Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The article couldn't be more wrong, of course.
Haven't read it but if they are actually attacking the monarchy, then good.
Better than the BBC's gushing coverage of everything they say or do. The scrounging cunts.
Maybe poncing would be better? Let me have a think and I'll get back to you.
their security, their healthcare, their lives. I don't see how living off the state isn't scrounging but someone who is made unemployed by the government and banks fucking the economy up and has to claim job seekers is a scrounger.
The Royals are parasites.
What's your point?
How do you know this?
Or do you think they sit there going "oh no, this is so unfair, I wish I could give back my priceless gold carriage and hundred bedroom palace and all this civil list money".
This requires the 'office' of Monarchy, rather than the individual, to be maintained to a certain standard. In other words, duty is the primary function, and historical family wealth an inconsequential by-product.
'Cultural importance' counts for shit all these days if it can't fund itself or justify it's short term economic benefit.
But as well as being of cultural importance, the role of Head of State also plays a (very minor) Government role, which requires some level of State subsidy - just as all Government positions do.
replace them with someone accountable to carry out the (very minor) Government role instead.
numerous very old, historical buildings, jet-setting all over the world, banquets of hundreds of people.
You think they could afford that? Don't be ludicrous. They're not even that rich in comparison to the super-rich of this country.
work harder than you do.
Good one mate
"The Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of the year and making it look as though they work hard."
Mark Bolland, former Windsor press officer.
I bet they don't piss around on DiS all day on the days they do work.
See the Queen "working at Ascot". Blimey. Tireless. You got me there.
I wouldn't have such a big problem with this if it wasn't for all this relentless why shud I hav 2 pay ma taxis for bludy workshy scroungers SPORT THA QUEEN AND HR TROOPS PLS utter bullshit
it's neither relentless or utter bullshit.
to be dignified and less crap.
Andrew? Tubby corrupt playboy
William? Erm... Bald too young possibly ok. Bet he's not though.
Suggested there could be a really good article below.
Alas, it was never meant to be.
The majority of people have only ever seen the monarch as her (and she's popular and inoffensive) - what will happen when it's Charles?
Monarchies are daft - one family to constantly produce the head of state regardless of their character or behaviour just seems utterly stupid these days, and that's before you get to any issues of democracy or anything.
you could probably just shorten it to a tweet if needed; it says so little
I'm pretty certain that the Guardian has run many stronger articles than that in the past, and has certainly done so in leader columns.
"This English Realm in which we dwell
Is watched over by the Queen so well.
Whilst we sleep she guards with sword
To protect us from the unwashed hordes.
Beware heathen socialist, Scots or saracen
and you who would wrest her governance from her hand.
As she passes bow your head
and pledge your troth or end up dead!"
i dont suppose theres any chance of some accompanying music being put to this and making it the new anthem
saracen there, but who am i do judge.
i haven't read the article
if we get rid of the queen who is head of state? Cameron?
We have an elected head of state. Imagine that, in a democracy!
than someone we'd choose? In a democracy, you'd rather have no say in who ruled over you? Fucking hell mate.
So the requirements and selection criteria would be different.
But aside from that, not all PMs/FMs/MPs are the equivalent of a Cameron.
it does seem kinda weird to the majority has basically no say over our head of government, even though they embody the majority of functions of a head of state.
of having a raffle, and whoever wins gets the gig fr a year or so.
Then I'd actually be proud to be British.
hosting state dinners, im in
IT'S YOUR JOB TO SMILE YOU BITCH AND YOU CAN'T EVEN DO THAT
of the european royal houses, but i really cant be bothered to find out the exact relationships to give the joke the attention that it deserves.
moral reasons, sure, but the amount of money made and jobs created just by those rubbish mugs and keyrings with crowns on them pay their way, not considering owt else.
and saying 'the french do it' isn't a reason.
then doubling the number of London attractions by having a bloody revolution is the logical step I'm afraid.
and they got rid of the scrounging fuckers years ago.
There is a big economic reason to get rid of them. They cost us millions each year. Even if this is broken down to a nominal amount per head of UK (which is a shit argument anyway as kids aren't gonna pay) it's paying for someone to literally LITERALLY rid around in a golden carriage and sit at Royal Ascot.
Remember, when the Queen is at Ascot, or doing any of those other things, she's "on duty". That's her working. We pay or all of that. We pay for the upkeep of the houses that we can't go into, we pay for Prince Phillip ordering the destrcution of hundred of year old trees because he wanted a better view, we pay for Prince William to blow apart animals with a shotgun and we pay the secuirty for Prince Harry to get drunk in Las Vegas.
This is where your money is going. It's totally indefensible.
Even if you see the Monarchy as nothing more than a 'spectacle' with their gold carriages and guards in red coats and big silly hats, it is a spectacle that the British public have been, and continue to be, happy to pay for.
Sadly. we can not directly pick and choose where our individual tax money to go, and we must leave it to our elected leaders to take the final decisions for us. As they have seen no groundswell of public opinion against the Monarchy, they are safe to continue providing it with taxpayers' money.
I hope we see an end to it in my lifetime.
This country has got some growing up to do.
purely anecdotal, but of my generation ( and younger) I can only think of two people who I would describe as pro-monarchy.
More likely to take a reduced role.
Get thee to the new world for the revolution, I reckon.
As mentioned previously, after my noble work is done and dusted north of the border in 2014, dethroning the monarchy in New Zealand is the next project. All help (and suggestions for other future constitutional projects) welcome.
But the majority of people want out of Europe, the death penalty reinstated and all immigration to stop.
The majority of people once supported slavery. The majority of people once supported women not voting. The majority of people once agreed with British rule throughout the empire. I would think that the majority of people might still oppose gay marriage (although I'm not sure).
