PDA

View Full Version : Royal Rape



Probe
22-06-2012, 16:20
21928


Queen Elizabeth II Gets a 20% Raise

Even as austerity grips the rest of the country, the Queen will take home $56 million next year thanks to a red-hot property portfolio.

She owns the most property of any individual in the country as well as most of the seabed around Britain and she just enjoyed a four-day celebration involving a 1,000-vessel flotilla on London’s River Thames to mark her 60th year in the job. Life couldn’t get much better than this – unless of course you are given a 20 percent pay rise.

Following changes to the law that will come into effect in 2013-14, Queen Elizabeth II’s pay is set to jump to a whopping $56 million a year. Funding for the Royal Household is pegged at 15 percent of the profits from the Crown Estate – a portfolio of property that includes wind farms, retail parks and notable addresses in central London.

The timing, however, is rather awkward coming on the same day that the head of the British civil service announced that budget cuts to the austerity-hit government could drag on for another ten years.

The Queen is no stranger to belt-tightening when necessary – the current pay level is less than half of the $121 million she was given in 1991.

Reported by TIME

penka
22-06-2012, 16:45
So wat? Lizzy 's working for the money.

BTW, what does rape have to do with price of eggs?

Probe
22-06-2012, 17:05
So wat? Lizzy 's working for the money.

BTW, what does rape have to do with price of eggs?


With due respect, so does a prostitute, work for the money that is, but then some may say it is easy money. At least in the case of the prostitute it is at her own expense!

As for the second part, economics my dear :)

Russian Lad
22-06-2012, 17:18
Following changes to the law that will come into effect in 2013-14, Queen Elizabeth II’s pay is set to jump to a whopping $56 million a year. Funding for the Royal Household is pegged at 15 percent of the profits from the Crown Estate – a portfolio of property that includes wind farms, retail parks and notable addresses in central London.

The timing, however, is rather awkward coming on the same day that the head of the British civil service announced that budget cuts to the austerity-hit government could drag on for another ten years.

The predator grin of capitalism. Nothing new, at least to me. The poor get more poor, the rich and wealthy get more rich. The law of the jungle prevails - the strong consume the weak. The question to the British - why do you need this shit at all, the monarchy I mean? Capitalism is not enough for you? It all looks funny to an outsider like me. Like watching a circus show full of clowns.

penka
22-06-2012, 17:48
With due respect, so does a prostitute, work for the money that is, but then some may say it is easy money. At least in the case of the prostitute it is at her own expense!

As for the second part, economics my dear :)

As for the second part, the institution of the organized state is the ultimate rape, dear. Alas, humanity has not invented anything better functioning instead. Are you still to defy that, including the economics? Or, perhaps, the cave age equals Arcadia? This country even more than France already had a bunch, displeased with the flawed organization of the world. How many had paid for the utopia?

As for Liz. What would a president cost per annum?

penka
22-06-2012, 17:50
The predator grin of capitalism. Nothing new, at least to me. The poor get more poor, the rich and wealthy get more rich. The law of the jungle prevails - the strong consume the weak. The question to the British - why do you need this shit at all, the monarchy I mean? Capitalism is not enough for you? It all looks funny to an outsider like me. Like watching a circus show full of clowns.

Bloody nasty capitalism, indeed. Is that why you are advertising a dating site? Pure philanthropy, no doubt about that.

Russian Lad
22-06-2012, 18:09
Bloody nasty capitalism, indeed. Is that why you are advertising a dating site? Pure philanthropy, no doubt about that.

Whenever I cannot change the rules of the game, I strive to become the best player. But it does not mean that I like the game I am playing. С волками жить - по-волчьи выть. (С)
Hope that answers your question.

Probe
22-06-2012, 18:11
As for the second part, the institution of the organized state is the ultimate rape, dear. Alas, humanity has not invented anything better functioning instead. Are you still to defy that, including the economics?

