Indeed, far too much inbreeding in the past. Di was a start, but she was from the same genepool. Ms Middleton is not only quite fit, but she is apparently the first potential Queen not to come from 'good stock' for over 300 years. 50 years ago, maybe even 20, this would never have been allowed.
I'm just happy to see we are finally at a point that when a royal knocks up a fair maiden that they marry them instead of walking away, laughing maniacally.
Elmodiddly wrote:It's ok for you lot, I'll be on damned parade practice for fracking weeks on end to march up and down a parade square to "celebrate" the wedding!
Certainly don't miss that!
Hopefully, we will all get a public holiday to 'celebrate'
Something else for the public to foot the bill for.
Bloody parasites.
I don't have particularly strong views on the monarchy either way, but I do think they bring value to the country and they are big part of why the UK is still on the map.
Something else for the public to foot the bill for.
Bloody parasites.
I don't have particularly strong views on the monarchy either way, but I do think they bring value to the country and they are big part of why the UK is still on the map.
And yet owning their own private estates, why exactly do we have to pay them *anything*.
Completely agree. I'm already paying for one wedding. Not to mention what an undue bank holiday will cost to the UK economy, I certainly wont be taking the day off.
Flashman wrote:Indeed, far too much inbreeding in the past. Di was a start, but she was from the same genepool. Ms Middleton is not only quite fit, but she is apparently the first potential Queen not to come from 'good stock' for over 300 years. 50 years ago, maybe even 20, this would never have been allowed.
Well, she's never going to be Queen. Plus, with the whole "break-up while I go to the military" thing he has going on, I wouldn't count on them getting married or still being married if/when he is crowned.
The best advice to all you republicans out there is that bearing in mind this is a summer wedding and the weather might be sunny (although this is the UK, so who knows) is to head off to the beach and enjoy the peace and quiet.
Something else for the public to foot the bill for.
Bloody parasites.
Oh please, the amount of money spent on this wedding won't amount to dick in the grand scheme of a national budget. Seriously, your government probably loses more money on stolen office supplies than this.
Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, I'm not advocating a Republic.
I just object to paying out what is essentially a massive state benefit to a bunch of tossers who have their own means.
Hence, they are parasites.
Maybe their benefits will be cut back as part of Dave's new welfare reform program... But I wouldn't hold your breath
Hahahhahahaa! Good old 'feth the Poor' Cameron and his arsehole mates!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyyr wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:Oh joy.
Something else for the public to foot the bill for.
Bloody parasites.
Oh please, the amount of money spent on this wedding won't amount to dick in the grand scheme of a national budget. Seriously, your government probably loses more money on stolen office supplies than this.
Easy to say when it's not your money they're pissing up the wall.
Grakmar wrote:Well, she's never going to be Queen.
?
Flashman suggested Catherine Elizabeth Middleton is a potential Queen.
She's not. There's no way she will ever be Queen.
No way at all, unless a certain two people die.
But she's not a royal. She could be a consort to the King. But, she will never be Queen.
Ah I think I see what you're getting at. No, she will not be 'Queen of England' like Elizabeth II, but she will get the title assuming they get that far. A King's wife in the UK always has the honorific of 'Queen' bestowed upon her, although there is some debate as to whether this will apply to Camilla.
Grakmar wrote:But she's not a royal. She could be a consort to the King. But, she will never be Queen.
Omg is that right? Seriously what the feth is wrong with you lot who support this stupid monarchy. Why do we allow an institution with such prejudice? They treated your ancestors like gak, remember that.
Mr Mystery wrote:Easy to say when it's not your money they're pissing up the wall.
Get over yourself. You lot have a wedding every few decades. We foot the bill for an inauguration every 4 years even if we reelect the same fething guy.
Mr Mystery wrote:Easy to say when it's not your money they're pissing up the wall.
Get over yourself. You lot have a wedding every few decades. We foot the bill for an inauguration every 4 years even if we reelect the same fething guy.
And im still wondering why you do.... to you others: As to the question of Queen? do you really care? i still cant get overe the fact that someone didnt shoot Cammilla in the face yet. thats your real problem.
Flashman wrote:
Ah I think I see what you're getting at. No, she will not be 'Queen of England' like Elizabeth II, but she will get the title assuming they get that far. A King's wife in the UK always has the honorific of 'Queen' bestowed upon her, although there is some debate as to whether this will apply to Camilla.
I thought you still had to be a royal in order to get the title "Queen consort". Won't she end up like Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburg?
Plus, if the rumors of Camilla only getting the title "Princess consort" are true, it would most likely apply to her as well.
Mr Mystery wrote:Easy to say when it's not your money they're pissing up the wall.
Get over yourself. You lot have a wedding every few decades. We foot the bill for an inauguration every 4 years even if we reelect the same fething guy.
And we fund them day in day out.
Queen Mother for instance, died with massive debts. We picked up the tab for that as well. OH, and thanks to a 'special deal' her estate didn't have to pay inheritance tax. IT WAS OUR BLOODY MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Stuff the Royals and their handouts. Piss off and work for it.
Flashman wrote:
Ah I think I see what you're getting at. No, she will not be 'Queen of England' like Elizabeth II, but she will get the title assuming they get that far. A King's wife in the UK always has the honorific of 'Queen' bestowed upon her, although there is some debate as to whether this will apply to Camilla.
I thought you still had to be a royal in order to get the title "Queen consort". Won't she end up like Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburg?
Plus, if the rumors of Camilla only getting the title "Princess consort" are true, it would most likely apply to her as well.
Well I'm not an expert, but the press already have her lined up as Queen Catherine (not Queen Kate - too common), so I'm guessing royal blood isn't so much of an issue anymore. Besides for all the talk about the traditions surrounding the Royal Family, their 'traditions' have a habit of changing over relatively short periods of time.
As for the Duke of Edinburgh, the tradition of the time is that the spouses of female monarchs are indeed Prince Consorts, so he is known as Prince Philip in much the same way as Prince Albert.
Yeh this is what I thought to be the case too. I think it's to do with some sexist policy whereby a King is more powerful than a queen, therefore you can't have the Queen as a monarch along side a King.
I didn't know about the: commoner can't be a queen thing though, as Grakmar brought up. If that is the case. I knew it was hundreds of years ago, i.e. only nobles can become knights etc. But that's all gone now so I assumed the "only of royal lineage" bollocks had too.
Though I think that they are trying illustrate that unlike most Royals (barring the youngest generation) she actually has some kind of education that wasn't wasted.
Though a 2:1 isn't the best you can do.
Not that I have a degree you understand, just being sarcastic for it's own sake.
