Royal Overspending - Solutions?

[aliceBB]

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.

 

Your generalisations don't help much, I'm afraid. Just because somebody or something will be 'around for decades to come' doesn't mean they 'are the future'. The same could be said of the kids in Benefits Streets, but nobody claims they are the future. You claim they are supported by most people, which is probably true, but that doesn't make the monarchy right. Popularity is simply that - it does not equate to rightness. Public hangings, slavery, Jimmy Savile, Enoch Powell and Hitler were all very popular at one point - doesn't mean they were a Good Thing.

 

BTW I have no desire to 'inspire the masses'; I'm merely expressing my viewpoint and giving some arguments for it. If people agree with what I say, lovely. If they don't, also lovely. I don't flatter myself that it'll change the world.

 

Finally, please be reassured that I am not angry - I'm very calm, in fact. Why do people whose arguments are dismantled immediately assume the dismantler is angry?!

 

[@ Qualtrough]Oh, so sorry. I was under the impression that this was a forum where people posted their opinions on subjects and a discussion took place.

 

Obviously if someone holds a differing opinion to you they should keep it to themselves.

 

 

Well said that man!

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 17:47 ----------

 

Interesting, I'd just swear the oath, it doesn't mean you have to lick her boots.

 

Please explain the difference in practice between swearing an oath to the Queen and licking her boots, bearing in mind of course that one is a speech act and the other a metaphor.

 

In other words, what do you think 'licking her boots' actually involves, if not swearing your allegiance to her, ie promising to serve her? I would be interested to know how you can do one without agreeing to do the other.

[janie48]

Oh, so sorry. I was under the impression that this was a forum where people posted their opinions on subjects and a discussion took place.

 

Obviously if someone holds a differing opinion to you they should keep it to themselves.

I will agree with you there, it would be a boring forum if we all held the same opinions.

 

Incidentally, Prince Charles has referred to his time at Gordonstoun school as "torture" because of the bullying, he called it "Colditz with kilts"

[aliceBB]

 

Incidentally, Prince Charles has referred to his time at Gordonstoun school as "torture" because of the bullying, he called it "Colditz with kilts"

 

He enjoyed it really

[mjw47]

I think it'll take far more than you can save by canning the Royals..

 

It would be a start though wouldn't it, and fall nicely into line with my diabolical treasonous plan. :suspect:

 

Also, every little helps.

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 18:13 ----------

 

Interesting, I'd just swear the oath, it doesn't mean you have to lick her boots. That's the thing with abstract principles, they harm you and nobody else notices.

 

The only team of any worth is Millwall surely? The Blades never earned a Panorama devoted to them.

 

You obviously have a different set of standards to many people. As I pointed out before, how can we trust you?

You have made it clear that you regard oaths and promises (which basically is what oaths are) as of no real importance.

You appear to be prepared to say anything to anyone if it is to your advantage.

 

Under those circumstances I would regard you as duplicitous and not able to be trusted with anything.

 

You may be nothing like that, but your cavalier attitude to giving your word gives that impression.

 

Millwall, that probably explains it.

 

And for your information the mighty Blades had a six week documentary about them on BBC 2 which culminated in them being promoted to the top division on the last day of the season at Leicester.

 

I was there, and still don't know who the zone man was.( Blade in joke)

[Bob England]

it depends on what the president's role is - if all the monarch's state duties were passed to the prime minister, would you even need a president?

 

if the monarch's current role was transferred to a president, presumably there would be an election

 

just another politician with his/her nose in the trough

 

Exactly, so we are better off with a royal family?

[mjw47]

Exactly, so we are better off with a royal family?

 

You royalists really are hard of understanding aren't you? How many times for God's sake?

 

It's got nothing to do with money.

 

It's about the principle of continuing with an antiquated anachronistic system which is divisive and reinforces class distinction and prejudice, which is detrimental to the future prosperity of the country.

 

The idea that in this day and age some people deserve automatic respect, privilege and deference for no other reason than accident of birth is ridiculous and embarrassing to the country.

 

People in other countries take an interest in royalty? You bet they do, in exactly the same way that people take an interest in Big Brother, Celebrity Get me out of Here and Britain's got Talent.

 

We take an interest in the USA, Movies, TV shows, Music, Sport and Politics, its natural, we live in a global village with a constant need for entertainment.

 

The royals provide it to foreigners, especially the Americans who find it quaint and amusing.

 

It's like Big Brother with crowns, tiaras, horses and marching bands. And they know on past performance it's every chance of going pear shaped at any time.

 

Wait til William takes a mistress, or Harry gets caught with his pants down again. Or Charles becomes King and starts interfering with every bloody thing, or Andrew meets another billionaire, he can't resist em you know.

 

What's not to like? Unless of course you belong to the country where these muppets reign and the laughs on you.

[harvey19]

I think where you are misunderstanding the pro monarchists view is that it is the institution that people like and are not too bothered about the individuals that it consists of.

I know this is not logical but think sentiment, romanticism and a sense of identity and belonging are the driving factors.

We will always have a class system with or without the Royal family.

[Qualtrough]

It would be a start though wouldn't it, and fall nicely into line with my diabolical treasonous plan. :suspect:

 

Also, every little helps.

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 18:13 ----------

 

 

You obviously have a different set of standards to many people. As I pointed out before, how can we trust you?

You have made it clear that you regard oaths and promises (which basically is what oaths are) as of no real importance.

You appear to be prepared to say anything to anyone if it is to your advantage.

 

Under those circumstances I would regard you as duplicitous and not able to be trusted with anything.

 

You may be nothing like that, but your cavalier attitude to giving your word gives that impression.

 

Millwall, that probably explains it.

