Eddie Hitler Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Not just to wind up Red Goblin this one, I genuinely think we don't appreciate her enough.Why I'm pro-monarchy:GeneralMost national constitutions require a head of state for times of crisis. Without a monarchy we'd have a president and the experience of other countries shows that is generally picked form a small short list of ex-prime ministers. When we fianlly get rid of one of the gits I do not then want to see them acting as president for another ten years.The fulfill a role at state, foreign and local occasions. Who do you wnt opening your new hospital - a royal or the local MP? They improve that status of events. One man and his dog would turn up to an unveiling if it was Lembit Opik doing it.They are a living tradition that stops some great buildings being just another stately home with guides and GIFT SHOP.They attract tourism and trade, more than paying for the civil list money on a purely financial level.SpecificHas done a difficult job extrememly well. Difficult? Fancy making speeches at building openings, making small talk with people you don't know. Permanently playing a role rather than relaxing. Most people wouldn't want to do it.Keeps going. I'm sure she would love to step down and spend her time walking in teh country and going on holiday. But doesn't. I suspect because she shares the same view of Prince Charles as the rest of us.Have I changed your mind RG? (thought not) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
next_year_I_hope Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 why should we appreciate her what has she done for me nowt what is she going to do for me nowt!!! just because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth she has had the best houses education and health and who pays for it us!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted April 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 why should we appreciate her what has she done for me nowt what is she going to do for me nowt!!! just because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth she has had the best houses education and health and who pays for it us!!!!Look at the Marquis of Blandford or Viscount Bristol for those who are really born with a silver spoon and do nowt, bar stick it up their noses. You don't hear of them because they do nothing but sit around enjoying themselves. The Queen, and the rest of her family, is rich enough to do that but don't. Ever wondered why? It's called service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTone Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 The Queen apparently insists that her teapot is never cleaned as otherwise it makes the tea taste funny.Strange but true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WessexPest Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Not just to wind up Red Goblin this one, I genuinely think we don't appreciate her enough.Why I'm pro-monarchy:GeneralMost national constitutions require a head of state for times of crisis. Without a monarchy we'd have a president and the experience of other countries shows that is generally picked form a small short list of ex-prime ministers. When we fianlly get rid of one of the gits I do not then want to see them acting as president for another ten years.The fulfill a role at state, foreign and local occasions. Who do you wnt opening your new hospital - a royal or the local MP? They improve that status of events. One man and his dog would turn up to an unveiling if it was Lembit Opik doing it.They are a living tradition that stops some great buildings being just another stately home with guides and GIFT SHOP.They attract tourism and trade, more than paying for the civil list money on a purely financial level.SpecificHas done a difficult job extrememly well. Difficult? Fancy making speeches at building openings, making small talk with people you don't know. Permanently playing a role rather than relaxing. Most people wouldn't want to do it.Keeps going. I'm sure she would love to step down and spend her time walking in teh country and going on holiday. But doesn't. I suspect because she shares the same view of Prince Charles as the rest of us.Have I changed your mind RG? (thought not)With respect, I don't think your argument is nearly strong enough to change ANY anti-royalist's mind, let alone Red Goblin's.At least a president would be democratically elected.It doesn't need to be a choice between royals and no-mark MPs performing Grand Openings - other celebrities can, and do, perform them.Don't understand the stately home argument because the royals are seldom, if ever, in attendance when the great unwashed are allowed to peruse their grotesquely lavish and overstated abodes anyway.What trade do they attract exactly? And as for tourism, it may be that many people take in Buckinhagm Palace et al while they're here - I would like to think if there was no royalty it wouldn't stop them visiting far more interesting sites such as Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall.Difficult job? I think the perks far outweigh the disadvantages somehow. Try telling a night bus driver or a police officer she has a difficult job, you would receive short shrift.She keeps going because she can. She hasn't reached the grand old age of 81 in remarkably good health by accident - it is because she has enormous wealth and privilege.Oh, and she goes on holiday all the time.The royal family are a complete anachronism, defunct, irrelevant and have enjoyed hundreds of years of unimaginable wealth that has not been earned and obscene luxuy at the expense of the vast majority of the populace merely because their forebears were ruthless enough and vicious enough to grab power.Get rid, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Don't get the Goblin started on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Is it only me who thinks she actually looks quite attractive there?Dianna (RIP) was also rather fit.Is all I really have to say on the matter.I definately swing towards Republicanism btw. I'd also install a mischievous, mystic, short, red man-like creature to lead The People. Where are you Gobby? I WANT MY RANT !