algy Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 He represents the cream of society. Rich, thick, and full of clots. I thought Cameron was PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oooo Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Everyone rejoiced at the Silver Jubilee, did they? Some of us were rejoicing at the Sex Pistols instead. The monarchy does not guarantee peace or democracy. We have had enough wars down the years and many other monarchies have had dictatorships - Spain under Franco, Jordan and Kuwait today, Imperial Japan under Hirohito, the Queen's husband's native Greece under various dictatorships till 40 years ago, etc. I'll not argue with you on that one. True, but our monarchy isn't a dictatorship, and that's what matters. I've told of the queens potential powers, and she quite rightly chooses to allow parliament to make decisions, with just a nod of her head to approve. We do have a figurehead to our nation, as she is to others, and it's no harm to those of us who approve, as its OK for anti loyalists to disapprove. I can't see it changing in our lifetime. As for not arguing about one's Pillock status, you realise that it's aimed at your chum, not me, so you agree that he was indeed, a pillock. Aren't you kind to your chums, yet slightly dimwitted at the same time! If only people could read......... ---------- Post added 26-01-2014 at 14:13 ---------- Rejoiced by everyone? What a strange phrase. Let me assure you that it was not 'rejoiced by everyone', should you as a royalist not be able to employ the Queens English? Personally, I take no joy in acknowledging the fact that so many of my fellow citizens are craven servile dolts who are prepared to allow themselves to be described as 'subjects', from the verb subjugate - conquer and control -it is pathetic in my view. Still, I suppose a thousand years of being subjugated by thieves, thugs and murderers will have that effect on those who have no self respect. Sad but true, some people lack the balls to stand on their back legs and say ' I am the equal of anyone.' You are entitled to your opinion, but your term of "ball lacking" will inevitably be your demise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 ---------- Post added 26-01-2014 at 14:13 ---------- You are entitled to your opinion, but your term of "ball lacking" will inevitably be your demise. You are a very strange person, but I do find you amusing. Would you be kind enough to answer me a couple of questions? What precisely do you mean by the above comment? It makes no rational sense. Secondly, your use of English is idiosyncratic in the extreme, is English your first language? Not trying to be insulting here by the way, genuinely interested. My grammar and syntax are by no means perfect and therefore I am in no position to try and be clever about someone else's use of the language but I am intrigued by your usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oooo Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 You are a very strange person, but I do find you amusing. Would you be kind enough to answer me a couple of questions? What precisely do you mean by the above comment? It makes no rational sense. Secondly, your use of English is idiosyncratic in the extreme, is English your first language? Not trying to be insulting here by the way, genuinely interested. My grammar and syntax are by no means perfect and therefore I am in no position to try and be clever about someone else's use of the language but I am intrigued by your usage. To say some people lack balls to stand up and say "I'm equal" isn't the right terminology at all. Just because a person looks up to our monarchy and says "yeah,you guys are all right" isn't a sign of weakness in any way at all. To suggest that a person has a fear to not conform is wrong for you to say. I have had reading and writing problems all my life, and to be fair, don't think I make a bad job of muddling through. In short, yes I do approve of the monarchy because to me it gives us a sense of pride and belonging in a country that is a pleasure to live in. I do stand by my belief that the people here on the forum aren't a bad bunch, but there is just something that snaps in people's brains that make them argumentative when they really aren't like that in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 I think people get far too angsty about the whole subject. I mean, who really gives a crap? Somebody has to be commander in chief, might as well be him, he can be relied upon to do nothing, which is exactly what is required - trooping of the colour, gong-pinning duties and all that razzmatazz. It helps if you think of it as showbusiness, rather than any kind of meaningful, political institution. That goes for parliament too btw. One of the problems that I have with it is this, the armed forces, police and judiciary in this country swear an oath of allegiance to the crown. To me this is both wrong and potentially dangerous. The oath sworn by these people should be to the country. All of these institutions are paid for by us, the tax payer, but their loyalty is to the crown, another institution payed for by the taxpayer. The situation which we now have is that the supreme commander of all the Queens horses and all the Queens men is next in line to the throne and all of the people under his control have sworn an oath of allegiance to him. The ironic part of all of this is Prince Charles personal attitude to sworn oaths. This is after all the man who stood in front of the country and swore to 'Forsake all others as long as we both shall live.' Whilst his mistress and now present wife looked on. Not really a man of honour is he? Agree with you about Parliament, and that's also part of the potential