Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: IC1967 on September 08, 2014, 01:58:52 pm
-
My piss is really boiling. The Scotch look likely to vote Yes causing a political earthquake off the richter scale. The Middle East is in total meltdown. Russia is invading Ukraine. So what do the BBC decide should be the main news headline? The royals are having another baby!
You couldn't make it up. Such a trivial matter should not even be given any news time. Just goes to show how the establishment are bent on keeping the British public brainwashed into thinking that the royals are incredibly important. Well I've got news for them. The days of sycophancy are over. It is only the incredibly stupid amongst us that think another spongeing royal baby is news.
-
Hold the front page ! For once I'm agreeing with Mick 😱
Nurse ......!!!!!!!
-
Haha!
-
Great news!! No, not the baby but IC1967's taking a left turn.
Did anyone see that gushing sycophantic mush about Harry the other night by the way?
As the Union came about when a Scottish King also became king of England, maybe the Scots would like to have the Royal Family if they become independant. We could then become a republic with Arthur Scargill as our president.
-
Sky news exactly the same
-
My piss is really boiling. The Scotch look likely to vote Yes causing a political earthquake off the richter scale. The Middle East is in total meltdown. Russia is invading Ukraine. So what do the BBC decide should be the main news headline? The royals are having another baby!
You couldn't make it up. Such a trivial matter should not even be given any news time. Just goes to show how the establishment are bent on keeping the British public brainwashed into thinking that the royals are incredibly important. Well I've got news for them. The days of sycophancy are over. It is only the incredibly stupid amongst us that think another spongeing royal baby is news.
I couldn't agree more, well said!
-
A few years ago, the Morning Star heralded a new royal baby with the headline 'another f***ing parasite'.
The rest of our press would reserve a watered down version of that headline for stories about the unemployed and those seeking sanctuary from war and persecution.
-
I love babies, don't care whose it is, Babies are wonderful. :)
-
Depends if they're fried or roasted. But jelly ones are the best 😱😉
-
My piss is really boiling. The Scotch look likely to vote Yes causing a political earthquake off the richter scale. The Middle East is in total meltdown. Russia is invading Ukraine. So what do the BBC decide should be the main news headline? The royals are having another baby!
You couldn't make it up. Such a trivial matter should not even be given any news time. Just goes to show how the establishment are bent on keeping the British public brainwashed into thinking that the royals are incredibly important. Well I've got news for them. The days of sycophancy are over. It is only the incredibly stupid amongst us that think another spongeing royal baby is news.
There's no point blaming the BBC; they're just feeding peanuts to the monkeys.
-
The BBC is the mouthpiece of the establishment. So they must take the majority of the blame for keeping the gullible amongst us pro royal.
-
Who are 'The Scotch' ?
As an old friend once told me..." I don't call you Englch do I ?"
-
The BBC is the mouthpiece of the establishment. So they must take the majority of the blame for keeping the gullible amongst us pro royal.
The establishment? Does "the man" work for them? ;)
They're in the entertainment business. It's no different to the Kardashians, Big Brother, Survivor, and all that crap.
As I said, all they're doing is feeding the monkeys the peanuts they ask for. It's not their responsibility to tell people what they should care about, and if people are learning what they should care about from TV, then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents. Stop worrying about educating pork.
I'm pro-royal in as much as they are a living relic of our past, and I'm a lover of history and tradition. I'd keep them around for that reason alone, and they do make a useful figurehead for the country. Tourists love them, and at least it gives us some sort of identity overseas, in a world where our little island is becoming increasingly insignificant. Besides, it's not as though more than a handful of us can remember an inspiring PM, is it? At least, in my opinion, the Queen gives us some dignity.
As I said, I couldn't give a monkeys about who they are, who they marry/mess about with, and how many kids they have. A 5 second soundbyte upon the child's eventual birth would be sufficient.
-
Who are 'The Scotch' ?
As an old friend once told me..." I don't call you Englch do I ?"
I believe the term 'Scotch' was in common usage in the late C18th/early C19th, so it is fitting with many of Mick's political views. ;)
-
I use the term Scotch as much as possible to annoy as many Scots as possible. I'm hoping if I annoy enough of them that they will be more inclined to vote Yes.
-
The BBC is the mouthpiece of the establishment. So they must take the majority of the blame for keeping the gullible amongst us pro royal.
