dead Prince Philip Duke Of Edinburgh

[Lard Bazaar 3,800]

Now an heir apparent has emerged for the title of Prince of Gaffs (step forward Harry) and after years of faithful service opening his mouth and putting his royal foot in it... surely Prince Phillip of Corfu deserves a place on your esteemed list.

 

They do say that certain "genes" skip a generation....

 

Yeh but Harry gets his twattishness from James Hewitt, not Prince Phil. I like Harry sometimes, this latest thing is just another way of giving him a bashing - if the video had showed someone saying 'and there's Harry, our little Brit friend' nobody would have blinked an eye - in fact I'm getting right pissed off with this country's way of telling us all how we should speak, what we should laugh at and what's acceptable for us to see. Bollocks to the lot of it, I'm off to Room 101

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

I'm sorry, but the outdated irrelevance, who is funded by the public purse, called someone a 'paki' and someone a 'queer.'

Any other publicly funded figure, policeman, MP or whoever, would have been sacked straight off, and quite rightly too.

I like Harry sometimes, this latest thing is just another way of giving him a bashing - if the video had showed someone saying 'and there's Harry, our little Brit friend' nobody would have blinked an eye - in fact I'm getting right pissed off with this country's way of telling us all how we should speak, what we should laugh at and what's acceptable for us to see. Bollocks to the lot of it, I'm off to Room 101

[Lard Bazaar 3,800]

I'm sorry, but the outdated irrelevance, who is funded by the public purse, called someone a 'paki' and someone a 'queer.'

Any other publicly funded figure, policeman, MP or whoever, would have been sacked straight off, and quite rightly too.

I like Harry sometimes, this latest thing is just another way of giving him a bashing - if the video had showed someone saying 'and there's Harry, our little Brit friend' nobody would have blinked an eye - in fact I'm getting right pissed off with this country's way of telling us all how we should speak, what we should laugh at and what's acceptable for us to see. Bollocks to the lot of it, I'm off to Room 101

 

But what is the difference between shortening Pakistani to Paki, and shortening British to Brit, or shortening Australian to Aussie, or shortening Scottish to Scot? The royals are funded by the public purse, but if they were abolished I wouldn't see any more money in my wages at the end of the month, and I'd bet a pound to a pinch of sh*t that the money saved on them wouldn't make any improvements in any of the public services that we also fund. I couldn't really care either way whether they are there or not - I don't think it would make a jot of difference either way.

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

Big difference. I personally don't mind being called a Brit, a Limey, a Pommie or even a Palangi, as these terms are seldom accompanied by dogshit being posted through my letterbox or a mouthful of Combat 18 fist.

But what is the difference between shortening Pakistani to Paki, and shortening British to Brit, or shortening Australian to Aussie, or shortening Scottish to Scot?

[Lard Bazaar 3,800]

Big difference. I personally don't mind being called a Brit, a Limey, a Pommie or even a Palangi, as these terms are seldom accompanied by dogshit being posted through my letterbox or a mouthful of Combat 18 fist.

But what is the difference between shortening Pakistani to Paki, and shortening British to Brit, or shortening Australian to Aussie, or shortening Scottish to Scot?

 

Ah, I didn't see that bit on the video of Prince Harry, my mistake

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

Now an heir apparent has emerged for the title of Prince of Gaffs (step forward Harry) and after years of faithful service opening his mouth and putting his royal foot in it... surely Prince Phillip of Corfu deserves a place on your esteemed list.

 

They do say that certain "genes" skip a generation....

 

While some genes go right from father to son.

 

And he calls the guy who cleans the stables "Sweep"

 

God bless the royal family for upholding some of Britain's noblest traditions.

[Paul Bearer 6,119]

While some genes go right from father to son.

And he calls the guy who cleans the stables "Sweep"

God bless the royal family for upholding some of Britain's noblest traditions.

 

Don't you mean Sooty?

[Windsor 2,233]

Now an heir apparent has emerged for the title of Prince of Gaffs (step forward Harry) and after years of faithful service opening his mouth and putting his royal foot in it... surely Prince Phillip of Corfu deserves a place on your esteemed list.

 

They do say that certain "genes" skip a generation....

 

While some genes go right from father to son.

