Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guitardian wrote:Oh please... anyone defending the royals at all, saying how 'hard' their job must be, etc... That's misplaced national pride and you know you would switch jobs with them in a second if offered the opportunity. Don't tell me you think your job is easier than theirs... Well maybe if you program windows update computer software or run a corporation that sells banks or something, but aside from that...

robertsjf wrote:I never said it was easy. But if it's so horrible, why not quit? If the job was so bad how does England keep the throne occupied? Evidently, it's not all bad. You want to tell me that it's really hard work. OK, I believe it. Seems pretty rewarding, too.

I would much rather keep my job in a factory than willingly chose to be a royal. At all times they must represent their country, must be mindful of what they say, act in certain ways. For me, that does not compute. While being royal must certainly have a few perks, there are a lot of downsides from what I can tell. Not to mention the stress from what one royal says can lead to disasters depending on the situation. Through the downsides of the job, the reason why I believe the Queen simply does not "quit" is because of a sense of duty.

Then again, I'm just an American who finds the thought of celebrities as royals not only insulting, but idiotic.

Nakis wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Oh please... anyone defending the royals at all, saying how 'hard' their job must be, etc... That's misplaced national pride and you know you would switch jobs with them in a second if offered the opportunity. Don't tell me you think your job is easier than theirs... Well maybe if you program windows update computer software or run a corporation that sells banks or something, but aside from that...

I would much rather keep my job in a factory than willingly chose to be a royal. At all times they must represent their country, must be mindful of what they say, act in certain ways. For me, that does not compute. While being royal must certainly have a few perks, there are a lot of downsides from what I can tell. Not to mention the stress from what one royal says can lead to disasters depending on the situation. Through the downsides of the job, the reason why I believe the Queen simply does not "quit" is because of a sense of duty.

Then again, I'm just an American who finds the thought of celebrities as royals not only insulting, but idiotic.

Something tells me they don't fear geting laid off from their factory job and having their girlfriend's mom live with them because the bank took away her home for mortgage foreclosure. You would volunteer for it if you could. Who wouldn't?

I do apologize, but no, you are incorrect.

The only time I would ever step into that position, or the President's, is if it was absolutely needed. And by that, I mean something was seriously, seriously wrong, and I would give it up the moment I could.

I don't fear getting laid off. Currently, I am laid off. It's always a high possibility for my job, as I make parts for airport snow plots and it's seasonally dependant (Fall is the heavy months, spring and summer less so.) I'll get called back soon. Don't have a girlfriend, but even that problem you mentioned wouldn't be an embuggerance to me. All it would mean is someone who's paying me rent now until they get back on their feet, a girlfriend who is highly appreciative of taking her mum in, and a good rep with her friends in case things go wonky.

Not everyone wants to be a royal or democratically elected leader. Some of us are happy where we are. Some of us know better than to touch such a position with an eleven and a half foot pole.

Question: Can't a member of the Royal family, especially one in a position, be removed from their office by parliament if things go really bad? And all people with royal lineage have an allergy to revolutions and axes when that fails. And if you fail that badly, you really, really screwed up.

The Queen does it out of a sense of duty built up in the era when such things meant something.

A lot of the minor royals are just hangers-on. They could just walk away if it is so tough. There is no law to compel them to remain a royal. They don't because they haven't the talent to maintain themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed. In many cases the 'work' required of them is hardly taxing.

There are jobs that pay more, and require less work, than that of the British monarch.

Sarah Ferguson is an embarrasment. I expect her to meet with an 'accident' in the not-too-distant future. The Monarchy is something which a lot of people (myself included) take VERY seriously. It is not something to be toyed with. What she did was exceedingly foolish.

@Orlanth - Cameron seems to be a pretty stand-up type of chap - I expect he'll play the game.

Orlanth wrote:

News of the World are saying 'Fergi' is bringing the House of Windsor into disrepute.

How can anyone bring that load of retards into disrepute
Charles has been knobbing anything that stands still long enough, as have his forebears.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1076026/The-lonely-death-Charless-mistress.html

Albatross wrote:There are jobs that pay more, and require less work, than that of the British monarch.

Sarah Ferguson is an embarrasment. I expect her to meet with an 'accident' in the not-too-distant future. The Monarchy is something which a lot of people (myself included) take VERY seriously. It is not something to be toyed with. What she did was exceedingly foolish.

@Orlanth - Cameron seems to be a pretty stand-up type of chap - I expect he'll play the game.

Forbes magazine estimated the Queen's wealth at $650 million in 2008, but no official figure is available.