Mr Mystery wrote:Couldn't give a monkies either way.
Though I think that they are trying illustrate that unlike most Royals (barring the youngest generation) she actually has some kind of education that wasn't wasted.
Though a 2:1 isn't the best you can do.
Not that I have a degree you understand, just being sarcastic for it's own sake.
Can someone shed some light on this "2:1" thing? Does that mean an associates degree?
Degree awards are categorized as:
First class honours (bestest)
Second class honours, upper (2:1)
Second class honours, lower (2:2)
Third class honours
It is a Bacholar Degree, so not the same as an Associate Degree.
I've got a 2.1 degree. I was 2% off a first, let that be a lesson to all undergrads out there to always hand in everything, no matter how trivial a part of your grade it is I forgot to hand in a stats assignment that would have bumped me to the covetted first. Deserve that 2.1 for my stupidity, I do.
I just hope I can avoid most of the coverage. I have no strong feelings about the royals but I don't want to HEAR about them.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Degree awards are categorized as:
First class honours (bestest)
Second class honours, upper (2:1)
Second class honours, lower (2:2)
Third class honours
It is a Bacholar Degree, so not the same as an Associate Degree.
Ah, so for us colonists: She has a BA in art history and graduated magna cum laude. Right?
My latin is a tad rusty, but assume that big with praise is pretty much the same as a 2:1 honours degree after a quick google to check the American system of classification.
I guess common, diluted stock is better than highly inbred stock that produces people that look like Prince Charles. I don't think Di liked him for his looks.
Something else for the public to foot the bill for.
Bloody parasites.
Ho hum. Have you any idea what the nation gets for the civic list.
The Queens owns a lot of farming land all the lands revenue goes to the treasury, ALL of it, except that returned in the civic list. The Royals pay MORE tax than anyone else in real terms.
What is th Civil List used for, entertaining, as in hosting those the Government invites, the palaces actually run themselves on the Investments. H.M. has a lot of banking assets and the interest from that alone is enough to run the Royal family.
This hasnt touched the fiscal benefits the economy gets from the Royals. We had some brain dead leftie last night crowing about how the wedding will be a asset drain in recession and cost and taxpayers money blah blah, however most people who think about it or even a little while will realise that this will bring an enormous cash boost to the economy.
If you want to go Royal bashing, try an intelligent reason. Any study of the facts will find that the fiscally case for a continuing Monarchy and Royal events is exceptionally strong, and cannot be challenged with any logic. Some issues are hard to quantify, this one can, th cost of the Monarchy is minor compared to the economic benefit.
olympia wrote:The latest spin is that this will be good for the economy because all you brits will buy commemorative tea sets and such.
More than just us Brits, they will sell worldwide. The only downside is that there is no 'branding', except for the Royal crest anyone can make commemorative items, so anyone can cash in, not just those in blighty. I strongly suspect this will happen, and much of the Royal sourveniers will flow cash to the pockets of manufacturers in india and China. No problem, a lot of the stuff will still be sold in London shops, and enough punters will want to buy something more 'official' with a Made in London stamp on it.
When you add tourism and televisation contracts it could come up to quite a lot.
The biggest boost will be the circus effect, macro-economic strength is illusory at its heart. We are in a recession because we think we are and public morale has a lot to do with spending, raise public morale (anti-Monarchist grumblers aside) and cash flows for a while at least.
Orlanth considering your arguments are most probably based on this bs idea that the Royal Family only cost something like 35m a year to UK taxpayers I don't really rate this idea that they bring in more money than they cost.
There are bypasses built in this country that cost less an nth of what the royal family does yet bring in more to the economy. Two weeks ago we were told if the clocks weren't change forward and stayed in line with Europe the UK economy would gain two billion pounds, but it didn't go through due to initial costs and protest from Scotland. But you'd rather make small change on tea sets?
The defense of the Royal Family on the basis they are a money spinner is flawed firstly on the basis that they do in fact cost a lot more than what some biased publication made out, which didn't even take into account the costs of the Royal Familys security which were fronted mainly by the met and defense budget. And secondly because there are far better places the money could be put if the aim was to gain capital. That's not the aim. The aim is to support this dumb relic as a novelty. Paying no respect to our ancestors who these people treated like utter gak.
H.M. has a lot of banking assets and the interest from that alone is enough to run the Royal family.
John Major gave the best reason for a Constitutional Monarchy that I've ever heard. His view was that it serves as a back up plan for the British people. If ever we got to a stage where we had accidentally voted in the likes of Hitler to power and subsequently wanted to get rid of him, the Monarchy would fill the power vacumn until proper democracy could be restored.
Not a bad idea when you look at what happened/is happening in Iraq during their power vacumn. It would probably work too because the Armed Forces first loyalty is to the Crown not Parliament.
Flashman wrote:John Major gave the best reason for a Constitutional Monarchy that I've ever heard. His view was that it serves as a back up plan for the British people. If ever we got to a stage where we had accidentally voted in the likes of Hitler to power and subsequently wanted to get rid of him, the Monarchy would fill the power vacumn until proper democracy could be restored.
Not a bad idea when you look at what happened/is happening in Iraq during their power vacumn. It would probably work too because the Armed Forces first loyalty is to the Crown not Parliament.
What is it about un-democraticly elected monarchs which gives you faith in their ability to run the country?
Flashman wrote:John Major gave the best reason for a Constitutional Monarchy that I've ever heard. His view was that it serves as a back up plan for the British people. If ever we got to a stage where we had accidentally voted in the likes of Hitler to power and subsequently wanted to get rid of him, the Monarchy would fill the power vacumn until proper democracy could be restored.
Not a bad idea when you look at what happened/is happening in Iraq during their power vacumn. It would probably work too because the Armed Forces first loyalty is to the Crown not Parliament.
What is it about un-democraticly elected monarchs which gives you faith in their ability to run the country?
Mmm...yea, monarchs are just dictators with better PR. In fact they're worse. At least a dictator had to work to get his post, not the mothbreathing son/daughter of some dictator ages past. It is wrong to be French, but the French weren't wrong.
whatwhat wrote:Orlanth considering your arguments are most probably based on this bs idea that the Royal Family only cost something like 35m a year to UK taxpayers I don't really rate this idea that they bring in more money than they cost.
Key spending figures
Spending by the Queen as head of state increased by 1% last year to £35.3m Spending on travel by air and rail fell £432,000 from £5,368,000 in 2000-01 to £4,936,000 in 2001-02
Property maintenance and services spending increased from £15.29m to £15.52m
Revenue from the crown estate rose from £93.5m to £148m last year
HM gets £35.3m from us commoners taxes, get out yer pitchfork whatwhat.
