If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
P.S.
What are your quotes supposed to prove?
Actually couldn't give a shit about your occupation.
Do give a shit about you pretending to be something you're not, just to support your weak argument.
A real Armed Forces Officer would realise that when he is outnumbered, outgunned and using inferior tactics, then he should retreat or surrender.
Choice is yours.
BTW You still haven't addressed any of the points previously raised. You are starting to come across like a previous member...
Have done, nice edit of the BBC Site it was too. You seem to have missed a few comments out...
Such as:
Just a selected few...
Now, where were we? Ah yes, I remember...
Must. Try. Harder
Well, i'll be the bigger man and act a little more mature. I can see why people have these feelings about our monarchy, but I still personally think the positives outweigh the negatives, and if one has never had the pleasure of actually participating in it's 'positives', then that is a shame, that maybe the reason why people feel disconnected from the monarch. I have personally met 2 members of the family, have participated in many ceremonial events and enjoy the global popularity of being British overseas.
However, it must be negotiated, instead of a clean, sharp bold statement. What about realistic suggestions for modifcation?
It isn't going to go, so I have leanred to live with it, and enjoy that.
You can be ignorant and rant and rave, or you can have a grown up intelligent debate, of which I welcome.
The Monarchy takes little harm as it is. It will be here for a while and I don't want to get rid of it just yet. The ghastly attempts at becoming 'media darlings' just angers people.
A 'President Blair' is a vile idea.
The Government spend more than that every month on computer systems that don't work, and on illegal wars.
I think a constitutional monarchy provides an important check, even though it is effectively a ceremonial one these days, at least it is still there. For all the charms of republics, I don't think they are secure.
Good.
Then you will answer some of the questions which have been asked already..
When the queen and prince charles are billionaires each and get many tax breaks too the taxpayers contribution only generates resentment.
Of course, how rude would I be to procrastinate any longer?
I'll label each request 1 - 4. 1 being the first.
1.The removal of the monarchy will not be the will of the people though, people are either that uninterested they couldn't be bothered, or there are still many patriots living in this land; as it stands, MANY people are connected with 'Er Maj and civil unrest is, presently, unlikely.
2.The Monarchy set the standard of British culture. Not all of it, granted, but lets face it, other than contemporary art (inc. music), Britain is perceived as a historic wonder, key word being 'historic'. Culture vulcher's visit China to experience Chinese culture, Indian culture, Spanish culture etc. Why shouldn't Britain retain it's unique identity? By having the most prestigious Monarchy, and Parliamentary goverment at the same time? Many times I have been abroad and they ask "Have you met the Queen?", it's just a piece of Britishness we should be celebrating. They are ONE family that are well-looked after, but they do a lot for all of us, this cannot be disputed.
Ok, so we rid of the Royals, open up Buck house, all the palaces and sack the ex-amount of people working for the institution, then what? Yeah we get to see where "Queen Liz the Last" slept, but will it really have the same feel to it? Keeping them upkeeps the mysteriousness.
3. Good question. Freedom of speech, yes, but when freedom of speech is abused, then what? Should the BNP be able to broadcast their true motives? Wouldn't this just entice a larger audience? Should children be allowed to speak their mind when being told off by their teacher? Because its a "free country"? Should policemen be allowed to arrest people, and tell them what scum they are, all in the name of liberal democracy and "freedom of speech". Or, is this just 'different'? Debating and arguing are two seperate entities, I simply fail to comprehend why any British person can't see the advantages of our system.
'Reality TV can be a drag'. This is criticism. 'Reality TV should be scrapped'. This is not.
4. I "claimed" 60% of us want the Monarchy because, to be honest with you, I read it somewhere, I think it was the BBC, but yes you are right to criticise this figure, afterall, I dont remember being 'asked' my opinion, because im sure if there was a referendum, with the correct prior-education, this figure would be about right, or higher.
Now, I am open to further discussion, but let's spare the abuse and childishness.
Since the 1980s, traditional English red telephone boxes have been slowly removed nationwide, because BT think it is more efficiant to buy new, tacky looking, American-style, cheap, eye-sore ones. Traditional English sights like these are being lost every day, what next, replace our red post boxes with "modern looking" metal containers? No thank you. I personally couldn't bare loosing our monarchy, I think it will be a national regret over the long term. I also couldn't bare to move any closer to American politics or even French. Britain is Britain and the rest of the world needs to deal with that, which they tend to do. Our own people need to unite and celebrate our past achievements and our culture, not promote separatism.
Final point here is, The Queen doesn't rank extremely high in the rich list anyway, what I don't understand is, how does a football player who kicks a ball attract more popularity and indeed much more revenue? Ok, that footballer entertains the masses, but do they really need to earn 70k a week for it? While the Monarch does civil duties in the interests of Britain?