 

And he calls the guy who cleans the stables "Sweep"

 

God bless the royal family for upholding some of Britain's noblest traditions.

 

You can't even say that you want a 'chinky' these days...

[DevonDeathTrip 2,360]

Prince Philip has been forced to miss church, a pheasant shooting party and a public engagement because of ill health. Buckingham Palace say he pulled a muscle in his back while carriage racing.

[Dia de los Muertos 7]

(...)The royals are funded by the public purse, but if they were abolished I wouldn't see any more money in my wages at the end of the month, and I'd bet a pound to a pinch of sh*t that the money saved on them wouldn't make any improvements in any of the public services that we also fund. I couldn't really care either way whether they are there or not - I don't think it would make a jot of difference either way.

For me it is not a question of money but of principle. The political system in this country implies that the royals (the bunch of inbreds) are inherently better than the rest of us. Their kids are better than yours. Fact. And this flies in the face of the principles of a liberal democracy.

In a true democracy the people are the sovereign, not just subjects.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,221]

(...)The royals are funded by the public purse, but if they were abolished I wouldn't see any more money in my wages at the end of the month, and I'd bet a pound to a pinch of sh*t that the money saved on them wouldn't make any improvements in any of the public services that we also fund. I couldn't really care either way whether they are there or not - I don't think it would make a jot of difference either way.

For me it is not a question of money but of principle. The political system in this country implies that the royals (the bunch of inbreds) are inherently better than the rest of us. Their kids are better than yours. Fact. And this flies in the face of the principles of a liberal democracy.

In a true democracy the people are the sovereign, not just subjects.

I dont neccessarily think that thats the case.

Any Political involvement that the Royals have is purely traditional. They have no real power or control to speak of.

Any implication that they are better than the rest of us is purely down to an individuals interpretation of their place in our society.

I think you will find that most of us share your distain for the Royal family, consequently, we dont see them as "better than us" at all.

It doesnt mean that we want to send them to the Tower though.

We have seen Republicanism at work and its no better than what we have had for hundreds of years.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

[Dia de los Muertos 7]

I dont neccessarily think that thats the case.

Any Political involvement that the Royals have is purely traditional. They have no real power or control to speak of.

Any implication that they are better than the rest of us is purely down to an individuals interpretation of their place in our society.

I think you will find that most of us share your distain for the Royal family, consequently, we dont see them as "better than us" at all.

It is irrelevant whether you personally feel inferior to them or not: the concept inherent within a monarchy demands that you must have a sovereign and a subject, with the social and moral implications that must follow.

What is the just source for their status and influence (no matter how slight you may feel it is) within the terms of a liberal democracy?

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,221]

I dont neccessarily think that thats the case.

Any Political involvement that the Royals have is purely traditional. They have no real power or control to speak of.

Any implication that they are better than the rest of us is purely down to an individuals interpretation of their place in our society.

I think you will find that most of us share your distain for the Royal family, consequently, we dont see them as "better than us" at all.

It is irrelevant whether you personally feel inferior to them or not: the concept inherent within a monarchy demands that you must have a sovereign and a subject, with the social and moral implications that must follow.

What is the just source for their status and influence (no matter how slight you may feel it is) within the terms of a liberal democracy?

As eloquently as you have put it, you miss the point.

It may well be that we must have a Sovereign and a subject in order to have a Monarchy, the issue is whether we class ourselves as "subjects".

I dont. Most of us dont. Its all a charade actually.

A dynasty born into wealth and privilege kept there because it suits the people to do so.

Staving of Republicanism, bringing in multiple millions of pounds a year in tourism, impartial ambassadors welcome in countries that welcome nobody else outside of their borders, the whole kit and caboodle.

The Royal Family are here purely because we want them to be.

There are no social implications, nothing would structurally alter our social system if Royalty was abolished, there would still be, and always will be a class system.

Moral implications? Such as what? Their obscene wealth? Perhaps. Privileges? Quite possibly

 

As I initially said, it really is down to individual interpretation. What does it mean to you?

They dont mean anything to me.

Its easy to look too deeply at the situation, I see where you are coming from but I just dont see me in that.

I think you perceive who they are and what they are and their impact on our society, circa 2009 as far more important than it actually is.