No, but I do like to call it like I see it. Having no choice but to rape does not make the crime any less, it is still rape. In my books a wrong is a wrong no matter which way you look at it or package it. I have big problems with that but none with you.

peppermintpaddy
22-06-2012, 22:18
So wat? Lizzy 's working for the money.



That's if you call opening a library,work.

Nice work,if you can get it.

penka
22-06-2012, 22:44
That's if you call opening a library,work.

Nice work,if you can get it.

Please, please, don't be so envious!

penka
22-06-2012, 22:53
No, but I do like to call it like I see it. Having no choice but to rape does not make the crime any less, it is still rape. In my books a wrong is a wrong no matter which way you look at it or package it. I have big problems with that but none with you.

As far as the natural discussio mater veritas est seems to be out of the question, I can only state the obvious: we can agree to disagree.

Q: You think, Liz is raped, too? (don't like the choice of words, but never mind).

penka
22-06-2012, 22:55
Whenever I cannot change the rules of the game, I strive to become the best player. But it does not mean that I like the game I am playing. С волками жить - по-волчьи выть. (С)
Hope that answers your question.

It's When in Rome, do as Romans do.

RichardB
23-06-2012, 00:02
21928


Queen Elizabeth II Gets a 20% Raise

Even as austerity grips the rest of the country, the Queen will take home $56 million next year thanks to a red-hot property portfolio.

She owns the most property of any individual in the country as well as most of the seabed around Britain and she just enjoyed a four-day celebration involving a 1,000-vessel flotilla on Londons River Thames to mark her 60th year in the job. Life couldnt get much better than this unless of course you are given a 20 percent pay rise.

Following changes to the law that will come into effect in 2013-14, Queen Elizabeth IIs pay is set to jump to a whopping $56 million a year. Funding for the Royal Household is pegged at 15 percent of the profits from the Crown Estate a portfolio of property that includes wind farms, retail parks and notable addresses in central London.

The timing, however, is rather awkward coming on the same day that the head of the British civil service announced that budget cuts to the austerity-hit government could drag on for another ten years.

The Queen is no stranger to belt-tightening when necessary the current pay level is less than half of the $121 million she was given in 1991.

Reported by TIME

At least this womans income and expenses is on the public record.

Would Mr Putin do the same I wonder?

shurale
23-06-2012, 00:45
As for the second part, the institution of the organized state is the ultimate rape, dear. Alas, humanity has not invented anything better functioning instead. Are you still to defy that, including the economics? Or, perhaps, the cave age equals Arcadia? This country even more than France already had a bunch, displeased with the flawed organization of the world. How many had paid for the utopia?

As for Liz. What would a president cost per annum?

Rape has bright yellow flowers, grows in the fields. Its seeds contain oil that is used for cooking. It can be used in salads, but I prefer to use olive oil for salads.
What is the ultimate rape? Some special cultivar?

penka
23-06-2012, 01:15
Rape has bright yellow flowers, grows in the fields. Its seeds contain oil that is used for cooking. It can be used in salads, but I prefer to use olive oil for salads.
What is the ultimate rape? Some special cultivar?

Never cared much for this brassica, somehow....

But, a funny linguistic twist, thanx:-) taxes - money - rape - brassica - cabbage = капуста - dough... Hmmm, that should be dollars... Not sure.

Russian Lad
23-06-2012, 01:26
Originally Posted by Russian Lad
Whenever I cannot change the rules of the game, I strive to become the best player. But it does not mean that I like the game I am playing. С волками жить - по-волчьи выть. (С)
Hope that answers your question.
It's When in Rome, do as Romans do.
__________________

Exactly, but the Russian version describes the situation better, in my view.

Ibanez
23-06-2012, 13:55
The predator grin of capitalism. Nothing new, at least to me. The poor get more poor, the rich and wealthy get more rich. The law of the jungle prevails - the strong consume the weak. The question to the British - why do you need this shit at all, the monarchy I mean? Capitalism is not enough for you? It all looks funny to an outsider like me. Like watching a circus show full of clowns.

RL, great!! And what do we replace the present system with?

Russian Lad
23-06-2012, 14:02
RL, great!! And what do we replace the present system with?