I dont particularly like football, but I tolerate it because its apart of our culture and it does a lot of good, so to does the Crown.
What positives? The tourist trade? We could still keep Buck House, the changing of the guard etc. Why do we need to keep an outdated relic of the past? A symbol of our class ridden and undemocratic past? Why? What purpose does it serve?
What sort of check? It provides no checks at all, its purely symbolic.
Yes, to be born into wealth and status does seem unfair to most of us - but life is a bitch anyway. As it costs me just 67p a year to keep her in that thankless job, I say that it is good value. It's just the hangers-on (the minor royals) that I feel ought to be dispatched ...
Yes, of course you do son.
If it was the will of the people, would you leave? Yes/no.
What standards? As I said - a bunch of philandering Germans? Do you think that British culture is one monolithic entity? What does a person growing up on a council estate in inner city London have in common with the Queen? As I said, we can keep all the pomp and circumstance, but we don't need the actual Royal Family. They serve no purpose except as a reminder of a horribly outdated and undemocratic system.
What "mysteriousness"?
Yes - I don't believe in state censorship.
No, I think it would actually reduce it.
It depends. What has this to do with anything anyhow?
Is it?
No, but they do.
Is what "just 'different'"?
Advantages over what? Compared to what?
"with the correct prior-education" :eek: Sounds a bit Stalinist to me.
"You will be in favour of the Royal Family or we'll throw you in the tower!" :rolleyes:
Hypocrite.
Why do we need to keep the Royal Family though? You still haven't explained. What is "Britishness"? You still haven't explained that either. What does someone growing up on a council estate in Brixton, Peckham, Handsworth or St Pauls have in common with someone growing up on a country estate in Buckinghamshire?
Does a footballer claim money from the taxpayer? Are they a symbol of a violent, repressive and undemocratic past?
What an absurd argument.
How about some democracy?
And you know what about me? my neice? my computer habbits?
A "bunch" of....Thought you were all for equal rights, this sounds a bit patronising. How would you like it if us Royalists called people like you a "bunch of confused, insignificant 9 to 5'er's"? Good job we dont.
From growing up in a council estate myself, I can happily stand in as the urban spokesman.
What does Prince William have in common with the Queen? Weak argument my dearest friend.
What would be the point in all the pomp and ceremony if there was no foundation for it? Bit like hot dogs without the meat.
"They serve no purpose"???????
Whatsssalllllthaaaadddaaabbbooout? Dear lord, you are one confused mudda chucker. Here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/post_eli_ii.shtml
Gee'z how long has this argumentative spotty nerd plaqued this site for?
Ah ha, now you just need to make your mind up. Do you want the pomp and ceremony or not? Dont make a statement such as ridding the Royals, but keep the ceremony if you dont want to be reminded of Britains gruesome past. Afterall, changing of the guard is initially established to protect 'Er Maj.
We were the first Liberal Parliamentary on planet earth, we DO vote for our ministerial leader, he DOES make the decisions, but because THIS is Britain, we enjoy our pomp and thus upkeep it. Britains shoddy past was long long ago, it was actually the Monarchy that abolished the slave trade and enriched the world with our empire. Moan about it all you want, but I side with the biggest.
What more of a democracy do you want? They say its not truly democracy because we have a Queen, but thats just an excuse for Republicans to spread their unwanted wisdom. The USA still executes human beings in 2005! Every public building in Britain must have a ramp for wheelchair access, this country is far from undemocratic and humane, you could do a lot worse spotty.
Do you know Her Majesty's favourite colour?
"Freedom of Speech".......apparently...
Well I was happy to debate this, but your post above suggests you want something to do on this sunny Thursday.
Firstly, go here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1701843.stm - Proves the word exists.
Secondly, from Brixton to Buckinghamshire, this is not the Monarchy, this is down to capitalism. Don't take western capitalism out on the Queen. We ALL live it. Someone who resides in East London, now, can become the Prime Minister, (reference = John Major) this country allows any able working-class hard worker to overachieve and rise, but that is down to the person. Afterall, why should someone growing up in Peckham live the life they have, when someone who appeared of pop idle lives the life of a celeb because they have a tighter (or looser) vocal cord? It's an unfair world you need to deal with it.
At 67p a year, I wouldn't use this as an excuse, its as outdated as Duran Duran. And yes footballers have been connected with violance, in the past ironically. Where as the Queen wouldn't kill a fly.
Every primitive nation on earth experienced an undemocratic past, come on, stop looking through the key hole here. Bigger picture, Bigger brain.
By the way, stop producing about 3 messages before someone elses reply, make's you look over-eager, and indeed, obsessively annoying.
YEs, I'm angry at the state of the world. I see poverty, alienation, exploitation, homelessness, war. Mostly all in the name of profit.
