Jump to content

Rembering World War One, where's the Queen?


Recommended Posts

 

Parliament can be bought! it has been proven.. Anyone with wealth can influence - look at Bernie Ecclestone!! he's just bought his way out of a nasty situation hasn't he!

 

Try buying your way onto the throne, and I don't mean the one at the back of Marks and Spencers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure there are many influential patrons who do this not just members of the Royal Family.. Do you not believe that some of our wealthiest countrymen do not have some sort of influence?
Once again, the existence of bigger problems (and I do acknowledge that our political parties are greatly influenced by the extremely wealthy) does not eliminate the need to be rid of lesser ones, otherwise we'd never get anything done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those "traditions" you keep harping on about weren't handed out to the populace like free bread or soup, they were imposed, and imposed with harsh penalties if you didn't bend. Those so called traditions weren't traditions, they were the rule of law with an iron fist. Sheep still bleat about how grateful we should be to our monarchy as they provided us with so much...like "tradition".

 

Do you know your history?

 

Royalty came from war! All the clans on the aisle had a 'king' and many wars were fought, the fiercest amongst them began to 'rule' over other clans as protectors and this continued until all the clans voted to make one person the one true KING or in modern times I believe we call them generals??

 

It was done through protection, the people of the day wanted to feel safe and the strongest men made up the armies and the 'general' who was respected for his fierceness and strength in warfare was hailed a hero and king by all in his kingdom..

 

This continued for many centuries, and the crown (battle helmet back then) was handed down to sons and so on... They were seen as protectors of the people - in the entire history of the Royal Family the majority of our past is of prosperity and peace and many good things came from past kings and queens that we should be thankful for today. Yes plenty of wars were fought and many people died but its 2014 and that's still going on!! and we can't blame the Royal family for that can we.

 

You ought to read up on Elizabeth the first, what she achieved for her men and country to see the good that she and her parliament of the day did. Banished slavery all the way back in the 16th Century! Brought peace to the land and the hand of friendship to Europe and further afield.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 16:51 ----------

 

Once again, the existence of bigger problems (and I do acknowledge that our political parties are greatly influenced by the extremely wealthy) does not eliminate the need to be rid of lesser ones, otherwise we'd never get anything done.

 

But I like having them!!!! :P

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 16:52 ----------

 

Try buying your way onto the throne, and I don't mean the one at the back of Marks and Spencers.

 

I haven't got two pennies to rub together! And if the throne at the back of marks and spencer's charges then I'm truly ****** :hihi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chelle-82

 

You keep going on about people knowing their history but you seem to have a somewhat confused and over romanticised view of history yourself.

 

Kings did not spring into being fully formed and accepted by the people.

 

The origination of the concept came about because two sets of people decided that rather than work for a living like the majority they would rather obtain their requirements by other means.

 

The first set gathered a like minded bunch of murderous thugs together and proceeded to operate a protection racket ,stealing what they wanted and demanding ongoing payment under the threat of death.

 

After a time they fine tuned this operation, gave each other fancy titles, forced the peasants to build them castles and introduced laws to prevent anyone doing to them what they had done to others.

 

The second set weren't as up for physical violence, so they preyed on the fear and superstition of the ordinary people by convincing them that whilst this life wasn't up to much ,they would guarantee them a better life after death.

 

Obviously, in order to obtain this, it was necessary to supply them also with the means of avoiding any real work.

 

We call this second set, the clergy.

 

When both sets got together and started backing each other up it got way past a joke.

 

Too late by then of course, many of the people had been conned into supporting the descendents of murderous thugs and con men and to this day appear to be happy to admire them enjoying the fruits of their ill gotten gains.

 

By the way, clans are either Irish or Scotish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was done through protection, the people of the day wanted to feel safe and the strongest men made up the armies and the 'general' who was respected for his fierceness and strength in warfare was hailed a hero and king by all in his kingdom..

 

Imagine it's a similar arrangement the mafia have, as they kindly 'protect' local businesses (for a fee ... 'or else').

 

It seems to me, more like, keeping the masses subjugated, while retaining their own position of influence and power over them ... and these days ... it's all done in a very subtle manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ought to read up on Elizabeth the first, what she achieved for her men and country to see the good that she and her parliament of the day did. Banished slavery all the way back in the 16th Century! Brought peace to the land and the hand of friendship to Europe and further afield.

 

I think you're the one who needs to do some reading up. Elizabeth I undertook numerous military invasions in France and Ireland at the centre of which was the issue of Catholicism against Protestantism. The French invasions were particularly inept and all failed.

 

As for her policy on slavery;

 

"Hawkins' personal profit from selling slaves was so huge that Queen Elizabeth I granted him a special coat of arms."

 

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2007/01/18/abolition_plymouth_slave_trade_feature.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You ought to read up on Elizabeth the first.

 

I have.

Like those before her and those that followed her we are ALL subjects of the Crown.

 

So, let's read up on "subjects". For a start what are the synonyms for the word..here you go:

 

accountable

inferior

liable

secondary

lower

minor

subservient

Enslaved

 

She didn't banish slavery,..show me where she did.

 

Ironic isn't it that slavery is abolished in the 1st world and yet you're born into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have.

Like those before her and those that followed her we are ALL subjects of the Crown.

 

 

Have to correct you there, I for one are no man, woman, or child's subject.

 

Subject = from the verb subjugate = to conquer and control.

 

I hold the passport of a Republic.

 

Having said which, I pay the same taxes, live under the same laws as the rest of you, so basically screwed just the same, but not a subject. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.