What is the Queen for?
Discussion
jmorgan said:
REALIST123 said:
jmorgan said:
SilverSixer said:
Evidence please.
Certainly a shed load of people at trouping the colour. Don't think the accidentally got lost and all found themselves on the mall.They turn up in droves for changing the guard as well.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time"
Who gives a fig on spilling mistooks....
Anyway, we have a Royal Family. Get over it.
SilverSixer said:
Oh that's me told. What a fabulous argument "get over it" is. Wish I'd thought of that. Thanks for your advice, I have now gotten over it. Woo yay, The Queen. Woo yay.
It was a tongue in cheek go at me spelling being pointed out....Anyway, we seem to have a good stock of crown wearers in line to keep people unhappy.
imagineifyeswill said:
The Queen being the the very epitome of diplomacy will keep her opinions to herself.
What is the point of a head of state who won't even speak up for the continued existence of that state?Fact is, the Buckingham Palace crowd are so useless they stand for nothing except continuation of their own ridiculous privilege.
25NAD90TUL said:
I have absolutely no idea what she/they are for.
I have absolutely no comprehension of why people want to celebrate people whose very existence is, and has been for centuries, based on wholesale robbery and violence.
And now we have another hanger-on coming to celebrate.
People who's very existence is based on wholesale robbery and violence covers nearly all elected politicians too. So what are you going to do to stop state robbery and state violence?I have absolutely no comprehension of why people want to celebrate people whose very existence is, and has been for centuries, based on wholesale robbery and violence.
And now we have another hanger-on coming to celebrate.
Foppo said:
They have a certain privilege which we don't understand.It is like a beehive there is a Queen the drones who shag the queen and don't live long.The workers and the females who collect the nectar.Any beekeepers here.>
The workers are all female.Edited by Foppo on Thursday 11th September 14:24
Any males are killed after fertilizing the queen.
PS: Not a bee-keeper but a former Entomologist.
Edited by 25NAD90TUL on Thursday 11th September 17:59
The Queen and the system of Monarch is all about tradition. And what's wrong with that? I certainly don't resent paying a tiny proportion of my tax to fund the monarchy. I'd rather pay for the Monarchy than pay for President Thatcher/Blair etc etc. it would probably cost far more to have a President of the UK anyway.
Yeah it's traditional, and so what? It's easy to argue the case for dumping the Monarchy. In the same away that's its easy to argue the case for dumping the Battle of Britain Memorable flight. I mean who needs an old Lancaster bomber? Let's get rid of Westmimster Abbey and St. Paul's too We don't need them, hardly any one goes to church nowadays.
Yeah it's traditional, and so what? It's easy to argue the case for dumping the Monarchy. In the same away that's its easy to argue the case for dumping the Battle of Britain Memorable flight. I mean who needs an old Lancaster bomber? Let's get rid of Westmimster Abbey and St. Paul's too We don't need them, hardly any one goes to church nowadays.
I don't even mind the wealth or the patronage or the German heritage, the scandals, the ineptitude at life despite being bestowed with the very best of absolutely everything possible.
No, what I really resent is the obsequious. sweaty palmed blind faith of otherwise rational people who would declaim that a freshly laid s
t on a paper plate from camp Edward the irrelevant is cause for bunting, cakes & a street party.
It is beyond parody that in the 21st century anyone with even two filaments of rational, cognitive reasoning to rub together can really actually proffer like so many distasteful and tedious holiday slides, arguments about tradition & hard work (oh yeah? Let's run that by a copper or teacher or a nurse & see how that hard work argument stands up), national pride or even trade advantages to shore up a bunch of state sponsored hereditary billionaire ethnic foreignness in a string of palaces who between them have managed to keep their marriages going at a rate of about 30% per generation and are about as relevant to modern Britain as gang of Tsars is to Putin.
Now there's an idea.
No, what I really resent is the obsequious. sweaty palmed blind faith of otherwise rational people who would declaim that a freshly laid s
t on a paper plate from camp Edward the irrelevant is cause for bunting, cakes & a street party. It is beyond parody that in the 21st century anyone with even two filaments of rational, cognitive reasoning to rub together can really actually proffer like so many distasteful and tedious holiday slides, arguments about tradition & hard work (oh yeah? Let's run that by a copper or teacher or a nurse & see how that hard work argument stands up), national pride or even trade advantages to shore up a bunch of state sponsored hereditary billionaire ethnic foreignness in a string of palaces who between them have managed to keep their marriages going at a rate of about 30% per generation and are about as relevant to modern Britain as gang of Tsars is to Putin.
