67 replies to this topic

[Coffey]

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 January 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Because Britain is a constitutional monarchy.

That's rubbish and you know it. We pay our taxes to a Central bank. That bank owns the UK. It controls our money. We then have an idiotic government who "runs" the country. Always between a few chosen rich boys who don't know anything about being "British". Where does the Royal family come into our messed up system?

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 January 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

I'd rather have a monarch as Head of State than a second-rate politician like Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Obama.  And I'm sure most Britons will agree with me.

Do they really? Then why do these second rate politicians get voted into power and why do they run our country then?

You will find if you come out of your bubble world you would see that most Brits don't care about the Monarchy at all. They only use them as an excuse to have a day of work and get wasted.

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 January 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Do they ACTUALLY look inbred or are you just seeing things?

I'd bet on the latter.

100% look it.

A lot of rich people look inbred, because they where. Their descendants wanted to keep a strong blood line. (ironically)

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 January 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

So just because her parents worked hard in good jobs and made a lot of money to be able to afford to give their daughters a good education makes them royals, does it?

Not the point at all, and you have no evidence that they where not born into riches dating back to a corrupt person. But as I said not the point, my point was the media and the royal fmaily etc making out that Kate was common as though Will was marrying someone "normal". It was a load of rubbish.

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

It's a pity for you that hardly anyone in Britain agrees with you.

Give me a King or Queen as Head of State rather than some politician anyday of the week, thank you very much.

HAHAHAHA, but they don't do anything, certainly for you. I ahte the politicians just as much, probably more than you. But they run our country not the royal family, which means the royal family do nothing for our country.

Lord Vetinari, on 22 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

I've got nothing against the Royals, the Queen (and Wills once he gets the job, I'm sure) are infinitely preferable to a power-hungry Politician or an incompetent bumbler like the present and the previous Prime Minister, but all this dickering about medieval titles and so on is all a bit of an irrelevance, isn't it. And all this nonsense about whether or not it should be illegal for a Catholic to be on the throne. These may have been importnat issues 300 years ago, but come on now. Rather like the Church of England, which just spends all its time bickering about whether women should be bishops.

The Royal family are not running the country though. The politicians are. (Well the central bank is really, it owns Britain)

Edited by Coffey, 22 January 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[rashore]

I think it's nice that the tradition is getting up to speed as far as females are concerned.

I also think it's pretty funny that a lot of U.S. folk do have a drop or few of royal or noble decent running in them. I've seen some estimates that up to half the population could probably trace back an ancestor.

[Leave Britney alone!]

I approve of both the modern monarchy, their storied past, and their acceptance of progress. Yes, allow the girl to be Princess and one day Queen!

[WoIverine]

"I'm sorry Mario, but your princess is in another castle."

[OverSword]

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 January 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Please stop trying to impose 21st Century behaviour onto a 16th Century person.  They were completely different times.

This is not speaking ill of your monarchy by pointing out that Henry's behaviour was judged as less than moral by most of the world while he was still alive, so don't try to act like he wasn't a fairly evil and greedy individual.  How many of your own ancestoral peasant countrymen did he have hanged for disagreening with what they perceived as him jeapordizing thier immortal souls just so he could groundlesly divorce his queen?  Don't bother answering because his behaviour can't be justified considering he left no male hier.

Edited by OverSword, 22 January 2013 - 07:01 PM.

[rashore]

OverSword, on 22 January 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

This is not speaking ill of your monarchy by pointing out that Henry's behaviour was judged as less than moral by most of the world while he was still alive, so don't try to act like he wasn't a fairly evil and greedy individual.  How many of your own ancestoral peasant countrymen did he have hanged for disagreening with what they perceived as him jeapordizing thier immortal souls just so he could groundlesly divorce his queen?  Don't bother answering because his behaviour can't be justified considering he left no male hier.

Um, Henry did leave a male heir, Edward the 6th. He was not king for very long.

[ealdwita]

OverSword, on 22 January 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

  
Don't bother answering because his behaviour can't be justified considering he left no male hier.

So whose son was Edward VI then?

(Beat me to it, Rashore)

He reigned for 6 and a half years BTW

Edited by ealdwita, 22 January 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

As a part of the commonwealth, with the queen as my head of state, i would like to point out that the highest court in the land is the Privy Council. The Privy Council is separate from both the courts and parliament, and (in theory) is made up by people appointed by the reigning Monarch. In my country the Privy Council has overturned a few decisions by the high court and plays a valuable part in our system.

Without a monarch there would be no Privy Council and we would have a worse form of democracy.

I also believe that the Queen can be a rallying post in situations where the elected politicians do not obey the public (if that situation ever truely arrives). As the Queen has the final say in many aspects of government (albeit, this is now only "symbolic") she can effectively dissolve parliament and call the commonwealth to arms. I trust her to stand up for her subjects more than i trust politicians to stand up for their constituants.