I know that you've been caught out and are trying to cover up.
I'm sure they probably do in private. I don't really give a stuff.
Right oh.
Apart from being related of course. Can you understand simple logic?
Why does it need foundation?
You haven't answered my question. What purpose do they serve?
You sure you haven't posted here before?
You're not making any sense.
You seem to be quite confused. I suggest you read some history. How did the monarcy abolish the slave trade? How did we enrich the world with empire?
I want real democracy, democracy for everyone, not just the rich.
What has the US got to do with it?
I don't give a toss.
Eh?
Oh dear, you are confused. I'll ask you again - what does someone from a working class estate have in common with the Queen?
You're good at avoiding the point aren't you?
Yep, very good at avoiding the point.
Yes, son. :rolleyes:
I'll go and discuss with more open-minded intellectuals.
You resorted to this, thats all I have to say matey.
Have fun trying to remove a piece of history.
The bottom line is this - the royal family are parasites, living off the rest of us, a symbol of a feudal undemocratic age, a symbol of wealth, power and privilege over democracy, freedom and equality and as such, should be abolished. No amount of bleating about our glorious empire (yeah, slavery and concentration camps enriched the world no end), about tourists (they'd still come) or about their function as heads of state (pure empty gesture) will change this. Get over it and enjoy your shelfstacking.
Cost? I doubt Buck House will cost less to run with Mein Fuhrer Blair in there. On previous performance, it'd probably cost more.
What is democracy anyway? It's certainly not fair.
The more I look I take a look at the faces of the anti-monarchists twisted in hatred and class envy the more I'm glad we have a monarchy (with apologies to John Prescott for pinching his line).
Except, err, they're not.
The monarchy in its current guise has never been feudal. Monarchy before the civil war was entirely different.
They are symbolic now, but as NQA says, I'd be delighted if all the parasites only cost me 61p. It amuses me how the same people who decry the Royal Family for being parasitic and undemocratic defend the BBC to the hilt. And correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the BBC undemocratic parasites who cost 13p a day.
I think the Monarchy are worth far more than a week of EastEnders and Celebrity Dancing with Graham "cunt" Norton. That's the context it should be in.
There are two S's in CommisSioned. And yes I am, and who exactly are you to suggest otherwise? You suggested the cadets in earlier posts, maybe thats your thing hunny, I teach in the AGC.
So doesn't Mr Blair have wealth? Or any other potential HoState. You need to sift and sort your ideas and make your mind up. Maybe you should join communist China, where the ideology rests on entire equality. All I know, is that I live a very happy, opinionated, expressive, freer than free, successful life here in Britain, and coming from the bottom, its not like I was born with it.
I prefer the British system than any other in the world, maybe we need to send you off to South Africa or Central Afghanistan for a few years to experience real unmodified, unfair, undemocratic lifestyles. Then you may to learn and appreciate a system built on years of modifications, improvements, appeasements, negotiations and freedoms that you take for granted today, you know, all this luxury you were ascribed.
Believe me boy, there are bigger, more relevent issues to get worked up about.
Yes, the royals probably cost less money than an equivalent presidential system, but I don't think that's any wayt to justify a political system.
For me, it's about whether you agree with power by birthright. I don't, so I'm a republican - simple as that.
But one of the arguments some republicans throw against having a monarchy is that it costs too much - so I think that putting the counter-argument is relevant.
And as for power, the Queen is there for culture and ceremony, as has been discussed a million times. I prefer a neutral, non-commons, non-elected figure in politics, especially one who eye-witnessed the War.
True - and I think those republicans are barking up the wrong tree. It's a point of principle IMO, not some sort of bidding war to see who can provide the cheaper political system.
Except they are. Yes, their function may be different, but they are still a symbol of of a time when we were ruled by privilege and wealth - which we still are to a certain extent, but at least their is a pretension to democracy,
I think comparing the BBC to the Royal Family is an absurd thing to do. The BBC serves a useful and democratic function - a source of news that is not biased by commercial interests.
I think that BBC news, Dr Who, Conviction, Newsnight, Edge of Darkness etc etc are all worth far more than the royals.
What am I expected to do to 'show my support for republicanism?' Send turds through the post to Buckingham Palace or something?
If there were a referendum on the monarchy I'd vote against it - until then, it's a silly question. It's just an opinion.
I disagree with unelected power - end of. And even if the Queen's power is largely symbolic, power it remains. You yourself acknowledge this, when you talk about the need for a 'neutral' [she isn't - highly conservative, in fact] and 'non-commons and non-elected' [objectionable in principle] figure.
I've no personal animosity towards the Queen though - I imagine she'd be a very interesting person to speak to.
No, just political ones.
Just as well really, you pay far more for them.