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: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yet you have 'meatloaf' !!!

We have:
Steak and ale pie.
Roasts
Proper mans beer, not your wishy washy mosquito p***
The best sausages
The best bacon
Fish and chips,chips I say, not those nasty matchsticks made from reconstituted potato starch you call fries.
Anyway, down with the monarchy.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You just got some new, permanent house guests.

Guests?

They already hold estate, title, and citizenship here.

For all legal purposes they are already considered 'permanent Canadians'.

Would they move here? Would they move to another location where they hold title? Would they dissolve all of their other monarchy's without local consent? Etc.

This is not lightweight stuff, either. There are very large legalities that would have to be resolved in the other Monarchy's.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

When Harper flies to other countries, it's the citizens of Canada who pay his air fare and expenses for his entourage, so I doubt we pay for others to visit us.

I didn't mind the current monarch really, (except that she owes me a cleaning for the brand new coat she ruined when driving by at full speed and splashing mud) but the mere notion of applying the term 'majesty' to Charles and his now wife at any point in time just will invite hilarious laughter of the true ROFL kind. My late husband was on his nib's Philip's protection detail and he hated to have to protect a philanderer. That family is no role model as Andrew's new-found problems confirm. If we keep them, the term 'regal' simply has to de redefined.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

It was a joke.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: peck420

It was a joke.



Lol, sorry about that. I assumed it was serious as there is a movement in Canada to dissolve the Canadian Monarchy.
edit on 26-1-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: aboutface
When Harper flies to other countries, it's the citizens of Canada who pay his air fare and expenses for his entourage, so I doubt we pay for others to visit us.


When the Canadian Monarchy is acting on behalf of Canada, Canada foots the bill.
2nd.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Seeker7

Please explain why a proxy is needed in order for the voice of the people to be heard? If that's the case then the system was broken from the start.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yet you have 'meatloaf' !!!

We have:
Steak and ale pie.
Roasts
Proper mans beer, not your wishy washy mosquito p***
The best sausages
The best bacon
Fish and chips,chips I say, not those nasty matchsticks made from reconstituted potato starch you call fries.


You make it sound like no British ex-pat opened up shop here. I can head down to the next town and get proper pies, both savory and sweet, and find all types of imported products.

As for the beer scene, there are thousands of great beers to drink besides the mass produced, industrial swill which I am sure they have everywhere.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

Lol, sorry about that. I assumed it was serious as there is a movement in Canada to dissolve the Canadian Monarchy.


No worries. I just thought it would be funny if there as a *knock knock* at 24 Sussex and when they opened the door they got a big, 'Halllllooooo!', from Lizzy.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand


Do you know of any other of those countries that have a societal layer that fawns,bows and scrapes to the extent that the UK has? These slugs can't wait to get an 'honour', you know like Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith,Rolf Harris. All genuflecting child abusing dross.Savile was close friends with Prince Charles, do you really imagine the royal security officers didn't mention it to the monarchy? That the heir to the throne was knocking about with a paedo? Perhaps these detectives were unaware do you think? Maybe the royal family didn't care, well they should have.
As for the House of Lords? Pfft, another den of overpriviliged toffs. They know little to nothing about the vast bulk of citizenry in this country.
Yes, it's just my opinion, but as a UK resident it's what my perception is. It's going to be difficult to quantify anyway, certainly in a manner that would suit any royalist forelock tugger. Nothing personal you understand.

edit on 26-1-2015 by Fermy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Still quite of few Stockholm Syndrome victims, I see?

Oh please, that misappropriation of the term Stockholm syndrome is rather tiresome.


Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.
I'm a republican sympathiser and even I see such a label as ridiculous, and an insult to people who have suffered the misfortune of being held captive. Nobody is 'captive' in the UK, there are 25 EU countries I could move to right now and live until I die. I've spent a few years on and off travelling Asia, nipping over land borders and back again to gain another 30 days visa, and if I want to leave the UK I can get a ferry over to France tonight if I wanted to.

You may think the Stokholm Syndrome line is intelligent and amusing, but in reality it is based on nothing factual, and frankly a lame arsed sidetrack comment in my opinion. Again, I personally am anti monarchy, but I will argue against labelling them as you do. They may be misguided, and have no concept of democracy, but Stokholm Syndrome? Nope, it's a clear misappropriation of the term if only for the obvious reason that citizens of the UK are not captives in any way.

*Edit* Oh, and UK passport holders can enter 173 countries in the world without a visa, while US passport holders can enter 172. Not bad for 'captives' eh?
Best passports for international travel
edit on 26.1.2015 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
To those that say the queen and her heirs have a privlaged life.....

