Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: mjdgreg on June 01, 2012, 03:45:45 pm
-
Glad to hear that it's going to rain on the Queen's parade. At least she won't be on the throne for another 60 years.
-
I didn't have you down as an anti-Monarchist, Mick!
I didn't used to be that keen on the Royal Family, but now I see them as a better alternative to President Thatcher/ Blair/ Cameron etc. And I think William has the makings of a very good King indeed.
I'm old enough to remember the Silver Jubilee- 1977. Now that was a good summer- punk rock and thrashing the Aussies 3-0 in the Ashes! I was there when Sir Geoffrey ran out Derek Randall at Trent Bridge and also when he scored his hundredth ton at Headingley a few weeks later. Happy days!
-
I didn't have you down as an anti-Monarchist, mjdgreg!
I didn't used to be that keen on the Royal Family, but now I see them as a better alternative to President Thatcher/ Blair/ Cameron etc. And I think William has the makings of a very good King indeed.
I'm old enough to remember the Silver Jubilee- 1977. Now that was a good summer- punk rock and thrashing the Aussies 3-0 in the Ashes! I was there when Sir Geoffrey ran out Derek Randall at Trent Bridge and also when he scored his hundredth ton at Headingley a few weeks later. Happy days!
It amazes me that the plebs are quite happy for these inbred Royals to have a life of luxury at our expense. You have a point about President Blair/Brown etc. However 2 wrongs don't make a right.
I remember not celebrating the Silver Jubilee but like you remember with pleasure the sporting events you mention.
-
Oh I do find the whole at the tax payers expense blurb so very irritating..I'd rather pay 60 odd p a year towards the monarchy than £s in tax for war and other things..It is a very small ammount and she does repay it by giving her life in service .
I am glad we have the royal family, I wouldn't stir my bones to flag wave at Sandringham on an xmas morn,I'm not a fanatic, but I like them very much.. Great Britain has such a diverse tapestry of history but the one constant (aside from that mad man from Ely and his ten year rampage) through out our history is our Kings and Queens. I like that consistency.
-
I have no care in the wrold about the royal family, if i suddenly woke up tomorrow morning to find out they no longer exist, i dont think i would be bothered.
Having said that, i am very grateful for my free lager, courtesy of the queen's jubilee :silly:
-
When there are people living on the streets it's totally immoral that people live in palaces through a quirk of birth.
-
When there are people living on the streets it's totally immoral that people live in palaces through a quirk of birth.
well if people lived within their means :silly:
-
And that is piffle too, you might as well say any one with over 1,000,000 in the bank should give it up just because some have less than others..
They are the custodians of OUR treasures, these things belong to the nation, not them..Why envy that?
It's more about jealousy than anything else imho, some people resent the fact that others have more.. Well life is far too short to be coverting the wealth of others, as you are always say Mick, it's up to you to make the most of what comes your way..
How would you like to live their lives? cos I dammned well wouldn't. I like the freedom of being a nonentity even if it is a poor one.
-
I didn't have you down as an anti-Monarchist, Mick!
I didn't used to be that keen on the Royal Family, but now I see them as a better alternative to President Thatcher/ Blair/ Cameron etc. And I think William has the makings of a very good King indeed.
I'm old enough to remember the Silver Jubilee- 1977. Now that was a good summer- punk rock and thrashing the Aussies 3-0 in the Ashes! I was there when Sir Geoffrey ran out Derek Randall at Trent Bridge and also when he scored his hundredth ton at Headingley a few weeks later. Happy days!
I was there the day AFTER he ran out Randall and I KNEW he had to make a ton to make up for his crime (running out the local lad). He took a long long time to get there and (for him) took a very quick 2 to get to his Ton.
There was an Irish guy sat to my right and he gave me a prod on the arm after the applause died down and said " its ok you can breathe again now"
There was a very good laugh before the game as the England team came out to go in the nets - as Randall and Roope (I think) detached themselves and made their way to the Wicket itself. All the crowd looked on and though ffs what are they doing. Once they had everyones attention Randall shouted YES at the top of his voice and ran like his life depended on it - and when he was 3/4 s of the way to Roope - Roope shouted NO and sent Arkle (Randall for those under 45) back to the end and he then bowed his head and walked off supposedly run out.
In short - an exact replica of the day before. Funny as f*** at the time
I missed Sir Geoffs 100 x 100 by 5 minutes as I was listening all day wanting him to do it but not till I got home. I checked at the Gatehouse when I clocked off and he was in the 90s. I knew it was in the lap of the gods and I got home with him on just over a ton - B******
-
Mick seems a very bitter man. Enjoy your extra day off and have a beer.
-
Mick, we have no codified constitution, so if you take away the monarchy and we lose the only part of our culture that makes our culture so attractive to the rest of the world; our regal, British way, our sovereignty. You may envy the Royal family, but it is not them that makes us different from the rest of the world, it is the crown; the establishment, the tradition.
-
I don't envy the monarchy. I feel sorry for them. They lead very weird sad lives. I just think it's morally repugnant that they have such incredible wealth that they haven't earned and so many plebs think it's ok. Total mystery to me. I used to work at a plumbers merchant many years ago and when the Queen came to RAF Finningley we got an order for a complete new set of sanitaryware just on the slight off chance that she would want to have a crap while she was there. What's wrong with her using the bogs like the rest of us. Absolute joke and a right waste of money.
-
I don't envy the monarchy. I feel sorry for them. They lead very weird sad lives. I just think it's morally repugnant that they have such incredible wealth that they haven't earned and so many plebs think it's ok. Total mystery to me. I used to work at a plumbers merchant many years ago and when the Queen came to RAF Finningley we got an order for a complete new set of sanitaryware just on the slight off chance that she would want to have a crap while she was there. What's wrong with her using the bogs like the rest of us. Absolute joke and a right waste of money.
Yup, her shit is still the same colour as ours.
-
Depends on whether you're a Guinness drinker or not.
-
I didn't have you down as an anti-Monarchist, Mick!
I didn't used to be that keen on the Royal Family, but now I see them as a better alternative to President Thatcher/ Blair/ Cameron etc. And I think William has the makings of a very good King indeed.
I'm old enough to remember the Silver Jubilee- 1977. Now that was a good summer- punk rock and thrashing the Aussies 3-0 in the Ashes! I was there when Sir Geoffrey ran out Derek Randall at Trent Bridge and also when he scored his hundredth ton at Headingley a few weeks later. Happy days!
I was there the day AFTER he ran out Randall and I KNEW he had to make a ton to make up for his crime (running out the local lad). He took a long long time to get there and (for him) took a very quick 2 to get to his Ton.
