FabSwingers.com forum: royal /republic

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

im not a fan of royalty ,off with their heads I say

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

[Removed by poster at 07/08/14 16:01:08]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

Really?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm a royalist it's a good discussion point

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xpresMan
over a year ago

Elland

Less than a quid a year.. Decapitation is a tad harsh isn't it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

I doubt there'll be a beheading but a move to a more low key Monarchy, like Holland or Spain, would be good.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The money that they all have why pay anything yes pay for the queen only not all of there off spring

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When have we as a nation done any thing low key

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

I love the royal family

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes we should have a figure head believe it or not she brings in a lot of income for the country

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Yes we should have a figure head believe it or not she brings in a lot of income for the country

So would public executions but I doubt we'll go back to that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *plankyMan
over a year ago

Beeston

If it's going to be a constructive argument then a well reasoned proposal for what or who might replace the Royal Family would be useful.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I doubt there'll be a beheading but a move to a more low key Monarchy, like Holland or Spain, would be good."

or like the Russian one

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"im not a fan of royalty ,off with their heads I say"

I'm not a fan of cocks in frocks but I wouldn't go as as far as to say cut their heads off.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But I don't want to live in a republic that supports the death penalty....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

"Less than a quid a year.. Decapitation is a tad harsh isn't it?"

Change ya username to King Charles I then let us know

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xxwiganMan
over a year ago

LEIGH

"If it's going to be a constructive argument then a well reasoned proposal for what or who might replace the Royal Family would be useful.

Is the second paragraph supposed to be sarcastic? Everyone knows that throughout history the royals have always behaved properly without a whiff or scandal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

I don't get the idea of royalty. I'd be more for a Republic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The concept of Royalty is a medieval drama. I liken patronage to religion its there for those who are in a mildly hallucinogenic state and need reassurance that allowing such triviality to continue they are somehow "nice"

The boy flying helicopters to save lives is admirable but a tad patronising to say the least.

If we are to have a royal family they should be paid a living wage and all the land and property the stole be given to the great unwashed. You may have guessed by now I am slightly biased on the republican side.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *horstrollMan
over a year ago

Caprona

"When have we as a nation done any thing low key "

Our forebears did set the standard for understatement.

A Republic under the lord protector, did not really improve the daily way of life.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"When have we as a nation done any thing low key

Our forebears did set the standard for understatement.

A Republic under the lord protector, did not really improve the daily way of life."
But that was 500 years ago were you around to substantiate that fact?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If it's going to be a constructive argument then a well reasoned proposal for what or who might replace the Royal Family would be useful.

Consider the advantages of the Presidential system in Germany (name forgotten, sacked for land fraud), France (presidential affairs of Hollande, Sarkozy get a lot of news coverage) or perhaps Italy ...."
But you can vote these people in and out..................the Royal Family are just there because of some Germanic twist of fate!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Here is something I just don't get

When certain royals go and open a leisure centre etc, and then they go walkabout, why the fuck do people cheer?.

I thought cheering was done at football matches when a goal is scored, at a pop concert after a great tune etc.

Not simply because you are a privileged ornament that inherited your position with absolutely no effort.

I have far more respect for self made success stories like Richard Branson etc etc etc than Ill ever have for a family that do bugger all and cost the tax payer a fortune.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm all for royalty and love all the pomp and circumstance that goes with it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think they are ok, some I like some I don't.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xpresMan
over a year ago

Elland

"But I don't want to live in a republic that supports the death penalty....

There is NO Law in this country That has a sentence of death penalty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why would we need a pm and a figure head ? The yanks have an elected president ant he's both ? Never understood why you need two ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

"I doubt there'll be a beheading but a move to a more low key Monarchy, like Holland or Spain, would be good.

or like the Russian one

So you support the slaughter of women and children...

Not one person has given a valid reason for getting rid of the royal family...

I'm sure all of you will give away anything you inherit as you are only inheriting due to a twist of fate...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

"I doubt there'll be a beheading but a move to a more low key Monarchy, like Holland or Spain, would be good.

or like the Russian one

So you support the slaughter of women and children...

Not one person has given a valid reason for getting rid of the royal family...

I'm sure all of you will give away anything you inherit as you are only inheriting due to a twist of fate..."
Well said.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"But I don't want to live in a republic that supports the death penalty....

There is NO Law in this country That has a sentence of death penalty "

Erm I was just making a light-hearted quip intended as an ironic repost to the non-serious intent of the original post and the thread title...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Less than a quid a year.. Decapitation is a tad harsh isn't it?"

Actually the Royal family does not cost us anything. The idea that it does is a crock of shit propagated by those who are looking to turn this country into a republic.

For those who want too know the truth read a little about our history, namely the Crown Estate. Here's a link to make it easy:http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/CrownEstatesxyz.aspx

The simple fact is that if we choose to stop giving the Crown the Civil List income we will have to return to the Crown the property that it has rented to us in return for Civil List.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

lol,,ffs do you folk really think I want ANYONES head chopped off.

still id get rid of the royals and the house of lords

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

And take back a lot of the land they own for the state. Why does the Prince of Wales need the whole of Cornwall?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

another thing why the hell is the queen Elizabeth the 2nd of great Britain? That's bollocks for a start.

She may be the 2nd of England but not of the uk or Scotland.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *unky monkeyMan
over a year ago

in the night garden

I quite like the Royal Family*

*Kate Middleton's arse

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"And take back a lot of the land they own for the state. Why does the Prince of Wales need the whole of Cornwall? "

Of course your right...

whey should the Duke of Westminster own most of central London, or the Rothschild's one of the worlds biggest banks and a good slice of Buckinghamshire...

And why stop at the super wealthy...

Do you own a house, car, TV or anything else?