Imagine a job were:
Your on duty 24/7
There is no retirement until you die no matter how ill or old you get
No freedom of speach
Can never voice your own opinions
You entire day and infact life is planned out by other people
Have to give speachs prepared by politician of varying goverments, some of which you may be against
Constantly at risk of a terrorist attack or assasin
Have to travel the world, not to olaces YOU want but to were the foreign office sends you. Many places that may be rotton.
Haveing to entertain diplomatic quests and world leaders, many of whom you may find repugnant moraly and personaly, but you have to do it with a smile on your face.
Sit through endless cermonies even with ill health.
Be expected to show a strong face to the country no matter how you are feeling.
Be denied a childhood due to royal dutys growing up.

There is no wage you could pay me to do that.

The queen may have 100 of millions or billions but she will never get to enjoy that wealth with freedom.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: abe froman
Didn't Andrews role involve flying decoy missions for anti ship missiles?
Harry did see combat but was removed when it became public knowledge so creating additional risk to him and his unit. He then flew as an apache weapons operator.
I am anti royal but lets not denigrate the experiences of them as individuals.



No Andrew never flew decoy missions, he was involved in radar "spoofing",producing false radar signals to confuse an enemies radar operators. (From far away)

Harry did not see any actual combat, he likes to say that he "fired on the Taliban" but shooting at people on the ground as you fly past overhead is not combat it was just wrong place wrong time for the schmucks he took pot shots at.

The Taliban did threaten his life, at about the same level as any dignitary or high ranking military official, meh.

His ENTIRE service in Afghanistan consisted of training and training exercises. His military career is punctuated by undeserved promotions given at a rate that beggars belief.

Of course other officers did state that he "was given no special treatment AS AN OFFICER", what else are they going to say?




Course he was a officer.

UK you just need good A levels to get into sandhurst.


Harry and william had A levels and a degree. Doubt a recruitment center would let them enlist as they would be overqualified.


I have A levels and a degree, if it was not for health Id likely be a officer in the royal navy.

Being officers was not cause they were royals but because they had the qualifications.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
I have A levels and a degree, if it was not for health Id likely be a officer in the royal navy.
Slightly off-topic, but for info, the Royal Navy is the only armed service which does not require an oath of allegiance to the crown from it's members. The Army, Airforce, and Marines all do but they are maintained by statute law while the RN is maintained through royal prerogative.
Just a random tit-bit of curious info.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I dont have anything against a monarchy per se, however I do if the royalties are evil. So in this case, yeah.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Yes!



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

Because, a "Democratically" elected Government by it's workings, here (UK), in the USA etc. WILL DO as IT sees fit; even if it is contrary to the will of the electorate. This is even so far as to make flase promises to the electorate in order to gain power. In a Democracy, there must always be a counter-check to the actions of Government when weighed against the will of The People. The PEOPLE must have a voice (it's Government), and when it's Government appears to be acting outside of what The People's will in a matter is, there must be a voice to challenge the action, making clear statement that the action is AGAINST The People's will. A Government will, therefore NOT ALWAYS GO with the will of The People. So The People need a proxy to approach The Law of The Land and challenge the contested decision.

If this proxy is not a Head-of-State, then how? As, for example, in the Iraq Question, what was proved was that marching and expression in Media was ultimately powerless; as the Government still went ahead with IT'S decision.

In the UK, which is a Constitutional Monarchy, this proxy is MENT TO BE the Monarch.

Seeker7
edit on 26/1/2015 by Seeker7 because: Grammar check



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I'm neither pro or anti monarchy.....but when consider the alternatives I'd have to vote NO.....at least as long as things remain the way they are now.

Liz has proven herself to be quite the counter balance to some of the pricks we have voted in as Prime Minister.
But I'd hate to think the monarch exerted any sort of real influence on the governing of this country, and I'm not quite sure Charlie will show similar restraint.
However, William does seem to be a reasonable sort of chap - we'll just have to wait and see.

60% in favour of abolition?
I wonder what the breakdown would be just taking the Brits opinion on things?

Its refreshing to see that quite a few Americans recognise and acknowledge that it is a matter for Brits, and Brits alone..... some Americans have a worrying obsession about the British Royal Family.

There are many things wrong within the UK and some are far more important than the monarchy....not least the outdated and no longer fit for purpose party political system and our electoral and parliamentary processes and procedures.
They require far more urgent and radical reform.
And we need to redress the undue power and influence that a minority of people who have attended the 'right' schools and universities have within all key sectors of British society.

Such actions would make the need for this debate completely null and void.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Seeker7

Who's to say the monarch will represent the will of the people? When has the monarch ever stood up for the will of the people?
What with all this austerity and financial skulduggery and ad infinitum...where's the monarch?


edit on 26-1-2015 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: aboutface
When Harper flies to other countries, it's the citizens of Canada who pay his air fare and expenses for his entourage, so I doubt we pay for others to visit us.


When the Canadian Monarchy is acting on behalf of Canada, Canada foots the bill.
2nd.


I already stated that, but was replying to Stumason who said we pay for visits of all other heads of state.
heads of state



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join