Nonetheless, popularity is no barometer of what is right or correct. It's a toothless defence of an indefensible institution.
or the NHS now?
Free universal healthcare IS the same as paying for one single family to live a life of unrivalled luxury.
You set 'em up, I'll knock 'en down, bro.
Not the whole sub-thread.
Sorry, I become a frothy mouthed twat when talking about the Queen (as opposed to my normal self).
loads of shit gold eiffel towers for sale innit
"Even so, she has always managed to convey concern for the rest."
I was much impressed when she refused to sign the Bills which allowed the Tories to privatise chunks of the NHS and to drive people on benefits out of the neighbourhoods where they had their roots.""
I thought this was self evident
I took your post literally. Fair enough.
I do not mean to weaken your position comrade.
I am guessing that CG will not respond
then there will be some grumbling. particularly if he tries to be an 'active' monarch and interfere with the running of the country. His record of ignorant arrogant bellendery as Prince of Wales means that this is quite possible.
The funniest thing would be if Charles dies before the Queen- changes to primogeniture would now mean that Anne becomes next in line and her kids thereafter, relegating Wills, Harry and Kate to a sideshow.
Fuuuuck! That would be crazy.
William is second in line to the throne regardless of the order in which the incumbent monarch and the first in line die.
Interesting, but confusing
so if Charles Dies, he dies with issue, meaning his line would continue.
Princes Andrew and Edward would be ahead of Princess Anne.
Anneie 4 queen!!!
still my main point stands.
If Wills and Kate have a daughter first, she will rank ahead of any younger brothers she has.
but it's not.... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110219194040AACx0O4
Doesn't really sound right, that.
and call them scroungers and other names, when they only receive a tiny fraction of taxpayers money compared with what the royals do, and yet they tend to cause the papers and the powerful to say nice things.
LISTEN TO CREAKY BITCHES
unless we starting opening these peoples houses to tourists and find some way off running millions of pounds of merch off them.
not alluding to any of the dosh as recompense for people 'traipsing through their houses'? I hope.
If you are only talking merchandise then surely it should be run as a business, complete with tax returns etc
He thinks he's amazing, he's rubbish of course
SERIOUSLY RIGHT... innit
Look at the arguments, tell me if any of their refutations are false. I don't think any of them are!
that most of internet that isn't porn falls into the catagory of asserting people's beliefs in some way or another.
The queen is like Michael Owen 2 years ago. She only smiles when she's at the horse racing. We all know she fell out of love with queening a while back. If she keeps going though the motions, picking up her pay packet whilst putting in performances that betray the explosive, exciting coltish prospect she was in her youth it may harm her long term standing in the pantheon of greats within the beautiful game.
On a symbolic level, it is so disgusting that seen in certain lights I find i borders on the sinister ...
Pampered old woman in gold carriage and stupid hat leaves gated palace to watch someone smash a bottle against the side of a boat, rides through a city with the biggest wealth gap in the developed world, past people being fed from food banks, people camp overnight to cheer this fucking farce ...
And even worse, you have to grovel / bow / curtsy when one of the cunts comes near you!
It's social protocol.
You debating this point is like debating the point that Hitler didn't have a Chaplin moustache he had a "toothbrush" moustache.
It changes nothing.
Errrr, nothing. There are no repercussions.
It's social convention.
As I've said above. It's there in black and white. You can see it right now! Take a look!
So not sure what you're on about, pal.
After all, it's a pointless sideshow of the desperate royalists who are somehow arguing that because it's not enshrined in law that you have to bow, and it's only inferred and done "voluntarily" that it's ok to have a fucking monarch.
JFC - These people are morons.
Fuck it. This is a pointless Hitler moustache argument.
i've never met a royal. it is unlikely i'll do so. i've no desire to.
if i meet one it is entirely my choice whether i bow to them. i will likely choose not to.
Just try running up one of those with Natwest and see where it gets you.
Even the fucking Daily Mail slated her for it.
So apparently that's ok!
*kills entire population*
Don't go full-moker, moker.
towards one family it bathes in gold and jewels and palaces is a very relevant point.
she considered Clarence house 'horrid and little'.
How delightfully outrageously out of touch.
I'm not sure I'd expect anything else.
If there was a vote tomorrow, would you vote to keep or get rid of the Monarchy?
I haven't seen anyone make a single relevant point in this thread about why we should keep them.
You would think that, wouldn't you?
Your refusal to let that go is the hallmark of a desperate man clinging onto straws to try to win an unwinnable argument.
and something to be proud of. I can entirely see why many people want to keep them.
But so did public executions.
Imagine if there was a referendum. Imagine if everyone voted to keep the monarchy.
Imagine moker's threads then :')
That's actually quite lol
You're a good guy
has done many loon thigns but this was one of his most classist, vile opinions that spilled into the public arena:
Remember this guy wouldn't have a pot to piss in if it wasn't for us.
not every human being should try to be given equal rights and equality of opportunity.
I suppose that what he says is true, if we lived in facist nazi germany then it would be inappropriate to appoint a mixed race feminist to be high up in the nazi heirarchy.
What Im trying to say is, dependant on his viewpoint, what he says there might be very accurate, it just makes his viewpoint look exceedingly bad, and makes it clear that he dispises many people and that he feels it is them and us.......which is a bit of a foolish (or dangerous) attitude for someone in his position as traditionally such people are not kindly treated if there is breakdown of established order and society
or is he not clever?
So it says even more about his attitude - as no-one was meant to see it.
He tried to justify it with talking about the Princes' Trust, but we all know that without putting their names to charity, there's essentially no reason for royals to exist at all.