It is being replaced as we speak, dear.



The digital revolution is, in fact, changing things far more dramatically then the hype-mongers of tech Internet ever imagined?only not in the way that they and their investors hoped. The move from a society dominated by print and broadcast mass media to the age of interactivity is at least as dramatic as the move from feudalism to capitalism. After capitalism comes attentionalism. Those who can harness global networks of information and master new forms of communication will control business, finance and legislation, forming the new business and government elites. They will inherit the power; they are the Netocracy. Driven by the Internet and mobile communications, networks are turning into the major means of doing business, organising action, getting knowledge; the organising principle for the information age. Simply put, networks will make the world go round. So controlling the networks of this world will soon count for more than controlling the capital. Manuel Castells has described the Internet as the most extraordinary technological revolution in history. But he also suggests it is as underdeveloped socially as it is overdeveloped technologically. The societal implications of the communications revolution are going to hit soon. Netocracy predicts what they will be, where the power will flow and draws some remarkable conclusions about life after capitalism. And who will have the power in a world dominated by networks? The Internet has often been touted as a radically decentralized unpredictable phenomenon thriving beyond the control of individuals, corporations or governments. In Netocracy, Bard and Soderqvist show that the transparent and non-hierarchical society proclaimed by the enthusiastic early Internet pioneers is one of the greatest myths of the information age. Future society will be hierarchical. It will be divided?but not along lines of wealth and academic merit. Capitalist structures will be broken down. Power will not lie with those who own the means of production, but with those who sort and provide information: "It is the people who can create and sustain attention that are the Netocracy, the new holders of power, not those who simply supply capital."People who can manipulate networks and the information that runs through them will inherit the future. These are the netocrats. The netocracy consists of people with excellent social skills and a talent for the adept manipulation of information. Those without this ability to use the new interactive media technology to their advantage will form the lower classes of the digital age.



Нетокра́тия (англ. netocracy) — это предполагаемая форма управления обществом, в рамках которой основной ценностью являются не материальные предметы (деньги, недвижимость и т. д.), а информация. Полноценный доступ к достоверной информации и манипуляции с ней обеспечивают власть над остальными участниками того или иного социума (общества, страны, государства).
Впервые новый правящий социальный класс был назван нетократией в книге Александра Барда и Яна Зодерквиста Netоcracy.
Netocracy was a term invented by the editorial board of the American technology magazine Wired in the early 1990s. A portmanteau of internet and aristocracy, netocracy refers to a perceived global upper-class that bases its power on a technological advantage and networking skills, in comparison to what is portrayed as a bourgeoisie of a gradually diminishing importance.
The concept was later picked up by the Swedish philosophers Alexander Bard and Jan Sderqvist for their book Netocracy — The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism (originally published in Swedish in 2000, published in English by Reuters/Pearsall UK in 2002).
The netocracy concept has been compared with Richard Florida's concept of the creative class. Bard and Sderqvist have also defined an under-class in opposition to the netocracy, which they refer to as the consumtariat.

MickeyTong
23-06-2012, 22:25
http://i51.tinypic.com/315lor5.jpg

peppermintpaddy
24-06-2012, 01:22
Nice one mickey tong........did you ever hear the joke about the time Michael Fagin broke in the Queen's bedroom?

It starts with .....

Queen:- What are you doing here???

MF:-O ,your majesty...im so in love with you....ive been fantasising about you for years.....

Do you know it MT?

Russian Lad
24-06-2012, 01:56
Just have a revolution, overthrow and sentence to the firing squad those blood-sucking leeches, like we did back in 1917! What's wrong with you, don't have balls for that?:) Or you like being had?:))

peppermintpaddy
24-06-2012, 02:49
Just have a revolution, overthrow and sentence to the firing squad those blood-sucking leeches, like we did back in 1917! What's wrong with you, don't have balls for that?:) Or you like being had?:))

You're being controversial again RL.......relax...chill out....put -the -vodka -down!

These are OUR blood sucking leeches,we will get round to them eventually,it's all about timing.