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED4LIFE Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 With respect, I don't think your argument is nearly strong enough to change ANY anti-royalist's mind, let alone Red Goblin's.At least a president would be democratically elected.It doesn't need to be a choice between royals and no-mark MPs performing Grand Openings - other celebrities can, and do, perform them.Don't understand the stately home argument because the royals are seldom, if ever, in attendance when the great unwashed are allowed to peruse their grotesquely lavish and overstated abodes anyway.What trade do they attract exactly? And as for tourism, it may be that many people take in Buckinhagm Palace et al while they're here - I would like to think if there was no royalty it wouldn't stop them visiting far more interesting sites such as Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall.Difficult job? I think the perks far outweigh the disadvantages somehow. Try telling a night bus driver or a police officer she has a difficult job, you would receive short shrift.She keeps going because she can. She hasn't reached the grand old age of 81 in remarkably good health by accident - it is because she has enormous wealth and privilege.Oh, and she goes on holiday all the time.The royal family are a complete anachronism, defunct, irrelevant and have enjoyed hundreds of years of unimaginable wealth that has not been earned and obscene luxuy at the expense of the vast majority of the populace merely because their forebears were ruthless enough and vicious enough to grab power.Get rid, I say.Perfectly put.In the early 80's she was ranked the richest woman in the world. For a woman who has never taken a wage in her life to be called that is just wrong, considering it was all the taxpayers money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED4LIFE Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Granted, these are good examples of royal lineage playing up, but the operative word there is royal lineage.If it wasnt for the fact we have/had a royal family that granted them peerages in the 1st place, they wouldnt be Peers/Lords/ladies/Marquees or whatever they want to call themselves, and they would be no different to the common person in the street. IMO, you can blame the Royal family for that, as without all the trappings of being part of the inner circle of the British Gestapo, they probably would have never been able to do these things in the 1st place, and if they did, no-one would care.I also think the reason the Queen hasnt abdicated the throne yet, is because Charles is next in line, and I cant honestly see anybody thinking he will be a good King, including Liz herself. If it was William next in line, I think she would have abdicated a while ago. At the end of the day, people will be Pro or Anti Royalty, and with a subject as emotive as this, I think you will find, nobody will change their mind on the subject. Can you imagine OC 1645/Red Goblin becoming a Royalist, due to someone elses opinion??I think it's about wealth rather than title so doesn't really come under royal lineage.Do I think someone will change thier opinion? No, but I think the targets shoudl be more refined and people appreciated for their actions given the circumstances they find themselves in.There have been good and bad royals and this boils down to whether they do their duty as they see it. IMO the Queen and Prince Philip do this marvellously as did the Quenn Mother and King George VI before them.On my royal blacklist and where I do agree with the Red Goblin are King Edward VIII, Princess Margaret & Fergie.Most of the others I have no strong feelings either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTone Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Is it only me who thinks she actually looks quite attractive there?Yes, only you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Yes, only you !Lingering Saturday night beer goggles maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OC 1645 Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 With respect, I don't think your argument is nearly strong enough to change ANY anti-royalist's mind, let alone Red Goblin's.At least a president would be democratically elected.It doesn't need to be a choice between royals and no-mark MPs performing Grand Openings - other celebrities can, and do, perform them.Don't understand the stately home argument because the royals are seldom, if ever, in attendance when the great unwashed are allowed to peruse their grotesquely lavish and overstated