There was an Irish guy sat to my right and he gave me a prod on the arm after the applause died down and said " its ok you can breathe again now"
There was a very good laugh before the game as the England team came out to go in the nets - as Randall and Roope (I think) detached themselves and made their way to the Wicket itself. All the crowd looked on and though ffs what are they doing. Once they had everyones attention Randall shouted YES at the top of his voice and ran like his life depended on it - and when he was 3/4 s of the way to Roope - Roope shouted NO and sent Arkle (Randall for those under 45) back to the end and he then bowed his head and walked off supposedly run out.
In short - an exact replica of the day before. Funny as f*** at the time
I missed Sir Geoffs 100 x 100 by 5 minutes as I was listening all day wanting him to do it but not till I got home. I checked at the Gatehouse when I clocked off and he was in the 90s. I knew it was in the lap of the gods and I got home with him on just over a ton - B******
I didn't manage to see the full extent of the Randall run-out as I was watching through binoculars and hence missed exactly what happened- although I saw it on the TV later. I did, though, get a good look at Boycott after the incident and he was absolutely horror-struck.
Boycott then batted like a man in a trance for a long time and only seemed to come to life again when Alan Knott came in. Knott was the real hero of the situation for me, because he coaxed Boycott along and played a brilliant counter-attacking innings. When you look back at the scorecard it looks like an easy win for England, but it could easily have gone the other way.
Anyway- here is the run-out in all its glory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwuo4RZRjDU
-
TRB
I'm genuinely interested. How would you define "a very good King indeed"?
-
I've had the telly on for 15 mins and am already totally cheesed of with the number of times the sycophantic presenters have waffled on about the Queen's Jubilee. Can't we just have all the guff on one channel so republicans like me can avoid it?
-
I used to work at a plumbers merchant many years ago and when the Queen came to RAF Finningley we got an order for a complete new set of sanitaryware just on the slight off chance that she would want to have a crap while she was there.
That order might just as well have kept you in a job at that time, giving you chance to earn your collateral to launch your business empire and become the highly successful billionaire you are today!
-
TRB
I'm genuinely interested. How would you define "a very good King indeed"?
Notice I said "the makings of..." You can't really judge monarchs until after the fact. He appears to be genuinely interested in people and seems to realise that he may have to play a very important role in the future.
Nowadays, of course, we don't hold monarchs responsible for the fate of the nation. There's an interesting piece in the Daily Mail today which points out that the Queen is held in the highest regard despite the fact that her reign has coincided with an unprecedented period of national decline. That might say as much about the Mail as the Queen or the monarchy as an institution, but it is something to consider.
-
I remember it was a crap order. Pretty bog standard. What got me annoyed was that we had to put gold plated fittings on everything instead of the usual chrome. When I enquired what were the chances of the royal arse taking a dump I was told to stop talking shit.
-
I remember it was a crap order. Pretty bog standard. What got me annoyed was that we had to put gold plated fittings on everything instead of the usual chrome. When I enquired what were the chances of the royal arse taking a dump I was told to stop talking shit.
You never did take that advice then?
-
TRB. I know you said he had the potential. But I still don't understand what the criteria are for judging whether a monarch has been a success.
As for the comments in the Mail, I am regularly surprised by my ability to hold that shit rag in lower contempt than I did previously. If they truly believe that the UK is a worse place now than it was in 1952, then I give up.
-
Many congratulations to Queenie. It must be great never having to buy your own houses or pay rent. 60 years on state benefits and not paying tax must be a record.
-
You could say that of any child eagerly rubbing their hands together waiting for their elderly parents to fall off their perches so they can INHERIT homes they didn't actually pay for..
That is a singularly childish arguement... in effect the royal palaces are nothing more than fancy tied houses, they go with the job.
Sneer all you want, but this is a piece of history, your children and quite possibly your great grandhchildren will never see the like in their lifetimes..The potential of having a monach that has ruled for 60 years will not come in Williams lifetime, and perhaps not even in his childrens either.
-
Kevin Mcguire of the Daily Mirror sums it up quite nicely:
'A single family with the monopoly on figureheads is the ultimate block on social mobility.
But great strivers and achievers of the calibre of JK Rowling would be fantastic ambassadors.
Instead, at the heart of the country we have an institution that legitimises unearned wealth and inequality'.
-
Many congratulations to Queenie. It must be great never having to buy your own houses or pay rent. 60 years on state benefits and not paying tax must be a record.
The Queen began paying Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax in 1992 on a voluntary basis on her private income
-
Kevin Mcguire of the Daily Mirror sums it up quite nicely:
'A single family with the monopoly on figureheads is the ultimate block on social mobility.
But great strivers and achievers of the calibre of JK Rowling would be fantastic ambassadors.
Instead, at the heart of the country we have an institution that legitimises unearned wealth and inequality'.
Bloody hell, Mick! Reading the Mirror? You'll be singing the Red Flag and calling for increased Public Spending next!
The social mobility thing is a bit of a red herring IMO. Other countries have monarchies and also manage to have much greater social mobility. Then again, they probably enjoy far superior educational systems.
-
The Queen pays tax on a voluntary basis from her private income, but not on "head of state expenditure" which is where she fills her boots from ordinary tax payers. She did not pay almost £20m of inheritance tax after the death of the Queen Mother when she should have done. She only pays a small amount of tax on her private income because she knows this will keep the uneducated fawning masses happy that she isn't robbing us blind when clearly she is.
On another point when Vincent O'brien went to collect his trophy yesterday for winning the Epsom Derby everyone was applauding him except Queenie. How rude.
-
Bloody hell, mjdgreg! Reading the Mirror? You'll be singing the Red Flag and calling for increased Public Spending next!
The social mobility thing is a bit of a red herring IMO. Other countries have monarchies and also manage to have much greater social mobility. Then again, they probably enjoy far superior educational systems.
Steady on. I like to get my information from as many sources as possible so I can post well balanced reasonable arguments. You'll be pleased to know that I have no plans to start singing the Red Flag and will be calling for more Public Spending cuts at every opportunity.
I do think social mobility is a massive problem and it all starts with the monarchy. I say cut off the head and the snake will die. I agree the education system in many other countries is much better than ours. Labour wasted an absolute fortune on changing it but the results have been very poor. Go to the bottom of the class.
-
Mick, we have no codified constitution, so if you take away the monarchy and we lose the only part of our culture that makes our culture so attractive to the rest of the world; our regal, British way, our sovereignty. You may envy the Royal family, but it is not them that makes us different from the rest of the world, it is the crown; the establishment, the tradition.
Very well put and my God it brightened up some very grey lives.............a committed Royalist.
Proud of our country, people and history, you can stick your Republicanism.
-
'Very well put and my God it brightened up some very sad lives'
-
'Very well put and my God it brightened up some very sad lives'
give it a rest ffs. Misquoting someone to make you look clever just makes you look a dick, unless that's what you were going for? In which case, bravo sir! :clapping:
-
Well said Rob. Nothing as sad as a rabid republican, they see no joy in tradition, tradition it has to be said that obviously means a huge amount to most people in Britain as has been proved this weekend.