After all didn't Marks say all property is theft? So rather than pointing fingers at those you think don't deserve what they have why not look in a mirror and point your finger at yourself then go out and rewrite your will giving all your property to the state because if you really believe what you are hinting at then your children do not have any right to benefit in any way from your endeavours.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

My house paid for by my work.

My car paid for by my work.

We live in a system which allows a very very few to own the greatest amount.

I have no problem with passing on to children but there has to be a ceiling for that.

The world produces enough food to feed every man, woman and child on Earth every single day. Yet some have the most obscene wealth whilst others starve.

Now, I know this is not the fault of the royals but they are representative of all that is wrong in those terms.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"My house paid for by my work.

My car paid for by my work.

We live in a system which allows a very very few to own the greatest amount.

I have no problem with passing on to children but there has to be a ceiling for that.

The world produces enough food to feed every man, woman and child on Earth every single day. Yet some have the most obscene wealth whilst others starve.

Now, I know this is not the fault of the royals but they are representative of all that is wrong in those terms. "

How much of that was earned by tyranny, stealing, pillaging, killing?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

"My house paid for by my work.

My car paid for by my work.

We live in a system which allows a very very few to own the greatest amount.

I have no problem with passing on to children but there has to be a ceiling for that.

The world produces enough food to feed every man, woman and child on Earth every single day. Yet some have the most obscene wealth whilst others starve.

Now, I know this is not the fault of the royals but they are representative of all that is wrong in those terms.

How much of that was earned by tyranny, stealing, pillaging, killing?"

How much of what? My earnings?

Tyranny, steaking, pillaging and killing aren't 'earning' money.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

people talk of the cost of the royals.

let those that support the monarchy pay for it not republicans.

I wonder for how long you'd be happy with your beloved royals

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"My house paid for by my work.

My car paid for by my work.

We live in a system which allows a very very few to own the greatest amount.

I have no problem with passing on to children but there has to be a ceiling for that.

The world produces enough food to feed every man, woman and child on Earth every single day. Yet some have the most obscene wealth whilst others starve.

Now, I know this is not the fault of the royals but they are representative of all that is wrong in those terms.

How much of that was earned by tyranny, stealing, pillaging, killing?

How much of what? My earnings?

Tyranny, steaking, pillaging and killing aren't 'earning' money. "

Lol not urs but the royal family

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"My house paid for by my work.

My car paid for by my work.

We live in a system which allows a very very few to own the greatest amount.

I have no problem with passing on to children but there has to be a ceiling for that.

The world produces enough food to feed every man, woman and child on Earth every single day. Yet some have the most obscene wealth whilst others starve.

Now, I know this is not the fault of the royals but they are representative of all that is wrong in those terms. "

Now why doesn't it surprise that you can justify why you should be able to pass on your accumulated wealth to your children but can also justify stripping others of their accumulated wealth when it exceeds yours.

I do find it quite amusing that you would quote the' we could feed all argument' to justify your envy of others because I am sure that the majority of the worlds population who survive on less than $1 a day would consider you to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

Don't assume my position is one of envy. I genuinely find it obscene that any individual can amass such wealth whilst others starve.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *izzy RascallMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

I like the royals, the younger ones or anyone connected to Diana. In other words her Sons.

Its refreshing to see Wills training to be a Helicopter Medic/Pilot thingy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They actually bring a lot more money into the economy (due to tourism) than they actually take out.

We shouldn't have to pay for them though but to keep it in perspective we pay on average £30 on top of our car insurance every Year because of uninsured drivers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Don't assume my position is one of envy. I genuinely find it obscene that any individual can amass such wealth whilst others starve.

I do not think you are an envious person, I dont think many people are. But I do think that you have been conditioned over years and as a result have bought into the politics of envy (as have most) and because of this refuse to how untenable your position really is.

By the way, the only thing wrong with the system is that taxation should be a totally (progressive) income based rather than a mixed or spending based system.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

"people talk of the cost of the royals.

let those that support the monarchy pay for it not republicans.

I wonder for how long you'd be happy with your beloved royals"

or maybe those that don't like it could leave...

As was said earlier the Crown Estate earns more money than the Royals cost...

Maybe you should go back through your family history to see if any of your relatives stole land, business, money or owned slaves so that you can make restitution...

If you got a knock at the door and you were told Lord Smith had died and left you a big country house and £15 million, you would say no thanks because 700 years ago one of his ancestors killed someone....I think not...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

they cause me zero angst......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"They actually bring a lot more money into the economy (due to tourism) than they actually take out.

We shouldn't have to pay for them though but to keep it in perspective we pay on average £30 on top of our car insurance every Year because of uninsured drivers."

that's bullshit and comparing the price of insurance is irrelevant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xpresMan
over a year ago

Elland

"And take back a lot of the land they own for the state. Why does the Prince of Wales need the whole of Cornwall? "

Because Cornwall is a tad rubbish.. Let him keep it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They actually bring a lot more money into the economy (due to tourism) than they actually take out.

We shouldn't have to pay for them though but to keep it in perspective we pay on average £30 on top of our car insurance every Year because of uninsured drivers.

that's bullshit and comparing the price of insurance is irrelevant.

Err no it isn't. Everyone that pays tax contributes 56p a Year to the Royals living expenses. Everyone that drives legally has to pay at least £30 every Year because of uninsured drivers.

Anyway Prince Andrew is going to be a full time Air Ambulance pilot and Harry does a lot of work for charity so 56p a Year is nothing really.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

When Prince William takes up his role as an air ambulance pilot he is donating his wages to charity...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"people talk of the cost of the royals.

let those that support the monarchy pay for it not republicans.

I wonder for how long you'd be happy with your beloved royals

or maybe those that don't like it could leave...

As was said earlier the Crown Estate earns more money than the Royals cost...

Maybe you should go back through your family history to see if any of your relatives stole land, business, money or owned slaves so that you can make restitution...

