nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Royals

Shandashey

Any interest? Have to say, I do love following the British Royal Family. Andy and his under ages, Fergie and her toe sucking, Charles and his cheating ass, William and his large face. All in all, very interesting. And a sprog due soon, how EXCITING :P

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Saralee4

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're being daft now.

Are you suggesting a Khmer Rouge style wiping clean of the past and starting at day one?

No I'm trying to understand your desire for monarchy since you haven't come up with any reasons for them? I'm not saying there aren't, I just haven't read any that you have suggested.

Your comparison was the kardashians which I think is a very good comparison.

Fratton Fred

Saralee4 wrote: »

No I'm trying to understand your desire for monarchy since you haven't come up with any reasons for them? I'm not saying there aren't, I just haven't read any that you have suggested.

Your comparison was the kardashians which I think is a very good comparison.

I don't have a desire for monarchy, I just don't see the reason to change.

Maybe you could explain to the obviously less intelligent people of the UK how their lives would be better off in a republic?

The Kardashian comparison is daft.

FunLover18

Surely the "royals" as an idea stand in direct opposition to the notion of equality.

Saralee4

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't have a desire for monarchy, I just don't see the reason to change.

Maybe you could explain to the obviously less intelligent people of the UK how their lives would be better off in a republic?

The Kardashian comparison is daft.

the Kardashians are your comparison. The reason I think it is good is because they are also pointless. They are just rich and admired for being rich. Kim kardasian is the sex kitten with the homemade porn and Prince Harry is the cheeky chappy caught having an orgy.

I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying the "less intelligent people of the uk".

I asked you how they benefit the country? But your response of "it's not broke so don't fix it" doesn't make any sense. The fact that in this day and age people are praised and awarded for simply being born is dated and they havent done anything to earn their position as "head of the armed forces" and other authoritive positions bestowed on them as well as the cost which has already been mentioned.

Fratton Fred

Saralee4 wrote: »

the Kardashians are your comparison. The reason I think it is good is because they are also pointless. They are just rich and admired for being rich. Kim kardasian is the sex kitten with the homemade porn and Prince Harry is the cheeky chappy caught having an orgy.

I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying the "less intelligent people of the uk".

I asked you how they benefit the country? But your response of "it's not broke so don't fix it" doesn't make any sense. The fact that in this day and age people are praised and awarded for simply being born is dated and they havent done anything to earn their position as "head of the armed forces" and other authoritive positions bestowed on them as well as the cost which has already been mentioned.

I didn't compare them to the Kardashians, that was (quite obviously) a reference to the way people fawning over their every activity.

I note you have avoided answering my question. How would the average Joe in the UK be better off?

You seem to think you know better than the people of the UK, so you obviously consider yourself more intelligent, so you can tell us why we are daft continuing with our current political set up.

murpho999

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Apartheid, communism and Nazism didn't work though. All those regimes disappeared because the majority of people opposed it. It is a rediculous comparison.

It's not a ridiculous comparison as they worked for a while. Monarchies have failed in most countries too.

Fratton Fred

murpho999 wrote: »

It's not a ridiculous comparison as they worked for a while. Monarchies have failed in most countries too.

So have republics.

murpho999

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So have republics.

Eh....no they haven't, especially when most countries are republics.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve or prove to be honest.

Fratton Fred

murpho999 wrote: »

Eh....no they haven't, especially when most countries are republics.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve or prove to be honest.

There's plenty of failed republics.

The political ideology of a country is irrelevant. If it works, it works. The political set up in the UK works, There is a high degree of democracy, equal representation for every one, a level of human rights and civil liberties that matches the highest in the world.

Why change it?

crockholm

I have lived in 2 countries that have Monarchies,and the majority of people there seem content with the status-quo,I Think the Queens birthday (though it was actually her mothers iirc) in the Netherlands was the 30th of April,so day off,lots of alcohol,grilling food and picnics.

Queen Beatrix,since abdicated,was a very popular figurehead for the Dutch-even in the Catholic South!

So,while it may seem strange for some,I don't Think one should outright dismiss the peoples fondness for the heriditary families.

But for the quirks of history-we would likely have an inbred O'Brien/O'Neill/O'Connor regent.

murpho999

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There's plenty of failed republics.

The political ideology of a country is irrelevant. If it works, it works. The political set up in the UK works, There is a high degree of democracy, equal representation for every one, a level of human rights and civil liberties that matches the highest in the world.

Why change it?

Because here we choose our head of state and that person is a normal citizen not an elite Royal chosen by birth regardless of ability who must be bowed to by their 'subjects' (not citizens). System is just all wrong to me.

dxhound2005

murpho999 wrote: »

Because here we choose our head of state and that person is a normal citizen not an elite Royal chosen by birth regardless of ability who must be bowed to by their 'subjects' (not citizens). System is just all wrong to me.

That is not what makes us a Republic. That is democracy, which also pertains in the UK. Democracy does not pertain in the Central African Republic, nor the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Fratton Fred

murpho999 wrote: »

Because here we choose our head of state and that person is a normal citizen not an elite Royal chosen by birth regardless of ability who must be bowed to by their 'subjects' (not citizens). System is just all wrong to me.

No, citizens. Not subjects.

If the majority of people in the UK don't want monarchy any more, guess what, there will be no more monarchy. It's called democracy.

Give me one advantage you have because you get to vote every five years for your head of state?

Streetwalker

The fact that British people care about them is baffling, the fact that some Irish people do leaves me speechless

murpho999

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, citizens. Not subjects.