As Steve says stick your republicisim, we have a Monarch and will always have a Monarch, the alternative is too repulsive to contemplate.
-
As Steve says stick your republicisim, we have a Monarch and will always have a Monarch, the alternative is too repulsive to contemplate.
I think you'll find in Ireland not having a monarch works very well indeed. People who believe in the monarchy need to cop themselves on. It's totally immoral that these people live the lives of unbridled luxury at taxpayers expense.
-
As Steve says stick your republicisim, we have a Monarch and will always have a Monarch, the alternative is too repulsive to contemplate.
I think you'll find in Ireland not having a monarch works very well indeed. People who believe in the monarchy need to cop themselves on. It's totally immoral that these people live the lives of unbridled luxury at taxpayers expense.
If your all for a Republic...then all I can say is long live the Monaarchy.
This weekend has fully illustrated the strength of feeling to the Royal Family, and the volume of people who support it, anything you say will make zero difference to that.
-
As Steve says stick your republicisim, we have a Monarch and will always have a Monarch, the alternative is too repulsive to contemplate.
I think you'll find in Ireland not having a monarch works very well indeed. People who believe in the monarchy need to cop themselves on. It's totally immoral that these people live the lives of unbridled luxury at taxpayers expense.
Ireland's economy is struggling, hence the European Union bailout last year. Not only did Ireland receive the bailout, it has been a huge recipient of EU cash over the last 20 years. Ireland's probably a bad example.
I struggle to understand the furore over occasions like the Queen's Jubilee.... other than an extra day off work. The only place to benefit from the Royal Family is the south east of England. For all the concern over her loyal subjects, Queen Elizabeth would sooner tune in to the 4:30pm at Sandown that at the plight of her Commonwealth.
-
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Monarchy%20doesn%27t%20work/index.php (http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Monarchy%20doesn%27t%20work/index.php)
-
I struggle to understand the furore over occasions like the Queen's Jubilee....
That's because you have a brain and have decided to use it. You haven't fallen victim to all the propaganda that the palace and the media constantly spew out to keep the sycophants in place.
-
THE CASE FOR WHY THE MONARCHY DOESN'T WORK
The monarchy is damaging to those caught up in it, it is unaccountable and it acts as a drag on our democratic process. This is a broken institution that long ago abdicated all responsibility for power but continues to take what it can from the taxpayer.
The monarchy is a 'broke' institution. Constitutionally it has abdicated all responsibility. For most of the time the Queen is both powerless and pointless.
There is a cosy arrangement in place which allows the government of the day to exercise the Queen's power in return for political support for the monarchy. Officials use euphemisms to hide the true nature of this deal - they say the Queen acts "on the advice of the prime minister", meaning she does what she is told. We hear debate about the "royal prerogative", which can be more accurately described as "prime ministerial powers". They talk about the Queen owning land, palaces and priceless art "in trust for the nation", which simply means we pay for them and she keeps them.
Politically the monarch serves little purpose. There are some powers she can and has used, but on these occasions we are reminded why the monarchy is unacceptable in a modern democracy. The Queen can, for example, play a role in choosing our prime minister. It's a job an elected president could do if we had a hung parliament, but an unelected, unaccountable monarch has no right to play any part in our political process.
It's not just the institution that is dysfunctional. Occupying the palaces we have a family of fairly ordinary, uninspiring individuals who represent the very worst of Britain - snobbish, elitist and utterly out of touch with the rest of the country. The Windsors just keep on taking from the taxpayer and give very little back. Despite doing little and achieving even less, they demand respect and deference from everyone. The most talented and accomplished commoner is expected to defer to princes Harry and William. Scientists, architects and a host of other professionals who have earned doctorates and professorships, are lectured and patronised by Charles who demands he be heard and taken seriously for no reason other than his rank.
Desperate to defend their privilege the Windsors employ a huge PR team who work around the clock to promote the royal brand. Unable to point to any meaningful purpose the Windsors claim simply to "work hard", despite the evidence. They repeatedly remind us of what they do for charity, although what they do is of questionable value and could be done without the royal titles and the hundreds of servants.
It's not all their fault though. Let us spare a sympathetic thought for the Windsor family. They are dysfunctional and eccentric because of the bizarre institution into which they have been born. Starting from birth royals find themselves constantly in the public eye: they are relentlessly photographed and reported on by the media; they soon learn that they are restricted by constitutional requirements and royal conventions as to who they may marry and what careers they may pursue; growing up, they are surrounded by sycophants and lackeys whose deferential mindset teaches them that they can get away with almost any self-indulgent and extravagant behaviour that pleases them. No wonder Charles believes he has the answers to the world's problems - he's always been told how brilliant he is, regardless of the evidence of his own academic record. The monarchy is as damaging to the Windsors as it is to our democracy.
It is an institution that abdicated political responsibility long ago and which harms those who are caught up in it. It is bad for our democracy and bad for our pockets. The monarchy costs over 100 times as much as the Irish presidency, it is more than ten times more expensive than its German counterpart. Yet this institution which spends so much of our money is exempt from Freedom of Information laws. It does not have to hand its accounts to the National Audit Office for proper scrutiny and it continually blurs the line between what is public and what is private property, allowing the Windsors to shift costs onto the taxpayer while retaining tight control over access and accountability.
There is one final reason why the monarchy doesn't work for Britain. With over 90% of the population believing our political system does not work, our politics is crying out for reform. Yet reform in this country moves at a snail's pace because the monarchy gets in the way. Firstly, the monarchy gives the government enormous and unlimited power. This makes the government extremely cautious about moving too far down the reformist road, in case that power comes under full scrutiny and is threatened by genuine democratic change. Secondly, the monarchy's supporters cry foul when too much change is proposed, demanding that while it is permissible to make some modifications to our political system, we must not jeopardise the Queen's position, independence or authority. The deference and sycophancy shown by many toward the royals places the most important and fundamental reforms outside the political debate.
The monarchy is broken. It serves no purpose and it gets in the way of a genuine, refreshing and full-throated debate on the way we do politics in this country. It is time it went.
Another copy and paste from someone unable to make their own arguments!
i`ll quote your source Mick
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Monarchy%20doesn%27t%20work/index.php
-
mjdgreg, PLEASE OH PLEASE DO THIS!!
:suicide:
It would make my life a much happier one!! Sick of reading your constant dribble!!
-
I'm no Royalist, but I understand the benefits of having a monarchy. And although she doesn't pay the same tax as the rest of us, the economic benefits of keeping such a historic institution far outweigh the relatively small amount of money they cost us. I also understand the monarchy comes with a fair amount of political clout, which is a major pro in modern times.