Funny you should mention slavery - the generations of the British Royal Family are the most prolific slave owning and trading dynasty in all of recorded history. They also made several billion pounds (in today's money) selling opium to the Chinese.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Funny you should mention slavery - the generations of the British Royal Family are the most prolific slave owning and trading dynasty in all of recorded history. They also made several billion pounds (in today's money) selling opium to the Chinese."

Really! You need to read a little history. Now I am sure that there are others much better qualified than me here who will be able to put numbers, names and dates to things. But I am sure that Ancient Mesopotamia/Persia 3000BC to 500BC was built on slavery (I believe that they invented Cuneiform Script to keep track of their property [mainly human property]). Thats about 2500 years! Then there's Ancient Egypt, again around 3000BC to 300BC, also built on slavery! Another 2700 years! After that have a look at Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire! Then do a little reading about the slave trade and check out the ARAB Slave routes and markets. I think you will find that even when we were buying and transporting slaves we bought them in Arab Slave markets that were in 'safe enclaves' and it is the Arabs that have run and profited from the slave trade since the start of recorded history and that is about 5000 years!

As for the Opium trade that was started by the Portuguese and British involvement was through the East India Company and had nothing to do with the Crown. The Opium wars were the result of mercantile greed and politicians failing to regulate the greedy. Just like the financial crash we are paying for now!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Do some reading on RECORDED history, not just out of comic books

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Either that or read my post properly, especially the bit about family, not entire civilisations.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

Let's face it most if not all of us will have relatives that made money through slavery, drugs and other trades that would now be frowned upon...

Being brutality honest I don't care what anyone did a couple of hundred years ago...

Look at paedophiles... What they do is totally wrong and indefensible on any leavel, yet about 130 years ago the age of consent was only 13... Do you look back and think that virtually every male before 1885 was a paedophile? No you don't. You are greatful for improvement and changes to the law but you don't look back in horror.

I don't agree with slavery in any shape or form but don't lay awake at night worrying if a long dead ancestor owned a slave... Lets face it England has been invaded and it's people taken for slaves on more than one occasion...

So let us learn from history but not hold anything against those that have prospered from it....

So you want a Republic? It wasn't that long ago that the USofA was dealing in drugs in Vietnam and South America...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"they cause me zero angst......"

i feel like that

i don't feel my life would be any better without them so not really bothered if they stay or go

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Off with their heads. The only argument anyone ever has about keeping the monarchy is that they're good for tourism. I say we could easily replace them with a couple of statues, perhaps even talking automatons, and that's that issue firmly covered

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

I must admit I met a member of the royal family a couple of weeks ago. They were very friendly, chatty and down to earth...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Off with their heads. The only argument anyone ever has about keeping the monarchy is that they're good for tourism. I say we could easily replace them with a couple of statues, perhaps even talking automatons, and that's that issue firmly covered

Right if you want a political argument for keeping the monarchy, how about this.

If your politics are left of centre how would you have liked to live in a country with President Margaret Thatcher and Premier Major, or if your right of centre President Blair and Premier Brown?

We live in a country where our head of state is apolitical and I for one think that is the only reason we need to keep them! Everything else they bring to the party is pure jam.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Right if you want a political argument for keeping the monarchy, how about this.

If your politics are left of centre how would you have liked to live in a country with President Margaret Thatcher and Premier Major, or if your right of centre President Blair and Premier Brown?

We live in a country where our head of state is apolitical and I for one think that is the only reason we need to keep them! Everything else they bring to the party is pure jam."

Why not have a paid "celebrity" to do the job then? Stephen Fry for King and Christopher Biggins for his Queen

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To be honest it's not the immediate royal family itself which is the problem... it's the extended network of lords and ladies, barons, knights, etc. These constitute a framework of privilege which is totally and utterly unjust. Just like in a work environment... the boss of it all might be pretty cool but it's all the middle management who politic and incestuously oversee who gets promoted and who doesn't.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Do some reading on RECORDED history, not just out of comic books

Guess that's Egyptology all those Egyptologists moved from their own branch of history to the fiction section along with all their hieroglyphic history.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Right if you want a political argument for keeping the monarchy, how about this.

If your politics are left of centre how would you have liked to live in a country with President Margaret Thatcher and Premier Major, or if your right of centre President Blair and Premier Brown?

We live in a country where our head of state is apolitical and I for one think that is the only reason we need to keep them! Everything else they bring to the party is pure jam.

Why not have a paid "celebrity" to do the job then? Stephen Fry for King and Christopher Biggins for his Queen

Because surprisingly enough I doubt you could find any lovie who would do the job for more than a few days and one of the real benefits of the Royals is they give stability to the country through continuity.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Do some reading on RECORDED history, not just out of comic books

Guess that's Egyptology all those Egyptologists moved from their own branch of history to the fiction section along with all their hieroglyphic history. "

Actually, Egyptologists are generally agreed that slavery was not as prolific as portrayed in biblical texts. Egyptian slaves were mostly "Hem", who were paid but had very low status, but certainly weren't owned by individuals.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"one of the real benefits of the Royals is they give stability to the country through continuity."

How on Earth can you qualify that statement? That's bordering on the edges of religious fervour!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

sorry somebody said head, if its on offer I'll take some ..... now what were we talking about again

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Less than a quid a year.. Decapitation is a tad harsh isn't it?

Actually the Royal family does not cost us anything. The idea that it does is a crock of shit propagated by those who are looking to turn this country into a republic.

The simple fact is that if we choose to stop giving the Crown the Civil List income we will have to return to the Crown the property that it has rented to us in return for Civil List. "
So let me understand your point. A website that Is produced by the royal family with some totally irrelevant financial information is to be taken as Gospel? I think you need to see beyond the myth. Its interesting that the boy is donating his salary to charity wnen the tax payer has just shelled out £4.4m on refurbishing the "Royal Couples" 21 bedroom apartment in Kensington. Get a grip!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Right if you want a political argument for keeping the monarchy, how about this.