MickeyTong
24-06-2012, 13:47
Nice one mickey tong........did you ever hear the joke about the time Michael Fagin broke in the Queen's bedroom?

It starts with .....

Queen:- What are you doing here???

MF:-O ,your majesty...im so in love with you....ive been fantasising about you for years.....

Do you know it MT?


Nope.

MickeyTong
24-06-2012, 13:52
Just have a revolution, overthrow and sentence to the firing squad those blood-sucking leeches, like we did back in 1917! What's wrong with you, don't have balls for that?:) Or you like being had?:))



http://i53.tinypic.com/wkmmte.jpg

Russian Lad
24-06-2012, 18:11
So, Mickey, you truly believe that as soon as you abolish monarchy and kick your monarchs out the pillars of your society will experience such a deadly shock that total anarchy will prevail in the Great Britain? Or you just wanted to share a funny cartoon with us?

Nobbynumbnuts
24-06-2012, 18:35
If you remove something it must replaced by something else.
This is where the abolitionist argument falls flat.

peppermintpaddy
24-06-2012, 18:42
If you remove something it must replaced by something else.
This is where the abolitionist argument falls flat.

Not necessarily remove them nobby,just making them pay for themselves would be a start.

Nobbynumbnuts
24-06-2012, 18:53
Not necessarily remove them nobby,just making them pay for themselves would be a start.

Paddy, let's try and be sensible. You either have a monarchy or you don't. If we don't want to pay for one, then we must get rid of it.
Then, what do we replace it with....?

robertmf
24-06-2012, 19:15
Paddy, let's try and be sensible. You either have a monarchy or you don't. If we don't want to pay for one, then we must get rid of it.

Then, what do we replace it with....?

Let the queen bee's last official act be to sign the forms for USA Statehood
:D

:Loco:

peppermintpaddy
24-06-2012, 19:54
Paddy, let's try and be sensible. You either have a monarchy or you don't. If we don't want to pay for one, then we must get rid of it.
Then, what do we replace it with....?

Not necessarily so Nobby,its not an either or situation.The queen is probably the richest person on the planet,forget the nouveau riche ,she's got real old money.

For one thing,it would be a step in the right direction if they removed most of those hangers on and cut the civil list radically.
Whats wrong with modernising the Monarchy,like most other European Royal families have done?

And maybe do away with all those grace and favour houses and apartments they dole out to their toadies.That would be a start.

Nobbynumbnuts
24-06-2012, 20:22
Not necessarily so Nobby,its not an either or situation.The queen is probably the richest person on the planet,forget the nouveau riche ,she's got real old money.

For one thing,it would be a step in the right direction if they removed most of those hangers on and cut the civil list radically.
Whats wrong with modernising the Monarchy,like most other European Royal families have done?

And maybe do away with all those grace and favour houses and apartments they dole out to their toadies.That would be a start.


Paddy, the queen is no pauper by any stretch of the imagination but is not nearly as wealthy as you think.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/04/22/just-how-rich-is-queen-elizabeth-and-her-family/2/

The king of Thailand and the Queen of the Netherlands are far richer.

I'm all for cutting back on the civil list but we should keep one thing in mind, if we don't want to pay for a monarchy better to get rid of it.

Russian Lad
24-06-2012, 21:17
If you remove something it must replaced by something else.
This is where the abolitionist argument falls flat.


You have a strange logic in your head. So, if you remove a pimple or a tumor, you also need to replace it with something else? Monarchy is nothing but a tumor on the body of your country. :bash::rant:

Nobbynumbnuts
24-06-2012, 21:38
You have a strange logic in your head. So, if you remove a pimple or a tumor, you also need to replace it with something else? Monarchy is nothing but a tumor on the body of your country. :bash::rant:

If we remove the monarchy we have no head of state.
Therefore, we need to replace it.
A fact the abolitionist have not addressed to the public's satisfaction.

Russian Lad
24-06-2012, 21:41
If we remove the monarchy we have no head of state.
Therefore, we need to replace it.
A fact the abolitionist have not addressed to the public's satisfaction.

