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.

 

Is the British Royal family that bad?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I know many don't like them they have had bad press concerning David Icke, the Princess Diana conspiracies and their family problems and the UK people paying their taxes.

Okay is Prince Charles that bad? He has of late spoken up about GM foods which is quite good and agree on that nature should not be tampered with.
But agin is that just reverse phycology in hiding their no so human bloodline that was GMed by Aliens or Angels?

Secondly Harry has been a soldier and trained in the army for the war in Afghanistan since it was the Royals who have the last word to go for war.

They do a lot of charity work and try and build relations around the world, but again this could be seen as sticking their nose in. But all political figures travel to meet their counter parts ayway.

Is this a smoke screen or have they changed ad are they as bad as what people thought 10 years ago?




posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Is this a smoke screen or have they changed ad are they as bad as what people thought 10 years ago?


I don't think there's every really been a consensus about the Royal family. I think there's always been people in favour of them from either as monarchist perspective or just appreciating the tourist revenue they garner and then there's always been people who want shut of them for a multitude of reasons.

Also, even support for Royals varies from Royal-to-Royal. Edward is universally thought of as a pillock, whereas some, like Charles or Anne, have support in some quarters. Look at the bizarre hysteria that surrounded the 'Princess of Hearts' - alive and dead - and then compare to the general derision for some of the minor Royals such as Princess 'Pushy' Michael of Kent.

Even if Charles is a reptilian, I at least agree with his views on architecture. I for one welcome our aesthetically conscious Reptilian overlords!



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 



they arnt that bad they never really have been

in some cases they are like an annoying itch some times

and like merriman said it varies from person to person

look at prince philip he is a racist slightly insane womanising greekguy ... but we all kind of love him simply for the idiotic things he does on offical trips he is both really embarassing and really funny at the same time*

if we ever get rid of the royal family we should still keep him just for comedy value

*please note we as a people are almost always laughing at him not with him



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Story I heard whilst serving in the Guards during Wilson's 3 day week/Winter of discontent was that some Army Brass had asked the Queen if she would support a military takeover of the Govt.
She declined.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Maybe there has is bit of social change in terms of how we look at them, its a bit like a soap opera, where the character gets a bad name and the writers decide lets change them around a bit a make them likable. I mean sometimes they change their own public image or events bring the best and worst out of them. But since Diana's death and the divorce the Royals were seen quite unlikeable with Camila in the background of it all. But I think that is slowly passing and Harry and William are adding the next generation feel to them in the legacy of their Mother which re-ignites the possitive interest in which Diana brought the care and the sexy glamour that the Royals had not seen in present history. Probably over shadowig their own popularity in the modern age which they probably did not understand or like they were overshadowed by someone they were divorcing.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
in which Diana brought the care and the sexy glamour that the Royals had not seen in present history.


I wouldn't say that about Diana. Princess Margaret was seen as "sexy glamour" only the decade or so previously and certainly glamour that was a little more classy than Diana too.



I think what Diana's USP was being the car crash Royal. Whilst there had been scandal in recent Royal history, this was pretty much unique in terms of scale. Something that was fairly peculiar to Diana was the idea that she was 'one of us' a poor commoner used as a brood mare for an uncaring and unfeeling Royal family. However, even the most cursory glance at her pedigree shows that she was only like 'you and me' if 'you and me' means your parents were also titled and some of the biggest names in British history appear in your family tree.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
The general public needs the Royal Family a lot more than the Royal Family needs the public

If I were a member of the Royal Family, I'd gladly abdicate. They (Royals) would have a glorious life if freed from public and media scrutiny.
Like us, they only get one lifetime and if I had their wealth, opportunity, contacts, property .. then I'd want to spend my life enjoying all at my disposal, rather than enduring endless rounds of opening aged-care centres, libraries, etc. etc. complete with obligatory polite comments and smiles for those come to gawp.

They take a family holiday in one of their many residences and the media whips the public into a frenzy of jealousy, resentment and self-righteousness.

It's the media .. namely the hideous reptilian Murdoch .. which has encouraged the unwashed masses to feel justified about 'keeping tabs' on how and where the Royals spend their time and money.

I don't know why the Royals tolerate it. It's their money. Their time. They're not answerable to their subjects, lol .. they're royalty.

Yet they do attempt in so many ways to appease their subjects .. even as those subjects inject substances into their veins and roll intoxicated in the gutter.

The Royal work ethic and sense of duty are definitely a labour of love, imo. Not as if the Royal Family need to work for a crust. Not as if their lives and fortunes depend on the masses.

The Queen's worked like a navvy all her life and still going. She's kept so busy attending garden fetes she couldn't possibly have time to devote to her own interests or to simply step back and appreciate the priceless art collections in her many residences. The woman's in her 80s, yet she's still out there shaking pensioners' hands and giving people memories that will still be handed down through the family in six generations to come: ' I saw the Queen .. she smiled at me .. she accepted the roses I pushed through the barricades '.

Camilla though, I wouldn't step out of the way for. Hideous, unprincipled creature.

Most of all, I hold zionist Murdoch responsible for the attempted destruction of the Royals .. and more. But he keeps the wraps tightly around the Rothschilds and their disgusting ilk.

I don't buy any of the insane 'reptilian' rubbish ... but make an exception in the case of Murdoch. He's reptilian incarnate, imo. I hope there's a hell in Murdoch's case .. a real Dark Ages hell.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I think other countries see the Royals differently, sometimes they are admired sometimes like some have said here with Camilla being in the frame it has tarneshed the overall respect. But I know Prince Charles has been used in many comical ways and seen as too posh for his own good. But he has of late been mindful in the political science issues and his sons are either working up as soldiers or doing charity work and have a meaningful outlook in their lives. But early 90s the royals had a bad image if not a meaningless purpose but recently this decade we see them more human in the loss of Diana and the world televised funeral.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Much like any family born with a silver spoon in their mouth I dislike the special treatment they receive. An example of that recently being Prince Harry applying to become a Helicopter pilot with the army, when I applied for this position I was told that if I had ever taken any illegal substances I would instantly be discounted from selection (by the way I hadn't
). Harry although admitting he has taken drugs doesn't seem to face this same selection criteria test as the rest of us, so whilst someone who is going to be qualified and skilled for that role ends up missing out on their dream job we are going to end up with one less pilot apart from when Harry has to do a few PR appearances for Clarence House.

I also don't like all the hype over Diana...Yeah she did alot or charity but it wasn't like she didnt get alot back from that in return. It boosted her public profile, made her seem like such a selfless heroine etc. but lets face it, at the end of the day she was going back to her yacht or mansion or penthouse depending on where she was at the time and she was also an adultress. I think there are people far more deserving of their chrity work praise than her



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join