abodes anyway.What trade do they attract exactly? And as for tourism, it may be that many people take in Buckinhagm Palace et al while they're here - I would like to think if there was no royalty it wouldn't stop them visiting far more interesting sites such as Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall.Difficult job? I think the perks far outweigh the disadvantages somehow. Try telling a night bus driver or a police officer she has a difficult job, you would receive short shrift.She keeps going because she can. She hasn't reached the grand old age of 81 in remarkably good health by accident - it is because she has enormous wealth and privilege.Oh, and she goes on holiday all the time.The royal family are a complete anachronism, defunct, irrelevant and have enjoyed hundreds of years of unimaginable wealth that has not been earned and obscene luxuy at the expense of the vast majority of the populace merely because their forebears were ruthless enough and vicious enough to grab power.Get rid, I say.Well written Sir. The current Royal family are barely even English, they changed their German family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to 'Windsor' during the first world war due to massive anti-German feeling in England at that time. The Russians shot their Royal family after World War I, the French guillotined their Royals at the time of the French Revolution and the Germans kicked out their Kaiser King after World War I. We are thus, now, the only major power in Europe with a Monarchy. I find it quite absurd and insulting that when we elect a Member of Parliament to the House of Commons that MP has to swear an oath of allegiance to the German descended unelected Queen and not an oath of allegiance to the people that elected him/her to represent them. An incidental question of morals and ethics - along with organisations such as Lloyds insurers and Barclays Bank the British Royal family made a vast proportion of their totally obscene wealth from the African slave trade. Bristol Council recently apologized for the part Bristol played in the African Slave trade and I understand that Lloyds insurers, Barclays Bank and the Royal family have issued no such apology to my knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Well written Sir. The current Royal family are barely even English, they changed their German family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to 'Windsor' during the first world war due to massive anti-German feeling in England at that time. The Russians shot their Royal family after World War I, the French guillotined their Royals at the time of the French Revolution and the Germans kicked out their Kaiser King after World War I. We are thus, now, the only major power in Europe with a Monarchy. I find it quite absurd and insulting that when we elect a Member of Parliament to the House of Commons that MP has to swear an oath of allegiance to the German descended unelected Queen and not an oath of allegiance to the people that elected him/her to represent them. An incidental question of morals and ethics - along with organistaions such as Lloyds insurers and Barclays Bank the British Royal family made a vast proportion of their totally obscene wealth from the African slave trade. Bristol Council recently apologized for the part Bristol played in the African Slave trade and I understand that Lloyds insurers, Barclays Bank and the Royal family have issued no such apology to my knowledge.A measured response. Why people stereotype you as a mad ranter I don't know I'm surprised Bristol City Council haven't apologised for the plague or the Great Fire of London. It makes no odds to them. If Lloyd's or Barclays were to do it they would then be open to damages claims from some ill-informed US jury. So sensibly they haven't.The constitution of Lloyd's is unusual anyway. Any profits made would have been by the Names (indivdiuals putting up the capital and underwriting the risks) not Lloyd's itself so you would have to pursue the descendants of those Names. Taking the Lloyd's insurance market as a whole the Asbestos, Pollution & Health losses of the 1980s more than outweighed all profits ever made by the market. Nifty underwriting lads! I worked there for a few years in the late 80s, lots of people had no idea what they were doing and this was actually given as a defence to the negligence claims "My client didn't understand the nature of the business [usually LMX / Spiral] he was writing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddoh Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Well written Sir. The current Royal family are barely even English, they changed their German family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to 'Windsor' during the first world war due to massive anti-German feeling in England at that time. The Russians shot their Royal family after World War I, the French guillotined their Royals at the time of the French Revolution and the Germans kicked out their Kaiser King after World War I. We are thus, now, the only major power in Europe with a Monarchy. I find it quite absurd and insulting that when we elect a Member of Parliament to the House of Commons that MP has to swear an oath of allegiance to the German descended unelected Queen and not an oath of allegiance to the people that elected him/her to represent them. An incidental question of morals and