If your politics are left of centre how would you have liked to live in a country with President Margaret Thatcher and Premier Major, or if your right of centre President Blair and Premier Brown?

We live in a country where our head of state is apolitical and I for one think that is the only reason we need to keep them! Everything else they bring to the party is pure jam."

I get your point but the problem is that they interfere with our political spectrum. Lets take a look at right wing politics for a start.

Right wing politics states that every man should be free to make what he can of his life.

The logical conclusion of that is republicanism because you can't believe that every man should be free to make what he can with his life AND simultaneously believe that some people deserve power by right of birth more than others. They are opposing ideologies. However... the monarchy has such a strong grip on our country that our right wing is actually more royalist than our left wing... an absolute absurdity which makes voting right wing in the UK an impossibility as all you're ever really voting for is a statist government.

Meanwhile the left believes that all people should enjoy certain equalities in a just society.

That the British left is even remotely royalist makes a complete mockery of left wing thought. Once again you are therefore limited to voting for a statist government.

Get rid of the royals and both the left and the right can follow their higher minded ideals without pandering to the ruling class. The ruling class will then move from one of privilege by birth to one of privilege by wealth. Agreeably this will probably include a lot of people from the current ruling class... but it also allows anyone in the UK to enter that class just by dint of their own business success... a much more ethical society imo

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So we have no head of state as we just do not need one if my proposition is incorrect tell me why.

We have a written constitution (which apart from the Magna Carta) we currently do not have.

We elect a house of representatives based on proportional representation which is answerable to an elected legislature.

Birth right has no part in a modern democracy and the very thought that a Queen (or King) is a head of state is medieval!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It would be if they had real power ! But they don't

however I would like to see them fund themselves ! They Can afford it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It would be if they had real power ! But they don't

however I would like to see them fund themselves ! They Can afford it

My understanding is that the royals still have the power to dissolve parliament... but they haven't done it because they fear that would mark the end of monarchy in the UK. So they still have the power but they are currently choosing not to use it.

All it would take is one more mad king who suddenly decides to dissolve parliament for some reason and the monarchy is gone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Lots of very valid points made in the last few posts.

As you may have guessed I am a royalist, this is not because I perceive a benefit for myself or my family from this. In fact I am an RC which makes me (and my family) 2nd class citizens in Britain. But because I believe that the British system of parliamentary democracy to be the least flawed of those realistically available.

As has been pointed out the Monarch has the theoretical to dissolve parliament but choose not to do so because it would in all probability result in a second civil war. But we have to remember that that same threat curbs the excesses of those who control most of the strings of political power. Removal of the Crown would remove those curbs and very quickly we would become a pale imitation of the USA with the same social problems and same sort of self-serving political elite.

As for national continuity and stability that can best be demonstrated by the oath of allegiance that all who join our armed forces or take up public office must swear prior to taking up their post. It leave no room for interpretation, any who swear the oath understand that it is an oath of duty that is not open to 'interpretation' and is quite surprisingly understood by all. To the point that when Sinn Fain representatives are elected to Westminster they do not take up their seats because of that oath.

As for funding themselves, they do, see my previous posts. And as for the comment about me linking the Royal household site as a link I read it before posting the link and thought of all the places I could have sent people it was the least bias and also gave information that could be seen as negative if either misquoted or quoted out of context.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Lots of very valid points made in the last few posts.

I really believe that if the Republicans get their way by the time we all wake up to what we have chosen we will no longer have the power to reverse our decision and will be in the hand of the corrupt and unscrupulous. "
So by accepting that you a second class citizen because of you religion it somehow legitimises an archaic institution such as royalty only makes me believe that we have to change the system. The first past the post system in a valid democracy is the most unfair way of selecting those who governor the country. We have a prime minister that commands less than 30% of the electorate. Our democracy is flawed and that flaw is under pinned by the fact we have a system that allows a group of people to have ridiculous patronage in a time when there are more important things to deliver ...........than the next royal baby! As I say get a grip

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have no head of state as we just do not need one if my proposition is incorrect tell me why.

We have a written constitution (which apart from the Magna Carta) we currently do not have.

We elect a house of representatives based on proportional representation which is answerable to an elected legislature.

Birth right has no part in a modern democracy and the very thought that a Queen (or King) is a head of state is medieval!

We have a written Constitution which we currently dont have ?I think Presidento Blair was the last self serving egotistical nutter to come out with something like that and expect Joe public to nod their heads in agreement,

HRH Gimp

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"So we have no head of state as we just do not need one if my proposition is incorrect tell me why.

We have a written constitution (which apart from the Magna Carta) we currently do not have.

We elect a house of representatives based on proportional representation which is answerable to an elected legislature.

Birth right has no part in a modern democracy and the very thought that a Queen (or King) is a head of state is medieval!

HRH Gimp"

And he should have his head chopped off too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have no head of state as we just do not need one if my proposition is incorrect tell me why.

We have a written constitution (which apart from the Magna Carta) we currently do not have.

We elect a house of representatives based on proportional representation which is answerable to an elected legislature.

Birth right has no part in a modern democracy and the very thought that a Queen (or King) is a head of state is medieval!

HRH Gimp"
I am sorry but I do not follow you thought process?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have no head of state as we just do not need one if my proposition is incorrect tell me why.

We have a written constitution (which apart from the Magna Carta) we currently do not have.

We elect a house of representatives based on proportional representation which is answerable to an elected legislature.

Birth right has no part in a modern democracy and the very thought that a Queen (or King) is a head of state is medieval!

HRH Gimp

And he should have his head chopped off too"

Oh i agree 100%, I hate that person with all my being

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ratty_DamselWoman
over a year ago

Greater London

Definitely a republic.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have no head of state as we just do not need one if my proposition is incorrect tell me why.