I'll take that job as I don't know of many that pay that well.

loki old fart wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

News of the World are saying 'Fergi' is bringing the House of Windsor into disrepute.

How can anyone bring that load of retards into disrepute
Charles has been knobbing anything that stands still long enough, as have his forebears.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1076026/The-lonely-death-Charless-mistress.html

Whilst I appreciate that not everyone is in favour of the Royal Family, there are many people who are firm monarchists - including several people who have already posted on this thread.

With that in mind I would like to politely request that you refrain from posting crass and insulting remarks about our Royal Family. I take an insult to the Royal Family as seriously as I would an insult to my person.

Then you should listen to more sex pistols Alba... No seriously, it isn't an affront to the proud and respected and occasionally jaded privelliged few who have the right last name. Many of them do take it very seriously, and do their best to uphold the honor of an institution as archaic yet somehow still relevant as the the one they are caught up in. Being rich, powerful, and loaded from birth is hardly an easy life to deal with, is it? High ranked members of the Catholic church come to mind. Some are good at being a standing representative of the Catholic faith, other ones feth altar boys. I don't think the 'royals' are any less exempt from media attacks. If you don't like getting called on your bs, don't do bad things. Nobody hates on queen Liz in the media... oh yeah... cuz she is a standup kinda person who used her fortunate birthright to help people, encourage her country to the excellence they know, not just to drive a Bentley and so on.

Orlanth wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote: They are unelected heads of state who wish to play on their celebrity status.

Unelected doesn't mean less worthy, they grew up into the role. I trust Her Majesty to have th best interest of th nation at heart above ANY elected poltician. Royals are there by accident of birth, so were hereditaries. Eelected polticians are there because they win the rat race. Who wins the rat race, the man or the rat?

also the Royals would rather not have celebrity status, their actual figurehead role doesnt actually require it.

Easy game, not fair game, unlike a politician or celeb the Royals have no right or means of reply.

Satire is a valued break on power, the Royals do not have true power. Also satire has been devalued as it has been increasingly partisan. Comedians today ignore their responsibilities under fools license but still demand the privileges.

To much flim flam and tugging of forlocks
not enough cocking of snooks



That is brake on power, sadly satire is unable to break power.

oh how my heart pumps custard for those poor hard put upon wretches

Any Americans want a royal family
we can do a special BOGOF deal if it helps

Either way, it is an offensive way of referring to someone, so I'd suggest finding a different way to express your displeasure.

Guitardian wrote:Then you should listen to more sex pistols Alba... No seriously, it isn't an affront to the proud and respected and occasionally jaded privelliged few who have the right last name. Many of them do take it very seriously, and do their best to uphold the honor of an institution as archaic yet somehow still relevant as the the one they are caught up in. Being rich, powerful, and loaded from birth is hardly an easy life to deal with, is it? High ranked members of the Catholic church come to mind. Some are good at being a standing representative of the Catholic faith, other ones feth altar boys. I don't think the 'royals' are any less exempt from media attacks. If you don't like getting called on your bs, don't do bad things. Nobody hates on queen Liz in the media... oh yeah... cuz she is a standup kinda person who used her fortunate birthright to help people, encourage her country to the excellence they know, not just to drive a Bentley and so on.

The Sex Pistols only refer to the Queen in one song.

I was referring to the guy who called the Royal Family 'retards' (ironic, considering they all go to the finest schools, and the guy who made the post seems to be barely literate...). That's just tacky. I have no problem with criticism. No-one is above criticism.

I guess I could go bludgeon half the world into submission to express my displeasure and stuff all the gold I got for generations into a fortress and insist upon my royal decree for reasons that later become a more complex political web to deal with where I need to just look the part but still keep the jewels... Is that a better way of stating my royal intention?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh dammit! I didn't get that option when I was born

Guitardian wrote:I guess I could go bludgeon half the world into submission to express my displeasure and stuff all the gold I got for generations into a fortress and insist upon my royal decree for reasons that later become a more complex political web to deal with where I need to just look the part but still keep the jewels... Is that a better way of stating my royal intention?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh dammit! I didn't get that option when I was born

Erm... what the hell are you on about, man?

Some are + while some are - ... they are not infallable, and none of them really truly have to worry about working for a living. They bitchslapped india, america, various african countries, france, germany, spain, etc for plenty of crown jewel for 'I dont have to work so I can busy myself doing good things' insurance... some of them do good deeds. other can go sell themselves to the paparazzi and get a failed book ghost written about it for all i care... THATS what I'm on about. all them royal hangers-on seem like trolls to me. Half the royal family itself is (due to the nature of marriage... do you think Di actually thought Charles was hot? or maybe just knew he was loaded...) I could go on and on but I'm halfway through a 12 pack and am just going to embarass myself more if I go on.