So stick that in yer pipe Mick :boxing:
-
I'm no Royalist, but I understand the benefits of having a monarchy. And although she doesn't pay the same tax as the rest of us, the economic benefits of keeping such a historic institution far outweigh the relatively small amount of money they cost us. I also understand the monarchy comes with a fair amount of political clout, which is a major pro in modern times.
I'm afraid you must be a royalist to come out with drivel like that. The benefits of having a monarchy are far outweighed by the disadvantages. It's like Rovers having the benefits of all those alleged superstars but at great cost to team spirit and we all know what that meant. The fact they don't pay tax is a national scandal. If me or you didn't pay tax we'd be in serious trouble. Not only don't they pay tax they get state benefits!!!
Your last point is the most ludicrous of the lot. Why should a thicko like Prince Charles have such enormous political clout? The clown is away with the fairies and is a major impediment to democracy. Off with their heads.
-
Bigerty Bigerty boring ****
-
I'm no Royalist, but I understand the benefits of having a monarchy. And although she doesn't pay the same tax as the rest of us, the economic benefits of keeping such a historic institution far outweigh the relatively small amount of money they cost us. I also understand the monarchy comes with a fair amount of political clout, which is a major pro in modern times.
So stick that in yer pipe Mick :boxing:
Does the monarchy have political clout? Any influence the royals hold sway over UK politics has been systematically diluted since Cromwellian times. They may harbour opinions but in 21st Century UK they are advised not to voice them. The Queen's representatives are members of the House of Lords. These are able to discuss modern day political issues but they do not have the authority to enforce them, at best merely delay them.
The UK will always be steeped in history and pomp and circumstance, whether we have a Royal Family or not. I'm sure the Queen does a grand job but why should the civil list or parliamentary annuities extend to chinless hooray Henrys? When Windsor Castle suffered fire damage, £60 million of tax-payers money was used to repair it. It was well within the means of Royal Family and the hangers on to fund the repairs… but then again it would have come indirectly from us anyway. Conisbrough Castle and Doncaster Minster are crying out for funding in order to meet much needed repairs. Where is the Queen’s generosity in all of this? The only time the Queen ever visited Doncaster was en route to the races.
The Duke of Westminster is one of the UK's richest men with a fortune of over £6 billion, what has he ever done to deserve even a fraction of this? Why should even a tiny proportion of my taxes go to the pompous Prince Edward or Prince Andrew? The monarchy in this country, at the very least, needs to be scaled down to reflect modern society. As individuals we may only contribute very little via our taxes but the total nationwide amounts to hundreds of millions. It's totally unacceptable in my opinion, especially when you see the state of the education and health services.
-
Does the monarchy have political clout? Any influence the royals hold sway over UK politics has been systematically diluted since Cromwellian times. They may harbour opinions but in 21st Century UK they are advised not to voice them. The Queen's representatives are members of the House of Lords. These are able to discuss modern day political issues but they do not have the authority to enforce them, at best merely delay them.
The UK will always be steeped in history and pomp and circumstance, whether we have a Royal Family or not. I'm sure the Queen does a grand job but why should the civil list or parliamentary annuities extend to chinless hooray Henrys? When Windsor Castle suffered fire damage, £60 million of tax-payers money was used to repair it. It was well within the means of Royal Family and the hangers on to fund the repairs… but then again it would have come indirectly from us anyway. Conisbrough Castle and Doncaster Minster are crying out for funding in order to meet much needed repairs. Where is the Queen’s generosity in all of this? The only time the Queen ever visited Doncaster was en route to the races.
The Duke of Westminster is one of the UK's richest men with a fortune of over £6 billion, what has he ever done to deserve even a fraction of this? Why should even a tiny proportion of my taxes go to the pompous Prince Edward or Prince Andrew? The monarchy in this country, at the very least, needs to be scaled down to reflect modern society. As individuals we may only contribute very little via our taxes but the total nationwide amounts to hundreds of millions. It's totally unacceptable in my opinion, especially when you see the state of the education and health services.
Hear hear!
-
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/The%20Case%20for%20a%20Republic/index.php (http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/The%20Case%20for%20a%20Republic/index.php)
-
Who are you quoting now? or are you thinking of running for office somewhere?
I half expect a piece of rhetoric about fighting on the beaches next.
I don't want to be rude but face facts, England isn't ready to give up the monarchy, it may never be. A resentment for inherited wealth seems somewhat simplistic and very communistic to me..
Myself, I envy no one, I covert no man or women's wealth and I don't begrudge those with money either. I see no point in always looking over the fence and whining that someone elses grass is greener than mine..
This terrible awful monarchy that you resent so much resides in a country that is free to have people voice their dissatisfactions..Perhaps it is time more was thought of the riches we as a nation posess rather than look to what others with more than us posess with resentful eyes.
-
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/The%20Case%20for%20a%20Republic/index.php (http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/The%20Case%20for%20a%20Republic/index.php)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Why should a thicko like Prince Charles have such enormous political clout? The clown is away with the fairies and is a major impediment to democracy. Off with their heads.
If you'd said that about the Prince Philip, I wouldn't disagree, but you obviously don't know what your talking about in reference to Charles. Plus I, like most, tend to ignore imbeciles who refer to people as "thickos", so count yourself ignore sir.
-
I'm no Royalist, but I understand the benefits of having a monarchy. And although she doesn't pay the same tax as the rest of us, the economic benefits of keeping such a historic institution far outweigh the relatively small amount of money they cost us. I also understand the monarchy comes with a fair amount of political clout, which is a major pro in modern times.
So stick that in yer pipe Mick :boxing:
Does the monarchy have political clout? Any influence the royals hold sway over UK politics has been systematically diluted since Cromwellian times. They may harbour opinions but in 21st Century UK they are advised not to voice them. The Queen's representatives are members of the House of Lords. These are able to discuss modern day political issues but they do not have the authority to enforce them, at best merely delay them.
The UK will always be steeped in history and pomp and circumstance, whether we have a Royal Family or not. I'm sure the Queen does a grand job but why should the civil list or parliamentary annuities extend to chinless hooray Henrys? When Windsor Castle suffered fire damage, £60 million of tax-payers money was used to repair it. It was well within the means of Royal Family and the hangers on to fund the repairs… but then again it would have come indirectly from us anyway. Conisbrough Castle and Doncaster Minster are crying out for funding in order to meet much needed repairs. Where is the Queen’s generosity in all of this? The only time the Queen ever visited Doncaster was en route to the races.
The Duke of Westminster is one of the UK's richest men with a fortune of over £6 billion, what has he ever done to deserve even a fraction of this? Why should even a tiny proportion of my taxes go to the pompous Prince Edward or Prince Andrew? The monarchy in this country, at the very least, needs to be scaled down to reflect modern society. As individuals we may only contribute very little via our taxes but the total nationwide amounts to hundreds of millions. It's totally unacceptable in my opinion, especially when you see the state of the education and health services.