We have a written constitution (which apart from the Magna Carta) we currently do not have.

We elect a house of representatives based on proportional representation which is answerable to an elected legislature.

Birth right has no part in a modern democracy and the very thought that a Queen (or King) is a head of state is medieval!

HRH Gimp I am sorry but I do not follow you thought process?"

Quite simple really, You stated that we have a constitution that we dont have.

We either have a Constitution or we dont

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have no head of state as we just do not need one if my proposition is incorrect tell me why.

We have a written constitution (which apart from the Magna Carta) we currently do not have.

We elect a house of representatives based on proportional representation which is answerable to an elected legislature.

Birth right has no part in a modern democracy and the very thought that a Queen (or King) is a head of state is medieval!

HRH Gimp I am sorry but I do not follow you thought process?

Quite simple really, You stated that we have a constitution that we dont have.

We either have a Constitution or we don't"
We don't have a written constitution.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

I agree we have a flawed system, but until someone comes up with a way to stop the Hitler's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Ceau?escu's, Papa Doc Duvalier, Sadam's et al or even Trick Dicky who said 'if the president did it it's not illegal' grabbing power in Republics I'll stick with our flawed system of not having a political head of state.

I would say to all those republicans out there be careful what you wish for because you may get it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"I agree we have a flawed system, but until someone comes up with a way to stop the Hitler's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Ceau?escu's, Papa Doc Duvalier, Sadam's et al or even Trick Dicky who said 'if the president did it it's not illegal' grabbing power in Republics I'll stick with our flawed system of not having a political head of state.

I would say to all those republicans out there be careful what you wish for because you may get it."
the bushes the blairs the scamerons, the Clintons are just as bad, but most are brainwashed by propaganda

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would say to all those republicans out there be careful what you wish for because you may get it."
You mean like most (sane) European political systems. The fact is the current system in the UK is flawed. It needs some radicle politics to fix it!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

well very proud here to have served QUEEN and COUNTRY

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"well very proud here to have served QUEEN and COUNTRY "

Oooh

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"well very proud here to have served QUEEN and COUNTRY "
I admire your service but it is for the citizens of this country?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"well very proud here to have served QUEEN and COUNTRY I admire your service but it is for the citizens of this country?"

I'm sure the citizens would have voted no on sending cannon fodder to war

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"well very proud here to have served QUEEN and COUNTRY I admire your service but it is for the citizens of this country?

I'm sure the citizens would have voted no on sending cannon fodder to war"
That's a completely different subject. I travel the world with my work and lucky to do so but coming home to this sceptre Isle is very nice. My allegiances to a political aparty stopped over Iraq.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *plankyMan
over a year ago

Beeston

Why is it so difficult for those Against ... to propose a viable alternative to the monarchy that we can all agree on?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Would we NEED an alternative?

From what I see the current incumbent signs legislation and goes on foreign trips.

Surely we don't need someone to do that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Why is it so difficult for those Against ... to propose a viable alternative to the monarchy that we can all agree on?

"
Frankie Boyle..............he would be an alternative?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah there's this assumption that a president blair (urgh) or a president cameron (urgh) would have any more power than they currently have. I don't think they would. We just don't need the monarchy... that's all... primarily because they don't do anything

Oh how could I forget... they do the terribly difficult job of shaking people's hands and waving at them from their passing carriage. Hmmm I refer back to my suggestion for electronic automatons

Of course I might completely change my tune if King Charles III dissolves parliament and insists that the whole country goes green and organic, quits testing GM crops, imposes proportional representation, and cancels any plans for horrible looking buildings and ugly wind farms in pretty neighborhoods. Then I'd be out there singing god bless the king to all the plants in my greenhouse. Our country needs someone with vision and balls

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yeah there's this assumption that a president blair (urgh) or a president cameron (urgh) would have any more power than they currently have. I don't think they would. We just don't need the monarchy... that's all... primarily because they don't do anything

Oh how could I forget... they do the terribly difficult job of shaking people's hands and waving at them from their passing carriage. Hmmm I refer back to my suggestion for electronic automatons

"
Well said apart from the wind farms in pretty villages I think every hamlet in the UK should have 5

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Would we NEED an alternative?

From what I see the current incumbent signs legislation and goes on foreign trips.

Surely we don't need someone to do that."

But what about the colour - doesn't it need to be trooped on a regular basis, or it goes bad? And Royal Mail would be just "mail" which could be very confusing for dyslexic women.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Of course, all the Ladies in Waiting could stop waiting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Oh how could I forget... they do the terribly difficult job of shaking people's hands and waving at them from their passing carriage. Hmmm I refer back to my suggestion for electronic automatons

Again, someone shows their total lack of knowledge about how our democracy works and how much influence the Monarch has over government policies.

Firstly most legislation passed into law is not primary legislation voted on by parliament but secondary legislation signed into law by misters of state with the approval of the Monarch (and the Monarch withholds this approval quite often causing pieces of divisive legislation to be referred back to parliament where they are generally quietly dropped because of their nature). Further during the working year (that is whenever parliament is sitting the Prime Minister has to attend the Monarch weekly to report on the business of government. Every PM who has ever commented on this has said that it has always reminded them that although they have held the most powerful position in the land they are also held to account for their actions.

Moreover because of their totally apolitical position in our country the Royal Family can represent us without drawing hostility in places where our government are at political loggerheads with others.

But hey, what do we need them for after all they do nothing for us or our country.

I really think that some Republicans need to drop their political sectarianism and find out how the country works and exactly how much of a check the Monarchy is on the excesses of politicians and their paymasters.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Again, someone shows their total lack of knowledge about how our democracy works and how much influence the Monarch has over government policies.

But hey, what do we need them for after all they do nothing for us or our country.

