more, it’s ridiculous. Get shot of the lot of them. Harry knows it’s and he’s done the right thing. ""What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power?" That's one if the daftest arguments about being born into money you'll hear and it's trotted out with boring regularity. You know it's not possible to decide who you are born unto? 
E | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them... " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism.
You can't address the world's ills by getting rid of the royal family but I think national symbols are important. The royal family fall firmly into that category.
People talk about presidents, or Gates, or Musk, or any other powerful figure in society. A child born today in any circumstance has the potential to achieve those positions of power. The societal framework is there, even though the reality might make it virtually impossible. All newborn babies have that same set of rights, except royals... who have greater rights. I ask myself, why? Why should they be given legally enshrined advantages over everyone else? It's ridiculous.
"True, but with those advantages come severely restricted lives, which gave caused several to abdicate over the years. So it's not all privilege and power, there are rules. But I agree no one can work their way up to becoming a royal. I suppose for me I weigh up that unfairness against all the good things I think (in my opinion) they bring the country, and thus I'm still in favour of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Bill Gates and Ellon Musk earned everything, crucial difference. We don’t live in the 1500’s any more, it’s ridiculous. Get shot of the lot of them. Harry knows it’s and he’s done the right thing.
"What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power?"
That's one if the daftest arguments about being born into money you'll hear and it's trotted out with boring regularity.
You know it's not possible to decide who you are born unto?
E"Isnt that the whole point? You are given a life of deference because of an accident of birth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates." The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Bill Gates and Ellon Musk earned everything, crucial difference. We don’t live in the 1500’s any more, it’s ridiculous. Get shot of the lot of them. Harry knows it’s and he’s done the right thing.
"What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power?"
That's one if the daftest arguments about being born into money you'll hear and it's trotted out with boring regularity.
You know it's not possible to decide who you are born unto?
E
Isnt that the whole point?
You are given a life of deference because of an accident of birth."It's not an accident. Is your life crap because your mother accidentally married a poor man? If your great great great great great grandad was a better leader and fighter, you might be rich now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age
Yeah that's working well rioters in states, France and so it continues.
No let's get Freddie Flintoff then we can have his blimp baby flying.
Yeah, of course we've never had riots in the UK "Quite right and I didn't at any point say that was the case. Our riots came about amongst other things from a disillusionment from our government and youth taking advantage of the carnage in more recent years. Not our monarchy that was in further centuries past and hopefully we can continue to evolve and learn. Although feel free to throw shade with extra smiles.x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. " To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Bill Gates and Ellon Musk earned everything, crucial difference. We don’t live in the 1500’s any more, it’s ridiculous. Get shot of the lot of them. Harry knows it’s and he’s done the right thing.
"What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power?"
That's one if the daftest arguments about being born into money you'll hear and it's trotted out with boring regularity.
You know it's not possible to decide who you are born unto?
E
Isnt that the whole point?
You are given a life of deference because of an accident of birth.
Yeah but so is literally everyone else by sheer chance of who they are born to. It's not just royalty where this happens. I've had a fast more advantaged life than a cold born into poverty in a slum, and yet that's just as unfair. "A very humbling observation and for many of us to heed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power? It’s a ridiculous archaic system. No body should be born different to anyone else, we are all equal, and this is just plain wrong. Regardless of tourism, money bla bla bla. It’s morally wrong
But we all are! We're all born into different houses, different families. Some are born into total povity, some area born into wealthy households. The Queen and her family are just a very wealthy and powerful example, but I don't really see how a cold born to Bill Gates or Elon Musk it's really any different. They will have incredible wealth, power and privilege, and they won't be moderated by the strict rules that the Queen has to follow either.
Bill Gates and Ellon Musk earned everything, crucial difference. We don’t live in the 1500’s any more, it’s ridiculous. Get shot of the lot of them. Harry knows it’s and he’s done the right thing.
"What gives anyone the right to be born in to such money and power?"
That's one if the daftest arguments about being born into money you'll hear and it's trotted out with boring regularity.
