ronthenekred Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 The best slaves, are slaves who don't know they are slaves. You're not going to try escaping slavery, if you don't think you are one... Some (mostly it would seem) need to be mastered, some just desire to master themselves. I'm with jimmy and co on this, we need to dump this archaic crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 As is evident by the way this thread is now goingExactly, that's what the intention was. Other people may have hoped there would have been a thread where they had a chance to express their thoughts on those who fought in WW1, with it being the centenary. perhaps by mentioning someone from their own family, but just one glance on here would have put them off completely. Any opportunity the anti-monarchy brigade get to bash the royals, they'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Perhaps she did not attend the most public of these events because she knows we know that she is not the rightful monarch. http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/12/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-not-the-rightful-heir-to-the-throne-of-england You also have to consider that she is related to kaiser wilhelm II the then german emperor who's actions started WWI. So perhaps there is some guilt involved for the part her family played, though I doubt that. She could not even be bothered to send her son who IF he outlives her will be (wrongfully) crowned as our next king. She sent Diana's children to the main events, for reasons of her own. More guilt perhaps? I doubt we'll ever be told her motives. It would appear, that the millions who directly or otherwise gave their lives, health, and time, to resolve a conflict arising from an internal dispute 'royals' are now probably considered irrelevant by the royals and the other members 13 blood lines. Again, it would appear, that all that really matters is that most of so called elite got what they wanted and their lackeys saw to it that the common people did what was expected of them. Doubtless even this display of contempt for all the then common wealth citizens who gave so much will not be sufficient to get people to call for her abdication and an end to the monarchy. Thousands died in the 1600's to rid us of monarchs but sadly the establishment was allowed to re-impose this antiquated means of manipulating the masses. . . ---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 19:45 ---------- .................................................................................................................................................................. Any opportunity the anti-monarchy brigade get to bash the royals, they'll take it. As I said above... they are not even our rightful monarchs ... if you really feel you need one at least get the right one to kowtow to and hope you are all very happy together. . . ---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 20:08 ---------- .................................................................................................................................................. Let's get rid of Christmas then! Christianity has been abandoned by many in society and there are more and more atheists so what are we celebrating Christmas for? Is it because it's tradition? A little off topic; but I think not tradition more like our retailers need the profits generated by it. christmas is now the festival of credit. The unwitting faithful go to the temples of debt like meadowhall where they use their plastic icons to pay homage to the gods of the consumer society. Ironically the more homage they pay the harder they will find things the following year. Have you not noticed that the christian religious symbolism has almost disappeared entirely, look at the ublic or the shops' christmas decorations where are the religious icons, yu are hard put to get hold of a religious or nativity related card. Santa, invented by coke-a-cola deposed st nick, bambi created by walt dysney and various other commercial cartoon characters by all and sundry, hanna montana, hello kitty, wtf. holly & mistletoe rooted in pagansim as is the very date we use to celebrate the birth of this so called christ. Don't get me wrong, the victorian concept of christmas and how it should be celebrated was basically good and mostly well intended but as you say most of us are atheists now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Perhaps she did not attend the most public of these events because she knows we know that she is not the rightful monarch. http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/12/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-not-the-rightful-heir-to-the-throne-of-england You also have to consider that she is related to kaiser wilhelm II the then german emperor who's actions started WWI. So perhaps there is some guilt involved for the part her family played, though I doubt that. If it's a case of guilt then she's left it a bit late. Like us mere mortals she's probably suffering from old age aches and pains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorphanger Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Well! a Big Service at Westminster, Cameron will be there job lot but not the Queen, she has sent Sonny boy Charlie along instead, what an Insult to the all the Fallen, well after all I can see her point, it's not that Importantant these people only LOST their lives fighting for KING AND COUNTRY, my God people need to look at this Arrogant Royal Family, if it hadn't have been for the Brave who fought and lost their lives there wouldn't be a Royal Family. I can't stand em. What a load of nonsense as other people on this thread have said members of the Royal family were at numerous events all over the country and the Queen was at a service in Scotland. Why is it an insult to the fallen that Prince Charles was at the service in Westminster Abbey he is after all our future King. Britain has been intertwined with the Royal family and the pride that loyal soldiers feel for them whether they be First World War soldiers, Second World War or present day soldiers is undeniable and what you are trying to say is absolutely stupid. Maybe move to Russia where they don't have a Royal family.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 .....a conflict arising from an internal dispute. All those history books I've read and I've missed this every time. Next theory - WW2 caused by noisy neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 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. What!!!!!!!!!!!!! ---------- Post added 07-08-2014 at 10:35 ---------- I'm always up for being informed but I doubt you're the right person for it. Although in layman's terms mjw47 and Waldo have summed up the reality as an answer, you would take heed to note. OK I'll give my degree back then!!!! ---------- Post added 07-08-2014 at 10:44 ---------- 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 When you sit and study in libraries for 6 yrs on this subject please come back with facts! Do not post something you have found on Wikipedia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 What!!!!!!!!!!!!! ---------- Post added 07-08-2014 at 10:35 ---------- ---------- Post added 07-08-2014 at 10:44 ---------- Yes !!!!!!!!!!!! The word clan is derived from the Gaelic word clanna which means children, it was used to denote family connection. It has been used in other circumstances to try to explain relationships and I have even heard it used in reference to Afghanistan in an attempt to explain their complicated tribal system. Originally though Irish and Scots and to use it as you did in an English context is incorrect. http://www.thorewing.net/clans/clanorigins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
projection Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Just a general point about the ending of slavery and all the other horrible things we have freed ourselves from over the years.. oops! I've just made the point.. freed ourselves! people in power never do good things or have done good things like that, things like the ending of slavery was campaigned for by good people who saw the harsh realities this caused, again people in power do not just wake up one day and say 'I'm going to be nice now no more slavery for you!' freedoms like that are fought for and are taken away from the ones in power by force and they always have, be that an emphatic or a physical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Just a general point about the ending of slavery and all the other horrible things we have freed ourselves from over the years.. oops! I've just made the point.. freed ourselves! people in power never do good things or have done good things like that, things like the ending of slavery was campaigned for by good people who saw the harsh realities this caused, again people in power do not just wake up one day and say 'I'm going to be nice now no more slavery for you!' freedoms like that are fought for and are taken away from the ones in power by force and they always have, be that an emphatic or a physical one. Good post, totally agree. Left to their own devices the powerful will always seek more power, and the more they get the more they will abuse it. ' Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' Lord Acton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.