Come on, you have the prime-minister running the show anyway. Just call him the president, the problem solved. Or do what the Germans do.

Nobbynumbnuts
24-06-2012, 21:51
Come on, you have the prime-minister running the show anyway. Just call him the president, the problem solved. Or do what the Germans do.

Britain a republic and president Thatcher, Blair and Cameron.
If that was acceptable to the British people the monarchy would be long gone.
Thanks for the insight. :rolleyes:

Russian Lad
24-06-2012, 22:20
Britain a republic and president Thatcher, Blair and Cameron.
If that was acceptable to the British people the monarchy would be long gone.
Thanks for the insight.

So, why is it not acceptable to the British people? To much of the outside world this whole monarchy thing in your country is perceived as something between a museum where living people are the exhibits and the circus where they are highly paid clowns. Not sure what the problem is.

peppermintpaddy
25-06-2012, 00:15
Paddy, the queen is no pauper by any stretch of the imagination but is not nearly as wealthy as you think.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/04/22/just-how-rich-is-queen-elizabeth-and-her-family/2/

The king of Thailand and the Queen of the Netherlands are far richer.

I'm all for cutting back on the civil list but we should keep one thing in mind, if we don't want to pay for a monarchy better to get rid of it.

Simply not true Nobby...thats what they'd like you to believe......there are more PRICELESS baubles in her (not the crown's) possesion than in all the stately palaces combined.Wealthy way beyond any wealth list.The Queen of the Netherlands?puh-leeze....

Pesonally.I don't want to pay for a Monarchy,at least not to the extent we already do.

peppermintpaddy
25-06-2012, 00:28
So, why is it not acceptable to the British people? To much of the outside world this whole monarchy thing in your country is perceived as something between a museum where living people are the exhibits and the circus where they are highly paid clowns. Not sure what the problem is.

RL-there is a huge vested interest in maintaining a monarchy....Its a form of corruption also,even the most left wing of socialist politicians can be swayed by a Knighthood,or an elevation to the House of Lords.
The Monarchy also have a huge publicity machine which exist to portray them in the best possible light and to forever tell us how hard they actually work,and how much money they bring into the country via tourism.
None of it is true,but the sheeple believe it.Their most unpopular moment in the last 20 yrs was the death of Princess Di,the Monarchy had a little wobble then,but nothing too dramatic.
There is no real opposition to the Monarchy among politicians....they all look forward to getting OBE,MBE or even a Knighthood upon retiring,so why would they want to rock the boat?
In short,too many important interests want them to remain,until that changes,we will have a Monarchy.

Nobbynumbnuts
25-06-2012, 01:56
Simply not true Nobby...thats what they'd like you to believe......there are more PRICELESS baubles in her (not the crown's) possesion than in all the stately palaces combined.Wealthy way beyond any wealth list.The Queen of the Netherlands?puh-leeze....

Pesonally.I don't want to pay for a Monarchy,at least not to the extent we already do.

Paddy, where's your proof of all these possessions the queen has stashed away?
I've given you a link from Forbes estimating her wealth. There are many more out there.
If you can't provide proof, it's you who is gullible, believing the rumours spread about by the anti monarchists.

Nobbynumbnuts
25-06-2012, 02:16
RL-there is a huge vested interest in maintaining a monarchy....Its a form of corruption also,even the most left wing of socialist politicians can be swayed by a Knighthood,or an elevation to the House of Lords.
The Monarchy also have a huge publicity machine which exist to portray them in the best possible light and to forever tell us how hard they actually work,and how much money they bring into the country via tourism.
None of it is true,but the sheeple believe it.Their most unpopular moment in the last 20 yrs was the death of Princess Di,the Monarchy had a little wobble then,but nothing too dramatic.
There is no real opposition to the Monarchy among politicians....they all look forward to getting OBE,MBE or even a Knighthood upon retiring,so why would they want to rock the boat?
In short,too many important interests want them to remain,until that changes,we will have a Monarchy.