The establishment? Does "the man" work for them? ;)
They're in the entertainment business. It's no different to the Kardashians, Big Brother, Survivor, and all that crap.
As I said, all they're doing is feeding the monkeys the peanuts they ask for. It's not their responsibility to tell people what they should care about, and if people are learning what they should care about from TV, then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents. Stop worrying about educating pork.
I'm pro-royal in as much as they are a living relic of our past, and I'm a lover of history and tradition. I'd keep them around for that reason alone, and they do make a useful figurehead for the country. Tourists love them, and at least it gives us some sort of identity overseas, in a world where our little island is becoming increasingly insignificant. Besides, it's not as though more than a handful of us can remember an inspiring PM, is it? At least, in my opinion, the Queen gives us some dignity.
As I said, I couldn't give a monkeys about who they are, who they marry/mess about with, and how many kids they have. A 5 second soundbyte upon the child's eventual birth would be sufficient.
The fact that you are pro royal says a lot about you. You are happy that the figurehead of the aristocracy is kept in place so keeping in place the divisive class system that prevails today and which concentrates the vast bulk of the wealth of the country in the hands of a few toffs. This situation arises because the likes of you fall for the claptrap that is associated with keeping this dysfunctional family in place.
If you think that they give this country significance in the world then that is pathetic. I'd much rather be insignificant than be known for a family of dysfunctional, spongeing, misfits.
I do agree with you though that because there are enough people that for some reason unknown to me are actually interested in the goings on of the monarchy a 5 second bulletin at the end of the news is acceptable (much though it grieves me to say this).
-
Mick in agreement with the Morning Star, will wonders never cease comrade.....
-
I am my own man and I form my opinions after weighing up all the evidence and opinions of others before deciding I was right all along. At least you hard lefties don't get everything wrong. Just as the hard right don't get everything right. I am the only one that gets everything right. It just so happens most of my views have been adopted by the hard right.
-
The BBC is the mouthpiece of the establishment. So they must take the majority of the blame for keeping the gullible amongst us pro royal.
The establishment? Does "the man" work for them? ;)
They're in the entertainment business. It's no different to the Kardashians, Big Brother, Survivor, and all that crap.
As I said, all they're doing is feeding the monkeys the peanuts they ask for. It's not their responsibility to tell people what they should care about, and if people are learning what they should care about from TV, then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents. Stop worrying about educating pork.
I'm pro-royal in as much as they are a living relic of our past, and I'm a lover of history and tradition. I'd keep them around for that reason alone, and they do make a useful figurehead for the country. Tourists love them, and at least it gives us some sort of identity overseas, in a world where our little island is becoming increasingly insignificant. Besides, it's not as though more than a handful of us can remember an inspiring PM, is it? At least, in my opinion, the Queen gives us some dignity.
As I said, I couldn't give a monkeys about who they are, who they marry/mess about with, and how many kids they have. A 5 second soundbyte upon the child's eventual birth would be sufficient.
The fact that you are pro royal says a lot about you. You are happy that the figurehead of the aristocracy is kept in place so keeping in place the divisive class system that prevails today and which concentrates the vast bulk of the wealth of the country in the hands of a few toffs. This situation arises because the likes of you fall for the claptrap that is associated with keeping this dysfunctional family in place.
If you think that they give this country significance in the world then that is pathetic. I'd much rather be insignificant than be known for a family of dysfunctional, spongeing, misfits.
I do agree with you though that because there are enough people that for some reason unknown to me are actually interested in the goings on of the monarchy a 5 second bulletin at the end of the news is acceptable (much though it grieves me to say this).
I'd rather have the Queen in place, as impotent as she is, as a nod to the history and traditions of our country, than scrap it completely and essentially cut ties with a significant portion of our culture, heritage, and national identity. I don't 'fall' for anything; they have their place, and they have been firmly put in it (gradually, mind) by the populace over the last 800 years.
So, get rid of the Royal family, and all pretence of class and social standing goes out the window? Really???
Whatever your opinion of the Royal family, the tourist £££'s they attract are always welcome.
The aristocracy have been pissing and moaning about the upstart merchant classes since the middle ages, and I see little evidence that supports your assertion that the aristocracy are the wealthiest members of society anymore.
-
People get on about people on the dole being scroungers,probably getting fifty quid a week,the biggest scroungers never get mentioned,they live in Buck House and fly everywhere,get the best of everything,while everyone else does their best to get by.
