View From The Top Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 Hang on. Are you of the opinion that no matter how many generations of family live in this country, then they are not able to class themselves as British? Does this apply to say, families from the indian sub continent who have moved here? Using that logic, you'd be more right wing that Dune and open to all sorts of accusations of racism. Surely someone as enlightened as you would view the current royal family as British, despite their ancestory. Hope so or I'm going to have to rebrand myself as Dutch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 (edited) Hang on. Are you of the opinion that no matter how many generations of family live in this country, then they are not able to class themselves as British? Does this apply to say, families from the indian sub continent who have moved here? Using that logic, you'd be more right wing that Dune and open to all sorts of accusations of racism. Surely someone as enlightened as you would view the current royal family as British, despite their ancestory. He claimed to be somehow "related" to them as he is British. There is a VERY small minority of people outside thir clique who can legitimately claim that position. I wasn't being rascist, nor claiming that the royals don't qualify as British - merely querying how that makes us all 'related'. Edited 29 April, 2011 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Moliano Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 I've spent the day so far drinking Diet Coke, watching the coverage of the wedding with the rest of my family, and listening to Led Zeppelin's 'How The West Was Won' live album. I might even stick 'Physical Graffiti' on later before I go to the pub. Good to see that some of today's youngsters appreciate good music. I saw them before they were famous at Southampton University Students Union. (I wasn't a student, just a local who sneaked in). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 It's a shame that Margaret Thatcher (our Queen of Hearts) couldn't make it to the wedding. It is a shame, Phillip would have loved to have someone with a similar mindset to talk to. At least she'd understand him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 Haven't read all of this thread but does the OP really think the Royal Family don't have as much power as the Govt ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 He claimed to be somehow "related" to them as he is British. There is a VERY small minority of people outside thir clique who can legitimately claim that position. I wasn't being rascist, nor claiming that the royals don't qualify as British - merely querying how that makes us all 'related'. you sound like dune to be fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 (edited) you sound like dune to be fair Ouch ! But explain exactly how ? I am not questioning anybody's right to live here, just their right to some form of ancestral and oudated feudal sovereignty over myself and my family. It is undemocratic and totally indefensible. Edited 29 April, 2011 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 Ouch ! But explain exactly how ? I am not questioning anybody's right to live here, just their right to some form of ancestral and oudated feudal sovereignty over myself and my family. It is undemocratic and totally indefensible. why does their heritage and where someones grand parents/great parents come from got to do with anything..? what do they have over you exactly..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 why does their heritage and where someones grand parents/great parents come from got to do with anything..? what do they have over you exactly..? What has it to do with granting them 'special' status as overlords of the country ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 It's a shame that Margaret Thatcher (our Queen of Hearts) couldn't make it to the wedding. Apparantly she was too ill to attend. Not long now then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 What has it to do with granting them 'special' status as overlords of the country ? what do they over lord then..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 what do they over lord then..? The precise extent of the royal prerogative has never formally been delineated, but it includes the following powers, among others: The power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister The power to appoint and dismiss other ministers. The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament The power to declare war and peace The power to command the armed forces of the United Kingdom The power to regulate the Civil Service The power to ratify treaties The power to issue passports The power to appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England The power to create peers (both life peers and hereditary peers) The power to take all measures to preserve the peacetime safety of the Crown All from an unelected position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 The precise extent of the royal prerogative has never formally been delineated, but it includes the following powers, among others: The power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister The power to appoint and dismiss other ministers. The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament The power to declare war and peace The power to command the armed forces of the United Kingdom The power to regulate the Civil Service The power to ratify treaties The power to issue passports The power to appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England The power to create peers (both life peers and hereditary peers) The power to take all measures to preserve the peacetime safety of the Crown All from an unelected position. which they do when the people WE ELECT tell them to..... cant really say that anything they have done has had a negative impact on my day to day life.