67 replies to this topic

[TheLastLazyGun]

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

Henry's behaviour was judged as less than moral by most of the world while he was still alive

Show your evidence for that.

Quote

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

  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?

The amount of people that Henry supposedly executed for their religion pales into insignificance compared to the amount of Protestants that his Catholic daughter Mary burned at the stake in her short, fiver-year reign..

And Henry wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon because she did not provide him with a male heir.  That is, after all, why Henry married her.  As I've pointed out, it was NORMAL for a medieval monarch to marry a monarch just to provide him with a male her.  Medieval monarchs did not marry for love.  Henry was normal in that respect.  He was no different from most other monarchs of the time.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 23 January 2013 - 06:07 PM.

[TheLastLazyGun]

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

Elizabeth's successor was James IV of Scotland

Elizabeth's successor was James VI of Scotland.

[Coffey]

The charity works is BS. It doesn't do anything. Applied for Princes trust when Is tarted out in my Dream career. Nothing.

As for the rest of what you said it's all opinion. You don't sound like someone who knows much about the real world in the UK.

As for calling me Republican. LOL I hate the government, I hate the corruption of the government. You completely missed my point. My point is that the Queen might be head of state, but she doesn't do anything with it. Which means there is no point here being there. Please enlighten us with what decisions she actually makes regarding Britain?


As for Royals during wartime, they are all put in safe positions away from any Danger. If you class that as serving our country when others go without who did far more during WW2 then you need to take a long hard look at what you consider right and wrong.


Also calling me green eyed etc is just stupid. I believe in everyone being born with equal rights and equal chance in life. That includes the position you can rise to with hard work and eduction. I'm not taking about myself, I care about others more.


Would also like to point out thta I would NEVER be rich for one simple reason. I am not greedy enough. I would give too much to help others and give a lot to family and friends.

Edited by Coffey, 23 January 2013 - 06:50 PM.

[Yamato]

If the royal family did their genealogy homework and found every great great great great....great great great great grandkid of King whoever, the royal apartments would become littered with undesirables.   Whether Kate has a drip of royal blood in her from 700 years ago or not, she was a commoner through and through, knowing nothing about keeping up appearances like a royal does, and so she had to be trained how to do so.   It's all very proper, and ceremonious.  And disturbing.


"Meeting the Queen is a complicated thing. You have to curtsy, you can't extend a hand before she extends hers, you can't pick up food before she does, and you definitely, most certainly, never, ever are allowed to attempt to hug or kiss her. Which is why it caused quite the hilarious stir yesterday across the pond when Her Royal Highness half-embraced Michelle Obama. Nearly the entire nation simultaneously snarfed their English Breakfast. And then, the unthinkable happened: Michelle hugged her back. "


http://nymag.com/dai...ally_embra.html

[ealdwita]

TheLastLazyGun, on 23 January 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Elizabeth's successor was James VI of Scotland.

Sorry, finger trouble. (That's my excuse, anyway!)

[Star of the Sea]

Yamato, on 24 January 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

If the royal family did their genealogy homework and found every great great great great....great great great great grandkid of King whoever, the royal apartments would become littered with undesirables.   Whether Kate has a drip of royal blood in her from 700 years ago or not, she was a commoner through and through, knowing nothing about keeping up appearances like a royal does, and so she had to be trained how to do so.   It's all very proper, and ceremonious.  And disturbing.


"Meeting the Queen is a complicated thing. You have to curtsy, you can't extend a hand before she extends hers, you can't pick up food before she does, and you definitely, most certainly, never, ever are allowed to attempt to hug or kiss her. Which is why it caused quite the hilarious stir yesterday across the pond when Her Royal Highness half-embraced Michelle Obama. Nearly the entire nation simultaneously snarfed their English Breakfast. And then, the unthinkable happened: Michelle hugged her back. "


http://nymag.com/dai...ally_embra.html

I don't think British people would be too shocked at Michelle giving our Queen a little hug, it breaks protocol but it's still a lovely gesture.

Here take a look at the Telegraph and their response to it: http://www.telegraph...-the-Queen.html

Edited by Star of the Sea, 24 January 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[ealdwita]

The 3 times that I've been privileged to meet Her Maj. I had to do a pre-meeting run-through, with a couple of flunkeys. I wonder if Mrs.Obama had to do the same thing? Somehow I doubt it, but for us 'lesser beings' the protocol is quite fixed! (Not that I minded, because I found the Queen to be one of the most pleasant people I've ever met and she has the knack of putting everybody at their ease instantly.) Gawd Bless yer Ma'am.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Coffey, on 23 January 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

As for calling me Republican. LOL I hate the government, I hate the corruption of the government. You completely missed my point. My point is that the Queen might be head of state, but she doesn't do anything with it. Which means there is no point here being there. Please enlighten us with what decisions she actually makes regarding Britain?

