For queen and country?

[beorhthelm]

Unbelievable. Perhaps I should just take the law into my own hands when I feel the government doesn't know what it's doing? I don't like the way it spends the tax it raises, perhaps I'll just tell them to get stuffed until I do approve?

It's people like you who perpetuate the injustice of the Royal family. We can argue the whys and wherefores of what head of state to have, but while you're letting them get away with doing what they like, they can continue to:
- rob the people of unclaimed inheritence from people living in the two duchies
- insist they are made immune from various laws of the land
- hide finances so we never truly know how much they cost, purpetuating the myth that they bring in more than they cost
- legitimise a society built on privelege and class

interesting rant.
- how is the "rob the people..." of unclaimed inheritance any different from the state doing the same. the duchies are held in trust by the sovereign, which is the same as the state.
- some might say they act and operate above the law, but theres no exemption from any law i'm aware of. please point out any law where im incorrect here.
- hiding finances is conjecture.
- privelege and class... thats what this is really all about isnt it? so there's no privelege or class in France, America, China or any other republic? Monarch has little to do with the cause of either, they are part of natural human societies and you only shift them and their issues elsewhere.

as regimes go its pretty benign and that is why it perpetuates.

 

[spring hall convert]

I'd question how privileged they really are - I'd not want to be a Royal for all the tea in China. I rather like being able to do what I want when I want without the responsibility or expectation.

Well, they could probably afford all the tea in China, in my book that's fairly privileged

 

[beorhthelm]

As a concept.. its obscene though - the automatic deification of individuals simply because of who's womb they came out of, in this day and age, is incredible.

the "deification" of the monarch ended when Charles I was executed. the designation of the future monarch by birth comes from Parliament.

 

[Cian]

Hypocrite ? Why ? You haven't got a clue about the reasons behind what I said , but I say again , you lot couldn't wait to disassociate yourselves from Britain , thus rendering any input you have redundant, so I'll say again, take heed of your username and mind your own business.

You are so ridiculously easy to wind up on this. You walk right in to something providing all the buttons that need pressing

 

[User removed 4]

The Queen was quite fit when she was young.

Her sister margaret, whilst being a spoilt arrogant bitch, was absolute filth by all accounts , absolute sloshpot who didnt mind drinking out of the furry cup either !

 

[Peteinblack]

Am not bothered either way, but I really do not understand this 'they bring in tourists' argument?

Tourists don't get to meet or have tea with the Royal Family, so how do they help attract tourists.
I also find that a bizarrely unpatriotic argument- is the implication that Britain is such a sh*t-hole that no one would visit unelss we have a Royal Family!

I must confess, my visits to Paris, Rome and New York (among many other places) have never been spoiled by the lack of a Royal Family in those countries!

Like I said, I'm not bothered one way or another, but this particular argument - that we should keep the Royals because of tourism - I find bizarre.

 

[Peteinblack]

i have nothing against any individual members of the royal family. They all seem decent enough.

As a concept.. Its obscene though - the automatic deification of individuals simply because of who's womb they came out of, in this day and age, is incredible.

Some of the glorification of them - daily express, daily mail etc - is rancid, and stinks of the worst kind of little englander mentality.

This!

 

[somerset]

Am not bothered either way, but I really do not understand this 'they bring in tourists' argument?

Tourists don't get to meet or have tea with the Royal Family, so how do they help attract tourists.
I also find that a bizarrely unpatriotic argument- is the implication that Britain is such a sh*t-hole that no one would visit unelss we have a Royal Family!

I must confess, my visits to Paris, Rome and New York (among many other places) have never been spoiled by the lack of a Royal Family in those countries!

Like I said, I'm not bothered one way or another, but this particular argument - that we should keep the Royals because of tourism - I find bizarre.

It can appear as bizarre as you feel it should be, but the tourism surveys all bear this out as fact. You visit places for a raft of different reasons, New York for the skyscrapers, shopping etc, Paris for the Tower and the Royal (ex) palaces, Rome for the Imperial and Papal ruins and palaces,.... London ( Britain) is dfined in these surveys as being attractive because of the added element that our Royal line, aswell as being more visible, is in fact living history in the making, that's why the Yanks and Japanese flock here in such large numbers.

 

[Danny-Boy]

I'm deffo for King Kevin...

 

[User removed 4]

You are so ridiculously easy to wind up on this. You walk right in to something providing all the buttons that need pressing

How are you "winding me up ?" The short answer is you aren't, but have opted for this time honoured, lazy response for lack of a real answer .

 

[Hungry Joe]

And once again, an amusingly promising thread descends into a polarised binfest.

 

[Cian]

How are you "winding me up ?" The short answer is you aren't, but have opted for this time honoured, lazy response for lack of a real answer .

You have two irreconcilable viewpoints, which I know you won't be able to defend with anything, and its quite fun seeing you try to weasel out of it.

Two areas of the UK with ~40% of people who hate England and suck tax: you want rid
One area of the UK with ~40% of people who hate England and suck tax: you want kept

You can't see the hypocrisy there, and you also can't see the hypocrisy of accusing someone of a "lazy response" when your own response to the initial accusation was to try and wave away the argument. Have you considered a career in politics?

 

[Chesney Christ]

double post

 

[Chesney Christ]

hahahahahaha

Excellent argument. Clever chap.

Who ARE you by the way? Apart from some kind of weird stalker.

 

[The Spanish]

And once again, an amusingly promising thread descends into a polarised binfest.

ascends

 

[cunning fergus]

Total waste of time and money. And besides, I prefer elected heads of state. Get rid.

Me too.................but can we start with those in the picture first though?

http://www.stirringtroubleinternati...hinese-communists-for-compassionate-politics/

I certainly don't recall voting for any of these gentlemen and yet they represent an institution that takes billions from this country's taxpayers and enforces laws that are not approved by the UK Government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20392793

We can get round to the Royals in due course, but let's sort out the big stuff first.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Me too.................but can we start with those in the picture first though?

http://www.stirringtroubleinternati...hinese-communists-for-compassionate-politics/

I certainly don't recall voting for any of these gentlemen and yet they represent an institution that takes billions from this country's taxpayers and enforces laws that are not approved by UK

You could have voted to opt out though. All you needed to do is put your X next to UKIP in the last general election. And you have a choice of UKIP for a straight "out" or the Tory party for a referendum at the next election.

 

[Hungry Joe]

ascends

You think?

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

The royals bring in more to the country financially than they cost in terms of tourism and commerce.

Last time I checked America didn’t have a royal family (unless you count Oprah) and they seem to do OK for tourism. Then again, they have the nerve to have a democratically elected President and not a monarch appointed by ‘divine right’.

And yes, a lot of Americans do like the queen – but they definitely prefer their royalty at a distance and not on their doorstep.

 

[Was not Was]

I think the Queen does a very good job, and has done so for a long time.

Not sure if Charlie deserves my vote, though. I might support another candidate better suited to the role.

Oh, hang on ...