I've gotta admit I like your replies... they've made me think deeper about the subject than normal. Thx

But that doesn't mean I'm gonna let my guillotine blade get rusty lol

...not yet at least... but I'll have a think on it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah some people forget that the royal family are for the people and that they have influence over the government to prevent tyranny.

And the heritage that reminds us so fondly of "Great Britain?" Protected often by the royal family. And the trusts set up to give kids a future? Also many set up by the royal family.

If you want to be a republican, you can always see how Texas will treat you

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The royals are out dated and bigoted

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Again, someone shows their total lack of knowledge about how our democracy works and how much influence the Monarch has over government policies.

But hey, what do we need them for after all they do nothing for us or our country.

I've gotta admit I like your replies... they've made me think deeper about the subject than normal. Thx

But that doesn't mean I'm gonna let my guillotine blade get rusty lol

...not yet at least... but I'll have a think on it "

Thank you! Its always good to know that someone has heard what I am saying!

However with all due respect I would suggest that you burn your guillotine (it's not got a great history... something to do with the Frogs I think

) and swap it for a good headsmans axe, after all it worked wonders on Jan 30 1649!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Again, someone shows their total lack of knowledge about how our democracy works and how much influence the Monarch has over government policies.

But hey, what do we need them for after all they do nothing for us or our country.

I've gotta admit I like your replies... they've made me think deeper about the subject than normal. Thx

But that doesn't mean I'm gonna let my guillotine blade get rusty lol

...not yet at least... but I'll have a think on it

Thank you! Its always good to know that someone has heard what I am saying!

However with all due respect I would suggest that you burn your guillotine (it's not got a great history... something to do with the Frogs I think

) and swap it for a good headsmans axe, after all it worked wonders on Jan 30 1649!

I'm a catholic but I can't marry into the royal family because of that!! Bigots or not??

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"I'm a catholic but I can't marry into the royal family because of that!! Bigots or not??"

So am I, and it is not nice to know that you are a second class citizen in your own country. But that law was passed by politicians when they invited William of Orange to take the throne, so please do not blame the royals for that.

I would also say that I would rather be a second class citizen here than top of the pile anywhere else in the world.

And just to be absolutely clear I am first generation Southern Irish Catholic (born here and schooled in Ireland by The Holy Ghost Fathers).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm a catholic but I can't marry into the royal family because of that!! Bigots or not??

I would also say that I would rather be a second class citizen here than top of the pile anywhere else in the world.

And just to be absolutely clear I am first generation Southern Irish Catholic (born here and schooled in Ireland by The Holy Ghost Fathers)."

Surely they can change that law?

In Glasgow u can be arrested for religious discrimination but if your catholic u can't be a royal or prime minister !!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"I'm a catholic but I can't marry into the royal family because of that!! Bigots or not??

I would also say that I would rather be a second class citizen here than top of the pile anywhere else in the world.

And just to be absolutely clear I am first generation Southern Irish Catholic (born here and schooled in Ireland by The Holy Ghost Fathers).

Surely they can change that law?

In Glasgow u can be arrested for religious discrimination but if your catholic u can't be a royal or prime minister !!! "

I fully understand how you feel, being from Glasgow you have grown up with the sectarian divide and all its ills so please believe me when I say I sympathise. But there are some things that should not be changed, not because they are right or wrong, but because changing them weakens the very foundations that much more has been built on. It is truly my belief that changing the succession law to make the first born first in line to the throne rather than it be the first male is just the first in a line of planned moves to turn this country into a republic. I further believe that changing the laws of religious establishment (which would be needed, and many are demanding) in order to allow Catholics to become consorts to the Monarch or heir to the Throne would be another step down that road. It is a road I do not want to go down, be it for those who see our future as a democratic republic or those who wish to see an Islamic flag flying over Downing St and Britain an Islamic republic.

Sometimes the cost of equality is freedom and I believe that this countries population is being manipulated by unscrupulous politicians hungry for the extra power they believe they will gain by manoeuvring us into a republic. While others are quietly fuelling the fires of republicanism while getting ready to take charge and change this country out of all recognition.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aGaGagging for itCouple
over a year ago

Newcastle upon Tyne

"people talk of the cost of the royals.

let those that support the monarchy pay for it not republicans.

I wonder for how long you'd be happy with your beloved royals"

Good idea!

There are some interesting comments on this thread. With the issue of capital punishment, it was only abolished in Britain in 1998 as it remained on the statute book for high treason and piracy.

What pisses me off about the royals is the concept that somehow they are better than everyone else, that they inherit their status and that our national anthem is about a person rather than about our country. However, the alternative is a Republic. Do we really want a politician who is in it for their own interest and self gain as the figure head of the country- power corrupts etc. It's a tough choice but i guess you can at least change the president.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Need to bleed them dry first, like they have done with us. Then they get onto the council house waiting list.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

"Need to bleed them dry first, like they have done with us. Then they get onto the council house waiting list. "

Have they really bled you dry? A little over the top... I am sure you can afford 56p a year...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm a catholic but I can't marry into the royal family because of that!! Bigots or not??

I would also say that I would rather be a second class citizen here than top of the pile anywhere else in the world.

And just to be absolutely clear I am first generation Southern Irish Catholic (born here and schooled in Ireland by The Holy Ghost Fathers)."
Your point of _iew is confused to say the least. You seem to be agreeing with a system that because of your religious persuasion you are precluded from marrying into the Royal family? Your comments on this countries legislator are so incorrect I do not know where to start. However take Prince Charles as a starting point. At no time has he ever been elected to the office he occupies however he has tried to influence government ministers with a string of private letters on subjects ranging fro building in the green belt to homeopathy. Once a mere mortal such as you or I writes to an MP that correspondence is a public record yet the heir to the throne has his injunction in place to stop the public reading his rants. The whole system is wrong and it needs to come to an end!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

royalty equals tourism equals cash for country..they earn more than they cost ..end off ..no brainer really

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm an English Nationalist but not a Royalist but I have to admit not as anti royal as I was ! I think Charles deserves a lot of respect for his love and treatment of Prince Harry

( and yes I am thinking what most people deep down think but can't say ) ,

As for the subject ? Why not just have a referendum ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"royalty equals tourism equals cash for country..they earn more than they cost ..end off ..no brainer really"
Can you provide the facts for this pearl of wisdom?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Have they really bled you dry? A little over the top... I am sure you can afford 56p a year..."