You raise some really good points but I disagree.

Here is a case in point. You come from a Country that has had more social upheaval than most. Would a Royal Family have given greater stability? Does a Royalty free society guarantee social freedom, equality and cohesion?

Who got it right? My Country or yours?

Maybe neither has, I know Id rather live under this democracy, complete with inbreeds, than that one.

[Windsor 2,233]

I find that there are two problems with republicans.

 

1: They take monarchy too seriously.

2: They take themselves to seriously.

[CarolAnn 926]

It is irrelevant whether you personally feel inferior to them or not: the concept inherent within a monarchy demands that you must have a sovereign and a subject, with the social and moral implications that must follow.

What is the just source for their status and influence (no matter how slight you may feel it is) within the terms of a liberal democracy?

 

How you personally feel is what is important - what others project upon you certainly isn't.

 

There is no such animal as a "true" democracy - even the US is a republic, not a pure democracy. In any governmental system what elevates some people above others in a socio-economic sense is two things - power and money.

 

The Kennedys, Roosevelts, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers - all are families that in the US currently or formerly wield far more power than the British monarchy has in ages. They have those two things - money and power.

 

Speaking as an outsider, the monarchy is the finishing touch on what makes Britain, Britain. It is not all of what Britain is, and Britain certainly wouldn't cease to exist if the monarchy was abolished, but it is an asset in the world more than a detriment, I suspect.

 

I would worry more about Rupert Murdoch and Warren Buffett, to be honest.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,221]

It is irrelevant whether you personally feel inferior to them or not: the concept inherent within a monarchy demands that you must have a sovereign and a subject, with the social and moral implications that must follow.

What is the just source for their status and influence (no matter how slight you may feel it is) within the terms of a liberal democracy?

 

How you personally feel is what is important - what others project upon you certainly isn't.

 

There is no such animal as a "true" democracy - even the US is a republic, not a pure democracy. In any governmental system what elevates some people above others in a socio-economic sense is two things - power and money.

 

The Kennedys, Roosevelts, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers - all are families that in the US currently or formerly wield far more power than the British monarchy has in ages. They have those two things - money and power.

 

Speaking as an outsider, the monarchy is the finishing touch on what makes Britain, Britain. It is not all of what Britain is, and Britain certainly wouldn't cease to exist if the monarchy was abolished, but it is an asset in the world more than a detriment, I suspect.

 

I would worry more about Rupert Murdoch and Warren Buffett, to be honest.

There is a lot of truth in that post CA.

What is curious is that there has actually been more movement towards the reinstatement of Monarchies than there has the dismantling of them.

On the death of General Franco the first thing that the people wanted was the return from exile of the Monarchy.

Evidently, the Spanish people had the choice and they chose reinstatement. I can only assume that it heralded a return to a true identity of the Spanish people. Perhaps this is why countries such as Georgia have discussed the merits.

Clearly, there is much to gain from a Monarchy, possibly the two most fundamental things that define a race, Identity and stability.

I think the British Monarchy is pitched about right. Its not an absolute Monarchy like Saudi Arabia and its not so low key, such as the Dutch, to actually make any kind of statement.

As much as I detest the concept, it doesnt affect me day to day and, realistically, Im actually glad we have them.

[themaninblack 2,112]

A republic is a sound idea until I think of a phrase that would make me shudder....President Blair...

[Windsor 2,233]

On the death of General Franco the first thing that the people wanted was the return from exile of the Monarchy.

 

Not entirely true. Franco left Juan Carlos as the heir to his regime. He fully expected his regime to continue under the dictatorship of the King. The King had different ideas, and democracy came from the King's preference of it. Rather than being harmful to democracy, monarchy in Spain actually established it. It simply wouldn't have happened without the influence of Juan Carlos. It was he who prevented the first democratic parliament from being disturbed by the military. (That is my understanding anyway).

[Dia de los Muertos 7]

As eloquently as you have put it, you miss the point.

It may well be that we must have a Sovereign and a subject in order to have a Monarchy, the issue is whether we class ourselves as "subjects".

I dont. Most of us dont. Its all a charade actually.

