The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[cuttsie]

3 hours ago, m williamson said:

Apparently, other posters believe that you can be a reasonable contributor on some subjects, I'll take their word for it, I'm sure you can be.

However, when it comes to this particular subject you appear to have a blind spot which prevents you from understanding straight forward explanations.

I, and at least one other poster on here do not accept the position of the monarchy as far as our lives are concerned. We prefer Republics ( I'm a citizen of a Republic ) that being the case we believe that all people are born equal. That means that we don't accept that anyone is above us in any intrinsic way.

People fulfil different positions and that is fine, they serve a different function but nobody is above anybody. Obviously, some people think differently, they believe that someone by right of birth ( handed down from their ancestors who gained their position by killing people ) is 'born to reign over them'.

I think they should have more self respect, but it isn't anything to do with me how others live their lives, so let them carry on regardless.

 

What I would like however is a reciprocal attitude from monarchists. You appear unwilling to extend that courtesy, insisting that everyone must accept they have their ' betters ' .  above  them

 There is no scale on human worth, only in your mind, we are all equal.

Its strange that a citizen of such a non racial loving  all people republic chooses to live here in England , must be much better across the Irish sea .

[harvey19]

21 minutes ago, m williamson said:

You agree that one person is the equal of another? In which case in terms of equality no one is above or below anyone else, agreed?

I've already stated on more than one occasion that the king is Head of State in exactly the same way as the President of a Republic is.

Michael D Higgins is currently the Head of State of a country I am a citizen of.

That makes him the first citizen,  he's the equal of all other citizens and represents them internationally but isn't above any individual one of them he simply has the honour of representing them.

Exactly the same with Charles, he represents the other country I'm a citizen of as Head of State, which I recognised and accept and wish him well in that capacity. However I do not accept him as my king, I don't have a king. It's as simple as that. 

 

If you choose to join an organisation which has a structure whether it is military or a private corporation you accept the hierarchy involved during the period it applies to.  Once you leave the arrangement is over and no one is above you in any way. 

I have never been in the military and have never given an oath of allegiance. When I worked for other companies I understood and accepted the structure because when you are in paid employment that's how it works. However, I never believed anyone was above me other than in an organisational sense.

When I owned my own company it never occurred to me to consider myself above any employee other than in an organisational sense.

 

The monarchy doesn't work like that though does it? While having no actual connection with the family or any other aristocrats people in this country are expected by some to view the monarchy as intrinsically ' better ' and superior to hoi polloi.  This despite that  same hoi polloi paying for the monarchy in its taxes.

Well, many of us don't accept it  and that percentage is growing as people become more informed and less servile.

 

I have no king, try to accept that fact and we can end this ongoing debate which isn't getting us anywhere.

 

 

You are a citizen of the UK and therefore you have a King.

The King is "above others " whilst he holds that office.

As I have repeated several times it is the office the person holds that is above others. The person just embodies that office.

You have proved my point with your sentence starting "When I owned..." Our country is an organisation with the monarch at the head of it as you were in your company. When you left you were no longer above anyone in the organisation or society. If the King should abdicate He will no longer be Head of the Nation, look what happened to Edward when he abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson.

The monarchy is part of our country in legal and hereditary terms. All organisations and countries have structures and that is ours.

 

Try to view the subject with an open mind and no preconceived ideas and then you may understand.

Edited October 6, 2023 by harvey19

[m williamson]

24 minutes ago, cuttsie said:

Its strange that a citizen of such a non racial loving  all people republic chooses to live here in England , must be much better across the Irish sea .

I was expecting that, it's what losers come out with when they're out of ideas and lack the class to retire with a bit of dignity.

 

I'll live where I want to and no subservient person will tell me otherwise. I have lived and been educated in both England and Ireland,  I was born here and spent my working life here. During that time I was responsible for taking a risk, building a company employing people and contributing several million pounds to the UK taxman.

My English father served throughout WW2 and saw action in France, North Africa and Italy. My uncle served throughout WW1 in the Royal Navy and had a ship sunk under him by enemy fire.

Their first cousin served in the City of Sheffield Battalion of the York & Lancs and was killed at the age of 19 on the first day of the Somme offensive.

I visited my cousins grave in Luke Copse Cemetery Serre a few years ago and on the way back called in to see the beach at Dunkirk where my father spent five days in early June 1940.