You know it's not possible to decide who you are born unto?
E
Isnt that the whole point?
You are given a life of deference because of an accident of birth.
It's not an accident. Is your life crap because your mother accidentally married a poor man?
If your great great great great great grandad was a better leader and fighter, you might be rich now.
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism.
You can't address the world's ills by getting rid of the royal family but I think national symbols are important. The royal family fall firmly into that category.
People talk about presidents, or Gates, or Musk, or any other powerful figure in society. A child born today in any circumstance has the potential to achieve those positions of power. The societal framework is there, even though the reality might make it virtually impossible. All newborn babies have that same set of rights, except royals... who have greater rights. I ask myself, why? Why should they be given legally enshrined advantages over everyone else? It's ridiculous.
True, but with those advantages come severely restricted lives, which gave caused several to abdicate over the years. So it's not all privilege and power, there are rules. But I agree no one can work their way up to becoming a royal. I suppose for me I weigh up that unfairness against all the good things I think (in my opinion) they bring the country, and thus I'm still in favour of them. "Again, Prince Andrew didn't seem to feel many restrictions... the Queen seems pretty OK with it. Oh, he's retiring from public life, but nobody is taking away his riches. Nor did Harry feel too many restrictions during his party years... it would be interesting to see how much money they spend on PR and legal fees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Buckingham Palace is the residence of the Sovereign. Why is Queen Elizabeth II not in residence? If she has been removed to Windsor Castle for her safety, safety from what or whom? Buckingham Palace is the administration centre for the Monarch. What is happening has no precedent in English history. During the Communist Russian revolution in 1917 the Tsar, a relative of our current Queen, and the family of the Tsar were removed from the capital city of Russia and subsequently murdered. " What is it you are hoping a 95 year old 4ft 10 fragile old lady to do.? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism."And starting poor early in life does not mean you cannot make it in life too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. " More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism.
You can't address the world's ills by getting rid of the royal family but I think national symbols are important. The royal family fall firmly into that category.
People talk about presidents, or Gates, or Musk, or any other powerful figure in society. A child born today in any circumstance has the potential to achieve those positions of power. The societal framework is there, even though the reality might make it virtually impossible. All newborn babies have that same set of rights, except royals... who have greater rights. I ask myself, why? Why should they be given legally enshrined advantages over everyone else? It's ridiculous.
True, but with those advantages come severely restricted lives, which gave caused several to abdicate over the years. So it's not all privilege and power, there are rules. But I agree no one can work their way up to becoming a royal. I suppose for me I weigh up that unfairness against all the good things I think (in my opinion) they bring the country, and thus I'm still in favour of them.
Again, Prince Andrew didn't seem to feel many restrictions... the Queen seems pretty OK with it. Oh, he's retiring from public life, but nobody is taking away his riches. Nor did Harry feel too many restrictions during his party years... it would be interesting to see how much money they spend on PR and legal fees."Easy enough to find on t'internet. Go take a look. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 09/01/21 11:45:08]" But it's only royalty where you are born into a life where people bow when they meet you and you are given ridiculous titles. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E" It holds plenty of water considering the amount of land they somehow 'own' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E" I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age
Yeah that's working well rioters in states, France and so it continues.
No let's get Freddie Flintoff then we can have his blimp baby flying.
Yeah, of course we've never had riots in the UK
Quite right and I didn't at any point say that was the case. Our riots came about amongst other things from a disillusionment from our government and youth taking advantage of the carnage in more recent years.
Not our monarchy that was in further centuries past and hopefully we can continue to evolve and learn.
Although feel free to throw shade with extra smiles.x"They weren't smiles, they were laughter at the introduction of a completely unrelated and irrelevant argument. Riots in America and France have nothing to do with having or not having a monarchy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament?" By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se." A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age
Yeah that's working well rioters in states, France and so it continues.
No let's get Freddie Flintoff then we can have his blimp baby flying.
Yeah, of course we've never had riots in the UK
Quite right and I didn't at any point say that was the case. Our riots came about amongst other things from a disillusionment from our government and youth taking advantage of the carnage in more recent years.