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 No, it's not. You said you weren't totally unrelated, in which case, were you invited to the nuptials? I'm English, same as Linford Christie. Doesn't make me related though. If folk want to get all gooey over a family that they not related too then it's up to them, but forgive those of us who couldn't give a fat rats @rse about them. I meant related as in "something to do with" not actually related in a biological way. The implication was that you could only shed a tear at a wedding or show any emotion if you knew the people involved. This clearly isn't true based on todays scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 which they do when the people WE ELECT tell them to..... So why do we need them ? Is it just window dressing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 So why do we need them ? Is it just window dressing ? why not...it is something extraordinary that makes us as a country unique...I know other nations have a royal family but not a chance in hell would they get as much coverage like what happened today...I am happy to pay my 65p per year for that. when we plough billions into europe and god knows what else for what..? 65p a year per person (tax payer) to have days like today, when we are told community spirit is dead and the young people come together in their millions to do nothing but celebrate being british (i know that is unfashionable to do that) then that has to be worth the small price.. the royal family have little or no impact on my day to day life...that is someone in the armed forces then I cant see the problem in what hoe public would have...o its all a bit of fun...they have no real power over you, they dont make decisions that effect you, they dont harm you...they do, (help) make this country something different than another european state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 A more pressing concern has to be the national anthem. Why should God save the Queen more than, say, Deppo or Mr.T? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 why not...it is something extraordinary that makes us as a country unique...I know other nations have a royal family but not a chance in hell would they get as much coverage like what happened today...I am happy to pay my 65p per year for that. when we plough billions into europe and god knows what else for what..? 65p a year per person (tax payer) to have days like today, when we are told community spirit is dead and the young people come together in their millions to do nothing but celebrate being british (i know that is unfashionable to do that) then that has to be worth the small price.. the royal family have little or no impact on my day to day life...that is someone in the armed forces then I cant see the problem in what hoe public would have...o its all a bit of fun...they have no real power over you, they dont make decisions that effect you, they dont harm you...they do, (help) make this country something different than another european state I have no issue with your general point of celebrating being British, goodness knows how much of that will be going on next year with the Olympics. We certainly need occasions that draw us together. It is just in my view the Royal family are an anachronism, if only for all the frippery, fawning, and defference we are expected to show them. I have respect for the Queen, if only because she's keeping her son out of harm's way, but all the peripheral creeping and crawling that people do; all the hangers on and outdated concepts lumped together as 'tradition', mean that all they are now is just another bunch of class B celebrities. They are just another disfunctional family, with very evident family failings - they all belch and fart, Charles preferred ****ging Camilla instead of Diana ( why ? ) even when he was married, the Duke of Edinburgh is a liability whenever there's a foreigner in range, goodness only knows what benefit Edward is to the country. Good luck to the newly weds, I bear them no malice, but don't see the need to go gushingly orgasmic over their nuptials, ( I'll leave that to William ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 Good luck to the newly weds, I bear them no malice, but don't see the need to go gushingly orgasmic over their nuptials This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 The precise extent of the royal prerogative has never formally been delineated, but it includes the following powers, among others: The power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister The power to appoint and dismiss other ministers. The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament The power to declare war and peace The power to command the armed forces of the United Kingdom The power to regulate the Civil Service The power to ratify treaties The power to issue passports The power to appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England The power to create peers (both life peers and hereditary peers) The power to take all measures to preserve the peacetime safety of the Crown All from an unelected position. That's good IMO. If some elected leader goes nuts and decides to gas millions of jews our Queen can send her forces to kick him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 Where was Osama when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny R Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 I've spent the day so far drinking Diet Coke, watching the coverage of the wedding with the rest of my family, and listening to Led Zeppelin's 'How The West Was Won' live album. I might even stick 'Physical Graffiti' on later before I go to the pub. Did you listen to the whole of Dazed and Confused, I can't stick with it for 25 minutes, it's hard work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 I meant related as in "something to do with" not actually related in a biological way. The implication was that you could only shed a tear at a wedding or show any emotion if you knew the people involved. This clearly isn't true based on todays scenes. No the implication was that if you shed a