It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


UN Human Rights Council tells the UK to get rid of their Queen.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:51 AM
With the EU dead in the water so to is the U.K

Scotland will dissolve the Union...and probably keep the royals

Wales will follow and probably turf out the fake Prince of Wales in favour of a descendant of the last native prince

Great Britain will remain, as it has always been, an island, not a political unit

There is also no country called Holland. Just in case you needed to know

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Ste2652
Aww, that's nice. We're quite capable of deciding whether we want a Queen or a President ourselves, thank you. It's worked pretty well for the last thousand years.

What a waste of time. Why doesn't this council start focusing on real human rights issues... Zimbabwe anyone?

According to the video, Iran complained about the UK's poor efforts to tackle sexual discrimination. Says the nation where women aren't allowed to hold public office and where homosexuals are hanged.

The UK should follow the US's lead and leave the Human Rights Council. Clearly it has descended into an utter farce.

[edit on 13/6/08 by Ste2652]

Ohhh - still laughing -that is funny - know your history there buddy ? England hs about as many English as Sri Lanka does Inuits - your entire Royal family are foreigners - gotta love those Visigoths, Vandaals etc - If it wasn't the Romans, French, Germans, then it was the Vikings - no wonder they are Americas tart - Thousand Years - HA HA HA HA HA !!!

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:09 AM
If the UN forced us to get rid of our Queen i'm 110% sure our armed forces would remind the UN we have Trident and are not afraid to use it. To get rid of the Queen means you have to wipe out our armed forces, who have pledged their life and honour to the great lady, Not forgetting 90% of the Brit public love the monarchy.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by SKUNK2]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:25 AM

Ohhh - still laughing -that is funny - know your history there buddy ? England hs about as many English as Sri Lanka does Inuits - your entire Royal family are foreigners - gotta love those Visigoths, Vandaals etc - If it wasn't the Romans, French, Germans, then it was the Vikings - no wonder they are Americas tart - Thousand Years - HA HA HA HA HA !!!

You do realise that in some way, you could be descended from these same people, and he was talking about the institution of the monarchy, not their family trees, it is still an English tradition. Oh and America's president, Bush, is the Queens second cousin from what I remember, so part of the same family eh? still laughing

[edit on 17-6-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:27 AM
The United Nations is irrelevant as a political body. It's "Human Rights Commission" is controlled by radical countries, and its primary goal is to virtually eliminate all western governments.

I would suggest that one look at the country that sponsored this, and its treatment of its own people.

Then, look at the membership on that "Commission", and look at how the vast majority of those countries treat their people.

Frankly, it is long past the time to cut off all funds to the United Nations, except for humanitarian relief efforts. It is a swollen bureacracy, made up primarily of functionaries that earn many times more than the leaders of their home countries, and have no desire to promote anything but their own agenda.

The United Nations has never prevented a war; had condoned the most egregious human right violations; has failed miserably to condemn those that most violently abuse their own peoples and generally wastes money.

It is nothing more than a "debating society", and it has outlived its usefullness.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by audas
Ohhh - still laughing -that is funny - know your history there buddy ? England hs about as many English as Sri Lanka does Inuits - your entire Royal family are foreigners - gotta love those Visigoths, Vandaals etc - If it wasn't the Romans, French, Germans, then it was the Vikings - no wonder they are Americas tart - Thousand Years - HA HA HA HA HA !!!

Hmm, where to start...

As it stands, genetic studies show that at least 67% of the English population is the same as that since before the Roman conquest.

The Royal family are foreigners thing is a bit old, really. At what point do people cease to be foreigners? The House of Hanover, from which she descends, ascended to the throne in the 1700's. However, all the Royal Houses in Europe are related, so where do you draw the line?

Visigoths and Vandals? You really need to read your history chap.... They came no where near the British Isles.

French? When was that? If your thinking of the Normans, your barking up the wrong tree. I won't spoil it for you, go read up on where the Normans come from.

Germans? Well, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes where Germanic, but then again, so are alot of people across Northern Europe. If your talking more recently than 1500 years, then I haven't a clue what your hinting at. Not sure if you noticed, but we won WW2...

Danes? Got their arses kicked by Harald in 1066 at Stamford Bridge and were sent packing. He then marched his army the length of england to face off against the Normans just a couple of weeks later. Had it not been for indiscipline in the Saxon ranks, Hastings would have been won too.

Where are you from, by the way?

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by deltaboy

When I enlisted in 1969 I swore allegiance to my Queen & Country.
Now 39 years later, I still believe in that allegiance. And no Mickey Mouse Islamic country is going to tell me what to do in my own da*n country.
The UN can go to hell!