HM government claims £148m from the royal estates.
whatwhat wrote:
There are bypasses built in this country that cost less an nth of what the royal family does yet bring in more to the economy. Two weeks ago we were told if the clocks weren't change forward and stayed in line with Europe the UK economy would gain two billion pounds, but it didn't go through due to initial costs and protest from Scotland. But you'd rather make small change on tea sets?
Whats that got to do with it? Its like saying, we saved £x on NHS spending this year, so why try to save money on global warming.
whatwhat wrote:
The defense of the Royal Family on the basis they are a money spinner is flawed firstly on the basis that they do in fact cost a lot more than what some biased publication made out, which didn't even take into account the costs of the Royal Familys security which were fronted mainly by the met and defense budget.?
Royal security costs were included. The palace staff are for the most part government appointees, i.e. civil servants with costs shifted. This is doubly true because the curent palace appointees were heavily party politicised by the previous administration.
The guards outside Buckingham Palace should not be included, they do not defacto protect the Queen except by happenstance, the civic protection budget is large enough anyway. Besides they do the states work, the guards serve in Ganners and elsewhere like the rest of the army.
whatwhat wrote:
And secondly because there are far better places the money could be put if the aim was to gain capital. That's not the aim. The aim is to support this dumb relic as a novelty. Paying no respect to our ancestors who these people treated like utter gak.
Dumb relic? more like smart relic. The monarchy is the final check that stops our country sinking. Our political system gives the PMa lot of power, this has been abused. Threat of royal assent being withdrawn has stopped even Blair from overrstepping the line. You know that the PM must report to the Monarch, accountability of a de facto head of state is only practically possible by a figurehead head of state. Its indicative that Blair was the only PM in modern history to refuse to do so.
whatwhat wrote:
H.M. has a lot of banking assets and the interest from that alone is enough to run the Royal family.
Then why don't they?
They do. That was clear enough.
The Queens personal investment income is more than enough to pay for HM and the Royal Family's living, actually they dont cost much really. Most of the assets are already owned, they dont neede to buy much except the consumables. If you notice the breadown of costs, see how its mostly salaries to civil servants and functions. What really costs are the garden parties and state visits. Who does those, technically HM but in reality its the politicians. The PM says 'entertain this crony, entertain that dictator' and they get invited. Its a DIPLOMATIC FUNCTION designed to support the nation, or in real terms support the government at the time.
This is what makes the idiotic cries of waste and cost so appalling, especially from left wingers. The 'lavish' costs in recent years were on account of increased functions required by the government, for its own benefit, for which Blair and Brown hypocritically blamed the monarchy to keep its own idiot followers smiling and drinking the Kool aid. At least Callaghan and Wilson had enough respect to see this as it was.
Try talking to a guardsman someday. A good loyal guardsman will not give personal anecdotes, but will give you an indication of the sort of scum the Queen had to put up with in her house because they were in cahoots with Phony Tony.
Yes all Uk governments use this system, however its normally give and take with respect involved. Its the take-take with no respect that is galling.
whatwhat wrote:Orlanth considering your arguments are most probably based on this bs idea that the Royal Family only cost something like 35m a year to UK taxpayers I don't really rate this idea that they bring in more money than they cost.
Key spending figures
Spending by the Queen as head of state increased by 1% last year to £35.3m Spending on travel by air and rail fell £432,000 from £5,368,000 in 2000-01 to £4,936,000 in 2001-02
Property maintenance and services spending increased from £15.29m to £15.52m
Revenue from the crown estate rose from £93.5m to £148m last year
HM gets £35.3m from us commoners taxes, get out yer pitchfork whatwhat.
HM government claims £148m from the royal estates.
As I have said, that report leaves out a vast number of figures which come out of other budgets, like defence, transport and police.
Orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
There are bypasses built in this country that cost less an nth of what the royal family does yet bring in more to the economy. Two weeks ago we were told if the clocks weren't change forward and stayed in line with Europe the UK economy would gain two billion pounds, but it didn't go through due to initial costs and protest from Scotland. But you'd rather make small change on tea sets?
Whats that got to do with it? Its like saying, we saved £x on NHS spending this year, so why try to save money on global warming.
]
Erm no it's ms more like saying. We can spend the same amount we do on the royal family and add more to the economy than if we did.
Orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
The defense of the Royal Family on the basis they are a money spinner is flawed firstly on the basis that they do in fact cost a lot more than what some biased publication made out, which didn't even take into account the costs of the Royal Familys security which were fronted mainly by the met and defense budget.?
Royal security costs were included. The palace staff are for the most part government appointees, i.e. civil servants with costs shifted. This is doubly true because the curent palace appointees were heavily party politicised by the previous administration.
The guards outside Buckingham Palace should not be included, they do not defacto protect the Queen except by happenstance, the civic protection budget is large enough anyway. Besides they do the states work, the guards serve in Ganners and elsewhere like the rest of the army.
I'm not talking about palace guards with flipping bears on their head ffs. I'm talking about police and defence forces. They are not on that list because the costs spent on the monarchy by them are in their own budgets.
orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
And secondly because there are far better places the money could be put if the aim was to gain capital. That's not the aim. The aim is to support this dumb relic as a novelty. Paying no respect to our ancestors who these people treated like utter gak.
Dumb relic? more like smart relic. The monarchy is the final check that stops our country sinking. Our political system gives the PMa lot of power, this has been abused. Threat of royal assent being withdrawn has stopped even Blair from overrstepping the line. You know that the PM must report to the Monarch, accountability of a de facto head of state is only practically possible by a figurehead head of state. Its indicative that Blair was the only PM in modern history to refuse to do so.
Good to know you can relly on autocracy when you need it ey.
orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
orlanth wrote:
H.M. has a lot of banking assets and the interest from that alone is enough to run the Royal family.
Then why don't they?
They do. That was clear enough.
Clearly they dont. They still recieve taxpayers money.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If that article was true that would make the British Head of state one fo the cheapest in the world. Don't be so naive.
Flashman wrote:John Major gave the best reason for a Constitutional Monarchy that I've ever heard. His view was that it serves as a back up plan for the British people. If ever we got to a stage where we had accidentally voted in the likes of Hitler to power and subsequently wanted to get rid of him, the Monarchy would fill the power vacumn until proper democracy could be restored.
Not a bad idea when you look at what happened/is happening in Iraq during their power vacumn. It would probably work too because the Armed Forces first loyalty is to the Crown not Parliament.