Some good points about Conisbrough Castle and Doncaster Minster there. I agree, the monarchy could do with scaling down, but there is simply no advantage to abolishing it. We have the full power of a democratic Government running the country, and I don't think the queen has ever used her power to overule any decision by the government or the armed forces.
In terms of political clout, I refer to the number of overseas trips the monarchy makes, keeping us in-touch and friendly with certain countries that tend to disagree with out political leaders. Granted, t'old Philip normally cocks things up with non-white countries, but apart from that...
-
I would think the Queen has in her 60 years of rule forgotten more about politics than you or I will ever know..Just because they are in truth forbidden to express their personal opinions doesn't mean they don't know exactly what is going on. I think you highly underestimate them if you think they don't.
-
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Monarchy%20doesn%27t%20work/index.php (http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Monarchy%20doesn%27t%20work/index.php)
Ffs you don't buy into that crap surely!!!
-
I'm no Royalist, but I understand the benefits of having a monarchy. And although she doesn't pay the same tax as the rest of us, the economic benefits of keeping such a historic institution far outweigh the relatively small amount of money they cost us. I also understand the monarchy comes with a fair amount of political clout, which is a major pro in modern times.
So stick that in yer pipe Mick :boxing:
Does the monarchy have political clout? Any influence the royals hold sway over UK politics has been systematically diluted since Cromwellian times. They may harbour opinions but in 21st Century UK they are advised not to voice them. The Queen's representatives are members of the House of Lords. These are able to discuss modern day political issues but they do not have the authority to enforce them, at best merely delay them.
The UK will always be steeped in history and pomp and circumstance, whether we have a Royal Family or not. I'm sure the Queen does a grand job but why should the civil list or parliamentary annuities extend to chinless hooray Henrys? When Windsor Castle suffered fire damage, £60 million of tax-payers money was used to repair it. It was well within the means of Royal Family and the hangers on to fund the repairs… but then again it would have come indirectly from us anyway. Conisbrough Castle and Doncaster Minster are crying out for funding in order to meet much needed repairs. Where is the Queen’s generosity in all of this? The only time the Queen ever visited Doncaster was en route to the races.
The Duke of Westminster is one of the UK's richest men with a fortune of over £6 billion, what has he ever done to deserve even a fraction of this? Why should even a tiny proportion of my taxes go to the pompous Prince Edward or Prince Andrew? The monarchy in this country, at the very least, needs to be scaled down to reflect modern society. As individuals we may only contribute very little via our taxes but the total nationwide amounts to hundreds of millions. It's totally unacceptable in my opinion, especially when you see the state of the education and health services.
The queen visited Doncaster during Silver Jubilee year, she reviewed the RAF at RAF Finingley
-
The queen visited Doncaster during Silver Jubilee year, she reviewed the RAF at RAF Finingley
That's right. I remember all the bogs being changed and fitted with gold plated fittings.
-
The queen visited Doncaster during Silver Jubilee year, she reviewed the RAF at RAF Finingley
That's right. I remember all the bogs being changed and fitted with gold plated fittings.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Who are you quoting now? or are you thinking of running for office somewhere?
I half expect a piece of rhetoric about fighting on the beaches next.
I don't want to be rude but face facts, England isn't ready to give up the monarchy, it may never be. A resentment for inherited wealth seems somewhat simplistic and very communistic to me..
Myself, I envy no one, I covert no man or women's wealth and I don't begrudge those with money either. I see no point in always looking over the fence and whining that someone elses grass is greener than mine..
This terrible awful monarchy that you resent so much resides in a country that is free to have people voice their dissatisfactions..Perhaps it is time more was thought of the riches we as a nation posess rather than look to what others with more than us posess with resentful eyes.
At the risk of being rude, I don't think you have read my posts properly. Either that you are pretending you haven't. You base your whole reasoning on me being resentful of inherited wealth. This is a minuscule part of my argument. I reckon you bang on and on about this point because you are unable to refute any of my many other reasoned musings.
I understand your problem because it is impossible to defend the indefensible. So I'd give up now if I were you because you have lost the debate and there is nothing you can do about it.
-
Ffs you don't buy into that crap surely!!!
It's not crap it's the truth. I defy anyone to refute any of the points made with reasoned argument.
-
Don't need to just think u r a dick!! Plain and simple!!!!
-
Why should a thicko like Prince Charles have such enormous political clout? The clown is away with the fairies and is a major impediment to democracy. Off with their heads.
Seems some of you don't realise that Charles is a thicko. Despite going to the best schools in the country he only got 2 A levels grades B and C. Because he was a royal he went to Cambridge, a university that he didn't get the grades for and ended up with a 2:2 degree. Very poor indeed. There were plenty of working class people that had more A levels with grade 'A''s that didn't get a look in. Here's the proof from Wikipedia:
'Tradition was broken again when Charles proceeded straight from secondary school into university, as opposed to joining the Armed Forces. On the recommendation of Robin Woods, Dean of Windsor (a massive sycophant), and despite only gaining grades of B and C in his A Levels, the Prince was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge University, where he read anthropology, archaeology, and history, tutored by Canadian-born Professor John Coles. He graduated with a 2:2 Bachelor of Arts on 23 June 1970.'
-
Don't need to just think u r a dick!! Plain and simple!!!!
What an intelligent post. You can't refute any of my arguments so you resort to childish abuse. I rest my case.
-
I am a woman, I don't give up..
ok, whether or not you like it or not the main thrust of most republicans complaints is
1, the so called living off of the tax payer..
2, the supposed lack of inability to share their wealth around..
followed by a seeming resentment of their inherited position and a wierd desire to rock the boat by putting a president in place of a fully functioning and perfectly capable monarchy...
For every decent president there will be more than one tin pot ruler who decides being president isn't enough..He wants to be king..Amin, Mugabe, Sadam and Gadafi to name but a few..
Then look to history, what good came after the bolshevics assasinated the Romonov's? Was, is, communisim that wonderful..?
Be careful what you wish for, a republican utopia just might be little more than a mirage..
-
Oh and I wouldn't go round quoting too much wikki, remember the other week it was reported that Englebert Humperdink once loved a woman named Margaret who liked it up the arse and stank of fish.... :sick:
Sweet dreams my lovely, bed is calling..
-
ok, whether or not you like it or not the main thrust of most republicans complaints is
1, the so called living off of the tax payer..
2, the supposed lack of inability to share their wealth around..
followed by a seeming resentment of their inherited position and a wierd desire to rock the boat by putting a president in place of a fully functioning and perfectly capable monarchy...
For every decent president there will be more than one tin pot ruler who decides being president isn't enough..He wants to be king..Amin, Mugabe, Sadam and Gadafi to name but a few..
Then look to history, what good came after the bolshevics assasinated the Romonov's? Was, is, communisim that wonderful..?