ethics - along with organistaions such as Lloyds insurers and Barclays Bank the British Royal family made a vast proportion of their totally obscene wealth from the African slave trade. Bristol Council recently apologized for the part Bristol played in the African Slave trade and I understand that Lloyds insurers, Barclays Bank and the Royal family have issued no such apology to my knowledge.don't hold your breath , the mighty pound is all that the royalist people think of , in my lifetime not one government has done a single thing to make my life better,the sooner we get another Oliver or Guy the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OC 1645 Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 A measured response. Why people stereotype you as a mad ranter I don't know I'm surprised Bristol City Council haven't apologised for the plague or the Great Fire of London. It makes no odds to them. If Lloyd's or Barclays were to do it they would then be open to damages claims from some ill-informed US jury. So sensibly they haven't.The constitution of Lloyd's is unusual anyway. Any profits made would have been by the Names (indivdiuals putting up the capital and underwriting the risks) not Lloyd's itself so you would have to pursue the descendants of those Names. Taking the Lloyd's insurance market as a whole the Asbestos, Pollution & Health losses of the 1980s more than outweighed all profits ever made by the market. Nifty underwriting lads! I worked there for a few years in the late 80s, lots of people had no idea what they were doing and this was actually given as a defence to the negligence claims "My client didn't understand the nature of the business [usually LMX / Spiral] he was writing".The 'mad ranter'? I'm actually a 'Mad March Hare'. Some do say that a curse befell London after the corpse of Oliver Cromwell was dug from its grave by Royalists in 1661. Almost immediately a great plague befell London in 1665 followed by the great London fire of 1666. The Dutch Republic even sailed up the Thames with a huge Navy and bombarded Royalist led London unopposed at this time - this would never have been allowed to happen during Cromwell's time in office with the English Republican and Commonwealth Navy being the most powerful in Europe under Cromwell. Before the African Slave trade started around 1660, there was the 'white' slave trade with Bristol at the centre of it. Oliver Cromwell himself gave 500 Royalist prisoners to the people of Bristol to be sold as slaves in the Americas. The money from the sale of these Royalists, apparently, was to be used to repair property and compensate Bristolians for the war damage inflicted on Bristol by the Royalist occupiers during 1643-45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WessexPest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Red Goblin talks nothing but sense on this topic.It never ceases to amaze me that many, many people who are in favour of the monarchy are that way because they fear not to be would appear to be unpatriotic. Utterly ridiculous. In fact the opposite holds true because the 'Windsors' have been taking the p1ss out of us for hundreds of years and we are not going to tolerate it for much longer.I was interested to read that if the SNP is successful in next week's Scottish elections and then in the inevitable independence referendum that would follow, they would still keep the Union of the Crowns between England and Scotland (1606?) so, in short, Lizzie would still be the head of state of an independent Scotland. That strikes me as a trifle odd, one would have thought they would have wanted to make a clean break of it.But then I suppose the SNP have to be careful of how they pitch it because of the demographics of Scotland - to want to end the country's ties with the monarchy would be perceived as pandering to the anti-royalist Catholics and could risk alienating the Protestant majority and become a major vote loser.Whatever, an SNP victory may be the first step towards an independent English republic that I personally yearn for, so I for one will be watching on May 3 with acute interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED4LIFE Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 I think that after a thread like this MI5/6 will probably be tapping mine, OC1645 and AzerbaijanApemans phones!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OC 1645 Posted April 23, 2007 Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 I think that after a thread like this MI5/6 will probably be tapping mine, OC1645 and AzerbaijanApemans phones!! While the Royalist Gestapo Police are tapping my 'phone line and Internet connection I'd just like to add that I'm thoroughly ashamed that my taxes are being used to finance what is considered to be the most corrupt and class based criminal justice system in Western Europe. Long live an Englishman's right to freedom of speech and expression - it's what our English ancestors fought and defeated the Royalists and executed their Scottish born tyrant traitor King for..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted April 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2007 I think that after a thread like this MI5/6 will probably be tapping mine, OC1645 and AzerbaijanApemans phones!! What rubbish.By the way, your pizza should be with you in twenty minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.