The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[hauxwell]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

Rest assured when the sad day happens and the Queen dies which I hope is many years away the monarchy will live on. 

Charles will make a good King with Camila by his side as Queen.

In the 70s people called him dotty because he talked about plastic waste in the oceans and pollution.  They laughed even louder when he said one day we will have to address this problem. How right he was.

This forward thinking man will do just fine when he is King .

Edited May 31, 2022 by hauxwell

[blackydog]

3 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

Its wrong.

What an absolute crock of,

You've made good, or lucky enough (yes lucky enough) to be born into a wealthy family and be able to give your Children a helping hand in life.

No stuff that. Limit child birth to 1 child per couple and ostracise them just as soon as you can.

Welcome to the Republic of 'They've  got more money than me, shouldn't be allowed'

 

God save the Queen  .

 

Why are you bringing things into the argument that I haven't said? 

I don't believe someone should be born to be head of state, many others think the same way. 

I notice many monarchists take this aggressive stance when challenged, because they don't really have an argument as to why they support the monarchy.

3 minutes ago, crookesey said:

Following his abdication he was appointed Governor of The Bahamas, which does not count as ‘leaving the country’.

I was more relating to the fact that the royal family inspired the nation to fight the enemy. Did Edward VIII inspire the country to fight the enemy?

[Dromedary]

31 minutes ago, blackydog said:

Not sure what jobs the two daughters of Prince Andrew do... That made me laugh.

I would not fight for a king or queen. I would defend myself and my family. It would not be for the benefit of so called royalty. I certainly would not be pledging any allegiance to them.

If you don't pledge your allegiance to them then you would not be fighting for you country.

 

Quote

"It is not really necessary to have a separate head of state as a substitution."

Don't understand what this is supposed to mean?

Some seem to think that if you get rid of royalty then you will then need another substitute head of state. What I was stating is that it's not necessary to have a separate head of state.

 

10 minutes ago, blackydog said:

Why should they have had the Crown estates in the first place?

Because that's how history made it so. 

 

Quote

Are you comfortable that they are exempt from certain laws of the land?

Such as?

Edited May 31, 2022 by Dromedary

[blackydog]

3 minutes ago, hauxwell said:

Charles will make a good King with Camila by his side as Queen.

In the 70s people called him dotty because he talked about plastic waste in the oceans and pollution.  They laughed even louder when he said one day we will have to address this problem. 

This forward thinking man will do just fine when he is 

I don't think he is dotty but neither do I think he is that intelligent.

Do you think that someone who is exempt from the freedom of information act, and other laws that apply to everyone else, is the right person to be king? Why does he need these exemptions you might ask?

Do you think he should be open about the cash for honours accusations?

 

If you don't mind me asking when has he proved that he would be a good king?

[Rockers rule]

1 minute ago, blackydog said:

Why are you bringing things into the argument that I haven't said? 

I don't believe someone should be born to be head of state, many others think the same way. 

I notice many monarchists take this aggressive stance when challenged, because they don't really have an argument as to why they support the monarchy.

While the 'anti Monarchists' think they are in the majority and the bull they spout will be unquestionably accepted.

[blackydog]

5 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

If you don't pledge your allegiance to them then you would not be fighting for you country.

 

Some seem to think that if you get rid of royalty then you will then need another substitute head of state. What I was stating is that it's not necessary to have a separate head of state.

 

Because that's how history made it so. 

 

Such as?

Then I would not be officially fighting for my country. I would make myself available. If they do not accept because I won't pledge allegiance to the monarchy, then so be it.

 

I don't know if it is necessary to have a separate head of state. I am saying if we are to have one, they should be democratically elected, not born into it.

 

History tells us the lands were "taken" by various means.

 

law exemptions.

 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/revealed-police-barred-from-searching-queens-estates-for-looted-artefacts

in short - Police have been barred from searching the Queen’s private estates for stolen or looted artefacts after ministers granted her a personal exemption from a law that protects the world’s cultural property

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32066511

in short - the Freedom of Information Act has been changed to make material relating to Prince Charles absolutely exempt

 

The queen is also able to keep her personal wealth and wills secret and is exempt from inheritance tax.

7 minutes ago, West 77 said:

That's an excellent point to make.  We also shouldn't forget that Prince Philip was one of the early  pioneers for the World Wild Life Fund and also founded the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme. 

I often wondered why they had a trophy hunter as their patron?

10 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

While the 'anti Monarchists' think they are in the majority and the bull they spout will be unquestionably accepted.

What bull have I spoken?

Facts, not your usual bluster.

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, blackydog said:

I said it is wrong that someone is born into a job.

The other bits about winning the lottery and helping family members, is of no relevance to what I said whatsoever. 

 

 

I don't believe she really meant it or much else she has to say. Her dedication is to keeping her family in power and wealth, nothing else.

I'm not saying things don't need to change, (they certainly do) after she goes, but leave her in peace for this last celebration.

[hauxwell]

9 minutes ago, blackydog said:

I don't think he is dotty but neither do I think he is that intelligent.

Do you think that someone who is exempt from the freedom of information act, and other laws that apply to everyone else, is the right person to be king? Why does he need these exemptions you might ask?

Do you think he should be open about the cash for honours accusations?

 

If you don't mind me asking when has he proved that he would be a good king?

I do believe he will be a good King and time will tell.  Look at some of  his charity's such as The Princes Trust. He cares about the younger generation.

I don't know anything about the cash for honours.  Has he been found guilty or is it just accusations?

[blackydog]

2 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I'm not saying things don't need to change, (they certainly do) after she goes, but leave her in peace for this last celebration.

Leave her in peace? I have not made any verbal attacks on the queen herself, but seeing as you mention it, I don't think she has done such a great job bringing up her family. Certainly not what I would expect from a family that are expected to be inspirational.

I would even be happy to join the "Jubilee" celebrations, if it coincided with the rightful changes to our ruling hierarchy.

[trastrick]

1 minute ago, blackydog said:

Unfortunately it is there among the worst problems in society, due to the class division it causes. 

As for her family not leaving the country and inspiring the nation, do you include Edward VIII in that?

Edward, like Harry, put his personal happiness before duty. So the Royalty daily grind of privilege, may be not all it's cracked up to be