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.

 

Her Majesty the Queen Turns 91!

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand
I respect your opinion and your right to hold it. What I will not stand for, is a noble and dignified lady being insulted by colonial peasant stock. It proves what an awesome race we are that our criminal transport convicts build nations.

edit on 22-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

You stand for nothing, only kneel for your master. its disgusting.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Like I said to you before, come to our country internet warrior and run your mouth off. You will find out what we will, and won't stand for. You'll also have the bruises and scars to remind you of what you really are.
a reply to: DocScurlock1774



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Personally i find it difficult to dislike her, we cant choose who we are born to afaik... overall she's done pretty well and her grandkids are sure an improvement on her kids.

But the thing she really needs to do imo to be a great monarch is to be the last. She could help put us on the road to being a republic, but thats another thread.

She aint such a bad old bird.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

How well do you know the queen then?
She could be a proper bitch who views us as skanky peasants for all you know.
A constitutional monarchy is a #ing disgrace in my opinion. Head of state based on genealogy, how the # can you defend that?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: CulturalResilience

How well do you know the queen then?
She could be a proper bitch who views us as skanky peasants for all you know.
A constitutional monarchy is a #ing disgrace in my opinion. Head of state based on genealogy, how the # can you defend that?


I have met her, but I would not count that as knowing her. A non-political head of state that holds no political power, as a part of a constitutional monarchy is uniquely British and something that I am proud to serve. You are entitled to your opinion, I like many others, do not share it. I am sure you can find a country to live in that better suits your standards.
edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I'm happy living here thanks, and will criticise the system of unelected head of state as much as I wish.
You are a subservient peasant in my mind, would you have given your daughter up to the Lord of the manor a few hundred years ago?
Birthright is bull#.
Unless you can rationally and logically defend it?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I'm happy living here thanks, and will criticise the system of unelected head of state as much as I wish.
You are a subservient peasant in my mind, would you have given your daughter up to the Lord of the manor a few hundred years ago?
Birthright is bull#.
Unless you can rationally and logically defend it?


I never challenged your right to criticise or speak your mind. As I am descended from the local lords of the manor, I would have taken your daughter a few hundred years ago, if she wasn't really ugly.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I being the rebel would probably stab the lord to death back in the day.
You may accept the rule of others through birthright, I do not.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
This country is not ruled by birthright. It has a parliamentary democracy. It's highly unlikely that you would have got near enough to my forefathers to stab any of them, as they were a militaristic aristocracy that had their own private army of trusted guards and sentinels.

a reply to: grainofsand


edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Yeah whatever, head of state through birthright and lords of the manor are archaic ridiculous throwbacks of history.
You have no logical, or moral argument to defend such institutions.
...and yep, I'd be sly and win the confidence of the oppressor, then stab him dead and face the consequences.

How the # you can defend lords of the manor stealing another man's daughter I have no idea. Shame.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Saying that I would have done it back then is not the equivalent of defending it today. Besides any other defence of the institution today, there is the obvious cost of; and revenue from benefit analysis. Your tactic of gaining trust and sneaking an attack was tried numerous times and failed. Perhaps life in a dungeon might have suited you



a reply to: grainofsand


edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Dp
edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Head of state through birthright is indefensible though in the 21st century.
Unless you have some rational argument to defend it?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

As its a non-political head of state I think it has considerable advantages. The interests of the country as a whole are less likely to be subverted to serve the agenda of a particular political party or its philosophy's. This has proven its effectiveness repeatedly during visits to; or from foreign heads of state and trade delegations, as one example.



edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Why even have a head of state when parliament is sovereign?
Why do you think a particular family blood line is needed to sign off acts of parliament?
Come on, you are the royalist, give me one good reason to support a constitutional monarchy system.

*edit*
I'm Welsh and don't believe in any gods by the way, I've never sung 'god save the queen' because both ideas are equally bull#.
She ain't my queen.
edit on 23.4.2017 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I just gave you one reason in the post above.
a reply to: grainofsand



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Crap reason, there is no need for an unelected head of state if parliament is sovereign.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

And for the record I've got nothing against the queen as as a person, she could be lovely or a total bitch, I don't know her, as you don't.
The institution of a constitutional monarchy based on a particular family bloodline is what I despise.
If parliament is sovereign then an unelected head of state is unnecessary and difficult to defend with any logic or reason.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Come on royalists, where are you, defend your queen.
Help convince this parliamentarian why we need or can defend a head of state determined by family bloodline.

*edit*
A true Brit, if there is such a thing, would wish for a nation where every child could aspire to be head of state, not just one family.
A royalist chooses the label of peasantry or serfdom.
edit on 23.4.2017 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join