What is it about un-democraticly elected monarchs which gives you faith in their ability to run the country?
Flashman (and John Major) had it right. Voters can be wrong, they were in Germany in 1933.
Her Majesty has no direct power, but as huge latent authority. It can and has been used. You se the best form os dictatroship is a combination of democracy and ignorance. We have a democracy, we also have a lot of ignorance and people dont see the truth until too late. If you can control the media spin you can get away with just about anything.
How did Blair win in 2001, bys seeling off our gold reserves, raised spending and cut taxes. People only thinmk short term you see, so it was 'wonderful'. his was repeated in 2005 but by sealing a huge debt which Brown piled on and on. He would have done the same had the people been hoodwinked again. Fortunately the expenses scandal and ther gowing realisation that we couldnt pay our debts awoke enough people.
It should be noted that the Blair-Brown economic model is what ruined post independence African economies. Democracy is not a magic ticket to a bright future, democracy can be abused, and one of the easiest ways to do this is to conceal spending, raise huge hidden debts and appear competent for a while. A selfish democratically elected politician has one overriding concern, re-election, the fortunes of the people can often take a distant second place if at all. This is what we had with Blair and we will pay for possibly up to 50 years for it. Yet Blair didnt manage to get all he wanted to do, he got rid of the hereditaries. Muppets thought this was 'fairer', but in fact all it did was remove those people who had no iolitical allegiance to account for their place, and replaced them with cronies who did. Have you realised that yet whatwhat, or do you still buy the bs fed back in 1999. This and other changes and not a fewe draconian laws allowed him to go further than he otherwise could, but one last safeguard remained.
This safeguard is the reason why a constitutional monarchy with an non-appointed non-elected titular head of state and an elected representative administrative head of state is the best type of government this planet has. Blair was an attempt to test it to breaking point.
Flashman wrote:John Major gave the best reason for a Constitutional Monarchy that I've ever heard. His view was that it serves as a back up plan for the British people. If ever we got to a stage where we had accidentally voted in the likes of Hitler to power and subsequently wanted to get rid of him, the Monarchy would fill the power vacumn until proper democracy could be restored.
Not a bad idea when you look at what happened/is happening in Iraq during their power vacumn. It would probably work too because the Armed Forces first loyalty is to the Crown not Parliament.
What is it about un-democraticly elected monarchs which gives you faith in their ability to run the country?
Flashman (and John Major) had it right. Voters can be wrong, they were in Germany in 1933.
Her Majesty has no direct power, but as huge latent authority. It can and has been used. You se the best form os dictatroship is a combination of democracy and ignorance. We have a democracy, we also have a lot of ignorance and people dont see the truth until too late. If you can control the media spin you can get away with just about anything.
How did Blair win in 2001, bys seeling off our gold reserves, raised spending and cut taxes. People only thinmk short term you see, so it was 'wonderful'. his was repeated in 2005 but by sealing a huge debt which Brown piled on and on. He would have done the same had the people been hoodwinked again. Fortunately the expenses scandal and ther gowing realisation that we couldnt pay our debts awoke enough people.
It should be noted that the Blair-Brown economic model is what ruined post independence African economies. Democracy is not a magic ticket to a bright future, democracy can be abused, and one of the easiest ways to do this is to conceal spending, raise huge hidden debts and appear competent for a while. A selfish democratically elected politician has one overriding concern, re-election, the fortunes of the people can often take a distant second place if at all. This is what we had with Blair and we will pay for possibly up to 50 years for it. Yet Blair didnt manage to get all he wanted to do, he got rid of the hereditaries. Muppets thought this was 'fairer', but in fact all it did was remove those people who had no iolitical allegiance to account for their place, and replaced them with cronies who did. Have you realised that yet whatwhat, or do you still buy the bs fed back in 1999. This and other changes and not a fewe draconian laws allowed him to go further than he otherwise could, but one last safeguard remained.
This safeguard is the reason why a constitutional monarchy with an non-appointed non-elected titular head of state and an elected representative administrative head of state is the best type of government this planet has. Blair was an attempt to test it to breaking point.
Again autocracy is not excused by failure in government. A democraticly elected body would serve better in the function your trying to explain than a monarch.
Frazzled wrote:Get real. If the monarchy tried to assume power they'd be dead by the end of the day. The time for kings and queens has past.
Yup. Arguing in favour of the monarchy based on political power isn't going to get you nowhere. Since at the end of the day, they are an un-elected autocracy, it's as simple as that.
whatwhat wrote:
As I have said, that report leaves out a vast number of figures which come out of other budgets, like defence, transport and police.
Transport was directly included. Police and dfence costs ar liable for any leadership. The civic protection protects more than just HM that list is quite large as I am sure you can imagine. It also long succeeds time spent in office.
whatwhat wrote:
Erm no it's ms more like saying. We can spend the same amount we do on the royal family and add more to the economy than if we did.
I contest that utterly. Not only are the figures for the additional expences not going to come to £113M (£148M - £35m) but protectiver measures are multi-role. Soldiers for example do more than just guard HM.
This however only account costs of the civic list compared to money taken from the crown estate by HM Treasury. I cannot begin to account for the other fiscal benefits of a monarchy, I wonder if any can. However Royal visits, having the Royal crest on a shop because the Queen trades there etc etc, they count for a lot. I remember American commentators on a UK Expo in the US in the mid 80's when Charles and Diana visited, it was estimated that the publicity gain was worth possibly equivalent to a billion dollars of advertising. The House of Windsor possibly paid for itself for decades in just one week, and yes sales of the commodities displayed there did flow. Advertising benefits are hard to fathom, which is why I like to stick to known costs but thwey certainly do exist.
Why not do this every year, or week, if they are so lucrative. Because the rarity of such visits are part of what maintains the appeal.
On top of this HM is arguably one of the best known faces on the planet, and also one of the most respected, one of the ace cards HM government has to play is to offer a Royal visit, or for HM to berequested to host a foreign leader in Buckingham Palace. This is of inestimable publicity value to a foreign leader back home. Noone, and I do mean noone has th same effect. If the premier of a nation has HM visiting itcauses a feelgood factor with a large proportion of the populace. Even in commonweath countries where the continued ties to the monarchy are hotly debated a Royal visit is a top show that never fails to help. Even most Aussies and Yanks get in on the party atmosphere, it helps UK's standaing abroad and it can be a veritable boost for the government in power over there.
Having Obama visist is a cheap immitation, it will get attention, but not anything like the same. The only possible rival to this would by the pope, and His Holiness has lost appeal over recent months.