Let me get this straight. We have a monarchy because a few politicians might get a knighthood?
The streets of Britain were packed with ordinary people celebrating the queens jubilee-none of which will ever see a knighthood or someone who has got one!

The simple facts are that the queen enjoys a majority of support amongst the public. If she didn't-she'd be history. The monarchy cannot survive without the support of the people.
During the jubilee celebrations the BBC showed a group of about 100 anti monarchists protesting along the Thames embankment. That's all.
I suppose the other 60 million of us are just dumb! ;)

Russian Lad
25-06-2012, 02:48
I suppose the other 60 million of us are just dumb!

I didn't say that, you did. Relying on crowds is a dubious strategy, Hitler was very popular among the German rank and file as well...

Hitler's Triumph / Триумф Гитлера - YouTube

Nobbynumbnuts
25-06-2012, 03:14
I didn't say that, you did. Relying on crowds is a dubious strategy, Hitler was very popular among the German rank and file as well...

Hitler's Triumph / Триумф Гитлера - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDVzU3qyVoQ)

Hitler wanted the Reich to last a thousand years but unlike the British monarchy he didn't quite manage it. ;)

Russian Lad
25-06-2012, 03:34
Hitler wanted the Reich to last a thousand years but unlike the British monarchy he didn't quite manage it.

True, but the rest of the world had to pay with like 35 million lives for that.

peppermintpaddy
25-06-2012, 03:51
Let me get this straight. We have a monarchy because a few politicians might get a knighthood?
The streets of Britain were packed with ordinary people celebrating the queens jubilee-none of which will ever see a knighthood or someone who has got one!

The simple facts are that the queen enjoys a majority of support amongst the public. If she didn't-she'd be history. The monarchy cannot survive without the support of the people.
During the jubilee celebrations the BBC showed a group of about 100 anti monarchists protesting along the Thames embankment. That's all.
I suppose the other 60 million of us are just dumb! ;)

Now you know thats not true Nobby....most people don't give a flying f*** about the Royals.I even remember her being pelted with eggs on a trip to Manchester University once.But the general feeling is one of apathy.
At the moment the Royalty are riding high in the popularity ,mainly because of the Jubilee,and Wills getting married,and everyone loves a wedding ,don't they.Prince Charles has got married again,and even the rabid Royalists have forgotton how much they hate Camilla.The more embarrasing members like Edward and Fergie have been sidelined,so there's very little negative publicity at the moment.

And yes,there is no real opposition to the Monarchy because Monarchy itself breeds corruption by Award ,among the Governing classes....and all that goes with it.....the elevation to the House of Lords for the obedient,and the resulting endless pay days for the geriatric peerage.
The media loves them because they sell newspapers,so they wont say anything anti -Monarchy.On the contrary ,they spend millions on promoting them with endless editorials and TV shows "inside Buck house" etc.

As for the wealth of Madge,I'm trying to find the video I saw of her hidden wealth,and how so called "state" assets actually belong to her(if she deemed to sell them,however unlikely that is)Certainly I wouldn't believe any Forbes List.The Monarchy are loath to talk about their wealth,such talk is only for commoners.

Nobbynumbnuts
25-06-2012, 05:16
Now you know thats not true Nobby....most people don't give a flying f*** about the Royals.I even remember her being pelted with eggs on a trip to Manchester University once.But the general feeling is one of apathy.
At the moment the Royalty are riding high in the popularity ,mainly because of the Jubilee,and Wills getting married,and everyone loves a wedding ,don't they.Prince Charles has got married again,and even the rabid Royalists have forgotton how much they hate Camilla.The more embarrasing members like Edward and Fergie have been sidelined,so there's very little negative publicity at the moment.

And yes,there is no real opposition to the Monarchy because Monarchy itself breeds corruption by Award ,among the Governing classes....and all that goes with it.....the elevation to the House of Lords for the obedient,and the resulting endless pay days for the geriatric peerage.
The media loves them because they sell newspapers,so they wont say anything anti -Monarchy.On the contrary ,they spend millions on promoting them with endless editorials and TV shows "inside Buck house" etc.