I'm sure that goes down well at the pub after a few pints. The dole scroungers might even club together and get you half a bitter for making them feel better about themselves. :rolleyes:
Any abuse aimed at the monarchy should be reserved for those members of the family that deserve it. Whether you approve of the institution or not, the Queen has worked tirelessly her entire life to fulfill the role she was born into, and deserves respect for that. People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
-
People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.
I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.
-
I love babies, don't care whose it is, Babies are wonderful. :)
That's the reason it's news, not just on the Beeb (it's unfair to single out the BBC here) on all the channels and making front pages of the papers.
News editors look at the unremitting diet of grim news at the moment, beheadings, Russians shooting down airliners, the EU steadily collapsing (boring but grim), mass rapes of children in a grim Northern town, the UK falling apart (a bit exciting but still grim)...
And then a chink of light, a good news story. It's irresistible.
-
People get on about people on the dole being scroungers,probably getting fifty quid a week,the biggest scroungers never get mentioned,they live in Buck House and fly everywhere,get the best of everything,while everyone else does their best to get by.
I'm sure that goes down well at the pub after a few pints. The dole scroungers might even club together and get you half a bitter for making them feel better about themselves. :rolleyes:
Any abuse aimed at the monarchy should be reserved for those members of the family that deserve it. Whether you approve of the institution or not, the Queen has worked tirelessly her entire life to fulfill the role she was born into, and deserves respect for that. People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
I Don't drink Orlando so nobody would be buying me any bitter,the government has brainwashed everybody to hate,anybody who doesn't work,there are disabled people unemployed,not all are work shy,as most of the populace seems to think.
The Queen has my respect because she is older than me and she has mucked in when the country has needed her,i have nothing against her,but my point still stands they get paid for attending functions and being well fed,you have your opinion i have mine,that's what forums are for.
I don't hate anybody that doesn't work Sammy but some people just have no intention of working. On some estates you are into a third generation of families that haven't had a job. This minority spoil it for the genuine unemployed who are looking to get a job. The problem is heightened by stupid tv programmes like benefit street where people brag about the life that they lead.
-
I love babies, don't care whose it is, Babies are wonderful. :)
That's the reason it's news, not just on the Beeb (it's unfair to single out the BBC here) on all the channels and making front pages of the papers.
News editors look at the unremitting diet of grim news at the moment, beheadings, Russians shooting down airliners, the EU steadily collapsing (boring but grim), mass rapes of children in a grim Northern town, the UK falling apart (a bit exciting but still grim)...
And then a chink of light, a good news story. It's irresistible.
Of course it is. But then why would Mick let that get in the way of a dig at a public sector organisation?
-
The BBC is far and away the leading organisation providing news in the UK. They lead, others follow. The other organisations are culpable but they are doing their best to compete with the BBC which is a tool of the establishment and which dominates the media. They have to show similar stories to the BBC to get an audience as the BBC have done an excellent job of brainwashing the stupid people in our country into thinking that having a monarchy is normal and desired.
-
IC
So it's just because the BBC leads the news agenda, is it?
How come it was a lead story in the USA too then?
-
Because the USA is full of silly people that for some weird reason love all this toff nonsense.
-
The world is full of 'silly people', not just the USA! Apparently tourist from all over the world visit the UK because of the attraction of our Monarchy, with the Russians, Brazilians and Malaysians being high on the list.
This brings an estimated £500 million to the country.
-
I don't care how much they bring in. £500m seems a very convenient rounded up figure by the way that I don't believe for a second. The current royal family can't take the credit for our history. Do these tourists actually expect to meet some of them? Is that why they come? Of course not.
Time to ditch the spongers and cut off the head of the aristocracy that makes it OK for the toffs to have the best of everything in our country because gullible people fall for supporting the royal family.
-
The world is full of 'silly people', not just the USA! Apparently tourist from all over the world visit the UK because of the attraction of our Monarchy, with the Russians, Brazilians and Malaysians being high on the list.
This brings an estimated £500 million to the country.
It's not really the current royals they come here for though, they visit the tower, have a look at Buckingham Palace and take in the heritage. I suppose it adds a little that it's still a living history but I bet the French do nearly as well out of tourists visiting sites like Vesailles.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/
-
BB
I'm quite ambivalent about the royals these days. I think what they can do much better than presidents or prime ministers is entertain. Schmoozing, garden parties, waving at sporting events because they're more perminent, more famous, it is something for dignitaries to meet them and it doesn't have the grubby side politicians have.