I can afford 56p a year, but would prefer not to swell their coffers any further. I think they have bled the country dry over the centuries that they've held power. All of their wealth is attributable to us their 'servants'.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

There's something intrinsically wrong with a system where one person is expected to now or curtsy to another.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"There's something intrinsically wrong with a system where one person is expected to now or curtsy to another."

Onny you, I, or anyone else is expected to bow (or curtsy) to the head of state of any country so why should that mark of respect for the office not be appropriate for our head of state?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"There's something intrinsically wrong with a system where one person is expected to now or curtsy to another."

Darent touch her backside get ripped by the newspapers

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Need to bleed them dry first, like they have done with us. Then they get onto the council house waiting list.

Have they really bled you dry? A little over the top... I am sure you can afford 56p a year..."

where on earth do you get this figure from,YOU PAY FOR THEM if you want, others should be able to opt out.

I wonder how long you'd put up with then then .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There's something intrinsically wrong with a system where one person is expected to now or curtsy to another."

Some people have the need to feel subservient to their "betters", possibly because they have so little confidence in themselves. You find the same mind-set amongst cult followers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

Have they really bled you dry? A little over the top... I am sure you can afford 56p a year...

Ok, I will pay your share for the royal family and you can pay my share for the benefit scroungers, the health tourists and the non working immigrants...

At the end of the day I think you are niev if you think it would be any different under any other system. It is human nature for people to think that they deserve more than others.

The crown estate gives all it's profit to the government, this is more than the government gives to the royal family. Like it or not the Windsor' s inherited the estate legally, so they could opt out and keep that money and be better off.

The also bring in large numbers of tourists adding more money to the government's coffers...

As usual the anti royalists shout but don't back up their argument with fact...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

So 50,000 people paid their 56p to fund prince Charles train trip from kings cross to harrowgate.

And it took another 25,000 people to pay for the duke of York to travel to Scotland to watch a game of golf.

to have the fairytale of royalty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"So 50,000 people paid their 56p to fund prince Charles train trip from kings cross to harrowgate.

And it took another 25,000 people to pay for the duke of York to travel to Scotland to watch a game of golf.

to have the fairytale of royalty "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

Not like the people we vote in who never waste our money and always take the cheapest option....

I'm sure in your perfect republic that would all be a thing of the past...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Prince Charles and Camilla came here last week and the whole town turned out. When we met an american couple at the hotel all she could talk about was princess Kate. I think the younger royals are bloody fantastic and moving with the times

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"Prince Charles and Camilla came here last week and the whole town turned out. When we met an american couple at the hotel all she could talk about was princess Kate. I think the younger royals are bloody fantastic and moving with the times

You go to America and they talk about Mickey mouse

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"So 50,000 people paid their 56p to fund prince Charles train trip from kings cross to harrowgate.

And it took another 25,000 people to pay for the duke of York to travel to Scotland to watch a game of golf.

to have the fairytale of royalty

He gets about 2 million from us

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow

[Removed by poster at 09/08/14 21:32:40]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow

They give us a respect worldwide,

money could not buy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Hope there still around in my life time

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"They give us a respect worldwide,

money could not buy.

I don't understand this who gives who respect worldwide?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"They give us a respect worldwide,

money could not buy.

Do you see the world through ok magazine?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"So 50,000 people paid their 56p to fund prince Charles train trip from kings cross to harrowgate.

And it took another 25,000 people to pay for the duke of York to travel to Scotland to watch a game of golf.

to have the fairytale of royalty

He gets about 2 million from us"

Can you provide evidence of that please?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They give us a respect worldwide,

money could not buy.

Do you see the world through ok magazine?"

It's pointless arguing with pro-royal types. They consider themselves to be less worthy humans than royals, and they're entitled to that opinion, no matter how sad it is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

A few years ago if I had attempted to answer this question I am pretty sure I would have been out there sharpening that axe blade. However the more recent generation of the imediate royal family appear to have a little more to them than their elders, one of whome I regard as a weak minded idiot and is a huge waste of money (regardless of where that money comes from).

These days I feel that there are much more important issues that need to be tackled than whether or not we keep the royals, regardless of my personal _iews about them as an institution or as individuals. Such as the hoplessly outdated and ineffective voting system we have to put up with or the fundimentaly flawed economic model which appears to drive a significant number of political decisions.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow

"They give us a respect worldwide,

money could not buy.

Do you see the world through ok magazine?

It's pointless arguing with pro-royal types. They consider themselves to be less worthy humans than royals, and they're entitled to that opinion, no matter how sad it is."

Lol

I don't have time to read magazines,

I'm to busy practising doffing my hat,and my bended knee pose.

Plus they have palace's and stuff, how could I not be less worthy,ehh.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So 50,000 people paid their 56p to fund prince Charles train trip from kings cross to harrowgate.

And it took another 25,000 people to pay for the duke of York to travel to Scotland to watch a game of golf.

to have the fairytale of royalty

No one pays a penny for Prince Charles, he receives nothing from the Civil List or in any other way from the public purse. Prince Charles like all heirs to the throne on reaching majority are given the Duchy of Cornwall and have to live on the income generated by that."
Quite wrong. All functions Charles attends (official) are funded by the civil list or a government department that has a bag of Money to pay for such escapades. You need to get your facts wrong and stop looking through royal coloured spectacles!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So 50,000 people paid their 56p to fund prince Charles train trip from kings cross to harrowgate.