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:53 PM

Originally posted by audas
Ohhh - still laughing -that is funny - know your history there buddy ? England hs about as many English as Sri Lanka does Inuits - your entire Royal family are foreigners - gotta love those Visigoths, Vandaals etc - If it wasn't the Romans, French, Germans, then it was the Vikings - no wonder they are Americas tart - Thousand Years - HA HA HA HA HA !!!

I think it's rather sad that you've chosen to simply attack the UK rather than add something constructive.

I'm well aware of my country's history, yes. Are you aware of yours? Every single nation on earth, whether they like it or not, consists of a great mixture of different races and peoples as migrations, wars/invasions and other events have led to mass movements of people. It's true that England has had Vikings, Normans, Celts, Angles, Saxons and a whole host of other peoples living here at some point or other. But the same can be said about France, or Spain, Iran, Russia, China... any nation you care to name.

Oh, and by the way, I think you're confusing 'England' and 'Britain'. Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not just of England.

The UK Government has done the right thing by ignoring this. If we want to hold a referendum on the status of our monarchy, we'll do so without other nations telling us to. Britain having a Monarch as head of state doesn't harm anyone else (it doesn't threaten any other nation's security or anything like that), so the UNHRC has no business poking its nose into this area.

[edit on 17/6/08 by Ste2652]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:16 PM

Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.

Really??? As fashionable as the burqa is I still think the UK has a better track record than I-effin'-ran.

Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iran, Sri Lanka??? This has to be a joke. I'm not even going to waste my time with a long post stating that none of these countries deserve to have a say in international affairs until they start playing nice in their OWN COUNTRIES!!!

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:29 PM
The whole notion of a queen is and should be in the history books

There is no human that should be above a nation or above us. We are all equal. I just feel that its immoral to bow to another human being, when you or I are human also.

There was a time. Humans have evolved. We come from the same seeds and grow from the same ground, the branches grow differntly but no other branch is better than the other. No human is better than the other. The Monarchy has no reason to be anymore. Its degrading.

Hope you can see what I'm saying.

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:28 AM
Monarchy, in the form of a King or Queen, has lost its original status and symbiotic relationship with the peoples and land that they rule. This is not a statement against the present Queen but of "Kingship" in general.

Time was that the monarch was representative of the success or failure of the land, this is particularly well portrayed in John Boorman's "Excalibur", illustrating some of the exploits of Arthur, the "once and future king".

In ages long since gone, it was even part of the duty of the King was to present himself for sacrifice to atone for the ills visited upon the community.

As for "bowing" to the King or Queen, this is relevant to the rank rather than the person, the same way that rank is saluted in the armed forces. Yes, everybody is "born equal" apart from material opportunities, however, we each define our own status in society by the choices we make and the benefits, or lack thereof, that we deliver to our communities.

Kingship should not be denegrated. It served a vital function throughout the history of the world from small tribes in the depths of the jungle, to the largest empire on Earth, albeit with different titles; "A King by any other name..."

The conceptual King was always answerable to their people, the people were *not* subservient. The fact that this position was abused is not necessarily a reflection of the rank itself.

Personally, I think that the time is just right for Arthur to return and defend England once again ;-)

Guards... Knights... Squires... Prepare for battle!

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by SugarCube

King and queenship, should be in the history books. Humans have leaped through time. We don't need another human to overule is us. As you say we are born equal. We have come along way since Queen Elizabeth and King Philip of Spain defending their nations.

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:19 PM
Humans have no more leapt through time than the monkeys. Our technology is more advanced now of course, but humanity is still basically poking into holes with sticks to eat a few termites just like our simian friends.

All countries have a leader of some sort or another, whether they are called a "King" or not is largely irrelevant. The same tactics are undertaken to enforce leadership - take the 42 day vote in the UK as an example. Was this the best example of democracy via a secular leader?

The investiture of power within individuals is present even in republics.

The single most important factor in society is the all pervading assurance of a written law that *everybody* has to adhere to, including the clauses that prevent arbitrary rewrites for the benefit of the ruling body.

King or no King, without this principle we are all living in mediocre democracies. Is there any democracy to date that has lived up to this principle?

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:39 PM
I am British and I personally think that the Monarchy is a waste of time. I would love to see them go.

Why should they have such a privileged life? Are they somehow more special than you or I? Perhaps kind of like how Saddam was special?

No, I don't think anyone should get privilege over other people because of anything (colour of their skin, religion, race, parents, peerage, etc.)

All you other Brits who think that royalty somehow 'made' Britain are brainwashed. The British people are what makes Britain supposedly Great, not some spoilt family. Think Brunel, Newton, Watt, etc.

