harvey19 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 They do not join because of the Queen, they join because they want to fight. The Irish have served for many years in the British army and hold the second highest number of VCs ( out of 23 nationalities who have won it) after the English who outnumber them in population by quite a few. My father was English, he was normally a kind and gentle man until such time as royalty was mentioned, at which time my mum and I would roll our eyes and duck for cover. I merely have an objection to them as a matter of principle, my father hated them. That did not stop him volunteering for duty and serving throughout the second War. When someone once asked him why he volunteered as he hated royalty he gave them a look which could have cut steel and replied ' I fought for my Family, my Friends and my Country, and those parasites didn't come into it.' I think there will have been many like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Yes I have seen them and regard them as pretty pathetic. To turn up to see a show or even a person who you admire because of their talent is understandable. Whilst I wouldn't do it myself I can see why some would, but to turn up to see an old couple who are not even going to do a song or tap dance, pathetic. While I respect the quality of your argument and articulation, like a lot of left wing arguments that are about the people, it seems hateful and lacking in empathy with most people. Don't you think 92 was the high point of republicanism? You're not going to get another annus horriblis to exploit like that again. The two princes are the future and they clearly work for a living, inviting death in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 Would you be happy to have a monarchy descended from the "working class" Since I do not want a monarchy at all, that is a pointless question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 This thread is supposedly about the cost of the Royal Family.. £32 million... I've just had a look at the cost of running the US presidency..it appears to be in the region of 1.4 BILLION dollars.. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/08/how-it-costs-taxpayers-1-4-billion-a-year-to-fund-the-white-house/ Obamas trip to Africa last year cost $100 million...what would a UK president cost..would it be cheaper than the Royals? You'll have to give the anti-royal campaigners a little time to think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 The two princes ...clearly work for a living, inviting death in some cases. So do 100,000 other members of the Armed Forces, but they don't get to be King or Queen. And your declaration that 'they are the future' is probably one of the least meaningful things I have read on this forum for quite a while. Perhaps you could explain how exactly your cliché applies in the case of these two privileged but unremarkable young men. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 16:13 ---------- I think there will have been many like him [ie who served during WW2, but hated the monarchy]/. Absolutely. The pro-monarchists' conviction that they have a monopoly on patriotism really gets up my nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 This thread is supposedly about the cost of the Royal Family.. £32 million... I've just had a look at the cost of running the US presidency..it appears to be in the region of 1.4 BILLION dollars.. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/08/how-it-costs-taxpayers-1-4-billion-a-year-to-fund-the-white-house/ Obamas trip to Africa last year cost $100 million...what would a UK president cost..would it be cheaper than the Royals? Seriously? You are comparing the cost of running the office of the 'Leader of the Free World' who is responsible for 316,000,000 American citizens and a foreign policy which has antagonized probably three times that number, with our situation? You also seem to be missing the point that royalty is in addition to the cost of government, whilst the American costs cover everything. Get rid of the monarchy, get rid of 300 MPs -we have far too many for the size of the country - appoint an elected President with a five year fixed term and the savings would be considerable. An elected President is in effect only a glorified Ambassador with national 'meet and greet' duties plus a role in the event of a political deadlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Seriously? You are comparing the cost of running the office of the 'Leader of the Free World' who is responsible for 316,000,000 American citizens and a foreign policy which has antagonized probably three times that number, with our situation? You also seem to be missing the point that royalty is in addition to the cost of government, whilst the American costs cover everything. Get rid of the monarchy, get rid of 300 MPs -we have far too many for the size of the country - appoint an elected President with a five year fixed term and the savings would be considerable. An elected President is in effect only a glorified Ambassador with national 'meet and greet' duties plus a role in the event of a political deadlock. He's not my leader..I didn't vote for him Those costs are just for running the White House.not the US Government I dread to think what the cost of that is.. I was just showing that a President isn't necessarily a cheap option.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 So do 100,000 other members of the Armed Forces, but they don't get to be King or Queen. And your declaration that 'they are the future' is probably one of the least meaningful things I have read on this forum for quite a while. Perhaps you could explain how exactly your cliché applies in the case of these two privileged but unremarkable young men. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 16:13 ---------- Absolutely. The pro-monarchists' conviction that they have a monopoly on patriotism really gets up my nose. How did you manage to add to my sentence ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 So do 100,000 other members of the Armed Forces, but they don't get to be King or Queen. And your declaration that 'they are the future' is probably one of the least meaningful things I have read on this forum for quite a while. Perhaps you could explain how exactly your cliché applies in the case of these two privileged but unremarkable young men. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 16:13 ---------- Absolutely. The pro-monarchists' conviction that they have a monopoly on patriotism really gets up my nose. You know what it means, two popular royals who'll be around for decades to come, supported by the majority of the populace. Your angry and patronising tone isn't going to inspire the masses I'm afraid. The left never learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Removed............. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 15:27 ---------- Absolutely. The pro-monarchists' conviction that they have a monopoly on patriotism really gets up my nose. Rather a sweeping and inaccurate statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.