As for the wealth of Madge,I'm trying to find the video I saw of her hidden wealth,and how so called "state" assets actually belong to her(if she deemed to sell them,however unlikely that is)Certainly I wouldn't believe any Forbes List.The Monarchy are loath to talk about their wealth,such talk is only for commoners.

I don't understand your logic. The royals are popular at the moment because of the jubilee. Who's jubilee is that exactly? That's right, the queen's. The head of the royal family.

No one gives a flying f*ck? There were millions of people up and down the country celebrating the jubilee. Street parties, and organised events etc.

I will conceed though that apathy towards the royal family does exist but don't over estimate the significance of it. A lot of that apathy turns to support when we Brits have our backs against the wall or we just want a chance to wave the flag and show our patriotism. For me that's the underlying reason why it has survived as long as it has. It has a simple fundamental appeal to the majority of us.
The jubilee celebrations demonstrated how the institution of monarchy unites us, all ages, colours and creeds came together. That can only be a good thing in a country as racially diverse as ours. I was amazed how the south asian community where i live were very enthusiastic about it.

The other reason that the apathy doesn't turn to outright hostility is when the alternative to a monarchy is considered. A republic and a president will never bring about unity and patriotism the way the monarchy does. That's why the idea has never gained support with the public.
The British love a moan, we all know that but if it came to a vote, no way the man or woman in the street would vote for a republic.

As for the house of lords, i'm totally against it. Law making institutions should be democratic.

Russian Lad
25-06-2012, 05:28
The British love a moan, we all know that but if it came to a vote, no way the man or woman in the street would vote for a republic.

Ok, keep spending hefty amounts on this museum of living people if such is your whim and desire.:))
Looks like your country is, in some ways, behind Russia in its development by almost 100 years.:)) What's wrong about having a president? Monarchy is just a decoration, it seems, those royals, do they have a say in anything substantial?

Nobbynumbnuts
25-06-2012, 06:07
Ok, keep spending hefty amounts on this museum of living people if such is your whim and desire.:))
Looks like your country is, in some ways, behind Russia in its development by almost 100 years.:)) What's wrong about having a president? Monarchy is just a decoration, it seems, those royals, do they have a say in anything substantial?

Switching to a president wouldn't save us any money.
Britain had a civil war and was briefly a republic about 100 years before the French had the idea. We tried it but didn't like it.
No the royals have no power-therefore they do not impede our functioning democracy.
The house of lords do, however.

peppermintpaddy
25-06-2012, 14:58
I don't understand your logic. The royals are popular at the moment because of the jubilee. Who's jubilee is that exactly? That's right, the queen's. The head of the royal family.

No one gives a flying f*ck? There were millions of people up and down the country celebrating the jubilee. Street parties, and organised events etc.


The other reason that the apathy doesn't turn to outright hostility is when the alternative to a monarchy is considered. A republic and a president will never bring about unity and patriotism the way the monarchy does. That's why the idea has never gained support with the public.
The British love a moan, we all know that but if it came to a vote, no way the man or woman in the street would vote for a republic.

As for the house of lords, i'm totally against it. Law making institutions should be democratic.

Maybe there is a North South divide(well I know there is) regarding all things Royal.Millions up and down the country? Not near me there weren't.I never saw a single street party-altho' I heard of a couple.......
There isn't near as much Royal worship North of Watford as you would imagine....although I did meet a Royal mad brickie from Wigan once...silly old sod.Maybe its the people I mix with,but none of my friends give a monkeys about the Royals,theyre just a figure of fun and piss-taking for us.
By contrast ,I was amazed one night in a pub in Gloucester when a customer stood up with a glass in his hand and proposed a toast to the Queen! He wouldn't last long trying the same trick in Wythenshawe for instance.
Where I do agree with you is the alternative if the Monarchy were replaced.I'd hate to see a President Blair for instance,but I'd love to see a self-sufficient Monarchy,one that pays their own way.In a vote,I'd agree with you,I think most Brits would keep them.