Be careful what you wish for, a republican utopia just might be little more than a mirage..
Point 1, there is no so called about it! They do sponge off the tax payer.
Point 2, they don't share their incredible wealth about. They don't even use it to pay their own way in life. Instead they live off state benefits! Truly ridiculous.
Of course there is a resentment of their inherited position because of all the privilege that comes with it. Look at Charlie. Despite the best schools and teachers in the land he got A Level grades that he would have struggled to get into Doncaster College with. What happens? He goes to the best university in the country to study some pointless degree.
Your idea of what powers a president would have are way off the mark. To suggest we'd end up with a dictator is absolutely ridiculous. You need to brush up on the situation in Ireland and check out how their president works . That's the sort of president we should have.
As head of the church I don't see the Queen being very Christian either. Why not let some of the homeless live at her palaces? They've got more than enough rooms to spare. But of course it won't happen because she's not a real Christian. Do you think Jesus would live like she does if he was around today? Of course not (before anyone asks I am a devout atheist).
-
I am a woman, I don't give up..
ok, whether or not you like it or not the main thrust of most republicans complaints is
1, the so called living off of the tax payer..
2, the supposed lack of inability to share their wealth around..
followed by a seeming resentment of their inherited position and a wierd desire to rock the boat by putting a president in place of a fully functioning and perfectly capable monarchy...
For every decent president there will be more than one tin pot ruler who decides being president isn't enough..He wants to be king..Amin, Mugabe, Sadam and Gadafi to name but a few..
Then look to history, what good came after the bolshevics assasinated the Romonov's? Was, is, communisim that wonderful..?
Be careful what you wish for, a republican utopia just might be little more than a mirage..
Fortunately we live in a free society and I applaud the wealthy who have laboured tirelessly for their gains. What I do resent is the fact the gentry, or those loosely connected to the royals, receive preferential treatment.
Explain to me why you think some in the UK expect the best health care money can buy because of their birthright, whilst old Sid, who fought for his country, and spent years after working down the pit, died prematurely because treatment would have been too costly? Do you think it's fair that the old woman down the road has to sell her house and possessions to afford care, whist the Duke of Westminster earns millions of pounds worth of interest on his vast wealth? What about the Hervey clan, born into vast fortunes, do absolutely nothing for this country, yet enjoy the champagne lifestyle?
The peerage system, the incredible wealth channelled to these people and the minor Royals, is fundamentally wrong. The fact that our taxes are used to fund repairs to Buck House, and other royal estates, when we struggle to afford repairs to our own house, is wrong.
The Euro economic crisis aside, the two largest economies in Europe, France and Germany, do absolutely fine without a monarch. The Netherlands and Norway have strong economies, both with much scaled down versions of a monarchy. These countries have moved on and adapted to the modern day of living.
-
Spot on Scriptman. I'd give up now jucyberry as you are on incredibly shakey ground.
-
Dregs if you dont like the Royal Family and what they stand for why dont you [a] leave these shores or crawl back under your stone.
-
Dregs if you dont like the Royal Family and what they stand for why dont you [a] leave these shores or crawl back under your stone.
Why don't you try and start using your brain instead of falling for all that propaganda you sycophant. Why don't you try to argue your case like us dregs have done. Maybe you don't because you don't have a coherent argument to put that would stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Cop yourself on and stop tugging your forelock and doffing your cap to a bunch of inbred retards.
-
It's amusing....you slate the Monarchy and yet treat everyone on here in the same 'I am better than you' condescending way....quite ironic really
-
Dregs if you dont like the Royal Family and what they stand for why dont you [a] leave these shores or crawl back under your stone.
Why don't you try and start using your brain instead of falling for all that propaganda you sycophant. Why don't you try to argue your case like us dregs have done. Maybe you don't because you don't have a coherent argument to put that would stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Cop yourself on and stop tugging your forelock and doffing your cap to a bunch of inbred retards.
you`re one who has n`t argued his case, all you`ve done is find an article that vaguely supports your case and copy and paste it here, non of it has been your own work or words!
-
Sorry not to get back to you sooner Mick only I've been having a lovely time watching the ITV prog about Prince William.. :) Oh and call me Deb, Jucyberry is so formal don't you think?
I'm sorry I don't see how the fact that some are born into wealth is a crime against humainty..Life is after all, a lottery. At the moment nothing has ever been proven that the offspring of the wealthy choose which family they are born into, as by the same hand, who would chose to be born poor?
You will say I am being as simplistic as I can be but , think on it like this..Say tomorrow night you win the euro millions..£120 or so million. More than you will ever spend in your life time.. You leave it to your decendants, who make good use of their inheritance, adding to that wealth and so on down the generations... Now, this money wasn't earned by you, your children or theirs..the homes bought not worked for but still theirs.. Would you insist your decendants give away what is theirs just because there are people poorer? There isn't enough in that pot to help everyone. what would you do?
The houses, Balmoral and Sandringham aside go with the job, sumptious repositorys for the nations treasures. The civil list has been pared to the bone.
You can say nothing to change my mind about the monarchy.. when I look at the baboons b*llocks that run the country in the houses of parliment, when I see what sort of fools are in power, why the hell would I want any of them to replace the royal family?
-
you`re one who has n`t argued his case, all you`ve done is find an article that vaguely supports your case and copy and paste it here, non of it has been your own work or words!
I've made an extremely strong case and none of the points I have made have been refuted by anyone. I on the other hand have totally destroyed any argument that is pro monarchy. I posted some very useful information from another website without ever claiming it was my own words. I did this to try to educate the uneducated amongst you and to point out how many of you have been brainwashed and haven't even heard the argument from the other side.
I have also used many of my own words e.g 'inbred retards' etc. Secretly I know most of you agree with my point of view but can't bring yourselves to say it because you dislike my' take no prisoners' approach to debating. I can live with that.
-
I'm sorry I don't see how the fact that some are born into wealth is a crime against humainty..Life is after all, a lottery. At the moment nothing has ever been proven that the offspring of the wealthy choose which family they are born into, as by the same hand, who would chose to be born poor?
You keep on focusing on inherited wealth. This is only a very small part of the debate. What about all the other many points against a monarchy. e.g. what do you think Jesus would do if he were head of the church? Do you think he would live a life of unbridled luxury at poorer people's expense? Do you think he would keep the palace doors closed to keep the great unwashed living on the streets?
Start answering some of these points and I'll take your views more seriously. By the way my children will not inherit my wealth. I've told them to stand on their own two feet as I fully intend to get it all spent before I die.
-
That would depend on whether you see Jesus as real, a myth or an over hyped focal point to a cult gone global I would guess.
As it is your question is hypothetical and could only be answered by supposition as well you know.
Any focus on wealth is directly linked to the posts on this thread, most of which raise the subject, ergo one can only assume that for those commenting adversely that this is their main (or one of) objection.