And don't get me started on the National Anthem! We should be singing about our Land of Hope and Glory, not hoping some old bint will be saved by God.

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by SugarCube

Exactly lets not be monkeys. Let's not wait who is king of the pride of lions. To say we are still monkeys, is insulting. I'm not. get real would you.

Lets take the leap, and free ourselves from kissing someones ass, whether it be king of tulips, queen of the honeybee or the Queen of England.

Lets not worship another human. That's progress. Let's have it as record in history books. Kings and queens don't represent us, like they did ions ago.

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by mind is the universe
Lets not worship another human. That's progress. Let's have it as record in history books. Kings and queens don't represent us, like they did ions ago.

I'm an American and from what I understand about the Queen of England (the United Kingdom) is that she is more of a symbol than power.

Although she may have a lot of power and influence, it is the Parliament that holds the power and the Prime Minister is the elected Head of State.

I have a great deal of respect for the Queen and I believe that her status and the Monarchy should remain intact despite what the world thinks.

Of course this is my belief and I believe that there are many people in the UK who feel the same way.

I don't think people worship her as you say. People respect her, not because of who she is, but what she has done for the people of the UK in her lifetime.

Who should really care about how wealthy she is? So what? The world is filled with many wealthy and influential people, but I don't see anyone trying to take their influence and money from them.

Who cares? I say leave the Queen alone!

Besides, I believe the decision should be left up to Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced like "Bouquet) of Keeping Up Appearances (a British sit-com to those who may not know).

I may be an American but I can still say "God Save The Queen" and to Hades with the United Nations.


posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:44 PM
Whoops! My bad on the double post!

[edit on 18/6/08 by Intelearthling]

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by Intelearthling

Yes but why should she as a person deserve to be seen as higher figure, and them as her royal subjects.

Your not understanding my point. Why should a human being in this day and age be treated like immaculate human being??

Why should billions of taxpayers be sent to one human being to satisfy her wealth of desires.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:58 AM
reply to post by mind is the universe

"Billions of taxpayers [pounds]"? The UK defence budget is around £37Bn, however, the Queen doesn't decide how this is spent - not even where glittery trinkets are concerned.

Excuse the long quote...

Wiki: The Crown Estate is not owned by the monarch personally, but is an inalienable possession of the Crown, and passes from one Sovereign to the next. During modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have greatly exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, surplus from the Crown Estate produced approximately £184.8 million for the Treasury during the financial year 2003/04, whereas parliamentary funding for the Monarchy was approximately £36.8 million during the same period. These funds include the Civil List, Annuities, Grants in Aid, and funding paid directly by government departments.

In 2000, a £35.3 million reserve was carried over from the 1990-2000 Civil List. The reserve was created from surpluses caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the palace more efficient. For the period of 2000 - 2010, the Civil List has continued to be fixed at £7,900,000 (GBP) annually, the same as was established during 1990

Look it as subsidising a Nationalised industry that actually makes a profit - more than can be said for Northern Rock and we *are* in the red for "billions" as a result of that fiasco.

Who is asking anybody to be subservient to the Queen herself? Apart from the respect that she deserves for service to her country for her *entire* life, she is just a person that holds a *rank* within the UK.

As I mentioned before, the rank is respected as within the armed forces; as everybody from a 2nd Lieutenant upwards is saluted. I would suggest that far from being "immaculate", the much publicised ills visited upon the "Royal Family" in the past few years have illustrated that they are a family as any other in the UK. They have dysfunctional periods, they have happiness too. They are a family.

Yes they have privilege, but is this any different to that which Paris Hilton enjoyed in her early career a result of her surname? Don't even get me started if you actually believe that she is entirely self-made. Is it really "forward looking" to abolish monarchy because you don't think it is "fair" that they enjoy privileges as a result of actions that took place 300 years ago as opposed to a couple of decades?

Matters should be considered on the basis of benefit to the country - The Crown does benefit the country in any number of ways. Since it has been shown that the financial "downside" is not valid, what other "downside" can be noted?

You appear to have missed my points concerning the real waste of taxpayers' money in our society caused by notionally "elected" officials. Are you suggesting that we resort to anarchy? A nice thought but it would inevitably end as a larger scale version of "Lord of The Flies".

I agree that the National Anthem should celebrate the UK itself rather than the monarch, however, I'm not going to get too upset about a song when there are so many other ills in the country that have nothing to do with the monarch.

God Save The Queen... because that means that we save Britain itself.

I'll save the response to the belief that we're no longer apes to another time. ;-)

[edit on 19-6-2008 by SugarCube]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in