Harleyman Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Please don't fall for the right wing propaganda. Women were asked/expected to volunteer for some form of service from 1941. Princess Elizabeth joined a few months before the end of the war in 1945, and she never slept in barracks like the rest of the girls, but went home every night to luxury. The famous footage shown of her working on a van, made sure that every girl around her during that time was fully vetted and of the 'right sort', before she could join them in that class. It's no different to the royal propaganda we've seen about William and Harry, packing food for the starving or Tsunami victims. They do their bit for the camera for their own publicity. Please don't be so naive as to think we all fall for such propaganda. They have a role in life, GET WELL PAID for it and have the best of everything, including having someone run their bath and put toothpaste on their toothbrush, it's pathetic! I don't begrudge The Queen, but the lesser Royals we could do without. Prince Harry and Princess Margaret and Prince Andrew seemed to have a hell of a time, with none of the responsibilities. Who says anyone runs their bath water and puts paste on their tooth brushes? That sounds far fetched. Probably an extract from the opinion column in the Daily Worker. Perhaps William and Harry only do acting jobs for the camera and the publicity but at least they make people aware of the misfortunes of victims of Tsunamis and hunger and starvation and perhaps because of that some people better than us will donate or volunteer help themselves. Have you yourself packed food or dome anything to help those people? I haven't. I'm just like most other people. See it on the news and then forget about it I agree that some of the relatives could be dropped from the Civil List but I abhor the attacks on an old woman who cannot defend herself. The Queen has served as an excellent ambassador for Britain, probably far more liked by foreign leaders than some of the British political leaders who may get a handshake but as soon as backs are turned get a quick finger flip off ---------- Post added 15-06-2015 at 21:50 ---------- I don't need to have a clue..you're just gibbering clueless nonsense as usual. You sound like some banned idiot who has returned under another name. No more time to waste on a p......g contest with you. Get lost ---------- Post added 15-06-2015 at 22:00 ---------- So much respect.. next plane for north korea departing soon feel free to jump on it if dont want to be here. And take a few others with him. I could see these particular brand of anti-monarchists whinging and sniveling their heads off if a different kind of head of state was appointed in her place. He's not Labour wah!! wah! wah! big baby tears. If it's not what I like then it's not fair. Very childish Edited June 15, 2015 by Harleyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 She doesn't have the common citizen's right to verbally retaliate either nor even voice an opinion on most if not all subjects. Nor do we as we are subjects of the Queen and not citizens. As the spitting image puppet used to say "I'm the Queen, what do you do?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Nor do we as we are subjects of the Queen and not citizens. As the spitting image puppet used to say "I'm the Queen, what do you do?" You live in a democracy. Your rights of free speech are protected. Subjects, citizens? Splitting hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 You live in a democracy. Your rights of free speech are protected. Subjects, citizens? Splitting hairs. So your Obama's subject? Presidents never say "My people. My subjects". "Splitting hairs" are unimportant only when you have no clue as to what you're babbling on about. Luckily you're not a subject to anyone, a bitch to 'the man' is likely though...now touch yer toes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zinger549 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 It's nice but some of it is a bit over the top. On the plus side the flypast goes over our house. It's amazing standing out in the garden seeing spitfires, red arrows ect. We had Concord fly over one year as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) You forget matey that I was born and raised in Sheffield. I know all about the whining sniveling far lefty Socialist attitude to anyone who was better off financially.. I like the Yankee one better. "I may not be as rich as that guy now but one day I will be" Sitting on one's arse moaning about "class inequality" these days only points to that person being a loser. Not an admirable trait There's nothing wrong in being anti-monarchist either. I've read plenty of intelligent posts on the SF over the idea of having a Republican form of government. It's the hatred and vitriol directed at an old woman who served her country nobly for so long including service in a woman's auxiliary unit during WW2. She doesn't deserve that. She doesn't have the common citizen's right to verbally retaliate either nor even voice an opinion on most if not all subjects. Show me where I've ever expressed hatred or vitriol towards the queen. You won't be able to because I never have. I have no strong feelings about her at all I don't know her. I am disgusted by her position as head of state but have nothing against her whatsoever. You don't know me, and your continued attempts to paint me as some sort of stereotype you apparently remember from your time in Sheffield from before I was even born makes you look a little stupid, you even apparently think I'm a Labour supporter. Edited June 16, 2015 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 You live in a democracy. Your rights of free speech are protected. Subjects, citizens? Splitting hairs. Our royal family is not democratically elected. It schemed and murdered its way to where it now is. No Catholics allowed by the way but a first-born female is no longer passed over for the male heir. Such progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 You live in a democracy. Your rights of free speech are protected. Subjects, citizens? Splitting hairs. But they are not protected as well as you seem to think. Citizens in the USA have better protection than we have. And its not splitting hairs as there is a vast difference between being a citizen and subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 ]Our royal family is not democratically elected. It schemed and murdered its way to where it now is[/b]. No Catholics allowed by the way but a first-born female is no longer passed over for the male heir. Such progress. The royals only continued to exist because the people wanted it that way. I'm English myself but the problem with the English is that back in history when the monarchy was a powerful tyranny of sorts the English never had the balls that the French and the American colonists did to get rid of it. I don't count Cromwell's brief rule as the Restoration quickly followed. I find it a bit childish that people get upset over being called subjects in one of the world's leading democracies. Get something worthwhile to gripe about instead. I'm not a subject of Obama but I am a subject/ supporter/voter of the Democrat party. Take your pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Please don't fall for the right wing propaganda. Women were asked/expected to volunteer for some form of service from 1941. Princess Elizabeth joined a few months before the end of the war in 1945, and she never slept in barracks like the rest of the girls, but went home every night to luxury. The famous footage shown of her working on a van, made sure that every girl around her during that time was fully vetted and of the 'right sort', before she could join them in that class. It's no different to the royal propaganda we've seen about William and Harry, packing food for the starving or Tsunami victims. They do their bit for the camera for their own publicity. Please don't be so naive as to think we all fall for such propaganda. They have a role in life, GET WELL PAID for it and have the best of everything, including having someone run their bath and put toothpaste on their toothbrush, it's pathetic! I don't begrudge The Queen, but the lesser Royals we could do without. Prince Harry and Princess Margaret and Prince Andrew seemed to have a hell of a time, with none of the responsibilities. Wonderful time for Princess Margaret? She's been dead for years, perhaps from having too good a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now