I remember hearing a story a Chinese business man came out with about receiving an invitation to a party onboard Brittania, he wasn't bothered and put it away but when his wife saw it... She told him in no uncertain terms there was no way they were going to miss going on board that ship. It was during that party he said that he embarked on a deal with Rolls Royce motors. It's that kind of soft power they have and it does have a value to the country.
-
BB
I'm quite ambivalent about the royals these days. I think what they can do much better than presidents or prime ministers is entertain. Schmoozing, garden parties, waving at sporting events because they're more perminent, more famous, it is something for dignitaries to meet them and it doesn't have the grubby side politicians have.
I remember hearing a story a Chinese business man came out with about receiving an invitation to a party onboard Brittania, he wasn't bothered and put it away but when his wife saw it... She told him in no uncertain terms there was no way they were going to miss going on board that ship. It was during that party he said that he embarked on a deal with Rolls Royce motors. It's that kind of soft power they have and it does have a value to the country.
Exactly!
-
I don't care how much they bring in. £500m seems a very convenient rounded up figure by the way that I don't believe for a second. The current royal family can't take the credit for our history. Do these tourists actually expect to meet some of them? Is that why they come? Of course not.
Time to ditch the spongers and cut off the head of the aristocracy that makes it OK for the toffs to have the best of everything in our country because gullible people fall for supporting the royal family.
The fact that you are pro royal says a lot about you. You are happy that the figurehead of the aristocracy is kept in place so keeping in place the divisive class system that prevails today and which concentrates the vast bulk of the wealth of the country in the hands of a few toffs. This situation arises because the likes of you fall for the claptrap that is associated with keeping this dysfunctional family in place.
What are you waffling on about? The divisive class system that prevails today and which concentrates the vast bulk of the wealth of the country in the hands of a few toffs? You think getting rid of the monarchy will do away with wealth, privilege and the Torykip Party? And how many of the richest people in the UK are 'toffs'. Here is a link to help you
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/times-rich-list-number-billionaires-3561098
-
What the royals do now is present an ideal British lifestyle.
It promotes a British education, old LandRovers and Bentleys, wax jackets and tweed, the military and public service, niceness, picnics, Pimms and G n T, the old country pub and a good pint of beer, tennis at Wimbledon, racing at Ascot, rugger at Twickers. Even football now.
It's all a great big advert for Britain and the world laps it up.
-
The divisive class system is put up with by the British public because they have been brainwashed into thinking there is nothing wrong with having a royal family.
We need to do away with the head of the aristocratic system in this country so the other toffs can also be got rid of.
-
What the royals do now is present an ideal British lifestyle.
It promotes a British education, old LandRovers and Bentleys, wax jackets and tweed, the military and public service, niceness, picnics, Pimms and G n T, the old country pub and a good pint of beer, tennis at Wimbledon, racing at Ascot, rugger at Twickers. Even football now.
It's all a great big advert for Britain and the world laps it up.
I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. It is morally reprehensible that these people are given a life of unbridled luxury at taxpayers expense.
-
What the royals do now is present an ideal British lifestyle.
It promotes a British education, old LandRovers and Bentleys, wax jackets and tweed, the military and public service, niceness, picnics, Pimms and G n T, the old country pub and a good pint of beer, tennis at Wimbledon, racing at Ascot, rugger at Twickers. Even football now.
It's all a great big advert for Britain and the world laps it up.
I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. It is morally reprehensible that these people are given a life of unbridled luxury at taxpayers expense.
You old leftie!
-
People get on about people on the dole being scroungers,probably getting fifty quid a week,the biggest scroungers never get mentioned,they live in Buck House and fly everywhere,get the best of everything,while everyone else does their best to get by.
I'm sure that goes down well at the pub after a few pints. The dole scroungers might even club together and get you half a bitter for making them feel better about themselves. :rolleyes:
Any abuse aimed at the monarchy should be reserved for those members of the family that deserve it. Whether you approve of the institution or not, the Queen has worked tirelessly her entire life to fulfill the role she was born into, and deserves respect for that. People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
I Don't drink Orlando so nobody would be buying me any bitter,the government has brainwashed everybody to hate,anybody who doesn't work,there are disabled people unemployed,not all are work shy,as most of the populace seems to think.
