Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Labour candidate calls Queen a "parasite"

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Anyways i think the point was just refuting the fact that the queen does "nothing", not that she does a particulalry unique role.

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Taj Mahal isn't doing to badly without any royalty.

    A magnificent building built by ROYALS as a romantic token of love. Who wouldn't buy into that? People overseas buy into the Royal family in the same sort of way - something magical. Almost no visitor to London would not include a visit to Buckingham Palace in their itinerary and the thrill of the thought that they might also get to see a glimpse of the Queen, just adds to that attraction.
    People still visit Paris and China.

    And most of the attractions are centred around the history and buildings of their respective royal families.
    Nobody visits Japan to see the emperor, they visit to see the buildings.

    That's because he is largely inaccessible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A great many people in this country do think the Royals are parasites. I count myself as one of them.

    A parasite? Don't be so harsh on yourself
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I think that the point I am trying to make is that, in the past 30 years, only once has an "elected" leader been removed by the populous in the UK. Even then less than 50% of the population voted for the new guy - Tony Blair. A man who took us into "illegal war" and was still reelected. So, bad elected officials are accountable? Are replaced by the people?

    Do you remember George W. Bush being removed, or indicted by the process of democracy?

    Elections aren't perfection. What we have in the UK isn't absolute monarchy, nor is it absolute democracy. It's a combination and so we get the best of both worlds.
    Still, some accountability is better than none. Governments and their members have to perform to certain standards to keep office. If enough people are unhappy about their performance, the elected leader will lose their office. Something that does not happen with a monarch.

    For all it's worth I respect the job the Queen has done as a monarch. Can you imagine Charles or, god forbid, the likes of Harry as head of State? What if they turn out to be a disaster?

    And then of course is the matter of being an entire family being on the take, not just the actual head of State. Siblings, children, grandchildren, cousins...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A parasite? Don't be so harsh on yourself
    Funny guy :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course, the Royals don't help themselves much either. At least their Continental counterparts do come across as a bit more modernised and down to earth. The heirs to the throne of two monarchies have recently married a single mother and a divorcee- both commoners. In here that would be unthinkable, as if the very thought of a Royal mixing up with such a commoner would be an abomination. The King of Spain often kisses journalists and other public figures in public as a greeting. The Queen hasn't even been seen kissing her own grandchildren in public. If someone doesn't curtsy in front of Brenda, there is outrage in certain quarters. Etc etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    And most of the attractions are centred around the history and buildings of their respective royal families.

    Proof therefore that you don't need the royal family to still exist in order to buy into the traditions it represents.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Proof therefore that you don't need the royal family to still exist in order to buy into the traditions it represents.

    I couldn't disagree with your more. The Royal Family are 'living history' and having them about enhances the experience for visitors above just visiting a lifeless exhibition. The Royal family and its associated pageantry are an important attraction.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Of course, the Royals don't help themselves much either. At least their Continental counterparts do come across as a bit more modernised and down to earth. The heirs to the throne of two monarchies have recently married a single mother and a divorcee- both commoners. In here that would be unthinkable, as if the very thought of a Royal mixing up with such a commoner would be an abomination. The King of Spain often kisses journalists and other public figures in public as a greeting. The Queen hasn't even been seen kissing her own grandchildren in public. If someone doesn't curtsy in front of Brenda, there is outrage in certain quarters. Etc etc.

    In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince William of Wales or The Princess Royal, is a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone who holds only a courtesy title. Diana was a commoner.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But a member of the upper classes.

    Do you really think for a second that either William or Harry would be allowed to marry a working class single mother if they wanted to keep their royal status? LOL!

    Even the likes of oh-so-perfect Kate Middleton and her upper class family struggle to make the cut, for the grand capital crime of describing a toilet as a 'loo' in front of her Maj.

    It's contemptible and alienating to the many millions of "subjects" who are anything less than rich and powerful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    But a member of the upper classes.

    Do you really think for a second that either William or Harry would be allowed to marry a working class single mother if they wanted to keep their royal status? LOL!

    Even the likes of oh-so-perfect Kate Middleton and her upper class family struggle to make the cut, for the grand capital crime of describing a toilet as a 'loo' in front of her Maj.

    It's contemptible and alienating to the many millions of "subjects" who are anything less than rich and powerful.

    Aladdin, you're talking nonsense, dude. Kate's parents were an airline pilot and an air hostess. Hardly 'upper class' - or 'rich and powerful'. In fact, they are as 'common' as you or me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Aladdin, you're talking nonsense, dude. Kate's parents were an airline pilot and an air hostess. Hardly 'upper class' - or 'rich and powerful'. In fact, they are as 'common' as you or me.
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Kate Middleton grew up in Bucklebury, Berkshire,[8] and attended St. Andrew's School in Pangbourne, Berkshire followed by Marlborough College in Wiltshire.[9]
    Fees Schedule 2009-2010

    Boarding Fees: £28,245 per annum : (£9,415 per term)

    Day Fees: £21,180 per annum : (£7,060 per term)


    They are certainly millionaires.