So if I understand correctly, you believe in a subjective political reality (i.e: if I don’t feel like a subject, then I can’t be one). So if I live within a dictatorship and I don’t feel oppressed does that stop it from being a dictatorship?

I agree with your sentiments, but there does exist an objective political reality beyond individual perception.

Maybe we can at least agree that within a Democracy, a Monarchy is an anachronistic institution or “a charade” as you put it.

A dynasty born into wealth and privilege kept there because it suits the people to do so.

Staving of Republicanism, bringing in multiple millions of pounds a year in tourism, impartial ambassadors welcome in countries that welcome nobody else outside of their borders, the whole kit and caboodle.

The Royal Family are here purely because we want them to be.

How do you know if people want them to be there? A referendum was never carried out, plus they are never subject to a democratic vote?

Regarding the tourism argument, there is no quantifiable data available. In any case they seem to be doing OK in France.

 

There are no social implications, nothing would structurally alter our social system if Royalty was abolished, there would still be, and always will be a class system.

Moral implications? Such as what? Their obscene wealth? Perhaps. Privileges? Quite possibly

As I initially said, it really is down to individual interpretation.

 

I agree, there will always be a class system, but the differences will ideally be based upon merit, and every citizen should have the opportunity to reach the highest position. I may never be a Rockefeller, but I have the opportunity, if I so wish, to accrue the wealth of a Rockefeller or be a politician with the popularity of a Kennedy, but I can never be a member of the Royal Family whether I wish to or not.

 

What does it mean to you?

They dont mean anything to me.

Its easy to look too deeply at the situation, I see where you are coming from but I just dont see me in that.

I think you perceive who they are and what they are and their impact on our society, circa 2009 as far more important than it actually is.

You raise some really good points but I disagree.

Here is a case in point. You come from a Country that has had more social upheaval than most. Would a Royal Family have given greater stability? Does a Royalty free society guarantee social freedom, equality and cohesion?

Who got it right? My Country or yours?

Maybe neither has, I know Id rather live under this democracy, complete with inbreeds, than that one.

I agree that I would rather live here too. In fact I already do.

What makes this country a great place to live is not the Monarchy. Similarly, what makes my country a crap place is certainly not the absence of one!

[Monoclinic 39]

Very goood points were here, see above.

and also here!

 

I am not a monarchist but...

 

I am not a royalist and I do not agree with the ethos of one family chosen by God to rule, however being born into a powerful family is something which cannot be surpressed because as individuals we don't seem to have that power. The amount of Kennedys or Bushs in politics is not coincidental. They have generations of money behind them, and an old boys network to rely upon. Time and finding the odd oil reserve in our back gardens are not on our side thus they have far more chance of rising to such ranks than I could ever have were I to want for such statures. For these reasons the Bushs or the Kennedys are more of a ruling family than a European constitutional monarchy could ever be. But how can we overthrow powerful Western families? How can we overthrow Sheikhs? Can we even be arsed these days?

 

I think as individuals, being born into first world standards of living governs our lives more than how our first world country is governed. I seem to have accumulated a few republics and constitutional monarchies now but I never think about how or if it has changed me. Both regimes seem to involve incessent amounts of bureaucracy no matter whether the little book that allows you to cross borders says subject or citizen. I feel indifferent to the royals but then I also think (and have said before) all politicians are a crock of sh*t, elected on hot air and empty promises. I'd have done better to vote for Arthur Pendragon than Oaten, he'd have caused less scandal.

 

Oh and BTW I certainly wouldn't mind living in your country again. The first time (albeit too young to remember) was under Videla, then several family holidays and finally I worked there for three months about a decade ago, I digress. It's a beautifully diverse country from mountains to plains, waterfalls to deserts, jungles to glaciers, what's not to love? It is just a sad fact that it's been awfully mismanaged (see crock of sh*t comment ) but for every country that might offer a better lifestyle I'd say there are two that would be worse that didn't see the San Martin effect.

 

However giving up the day job and living in that teepee village in Wales does at times seem very very appealling.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,221]

Man oh man!!

And to think that I only ever wanted to live in a Teepee, wear an Afghan coat, not work, smoke blow and have multiple sexual partners.........