If the majority of people in the UK don't want monarchy any more, guess what, there will be no more monarchy. It's called democracy.

Give me one advantage you have because you get to vote every five years for your head of state?

The fact that the president is chosen by its people is very important to me also that there is nothing legally stopping me or any other citizen of this country becoming president. A UK citizen cannot do that.

Fratton Fred

murpho999 wrote: »

The fact that the president is chosen by its people is very important to me also that there is nothing legally stopping me or any other citizen of this country becoming president. A UK citizen cannot do that.

So the fact you have a one in a four million chance of landing a cushy little number makes you sleep better at night?

You must have very little to worry about.

murpho999

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That is not what makes us a Republic. That is democracy, which also pertains in the UK. Democracy does not pertain in the Central African Republic, nor the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Republics exclude monarchies and the UK is not a republic as it has a Monarch, just like Netherlands, Belgiuim, Spain etc and North Korea nor CAR would be no better off with or without monarchies, they have other issues.

murpho999

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the fact you have a one in a four million chance of landing a cushy little number makes you sleep better at night?

You must have very little to worry about.

I don't worry about that or monarchies that much but I just like our system over elitist monarchies.

dxhound2005

murpho999 wrote: »

Republics exclude monarchies and the UK is not a republic as it has a Monarch, just like Netherlands, Belgiuim, Spain etc and North Korea nor CAR would be no better off with or without monarchies, they have other issues.

And people who live in democracies with a constitutional monarch as their titular head of state are no worse off for that.

murpho999

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And people who live in democracies with a constitutional monarch as their titular head of state are no worse off for that.

But that's not my point it's all about the principle.

dxhound2005

murpho999 wrote: »

But that's not my point it's all about the principle.

You can't do anything to apply your principles to how other countries choose to operate. You are free to have an opinion on the matter but it is not what this thread is about.

Any interest? Have to say, I do love following the British Royal Family. Andy and his under ages, Fergie and her toe sucking, Charles and his cheating ass, William and his large face. All in all, very interesting. And a sprog due soon, how EXCITING

Fratton Fred

murpho999 wrote: »

But that's not my point it's all about the principle.

Should you not, therefore, be more concerned with the lack of equality in the Irish system then?

Out of principle?

dd972

brummytom wrote: »

Bunch of unelected, benefit-scrounging, inbred fúckwits.

People who fawn over them, or give a shit about them at all just baffle me.

Those Union Jack waving divs you're referring to probably all hate the Germans as well, oblivious to the the fact that those they fawn over are a bunch of Germans :rolleyes:

pablomakaveli

dd972 wrote: »

Those Union Jack waving divs you're referring to probably all hate the Germans as well, oblivious to the the fact that those they fawn over are a bunch of Germans :rolleyes:

I think most of them are aware of that given how much people love to point it out.

smurgen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Should you not, therefore, be more concerned with the lack of equality in the Irish system then?

Out of principle?

Maybe but it does look a bit ridiculous doesn't it?The English claiming to spread democracy all over the middle east while under the rule of her royal highness. It's an out dated system with no place in a modern democracy.its the very definition of nepotism and undermines the capitalistic system. These people act with impunity and appear above the law.i would be sickened as an English citizen to be a servant of these people.
all of their minor achievements are parade through the papers as if they're super hero's. It's all quiet ridiculous.

Woshy

I've no problem with them on a personal level, they seem alright if a little dull (especially Catherine Middleton who appears to have no personality whatsoever, although she probably appears like that for privacy's sake) but I do think they are a bit of a waste of space and massively over privileged. I've no interest and the royal wedding/baby hype is just way OTT.

My husband is big into the royals, it's so weird. I had a baby four weeks before Kate last time and now I'm due a second in another four weeks so both our kids will be almost exactly the same age. My husband thinks this is wonderful. Today he said he hopes they use the same name we have picked out . Eh, no. He's mental sometimes!

Fratton Fred

smurgen wrote: »

Maybe but it does look a bit ridiculous doesn't it?The English claiming to spread democracy all over the middle east while under the rule of her royal highness. It's an out dated system with no place in a modern democracy.its the very definition of nepotism and undermines the capitalistic system. These people act with impunity and appear above the law.i would be sickened as an English citizen to be a servant of these people.
all of their minor achievements are parade through the papers as if they're super hero's. It's all quiet ridiculous.

servant, really?

it's the UK by the way, not England. When will people understand the most basic of things about their nearest neighbours?

Tarzana2

Candie wrote: »

Both of them highly savvy media manipulators. Both self-styled saints.

Diana didn't mete out cruelty to vulnerable people. So yeah, they both were media manipulators, but compared to Mother Teresa, Princess Diana was fairly harmless.

[Deleted User]

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Diana didn't mete out cruelty to vulnerable people. So yeah, they both were media manipulators, but compared to Mother Teresa, Princess Diana was fairly harmless.

Yeah, MT seems to have been an utter psycho if you take Christopher Hitchens word and I've no reason not to. Diana I don't know much about because I was only about 10 or 11 when she died, but she seemed to really know how to play the media, she certainly had an eye for the soundbite and photo op anyways.

Fratton Fred

Candie wrote: »

Yeah, MT seems to have been an utter psycho if you take Christopher Hitchens word and I've no reason not to. Diana I don't know much about because I was only about 10 or 11 when she died, but she seemed to really know how to play the media, she certainly had an eye for the soundbite and photo op anyways.

There were also plenty of first hand accounts from doctors and nurses who Saud that she would randomly turn up at hospitals and talk to patients with no hint of a journalist or photo op.