Anyway, enough of this verbal tango for tonight, it's bedtime once again.. Nighty night. Sleep well.. :)
-
That would depend on whether you see Jesus as real, a myth or an over hyped focal point to a cult gone global I would guess.
It is indisputable fact that Jesus did exist. As head of the church you would think that she believes in him and his teachings. Why doesn't she put them into practice? Why does she do completely the opposite?
-
It is indisputable fact that Jesus did exist.
Prove it.....next you'll be telling me that its fact Noah built an Ark and put two of each and every living creature on earth upon it.
-
Prove it.....next you'll be telling me that its fact Noah built an Ark and put two of each and every living creature on earth upon it.
I notice that you don't try to disprove it. Anyway here is a ton of historical evidence that should satisfy even you:
http://www.exploringgod.com/questions/did-jesus-exist?gclid=CML_2KiwvrACFTMetAodKhgqow
Hopefully now we can all agree that he did indeed exist. So I ask my questions again. Anyone can provide an answer. As the queen is head of the church do you think she lives a life in accordance with Christian beliefs? Would Jesus choose to live in such luxury? Would he be found amongst the poor or the establishment closed off from the realities of life? Would he throw open the doors to all the palaces and let the poor have a roof over their heads or would he be happy to keep the doors closed and tell them to go and live on the streets?
We all know the answers don't we and it doesn't make for comfortable reading for the queen. If there is a God she's going to find it very difficult to get into heaven. For the record I believe in God as much as I believe in the tooth fairy but she clearly does believe in him. Shame she doesn't live by the Christian principles.
-
Hopefully now we can all agree that he did indeed exist.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG/220px-Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG)
And with that, mjdgreg's whole argument jumps the shark and becomes invalid.
-
By your own admission Mick you are a wealthy, sucessful business man....How many tramps have you invited to live in your spare room? Perhaps it's time you practice what you preach.
This arguement is getting extremely childish now.. Please don't start preaching religieon to us , many of the worst atrocities are commited in the name of one god or another.
-
And with that, mjdgreg's whole argument jumps the shark and becomes invalid.
You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Even though you refute overwhelming evidence my argument still stands if you believe Jesus didn't ever exist. The queen does believe in Jesus but doesn't live according to his principles. So I'm afraid it is your argument that is invalid. I notice you don't offer a shred of evidence for your view that he didn't exist. Typical of all you monarchists, you just blindly follow the pro monarchy line without engaging your brain. I'm sure if many of you had a lobotomy no-one would notice the difference.
-
Oh and to answer a point you made last night about my so called focus on the inherited wealth , this is a quote from the op's second post on his thread....
'It amazes me that the plebs are quite happy for these inbred Royals to have a life of luxury at our expense.'
YOU raised that particular subject Mick.. :boxing: :kiss: :kiss:
Now, if I don't reply to you for a few hours it's not because you have me on the ropes and i'm stuck for a reply..I have to go out.. so have a nice afternoon..
-
By your own admission mjdgreg you are a wealthy, sucessful business man....How many tramps have you invited to live in your spare room? Perhaps it's time you practice what you preach.
This arguement is getting extremely childish now.. Please don't start preaching religieon to us , many of the worst atrocities are commited in the name of one god or another.
There's no way I would have a tramp living in my spare room. He should harden up and get a job. Then again I'm not head of a church that believes in Christianity. The queen is, and should live by her faith. She clearly doesn't. She does the exact opposite.
I'm not preaching religion. I'm merely pointing out one of the many contradictions of the monarchy. At least we can agree on religion causing many of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen even to this day.
Accepting I've totally won this part of the debate, where do you all stand on thicko Charlie going to Cambridge university with his piss poor A Level grades? Another fine example of privilege being granted through a quirk of birth and not based on ability whatsoever. That place he took should have been given to someone who actually deserved it. That person's life chances have been totally compromised by this flagrant example of nepotism and sycophancy.
-
Oh and to answer a point you made last night about my so called focus on the inherited wealth , this is a quote from the op's second post on his thread....
'It amazes me that the plebs are quite happy for these inbred Royals to have a life of luxury at our expense.'
YOU raised that particular subject mjdgreg.
Now, if I don't reply to you for a few hours it's not because you have me on the ropes and i'm stuck for a reply..I have to go out.. so have a nice afternoon..
Never said I didn't raise that particular subject. All I've said is that it's just a very small part of the brilliant case I've made against having a monarchy.
-
JESUS CHRIST ???
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Just thought I would put over the case for the other side...
Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Hawkins.. or even 'Tricks of the Mind' by Derren Brown. :thumbsup:
-
JESUS CHRIST ???
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Just thought I would put over the case for the other side...
Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Hawkins.. or even 'Tricks of the Mind' by Derren Brown.
You can even find people who will tell you that the holocaust never happened. I have read and own a copy of 'The God Delusion'. I am a devout atheist. That doesn't mean I don't think there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed. That doesn't mean I believe any of the fairy stories associated with him.
The queen obviously does, as do many foolish people in the world. My point is that if she believes in a ludicrous religion like Christianity then why doesn't she live her life accordingly?
-
JESUS CHRIST ???
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Just thought I would put over the case for the other side...
Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Hawkins.. or even 'Tricks of the Mind' by Derren Brown.
You can even find people who will tell you that the holocaust never happened. I have read and own a copy of 'The God Delusion'. I am a devout atheist. That doesn't mean I don't think there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed. That doesn't mean I believe any of the fairy stories associated with him.
The queen obviously does, as do many foolish people in the world. My point is that if she believes in a ludicrous religion like Christianity then why doesn't she live her life accordingly?
You know something mate, I don't think I have ever met a christian that does. Bloody sinners the lot of 'em..
Just a note to anyone reading this topic.. You should check out the 2 books I mentioned above. They are both awesome. Maybe go for the Derren Brown one first, then you will want to read the Richard Dawkins one anyway.
PS. I don't think you can campare the web site I gave you the link for to Holocaust deniers.
-
Just a note to anyone reading this topic.. You should check out the 2 books I mentioned above. They are both awesome. Maybe go for the Derren Brown one first, then you will want to read the Richard Dawkins one anyway.
Agree with that. The Dawkins book is not an easy read but is well worth the effort. He is extremely intelligent and writes that way so unless you yourself are intelligent you will struggle with this book.
-
Mick you are probably the most arrogant and condescending man that has ever posted on this forum, you simply cannot ever accept other people opinions as possibly being right and that your opinion and beliefs are above and better then everyone else's!
This is actually a football forum and yet from what I have seen of your football related posts you seem to know very little and your general comment is to get Saunders Out!
Kindly just do one!!
-
mjdgreg you are probably the most intelligent and charismatic man that has ever posted on this forum, you simply cannot ever accept other people opinions as possibly being right and that your opinion and beliefs are above and better then everyone else's!