problem. In the event that the political incompetence displayed over the last few years were to worsen then there could arise a situation where martial law comes into play. Chief Constables have already requested water cannons as they anticipate a summer of unrest. ---------- Post added 26-01-2014 at 20:02 ---------- To say some people lack balls to stand up and say "I'm equal" isn't the right terminology at all. Just because a person looks up to our monarchy and says "yeah,you guys are all right" isn't a sign of weakness in any way at all. To suggest that a person has a fear to not conform is wrong for you to say. I have had reading and writing problems all my life, and to be fair, don't think I make a bad job of muddling through. In short, yes I do approve of the monarchy because to me it gives us a sense of pride and belonging in a country that is a pleasure to live in. I do stand by my belief that the people here on the forum aren't a bad bunch, but there is just something that snaps in people's brains that make them argumentative when they really aren't like that in real life. Thank you for that reply and I hope that I didn't offend you by my comments regarding your terminology. Whilst I found it a bit unusual it was understandable and therefore no real problem. My problem has always been Maths so I have no trouble sympathising. My comments about 'balls' may have been a trifle crude but I really do have difficulty understanding people who are prepared to accept that another person is in some intrinsic way 'better' than them, simply because they were born into a particular family. This puzzlement is increased by knowing how royalty came into their privileges. They inherited it from their ancestors who obtained it in the first place by theft. That is how people became Kings and Emperors, God did not come down and appoint them, they appointed themselves by force of arms and theft. Being a royalist is basically approving of the inheritance of ill gotten gains. And I have to say I really am this argumentative in real life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 King George the Sixtth wore the naval insignia of Admiral of the Fleet, equal to Army Field Marshall. Was never meant to be that he had any military authority whatsoever or decison making in military affairs. Was an honourary title. Just the same with prince Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The ironic part of all of this is Prince Charles personal attitude to sworn oaths. This is after all the man who stood in front of the country and swore to 'Forsake all others as long as we both shall live.' Whilst his mistress and now present wife looked on. Not really a man of honour is he? Is it true that Charles was still banging Camilla before he married Diana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 King George the Sixtth wore the naval insignia of Admiral of the Fleet, equal to Army Field Marshall. Was never meant to be that he had any military authority whatsoever or decison making in military affairs. Was an honourary title. Just the same with prince Charles So if that's true, placing him in that position is basically serving no useful purpose, and is if anything, an insult to those high ranking officers who earned their promotions through hard work and ability. The British make snide comments at the number of medals which the Americans hand out to their military. Those comments look a little silly when you look at the amount of 'scrambled egg' and medals worn by Charles. Not only that but he has them for three different uniforms! Oh, and as pointed out everyone in the forces has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Crown, of which he is an integral part, so how does that equate with no military authority whatsoever? ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 17:53 ---------- Is it true that Charles was still banging Camilla before he married Diana? So the story goes. What is true, at least according to Diana, is that when she confronted him with the Camilla situation he said 'You wouldn't want me to be the first Prince of Wales in history not to have a mistress would you?' Guys a regular charmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 So if that's true, placing him in that position is basically serving no useful purpose, and is if anything, an insult to those high ranking officers who earned their promotions through hard work and ability. The British make snide comments at the number of medals which the Americans hand out to their military. Those comments look a little silly when you look at the amount of 'scrambled egg' and medals worn by Charles. Not only that but he has them for three different uniforms! Oh, and as pointed out everyone in the forces has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Crown, of which he is an integral part, so how does that equate with no military authority whatsoever? ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 17:53 ---------- So the story goes. What is true, at least according to Diana, is that when she confronted him with the Camilla situation he said 'You wouldn't want me to be the first Prince of Wales in history not to have a mistress would you?' Guys a regular charmer. They was probably awarded by foreign dignitaries during trips abroad or perhaps for number of polo games he won You wouldnt want him commanding any military operation either I dont like the guy much. He cynically and callously used Diana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I thought this thread was going to be about some online war game and some was going to call me a "noob" I thought the thread might be about gravity "Guess who is now highest ranking in all forces" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.