Not our monarchy that was in further centuries past and hopefully we can continue to evolve and learn.
Although feel free to throw shade with extra smiles.x
They weren't smiles, they were laughter at the introduction of a completely unrelated and irrelevant argument. Riots in America and France have nothing to do with having or not having a monarchy. "Quote said to have a president rather than a monarchy in the stream I responded to not OP. As such I don't see where I was being irrelevant. Just an observation as you also had upon mine. Thankyou for outlining why you laughed at me though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances." Which law or laws, please? So because they come from a family that held serfs and slaves back in the day, they should have this power now? George is somehow more special than his classmates because of his ancestors? I'm sure he's a lovely boy, but the same as any other boy his age, no more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances." Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. " Mps are elected | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. " And we should handle wealth and opportunity inequalities too. Royalty is just an extreme example of that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Man I really disagree with this. They earn a salary and do a job, which brings in far more money in tourism alone than they take. They don't use their political power, they never in fact express political opinion, but they do huge amounts of charity work and lots of work on behalf of the country. They're respected worldwide, which elevates the status of our country too. Also she's over 90 and hasn't retired, she's given her whole life to that job and I think she's done a bloody good job too. It's part of our heritage and culture, and unless she starts abusing her power, I really don't see why it should be taken away.
Tourism... Versailles still gets plenty of visitors and we know what the French did to their royalty.
Jobs... like Prince Andrew drumming up business globally? Total disgrace.
Part of our heritage and culture... we've still got the castles and they'll always be part of our history. Hopefully some day people will look back and realise how stupid it was to prize the genes of an inbred family as having some divine right to be elevated over the rest of the nation.
The biggest victory of the Royal family has been to convince the nation that they're just a kind of celebrity family doing good deeds with a bit of drama thrown in. They're not.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's ok too. If you want to redress power and financial balance across *at birth* across the world then I'm afraid you can't just address the royal family only. In my line of work I see the most incredible unfairness that some children are exposed to in their early years, and poverty that would shock many. Yet others get beautiful houses and lots of money and private education. Then when they're older they'll inherit the family home or business. It's the same thing you're talking about really. So whilst I agree it's unfair, it's also life unless you move us to full communism.
You can't address the world's ills by getting rid of the royal family but I think national symbols are important. The royal family fall firmly into that category.
People talk about presidents, or Gates, or Musk, or any other powerful figure in society. A child born today in any circumstance has the potential to achieve those positions of power. The societal framework is there, even though the reality might make it virtually impossible. All newborn babies have that same set of rights, except royals... who have greater rights. I ask myself, why? Why should they be given legally enshrined advantages over everyone else? It's ridiculous.
True, but with those advantages come severely restricted lives, which gave caused several to abdicate over the years. So it's not all privilege and power, there are rules. But I agree no one can work their way up to becoming a royal. I suppose for me I weigh up that unfairness against all the good things I think (in my opinion) they bring the country, and thus I'm still in favour of them.
Again, Prince Andrew didn't seem to feel many restrictions... the Queen seems pretty OK with it. Oh, he's retiring from public life, but nobody is taking away his riches. Nor did Harry feel too many restrictions during his party years... it would be interesting to see how much money they spend on PR and legal fees.
Easy enough to find on t'internet. Go take a look. "Actually the spending by and on the royal family is pretty murky. Go take a look yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Mps are elected " Yes but a lot of MPs get a foot up the ladder because of who they are. We can only elect people who are in the running. Boris was elected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. And we should handle wealth and opportunity inequalities too. Royalty is just an extreme example of that." How will you handle it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Someone elected democratically rather than a royal who is legally elevated above the rest of the country by virtue of them being born. Total embarrassment that it's still a part of our society. Get shot of the lot of them...
Couldn’t agree more. Disgraceful in this day and age
Yeah that's working well rioters in states, France and so it continues.
No let's get Freddie Flintoff then we can have his blimp baby flying.