Can I put a price to that. No. But HM government somewhere does, and its a high diplomatic price, often part of a deal sealer. Big deal with China over Hong Kong, HM went to stay in Chaina for a week, this helped us, it also helped China, and possiblty more than anyone else China are pragmatic enough to understand what helps and what does not. Compare who gets Royal visits to who is in power in Downing street at the time, its interesting to see who gets favoured and who does not.
whatwhat wrote:
I'm not talking about palace guards with flipping bears on their head ffs. I'm talking about police and defence forces. They are not on that list because the costs spent on the monarchy by them are in their own budgets.
...and they would still be needed after a monarchy was aboluished. They are part of a larger security system.
Blair moved an SAS detachment to London for his own benefit, not for HM.
Its also interesting to note here that soldiers owe allegiance to HM not the PM, this is important, not least to soldiers and is part of the safguard.
whatwhat wrote:
Good to know you can relly on autocracy when you need it ey.
One word: Quango.
You really think we live in a deomocracy with elected people placed above us? We get to squeal every four to five years over a broad brush change, once elected people get put in change even of ministries who are not chosen by the people. Peter Mandleson is an good example.
Autocracy is a given, better for the 'auotcrat' to be a monarch with no direct power, except as a safeguard over elected officials, than a crony of said elected officials with no regard for any but thmselves.
whatwhat wrote:Clearly they dont. They still recieve taxpayers money.
Obviously you dont know maths. On the civic list issue HM is £113M down to the government. On top of that they pay for their daily lives themselves.
whatwhat wrote:
If that article was true that would make the British Head of state one fo the cheapest in the world. Don't be so naive.
Learn to subtract.
£148M - 35M = bad deal for HM. Those who whine about the cost of the civic list and how it presumably is coming from taxpayers pockets are the naive ones. Especially if they swallow the bs about reducing or removing the royal family for democratic or frugal reasons. Lefty government, flugal, give us a break. Its not democratic either. One of New Labours plans was to limit tyhe Queens speech to once per termof office not once per session of parliament. Why? The only logical reason is to limit the amount of times the govenment has to be accountable to state what it intends to do.
whatwhat wrote:
Again autocracy is not excused by failure in government. A democraticly elected body would serve better in the function your trying to explain than a monarch.
How can that be the case.
Demagogue government: We will hoodwink the people into placing debts onto the grandchildrens time in return for extrra squadner cash now and a tax break so we all look good in time for re-election.
Stupid voters : yeah! Vote for you
Monrch: Hold on a minute
or
Demagogue government: We will hoodwink the people into placing debts onto the grandchildrens time in return for extrra squadner cash now and a tax break so we all look good in time for re-election.
Stupid voters : Yeah! Vote for you.
Other elected body: Yeah! Vote for us.
You are putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
whatwhat wrote:
Yup. Arguing in favour of the monarchy based on political power isn't going to get you nowhere. Since at the end of the day, they are an un-elected autocracy, it's as simple as that.
It works well enough for that very reason and has done so for some time. We still have our democracy. The UK has a particularly volatile electorate, always had, the safeguard works.
whatwhat wrote:
As I have said, that report leaves out a vast number of figures which come out of other budgets, like defence, transport and police.
Transport was directly included. Police and dfence costs ar liable for any leadership. The civic protection protects more than just HM that list is quite large as I am sure you can imagine. It also long succeeds time spent in office.
Actually a large amount of transport isn't included in that report as others have made clear. Also the fact Police and Defence costs are needed for any leadership doesn't really support your argument for one we don't need.
orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Erm no it's ms more like saying. We can spend the same amount we do on the royal family and add more to the economy than if we did.
I contest that utterly. Not only are the figures for the additional expences not going to come to £113M (£148M - £35m) but protectiver measures are multi-role. Soldiers for example do more than just guard HM.
This however only account costs of the civic list compared to money taken from the crown estate by HM Treasury. I cannot begin to account for the other fiscal benefits of a monarchy, I wonder if any can. However Royal visits, having the Royal crest on a shop because the Queen trades there etc etc, they count for a lot. I remember American commentators on a UK Expo in the US in the mid 80's when Charles and Diana visited, it was estimated that the publicity gain was worth possibly equivalent to a billion dollars of advertising. The House of Windsor possibly paid for itself for decades in just one week, and yes sales of the commodities displayed there did flow. Advertising benefits are hard to fathom, which is why I like to stick to known costs but thwey certainly do exist.
Why not do this every year, or week, if they are so lucrative. Because the rarity of such visits are part of what maintains the appeal.
On top of this HM is arguably one of the best known faces on the planet, and also one of the most respected, one of the ace cards HM government has to play is to offer a Royal visit, or for HM to berequested to host a foreign leader in Buckingham Palace. This is of inestimable publicity value to a foreign leader back home. Noone, and I do mean noone has th same effect. If the premier of a nation has HM visiting itcauses a feelgood factor with a large proportion of the populace. Even in commonweath countries where the continued ties to the monarchy are hotly debated a Royal visit is a top show that never fails to help. Even most Aussies and Yanks get in on the party atmosphere, it helps UK's standaing abroad and it can be a veritable boost for the government in power over there.
Having Obama visist is a cheap immitation, it will get attention, but not anything like the same. The only possible rival to this would by the pope, and His Holiness has lost appeal over recent months.
Can I put a price to that. No. But HM government somewhere does, and its a high diplomatic price, often part of a deal sealer. Big deal with China over Hong Kong, HM went to stay in Chaina for a week, this helped us, it also helped China, and possiblty more than anyone else China are pragmatic enough to understand what helps and what does not. Compare who gets Royal visits to who is in power in Downing street at the time, its interesting to see who gets favoured and who does not.
The Roman empire hasent existed for over a thousand year yet people still travel to italy to see the remnants of it. Getting rid of the monarchy will not stop people coming to britain to see our history.
orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
I'm not talking about palace guards with flipping bears on their head ffs. I'm talking about police and defence forces. They are not on that list because the costs spent on the monarchy by them are in their own budgets.
...and they would still be needed after a monarchy was aboluished. They are part of a larger security system.
Blair moved an SAS detachment to London for his own benefit, not for HM.
Its also interesting to note here that soldiers owe allegiance to HM not the PM, this is important, not least to soldiers and is part of the safguard.
No the police cost in closing down a street for the queen to drive through and wave at onlookers would not be required without a monarchy. That is the kind of thing I am referring too here.
orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Good to know you can relly on autocracy when you need it ey.
One word: Quango.
You really think we live in a deomocracy with elected people placed above us? We get to squeal every four to five years over a broad brush change, once elected people get put in change even of ministries who are not chosen by the people. Peter Mandleson is an good example.
