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
all politicians have a murky past, i was thinking more along the lines of chirac killing someone other than corruption or something stupid which is rife in all countries...
HA! look at all the African countries involved with civil wars and certain countries in Asia and South America who have evil leaders in power...there are loads of them
The royal family are not above politics. You're a fool to think they are. Their very existence is political.
You've made some pretty laughable spelling mistakes yourself - quite worrying someone with such poor literacy skills can gain a commission in the British Army...
You're problem is reactionary thinking. Probably as a result of your inadequacies, you've attached yourself to the usually bullshit dogma. Can't find justication for yourself as an individual eh? Pity you're too dim-witted to see it :yes:.
Look at American...Bush, Clinton, Reagan...just about every President since World War 2 is directly and indirectly responsible for mass-murder.
see thats the thing, they're not more important, unless the royal family are some super alien race then all they are to me are just plain ole human beings, just like you, me, the post man, the dustman, the MP, and should be treated with no more or less respect than anyone else in this country...nuff said!
Celebrities need reducing in size, not the Monarch.
Again, 60p, a year, whats the drama here guys.
what the hell has any of that got to do with the Queen being more important than us
I could understand you getting mad if I said a Big Brother contestant was more important, but of course, she has well Reigned longer than many people have been alive. Probably 60% of the population in fact, demographically.
Good, well done. You still need to get up earlier if you are to fool us though. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that you “niece” stopped posting just as you started, that you have the same style of posts as “she” did etc. You’ve already proved yourself to be untrustworthy.
But hey, let’s move on.
Why not, do you have clairvoyant powers now? What makes you so sure.
In an event you didn’t answer the questions. I asked if you would leave if the will of the people removed the monarchy. I wasn’t interested in your belief as to the probability of this.
Please define what British culture actually is. I’m staggered at the number of times royalists and right-wing “patriots” trot out that expression but I’ve yet to read any definition of what it actually means.
So how does having a monarchy is the present affect our history.
In what way is Britain unique?
Hmmm.. as an example, the Palace of Verseilles seems to do quite well, as does Gracelands. Yet their former inhabitants aren’t around anymore.
In fact, if you want a UK reference perhaps you should look towards the Tower of London, Chartwell, Hever Castle etc…
The only mystery surrounding the Royal Family is entirely intentional. If the public really understood the priviledges enjoyed by all of the family, there would be an outcry. If you dispute this perhaps you should look at the changes in the civil list, payment of taxes etc which have taken place in my lifetime.
Absolutley. As abhorrent as their views are, they do represent a minority of the population. Just because they aren’t populist opinions doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be heard. In fact when their true views are heard they actually lose support IME.
relevance?
Or are you suggesting that when Blagsta argues that the monarchy should be abolished because they are undemocratic that he isn’t being critical?
I’ve never been asked to register my opinion officially either.
I’d like to think that “the correct prior-education” wouldn’t be needed. If you have to descend into the realms of re-education programmes a la Khmer Rouge, then you clearly don’t have an argument to stand on now.
I’m not sure what your point here is.
Once upon a time we also had sewers running through the street, workhouses in every town and the children of poor families worked up chimneys. At that time these were “British sights and sounds” and I’m sure you wouldn’t want to see a return to them.
Just because things change doesn’t mean we lose our “identity” (as you put it). If you need material things to define you, then I pity you.
12th. Personal wealth of £250m
Source
I’d swapo places with her
The spokesman. Alittle arrogant wouldn’t you say?
You mean apart from the family name, significant wealth and a life of priviledge?
Are you telling us that the only country able to do “pomp etc” is us?
You need Royalty for this to happen.? Do you think that Changing the Guards, your example, could not happen without the Queen? As you say it was initially related to the monarchs protection, but that hardly applies now, does it?
Actually there are other reasons. The Queen, Lords etc are just an example of undemocratic system in this country.
Relevance? Are you suggesting that if they had a monarchy this wouldn’t happen?
But not because we have a monarch, you fool.
So this makes her mysterious does it? Do you know what mine is?
If not, can I have £37m from the taxpayer?
Like I said yesterday, find out who you are trying to flame. When you are “27” it’s a bit foolish to refer to people in their 30s as “boy”…
Who is this “we” you are talking about? Considering that you cannot back up your previous claim that the majority of UK subjects support your view, shouldn’t you be saying “I”?
Which is relevant why?
Source?
I don’t know where this quote came from, but I knew if you posted long enough, you might say something interesting.
This sums up my views, to an extent.
I’m not a royalist, I think that it is undemocratic and a life of privildge by accident of birth. I don’t believe the family is representative of the population in any real sense.
However, I dislike politicians even more. Too many in the pocket of commercial interests and only looking to secure the next vote – therefore not offering any long term solutions.
Like I said, if you do not like the fact that this country allows it’s “institutions” to be criticised, the leave it.
Again, source?
Oh, and being a royalist makes someone “True British” does it?
I thought you said she didn’t wield that kind of power
BTW The name is “Man of Kent”, do not insult me by suggesting that I come from the North. Kent man indeed
Phew!
long one there
anyway personally i think overal lthe royal family does their job better than any politican can simply because it is their, what is the point of a democratically elected symbolic role such as head of state, and i firmly believe they are of net benefit to our country and its governmental institutions - im all for cuts in how many members of their family are royal as such, but the basic part of them ie the queen/king and her/his children we should keep......
i couldnt be a member of the royal family, being unable to vote and have a say in anything political, well by unwritten rules anyway
So because she's been around longer, she's more important? Errr...
People are more likely to have a grudge against them because they're a throwback to an oppressive history. You're too wrapped up in your silly little dogmas to realise it, that's all.
So where have i even implied otherwise?
Logic and reason are the last things anyone with a modicum of either would associate with the existence of a Royal Family :rolleyes:.
A "Revolutionary demonstration"?
Your grasp on reality is starting the falter badly...
Wrong again, cadet-boy. That's a myth, and trust a buffoon such as yourself to believe it.
By the way, it's "you're", not "your". Commissioned Officer? LOL.
"I deserve the best of everything because my grandad was a bigger murdering bastard than yours was" is how they get the power. Course now they can't do that shit anymore they lose it year by year, which is a good thing.
I find the whole thing fascinating, myself, because they are so patently just a dysfunctional family of chancers and halfwits in place through historical accident. They are no different than a lifetime president would be. I have no idea where this "impartiality" bollocks comes from, but the Queen and co are just as biased as any other group of grasping twats.
I'd take the job like a fucking shot, so good luck to em, but to see them as anything other than the descendants of conmen, thieves, killers and sister-shaggers is deluded.
I don't have a problem with them personally, they've just been lucky enough to have a life of privilege. The impartially bollocks is just that, bollocks. You don't to look much further than assassination conspiracies of the British State in the 80's.
I wonder how much bogus asylum seekers cost us a year?
Nope.
Nothing at all.
You mean theres no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker??? :eek: :eek:
God/Superhuman Save the United Shire's of Britain!
Yep. two reasons.
One - the idea of a country is a fiction, so you cannot enter and leave it at all, never mind legitimately or not.
Two - they don't cost anything even on the narrow way you mean it. They can only add value, not take it away.
Nope.
Because if they are seeking asylum, then they cannot be bogus.
I think you mean illegal immigrants.
Given the previous comments about how the monarchy attracts people here (including those from the commonwealth) could it be that they are part of the problem
BTW What does immigration actually have to do with this thread at all. Does you [apparently] racist shite have to permeate through every thread?