The Queen has my respect because she is older than me and she has mucked in when the country has needed her,i have nothing against her,but my point still stands they get paid for attending functions and being well fed,you have your opinion i have mine,that's what forums are for.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Even were it so, I don't think it's a bad thing for society to be seen actively encouraging people to get off the dole and become useful members of society.
Of course there are people who can't, as opposed to won't, work.
You picked on the royal family, and some members of it work incredibly hard, so I find your point quite hypocritical.
Being unemployed is not shameful, but being capable yet unwilling certainly is.
They get paid for representing the country, something i think they do very well. They do a great job of promoting our trade interests all over the world.
Forums are indeed for sharing points of view and opinion. However, debating the merits or reasoning behind those opinions is also a primary function. If you're not willing to have you point of view challenged, then don't share it.
-
People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.
I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.
Nonsense.
She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.
The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.
There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.
-
Orlando
I seem to remember young William saying he didn't want to be royal and wanting a more normal life.
Diana was quick to say wait and see...
I'm not sure the obligation really is fair.
-
Don't most young people wish for what they don't have, taking the positives for granted and focussing solely on the negatives?
I wouldn't blame him for wanting to have a normal life, but I'm sure his definition of normal would be quite different to ours. Several members of the family keep to themselves, and that option has always been available to him.
I'm sure many Hollywood celebs hate the paparazzi and the media scrutiny too, but it comes with the job, and the rewards aren't so bad.
He could've walked away from it should he have wished too; he wouldn't have been the first.
-
People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.
I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.
Nonsense.
She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.
The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.
There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.
You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.
I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.
-
People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.
I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.
Nonsense.
She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.
The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.
There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.
You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.
I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.
It seems we treat our slaves well these days.
You'd better add most professional athletes/sportsmen, young popstars/actors etc to your list of modern day slaves, because most of them train and are 'groomed' for a job since early childhood.
That poor Tiger Woods and his untold millions. He'll be crushed to hear he's just a slave. Poor bas**rd.
-
People get on about people on the dole being scroungers,probably getting fifty quid a week,the biggest scroungers never get mentioned,they live in Buck House and fly everywhere,get the best of everything,while everyone else does their best to get by.
I'm sure that goes down well at the pub after a few pints. The dole scroungers might even club together and get you half a bitter for making them feel better about themselves. :rolleyes:
Any abuse aimed at the monarchy should be reserved for those members of the family that deserve it. Whether you approve of the institution or not, the Queen has worked tirelessly her entire life to fulfill the role she was born into, and deserves respect for that. People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
I Don't drink Orlando so nobody would be buying me any bitter,the government has brainwashed everybody to hate,anybody who doesn't work,there are disabled people unemployed,not all are work shy,as most of the populace seems to think.
The Queen has my respect because she is older than me and she has mucked in when the country has needed her,i have nothing against her,but my point still stands they get paid for attending functions and being well fed,you have your opinion i have mine,that's what forums are for.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Even were it so, I don't think it's a bad thing for society to be seen actively encouraging people to get off the dole and become useful members of society.
Of course there are people who can't, as opposed to won't, work.
You picked on the royal family, and some members of it work incredibly hard, so I find your point quite hypocritical.
Being unemployed is not shameful, but being capable yet unwilling certainly is.
They get paid for representing the country, something i think they do very well. They do a great job of promoting our trade interests all over the world.
Forums are indeed for sharing points of view and opinion. However, debating the merits or reasoning behind those opinions is also a primary function. If you're not willing to have you point of view challenged, then don't share it.
I Don't mind my opinion being challenged,my reasoning is there are people with not enough food to eat,ex servicemen who are homeless living on the streets.
People with barely enough to eat,and have to choose between eating and being warm,and it's not just the Royals,it's every government that has been in power in our once Great nation.
It's shameful when they are being took around in the best of cars,eating the best of meals,while the Queen and family are eating their Christmas Dinner many of her Loyal subjects will be cold and hungry.
The politicians get pay rises while the normal man or woman don't,the share of wealth in our country is uneven and always will be.
These same people who have fought wars for their country,put their lives on the line for their country are forgotten about.
Like i said i respect your opinion,this is my opinion,do with it what you will.
Fair enough Sammy; you just seemed a little touchy when I questioned your rationale.
Of course I agree that the divide between rich and poor is unfortunate, but I'm not sure that rousing the rabble against the aristocracy is venting your frustration in the right direction. A couple of hundred years ago in France, I might have agreed with you.