Autocracy is a given, better for the 'auotcrat' to be a monarch with no direct power, except as a safeguard over elected officials, than a crony of said elected officials with no regard for any but thmselves.
Just because quangos exist doesn't make your argument valid. That's akin to being acused of something wrong and then pointing to someone who did the same thing adnd got away with it therefore you should too. Besides what you are suggesting is a lot more substantial than what you are comparing it with here. You are suggesting arbitrary decision by an unelected individual over government. Quite different.
orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Clearly they dont. They still recieve taxpayers money.
Obviously you dont know maths. On the civic list issue HM is £113M down to the government. On top of that they pay for their daily lives themselves.
Erm I said if they can afford to support themselves, which you said was the case, then that is what they should do. Where does my maths come into it? I'm going by what you have stated.
orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
If that article was true that would make the British Head of state one fo the cheapest in the world. Don't be so naive.
Learn to subtract.
£148M - 35M = bad deal for HM. Those who whine about the cost of the civic list and how it presumably is coming from taxpayers pockets are the naive ones. Especially if they swallow the bs about reducing or removing the royal family for democratic or frugal reasons. Lefty government, flugal, give us a break. Its not democratic either. One of New Labours plans was to limit tyhe Queens speech to once per termof office not once per session of parliament. Why? The only logical reason is to limit the amount of times the govenment has to be accountable to state what it intends to do.
Again, the 35m figure is a crock of gak.
Orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Again autocracy is not excused by failure in government. A democraticly elected body would serve better in the function your trying to explain than a monarch.
How can that be the case.
Demagogue government: We will hoodwink the people into placing debts onto the grandchildrens time in return for extrra squadner cash now and a tax break so we all look good in time for re-election.
Stupid voters : yeah! Vote for you
Monrch: Hold on a minute
or
Demagogue government: We will hoodwink the people into placing debts onto the grandchildrens time in return for extrra squadner cash now and a tax break so we all look good in time for re-election.
Stupid voters : Yeah! Vote for you.
Other elected body: Yeah! Vote for us.
You are putting the fox in charge of the henhouse..
lmao. So your confidence that the monarch is going to get the decision right over an elected body is based on what? Is it because she's a nice old lady that wears pretty hats?
Frazzled wrote:Get real. If the monarchy tried to assume power they'd be dead by the end of the day. The time for kings and queens has past.
Thats not how it works.
Hm has to countersign every law passed. Normally even if the law is unpopular it is countersigned anyway. however technically HM has the option to refuse. De facto this is expected to be reerved for the day when the govenement says, 'no more elections we are good enough as is.' The only other way out would be massive civil unrest, Royal assent power
There is a second use of that, if HM says I will not sign that, because the bill is passed a government might be forced to negotiate on what it wants to do. Hm doesnt make laws, but can force a government to rethink some bills.
The secnd power, which is not used, but can be is the power to dissolve parliament and demand a frsh election. technically this is the only way to call an election. The PM asks the Queen to dissolve parliament at the govenments timing, though HM has the power to call an election at any time. This is dictator insurance. Hm is not a dictator, she cannot pass laws, her power allows her to remove a demagogue, and nothing else.
Dont think that cannot happen, you mention:
Frazzled wrote:
...yea, monarchs are just dictators with better PR. In fact they're worse. At least a dictator had to work to get his post, not the mothbreathing son/daughter of some dictator ages past. It is wrong to be French, but the French weren't wrong.
De Gaulle was popular enough that he became a de facto dictator for a while in the 60's. The UK cannot do that so long as the monarchy is around.
Also on the dictator note. a dictator rises to power by force-majeur, most politicians do one way or another, they have to be selected befroe they are elected. People who climb on top of bodies, metaphorical or otherwise rise to the top in politics. This system always favours the ruthless. A monarch is born to power, they have no inherent power but ar brought up for th role. I trrust Hm to have the nations interests at heart over any elected poltician. This aspect was shared by the hereditary peers.
They were abiolished on the grounds that they were undemocratic(true but not a downside) and all toy toffs (totally unfair). ty was the hereditaries who blocked Thatcher when she went too far, when the blovked Blair blair then removed them. why, because he didnt like to be blocked. so instead he made more peers than any leader in history since William the Conqueror, almost all cronies. Some democracy.
Hereditary pers did include a few flakes, and system of allocation but birthright will, but the hereditaries sat out of duty, bit out of gain, because they couldnt gain. Theycouldnty be appointed they couldnt (normaly) be removed, so they didnt have to climb the greasy pole or play favourites. This is why most would vote out of conscience, blocking bad moves by Blair, thatcher or any other politician that crossed the line.
Most of the draconian legislation paased by new Labour would not haver got through had ther hereditaries been still there in more than a token amount.
Most of the truly stable nations in the world are either hereditary consitutional monarchies or confederations. Monaco works ok
So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?
Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.
What's more your lack of faith in elected government is what makes you think that.
"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"
whatwhat wrote:[No the police cost in closing down a street for the queen to drive through and wave at onlookers would not be required without a monarchy. That is the kind of thing I am referring too here.
Which the majority of the public have no problem with, which is why there is a crowd for HM to wave at anyway. Notice what happens, people smiliaing and or waving Union Jacks outnumber protestors considerably. In fact the protestors are hardly evident at all, and the press do like to focus on such things.
Just because quangos exist doesn't make your argument valid. That's akin to being acused of something wrong and then pointing to someone who did the same thing adnd got away with it therefore you should too. Besides what you are suggesting is a lot more substantial than what you are comparing it with here. You are suggesting arbitrary decision by an unelected individual over government. Quite different.
whatwhat wrote:Erm I said if they can afford to support themselves, which you said was the case, then that is what they should do. Where does my maths come into it? I'm going by what you have stated..
They do, as stated, you should try to read it clearly. They pay us £113M net for the 'privilege' of supposedly receiving a handout for which they must work and be grumbled at by nitwits who think they are loafing on our money.
The £35M 'received' goes to GOVERNMENT expenses, thinks like palace staffing, equiries etc. the vast majority of these are office functions chosen by the state for the states benefit. Who do you think chooses who is the Queen's press secretary and other senior, HM or the government. You will find it is the government.
HM has enough cash from royal investments to pay for a new car, more clothes a paitnign etc, and that is how such costs are met.
whatwhat wrote:
Again, the 35m figure is a crock of gak.
Care to source your own figures. You got anything to back this up other than bile.
whatwhat wrote:
lmao. So your confidence that the monarch is going to get the decision right over an elected body is based on what? Is it because she's a nice old lady that wears pretty hats?