TolkoRaz
25-06-2012, 15:40
By contrast ,I was amazed one night in a pub in Gloucester when a customer stood up with a glass in his hand and proposed a toast to the Queen!

Was it Mike Tindall? ;)

No joking aside, I have been served by his Royal wife - she often pulls the pints when the Gloucester Rugby team are in the pub, but I have not witnessed any dwarf tossing! ;)

antfidel
25-06-2012, 15:52
Death to the monarchy (preferably thru some old fashioned guillotine action), but plz keep the judges with the 18 century wigs, imho.

- An American

peppermintpaddy
25-06-2012, 16:30
Was it Mike Tindall? ;)

No joking aside, I have been served by his Royal wife - she often pulls the pints when the Gloucester Rugby team are in the pub, but I have not witnessed any dwarf tossing! ;)

No Tolko,just some ordinary guy....what was as surprising was,some others stood up and said "The Queen"...and drank her toast.It was like a scene (to us) from Monty Pythons.
Us (my mates and I) stood open mouthed in amazement.Never seen anything like it ooop North.We didn't join in of course.We'd have laughed but we were outnumbered ...:mml:

Haven't Tindall and his royal Mrs split up now?I vaguely remember some such gossip.....

TolkoRaz
25-06-2012, 16:34
No Tolko,just some ordinary guy....what was as surprising was,some others stood up and said "The Queen"...and drank her toast.It was like a scene (to us) from Monty Pythons.
Us (my mates and I) stood open mouthed in amazement.Never seen anything like it ooop North.We didn't join in of course.We'd have laughed but we were outnumbered ...:mml:

Haven't Tindall and his royal Mrs split up now?I vaguely remember some such gossip.....

May be they were members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces?

Nope, Mike and his wife are still happily married, despite Dwarf Tossing and embarrassing CCTV footage of a few smoochy moments 'down under'! ;)

MickeyTong
25-06-2012, 17:34
So, Mickey, you truly believe that as soon as you abolish monarchy and kick your monarchs out the pillars of your society will experience such a deadly shock that total anarchy will prevail in the Great Britain? Or you just wanted to share a funny cartoon with us?

MickeyTong is a faithless cynic.

Russian Lad
25-06-2012, 18:08
MickeyTong is a faithless cynic.

Under the circumstances, that's a very healthy approach.:)

shurale
30-06-2012, 13:19
If you havent seen this, have a look and salivate!

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/10-000-diamonds-on-display-at-buckingham-palace-slideshow/

Ghostly Presence
30-06-2012, 15:18
Whenever I cannot change the rules of the game, I strive to become the best player. But it does not mean that I like the game I am playing. - - . ()
Hope that answers your question.

That is what's called hypocrisy and double-standards, no matter what your exuces are. It does not look good.

peppermintpaddy
30-06-2012, 16:00
Here's a story from the Royal loving Daily Mail....Chuck gets a pay rise....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166471/Prince-Charles-taxpayer-funding-increases-12-year.html

MickeyTong
30-06-2012, 17:30
....Chuck gets a pay rise....


Charlie Tampax is worth every penny the plebs give him.

peppermintpaddy
30-06-2012, 21:37
Charlie Tampax is worth every penny the plebs give him.

he happens to be my favourite ,but, worth every penny the plebs give him??

Why do we need to give him anything,he makes millions from the Duchy of Cornwall?

Russian Lad
30-06-2012, 23:00
That is what's called hypocrisy and double-standards, no matter what your exuces are. It does not look good.

Yes, I am a cynical hypocrite and I use double standards whenever I can profit from them.:) You Westerners think you own the patent on those behavior patterns?!! In most cases these are YOUR rules, I just play along, adding some Russian flavor to it on occasion to make it less boring.:) On the other hand, I am like Jack Nickolson, I lie only to my girlfriend and to the police, all the others are welcome to hear the truth.:) Even you.:)

w.meijerink
01-07-2012, 02:47
Did i miss something