Should we abolish the Royal family?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The monarchy existing does nothing to prevent anybody from a lower class getting on in the world. Quite the opposite in fact. And what little remains of the class system doesn't prevent anybody from getting on either. If you're a bright hard-working person there's never been more opportunity than there is now to get on, much more than even twenty years ago, the existence of the monarchy hasn't prevented that from happening.

---

The monarchy may not directly prevent anyone from getting on in the world, but in my view it represents the system that STILL does prevent people from progressing.
You are right that there is more opportunitys now than ever before. But there still isnt equality of opportunity, only less inequality. I simply believe that the removal of the monarchy will in time help to see the ingrained class system further eroded. Even if it would only make a tiny difference i think it would be worth it as they serve very little purpose. Furthermore, im morally opposed to the idea that anybody is deserving of anything by virtue of 'birth right'. So even if they only cost taxpayers 00000.1p a year for me that would be 00000.1p too much.

---

You seriously believe there would be no class barriers if the royals were to cease to exist?

What about america. They dont live under a monarchy. They still live in divides of rich to middle income to poor a similar situation to ourselves.

Your thinking far too out of the box on this one. Capitalism was thrust upon this country it wasnt manufactured by this hierarchy that people like labour and the lib dems would have you believe!!

---

Nope, thats not what i believe. But it might make a difference over time.
But more importantly its the fact that they represent the class system. So even if there removal would only make a small difference its worth it, its a moral argument.

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

---

Thats complete b*llocks

50 years ago if you were born poor yes indeed the chances of you making it were slim to none

But in this day and age stockbrokers, bank managers etc come from all spectrums of our great land.

If your 45 and living off welfare its not the f*cking royal familys fault or even the fact society hasnt given you a chance. The options out there are endless its just about being ruthless enough to take them when they come along!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

---

Thats complete b*llocks

50 years ago if you were born poor yes indeed the chances of you making it were slim to none

But in this day and age stockbrokers, bank managers etc come from all spectrums of our great land.

If your 45 and living off welfare its not the f*cking royal familys fault or even the fact society hasnt given you a chance. The options out there are endless its just about being ruthless enough to take them when they come along!!

---

No.

Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings | Society | The Guardian

and if you dont trust the lefty Guardian.

Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining - 2005 - News archive - News - Press and Information Office - External Relations Division - Home

Try the LSE
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility
Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable
Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity


And if it wasn't an issue we wouldnt need organisations like this.
Social Mobility Foundation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

---

Although i accept the monarchy doesn't have a DIRECT impact on social mobility or equality the issues are not entirely separate.
The Royal family sit at the head of a system of inequality. That is just as it is. It is this system that limits social mobility. But i actually agree with a part of what hammer said, it is easier now for someone 'to get on' in life than it has ever been.

I accept that losing the royal family wouldn't on its own make much practical difference. Which is why it is essentially a MORAL argument.

How can it be morally right for there to be some people sleeping in their palaces tonight, served by 100s of people, stomachs filled with the finest food, none of it paid for, whilst there are others more able and hard working that will consider themselves fortunate if they don't go to bed hungry - and all based on so called 'birth right'. How can this be right? How can it be supported?

NO! You have to keep the royal family....it helps us hate you ;D and also when would we ever get to hear Sir Elton John's 'Candle In The Wind' if there was no Royal Family??? I simply didn't hear that song enough after Princess Di died. :banghead:

....sorry for the rant, but I got a little fed up with the attention Americans pay to the British Royal family, we did fight 2 wars to have them NOT be any part of this country. That and when the US media dubbed the Kennedy's "America's Royal Family" got me a tad steamed too, it made me want to break out the fucking guillotine!!!

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

---

;D

you silly tart :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

---

I can't decide if you Brits think you live in some fantasy wonderland with castles and dragons:horseshit:or if you're all just a bunch of Mo's :gay5:


....it's even more funny when you try to figure out which group the Chav's fit in.

I voted no even though I am not a big fan of the royals as such.


Who would take the queens place as head of state?

I would rather the queen as head of state rahter than a washed up politlcian.



I know its not a perfect system but its as good as any thing else on offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

How come this country could not exist without the royals? That doesn't make sense. Im not sure they are 'beloved' either.

If you believe in equality of opportunity hammer, as im sure you must, then how can you support something that is the living embodiment of INequality?
Don't you realise that the royal family represent the head of the class system?
Don't you realise that this class system is what serves to keep people 'in their place'? In the past the class system made it impossible for certain people, however willing or able they were, to achieve what they were capable of. In the modern day it does not make it impossible, but it still makes it far harder than it should be. It serves to place limits on what heights people can reach, not through fair means such as determination, ability and tenacity, but purely through the circumstances in which a person is BORN into. The class system may have been eroded, but it still exists.
As Miles has said, its not about socialism. For me it is about the simple fact that what a person can achieve in life should be based solely on factors such as ability, determination, tenacity, work ethic. It should NOT be based on the family to which you are born. As i have said, the royal family represent the head of this disgusting system.

Cut off the head and the monster will fall.

It is those that have least that the howls of protest should be loudest from. Sadly, it is those that have least that often are the most loyal. Like a beaten dog faithfully returning to its master.

---

The monarchy existing does nothing to prevent anybody from a lower class getting on in the world. Quite the opposite in fact. And what little remains of the class system doesn't prevent anybody from getting on either. If you're a bright hard-working person there's never been more opportunity than there is now to get on, much more than even twenty years ago, the existence of the monarchy hasn't prevented that from happening.

---

The monarchy may not directly prevent anyone from getting on in the world, but in my view it represents the system that STILL does prevent people from progressing.
You are right that there is more opportunitys now than ever before. But there still isnt equality of opportunity, only less inequality. I simply believe that the removal of the monarchy will in time help to see the ingrained class system further eroded. Even if it would only make a tiny difference i think it would be worth it as they serve very little purpose. Furthermore, im morally opposed to the idea that anybody is deserving of anything by virtue of 'birth right'. So even if they only cost taxpayers 00000.1p a year for me that would be 00000.1p too much.

---

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

the divide between rich and poor HAS grown.

social mobility has DECREASED.

If you're born poor you are less likely to ever change that.


The monachy is not directly responsible for that. Government and our own attitudes are.

This is a different issue to that of the monachy.

---

Thats complete b*llocks

50 years ago if you were born poor yes indeed the chances of you making it were slim to none

But in this day and age stockbrokers, bank managers etc come from all spectrums of our great land.

If your 45 and living off welfare its not the f*cking royal familys fault or even the fact society hasnt given you a chance. The options out there are endless its just about being ruthless enough to take them when they come along!!

---

No.

Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings | Society | The Guardian

and if you dont trust the lefty Guardian.

Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining - 2005 - News archive - News - Press and Information Office - External Relations Division - Home

Try the LSE
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility
Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable
Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity


And if it wasn't an issue we wouldnt need organisations like this.
Social Mobility Foundation

---

Yes, Britain and America are dead last in terms of social mobility in advanced economies. So it's not down to having a monarchy. And Denmark and Norway are top of the list for social mobility and they both have constitutional monarchies like we do. So having a monarchy has nothing to do with it. What creates social mobility is access to education. here's the lefty FT making the same point :

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The mobile society stalls at the gates of academe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The monarchy existing does nothing to prevent anybody from a lower class getting on in the world. Quite the opposite in fact. And what little remains of the class system doesn't prevent anybody from getting on either. If you're a bright hard-working person there's never been more opportunity than there is now to get on, much more than even twenty years ago, the existence of the monarchy hasn't prevented that from happening.

---

The monarchy may not directly prevent anyone from getting on in the world, but in my view it represents the system that STILL does prevent people from progressing.
You are right that there is more opportunitys now than ever before. But there still isnt equality of opportunity, only less inequality. I simply believe that the removal of the monarchy will in time help to see the ingrained class system further eroded. Even if it would only make a tiny difference i think it would be worth it as they serve very little purpose. Furthermore, im morally opposed to the idea that anybody is deserving of anything by virtue of 'birth right'. So even if they only cost taxpayers 00000.1p a year for me that would be 00000.1p too much.

---

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

---

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

Kirkland, you complain about the German and French media but yet you say nothing about the subservient US media???

As for Mitterand, I don't know if the French people didn't know or they just didn't care. They do have a different culture, I remember them thinking America was crazy for what happened with Bill Clinton and his escapade with Monica Lewinsky. I distinctly remember the democrats and the acquiescent news media citing the French saying something to the extent of "So your President got a blowjob from someone other than his wife, what's the big deal? All of the French leaders have affairs and it's just kind of accepted"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

The monarchy may not directly prevent anyone from getting on in the world, but in my view it represents the system that STILL does prevent people from progressing.
You are right that there is more opportunitys now than ever before. But there still isnt equality of opportunity, only less inequality. I simply believe that the removal of the monarchy will in time help to see the ingrained class system further eroded. Even if it would only make a tiny difference i think it would be worth it as they serve very little purpose. Furthermore, im morally opposed to the idea that anybody is deserving of anything by virtue of 'birth right'. So even if they only cost taxpayers 00000.1p a year for me that would be 00000.1p too much.

---

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

---

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

The two most simple yet important points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Thats complete b*llocks

50 years ago if you were born poor yes indeed the chances of you making it were slim to none

But in this day and age stockbrokers, bank managers etc come from all spectrums of our great land.

If your 45 and living off welfare its not the f*cking royal familys fault or even the fact society hasnt given you a chance. The options out there are endless its just about being ruthless enough to take them when they come along!!

---

No.

Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings | Society | The Guardian

and if you dont trust the lefty Guardian.

Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining - 2005 - News archive - News - Press and Information Office - External Relations Division - Home

Try the LSE
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility
Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable
Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity


And if it wasn't an issue we wouldnt need organisations like this.
Social Mobility Foundation

---

Yes, Britain and America are dead last in terms of social mobility in advanced economies. So it's not down to having a monarchy. And Denmark and Norway are top of the list for social mobility and they both have constitutional monarchies like we do. So having a monarchy has nothing to do with it. What creates social mobility is access to education. here's the lefty FT making the same point :

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The mobile society stalls at the gates of academe

---

I never made the direct correlation between the UK having a monarchy and social mobiltity. Social conformity and norms are more subtle than that.

AND access to education is not the 1 factor that allows S.M to take place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

---

Fuck me, we're as intelligent as Bees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

---

Actually, where does wanking fall into that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ono

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

As an englishman everything you do day to day is all based around serving and protecting your queen and country

If you dont like living under a monarchy, dont live here, simple !!

---

Actually, where does wanking fall into that?

---

Standing proud thinking of the Queen ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

The monarchy may not directly prevent anyone from getting on in the world, but in my view it represents the system that STILL does prevent people from progressing.
You are right that there is more opportunitys now than ever before. But there still isnt equality of opportunity, only less inequality. I simply believe that the removal of the monarchy will in time help to see the ingrained class system further eroded. Even if it would only make a tiny difference i think it would be worth it as they serve very little purpose. Furthermore, im morally opposed to the idea that anybody is deserving of anything by virtue of 'birth right'. So even if they only cost taxpayers 00000.1p a year for me that would be 00000.1p too much.

---

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

---

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

Some fucker has to get treated different from the rest of us. It's only a question of inherited versus elected.

The monarchy works just fine in a whole bunch of modern countries, Holland, Denmark, Norway etc. It doesn't matter that one family inherit the position. Look at the alternative. You'd have President Grin with his gruesome moneygrabbing letterbox-mouthed wife sitting in Buckingham Palace. He's made millions on the back of bullshitting the country into an illegal oil war which he got caught red-handed making bs intelligence up for before the invasion. She's also made millions from the country. When Blair first took office the first big thing he did was introduce a ton of human rights legislation, which changed the face of the legal system. And despite having no more qualifications than any other barrister, who ended up becoming the head of the dominant London chambers of the dominant human rights law outfit, an endlessly lucrative position she can hold as long as she wants? So if you're talking parasitic motherfuckers, the royal family are vestal virgins compared to our elected represenatives.

Read this.

Sue Carroll on how money-grabbing schemer Cherie Blair is up to her old tricks again - mirror.co.uk

Imagine that piece of shit representing the country.

And then go one prez back, it would have been John Major. Another guy who enriched himself with an oil war. Just as Blair was Bush Junior's cabin boy, Major was Bush Senior's. After he left office he became a board member of the Carlyle Group, an organisation set up by Bush Senior to sell tons of advanced weaponary to oil-rich dictators whose bacon we saved, stuff their armies don't even have the capability to use, stuff that is rusting away unused inwarehouses. basically take billions in kickbacks from the Saudis and Kuwaitis for sorting Saddam out. And Major is part of that, because if there's one thing a huge/government level international arms/equity dealing firm needs, it's advice from a former Surrey bank manager. At least his wife would have been relatively presentable. A little horse-faced, though so are plenty royals, but at least she wouldn't be flogging twenty quid models of Buck House to the tourists like Cherie.


Without the Queen these motherfuckers would be inserting themselves into every major decision the country made and getting a big chunk of cash out of every one, to add to all the existing corrption down the food chain. The Queen has saved Brits billions over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Kirkland, you complain about the German and French media but yet you say nothing about the subservient US media???

As for Mitterand, I don't know if the French people didn't know or they just didn't care. They do have a different culture, I remember them thinking America was crazy for what happened with Bill Clinton and his escapade with Monica Lewinsky. I distinctly remember the democrats and the acquiescent news media citing the French saying something to the extent of "So your President got a blowjob from someone other than his wife, what's the big deal? All of the French leaders have affairs and it's just kind of accepted"

---

They're just the same. They turned a blind eye to JFK shagging half of Hollywood, plenty huge stories they just ignored. Since US media became tiny parts of other corporations who do huge business with the government, something illegal in every other democracy, they're even less likely to go after a prez. The Monica Lewinsky thing only happened because of the newfangled internet, they had no way of preventing it getting out. If you remember no major media outlet touched the story until it was common knowledge.

I voted no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

They're just the same. They turned a blind eye to JFK shagging half of Hollywood, plenty huge stories they just ignored. Since US media became tiny parts of other corporations who do huge business with the government, something illegal in every other democracy, they're even less likely to go after a prez. The Monica Lewinsky thing only happened because of the newfangled internet, they had no way of preventing it getting out. If you remember no major media outlet touched the story until it was common knowledge.

---

That's all I wanted, thanks for not being difficult for once

....also the US media turned a blind eye on FDR and his woman being a raging lesbian, her mistress lived in the White House, and nothing was said, but then again nothing was ever said of FDR being crippled by Polio either. If anything had been written about it some think he would never have been elected just on account of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

They're just the same. They turned a blind eye to JFK shagging half of Hollywood, plenty huge stories they just ignored. Since US media became tiny parts of other corporations who do huge business with the government, something illegal in every other democracy, they're even less likely to go after a prez. The Monica Lewinsky thing only happened because of the newfangled internet, they had no way of preventing it getting out. If you remember no major media outlet touched the story until it was common knowledge.

---

That's all I wanted, thanks for not being difficult for once

....also the US media turned a blind eye on FDR and his woman being a raging lesbian, her mistress lived in the White House, and nothing was said, but then again nothing was ever said of FDR being crippled by Polio either. If anything had been written about it some think he would never have been elected just on account of that.

---

I've always wondered what a raging lesbian is? Was Eleanor Roosevelt really some violent, wild lesbian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

The monarchy may not directly prevent anyone from getting on in the world, but in my view it represents the system that STILL does prevent people from progressing.
You are right that there is more opportunitys now than ever before. But there still isnt equality of opportunity, only less inequality. I simply believe that the removal of the monarchy will in time help to see the ingrained class system further eroded. Even if it would only make a tiny difference i think it would be worth it as they serve very little purpose. Furthermore, im morally opposed to the idea that anybody is deserving of anything by virtue of 'birth right'. So even if they only cost taxpayers 00000.1p a year for me that would be 00000.1p too much.

---

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

---

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

I don't understand your reasoning at all Miles.

You are aware that we didn't invent the Royal family right? A government didn't come up with the idea and think it would be good for tourism and so built a load of grandiose buildings and bequethed them all to the Windsors.

Their assets are theirs! They are not for the state to take away, because they arn't the states to begin with, the land and property owned by the Royal Family is their own legally owned property.

Secondly, this ridiculous notion you have of inherited wealth being wrong. What about the children of celebrities, or the offspring of industrial leaders, bankers, hoteliers etc? Should we take all of the Beckham's money and property away as well, or at least take away Brooklyn, Paris and La LA or whatever the fuck the Beckham kids are called and foster them into a working class home to appease your sense of egalitarianism?

Thirdly, the Royal family's wealth is different to the wealth inherited by everybody else, because theirs comes with responsibility.

Honestly, Miles, can you really say, in your heart of hearts that the Queen has been bad for this country, or that she isn't due respect for the job she does? Would you really want to be King?

It's a thankless task, one of a lifetime of servitude. Sure she eats well and get dressed up in fancy royal garb, but her life is just one of ceremonial service to her nation. She has to live an explempary moral life, carry out a million and one different social and international engagements every year and even in her 80's is still tirelessly carrying out her role.

I think the queen has been AMAZING for this country, a source of pride and inspiration for millions of hardworking people of Britain for well over half a century.

Even the rest of them are ok. Prince Charles has been a powerful voice for enviromental change and green issues, and the two sons are growing up to be fine young upstanding men.

They represent an important part of British history, and are more representative of the people than any political party could ever be. The people of Britain will never unite behind a political party,there is always division, but a royal family belongs to everybody, the entire people of Britain.

Their's is not a life I would want, the constant scrutiny, the forced adherence to endless ceremonial rituals and traditions, they are ambassadors for this country, and the Queen especially is magnificent in her role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I've always wondered what a raging lesbian is? Was Eleanor Roosevelt really some violent, wild lesbian?

---

...she's the Queen of Bull Dykes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The royals actually save you money. If we did have a president it would allow another layer of corruption to the ones we have already. Germans for instance are currently being stung on gas, water, telecoms, credit cards, all directly because their prez lobbied for certain companies to get business without any effective competition. Same in France. And you can't find out about it because the media in France/Germany won't go anywhere near a president, he's just too powerful. French people didn't even know Mitterand (ex-prez) had two lovers and half a dozen kids while in office because the press didn't report it till after he was dead. There's no reason to boot them except spite and there are endless reasons to keep them.

---

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

I don't understand your reasoning at all Miles.

You are aware that we didn't invent the Royal family right? A government didn't come up with the idea and think it would be good for tourism and so built a load of grandiose buildings and bequethed them all to the Windsors.

Their assets are theirs! They are not for the state to take away, because they arn't the states to begin with, the land and property owned by the Royal Family is their own legally owned property.

Secondly, this ridiculous notion you have of inherited wealth being wrong. What about the children of celebrities, or the offspring of industrial leaders, bankers, hoteliers etc? Should we take all of the Beckham's money and property away as well, or at least take away Brooklyn, Paris and La LA or whatever the fuck the Beckham kids are called and foster them into a working class home to appease your sense of egalitarianism?

Thirdly, the Royal family's wealth is different to the wealth inherited by everybody else, because theirs comes with responsibility.

Honestly, Miles, can you really say, in your heart of hearts that the Queen has been bad for this country, or that she isn't due respect for the job she does? Would you really want to be King?

It's a thankless task, one of a lifetime of servitude. Sure she eats well and get dressed up in fancy royal garb, but her life is just one of ceremonial service to her nation. She has to live an explempary moral life, carry out a million and one different social and international engagements every year and even in her 80's is still tirelessly carrying out her role.

I think the queen has been AMAZING for this country, a source of pride and inspiration for millions of hardworking people of Britain for well over half a century.

Even the rest of them are ok. Prince Charles has been a powerful voice for enviromental change and green issues, and the two sons are growing up to be fine young upstanding men.

They represent an important part of British history, and are more representative of the people than any political party could ever be. The people of Britain will never unite behind a political party,there is always division, but a royal family belongs to everybody, the entire people of Britain.

Their's is not a life I would want, the constant scrutiny, the forced adherence to endless ceremonial rituals and traditions, they are ambassadors for this country, and the Queen especially is magnificent in her role.

---

My argument is quite simple. Long ago the Royal family was able to rule with impunity and gradually their power has receded through the evolution of a progressively more dominant form of rule for the goverment. The Royal family of the past 200 years has been nothing more than a figurehead head of state. They are unelected and just there because of the circumstances of their birth. If their only purpose is to sign off and process what the government is going to do anyway, then it's a position that no longer has any value. I struggle to see any merit in it, it should at leat be replaced with something more representative than solely being a hereditary position.

I don't care so much about them keeping Buckingham palace, but I feel strongly that a family that is supposedly independantly wealthy shouldn't be able to take money away from every taxpayer in the country to subsidise leaky roofs and mowing the lawn. Surely it's about time they started paying for this themselves. If my grandmother can't just claim taxes to fix her home then neither should the Queen. Again, it's a case of of a rule that only applies to to a few "haves" at the expense of all the "have nots". It's not a massive amount of money....what with being only a few millions quid here and there, but that kind of money is a fortune to most ordinary people.

When it comes to inherited wealth, I suppose I am more extreme than some. I think inherited wealth should be taxed to death and used to provide quality public services and opportunities for social advancement for all. In this regard I am perhaps too idealistic. An extended inheritence tax would most likely be used to fund more military armament, but ideally I would like the wealth of the rich to be taken to reduce inequalities in society and stimulate greater equality of opportunity. I have no qualms with the children of the rich and famous being made to start out on a more level playing field along with the children of families of the middle classes. I'm not saying "take away everything!", but certainly to curb the excess. It's a complicated process and there is no reason why parents couldn't hand over huge sums before passing away which would kind of defeat the purpose. But in principle, I would like for such a system to try and exist. In the future, as a parent I would like to teach my children how to stand on their own two feet rather than wait for my eventual demise and an easier life brought along through a pot of money.

I don't have any negative feelings about the Queen herself. But I disagree with what she represents and don't feel a monarchy has any relevance in a democracy. She is probably a nice person, but I don't think that justifies her recieving tax payers money nor representing Britain as head of state. All in all I would like to see the Royal family slowly phased out once and for all.

Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.
They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.
The lengths the Blair government took to conceal the invasion plan and the extent of military commanders' anger at what they call the government's "appalling" failures emerged as Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry's chairman, promised to produce a "full and insightful" account of how Britain was drawn into the conflict.
Fresh evidence has emerged about how Blair misled MPs by claiming in 2002 that the goal was "disarmament, not regime change". Documents show the government wanted to hide its true intentions by informing only "very small numbers" of officials.......

One commander said the government "missed a golden opportunity" to win support from Iraqis. Another commented: "It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves". One, describing the supply chain, added: "I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert".
Some troops were deployed in civilian flights to countries neighbouring Iraq with their equipment "brought in by hand baggage". Items considered dangerous, including penknives and nail scissors, were confiscated from them................













Significantly, the documents support what officials have earlier admitted – that the army was not allowed to prepare properly for the Iraq invasion in 2002 so as not to alert parliament and the UN that Blair was already determined to go to war.
The documents add: "In Whitehall, the internal operational security regime, in which only very small numbers of officers and officials were allowed to become involved [in Iraq invasion preparations] constrained broader planning for combat operations and subsequent phases effectively until Dec 23 2002."
Blair had in effect promised George Bush that he would join the US-led invasion when, as late as July 2002, he was denying to MPs that preparations were being made for military action. The leaked documents reveal that "from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation".
Documents leaked in 2005 show that, almost a year before the invasion, Blair was privately preparing to commit Britain to war and topple Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from his closest advisers that it was unjustified. They also show how Blair was planning to justify regime change as an objective, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the "desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.






Leaked documents reveal No 10 cover-up over Iraq invasion | Politics | guardian.co.uk


This is the problem with having politicians as head of state. One morning you wake up and find there's a war criminal in charge. As long as Britain is going to continue behaving like it's still the nineteenth century, which would appear to be the forseeable future, you can't let somebody sending the army into illegal oil/etc. wars then take the highest office. So for the forseeable future replacing the Queen, who hasn't put a foot wrong in over half a century representing the country and will never have stuff like this turning up in the papers, is impossible.

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

---

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

---

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

---

Well that's just the leaders and such like individuals. The rest live in Upton Park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I voted yes but in all fairness the only way that would ever happend was if there was some sort of Revolt against Queen and HER country. (Which just so happens to include the British Army).... So i doubt i'd actually like that at all, given the most likely successor outside of the Royal family to be Al-Qaeda :-\

---

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

---

Well that's just the leaders and such like individuals. The rest live in Upton Park.

---

Isn't that basically the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

At least they'd be cheap on our taxes seeing as they all live in caves ;D

---

Well that's just the leaders and such like individuals. The rest live in Upton Park.

---

Isn't that basically the same thing?

---

Queue HMH

That sounds ominous :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

My argument is not an economic one, it is based mainly upon the fact that the Royal family is an outdated institution with no real role to play in the system besides signing off a few goverment documents. Their positions are inherited and that is something that I firmly believe is wrong. I don't want to cut off their heads nor punish them, but I would like them to recieve public school education and to work their way up the ladder like the rest of us have to. I see no reason why they should be treated any different from the rest of the population.

You mention Germans being stung on things such as water, gas, credit cards and telecoms, but I look at the UK and see people being stung terribly too. I don't see what the Queen has to do with that though. And as for the French and German media having no balls. Well, I don't see the connection. We have a decent media overall, but I don't think it's down to having the Queen as head of state. The Royal family gets a hard time from them, but that's more the way we are culturally. Nobody is allowed to get off the hook for their private indiscretions.

---

I don't understand your reasoning at all Miles.

You are aware that we didn't invent the Royal family right? A government didn't come up with the idea and think it would be good for tourism and so built a load of grandiose buildings and bequethed them all to the Windsors.

Their assets are theirs! They are not for the state to take away, because they arn't the states to begin with, the land and property owned by the Royal Family is their own legally owned property.

Secondly, this ridiculous notion you have of inherited wealth being wrong. What about the children of celebrities, or the offspring of industrial leaders, bankers, hoteliers etc? Should we take all of the Beckham's money and property away as well, or at least take away Brooklyn, Paris and La LA or whatever the fuck the Beckham kids are called and foster them into a working class home to appease your sense of egalitarianism?

Thirdly, the Royal family's wealth is different to the wealth inherited by everybody else, because theirs comes with responsibility.

Honestly, Miles, can you really say, in your heart of hearts that the Queen has been bad for this country, or that she isn't due respect for the job she does? Would you really want to be King?

It's a thankless task, one of a lifetime of servitude. Sure she eats well and get dressed up in fancy royal garb, but her life is just one of ceremonial service to her nation. She has to live an explempary moral life, carry out a million and one different social and international engagements every year and even in her 80's is still tirelessly carrying out her role.

I think the queen has been AMAZING for this country, a source of pride and inspiration for millions of hardworking people of Britain for well over half a century.

Even the rest of them are ok. Prince Charles has been a powerful voice for enviromental change and green issues, and the two sons are growing up to be fine young upstanding men.

They represent an important part of British history, and are more representative of the people than any political party could ever be. The people of Britain will never unite behind a political party,there is always division, but a royal family belongs to everybody, the entire people of Britain.

Their's is not a life I would want, the constant scrutiny, the forced adherence to endless ceremonial rituals and traditions, they are ambassadors for this country, and the Queen especially is magnificent in her role.

---

My argument is quite simple. Long ago the Royal family was able to rule with impunity and gradually their power has receded through the evolution of a progressively more dominant form of rule for the goverment. The Royal family of the past 200 years has been nothing more than a figurehead head of state. They are unelected and just there because of the circumstances of their birth. If their only purpose is to sign off and process what the government is going to do anyway, then it's a position that no longer has any value. I struggle to see any merit in it, it should at leat be replaced with something more representative than solely being a hereditary position.

I don't care so much about them keeping Buckingham palace, but I feel strongly that a family that is supposedly independantly wealthy shouldn't be able to take money away from every taxpayer in the country to subsidise leaky roofs and mowing the lawn. Surely it's about time they started paying for this themselves. If my grandmother can't just claim taxes to fix her home then neither should the Queen. Again, it's a case of of a rule that only applies to to a few "haves" at the expense of all the "have nots". It's not a massive amount of money....what with being only a few millions quid here and there, but that kind of money is a fortune to most ordinary people.

When it comes to inherited wealth, I suppose I am more extreme than some. I think inherited wealth should be taxed to death and used to provide quality public services and opportunities for social advancement for all. In this regard I am perhaps too idealistic. An extended inheritence tax would most likely be used to fund more military armament, but ideally I would like the wealth of the rich to be taken to reduce inequalities in society and stimulate greater equality of opportunity. I have no qualms with the children of the rich and famous being made to start out on a more level playing field along with the children of families of the middle classes. I'm not saying "take away everything!", but certainly to curb the excess. It's a complicated process and there is no reason why parents couldn't hand over huge sums before passing away which would kind of defeat the purpose. But in principle, I would like for such a system to try and exist. In the future, as a parent I would like to teach my children how to stand on their own two feet rather than wait for my eventual demise and an easier life brought along through a pot of money.

I don't have any negative feelings about the Queen herself. But I disagree with what she represents and don't feel a monarchy has any relevance in a democracy. She is probably a nice person, but I don't think that justifies her recieving tax payers money nor representing Britain as head of state. All in all I would like to see the Royal family slowly phased out once and for all.

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

Well that's just the leaders and such like individuals. The rest live in Upton Park.

---

Isn't that basically the same thing?

---

Queue HMH

---

get rid of the royals
abolish the class divide
=
shariah law throughout the country within 50years!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Isn't that basically the same thing?

---

Queue HMH

---

get rid of the royals
abolish the class divide
=
shariah law throughout the country within 50years!!

---

You dip stick nothing to do with Shariah law but about having a republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Queue HMH

---

get rid of the royals
abolish the class divide
=
shariah law throughout the country within 50years!!

---

You dip stick nothing to do with Shariah law but about having a republic.

---

Because of course republics have a much better reputation.....

It's not often me and Kirklaind Laing agree but I'm 100 percent with him, in that the Queen is the best head of state we can possibly have.

@ Miles

I just don't understand your logic really. First off, yes the queen gets money to upkeep her homes, but come on these stately buildings are part of the nation's heritage a bit different from your gran's house.

Think of all the fantastic royal buildings we have, Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London, Westminster, they are amazing, some of the finest and most famous buildings on earth with hundreds, even thousands of years of history.

They are the Queen's property but in a sense belong to the whole nation. They are all open to the public, we can all go and visit most days of the year so what is the problem with public funds going towards their upkeep?

If you abolished the Royal Family it would still be public funds paying for the repairs and upkeep anyway.

And your gran probably can get help with essential repairs anyway, there are plenty of benefits out there for those in need.

As for your, 'inherited wealth should be taxed to death', well firstly it already is, we have inheritance tax after all, which I personally think sucks, but you seem to want to go even further and forceably take money from the rich to give to the government.

So are you a communist?

It's a fucking horrible philosophy and just ends up with nobody having anything.

Anybody who has worked for something is entitled to it. When they pass on their children are entitled to it. If they still have their wealth into the next generation they are entitled to it, and so forth.

Wanting to force them to hand over their money for some egalitarian plan is just theft imo. What would be the incentive to work hard and be succesful if all of your reward is taken from you in taxes and given to others?

It's a ridiculous, evil idea imo.

As for the queen, she does a tremendous job for this country as a faithful and loyal ambassador.

You never responded to this before but I put it to you again, has her life been one of a rich socialite living the highlife, indulging in excess and aristocratic vices? I really don't think it has, her life has been one of tireless service to this country. Think of all the diplomatic functions and visits she has to carry out, all the engagements, the rituals etc.

It's not a role I'd want in a million years, her wealth is nothing like that of a rock star, a footballer or an actor. Her wealth comes with immense responsibility and she has had to live a life of service and devotion to her country.

I am proud to say I love my queen and country and would oppose to the fullest any attempts at turning this nation into a republic with a Brown or Blairesque figure looming large as out head of state.

Yeah the Queen's life is pretty shit when you think about it.

She especially struggles in Royal Ascot and Cheltenham week, supping champange in her private box whilst cheering on her millions of pounds worth of horse flesh.

Fuck the Queen. And the horse she rode in on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

get rid of the royals
abolish the class divide
=
shariah law throughout the country within 50years!!

---

:lol:

What brilliant logic. Abolish the class divide & have no royal family & there would somehow be Shariah Law in Britain, because obviously the Royal Family are battling Al-Qaeda under the cover of darkness.

I can't believe you guys are arguing about the topic still, when there's a post of this sheer awesomeness on here.

Although Hammer, if its going to take 50 years, it probably won't affect you given your levels of alcohol consumption ;)