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.


(UK) Should Prince Harry be banned from membership of The Conservative Party?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by ANOK

Hi Anok,

You are so right. The British Royal Family is a giant leech on Britain and the Commonwealth - I am in New Zealand and why do we need some German git to rule over us? The British throne is descended from Germany and Prince Philip (ugh) is Greek...what is going on? I have nothing against Greeks and Germans, but do I want them to rule over us?.....NO
And they have untold millions - do I see them feeding starving children?

They have nothing to do with this country and hopefully we and Australia will soon tell them to eff off.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:06 AM
reply to post by kindred

Sorry, Kindred,

You don't understand the English - this is a HUGE MISTAKE - and Harry has made several huge mistakes - I feel sorry for him actually - he is second in line, knows that Will will get everything, and probably thinks "What the..."

But he should be kept out of the news, definitely.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by redled

First, a simple question.

Where is your evidence that Harry is condsidering membership?

I really hate threads that don't have accurate titles. I was expecting to see some sort of evidence tying Harry to the Tories.

This thread, therefore, starts out as a nonsense.

The monarchy is supposed to be above partisan politics and they're not supposed to publicly (or clandestinely) support any party.

As for what other posters say about the monarchy costing us money that could be adequately spent elsewhere, too right.


Having spent some time in the US, I'm now in favour of the Royal Family keeping its constitutional position, if not the Civil List. This is because I noted how the American public's perception of Dubya changed, literally overnight, when he became President-elect. He went from being an object of genial contempt to one of awed reverence. I remember one conversation with a woman whom I regarded as exceptionally well-informed and rational in which she said "I don't like Bush because he makes a really poor Father to the Nation" (you could hear the capitals).

Now patriotism is a weird, irrational thing and like it or not the head of state in any country becomes a kind of "lightning rod" for all kinds of bizarre emotional nonsense in its citizens. To me there are sensible psychological reasons for separating the head of state from the executive. It allows us to look, for example, at Bliar, and see him for the swivel-eyed hypocrite he undoubtedly is. If Dubya can go from moron to statesman overnight we need the monarchy to prevent the same thing happening here.

So let Liz be the symbolic Mother we seem to need and let's get on with excoriating the politicos as the feckless opportunists most of them undoubtedly are.

And PLEASE don't sucker me into any more threads with a misleading headline. It's pathetic, sloppy and dishonest thinking.

(edit to remove out-of-sequence para)

[edit on 18-1-2009 by rich23]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by ANOK

Paki is not only a nickname but also a name in Ireland.
I know at least 3 Paki's, not spelt that way but the same pronunciation.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Europe
Paki is not only a nickname but also a name in Ireland.
I know at least 3 Paki's, not spelt that way but the same pronunciation.

OK, so what? What's it short for?

What has that to do with harry and his flirtation with nazism and his unthoughtful hateful comments like 'rag head'?

The term 'Paki' is well known as derogatory term, why do you feel a need to apologize for royalty?

The abbreviation Paki acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "Paki" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England.

Who would want that as a nickname?

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by ANOK

Im not apologizing for any one, just mearly stateing the facts.
Do you always get angry when some one posts showing you up?

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Europe

I'm not angry and you didn't 'show me up'. I wrote that with a huge grin on my face, you didn't see it?

I also was just posting facts, OK?

Are you going to actually reply to my points?

[edit on 1/19/2009 by ANOK]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:51 AM
You are so right, Anok.

I am a "colonial" - the ruling British took a lot of countries over, SO arrogantly.

They are costing too much money; the concept of the British throne is outdated; there are roaring young idiots like Harry (and probably Will) - by the way, I would swear Harry is Hewitt's son.

The queen is old; the monarchy has no point any more (if it ever had) and is costing far too much - let Liz be the last monarch - the world has outgrown the monarchy.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by spellbound

Thanx Spellbound. Are you a Siouxie fan btw, we are entranced?

You're right, the royal family are an outdated waste of resources and are not needed any more.

We should take over their palaces and turn them into low income housing for the homeless. Sell off their jewels and equip everyones homes with solar panels. Turn their land into childrens playgrounds. Turn the royal guards bearskins into tea cosies. Hehe the potential is endless....

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by ANOK

You're right, the royal family are an outdated waste of resources and are not needed any more.

Outdated? Yes!
Waste of resources? Possibly.
Not needed any more? I think you're wrong. The Royals bring in a huge amount of revenue from tourism. Far more than the British tax payer has to fork out to keep them. Since the debacle when the queen thought that tax payers should pay for the refurbishment and rebuilding of one of her homes after a fire had destroyed part of it, the royals now have to pay tax.
I know why you feel the way you do. When you're struggling with debt and increasing bills it's hard to stomach some toffee nosed ginger cretin with a superiority complex swanning around in a nazi uniform, but unfortunately (for us) he is a royal and therefore will continue to abuse his position and bring the queen into further contreversy.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:31 AM
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

It has nothing to do with my vast hoards of wealth thank you...

They're part of the old order, the old system that has had us in economical slavery for years. They help perpetuate the outdated system of hierarchy and class divide and attitudes of superiority.

They're not even British, they inbreed and they're just using you.

Oh well, I'm going to spend the evening staring at my piles, of money...

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 06:15 AM
Leave the guy alone. He's just being a regular guy. If he doesn't want to be a stuffy british royal then God bless him .. let him be and let him breath free.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:41 AM
Pakistan means 'land of the pure'.
STAN means land, so PAKI must mean 'pure'.
Hardly an insult being called pure.

I understand that being called 'Paki' can be a derogatory term but it depends on the context it is said.
Harry knew the person he called Paki and is a friend of his, I somehow suspect that there was no insult intended.
If Harry had said it as an insult then he should have been drawn over the coals for it as that is obviously unacceptable behaviour.
That it has been misrepresented in MSM speaks more about the over sensitivity of the PC brigade than Harry's short comings, in fact it humanises him slightly.

Should Harry be able to become a member of any political party?
I personally believe that all members of the Armed Forces should be prohibited from displaying any political allegiance at all.
The Armed Services should be apolitical.
I think the vast majority are, however, I have no doubt that some senior Armed Forces personnel have links to Common Purpose, a truly odious organisation.
A more relevant question is, does Harry actually want to join The Tories?
I certainly haven't seen any evidence that he does.

As for the discussion about the benefits and justifications for The Monarchy, if there are any, well surely that should be for a seperate thread.
The topic is very complicated with very valid arguements on both sides.
I for one honestly don't know...I despise the idea that this family have some divine right to unlimited wealth and influence however, I do recognise the cultural benefits and sense of national identity and pride that they provide.
No easy solution.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:52 AM
this guy is an embarrasment to Britain...

...second line....

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:24 AM
The royals are total crap - they are a drain on the people. Why don't we rise up against them???????? Just an idea - we COULD - why don't we?

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in