    But you are actually illustrating my point by revealing that information about her parents. As it has been widely documented in the media, Her Majesty is not amused by Kate Middleton's mother and her terribly vulgar ways (I mean, would you want your son to marry someone whose mother describes a bathroom as a 'loo'? Heaven forbid!).

    So a privately educated (in one of the best schools in the country) purer than pure English Rose is still met with reservations because of her family's not so aristocratic background and use of language. Do you think that's normal or healthy?

    And to repeat my earlier question, do you think the Queen would allow William to marry a single mother?

    They're a bunch of deluded people dettached from anything resembling normal life (by their own choosing and self-belief of being somehow superior and more worthy than their "subjects"). They deserve contempt not admiration.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    But you are actually illustrating my point by revealing that information about her parents. As it has been widely documented in the media, Her Majesty is not amused by Kate Middleton's mother and her terribly vulgar ways (I mean, would you want your son to marry someone whose mother describes a bathroom as a 'loo'? Heaven forbid!).

    Lol! Suddenly you believe everything that you read in the papers????
    Aladdin wrote: »
    They are certainly millionaires.

    Self-made millionaires selling party accessories etc. They became millionaires through hard work. One can hardy point a finger at them for that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Lol! Suddenly you believe everything that you read in the papers????
    Seeing as it was reported across the board and not just in the tabloids I have little reason to doubt it, yes.

    Even if the 'loo' incident wasn't true, I think the fact that the Queen does not approve of the relationship is beyond questioning.

    So do you think the Queen would allow William to marry a single mother or not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Even if the 'loo' incident wasn't true, I think the fact that the Queen does not approve of the relationship is beyond questioning.

    Her 'approval' is 'beyond questioning'???? On what grounds of fact do you base that assertion? Do you think the Queen relays her concerns in off-the-cuff remarks to journalists, do you? If William knew Kate was so unacceptable to his grandmother, why would he still pursue a relationship that would be going nowhere?

    Regarding William and a single mother, she may well not 'approve' but in this day and age, would not have much say in it. She is wise enough to know her reservations would be unacceptable to the greater British public.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Her 'approval' is 'beyond questioning'???? On what grounds of fact do you base that assertion?
    It's been reported widely on the press and in royal circles. It really is no secret, and not particularly contested by Bucks Palace either.
    Regarding William and a single mother, she may well not 'approve' but in this day and age, would not have much say in it. She is wise enough to know her reservations would be unacceptable to the greater British public.
    I think you greatly underestimate the lengths the royals will go to preserve the traditions they see as right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It's been reported widely on the press and in royal circles. It really is no secret, and not particularly contested by Bucks Palace either.

    Again, I put it to you, why would William continue to see Kate when he might fear his grandmother's opinion? Perhaps the Queen is not all that fond of Kate's parents after all but, as with relationships/marriages everywhere, often the in-laws are not particularly popular anyway.
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I think you greatly underestimate the lengths the royals will go to preserve the traditions they see as right.

    Do you think Charles would stand by now and watch his children be miserable and unhappy, as he was, to keep some 'tradition' alive? From the day they were born, Charles broke with tradition (not having his sons circumcised, for instance) and the fact that he gets involved with all sorts of high profile issues is an indication that he is not going to be a reclusive monarch as they had been in the old days.

    I know people are often quite rude about Prince Philip but he was the one that actually started the slow and gradual process into modernity for the Royal family. But this even more enlightened, new age of media has ensured that the Royal family has to change, is changing and will change. I think Charles and William are up for the challenge.

    You can't compare the Spanish royal family to ours because since 1931, there wasn't one and so when Juan Carlos was crowned, it was in the modern era. He was able to come in as a 'new monarch' and was able to set his ground rules accordingly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Again, I put it to you, why would William continue to see Kate when he might fear his grandmother's opinion? Perhaps the Queen is not all that fond of Kate's parents after all but, as with relationships/marriages everywhere, often the in-laws are not particularly popular anyway.
    For sure. But anyone who disapproves of their children's loved one because their family are not considered posh enough comes across as a pompous shit IMO.

    Do you think Charles would stand by now and watch his children be miserable and unhappy, as he was, to keep some 'tradition' alive?
    Probably not Charles, seeing as he was all but forced to marry a woman he didn't love at all (and it was Brenda and Philip doing applying the pressure of course).

    It is both wrong and tragic that parents will choose their children's spouses for them. It happens all the time all over the world of course- so long as we all agree that anyone who does that is not a very nice person at all, regardless of whether they might be peasants in India or the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the other Commonwealth realms.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    I couldn't disagree with your more. The Royal Family are 'living history' and having them about enhances the experience for visitors above just visiting a lifeless exhibition. The Royal family and its associated pageantry are an important attraction.