 

And for your information the mighty Blades had a six week documentary about them on BBC 2 which culminated in them being promoted to the top division on the last day of the season at Leicester.

 

I was there, and still don't know who the zone man was.( Blade in joke)

 

I'd swear the oath and believe in it as I have no hang ups. I'm realistic enough to know that people such as MP's swear oaths to the queen while not believing in the monarchy. It doesn't affect their actions as they've effectively sworn an oath to the nation, they realise she is just a figurehead.

 

But you're right, with your black and white literal world view its probably better that the courts are spared your analyses.

 

The Blades have been a joke since the end of Basset's reign. Sad but true.

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 19:51 ----------

 

Your generalisations don't help much, I'm afraid. Just because somebody or something will be 'around for decades to come' doesn't mean they 'are the future'. The same could be said of the kids in Benefits Streets, but nobody claims they are the future. You claim they are supported by most people, which is probably true, but that doesn't make the monarchy right. Popularity is simply that - it does not equate to rightness. Public hangings, slavery, Jimmy Savile, Enoch Powell and Hitler were all very popular at one point - doesn't mean they were a Good Thing.

 

BTW I have no desire to 'inspire the masses'; I'm merely expressing my viewpoint and giving some arguments for it. If people agree with what I say, lovely. If they don't, also lovely. I don't flatter myself that it'll change the world.

 

Finally, please be reassured that I am not angry - I'm very calm, in fact. Why do people whose arguments are dismantled immediately assume the dismantler is angry?!

 

 

 

Well said that man!

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 17:47 ----------

 

 

Please explain the difference in practice between swearing an oath to the Queen and licking her boots, bearing in mind of course that one is a speech act and the other a metaphor.

 

In other words, what do you think 'licking her boots' actually involves, if not swearing your allegiance to her, ie promising to serve her? I would be interested to know how you can do one without agreeing to do the other.

 

You are proud, you believe you've dismantled my argument. Most people agree with me, that's all you need to remember.

 

As for your question, my reply, to quote the great Mr Blair, I'm not really bothered about that one.

[mjw47]

I think where you are misunderstanding the pro monarchists view is that it is the institution that people like and are not too bothered about the individuals that it consists of.

I know this is not logical but think sentiment, romanticism and a sense of identity and belonging are the driving factors.

We will always have a class system with or without the Royal family.

 

That is fair enough, if that's the way you think. What about the rest of us though?

 

Believe me we are not in a small minority, I'm knocking on a bit and worked for many years in a job that brought me into daily touch with new people. There are many people out there who think on similar lines to aliceBB and I.

In fact if there is a majority view I think it would be in the 'don't give a monkeys' sector.

 

As I posted earlier, unless we have been prepared to act hypocritically non royalists have been excluded from certain positions.

Many people do choose to compromise in order to work in their chosen job but they shouldn't have to.

I personally know two police officers who are anti royalist but had to take the oath.

 

We shouldn't have to, a choice should be offered where it is felt an oath is appropriate, swear to the Queen or alternatively swear to the Country.

 

That of course wouldn't be acceptable to royalists, what if someone kept score and the Country outnumbered the Queen?

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 20:00 ----------

 

I'd swear the oath and believe in it as I have no hang ups. I'm realistic enough to know that people such as MP's swear oaths to the queen while not believing in the monarchy. It doesn't affect their actions as they've effectively sworn an oath to the nation, they realise she is just a figurehead.

 

But you're right, with your black and white literal world view its probably better that the courts are spared your analyses.

 

The Blades have been a joke since the end of Basset's reign. Sad but true.

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 19:51 ----------

 

 

You are proud, you believe you've dismantled my argument. Most people agree with me, that's all you need to remember.

 

As for your question, my reply, to quote the great Mr Blair, I'm not really bothered about that one.

 

Where do you get the idea that I have a 'black and white world view'?

 

We have discussed one subject, Royalty, and from that you are able to deduce what my 'world view is?

 

You are giving Politicians as an example of standards of behaviour? You are getting funnier by the minute. :D

 

As to your comment to aliceBB.

 

'Most people agree with me.' That is a classic. Where was this poll taken?

[Qualtrough]

That is fair enough, if that's the way you think. What about the rest of us though?

 

Believe me we are not in a small minority, I'm knocking on a bit and worked for many years in a job that brought me into daily touch with new people. There are many people out there who think on similar lines to aliceBB and I.

In fact if there is a majority view I think it would be in the 'don't give a monkeys' sector.

 

As I posted earlier, unless we have been prepared to act hypocritically non royalists have been excluded from certain positions.

Many people do choose to compromise in order to work in their chosen job but they shouldn't have to.

I personally know two police officers who are anti royalist but had to take the oath.

 

We shouldn't have to, a choice should be offered where it is felt an oath is appropriate, swear to the Queen or alternatively swear to the Country.

 

That of course wouldn't be acceptable to royalists, what if someone kept score and the Country outnumbered the Queen?

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 20:00 ----------

 

 

Where do you get the idea that I have a 'black and white world view'?

 

We have discussed one subject, Royalty, and from that you are able to deduce what my 'world view is?

 

You are giving Politicians as an example of standards of behaviour? You are getting funnier by the minute. :D

 

As to your comment to aliceBB.

 

'Most people agree with me.' That is a classic. Where was this poll taken?

 

It's a daft cliche to say all MP's are bent. A black and white view. Your views on the royals are black and white. However refusing to pursue being a magistrate over swearing an oath to the queen is just cutting off your nose. Again, black and white as you can't see the grey area that allows you to swear an oath while not supporting the monarchy. You place yourself with Sinn Fein MP's.

 

Poll? Do you doubt that most people agree with me that the monarchy should stay? If you think otherwise then it is you who is funny.