Based on the fact that she didnt need to lie or cheat to reach her position. You think politicans that reach power do so based on being honest and scrupulous and above reproach, and you are calling me naive for knowing otherwise. What irony.
A constituational monarchy is hemmed in enough that we miss out on most of the negative effects of having a bad monarch, case in point Charles will almost certainly be sidelined as Edward VIII was. We can remove bad kings.
To sumarise, though i need to oversimplify for brevity look at the broad mentality like this:
Politrcian: I had to fight tooth and claw to reach my position, I will do what I need to do to keep it. to get relected I will lie just as I lied to get elected. My first loyalty is to myself, my goal is short term gain, for my nation, enough so they vote for me again, and my own career.
Constutional monarch: I was raised to this role, I didnt have to lie to achieve it or to maintain it, i need not be ruthless or self serving to maintain it. I was taught from an early age to keep my opinions to myself, my role is only to be a front, though I do have emergency powers that can be used in extremis but we never expect to use. My first loyalty is to myself and my nation, my goal is long term stability for my house and my nation.
The latter is more likely to raise a leader with a proper attitude of service to a people and nation.
lmao. So your confidence that the monarch is going to get the decision right over an elected body is based on what? Is it because she's a nice old lady that wears pretty hats?
Based on the fact that she didnt need to lie or cheat to reach her position. You think politicans that reach power do so based on being honest and scrupulous and above reproach, and you are calling me naive for knowing otherwise. What irony.
A constituational monarchy is hemmed in enough that we miss out on most of the negative effects of having a bad monarch, case in point Charles will almost certainly be sidelined as Edward VIII was. We can remove bad kings.
To sumarise, though i need to oversimplify for brevity look at the broad mentality like this:
Politrcian: I had to fight tooth and claw to reach my position, I will do what I need to do to keep it. to get relected I will lie just as I lied to get elected. My first loyalty is to myself, my goal is short term gain, for my nation, enough so they vote for me again, and my own career.
Constutional monarch: I was raised to this role, I didnt have to lie to achieve it or to maintain it, i need not be ruthless or self serving to maintain it. I was taught from an early age to keep my opinions to myself, my role is only to be a front, though I do have emergency powers that can be used in extremis but we never expect to use. My first loyalty is to myself and my nation, my goal is long term stability for my house and my nation.
The latter is more likely to raise a leader with a proper attitude of service to a people and nation.
Pretty hats dont come into it.
Again, your using your own biases against elected individuals when giving those examples. An elected person is their to represent the people whether they achieve that end or not someone who inherited that role can never represent the people as the people did not chose them for the role.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government" - Winston Churchill
The people must judge, not the Monarch. Even if that means anarchy in the process.
whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?
No because HM only has power over potential autocrats. What power has she over you or I? None, she cannot make laws.
whatwhat wrote:
Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.
Its based on realpolitic, a constitutional monarch has no direct authority over the people and is a figurehead. This keeps th role honest.
There is no safeguard over an elected politican who can lie and cheat to be elected, and lie and cheat more to stay elected.
whatwhat wrote:
"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"
When we lok at realpolitic, since when did man have what you see as 'Liberty'. Liberty on a national scale is an illusion, even if democracy is true, it gives us no control over a democratic official for the duration of their term. We have no guarantee of lasting freedom if they can hoodwink people to (re)elect them either.
If we see 'Liberty' as personal how is a free man living in a kingdom less free than one not living in a kingdom. We are no less free than any citizen of the US or any other republic on this planet, and we could run for office in our homelands as they can in theirs.
Where is your royal autocracy? Its certainly not here. Saudi Arabia, yes, but not the UK.
For someone to confuse a constitutional monarchy for an autocratic form of government betrays a critical misunderstanding of the political process. whatwhat are you aware you even have a vote? If you are and if you are aware that the MP's you vote for control the government how can you claiim we live in an undemocratic state.
If on the other hand you see the futility of public opinion on our governments actions then you see the downside of all forms of government including modern democracy, a mandate to govern is a mandate given. If that is enough to count as Liberty then you might draw strength from the fact that a constitutional monarchy is a form of democracy that can have additional safeguards that a republic does not.
whatwhat wrote:That is true, the majority of wealth she has is ultimately from our own pockets. Whether she supports her own self now or not.
Yours? So you were'nt around then.
Dont hang that on HM, or any monarch. On this level all wealth is stolen, for this to be fixed the USA needs to be dismantled and the land given back to the Natives.
Normans go home?
How about Saxons too?
Who owns what.
This is a typcial cry from the loony left, 'take back what is ours.' Was it ever yours? How would you evanuate it, and where would you stop. This is the politics of envy nothing more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Can they block the budget being passed? Thats a burning palace for sure.
whatwhat wrote:That is true, the majority of wealth she has is ultimately from our own pockets. Whether she supports her own self now or not.
Yours? So you were'nt around then.
Dont hang that on HM, or any monarch. On this level all wealth is stolen, for this to be fixed the USA needs to be dismantled and the land given back to the Natives.
Normans go home?
How about Saxons too?
Who owns what.
This is a typcial cry from the loony left, 'take back what is ours.' Was it ever yours? How would you evanuate it, and where would you stop. This is the politics of envy nothing more.
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?
No because HM only has power over potential autocrats. What power has she over you or I? None, she cannot make laws.
That rebuts my point how?
Orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.
Its based on realpolitic, a constitutional monarch has no direct authority over the people and is a figurehead. This keeps th role honest.
There is no safeguard over an elected politican who can lie and cheat to be elected, and lie and cheat more to stay elected.
You still haven't suggested why an elected body couldn't do the same thing in any logicail unbiased terms.
Orlanth wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"
When we lok at realpolitic, since when did man have what you see as 'Liberty'. Liberty on a national scale is an illusion, even if democracy is true, it gives us no control over a democratic official for the duration of their term. We have no guarantee of lasting freedom if they can hoodwink people to (re)elect them either.
If we see 'Liberty' as personal how is a free man living in a kingdom less free than one not living in a kingdom. We are no less free than any citizen of the US or any other republic on this planet, and we could run for office in our homelands as they can in theirs.
Again, your using the: 'he did it and got away with it therefore I should too' logic. An autocrat is not excused for beign such because you see elected government to be no working.
Orlanth wrote:For someone to confuse a constitutional monarchy for an autocratic form of government betrays a critical misunderstanding of the political process. whatwhat are you aware you even have a vote? If you are and if you are aware that the MP's you vote for control the government how can you claiim we live in an undemocratic state.