If you read the post prior to yours you will see that I agree with the poster. I have also agreed with scriptman as well. As far as everyone else's opinions are concerned I am not going to agree with them when they are talking a load of rubbish. I always consider other people's arguments before deciding I was right all along.
I always make a very convincing argument backed up with facts and evidence. Unfortunately other posters don't do the same and make themselves look foolish when they try to say I am wrong. They very rarely even try to back their arguments up because they can't. I rest my case.
Saunders out!!!!
-
It is not because they can't it is more that they have much better things to do with their time then to search for quotes and articles on the internet to increase their arrogance and to make their own heads bigger! Unlike yourself!
There are facts and theories on the internet that will always support both sides of any argument! It is just other people would prefer to spend their time doing things away from their computer!
-
It is not because they can't it is more that they have much better things to do with their time then to search for quotes and articles on the internet to increase their arrogance and to make their own heads bigger! Unlike yourself!
There are facts and theories on the internet that will always support both sides of any argument! It is just other people would prefer to spend their time doing things away from their computer!
It is because they can't. Even I couldn't defend some of the rubbish that gets posted on here. I'm content in the knowledge that the silent majority are being educated by my posts. I reckon I've turned a few monarchists into republicans with my well thought out posts.
For those that are time challenged, could one of you please just disprove what I say about thicko Charlie. That will do me.
-
I think the only thing you have achieved from this thread is to make more people think you are an arrogant tit! This is supported by all of your previous posts! That is the only evidence I need!!
-
I think the only thing you have achieved from this thread is to make more people think you are super intelligent! This is supported by all of your previous posts! That is the only evidence I need!!
Look, all I ask is that where people don't agree with me they put their point of view across in a coherent, logical, sensible, manner. It seems that because I make such an excellent case the only way that people can respond is by childish abuse. Take a leaf out of my book and don't sink so low.
Admit when you're beaten and lets move on. If no-one comes back to me on any of the excellent points I've previously made lets just agree that I've won the debate hands down and move on to the next one (which I'll also win).
-
Oh I think you will find that Prince Charles is an extremely intelligent man, getting a 2:1 AT Cambridge isn't to be sniffed at after all.
And as most of the royal palaces don't belong to the Queen herself then I would guess there would be quite a to do if she opened them up. Your suggestion that she should do so is facile in the extreme. I think you would have to go a long way to find any person rich, famous or middling who would do that.. You yourself have already stated that you wouldn't...For the record I would think that the average person living on the streets is hard enough.. poor souls have to be to survive.
This is 2012 not one of the 33 years before Jesus's crucifixion, he had far more freedom than the Queen would today and remember what happened to him when he ran around doing things the establishment didn't aprove of...................If he was real..
-
Oh I think you will find that Prince Charles is an extremely intelligent man, getting a 2:1 AT Cambridge isn't to be sniffed at after all.
He got a 2: 2 which is to be sniffed at. Bear in mind he had the best teachers and was at the best university that could be funded by tax payers. I notice you don't mention the fact that he shouldn't have been allowed to go there in the first place due to his poor A level grades which were also achieved at the best school and with the best teachers that tax payers could fund. He only went to Cambridge because of privilege and nepotism and took the place of a far more able student. Totally wrong.
At school he only got 5 'O' levels. It's reasonable to assume that if he'd gone to the local comp he probably wouldn't have got any and certainly would not have been allowed to do 'A' levels. Therefore it's obvious he is thick. He lectures professors etc. just because he's a prince forgetting that he has the intellectual nous of a buffoon. Privilege in action again.
-
On the 2:1 I stand corrected, Was talking results with the fella this afternoon and got them muddled....
I would hardly say getting five O levels mean s a person is 'thick'
However, from what I have read on university grades and what he told me this afternoon, a 2:2 from Cambridge is worth a lot more than one from a small provincial uni.
I think he is far more intelligent than you give him credit for, only a small portion of what we learn is learnt at school, we learn from experience, from the people around us and from the situations we find ourselves in and most of all from the things that interest us most..
-
I think he is far more intelligent than you give him credit for, only a small portion of what we learn is learnt at school, we learn from experience, from the people around us and from the situations we find ourselves in and most of all from the things that interest us most..
Why did he go to Cambridge? It certainly wasn't his less than stunning academic achievements. if as you say we learn from experience and the people around us then he definitely is thick because he's had a far from normal experience of life. He's been brought up in a very weird way.
-
He has also had access to the brightest minds, the most progressive thinkers and the most exceptional people of our age, he meets people that you could only dream of meeting, he surrounds himself with academics.. Wasn't that one of di's gripes? that his friends were all too clever...A 'thick' person wouldn't feel comfortable surrounding himself with so many uber intelligent types..
By the way thick is a horrible term, I have never liked it.
-
However, from what I have read on university grades and what he told me this afternoon, a 2:2 from Cambridge is worth a lot more than one from a small provincial uni.
Why is it worth a lot more?
It may be that a Cambridge education carries more weight in the old boys club but mainstream exams are mostly standardised. A greater level of ‘understanding the subject matter’ is required at the Oxbridge Universities, and it may be that standards are high and students greatly surpass what is required for the level they achieve, but to insinuate that someone with a Cambridge degree is worth more than someone who has studied themselves to the ground for three years at one of your ‘provincial’ red brick universities, is discriminatory to say the least.
What you suggested is exactly what is wrong with education in this country. Students from public schools are fifty times more likely to get into Oxbridge than students from state schools. Are you saying this is right? One second you are preaching democracy, the next you argue for a two-tier system. Hard work whether its kids at school or adults in their chosen career should be rewarded equally, regardless of social class or race. If you want to see your taxes spent on another botched project by the pompous Prince Edward or see your kids refused entry to Oxbridge because their ‘upbringing’ doesn’t fit… then so be it, but I don't.
As for Prince Charles achieving a 2:2 at Cambridge….. let me tell you, a 2:2 at Oxford or Cambridge is seen as a total failure. Such is the pressure at Oxbridge that students are expected to graduate with honours. Oxbridge universities pride themselves on their reputation and weaker students are identified in the first year.
-
Prince Edward another thickie. No wonder he keeps wasting money on ridiculous projects. Here's what his educational under achievements are:
Educated: Gordonstoun, head boy
Qualifications: three A-levels (English C, History D, Politics D), 2:2 degree in history, Cambridge.
Charlie, his dad and Peter Phillips also went to the same school. Surprise surprise they were all head boy as well. Edward is another one that has gone to Cambridge with piss poor grades and shouldn't have been allowed in. What is it that makes a royal so cut out for the head boy role? Not ability. I know, it must be something to do with privilege and nepotism.
-
Another example of nepotism and privilege. Mummy has decided that Charlie should become a Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of the Royal Air Force. Wtf is going on.