tear for the wedding of people you don't know then you are a bit sad. Today's scenes clearly showed that to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 why not...it is something extraordinary that makes us as a country unique...I know other nations have a royal family but not a chance in hell would they get as much coverage like what happened today...I am happy to pay my 65p per year for that. when we plough billions into europe and god knows what else for what..? 65p a year per person (tax payer) to have days like today, when we are told community spirit is dead and the young people come together in their millions to do nothing but celebrate being british (i know that is unfashionable to do that) then that has to be worth the small price.. the royal family have little or no impact on my day to day life...that is someone in the armed forces then I cant see the problem in what hoe public would have...o its all a bit of fun...they have no real power over you, they dont make decisions that effect you, they dont harm you...they do, (help) make this country something different than another european state And they could do all that without having hereditary powers couldn't they? And by having those powers (even if they don't use them) they harm our arguments when trying to spread democracy. Oh and I'm pretty sure a royal appointed official dismissed the Australian democratically elected PM in the mid 70's so it's not like they're totally toothless. Bottom line though is that any monarchy is undemocratic and the very idea of divine right to rule is just stupid. Anyone who defends the monarchy also defends this absurd concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 I meant related as in "something to do with" not actually related in a biological way. The implication was that you could only shed a tear at a wedding or show any emotion if you knew the people involved. This clearly isn't true based on todays scenes. one word Diana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 No the implication was that if you shed a tear for the wedding of people you don't know then you are a bit sad. Today's scenes clearly showed that to be true. From the coverage i saw, there were no tears. Lot's of smiling faces from seemingly decent, fun loving people who wanted a good time. Better than having to watch or listen to gnarled up, cynical, bitter old ****s with nothing decent to say but wanting to spout vitriolic resentment about those who were enjoying themselves. But then i made the mistake of coming on here.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 If you are going to hold something symbolic in high regard, don't get upset when others don't share that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 And they could do all that without having hereditary powers couldn't they? And by having those powers (even if they don't use them) they harm our arguments when trying to spread democracy. Oh and I'm pretty sure a royal appointed official dismissed the Australian democratically elected PM in the mid 70's so it's not like they're totally toothless. Bottom line though is that any monarchy is undemocratic and the very idea of divine right to rule is just stupid. Anyone who defends the monarchy also defends this absurd concept. oh well...no matter what you say, they are here for all our lifetimes and probably our grand kids lifetimes... when you see 1 millions people+ having a great time in london...millions more in the uk enjoying the day and an estimated 2 billion people world wide watching and even the aussies polling more support for the royals than they have for a very long time.......guess we should enjoy celebrating being british when these days come around.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 .......guess we should enjoy celebrating being british when these days come around.. I bet you can't wait for Prince Andrew to get remarried. What a party you'll have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 I bet you can't wait for Prince Andrew to get remarried. What a party you'll have. better than being a bitter/twisted **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 From the coverage i saw, there were no tears. Lot's of smiling faces from seemingly decent, fun loving people who wanted a good time. Better than having to watch or listen to gnarled up, cynical, bitter old ****s with nothing decent to say but wanting to spout vitriolic resentment about those who were enjoying themselves. But then i made the mistake of coming on here.......... My original comment was in response to a poster who said that his wife shed a tear or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Tattsyrup Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 After reading through 3 1/2 pages of ???. Are we saying that we would rather have Reagan, Bush or Obama type as head of state. Some of you are f***ing mad !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 After reading through 3 1/2 pages of ???. Are we saying that we would rather have Reagan, Bush or Obama type as head of state. Some of you are f***ing mad !! At least the people who put them in their position had the choice of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 After reading through 3 1/2 pages of ???. Are we saying that we would rather have Reagan, Bush or Obama type as head of state. Some of you are f***ing mad !! No, not at all. I think loopy King Charles sounds fine. I heard the reason those trees were in the abbey was because he was asked to invite 20 of his best friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 oh well...no matter what you say, they are here for all our lifetimes and probably our grand kids lifetimes... when you see 1 millions people+ having a great time in london...millions more in the uk enjoying the day and an estimated 2 billion people world wide watching and even the aussies polling more support for the royals than they have for a very long time.......guess we should enjoy celebrating being british when these days come around.. What