Albatross wrote:

I was referring to the guy who called the Royal Family 'retards' (ironic, considering they all go to the finest schools, and the guy who made the post seems to be barely literate...). That's just tacky. I have no problem with criticism. No-one is above criticism.

I think you're missing Alpharious' point. To be clear, the term 'slow' is not permitted on this site Alba as its deeply offensive. He's stating not to use it again.

And really what are you all talking about?

Fergie is awesome!

I cant use the word slowed? okay sorry... what explains the ditzy blonde chic in the following thread (yes she is, I've met her and that word might apply)

Wait she talks? Who would've known...

Can someone please close this thread, it started as a poorly concealed attempt to insult the Royal family and had devolved into slinging childish insults.

There are people who regularly post on this site, myself included, who have or still do, serve in the armed forces and as such will have sworn an oath of allegiance to the monarch and fought on her behalf. Regardless of personal motives for joining up some of the comments made here are deeply offensive.

Constructive critisism is fine as is lampooning however, I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting a nations figureheads has to the site.

Albatross wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Then you should listen to more sex pistols Alba... No seriously, it isn't an affront to the proud and respected and occasionally jaded privelliged few who have the right last name. Many of them do take it very seriously, and do their best to uphold the honor of an institution as archaic yet somehow still relevant as the the one they are caught up in. Being rich, powerful, and loaded from birth is hardly an easy life to deal with, is it? High ranked members of the Catholic church come to mind. Some are good at being a standing representative of the Catholic faith, other ones feth altar boys. I don't think the 'royals' are any less exempt from media attacks. If you don't like getting called on your bs, don't do bad things. Nobody hates on queen Liz in the media... oh yeah... cuz she is a standup kinda person who used her fortunate birthright to help people, encourage her country to the excellence they know, not just to drive a Bentley and so on.

The Sex Pistols only refer to the Queen in one song.

I was referring to the guy who called the Royal Family 'retards' (ironic, considering they all go to the finest schools, and the guy who made the post seems to be barely literate...). That's just tacky. I have no problem with criticism. No-one is above criticism.

I apologize to dakka members for using the term retards, my mistake. I am some what amused at your assumptions than I am barley literate

As for Prince Charles, anyone who would marry the granddaughter of his grandfather’s mistress, I just hope they’re not related except by marriage.

Just goes to show, no greater honour can an Englishman expect, than to lay down his wife for his king.

Everything I know about the Queen I learned from Doctor Who. For instance, she started the Torchwood Institute.

I am some what amused at your assumptions than I am barley literate

Albatross wrote:

I am some what amused at your assumptions than I am barley literate

A least you got the joke

I'm usually barley literate after a few beers too

The "r-word" is now verboten on message boards?

I weep for mankind.

Albatross wrote:

I am some what amused at your assumptions than I am barley literate

That is not fair, typos are commonplace and entirely forgivable, I hope. You should know after reading enough of speedtyped posts.

Monster Rain wrote:The "r-word" is now verboten on message boards?

I weep for mankind.

Do not worry it is coming back.

eTard is the new name for a leetspeaker.

There's a Fergie who isn't a member of the Black Eyed Peas? Wow. I guess I must not be up on my British Royalty. What a pity...

warpcrafter wrote:There's a Fergie who isn't a member of the Black Eyed Peas? Wow. I guess I must not be up on my British Royalty. What a pity...

She hasn't been on the news (here) for quite some time so it isn't surprising.

squilverine wrote:Can someone please close this thread, it started as a poorly concealed attempt to insult the Royal family and had devolved into slinging childish insults.

There are people who regularly post on this site, myself included, who have or still do, serve in the armed forces and as such will have sworn an oath of allegiance to the monarch and fought on her behalf. Regardless of personal motives for joining up some of the comments made here are deeply offensive.

Constructive critisism is fine as is lampooning however, I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting a nations figureheads has to the site.

The OP was questioning the actions of Her Madge's ex daughter in law.
As to fighting on her behalf, I thought the current conflicts were about safe guarding our freedoms and protecting us from evil terrorists?
So all along 'our boys' are really the queen's own and putting their lives on the line for the monarch and not us plebs?

It is also quite a leap from criticising a lesser royal to offending those that have served or are serving.
And yes we know that the queen is head of the armed forces

I can't see the benefit a thread which involves insulting has to the site either but it goes on aplenty.
So far there hasn't been a lot if any personal attacks against Lizzie, but we may as well start now...