Jump to content

Harry "No Royal wants to be King or Queen"


Recommended Posts

No, I'm not suggesting replacing anything with anything else.

But hereditary Heads of State have the huge advantages of stability, non-politicality, and automaticity.

 

And elected heads of state have the far more democratic advantage of being replaceable by democratic vote should they prove unsatisfactory.

 

Prince Andrew, who is a useless self regarding nonentity who received £15 million from a dodgy Kazakh Billionaire for a property worth £12 million was at one time only two heart beats away from being King and head of State of the United Kingdom.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiVsbfqhtLUAhWqJcAKHemRBVYQFgg2MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk%2F2010%2Fnov%2F29%2Fprince-andrew-kazakh-billionaire&usg=AFQjCNEBxx46uqY6LMqr-8wXdWzg7Zt-JA

 

Monarchy in this day and age is an anachronistic archaic nonsense which should be confined to the history books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you believe this statement? In my dreams....

I think its time to abolish the monarchy and make this country a fairer society for all, not just a haven and beneficial for the rich...

 

Tell us how you would achieve a fairer society for all then, let me guess, you want to take off the 'go getters' and give it to the 'cant be arsed' mob :suspect:

 

How are the royals 'go getters?' They're born into that position, and even by the admission of Harry, they can't be arsed to take the top job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hereditary Heads of State have the huge advantages of stability, non-politicality, and automaticity.

 

What utter drivel..

 

French Revolution

Russian revolution

American revolution

WW1

Iranian revolution

 

An endless list actually

 

The result of Royalty isn't defined by "stability" it's defined by appeasement, capitulation, cringing, defeatism, docility, obedience, passivism, resignation, servility, subjection, submissiveness, yielding.

 

Some just can't move forward without the need to look to someone and by definition not being able to look to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they don't want to be Royal. There are plenty of people much richer than them living the life of Riley and enjoying their money. The poor old Royals have to mind their Ps and Qs, be seen to be on their best behaviour at all times, are very restricted in what they can do, and have to do endless visits and handshaking every day. They'd rather be free, and rich.

 

Mind you, offer them a council house and benefits instead and they might change their minds....

 

I can imagine Charles on a building site contemplating wether his mashing can needs a clean and deciding to ask if some one can help.

 

Andy would demand to drive the dumper truck and also use it to go on private trips to Blackpool on bank holidays .

 

Comelia would be good at scrubbing the new build houses out , fag in gob ,spice int pinafore pocket an turbin fastened wi a big safety pin .

 

All cash hand so as not to have to pay any taxes of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, you just filled in all the blanks on your mad as a hatter résumé.

 

Not Mad, just one of the very few people in this country who cares about the planet and the future of mankind.

Shame there aren't more people like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are the royals 'go getters?' They're born into that position, and even by the admission of Harry, they can't be arsed to take the top job!

 

Go back and read the post, your taking it out of context, I did not infer what you are making out with that comment, the op posted this:

 

Can you believe this statement? In my dreams....

I think its time to abolish the monarchy and make this country a fairer society for all, not just a haven and beneficial for the rich...

 

My point was that there are plenty of rich people who are rich because they are 'go getters' and there are plenty of poor people who are poor because they 'can't be arsed', there is everything in between of course, but if someone's ideology is to equate us all by robbing the wealthy they are beyond deluded !

If we all started out tomorrow with nothing, there would be those who achieve and those who don't, the strongest and the fittest will always lead the way, sorry to burst those delusions.

Edited by Michael_W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back and read the post, your taking it out of context, I did not infer what you are making out with that comment, the op posted this:

 

 

 

My point was that there are plenty of rich people who are rich because they are 'go getters' and there are plenty of poor people who are poor because they 'can't be arsed', there is everything in between of course, but if someone's ideology is to equate us all by robbing the wealthy they are beyond deluded!

If we all started out tomorrow with nothing, there would be those who achieve and those who don't, the strongest and the fittest will always lead the way, sorry to burst those delusions.

 

I have never said anything about robbing the wealthy and I'm not deluded, wanting a fairer society for all to help to make this a better world for all to live in.

Unfortunately, the world we live in is in such a mess, the capitalist system we live in, isn't working.

There is so much greed, resentment and hatred in people between those who have nothing and those who have everything, thats why we have so much corruption, greed, conflicts and wars.

It just shows how uncivilised humans are when we can't learn from the past.

I dread to think what will happen in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never said anything about robbing the wealthy and I'm not deluded, wanting a fairer society for all to help to make this a better world for all to live in.

Unfortunately, the world we live in is in such a mess, the capitalist system we live in, isn't working.

There is so much greed, resentment and hatred in people between those who have nothing and those who have everything, thats why we have so much corruption, greed, conflicts and wars.

It just shows how uncivilised humans are when we can't learn from the past.

I dread to think what will happen in the future.

 

Yet you have no idea really how to make the world a fairer place, you call the capitalist system but fail to tell us your utopian alternative, if the success of others makes you resentful you have the problem, just how much wealth do you create to enable you to realistically help others less fortunate ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.