• 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

Buckingham Palace emergency

Phil standing down - a little disappointed as I thought Charlie was getting a crack at the big job - if the pope can stand down I thought the queen may.
 
Phucking absurd that we have a Royal family in 2017, underlines what a nation of qunts we are.

"Oh, but she does so much for..."

Phuck off.
 
Retiring from a life of riches, good food, good travel and acting like an utter pr1ck

This. It annoys the hell out of me when people spout nonsense about the 'funny' things Prince Philip says and put it down to him being a bit eccentric or refreshingly non-politically correct or some such rubbish.
(Examples here from the BBC website
Prince Philip's gaffes from decades on royal duty
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39806145)

He is in a position of extreme privilege for no reason other than birth and more specifically, marriage. With that position of privilege comes a basic responsibility to be respectful and not rude/insulting/racist (basic decent behaviour which most lesser mortals manage). Anyone else saying some of the things he has said would be rightly vilified (and disciplined/sacked in a work environment). Yet because he's an old royal it's reported as being somehow endearing or excused as an idiosyncrasity and he gets away with it. Totally wrong.
 
I never had a problem with the Royal Family and it seems tourists liked them. But I think the thing that pushed me over the limit is that Prince Harry inherited 10m from the estate of Princess Diana and did not have to pay any tax on it. When I pop my clogs I have a house and a flat and some savings that my son will have to pay a load of tax on and that tinkles of my British sense of fair play.

I am a convert to the ways of people that want a republic. Maybe we can keep buck house and the windsor castle but that is it and frankly they should be self financing through tourist admissions to both.

Also the rule that the Queen owns the coast is pathetic and when wave energy becomes viable it should be the state not the Monarchy that benefits.
 
I never had a problem with the Royal Family and it seems tourists liked them. But I think the thing that pushed me over the limit is that Prince Harry inherited 10m from the estate of Princess Diana and did not have to pay any tax on it. When I pop my clogs I have a house and a flat and some savings that my son will have to pay a load of tax on and that tinkles of my British sense of fair play.

I am a convert to the ways of people that want a republic. Maybe we can keep buck house and the windsor castle but that is it and frankly they should be self financing through tourist admissions to both.

Also the rule that the Queen owns the coast is pathetic and when wave energy becomes viable it should be the state not the Monarchy that benefits.
Want some tax planning advice?

I'll only take a quarter of what those thieving bastards at the treasury will.
 
Phucking absurd that we have a Royal family in 2017, underlines what a nation of qunts we are.

"Oh, but she does so much for..."

Phuck off.

What has the fact its 2017 got to do with it?

The world is becoming a more fcuked up place every year that passes, so how would it make any difference to you if we got rid of the monarchy?

I'd rather have a national symbol of decency than go down the route of the USA, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, France or Australia by appointing right wing idiots to be the figurehead of international discussion.
 
What has the fact its 2017 got to do with it?

The world is becoming a more fcuked up place every year that passes, so how would it make any difference to you if we got rid of the monarchy?

I'd rather have a national symbol of decency than go down the route of the USA, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, France or Australia by appointing right wing idiots to be the figurehead of international discussion.

You'd hope that, by now, people wouldn't want an entity as the head of state that was supposedly given the power to rule by GHod. In 1617, this might have made sense to some, in 2017 it makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess decency is in the eye of the beholder -- the current royals have inherited their wealth from a long line of tyrants and thieves and while old, poor people in this country get government cuts to their social care, these phuckers get to suck on the tit of the taxpayer and have an establishment media ensure that plenty of the population just love them for it. There's nothing decent about it.
 
What has the fact its 2017 got to do with it?

The world is becoming a more fcuked up place every year that passes, so how would it make any difference to you if we got rid of the monarchy?

I'd rather have a national symbol of decency than go down the route of the USA, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, France or Australia by appointing right wing idiots to be the figurehead of international discussion.

Erm...the British monarchy might be many things, but as a barely loyal subject out here in Canada, I think it's fair to assert that 'decency' isn't the first thing that springs to mind.

From the perspective of perhaps every Commonwealth member apart from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the British monarchy stands as a symbol of a painful past that they'd rather move on from - the Foreign Office's efforts to rebrand that past as a 'shared history' as opposed to a considerably brutal, amoral, extractive relationship haven't really changed that (although they've been trying for fifty-odd years). Every time Canada puts the Queen on the latest iteration of our currency (or Australia, or New Zealand), 'queen-less' members of the Commonwealth are reminded of the subtle historical differences between the white former colonies who still nominally maintain their status as Commonwealth realms and themselves - and why those differences exist.

From the perspective of many Brits and relatively more informed people around the world, the sheen of the monarchy took a beating on the Pont de l'Alma back in 1997. For Brits who remember the scandals the royal family was mired in back in the 80's, I suspect there are even fewer illusions about the moral imperfections of the people who comprise that institution.

For the average Joe in America, Europe, Asia and elsewhere, the Queen is just quaint and old-fashioned - a symbol of British deference to authority, politeness, tradition, what have you. But I'd argue that doesn't constitute a recognition of 'decency' as much as it does an assessment of the institution as being too antiquated to be anything but a tourist attraction.

Ultimately, it's a discussion for Brits to have, and I'm not saying the Royal family is an entirely negative institution (like I said, it generates tourist revenue if nothing else, and keeps traditions alive in what is still a distinctly Burkean society overall - a very important function). But morals don't come into it, imo.
 
People make 100s of excuses to try and put out the flames of criticism aimed at the Royal Family, but the truth is you can't excuses what is in todays times a mental status for anyone to have.

Its a total crock of brick and Phillip is one of the worst of the lot, all the wealth he has and the status is not even his, he married into it, he is like a WAG, a life of luxury footed by the tax payers but thats ok he is a patron of the Royal fudging Cats Home of something? Do me a favour
 
People make 100s of excuses to try and put out the flames of criticism aimed at the Royal Family, but the truth is you can't excuses what is in todays times a mental status for anyone to have.

Its a total crock of brick and Phillip is one of the worst of the lot, all the wealth he has and the status is not even his, he married into it, he is like a WAG, a life of luxury footed by the tax payers but thats ok he is a patron of the Royal fudging Cats Home of something? Do me a favour
they have no real power (that they will use) we have an unelected Second Chamber - how the hell is that still a thing.
 
This. It annoys the hell out of me when people spout nonsense about the 'funny' things Prince Philip says and put it down to him being a bit eccentric or refreshingly non-politically correct or some such rubbish.
(Examples here from the BBC website
Prince Philip's gaffes from decades on royal duty
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39806145)

He is in a position of extreme privilege for no reason other than birth and more specifically, marriage. With that position of privilege comes a basic responsibility to be respectful and not rude/insulting/racist (basic decent behaviour which most lesser mortals manage). Anyone else saying some of the things he has said would be rightly vilified (and disciplined/sacked in a work environment). Yet because he's an old royal it's reported as being somehow endearing or excused as an idiosyncrasity and he gets away with it. Totally wrong.
I did notice one of his remaining functions is going to be a dinner for Pakistan's centenary, what could possibly go wrong...?

I don't really mind the royals, well, The Queen anyway. As has been mentioned, we'd only end up with some cretin as President and as we've seen Tony is looking for a way back in to the game (funds must be running low).
 
Back