Yeah, of course we've never had riots in the UK
Quite right and I didn't at any point say that was the case. Our riots came about amongst other things from a disillusionment from our government and youth taking advantage of the carnage in more recent years.
Not our monarchy that was in further centuries past and hopefully we can continue to evolve and learn.
Although feel free to throw shade with extra smiles.x
They weren't smiles, they were laughter at the introduction of a completely unrelated and irrelevant argument. Riots in America and France have nothing to do with having or not having a monarchy.
Quote said to have a president rather than a monarchy in the stream I responded to not OP. As such I don't see where I was being irrelevant.
Just an observation as you also had upon mine. Thankyou for outlining why you laughed at me though.
"Your contribution. Not you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Mps are elected Yes but a lot of MPs get a foot up the ladder because of who they are. We can only elect people who are in the running. Boris was elected. " I agree There is massive structural inequality And the royal family are right at the top of the tree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. And we should handle wealth and opportunity inequalities too. Royalty is just an extreme example of that. How will you handle it? " Healthcare and education equality - not postcode lottery and I'd severely restrict private education. Checks against cronyism. More robust investigation of corruption. More open hiring and procurement procedures and investigation of conflict of interest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago?" Well at least they look after it and don't flog it off to Chinese or Arab developers to which all moneys disappear out of the country. They may have limitations but the point about tradition is it endures through political upheavals wars economic changes and so there are upsides too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago? Well at least they look after it and don't flog it off to Chinese or Arab developers to which all moneys disappear out of the country. They may have limitations but the point about tradition is it endures through political upheavals wars economic changes and so there are upsides too" The fact that they keep huge wealth and property to themselves is an upside? To who? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago? Well at least they look after it and don't flog it off to Chinese or Arab developers to which all moneys disappear out of the country. They may have limitations but the point about tradition is it endures through political upheavals wars economic changes and so there are upsides too" As was mentioned earlier, slavery is a tradition... one with roots which go back to ancient times and have provided great benefits to the perpetrators - in fact the royal family benefited massively. The "tradition" argument is stupid. I get it though, the argument boils down to what you value. If you value institutional equality then the monarchy makes no sense. If you value tradition and The Crown on Netflix then God save the queen and all that shite. For me they're a massive embarrassment to a modern nation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago?" The Queen already gives up 75% of the money earned from the Royal Estate. Write to Jeff Bezos and tell him he's too rich | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago? Well at least they look after it and don't flog it off to Chinese or Arab developers to which all moneys disappear out of the country. They may have limitations but the point about tradition is it endures through political upheavals wars economic changes and so there are upsides too As was mentioned earlier, slavery is a tradition... one with roots which go back to ancient times and have provided great benefits to the perpetrators - in fact the royal family benefited massively. The "tradition" argument is stupid. I get it though, the argument boils down to what you value. If you value institutional equality then the monarchy makes no sense. If you value tradition and The Crown on Netflix then God save the queen and all that shite. For me they're a massive embarrassment to a modern nation." The Crown on Netflix is not factual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago? The Queen already gives up 75% of the money earned from the Royal Estate. Write to Jeff Bezos and tell him he's too rich "I'm not bothered about his personal wealth, but I'd rather Amazon stopped tax dodging and dehumanising their workers... maybe he'd have a few less billions then right enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. To what extent are these conventions rather than laws? I'm pretty sure at law (although one way to end it would be for a monarch to attempt to enforce it) the Queen still owns everything and can do whatever she wants. Royal Assent of law may be viewed as a formality, but it does have real legal consequence. Why should she or her progeny have the power to override Parliament? By law she has to hand everything over, then gets given 25% back as a grant, to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, payroll, utilities etc. The rest of her earning come from other sources and pays for ceremonies and security, and the rest of royal family she decides to give money too. Remember, they are a very old family who passed down their wealth and accumulated more through land and whatever. They didn't fritter away their inheritances. Have you seen how much land and properties they own? Do you think its justified in this day and age that would family should have so much wealth because of something that happened centuries ago? Well at least they look after it and don't flog it off to Chinese or Arab developers to which all moneys disappear out of the country. They may have limitations but the point about tradition is it endures through political upheavals wars economic changes and so there are upsides too As was mentioned earlier, slavery is a tradition... one with roots which go back to ancient times and have provided great benefits to the perpetrators - in fact the royal family benefited massively. The "tradition" argument is stupid. I get it though, the argument boils down to what you value. If you value institutional equality then the monarchy makes no sense. If you value tradition and The Crown on Netflix then God save the queen and all that shite. For me they're a massive embarrassment to a modern nation. The Crown on Netflix is not factual. " And yet people watch it and it further detracts from the reality of the royal family and what they represent. An archaic, anti-equality authority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. " France need to get onto that..no one ever visits there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. " Shrug. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President? "Personally, I’d be happy for the The Queen to put in an application. She seems a nice old dear, and the fact she’s still out there opening a new medical centre in Tamworth etc in her 90’s shows she’s very dedicated. It’s just the hereditary monarchy bit I can’t cope with . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sooner we get shot of the monarchy the better!