a complete capitulation of argument. There's no reason why they should be here forever - other countries have removed monarchical power, Japan being one of them. Why shouldn't we at least argue that this should be removed as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 After reading through 3 1/2 pages of ???. Are we saying that we would rather have Reagan, Bush or Obama type as head of state. Some of you are f***ing mad !! I was waiting for some bright spark to come along with this brilliant line of argument. You are a truely skilled debater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 After reading through 3 1/2 pages of ???. Are we saying that we would rather have Reagan, Bush or Obama type as head of state. Some of you are f***ing mad !! What we would replace a monarchy would be a separate argument though. Do we actually need a head of state? If we do then I'd rather it was an accountable and elected official who could be removed if they ****ed up. Having one purely by birthright? Now that's ****ing mad and so are you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 What a complete capitulation of argument. There's no reason why they should be here forever - other countries have removed monarchical power, Japan being one of them. Why shouldn't we at least argue that this should be removed as well? why... the support in this country (and in others who share our head of state) to remove them simply is not there at all.. we live in a free country, we are free to start a republican movement...any of the main parties are free to set their stall out to do so....why dont they.? why doesnt anyone..? simply because, it is not wanted in this country.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 1,000 years of history and we are going to be the Mong generation that ends it? Hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 why... the support in this country (and in others who share our head of state) to remove them simply is not there at all.. we live in a free country, we are free to start a republican movement...any of the main parties are free to set their stall out to do so....why dont they.? why doesnt anyone..? simply because, it is not wanted in this country.... But you agree that hereditary power is stupid right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 But you agree that hereditary power is stupid right? if they had any real power then yes...if they ordered me to take part and kill people in iraq then yes...if they ordered me to take part in blowing up kandahar then yes... oh wait, that was our democratically elected lot.. the family have no powers and any exercised is done so if the government require them to do so... so no, have no problem with them at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 if they had any real power then yes...if they ordered me to take part and kill people in iraq then yes...if they ordered me to take part in blowing up kandahar then yes... oh wait, that was our democratically elected lot.. the family have no powers and any exercised is done so if the government require them to do so... so no, have no problem with them at all So you'd agree with removing the constitutional powers they do have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 So you'd agree with removing the constitutional powers they do have? not really, no as they dont have any in my eyes...they are puppets of the government we elect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 Lovely day. My kids will remember it for the party for the rest of the lives, the village will remember it, Thank god I am British. Thank god I am not chippy. Tomorrow, I might go for a bike ride with the family or nurse my hangover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 not really, no as they dont have any in my eyes...they are puppets of the government we elect... They actually do have power (even if they don't use it) but obviously you think that the british royal family can have the ability to exercise those powers if they see fit purely by the right of birth then? You believe that just because of the lottery of birth they are best positioned to dispose of those powers? And if you believe they don't use them and should never use them then they should be removed, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 Lovely day. My kids will remember it for the party for the rest of the lives, the village will remember it, Thank god I am British. Thank god I am not chippy. Tomorrow, I might go for a bike ride with the family or nurse my hangover. I am glad for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 They actually do have power (even if they don't use it) but obviously you think that the british royal family can have the ability to exercise those powers if they see fit purely by the right of birth then? You believe that just because of the lottery of birth they are best positioned to dispose of those powers? And if you believe they don't use them and should never use them then they should be removed, yes? like I said..in my eyes they dont have power..they do what the government say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 1,000 years of history and we are going to be the Mong generation that ends it? Hope not. So the French, Germans, Austrians, Italians, Greeks, Americans, Chinese, and Russians are all mongs ? Not sure if the Swiss have ever had their own monarchy - true mongs surely ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 like I said..in my eyes they dont have power..they do what the government say... So they ARE just window dressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 So the French, Germans, Austrians, Italians, Greeks, Americans, Chinese, and Russians are all mongs ? Not sure if the Swiss have ever had their own monarchy - true mongs surely ? but we are not those countries..they have their own defining characteristics....one major one of ours is our royal family...that were watched today by around 2 billion people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now