Now there's an idea.
JensenA said:
The Queen and the system of Monarch is all about tradition. And what's wrong with that? I certainly don't resent paying a tiny proportion of my tax to fund the monarchy. I'd rather pay for the Monarchy than pay for President Thatcher/Blair etc etc. it would probably cost far more to have a President of the UK anyway.
Yeah it's traditional, and so what? It's easy to argue the case for dumping the Monarchy. In the same away that's its easy to argue the case for dumping the Battle of Britain Memorable flight. I mean who needs an old Lancaster bomber? Let's get rid of Westmimster Abbey and St. Paul's too We don't need them, hardly any one goes to church nowadays.
Quite, it's about History.Yeah it's traditional, and so what? It's easy to argue the case for dumping the Monarchy. In the same away that's its easy to argue the case for dumping the Battle of Britain Memorable flight. I mean who needs an old Lancaster bomber? Let's get rid of Westmimster Abbey and St. Paul's too We don't need them, hardly any one goes to church nowadays.
And that is just where/what they should be...History.
You'll be arguing the case for them having rights to 'Prima Noctre' next.
Historical artifacts of some use I agree are worth preserving.
No offense intended, I'm sure you get the jist.
25NAD90TUL said:
JensenA said:
The Queen and the system of Monarch is all about tradition. And what's wrong with that? I certainly don't resent paying a tiny proportion of my tax to fund the monarchy. I'd rather pay for the Monarchy than pay for President Thatcher/Blair etc etc. it would probably cost far more to have a President of the UK anyway.
Yeah it's traditional, and so what? It's easy to argue the case for dumping the Monarchy. In the same away that's its easy to argue the case for dumping the Battle of Britain Memorable flight. I mean who needs an old Lancaster bomber? Let's get rid of Westmimster Abbey and St. Paul's too We don't need them, hardly any one goes to church nowadays.
Quite, it's about History.Yeah it's traditional, and so what? It's easy to argue the case for dumping the Monarchy. In the same away that's its easy to argue the case for dumping the Battle of Britain Memorable flight. I mean who needs an old Lancaster bomber? Let's get rid of Westmimster Abbey and St. Paul's too We don't need them, hardly any one goes to church nowadays.
And that is just where/what they should be...History.
You'll be arguing the case for them having rights to 'Prima Noctre' next.
Historical artifacts of some use I agree are worth preserving.
No offense intended, I'm sure you get the jist.
McWigglebum4th said:
vonuber said:
Head of state should be decided by ballot every year, chosen from every citizen regardless of age..
Give me one reason why we won't end up with simon cowell as head of stateThe only viable replacement for the royal family is a ceremonial goat
If it wasn't for the Royal family, Blair would have probably ended up President, with him each day trying to influence politics.....
Politicians are way too slimy to be head of state here, the people would not stand for it and the press would kill them on a daily basis.
Also, can we consider the Florida Bush presidential count...... Supreme court as the highest moral authority ? When they were needed most, they turned out to be less than impartial...... who could the public rally to; to prevent a stitch-up?
Lets face it, a few millions thrown at few toffs is not much cheaper than a president. ( Remember Blair-Force one ...?)
The public can always rally to the Monarch to dissolve Parliament if they misbehave, or rally to the PM if Monarch gets out of line. That's the premise isn't it?
Politicians are way too slimy to be head of state here, the people would not stand for it and the press would kill them on a daily basis.
Also, can we consider the Florida Bush presidential count...... Supreme court as the highest moral authority ? When they were needed most, they turned out to be less than impartial...... who could the public rally to; to prevent a stitch-up?
Lets face it, a few millions thrown at few toffs is not much cheaper than a president. ( Remember Blair-Force one ...?)
The public can always rally to the Monarch to dissolve Parliament if they misbehave, or rally to the PM if Monarch gets out of line. That's the premise isn't it?
jmorgan said:
McWigglebum4th said:
vonuber said:
Head of state should be decided by ballot every year, chosen from every citizen regardless of age..
Give me one reason why we won't end up with simon cowell as head of stateThe only viable replacement for the royal family is a ceremonial goat
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff