The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[m williamson]

23 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Once again you give a personal opinion and not the facts of the matter. Your moral view changes nothing in reality, just satisfies you.

Your dislike and opposition changes nothing legally.

My wife and had had a good chat to the President of Malta who requested a photographer to photograph us together.

My cousin had a memorial garden built to her daughter in Barbados where they holidayed together. At the opening there was the Canadian Ambassador and President? of Barbados amongst the guests. We all chatted together informally in a friendly way.

I quote the above to prove I do not bow and scrape to dignitaries but realise their position in society.

The president of Barbados and the Canadian ambassador are not in positions where anyone has to bow to them.  Presidents of  Republics do not require anyone to bow to them,  anachronistic monarchies still existing in various countries require such subservience.

 

It changes everything as far as I and my like minded fellow citizens are concerned.  The monarchy reinforces the antiquated idea that some people are born to tell hoi polloi what to do and how to live their lives. That is detrimental to the county's welfare. It has been clearly demonstrated over the past number of years that the Public School educated so called upper class establishment are nowhere near as bright as they'd like everyone to believe. Despite which there is a built in advantage to the privately educated denied to the rest of the population. Sixty five percent of the cabinet are privately educated and they are next to useless.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that there is potential danger in the current archaic arrangement? The state authorities pledge allegiance to the sovereign, not the country. The sovereign can literally get away with murder. https://britishheritage.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-murder

The military, police force and judiciary are all subservient to the king. What would happen if following **** up after **** up on the political front the king decided enough was enough and ordered those who's allegiance he holds to take control of the country?

Never happen you say? How can you guarantee that?  Maybe not this king but who knows what's coming down the line? It only takes one unhinged narcissist or weak character with people whispering in their ear.

 

The Oath of Allegiance should be to the country or the constitution ( If we had a written one ) and the Head of State should swear that oath when being inaugurated.

[hackey lad]

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

Go and play little boy.

😂😂😂 Brilliant riposte .  Stuck for words ?

[PRESLEY]

1 minute ago, m williamson said:

The president of Barbados and the Canadian ambassador are not in positions where anyone has to bow to them.  Presidents of  Republics do not require anyone to bow to them,  anachronistic monarchies still existing in various countries require such subservience.

 

It changes everything as far as I and my like minded fellow citizens are concerned.  The monarchy reinforces the antiquated idea that some people are born to tell hoi polloi what to do and how to live their lives. That is detrimental to the county's welfare. It has been clearly demonstrated over the past number of years that the Public School educated so called upper class establishment are nowhere near as bright as they'd like everyone to believe. Despite which there is a built in advantage to the privately educated denied to the rest of the population. Sixty five percent of the cabinet are privately educated and they are next to useless.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that there is potential danger in the current archaic arrangement? The state authorities pledge allegiance to the sovereign, not the country. The sovereign can literally get away with murder. https://britishheritage.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-murder

The military, police force and judiciary are all subservient to the king. What would happen if following **** up after **** up on the political front the king decided enough was enough and ordered those who's allegiance he holds to take control of the country?

Never happen you say? How can you guarantee that?  Maybe not this king but who knows what's coming down the line? It only takes one unhinged narcissist or weak character with people whispering in their ear.

 

The Oath of Allegiance should be to the country or the constitution ( If we had a written one ) and the Head of State should swear that oath when being inaugurated.

And the National Anthem should be about its Nation.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, m williamson said:

 

The Oath of Allegiance should be to the country or the constitution ( If we had a written one ) and the Head of State should swear that oath when being inaugurated.

That's my view too and that is what this country will have in the none too distant future.

The young people of today will never respect that pantomime and the monarchy's days are numbered.

 

4 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

And the National Anthem should be about its Nation.

That's absolutely correct and not about a bunch of freeloaders.

That will come too.

[PRESLEY]

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

That's my view too and that is what this country will have in the none too distant future.

The young people of today will never respect that pantomime and the monarchy's days are numbered.

 

CORRECT. 

[harvey19]

17 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

This is the last time I'm telling you,  that we have had that argument before and you lost that time too.

You just carry on bending over for your betters whilst I carry on enjoying my self respect.

You are not reinforcing any points because I'm laughing at you and your servile ways.

Insults prove you have lost the argument.