Bottom line is that opinions will be divided. As Mono said all Politicians are a crock of sh*t. The Monarchy is also a crock of sh*t.

DDLM, If you live within a Dictatorship it will not be the same as living within a Monarchy unless it is an absolute Monarchy like the Saudi one. To me, that is one and the same. As our Monarchy has no power and are there to look pretty the argument falls on its face.

Tourism IS a factor in maintaining the Royal Family. Its why why have Plane loads of Fat Americans wearing Rupert the Bear trousers decending on London every year. Its why we still have The Trooping of The Colour etc, etc. French tourism is simply not comparable, as beautiful a Country as it is. Im sure there is data regarding tourism figures and I would imagine many a survey has been done to quantify who comes from where and why.

As Im now losing the will to live ( Im not used to posting seriously and with a degree of thought) I shall bow out.

As there have, in the past, been some compaints by some regarding "Quality" posting, they should now be satisfied!!!!!!!

If not, they can f**k off.

[Lard Bazaar 3,800]

Man oh man!!

And to think that I only ever wanted to live in a Teepee, wear an Afghan coat, not work, smoke blow and have multiple sexual partners.........

Bottom line is that opinions will be divided. As Mono said all Politicians are a crock of sh*t. The Monarchy is also a crock of sh*t.

DDLM, If you live within a Dictatorship it will not be the same as living within a Monarchy unless it is an absolute Monarchy like the Saudi one. To me, that is one and the same. As our Monarchy has no power and are there to look pretty the argument falls on its face.

Tourism IS a factor in maintaining the Royal Family. Its why why have Plane loads of Fat Americans wearing Rupert the Bear trousers decending on London every year. Its why we still have The Trooping of The Colour etc, etc. French tourism is simply not comparable, as beautiful a Country as it is. Im sure there is data regarding tourism figures and I would imagine many a survey has been done to quantify who comes from where and why.

As Im now losing the will to live ( Im not used to posting seriously and with a degree of thought) I shall bow out.

As there have, in the past, been some compaints by some regarding "Quality" posting, they should now be satisfied!!!!!!!

If not, they can f**k off.

 

Thanks. I just spat Sprite all over my screen. For the second time today

[Windsor 2,233]

How do you know if people want them to be there? A referendum was never carried out, plus they are never subject to a democratic vote?

[/size]

 

The fact that abolition of the monarchy is not on the political agenda shows the lack of interest the people have in ending the institution. There are no violent protests against the institution, and opinion polls show that - at least in this current reign - the monarchy has the backing of the people.

One day they will be subject to a democratic vote. But that day can only come when the people of this nation put it on the agenda. So long as the present Queen reigns, the monarchy in Britain will be secure. Her successors don't have that luxury.

I suppose there is always the problem as to what will replace the monarch. A President yes - but what kind of President? One that serves exactly the same purpose as a monarch, or one that holds political power? Given that these people will be popularly elected, they will have the legitimacy to govern and interfere in politics. That is the problem that continues to haunt Australia.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

Its why we still have The Trooping of The Colour etc, etc. French tourism is simply not comparable, as beautiful a Country as it is. Im sure there is data regarding tourism figures and I would imagine many a survey has been done to quantify who comes from where and why.

Not comparable at all. Would more people visit if they hadn't gone around revolting? I doubt it.

I wonder how important the current Royal family are to U.K. tourism? I would guess, not a lot. Off with their heads

[Geronimo 3]

Its why we still have The Trooping of The Colour etc, etc. French tourism is simply not comparable, as beautiful a Country as it is. Im sure there is data regarding tourism figures and I would imagine many a survey has been done to quantify who comes from where and why.

Not comparable at all. Would more people visit if they hadn't gone around revolting? I doubt it.

I wonder how important the current Royal family are to U.K. tourism? I would guess, not a lot. Off with their heads

It's not just the Royal family, its the whole aristocracy and the patronage - the peerages, knighthoods, order of the f*****g bath etc. It should all be swept away and replaced by Blue Peter badges. They gave a gold one to the Queen didn't they? That shows just how much the system stinks. What did she do to earn it? A bit of ruling? Anyone could do that. She could be left on the throne but stripped of her gold Blue Peter badge and that would send a message to the world that the Brits mean business.