[OverSword]

rashore, on 22 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Um, Henry did leave a male heir, Edward the 6th. He was not king for very long.

I stand corrected.  And did he leave an hier or am I mistaken to note that it was a female child of Henry from who the current royal family is descended?

[Leave Britney alone!]

The Royal Family did so much for their country during WW2. They didn't run and hide in the country when their subjects were being bombarded. They served!

Our modern leaders could learn a lot from the Royals.

[Taun]

"It should be noted that there have been far more Kings and Queens in history, than there have been Presidents or Prime Ministers - and the vast majority have been effective and beneficial rulers..."

I wish I could remember who made that quote originally - I believe it was H. Beam Piper, but I'm not sure... Anyway i fully agree with it...

[rashore]

OverSword, on 22 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

I stand corrected.  And did he leave an hier or am I mistaken to note that it was a female child of Henry from who the current royal family is descended?

Nope, Edward had no children. Yep, there was a female child, Elizabeth. Nope, she is not the ancestor to the current royal family, she didn't have any children either. If I'm not mistaken, it was Henrys elder sisters son that took the throne after that.

[ealdwita]

rashore, on 22 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Nope, Edward had no children. Yep, there was a female child, Elizabeth. Nope, she is not the ancestor to the current royal family, she didn't have any children either. If I'm not mistaken, it was Henrys elder sisters son that took the throne after that.

Elizabeth's successor was James IV of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband (and first cousin), Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. He became James I of England and his succession to the English Crown gave rise to the Union of the Crowns on 24th.March 1603. Both Mary and Darnley laid claim to the succession by virtue of their descent from Henry VII through Margaret Tudor (as rashore says - Henry VIII's elder sister).

Edited by ealdwita, 22 January 2013 - 10:55 PM.

[rashore]

ealdwita, on 22 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Elizabeth's successor was James IV of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. He became James I of England and his succession to the English Crown gave rise to the Union of the Crowns on 24th.March 1603. Both Mary and Darnley laid claim to the succession by virtue of their descent from Henry VI (Great Grandfather)

Whoops, I stand corrected. I'm pretty good with the Henry into Elizabeth, but apparently I had a serious brain fart after that. I wasn't recalling my history too well when I typed. Thank you ealdwita As always, you know this information hands down.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Coffey, on 22 January 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

That's rubbish and you know it.

Is it?  I always thought Britain was a constitutional monarchy.  

Quote

Do they really?

Yep.  Republicanism is almost non-existent in Britain because most Britons don't want a republic.

Quote

Then why do these second rate politicians get voted into power and why do they run our country then?

The monarch is our Head of State, not any of those politicians.

I would rather have a monarch as Head of State than a politician.

Quote

You will find if you come out of your bubble world you would see that most Brits don't care about the Monarchy at all.

The vast majotity of Britons want Britain to remain a constitutional monarchy.  They don't want a republic.  You republicans are a rare breed and you are going to have your work cut out in transforming Britain into a republic.  It isn't going to happen any time soon.  In fact, I'll wager £1000 that it won't happen any time this century.

Quote

100% look it.

No, they don't.

Quote

A lot of rich people look inbred

No, they don't.

I would say inbreeding is more rife amongst the poor and the chavs.

Quote

and you have no evidence that they where not born into riches dating back to a corrupt person.

I think you're a jealous, green-eyed lefty.  You're one of those banging on about "the rich" as though working hard and making a lot of money for yourself and your family is wrong and that they must have got their hard-earned money through "corrupt" means.  What a load of tosh.  You are just a jealous, green-eyed lefty.

Yet, despite your complaints about "the rich", we all know that you yourself would jump at the chance of being rich.  You actually wouldn't mind being rich yourself.

Quote

my point was the media and the royal fmaily etc making out that Kate was common as though Will was marrying someone "normal". It was a load of rubbish.

How is it a load of rubbish that Kate is a commoner?  Her mother is a former air stewardess and her father is a former flight attendant.  Kate's maternal ancestors, the Harrisons, were working-class labourers and miners from Sunderland and County Durham.  She could hardly be more common.

Quote

But they run our country not the royal family

The Queen is our Head of State, not Cameron.

Quote

which means the royal family do nothing for our country.

Rubbish.

Prince Philip served in the Royal Navy during WWII.  The Queen also saw military service in WWII, meaning she is the only Head of State today who saw active service during WWII.

Prince Edward is a Falklands veteran.  Prince William flies RAF Seak King helicopters and Prince Harry is a British Army Apache Helicopter co-pilot.

And then there's all the charity work the royals do.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 23 January 2013 - 06:01 PM.