It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLL - Should the UK monarchy now be abolished ? Y/N - all ATS members please contribute

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman

Second, making your offspring officers and keeping them far away from any real fighting is hardly sacrificing their own children, it's a publicity stunt, the royals see as much combat as the American king did when he was in the US Army.-Elvis.


I thought one of them flew helo combat missions?



edit on 26-1-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

No. It would render much of Britain's literature incomprehensible. What is so important about a crown that Richard would murder his own relatives for it? The pomp and circumstances are very much a part of British culture; the question really is: how much of this pomp and circumstance should be funded by the taxpayers?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: abe froman







Yes, those multi-billionaires need welfare money from the pockets of hard working Britons.


Are you British?



No, I'm not black either, does that mean I can't be against racism and discrimination?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodreviara

The Royals cost the tax payer about 70pence (1 dollar & 5 cents) a year...


How much of American tax payers money goes to your leaders annually?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: abe froman







Yes, those multi-billionaires need welfare money from the pockets of hard working Britons.


Are you British?



No, I'm not black either, does that mean I can't be against racism and discrimination?



WTF are you on about?

This is not about racism and discrimination.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


The Royals cost the tax payer about 70pence (1 dollar & 5 cents) a year...


That is an excellent investment in the tourist industry.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: abe froman

Second, making your offspring officers and keeping them far away from any real fighting is hardly sacrificing their own children, it's a publicity stunt, the royals see as much combat as the American king did when he was in the US Army.-Elvis.


I thought one of them flew helo combat missions?




Actually they both have seen front line service.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I think the notion of royalty is long past it's sell by date. I am an ardent yes.

Having said that...if it ever came up as a serious possibility there would be civil war.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: abe froman

Second, making your offspring officers and keeping them far away from any real fighting is hardly sacrificing their own children, it's a publicity stunt, the royals see as much combat as the American king did when he was in the US Army.-Elvis.


I thought one of them fly helo combat missions?


And George W. Bush was shot down flying combat missions, the point is the monarchy is not sacrificing their own children while other leaders gleefully toss their citizens in a meat grinder. Ghengis Khan had no problem sending his own into bloody combat on the front lines, that doesn't make him a good choice for leige.
Using that argument to bolster the monarchy is ridiculous and moot.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, one of them did, and did a few other bits and pieces that argue with the generally cool and contemporary opinion that Royalty in Britain is a wholly bad thing as well.

But no one talks about those, because otherwise they would become outcast by their social groups, banned from seeing their kids, and branded all manner of things they are not, just for having recognised the truth for what it is!



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman

And George W. Bush was shot down flying combat missions, the point is the monarchy is not sacrificing their own children while other leaders gleefully toss their citizens in a meat grinder.


If one of them was flying combat missions there is the very real chance of being shot down. I think it took guts either way.



edit on 26-1-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco
Maybe so but what if Cameron or Milliband had been the first born son of the monarch.
At least a democratic head of state means there is some kind of choice.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Worked for the Americans didn't it? I mean, is that country suffering since losing their parasites? Any American who votes to keep the UK monarchy needs to study how they feel each July 4.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Who was flying combat missions? I can not find any record of any royal in actual combat in the last 65 years.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Fermy

Well, I think equally that every American who votes to dissolve the UK Monarchy should look at what has happened to the United States in the last three to four decades, and perhaps longer, just to see what they are asking the UK population to put up with if we disband the Royal family.

Personally, I think it is like apples and oranges, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman


And George W. Bush was shot down flying combat missions,


Point of information: George W. Bush joined the Texas Air Reserve to avoid service in Viet Nam. It was his father, George H. W. Bush who was a naval aviator in the Second World War, and he was, indeed, shot down in combat. It has been over 100 years since a British Monarch has declared war; that's up to Parliament now. The Royals are purely ceremonial and serve the same function as the Royals at your local Renaissance Fayre.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Yes absolutely

It's the 21st century and they should have been long gone by now anyway.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
Any American who votes to keep the UK monarchy needs to study how they feel each July 4.


Why? We have had our independence for over 230 years. Why does it matter what another country opts to do in regards its history or tradition? If they love there Royal Family, good on them. Why would our opinion matter on the topic? Think how you feel when some jackass from another country says, 'The United States should do this or that'.

Additionally, despite the little dust ups we had back in 1776 and 1812 we are and have been very close allies with the British since then so when July 4th rolls around I am thankful for our country and the sacrifices made by those who fought for us but I certainly do not go around thinking about how much the current British monarchy impacts my life; which is zero.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
First I am not a member of the United Kingdom. My view is this:

It is split down the middle, part says yes and part says no.

While I do believe that the royal family does serve in some function, at the same time, with all of that wealth and privilege is not a good thing. Though as many people tend to forget, a good majority of the wealth is state owned, like the crown jewels, and thus are not personally owned by any member of the royal family.

I believe what they need to do, is start removing titles and wealth from member of the royal family that causes scandals and embarrassments to the family and country. Also make it where the children have to deal with others, not members of the aristocracy, but of the common folks, where they are under the understanding that they are there at the will of the people, not just cause of birth. Where they do not receive a title until they are an adult, having gown up without the life of luxury and privilege and where they will appreciate all that they have, and the position that they are in.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
Sorry but I think you are wildly wrong on that one. How many visitors to the UK actually see a member of the royal family? They may come to see the palaces but not the royals.
And if you think there is no other good reasons to visit the UK you really need to travel about it a bit more. The food and the views are great where I live.
You may however be right about the bloody weather.




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join