Who would you want as President?
Personally, I’d be happy for the The Queen to put in an application. She seems a nice old dear, and the fact she’s still out there opening a new medical centre in Tamworth etc in her 90’s shows she’s very dedicated.
It’s just the hereditary monarchy bit I can’t cope with ."Yeah she'd be pretty qualified, lots of experience. That's cool. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. Shrug. " I have an idea. Let's give America back to the Native Americans! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. " Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. France need to get onto that..no one ever visits there." A French woman once told me "Don't go to Paris, it stinks". So, I'm going to Italy instead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. France need to get onto that..no one ever visits there. A French woman once told me "Don't go to Paris, it stinks". So, I'm going to Italy instead "I’ve always wanted to visit Italy myself. Where about in Italy you going | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing " Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. France need to get onto that..no one ever visits there. A French woman once told me "Don't go to Paris, it stinks". So, I'm going to Italy instead
I’ve always wanted to visit Italy myself. Where about in Italy you going "I'll do a thread on it later, instead of hijacking this one. I want ideas anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. France need to get onto that..no one ever visits there. A French woman once told me "Don't go to Paris, it stinks". So, I'm going to Italy instead "I would have thought Paris smelt like perfume and croissants? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. Shrug. I have an idea. Let's give America back to the Native Americans! " Umm. You don't want to know my views on this you won't like it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. " Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing " I think social mobility is actually decreasing. The vast majority of top jobs still go to People who went to Eton etc There was a story recently | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. Shrug. I have an idea. Let's give America back to the Native Americans! Umm. You don't want to know my views on this you won't like it "Lol I don't think my brain could take any more history lessons. Is it break time ?
History is fascinating though isn't it; it's just a lot to take in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it " Its about priveldge and entitlement aswell..its not just about money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing I think social mobility is actually decreasing. The vast majority of top jobs still go to People who went to Eton etc There was a story recently " Only 11 serving MPs went to Eton | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Its about priveldge and entitlement aswell..its not just about money." Wouldn’t you feel privileged with a load of money and an entitlement to spend it how you please ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The royal family is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the uk it’s what brings tourists in and spend money. Shrug. I have an idea. Let's give America back to the Native Americans! Umm. You don't want to know my views on this you won't like it
Lol I don't think my brain could take any more history lessons.
Is it break time ?
History is fascinating though isn't it; it's just a lot to take in."