If on the other hand you see the futility of public opinion on our governments actions then you see the downside of all forms of government including modern democracy, a mandate to govern is a mandate given. If that is enough to count as Liberty then you might draw strength from the fact that a constitutional monarchy is a form of democracy that can have additional safeguards that a republic does not.
No come on. Don't twist the argument. I'm not painting the current ceremonial rubbish to be an autocracy. You put the idea out, in favour of monarchy, that they are there to safeguard against failure in government. I'm saying the right to judge over the government should not be given to the monarch because she is unelected. It is autocratic. It goes against the magna carta as well.
Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.
Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.
lmao confrontational? do you think so?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would say the same but treason is still punishable by death penalty here.
Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.
Not if its done by heavy horse. If its good enough for Cromwell, its good enough for me.
This Cromwell:
Not this Cromwell:
Not to be confused with this guy
And of course when I say Death to the Queen, I don't mean this Queen.
Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.
Not if its done by heavy horse. If its good enough for Cromwell, its good enough for me.
This Cromwell:
Not this Cromwell:
Not to be confused with this guy
And of course when I say Death to the Queen, I don't mean this Queen.
Frazz...
what are we gonna do with you?
I know! Let's ship you to Australia, the penal colony. Or maybe Georgia, the penal state.
Orlanth wrote:The secnd power, which is not used, but can be is the power to dissolve parliament and demand a frsh election. technically this is the only way to call an election.
Is this an election where you vote for fish, or an election where fish vote for you?
Orlanth wrote:The secnd power, which is not used, but can be is the power to dissolve parliament and demand a frsh election. technically this is the only way to call an election.
Is this an election where you vote for fish, or an election where fish vote for you?
No...it's a frsh election.
Only people wearing frsh may be elected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:TBone vetoes this plan, as it might interfere with his supply of steak and buttered popcorn on demand!
But he can eat all the kangaroos/koalas/Georgia equivalent of outback critters he wants!
Frazzled wrote:The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
This is from the British settlers who stole and entire country from the natives who then decided to call themselves American. Who also came from Britain who were also overrun by the Romans then the Norse then. . . .
We have stolen each other lands for a millenia now, in a couple of thousand years you'll all be speaking French and we will be Spanish. Paella anyone?
Frazzled wrote:The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
This is from the British settlers who stole and entire country from the natives who then decided to call themselves American. Who also came from Britain who were also overrun by the Romans then the Norse then. . . .
We have stolen each other lands for a millenia now, in a couple of thousand years you'll all be speaking French and we will be Spanish. Paella anyone?
I'd love some Paella!
And, in a couple thousand years, I plan on being dead. But, if I'm not, I'll still be speaking English, as I've tried to learn other languages and failed miserably.
Don't forget it's only real Pealla if you're eating it suffering from sunburn and can hear some tart from Essex shouting her gob off about how her foof is itchy.
Frack me that was a really crappy holiday. Last time I ever go to a coastal resort in Spain.
Elmodiddly wrote:Don't forget it's only real Pealla if you're eating it suffering from sunburn and can hear some tart from Essex shouting her gob off about how her foof is itchy.
I'm sorry, but foof? Is that a typo for foot, or is that another weird Brit word?
I thought that "fanny" might have been censored by the website. Plus it was the word she used. It is a weird Brit word but, to explain, she was from Essex. Proper peasant stock!
Elmodiddly wrote:I thought that "fanny" might have been censored by the website. Plus it was the word she used. It is a weird Brit word but, to explain, she was from Essex. Proper peasant stock!
Hmmm... I think this is cleared up, but why would the website censor fanny? Ass is allowed, and that's way worse than fanny.
Unless... what does fanny mean? In America, it's a polite way to say butt.
whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?
Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.
What's more your lack of faith in elected government is what makes you think that.
"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"
Interesting sidenote: This is exactly the same debate between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, Shiites beleive their caliph must be a direct blood desecendent of Muhammed, whereas a Sunni believes that the caliph should be decided upon by the community. Same argument, different religion and region.
whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?
Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.
What's more your lack of faith in elected government is what makes you think that.
"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"
Interesting sidenote: This is exactly the same debate between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, Shiites beleive their caliph must be a direct blood desecendent of Muhammed, whereas a Sunni believes that the caliph should be decided upon by the community. Same argument, different religion and region.
Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!
I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.
Not if its done by heavy horse. If its good enough for Cromwell, its good enough for me.
This Cromwell:
Not this Cromwell:
Not to be confused with this guy
And of course when I say Death to the Queen, I don't mean this Queen.
Ohh goodness. You're using Cromwell as a 'freedom fighter'............................... That's the guy who despised Parliament, who established himself as a dictator and caused a massive wave of religious and cultural oppression. He believed in the 'strong man at the top' just like King Charles and the only real difference between their outlooks was that he believed the Head of state was still a man rather than an enhanced human chosen by God for rule. After the Civil War he basically proclaimed himself King in all but name. His son even took power after his death. He dissolved parliament on numerous occasions and led a brutal and oppressive campaign against the Irish Catholics.
/rant. Its incredibly humorous when I hear Americans proclaiming Cromwell and Guy Fawkes as 'freedom fighters' or defenders of the oppressed when in actual fact both would have seen the establishment of religiously oppressive system where the populaces right to free speech is severely curtailed.
Also LONG LIVE THE QUEEN (cos when she dies we're screwed)
Dunno about that George. I mean Charles the 2nd and the Restoration was pretty awesome. A return to joyful and bawdy hedonism after a decade of repressive Puritan rule sounds jolly fun . I mean he wasn't called the 'Merrie Monarch for nothing'
whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?
Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.
What's more your lack of faith in elected government is what makes you think that.
"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"
Interesting sidenote: This is exactly the same debate between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, Shiites beleive their caliph must be a direct blood desecendent of Muhammed, whereas a Sunni believes that the caliph should be decided upon by the community. Same argument, different religion and region.
George Spiggott wrote:We've had a bad run with previous King Charlies but I have high hopes for this one.
I thought the royal 'buzz' from the people in the know, as it were, was that by all indications, Charles was prepared to abdicate as and when the time comes in favour of William. Apparently, public opinion will not accept Camilla as queen. Not only that, but by the time Liz pops off, Charles will be knocking on a bit himself.
George Spiggott wrote:We've had a bad run with previous King Charlies but I have high hopes for this one.
For the record I believe that Charles will actually be King George VIII, for reason best known to the people that make these decisions (but probably to do with bad PR and beheadings?).
" border="0" />
Inquiring minds want to know.