Remind me what you said about taking a lifetime oath and saluting, I don’t think you answered then.

[harvey19]

17 minutes ago, m williamson said:

The president of Barbados and the Canadian ambassador are not in positions where anyone has to bow to them.  Presidents of  Republics do not require anyone to bow to them,  anachronistic monarchies still existing in various countries require such subservience.

 

It changes everything as far as I and my like minded fellow citizens are concerned.  The monarchy reinforces the antiquated idea that some people are born to tell hoi polloi what to do and how to live their lives. That is detrimental to the county's welfare. It has been clearly demonstrated over the past number of years that the Public School educated so called upper class establishment are nowhere near as bright as they'd like everyone to believe. Despite which there is a built in advantage to the privately educated denied to the rest of the population. Sixty five percent of the cabinet are privately educated and they are next to useless.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that there is potential danger in the current archaic arrangement? The state authorities pledge allegiance to the sovereign, not the country. The sovereign can literally get away with murder. https://britishheritage.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-murder

The military, police force and judiciary are all subservient to the king. What would happen if following **** up after **** up on the political front the king decided enough was enough and ordered those who's allegiance he holds to take control of the country?

Never happen you say? How can you guarantee that?  Maybe not this king but who knows what's coming down the line? It only takes one unhinged narcissist or weak character with people whispering in their ear.

 

The Oath of Allegiance should be to the country or the constitution ( If we had a written one ) and the Head of State should swear that oath when being inaugurated.

All irrelevant.

The monarch is head of state . We are members of that state so the monarch is above us.

I can’t put it any simpler for you.

39 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

My Lord , some of you on here  Hate the Royal family , hate the Government , hate Trump . Hope you don't hate me for pointing this out .

You forgot Brexit.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Insults prove you have lost the argument.

That's just your opinion

Remind me what you said about taking a lifetime oath and saluting, I don’t think you answered then.

Can't remember my saying anything to  you about my taking the oath.

I also, can't remember saying anything about saluting except when I was a little kid.

I used to salute Colonel Custer at that time too but I don't feel any allegiance to him today.

In fact,  the US cavalry men I respected as a kid,  I feel shame for now for their treatment of the native Americans.

You see,  as you grow up,  things are still the same but your opinions can change as your knowledge and understanding  improves.

Unfortunately,  some never get to grow up. and want to stay a boot licker until they die.    Completely up to you   -   I don't mind.

I do get that you still think the same as you did when you were 8 years old.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Organgrinder

[harvey19]

4 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Can't remember my saying anything to  you about my taking the oath.

I also, can't remember saying anything about saluting except when I was a little kid.

I used to salute Colonel Custer at that time too but I don't feel any allegiance to him today.

In fact,  the US cavalry men I respected as a kid,  I feel shame for now for their treatment of the native Americans.

You see,  as you grow up,  things are still the same but your opinions can change as your knowledge and understanding  improves.

Unfortunately,  some never get to grow up. and want to stay a boot licker until they die.    Completely up to you   -   I don't mind.

 

It is a well known fact that when a person starts to throw insults  they have lost the argument.

Because of your and Mr. William sons dislike of the monarchy you have lost the focus of the debate.

The debate was based on the sentence that the Monarchy is above us.

Yes is the simple answer.

No need to express your dislike or hopes for the future. Just accept the fact  and maybe that you wish it wasn’t.

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

It is a well known fact that when a person starts to throw insults  they have lost the argument.

Because of your and Mr. William sons dislike of the monarchy you have lost the focus of the debate.

The debate was based on the sentence that the Monarchy is above us.

Yes is the simple answer.

No need to express your dislike or hopes for the future. Just accept the fact  and maybe that you wish it wasn’t.

 

It's a well known fact that when harvey is losing a debate,  he invents some well known facts to prove he's right.

I neither have nor need any interest in focus because I am stating one simple fact    - 

  that none of the monarchy are any better than I am.    I will accept them as my equals although none of them have proved that yet.

As a result,    none of them is above me and never will be.

I don't know why you keep bringing  "like & dislike"   into it    because that has nothing at all to do with it.

I also have not publicly insulted them, or privately for that matter but,  they mean absolutely nothing to me and to a growing number like myself.

Get back to your boot licking now.