Colonial history, post colonialism, and the lingering effects. It is a lot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing I think social mobility is actually decreasing. The vast majority of top jobs still go to People who went to Eton etc There was a story recently Only 11 serving MPs went to Eton " https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8961165/amp/One-seven-hold-societys-powerful-positions-went-ten-independent-schools.html The mail. I need a shower. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it " Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. " I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham." Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away)" How did they earn it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away) How did they earn it?" Property from my great great grandfather. Technically, it was my grandmother's property, apparently, but her brother managed to swindle it off her somehow. Anyway, we got it in the end. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm confused. What has the Russian Revolution got to do with anything? " Something to do with the Queen being removed in a similar way to the Russian Monarchy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away)" I think ownership and opportunity are two different things. I think we should give Joe Bloggs from Oldham and Prince George the same healthcare and education. That way Joe Bloggs isn't held back from curing cancer, which he might be bright enough to do, because he's born into a deprived area. Does that mean that a posh boy will miss out because he's not as smart as Joe? Maybe. Tough shit, if you're not good enough. Merit, not birth. And we can reflect that with taxes, safeguards against cronyism, etc, rather than "stealing from people". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away) I think ownership and opportunity are two different things. I think we should give Joe Bloggs from Oldham and Prince George the same healthcare and education. That way Joe Bloggs isn't held back from curing cancer, which he might be bright enough to do, because he's born into a deprived area. Does that mean that a posh boy will miss out because he's not as smart as Joe? Maybe. Tough shit, if you're not good enough. Merit, not birth. And we can reflect that with taxes, safeguards against cronyism, etc, rather than "stealing from people"." So, I can't pay for private healthcare because I can afford it? Should I wait in line for the NHS to get to me at the bottom of the list? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away) I think ownership and opportunity are two different things. I think we should give Joe Bloggs from Oldham and Prince George the same healthcare and education. That way Joe Bloggs isn't held back from curing cancer, which he might be bright enough to do, because he's born into a deprived area. Does that mean that a posh boy will miss out because he's not as smart as Joe? Maybe. Tough shit, if you're not good enough. Merit, not birth. And we can reflect that with taxes, safeguards against cronyism, etc, rather than "stealing from people". So, I can't pay for private healthcare because I can afford it? Should I wait in line for the NHS to get to me at the bottom of the list? " Yup. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away) How did they earn it? Property from my great great grandfather. Technically, it was my grandmother's property, apparently, but her brother managed to swindle it off her somehow. Anyway, we got it in the end. " The royal family | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing Doesn't mean they aren't after a slice of the cake. There's a bloody big cake on the table too. I won't write them all off though.Some MPs actually seem like they are in it to help the common people, not just claim expenses and have cheap lunches at the tax payers' expense. Everyone entitled to their own opinion, however all I see in this thread is people that seem to have an issue with individuals that have money. Yes some are born to it but some have worked hard for what they have. I’m thinking if a huge windfall fell in most of your laps you wouldn’t say no to it, even though you haven’t worked for it Some people born to it still work hard to keep it. I don't see why rich people should have their assets taken from them just because some people don't like rich people. If people didn't fight for land and resources, the whole world would still be living in little wooden huts in villages. I argue for opportunity equality. I'm not arguing taking everything from everyone. If you want it, earn it. And you earn it with the same or a similar backing as Joe Bloggs in Oldham. Their ancestors earned it and passed it on. I inherited some money from a distant relative a few years ago. I've never spoken to him and did nothing to deserve it. It's mine by right of birth. Should I have given it away? (I did actually give most of it away) I think ownership and opportunity are two different things. I think we should give Joe Bloggs from Oldham and Prince George the same healthcare and education. That way Joe Bloggs isn't held back from curing cancer, which he might be bright enough to do, because he's born into a deprived area. Does that mean that a posh boy will miss out because he's not as smart as Joe? Maybe. Tough shit, if you're not good enough. Merit, not birth. And we can reflect that with taxes, safeguards against cronyism, etc, rather than "stealing from people". So, I can't pay for private healthcare because I can afford it? Should I wait in line for the NHS to get to me at the bottom of the list? " Depends if you believe in private healthcare or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing I think social mobility is actually decreasing. The vast majority of top jobs still go to People who went to Eton etc There was a story recently Only 11 serving MPs went to Eton