And it took another 25,000 people to pay for the duke of York to travel to Scotland to watch a game of golf.

to have the fairytale of royalty

He gets about 2 million from us

Can you provide evidence of that please?"
The Queen has received a £5 million “pay rise” after a new system of funding the monarchy has come into force.

Her annual tax-free government grant has been set at £36.1 million for the 2013/14 financial year - up from the £31 million funding she received for the previous year under the old system.

The Sovereign Grant, which came into effect this week, replaces the Civil List and grants-in-aid and means the Queen receives 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate two years earlier.

So in 2011/12 the estate made profits of £240.2 million, meaning the grant figure for 2013/14 was rounded up to £36.1 million. So the Royal Family take 15% profit on all money earned by the Crown Estate which is owned by the tax payer. In summary we give the Royal household £5m from publically owned property notwithstanding the fact that the queen has a personal wealth estimated at £1.4b Its just plain wrong.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

"They give us a respect worldwide,

money could not buy.

Do you see the world through ok magazine?

It's pointless arguing with pro-royal types. They consider themselves to be less worthy humans than royals, and they're entitled to that opinion, no matter how sad it is."

To be honest as someone who has aristocratic ancestors I see my self as better than most people....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *U1966Man
over a year ago

Devon

Do a brilliant job and we are lucky to have them well respected throughout the world

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

"Do a brilliant job and we are lucky to have them well respected throughout the world"

What job?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Do a brilliant job and we are lucky to have them well respected throughout the world

What job?"
Hand waving and stealing money from the tax payer!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Right if you want a political argument for keeping the monarchy, how about this.

If your politics are left of centre how would you have liked to live in a country with President Margaret Thatcher and Premier Major, or if your right of centre President Blair and Premier Brown?

We live in a country where our head of state is apolitical and I for one think that is the only reason we need to keep them! Everything else they bring to the party is pure jam."

Didn't we have Presidents Thatcher and Blair? They both introduced many policies that people at large disagreed with, including members of their cabinets. They just rode roughshod over everyone. Did the House of Lords or Queen intervene to stop their worst excesses? I can't see the need or reason for a monarchy. Many western countries do fine without one and all do so without the huge cost and excess of ours. As for some posts saying royals bring in tourists, really? When did anyone last look at who was the head of state before deciding where to holiday! I think the French do quite well from tourism, many famous landmarks bring of interest to tourists from the time of the revolution. America is hugely wealthy and powerful, part of this being from adopting a presidential system. Yet our wealth and power declines year upon year. So why is a monarchy necessary? Just can't see it. Also the cost of the royals runs into billions. It is not just the Civil List. Dispatches did an expose a few years back. And those who argue that it is only a few quid a year miss the point. For every ultra rich person in society, there are many living in poverty. None of us should accept such iniquity

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would say to all those republicans out there be careful what you wish for because you may get it."

While Henry the eighth, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, James I etc etc never did anything similar!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *luezuluMan
over a year ago

Suffolk

God save the Queen. God bless the prince of Wales

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

I would say to all those republicans out there be careful what you wish for because you may get it.

While Henry the eighth, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, James I etc etc never did anything similar!

It's a little pointless comparing murderous dictators of the last hundred years with figures from hundreds of years ago...

I feel sorry for the anti royalists that this grates them so much... I dread to think how they deal with real problems in their lives...

To me most just sound like jealous have nots...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would say to all those republicans out there be careful what you wish for because you may get it.

While Henry the eighth, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, James I etc etc never did anything similar!

It's a little pointless comparing murderous dictators of the last hundred years with figures from hundreds of years ago...

I feel sorry for the anti royalists that this grates them so much... I dread to think how they deal with real problems in their lives...

To me most just sound like jealous have nots..."

Not jealous. Just don't see the need for royals. Ideally I'd like autonomy. Wouldn't you? Point I was making is that there will be abuses whoever is head of state. Monarchy or dictators cannot be elected out. Elected heads of state can. If we have to have one head of state - and I cannot see we do need that - why not someone who has clearly defined policies and can be voted in and out on that basis? And if we have a monarchy, why is it so ostentatious? And costly? Only we do that. You feel sorry for me. I feel sorry for you. I refute the suggestion inherent in monarchy that someone should rule over me simply due to birth right. Why do you feel otherwise?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes we should have a figure head believe it or not she brings in a lot of income for the country

Last time I read anything on this....admittedly a few years back. The ADITTIONAL tourist income generated due to having a royal family was just over 4 times what they cost through the civil list, I make that a bargain!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *extoysareusCouple
over a year ago

kinky heaven

"Do a brilliant job and we are lucky to have them well respected throughout the world

What job?"

Wearing pretty clothes and hats, nazi uniforms, selling arms,waving etc etc

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riskynriskyCouple
over a year ago

Essex.

"Do a brilliant job and we are lucky to have them well respected throughout the world

What job?

Wearing pretty clothes and hats, nazi uniforms, selling arms,waving etc etc"

A job we would all love if we were honest...lol

How many dictators started out as elected heads of state / Presidents? Most if not all I would wager... How many people travel to see the President of the USA? Probably not that many, whereas many people travel to the Uk because of the royals and the pomp and ceremony that comes with it.

This is one of those things that we will never agree on. So as long as we can agree that I'm right, let that be an end to the matter...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes we should have a figure head believe it or not she brings in a lot of income for the country

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"people talk of the cost of the royals.

let those that support the monarchy pay for it not republicans.

I wonder for how long you'd be happy with your beloved royals

or maybe those that don't like it could leave...

As was said earlier the Crown Estate earns more money than the Royals cost...

Maybe you should go back through your family history to see if any of your relatives stole land, business, money or owned slaves so that you can make restitution...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread