• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

HRH Queenie

Gutter Boy said:
We weren't talking about boisterous marches. People were being arrested for holding bits of paper with the words 'not my king' on. Someone got attacked by a mob for calling the sweaty one a nonce. Match of the Day edited all the booing out of the minute silences - proper Stalinist propaganda work. That's not the way a liberal democracy behaves. Tolerance means shrugging at things you don't like, not oppressing it.
Click to expand...

I agree people should be able to protest. I do however think it’s poor form to protest during the period when the public is in mourning and during the Queen’s funeral. There’s a time and a place IMO. The funeral has happened, protest all you like now. Want to abolish the monarchy? I’d say that’s something worth debating. Don’t agree with people getting arrested but you’re being naive not to expect some form of backlash choosing to protest where large groups of crowds are paying their respect to a queen who gave 70 years. The left are always up in arms when comedians say something that upsets them and want them de platformed or their latest Netflix special removed. Can’t really complain when it comes back to bite you.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Criticising something is easy, but suggesting what else to do is much harder. They as a paper never really come up with the alternatives which is a shame
Click to expand...

I’m not sure that’s really the job of a daily newspaper - although The Guardian is full of opinion pieces which do exactly what you say (including the piece on the monarchy that I posted above, which is asking for Parliament to spend serious time looking at the role of the monarchy).

GHod help us all, though, if the alternatives that the Mail would like to see are actually implemented!

glasgowspur said:
What power does the crown have?
Click to expand...

According to the article, the power to raise Palace spending by 17% last year.

I’d also wager that Prince Andrew would be walking a prison yard rather than parading down The Mall were he not a royal.
 
Mikey10 said:
I’m not sure that’s really the job of a daily newspaper - although The Guardian is full of opinion pieces which do exactly what you say (including the piece on the monarchy that I posted above, which is asking for Parliament to spend serious time looking at the role of the monarchy).

GHod help us all, though, if the alternatives that the Mail would like to see are actually implemented!



According to the article, the power to raise Palace spending by 17% last year.

I’d also wager that Prince Andrew would be walking a prison yard rather than parading down The Mall were he not a royal.
Click to expand...
It’s not the mail
It’s the daily nazi

and I don’t think the article made any suggestions other than look at the monarchy… I mean if they want to criticise, that’s fine, but have an alternative too. That way the argument has substance. They seem to want to say it’s outdated which is quite weak without additional info

as i said I have no faith in a paper that doesn’t do it’s fact checking well, and I’m sure they are all much of smugness now their desperate for funding
 
Mikey10 said:
I’m not sure that’s really the job of a daily newspaper - although The Guardian is full of opinion pieces which do exactly what you say (including the piece on the monarchy that I posted above, which is asking for Parliament to spend serious time looking at the role of the monarchy).

GHod help us all, though, if the alternatives that the Mail would like to see are actually implemented!



According to the article, the power to raise Palace spending by 17% last year.

I’d also wager that Prince Andrew would be walking a prison yard rather than parading down The Mall were he not a royal.
Click to expand...


So none of the stuff actually quoted in the "opinion piece".
Not being as mad as the mail isn't really a ringing endorsement.
 
Gutter Boy said:
We weren't talking about boisterous marches. People were being arrested for holding bits of paper with the words 'not my king' on. Someone got attacked by a mob for calling the sweaty one a nonce. Match of the Day edited all the booing out of the minute silences - proper Stalinist propaganda work. That's not the way a liberal democracy behaves. Tolerance means shrugging at things you don't like, not oppressing it.
Click to expand...

Time and place.
If your parent had border issues with a neighbour but then passed, you don't expect said neighbour to be at a mourning expecting you to sort it out before the burial happens -if they do you'd remove them, or give them a swift jab to the eye.

"not my king" Well, maybe she "was your Queen" so show some fudging respect for her and lineage that she has no more say over and wait until the mourning period passes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Bedfordspurs said:
My statement is that if you have an issue with anything and feel the right to protest… do so
But don’t wait
One of the protesters… who wasn’t arrested but made out he was…. Was a lawyer who openly said he wasn’t protesting against the monarchy, purely about addressing free speech
That’s jumping on a bandwagon for me.

your not gonna convince me these are people reacting to suddenly finding out about darker aspects im afraid… she was in power for 70 years. It’s not new

people who genuinely have an issue take action

Lets relate it to Tottenham

Remember the failed anti ENIC protests which actually consisted of a few old men getting drunk outside the ground. Compare that to uniteds fans protests. Some even started another club
Click to expand...

But surely you can see how especially in today's current financial climate, someone who is struggling to pay the bills who works a real job not based around waving, protecting nonces or the pretense of being better than everyone else but not due to any actual talent - This person could have not been arsed about the monarchy previously but has found the whole enforced mourning and lavish ceremonies distasteful, and now chooses to protest the system, you can belittle their efforts if it makes you feel good but this person (yes hypothetical and somewhat suited to the point I'm trying to get across!) would have every right to protest, again, everything thing has to start somewhere.