    :confused: When have visitors to Buckingham Palace ever got to see members of royalty? It doesn't even make it into the top 10 tourist attractions in London ffs, so I'm sure taking away the possibility that the queen might be inside isn't going to hit the tourist numbers to London massively. Maybe they'll even increase with it being opened up more. Who said anything about getting rid of things like the changing of the guard?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    For sure. But anyone who disapproves of their children's loved one because their family are not considered posh enough comes across as a pompous shit IMO.

    If you don't want Royalty, have a proper debate rather than attacking them as individuals because they are old people of a completely different generation. I am quite sure that your own Spanish grandmother would disapprove of things which a modern person would accept quite happily (e.g. if you married a divorcee ... shock and horror to her Catholic beliefs).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :confused: When have visitors to Buckingham Palace ever got to see members of royalty? It doesn't even make it into the top 10 tourist attractions in London ffs, so I'm sure taking away the possibility that the queen might be inside isn't going to hit the tourist numbers to London massively. Maybe they'll even increase with it being opened up more. Who said anything about getting rid of things like the changing of the guard?

    I used Buckingham Palace as an example. I never stated that it was the top attraction. And most of the time, people don't catch a glimpse of her - but they do entertain the possibility. And why would they continue to change the guard if there wasn't anyone to guard? It would be axed in a cost cutting exercise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It is both wrong and tragic that parents will choose their children's spouses for them. It happens all the time all over the world of course- so long as we all agree that anyone who does that is not a very nice person at all, regardless of whether they might be peasants in India or the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the other Commonwealth realms.

    If your child came home and said they were getting married to a prominent bnp member/activist would you embrace the situation positively for the sake of your child ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If your child came home and said they were getting married to a prominent bnp member/activist would you embrace the situation positively for the sake of your child ?
    One thing is trying to discourage someone from marrying a particular person (which is often wrong anyway), and another to all but force them to marry a particular individual.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    If you don't want Royalty, have a proper debate rather than attacking them as individuals because they are old people of a completely different generation. I am quite sure that your own Spanish grandmother would disapprove of things which a modern person would accept quite happily (e.g. if you married a divorcee ... shock and horror to her Catholic beliefs).
    I find it astonishing the the levels you're reaching in trying to defend actions that are indefensible.

    It's all very well for you to like the monarchy and think it's the best system around. But don't try to pretend the royals are jolly nice people or have not done deplorable things as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    But don't try to pretend the royals are jolly nice people or have not done deplorable things as well.

    Are you, or do you work for, a Mr Al Fayed?

    It was the fuggin' Duke of Edinburgh what done it!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Duke makes me laugh due to his unashamed bigotry and contempt for common courtesy. But at the same time it's a great example of why unelected heads of state and their relatives are a bad idea.

    Can you imagine having such man as a King and not being able to remove him? How much damage to the countries interests would have he done by the end of his reign?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see the point in the queen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    The Duke makes me laugh due to his unashamed bigotry and contempt for common courtesy. But at the same time it's a great example of why unelected heads of state and their relatives are a bad idea.

    Can you imagine having such man as a King and not being able to remove him? How much damage to the countries interests would have he done by the end of his reign?

    Whilst I agree that the Duke is awesome and is a reminder of a byegone age of Britain, I don't agree with your view that were he king, he would have damaged the country's interests by now.

    Whilst the monarch has technical power (e.g. all land in the UK is technically the property of the monarch and all laws must be signed by the monarch or a delegate), practically speaking, theirs is a largely ambassadorial and ceremonial role.

    Perhaps it's because he acknowledges that he is, strictly speaking, a subject of his wife and thus the attention is, more often than not, on her, he can perhaps get away with this. I don't think that, were he the head of state, he would be daft enough to say half of the things he does.

    I personally love the fact that we have a royal family. It's part of our national identity, a major tourist draw and under a constitutional monarchy, which is what we've basically had since Magna Carta and power has continued to devolve from throne to ballot ever since, we've done incredibly well for ourselves.

    Perhaps it's because you're a foreigner (and I mean this in a non-Nick Griffin way), that you have a more cynical view of our Royal Family. Whilst I speak Spanish and have been there more times than I care to mention and I understand why Juan Carlos II enjoys such a special place in the hearts of most Spaniards (not least for his "por que no te callas" comment to Hugo Chavez), the Spanish Royal Family do not arouse the same sense of pride in me as they might do in your average Spaniard.

    To those who oppose and would abolish the monarchy, what would you have instead?

    I think that it is good to have the head of state as someone who is free of political considerations and does not have to worry about the kind of short-termism that tends to dominate elected politics. Can you imagine the Church run by a Government department? Or would it be devolved back to Rome?

    For those who would abolish the monarch, you do realise that were the monarchy to be abolished tomorrow, the most likely candidate for President of the UK would probably be Peter Mandelson. Just think about that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wanting to abolish the monarchy doesn't mean wanting to instate a president.
Sign In or Register to comment.