Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Royal baby 'should be Princess of Wales'

72 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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) ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

... 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :whistle: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :whistle: )

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:clap::w00t:251825_473968395992553_1681990663_n.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Actually, our casualty numbers are VERY low. And a lot of them are made up form friendly fire and accidents. lol (I know you where being sarcastic but it's actually true)

In Iraq and Afghanistan the highest casualty numbers are actually civilian by a very long gap over military on both sides.

Blame the US government that was in power in the 70, they sent the CIA to train these people back then and supply them with weapons. They are still suing the same guns from the 70's that they used against the Russians. It's nothing to do wiht trianing in reality though, the reason they are hard to defeat fully is because they are not a proper Military force, they hide in house and mountains and look like normal every day Afghanistan civilians.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, our casualty numbers are VERY low. And a lot of them are made up form friendly fire and accidents. lol (I know you where being sarcastic but it's actually true)

In Iraq and Afghanistan the highest casualty numbers are actually civilian by a very long gap over military on both sides.

Blame the US government that was in power in the 70, they sent the CIA to train these people back then and supply them with weapons. They are still suing the same guns from the 70's that they used against the Russians. It's nothing to do wiht trianing in reality though, the reason they are hard to defeat fully is because they are not a proper Military force, they hide in house and mountains and look like normal every day Afghanistan civilians.

Yes, the young men who fought the Soviets are the commanders of other young men fighting us. These are the same guys. Just older and wiser, and confident in their winning. And they know as well as we do, that we'll leave exactly like the Soviets did. Another money hole, a la Vietnam.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Bloody hell, mate, you know how to make yourself popular. If it's that easy, how come it's taken ten years so far, and I seem to recall that these Badly Trained Rebels have managed to inflict a few casualties while they were at it. Why not pop out to the 'Stan and see how easy it is. If it's that easy, I'm sure you'll have no problem sorting them out in a couple of weeks. I really do think your blind hatred is making you veer wildly off the path of rationality.

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...

Um... Prince Andrew also holds the actual rank of commander and the honorary rank of rear admiral in the Royal Navy, in which he served as an active duty helicopter pilot and later instructor in helicopter flight. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy and casualty evacuation.

nope, no actual hazards there at all. Again, this seems just to be blind, irrational hatred I'm afraid.

Edited by Lord Vetinari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell, mate, you know how to make yourself popular. If it's that easy, how come it's taken ten years so far, and I seem to recall that these Badly Trained Rebels have managed to inflict a few casualties while they were at it. Why not pop out to the 'Stan and see how easy it is. If it's that easy, I'm sure you'll have no problem sorting them out in a couple of weeks. I really do think your blind hatred is making you veer wildly off the path of rationality.

I have plenty of friends over there acting like it's a holiday. lol

I mean badly trianed in the sense they cna't handle the guns and equipment thye are using properly. They are well trained in hiding and guerrilla tactics etc, I explained that before.

Um... Prince Andrew also holds the actual rank of commander and the honorary rank of rear admiral in the Royal Navy, in which he served as an active duty helicopter pilot and later instructor in helicopter flight. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy and casualty evacuation.

nope, no actual hazards there at all. Again, this seems just to be blind, irrational hatred I'm afraid.

He would never have been in a dangerous position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, our casualty numbers are VERY low.

No, they aren't. The British military has suffered 440 fatalities so far, which is more than the rest of Europe combined and almost three times as many as the country which has suffered the next highest number of fatalities, Canada.

And a lot of them are made up form friendly fire and accidents. lol (I know you where being sarcastic but it's actually true)

Of those 440 fatalities the overwhelming majority - 396 (90%) - of them are a result of enemy action.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have plenty of friends over there acting like it's a holiday. lol

I mean badly trianed in the sense they cna't handle the guns and equipment thye are using properly. They are well trained in hiding and guerrilla tactics etc, I explained that before.

He would never have been in a dangerous position.

seriously, your hatred really seems to be making you unable to read now, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously, your hatred really seems to be making you unable to read now, I'm afraid.

Oh stop with the silly baiting. I don't hate anyone. lol

No, they aren't. The British military has suffered 440 fatalities so far, which is more than the rest of Europe combined and almost three times as many as the country which has suffered the next highest number of fatalities, Canada.

Of those 440 fatalities the overwhelming majority - 396 (90%) - of them are a result of enemy action.

Britain had 449,800 in WW2...... :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The Prince's Trust has worked with 40,000 young people each year since Prince Charles set it up in 1976, with around 80% moving on to Employment, Education, Training or Volunteering.

You don't sound like someone who knows much about the real world in the UK.

I know that the overwhelming majority of the British people want to keep the monarchy and there is almost no desire for a republic.

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.

There are several reasons for the monarchy, one good one being that we aren't lumbered with a politician as a Head of State.

If you asked most people would they rather stick with the monarchy or change it and have someone like Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Obama, Hollande or Merkel as their Head of State the vast majority would choose to stick with the monarchy.

Please enlighten us with what decisions she actually makes regarding Britain

Why don't you do your own research about the work that the monarch performs? It's shouldn't be too difficult.

As for Royals during wartime, they are all put in safe positions away from any Danger.

Yet more tripe.

Prince Philip and Princess Elizabeth actually SERVED in the war. Philip actually took part in naval battles, including the Battle of Cape Matapan. He was present in Tokyo Bay when the instrument of Japanese surrender was signed.

As for the King and Queen, they were offered to be taken to Canada where they would have been much safer, but instead they decided to stay in London at the height of the Blitz. They refused to go even when Buckingham Palace was being bombed.

And what about Harry? Show evidence that he was put in a safe position in Afghanistan. His comrades would disagree with you.

If you class that as serving our country when others go without who did far more during WW2

You can't help but post rubbish. Why don't you just take a look at what Prince Philip did during the war, such as when he saved his ship from a night bomber attack?

And there has just been a British royal taking part in a war for the second time. And Harry's uncle, Prince Andrew, saw action in the Falklands War.

Yet how many British politicians have seen action in war recently? Not one.

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.

It looks like you are going to be visited by this guy...

1353109050634434.jpg

Britain had 449,800 in WW2...... :whistle:

So? This isn't WWII.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh stop with the silly baiting. I don't hate anyone. lol

Really? Then why do you seem to be so determined to deny that there've been any significant casualties worth speaking of in Afghanistan, merely to reinforce your prejudice against the Monarchy? Who's doing the baiting here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Then why do you seem to be so determined to deny that there've been any significant casualties worth speaking of in Afghanistan, merely to reinforce your prejudice against the Monarchy? Who's doing the baiting here?

the casualty rating for Afghan Civilians is higher than British troops, never mind their rebel casualties. Which means we are just massacring them.

So? This isn't WWII.

No ****, but that was my comparison earlier. So well done on not even following the point of what I said.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several reasons for the monarchy, one good one being that we aren't lumbered with a politician as a Head of State.

If you asked most people would they rather stick with the monarchy or change it and have someone like Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Obama, Hollande or Merkel as their Head of State the vast majority would choose to stick with the monarchy.

Wow how are you not getting this. I'm not repeating myself for a thousandth time because you obviously can't conceive the logic.

The Prince's Trust has worked with 40,000 young people each year since Prince Charles set it up in 1976, with around 80% moving on to Employment, Education, Training or Volunteering.

That's hilarious, quoting form their site.

If that was the real number then at least one person on this forum or anyone could name at least 1 person it has helped. Because I know I can't and I know a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.