Of course some are doing it to get on the camera, I could say the same of the people queuing up to pay their respects.
 
spurspinter1 said:
But surely you can see how especially in today's current financial climate, someone who is struggling to pay the bills who works a real job not based around waving, protecting nonces or the pretense of being better than everyone else but not due to any actual talent - This person could have not been arsed about the monarchy previously but has found the whole enforced mourning and lavish ceremonies distasteful, and now chooses to protest the system, you can belittle their efforts if it makes you feel good but this person (yes hypothetical and somewhat suited to the point I'm trying to get across!) would have every right to protest, again, everything thing has to start somewhere.

Of course some are doing it to get on the camera, I could say the same of the people queuing up to pay their respects.
Click to expand...
Everyone has a right to protest
No issue at all with that
I’ve seen real protests
These ones IMO were fake or at the very least very very weak
As I said, I’d you have an issue with the royal family then protest. But protest long before the queen died. Then you opinion matters more as it has substance. Doing it after the event is just weak
It’s like the spurs fans throwing the season tickets on the pitch whats ago… at the last game of the season.
 
Christ what an insane 10 days. the fawning, the shove it down your throat of it all. BBC Sport completely covered on the funeral... if i wanted to read the funeral stuff i'd have googled BBC News.

Nuts. Thank fudge it's done with.

Have to also add, for the last 5 years a poll asked "what % of people think Charles will make a good King". Nearly every instance was 30% each year. Taken last week, it's 65%. What's changed? absolutely fudge all. Media just shoving the royals into peoples mind further.
 
My dislike of the EU is because they are unelected (most of them) corrupt tossers ruling over the little people.

Can't stand the Royal family, was actually against signing Emerson Royal just because of his name. Had no idea he would turn out to be brick.

She is dead and buried, time to disband it all.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
My dislike of the EU is because they are unelected (most of them) corrupt tossers ruling over the little people.

Can't stand the Royal family, was actually against signing Emerson Royal just because of his name. Had no idea he would turn out to be brick.

She is dead and buried, time to disband it all.
Click to expand...
Presumably that extends to the House of Lords too?

It is an interesting debate about at what level should a public servant should be employed Vs be elected.
The Royals is different because the public have no say whatever and it's based on superiority.

I used to be against the Lord's on principal. And on principle still am; however on application it's a different story. The lord's are appointed (I know not all - hereditary peerage is abhorrent) as industry experts. They are also appointed as political favours, which whilst not corrupt is morally unsound IMHO.
The lord's are also very very good at de-party- politicising legislation passing through the house.

It poses an interesting question, if the near corruption is driven by politicians for political will and political gain (most MPs primary focus is reelection), then surely there has to a place for a non elected part of parliament?
(Interestingly (ok, this might depend on level of interest :D) my core reason for voting No-Brexit was not pro EU - it was that we weren't ready for the conversation yet and should get our own political system in order first. The key reason I used for that was the Lord's being undemocratically directly elected. Although they are elected by the people we elect, so is that actually democratic?)
 
glorygloryeze said:
Does anyone know an avid Tory who is NOT an avid Royalist?

(Liz Truss when she was a teenager doesn't count btw...)
Click to expand...

Not many. But I know plenty of liberals who are royalists. I think that’s reflected by the coverage on tv. Most of the big networks pander to a liberal audience a lot of the time, so they wouldn’t go all in on the heavy coverage they have provided for the Queen’s death if they didn’t think people would watch.
 
monkeybarry said:
Presumably that extends to the House of Lords too?

It is an interesting debate about at what level should a public servant should be employed Vs be elected.
The Royals is different because the public have no say whatever and it's based on superiority.

I used to be against the Lord's on principal. And on principle still am; however on application it's a different story. The lord's are appointed (I know not all - hereditary peerage is abhorrent) as industry experts. They are also appointed as political favours, which whilst not corrupt is morally unsound IMHO.
The lord's are also very very good at de-party- politicising legislation passing through the house.

It poses an interesting question, if the near corruption is driven by politicians for political will and political gain (most MPs primary focus is reelection), then surely there has to a place for a non elected part of parliament?
(Interestingly (ok, this might depend on level of interest :D) my core reason for voting No-Brexit was not pro EU - it was that we weren't ready for the conversation yet and should get our own political system in order first. The key reason I used for that was the Lord's being undemocratically directly elected. Although they are elected by the people we elect, so is that actually democratic?)
Click to expand...

You are absolutely spot on about the house of Lords. The Irish system of an upper chamber seems if I have it correct, a very good one.

The reason I voted out of the EU is because we need less corrupt idiots telling us what to do not more.

Our views are quite similar we are just coming from different angles.

A democratically elected upper chamber with a time limit on how long people can serve and some actual experience in the real world, like former police officers, farmers etc. That would be a good start. Can't stand the house of Lords.
 
Diamond Lights said:
Christ what an insane 10 days. the fawning, the shove it down your throat of it all. BBC Sport completely covered on the funeral... if i wanted to read the funeral stuff i'd have googled BBC News.

Nuts. Thank fudge it's done with.

Have to also add, for the last 5 years a poll asked "what % of people think Charles will make a good King". Nearly every instance was 30% each year. Taken last week, it's 65%. What's changed? absolutely fudge all. Media just shoving the royals into peoples mind further.
Click to expand...
What makes a good king?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back