glennpickard Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 I would be happy to send in a cheque for 69 pence, or 70P as the case may be. I don't believe its so much about the excess income over expenditures that the country gains from Royal and historical tourism, but which is positive for many in commerce. Its about the stability and background that we provide as an example, and why Commonwealth countries(and others) see this as real and workable in such a turbulent world. Change takes place in the UK, not from the barrel of a gun, but from persuasive arguments and the ballot box, which equals stability domestically, and dependability to allies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andbreathe Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 The monarchy helps UK tourism. Auschwitz-Birkenau also helps Polish tourism. The monarchy’s history equally has its hands dripping with blood....all provided by the subservient “subjects” who grovel and pay homage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewalk Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Just for a moment, forget about the expense etc. This is just a young man and a young woman, very much in love, promising before God to always care for each other and stay together. I think that's rather touching and beautiful. The rest is just froth. I wish them all the best, just as I would anyone else. Good Luck Jack and Eugenie. God is dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 God is dead Well he is for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads36 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 I would be happy to send in a cheque for 69 pence, or 70P as the case may be. I don't believe its so much about the excess income over expenditures that the country gains from Royal and historical tourism, but which is positive for many in commerce. Its about the stability and background ... and ... and as long as we keep supporting them we absolutely do not live in a meritocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glennpickard Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 A meritocracy definition says people advance on only ability, not social position or money. Its somewhat utopian, but good luck in finding what what you're looking for. One thing I would point out concerning ability in leaders in the UK's democracy. The Queen has in my opinion, an extraordinary ability to deal with situations and people from all walks of life, and does it so well. That's why I consider her to be a very significant asset to the UK and the Commonwealth, and part of the glue that holds the program together for us all. Should she be excluded from the country's asset list because she was born into wealth as you advocate ? I don't believe so. Some one mentioned that the "Monarchy has its history dripping with blood." Not the generation she represents, but if you want to tag her with all with the wars, torture, beheadings, actions going back to Richard lll, Henry Vlll etc, that happened centuries ago, you may have a case. But not so relevant in the 21s t century. Incidentally that happened with all States centuries ago, it was how business was done and disputes were settled in those days Poland and Auschwitz/Birkenau ? People are there because it is the best example to see today for States/countries of what not to do. Same with the "Model" plantations that have been preserved in the USA. They go there to remember history and be part of the group that says "Never again" when the despotic dictators reappear, which they are doing now. Quite the opposite of why they come to Buckingham Palace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 A meritocracy definition says people advance on only ability, not social position or money. Its somewhat utopian, but good luck in finding what what you're looking for. One thing I would point out concerning ability in leaders in the UK's democracy. The Queen has in my opinion, an extraordinary ability to deal with situations and people from all walks of life, and does it so well. That's why I consider her to be a very significant asset to the UK and the Commonwealth, and part of the glue that holds the program together for us all. Should she be excluded from the country's asset list because she was born into wealth as you advocate ? I don't believe so. Some one mentioned that the "Monarchy has its history dripping with blood." Not the generation she represents, but if you want to tag her with all with the wars, torture, beheadings, actions going back to Richard lll, Henry Vlll etc, that happened centuries ago, you may have a case. But not so relevant in the 21s t century. Incidentally that happened with all States centuries ago, it was how business was done and disputes were settled in those days Poland and Auschwitz/Birkenau ? People are there because it is the best example to see today for States/countries of what not to do. Same with the "Model" plantations that have been preserved in the USA. They go there to remember history and be part of the group that says "Never again" when the despotic dictators reappear, which they are doing now. Quite the opposite of why they come to Buckingham Palace I'm not sure it's an 'extraordinary ability.' She simply never says anything beyond, 'How do you do,' and 'Have you come far?' Never having an opinion on anything means she is never controversial, and it allows people to project their own views onto her. Personally, give me Prince Charles any day. At least he has something interesting to say, although it may well get him into trouble in the future.. As for the British Monarchy 'dripping with blood; you don't get a monarchy going back a thousand years without them being utterly ruthless. Our modern day monarchy are no different, they just hide it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steved32 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 It's the media portrayal that irks me. We had Dame Jenny Bond, and now the oily, sycophantic Witchell delivering his adoration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glennpickard Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 I believe she is discouraged publicly from pronouncing position on politics , history despots etc. I agree with the policy in that it may provide a contrast to the PM's office. But I am sure she has a private position that some will hear. Yes both the Duke and Charles have expressed opinions that may be termed as being outside the boundary, but they can look at things from a different perspective. With all the charity work that the family undertakes incl. the Queen, ie. current eg. Harry and the disabled games, I just don't see them as ruthless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 I believe she is discouraged publicly from pronouncing position on politics , history despots etc. I agree with the policy in that it may provide a contrast to the PM's office. But I am sure she has a private position that some will hear. Yes both the Duke and Charles have expressed opinions that may be termed as being outside the boundary, but they can look at things from a different perspective. With all the charity work that the family undertakes incl. the Queen, ie. current eg. Harry and the disabled games, I just don't see them as ruthless Good PR certainly. Meanwhile, behinf the scenes... 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