https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8961165/amp/One-seven-hold-societys-powerful-positions-went-ten-independent-schools.html The mail. I need a shower." I’m off to get my hazard suit.... really Lionel do I have to get it out of the cupboard on a Saturday | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm much more interested in the legal and history nerdiness, although personally I'd pension off the oldies and make the younger ones get real jobs at market rates. The monarchy gave up all their rights to the land and estates they owned and agreed to give power to the Government, for a share in their own earnings. They were kind of one arm behind their backs forced, but it's still their own money they are being given, and only the Queen gets it. It's called the Sovereign Grant and she gets it in exchange for surrendering all profits from her Estate. Charles has his own Estate and pays his own children. More money is paid back into the treasury than comes out in the Sovereign Grant. The whole "look what they cost us" argument holds no water. E I don't give a toss if they're 95% of the British economy. I think position by birth is immoral per se. A lot of MPs are where they are now because of who their parents are and which high fee paying school they were sent to. Following the last election 54% of the MPs were educated in comprehensive schools. Of the 155 newly elected MPs, 62% were educated at comprehensive schools, while a further 22% went to independent schools and 14% were educated at grammar schools So times are changing I think social mobility is actually decreasing. The vast majority of top jobs still go to People who went to Eton etc There was a story recently Only 11 serving MPs went to Eton https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8961165/amp/One-seven-hold-societys-powerful-positions-went-ten-independent-schools.html The mail. I need a shower. I’m off to get my hazard suit.... really Lionel do I have to get it out of the cupboard on a Saturday " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The reality is that your can't stop people spending their money. If they choose to spend it on private healthcare or education, there will always be a market for that. Even in state schools the wealthy kids have private tutors in the evenings to help with homework. Nothing is truly equal! Even genetics isn't equal. The child who would have been really clever, but mum drank during pregnancy resulting in foetal alcohol syndrome, is being denied what opportunities should have been his for the taking. Life is unequal and some have more privilege by birth than others. It's wrong, but it's reality!" Inequality in inevitable in capitalism. But you can take steps to minimise or actively make it worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The reality is that your can't stop people spending their money. If they choose to spend it on private healthcare or education, there will always be a market for that. Even in state schools the wealthy kids have private tutors in the evenings to help with homework. Nothing is truly equal! Even genetics isn't equal. The child who would have been really clever, but mum drank during pregnancy resulting in foetal alcohol syndrome, is being denied what opportunities should have been his for the taking. Life is unequal and some have more privilege by birth than others. It's wrong, but it's reality!" Fortunately we can redress inequality. There are ways. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The reality is that your can't stop people spending their money. If they choose to spend it on private healthcare or education, there will always be a market for that. Even in state schools the wealthy kids have private tutors in the evenings to help with homework. Nothing is truly equal! Even genetics isn't equal. The child who would have been really clever, but mum drank during pregnancy resulting in foetal alcohol syndrome, is being denied what opportunities should have been his for the taking. Life is unequal and some have more privilege by birth than others. It's wrong, but it's reality! Inequality in inevitable in capitalism. But you can take steps to minimise or actively make it worse." And as communist states proved inequality is inevitable in that route too!! Some animals are more equal than others remember?! My views are principally socialist at heart, but I'm also a pragmatic realist not an ideological idealist and I recognise that everyone starting from the same position and being given the same opportunities is impossible. Rather than seeking to bring the top down, the way to go is to seek to bring the bottom up whilst recognising that absolute equality is the domain of idealism, and is just not possible. Likewise with the Royal Family, I'm not their biggest fan by any means, but I also recognise the good that they do and the sacrifices they make as a result of their privilege. As for Republics you only have to look across the pond for an example of the reality of how the privileged are actually the ones that thrive and prosper in the same way the Royal Family have done so (and arguably the Royal Family have less power) - Trump was born into privilege and got to be President because his privilege and money bought the position - if you truly believe it was because he was voted there without the trappings of privilege and money then you are sadly mistaken. Neither set up is ideal, and both have their massive flaws - but you're somewhat deluded if you honestly believe doing away with the Royal Family will make the slightest shred of difference to anything, especially now when they are more a figure head than anything, albeit one that *does* attract interest and wealth through tourism etc. Sadly the only concepts that would truly give equality for all, have been proven time and again to be sound in theory, but quite the opposite in practice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