Don't let the crown fool you; it's the politicians that rule the country and whose policies exacceabate such inequity within our society.
Corporations dodging their tax obligations, crooked self-serving politicians, and the cult of celebrity creating another talentless, useless idol for stupid people to pay attention to and throw their money at - those are much more worthy targets for your scorn, than people who actually attempt to do something useful for their country.
-
People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.
I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.
Nonsense.
She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.
The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.
There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.
You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.
I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.
It seems we treat our slaves well these days.
You'd better add most professional athletes/sportsmen, young popstars/actors etc to your list of modern day slaves, because most of them train and are 'groomed' for a job since early childhood.
That poor Tiger Woods and his untold millions. He'll be crushed to hear he's just a slave. Poor b*****d.
Your logic is severely flawed. The queen has had virtually no say in how her life has panned out. All the others you refer to, have for the most part had a great say in how their life has worked out. Of course some children have overly pushy parents but to say it is OK for our society to expect the royals to do their duty and sod the consequences for their own personal lives is ludicrous in the extreme.
-
People forget that all she has ever done is what has been expected/demanded of her, and the question of the abolition of monarchy has never been her choice to make. Of course she'd be against it; who'd be in favour in destroying their life's work?
She has been a prisoner. Her whole life has been planned out by others. I think you are completely wrong in saying she'd be against it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would have preferred a normal life where she got to decide how her life panned out. It is reprehensible that people like you think it is acceptable for the royals to live their life in a way that is expected/demanded of them.
I bet 99.99% of people would not like to live their life like they have to.
Nonsense.
She has had numerous opportunities to step down during the last 30 years. Her dedication to her life's work, and sense of duty to her country are what have kept her in her role. She has stated that she expects (and intends) to die as a Queen of England.
To suggest that the Queen would be in favour of the abolition of the Monarchy is beyond ridiculous.
The aristocracy always have, and will continue to, live their lives how they want. If they accept a job/position, then they have to fulfill those responsibilities. It's as simple as that. It's not slavery or indentured servitude; they have a choice. Plenty of royals live a relatively normal life.
Being born into the royal family is not much different than being the child of a prominent celebrity couple.
There are plenty of people who would happily accept the 'misfortune' of being born into the aristocracy, marry into it gladly, or otherwise embrace the opportunity to live the life of a rich celebrity, even with all the drawbacks.
You're the one that is talking nonsense. From birth she was brainwashed into believing her life should be one run by others. It is disgraceful that people like you think this is OK. You say she has had plenty of opportunity to step down. As if this makes it all OK then. She never had any choice when she was a child about being exposed to the media and being 'groomed' for her future role. By the time she was queen it was too late for her to have much choice in how her life panned out.
I thought we had abolished slavery. It seems you are quite happy for it to continue.
It seems we treat our slaves well these days.
You'd better add most professional athletes/sportsmen, young popstars/actors etc to your list of modern day slaves, because most of them train and are 'groomed' for a job since early childhood.
That poor Tiger Woods and his untold millions. He'll be crushed to hear he's just a slave. Poor b*****d.
Your logic is severely flawed. The queen has had virtually no say in how her life has panned out. All the others you refer to, have for the most part had a great say in how their life has worked out. Of course some children have overly pushy parents but to say it is OK for our society to expect the royals to do their duty and sod the consequences for their own personal lives is ludicrous in the extreme.
Olympic athletes, sportsmen, child actors etc all train and are groomed for a job since childhood.
The royal family is no different, with the exception that much more is expected from some than others. Only a handful of them are expected to do much more than live a life of dignity, so as not to embarrass the family. In return they receive great privilege, just as Tiger Woods/Drew Barrymore etc have earned vast fortunes to compensate them for their hard work and sacrifices.
Her uncle, Edward VIII abdicated when the Queen was around 10, so it's not as though the concept is an alien one to her.
It's clearly incorrect to state that they don't have a choice, as there are several examples of royals exercising their right to choose a different life.
Even Fergie made her own choice, in her typical self-destructive way. ;)
-
You are completely missing the main point. The royals are expected by society to live their lives a certain way. Olympic athletes, actors, sportsmen etc. are not. It is the choice of their parents or themselves or a combination of the two.
A better analogy you could have used using your sporting metaphor would have been to compare the royals to how China carries on. They do groom children from a young age to become gymnasts etc. against the will of the child. Even then, once the sporting career is over they are free to live their lives how they want to. Not so with the slaves of the royal family.