No one gets to tell me where I should live.

 

You lost the argument and should have left it at that, but instead you've made yourself look pathetic. Very serf like 😂

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by m williamson

[harvey19]

12 minutes ago, m williamson said:

I was expecting that, it's what losers come out with when they're out of ideas and lack the class to retire with a bit of dignity.

 

I'll live where I want to and no subservient person will tell me otherwise. I have lived and been educated in both England and Ireland,  I was born here and spent my working life here. During that time I was responsible for taking a risk, building a company employing people and contributing several million pounds to the UK taxman.

My English father served throughout WW2 and saw action in France, North Africa and Italy. My uncle served throughout WW1 in the Royal Navy and had a ship sunk under him by enemy fire.

Their first cousin served in the City of Sheffield Battalion of the York & Lancs and was killed at the age of 19 on the first day of the Somme offensive.

I visited my cousins grave in Luke Copse Cemetery Serre a few years ago and on the way back called in to see the beach at Dunkirk where my father spent five days in early June 1940.

No one gets to tell me where I should live.

 

You lost the argument and should have left it at that, but instead you've made yourself look pathetic. Very serf like 😂

 

Your building company wasn't T.C. Williams was it by any chance ?

 

Do you think I posted the post about Ireland if so you need to pay more attention to the posters name and not rush in angrily.

If the post was aimed at me and the last line referred to me I think an apology from you is in order.

Edited October 6, 2023 by harvey19

[altus]

57 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

He awards commissionto  officers without the armed would not function.

Unless he assesses the candidates personally that's not making decisions.

 

Quote

King's regulations determine how the forces function.

What part did he, or his mum, play in the writing of these "King's regulations"? Or are they just the Army/Navy/Air Force regulations with "King's" put at the beginning in place of the name of the service?

 

 

You said "head who is responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation." So, what does he do to ensure "the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation."? How is he held to account if any of those things aren't ensured?

 

Turning up to present people with medals occasionally isn't in any meaningful sense being in charge of the armed forces. He doesn't get involved in decisions to go to war. He's a ceremonial figurehead.

[harvey19]

3 minutes ago, altus said:

Unless he assesses the candidates personally that's not making decisions.

 

What part did he, or his mum, play in the writing of these "King's regulations"? Or are they just the Army/Navy/Air Force regulations with "King's" put at the beginning in place of the name of the service?

 

 

You said "head who is responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation." So, what does he do to ensure "the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation."? How is he held to account if any of those things aren't ensured?

 

Turning up to present people with medals occasionally isn't in any meaningful sense being in charge of the armed forces. He doesn't get involved in decisions to go to war. He's a ceremonial figurehead.

You missed out the  line of my post  where it stops the armed forces being political so I take it that you agree with it.

Edited October 6, 2023 by harvey19

[altus]

3 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

You missed out the last line of my post so I take it that you agree with it.

You didn't reply to any of the points in my post so I take it you agree with it.

 

 

Earlier you put:

Quote

What would you like him to do ? Conduct room inspections ?

Some evidence that he is anything other than a ceremonial figurehead would do.

[harvey19]

1 minute ago, altus said:

You didn't reply to any of the points in my post so I take it you agree with it.

 

 

Earlier you put:

Some evidence that he is anything other than a ceremonial figurehead would do.

They weren't logical points . Mine was very logical and important.

[m williamson]

25 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

You are a citizen of the UK and therefore you have a King.

 

 

Try to view the subject with an open mind and no preconceived ideas and then you may understand.

The UK has a king, I do not.   Are you  saying that this isn't a free country? Are you saying that everyone  - no matter what their beliefs - has to conform to one belief?

 

Coming from you the reference to an open mind is hilarious!

 

 

[harvey19]

4 minutes ago, m williamson said:

The UK has a king, I do not.   Are you  saying that this isn't a free country? Are you saying that everyone  - no matter what their beliefs - has to conform to one belief?

 

Coming from you the reference to an open mind is hilarious!

 

 

You are a UK citizen.

The King is the head of the nation..

You can be a rebel in your own mind but in law you are only fooling yourself.

Again I would ask you to put aside your prejudices and look at the situation sensibly and with logic instead of emotion.

 

My post 2944 what is your response to that disgraceful last line.

Edited October 6, 2023 by harvey19