And here's the point. You say you loathe & despise politicians, but replacing as head of state someone who, at the very worst, doesn't do any harm, with either a Prime Minister given even more power, or a completely pointless figurehead President, seems, well, pointless. Unless it purely is on the basis of "they cost the Taxpayer <insert astronomical sum of your choice here>......"; well, how much do the policies of Governments cost the taxpayer? How much of what they spend (look at the MOD for a classic example) actually does anything productive? Particularly if you factor in what the Monarchy brings in in terms of tourism, etc, what is better value; the Monarchy or the vast armies of bureaucrats and the money black holes that are Government departments?

Quote

As for Royals during wartime, they are all put in safe positions away from any Danger. If you class that as serving our country when others go without who did far more during WW2 then you need to take a long hard look at what you consider right and wrong.

... Like Prince Andrew, Harry, Philip (who had a distinguished naval career in the war, admittedly before he married Elizabeth) ....

[Coffey]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

And here's the point. You say you loathe & despise politicians, but replacing as head of state someone who, at the very worst, doesn't do any harm, with either a Prime Minister given even more power, or a completely pointless figurehead President, seems, well, pointless. Unless it purely is on the basis of "they cost the Taxpayer <insert astronomical sum of your choice here>......"; well, how much do the policies of Governments cost the taxpayer? How much of what they spend (look at the MOD for a classic example) actually does anything productive? Particularly if you factor in what the Monarchy brings in in terms of tourism, etc, what is better value; the Monarchy or the vast armies of bureaucrats and the money black holes that are Government departments?

The government makes all the decisions anyway why are people not getting this? lol

There would be no difference at all. lol

As for the tourism, non of them actually see the royal family, you just need to make all their places museums and that will for fill the tourist attraction part.Then we can save the billions we spend on them for better things. Like sorting the NHS and eduction. (taking away student funding from further eduction was one of the stupidest things our government has done)

Lord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

... Like Prince Andrew, Harry, Philip (who had a distinguished naval career in the war, admittedly before he married Elizabeth) ....

Andrew and Harry never once saw any "action". All the royals wher ein safe positions. They even made up some BS about Harry being taken out of Afghanistan due to the safety of his fellow soldiers...

Edited by Coffey, 24 January 2013 - 09:08 PM.

[rashore]

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

As for the tourism, non of them actually see the royal family, you just need to make all their places museums and that will for fill the tourist attraction part.Then we can save the billions we spend on them for better things.

I'm not from there, so I'm asking this in ignorance... How much money do the royals get from the people? Is that billions? Because I would have to imagine if you emptied their buildings for museums that would still cost a ton of money to upkeep.
Sorry if that's a dumb question, it just sounded like a lot of money being paid to the family.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

Andrew and Harry never once saw any "action". All the royals wher ein safe positions. They even made up some BS about Harry being taken out of Afghanistan due to the safety of his fellow soldiers...

Didn't he do an interview this week stating he had killed Taliban members as a helicopter gunner, but would much prefer to be with his army unit on the ground (as he was secrectly for months). Kind of hard to kill the enemy from a safe position (unless you "fly" drones like some sort of US republican coward )

[Coffey]

Professor Buzzkill, on 24 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Didn't he do an interview this week stating he had killed Taliban members as a helicopter gunner, but would much prefer to be with his army unit on the ground (as he was secrectly for months). Kind of hard to kill the enemy from a safe position (unless you "fly" drones like some sort of US republican coward )

An Apache can kill from miles away, it's technology is incredible, can sit behind a mountain and acquire targets then quickly fly over to take the kill. Then  fly out again.

Also Britain also uses drones.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

An Apache can kill from miles away, it's technology is incredible, can sit behind a mountain and acquire targets then quickly fly over to take the kill. Then  fly out again.

Also Britain also uses drones.

And he never saw action in his army unit?

[Coffey]

rashore, on 24 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I'm not from there, so I'm asking this in ignorance... How much money do the royals get from the people? Is that billions? Because I would have to imagine if you emptied their buildings for museums that would still cost a ton of money to upkeep.
Sorry if that's a dumb question, it just sounded like a lot of money being paid to the family.

Well in 2011, Prince Charles alone got the following:

£1,962,000 from Goverment
£17,796,000 from Private estates. (Money comes from the people charged on the land and money made on the land. etc)
£4,398,000 from tax.
£1,080,000 Travel costs.


It's hard to accurately tell how much they earn because it's all done so they can take more advantage of it. lol

He also makes money from finance or banking I forget which one he own business in, which is set up through one of his charities.. lol Practically uses a charity to money launder from what I read about it.

Professor Buzzkill, on 24 January 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

And he never saw action in his army unit?

Not from what I've read. But fighting a bunch of badly trained rebels with modern day military technology isn't that difficult.

It's not like he is doing a beach landing in WW2 where he would have been at a serious disadvantage.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

Not from what I've read. But fighting a bunch of badly trained rebels with modern day military technology isn't that difficult.

It's not like he is doing a beach landing in WW2 where he would have been at a serious disadvantage.

Thank god for that! I thought our troops were in real danger! I guess all the casualties were from tripping over their own bootlaces.

I love it how these badly trained rebels have been fighting with us for 10 years when they can't compete. It really shows their fighting spirit.