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.

 

Royal Family granted new right of secrecy

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Hate this Royal scum, they are no better than my family. As far as i am concerned they have no divine right to rule, what aload of Bo****ks. All people are born equal !!!




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 


I do find it odd that you can't just go up to them, whack 'em on the head and claim royalty when, lets be honest, that's how they got it in the first place.

What I find particularly odd is that I'm actually quite fond of (some of) them, despite the generally flawed principle of leadership-by-my-long-dead-ancestor's-bigger-stick.

That said, they don't exactly lead anymore, or have any real power to speak of, and the queen (although not her husband or children, apparently) is a better ambassador than many.
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 


I have absolute admiration for Prince William and quite frankly he has more blue blood running through his veins than his father Prince Charles. I hope Charles never becomes King and Diana's wish comes true that her first born is crowned the next King.

Prince William would make a fine King and he will bring back some intigrity to the Royals; I predict Prince William will become a father in the first half of 2012.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Can't really blame them for wanting secrecy.

If I was involved in the type of rituals they are involved in, I wouldn't want anyone knowing about it either...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stewalters1
reply to post by Nicorette
 




Peasant!!! no actually i am a multimillionaire.

Self made might i add!

Listen think what you will about the royals it is what it is.

I like them there royal and stand for allot in this country.


Unfortunately this lends a lot of credence to the joke "How do you get 20 brits into a Mini Cooper? Make one a Royal and the rest will crawl up their ass" lol Try to recognise when you're being manipulated, lads!!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   



The royal family give british people a sense of worth and a sense of pride which makes allot of people very happy.

So if it makes my country (men and women) happy thats enough for me.



Wrong!!

They certainly don't give me or anyone I know a sense of worth or pride.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Anam Gra
 


(Well, it's better than how you get 20 British MPs into a mini cooper - put the American president in, and they'll all crawl up his Somalian Wilderness).
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Anam Gra
 


(Well, it's better than how you get 20 British MPs into a mini cooper - put the American president in, and they'll all crawl up his Somalian Wilderness).
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


Ha, even better!!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by subby
Though the British public may pay 60p per person a year towards the royal family, that amounts to around £40,000,000 a year, which would go an awful long way towards helping the 3 million unemployed back to work, regenerating the poorest areas, improving the failing national health service, providing equal first class education to all or many other very worthwhile tasks.


Actually, it's closer to £30 million and no, it wouldn't go a long way towards anything really.


Originally posted by subby
The Windsors are independently wealthy and do not need our hard earned money to support their lifestyles.
It is a disgusting travesty that they continue to leech from the british people while we suffer.
edit on 8-1-2011 by subby because: (no reason given)


Thing is, they aren't. All of the Crowns assets were signed over to the State in return for the Civil list. Thats several billion pounds worth of real estate they gave up in return for the annual payment. Now, with the abolishment of the Civil List, they will get around 15% of the income from the Crown estate, which remains property of the State, not the Royalty. It will also be capped. The Queen doesn't even own her own palaces, they are all property of the State.


If you think that £30,000,000 - £40,000,000 a year wouldn't make a difference to the poorest areas of the UK then you are not living in the real world. Also, Elizabeth II has an estimated personal fortune of £20,000,000.

The royal family are just extra baggage we don't need. The UK should and could be a successful republic.
The idea that that we need them to attract tourism is frankly absurd. The fact is that they believe they have a God given right to rule us and are superior.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by subby
 


£30 million per annum/3 million unemployed = £10 per individual unemployed per year.

Nicer than a kick in the teeth, but let's consider, for example, military expenditure (a rather different type of ambassador) in 2009 - according to Wiki, $69,271,000,000, or (according to one online currency calculator), £44,525,251,399.

Which divides by the total population of the UK (61,838,154, according to 2009 result brought up by google) to give us £720.03(ish), per person, per annum, or by the "3 million unemployed" to give them £14,841.75, per person, per annum.

Now, considering that
a) we are no longer a world power in any serious sense,
b) none of the wars that we are currently fighting seem to be our own, and
c) we don't really possess anything of any value any more that would give anyone incentive to attack us, (only attacks are likely to be based on ideologies and blunders of politicians)

which one would it seem to be a better money-saving device - getting rid of the royal family (who, a previous poster suggested, contribute more cash from their private estates to government coffers than they take), or the military?
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


EDIT: In terms of tourists, we do yet a lot of gawping americans standing around buckingham palace, if you recall. I'd like to think that our rich history and the decent architecture still visible through the modern (censored) had the real pulling power, but I can't be certain. As to the beliefs of the Royals, yes, they can seem a little elitist at times, but hopefully they've learned their lesson that if they try and do anything about their elitistness, we can cut their heads off (and they don't bleed blue, after all).
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


EDIT ii: And then of course there was the bank bailout, which the Independent puts at £850,000,000,000; which is by comparison £13,745 per member of the population, or over £280,000 for every of the "3 million unemployed". Crikey.
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicorette
You know what I find most annoying? Is those sanctimonious Brits who roll in here and bash Americans to make them feel good about themselves when they are equally and deeply as complicit in the ongoing horror of globalism and the planetary empire, and all that.

When these Brits you speak of are criticising America, they're talking about the American government. We criticise our own corrupt government with equal scorn. Yet you talk about us as though we, the ordinary public, are complicit in Globalism? How?! We all know (or should) that it is neither the American people nor the British people who are to blame, but the upper echelons among both nations, the corporations and the New World Order.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by subby
 


£30 million per annum/3 million unemployed = £10 per individual unemployed per year.



Ever heard the phrase "A hand up not a hand out"? £30 million a year (+) could pay for retraining centres, loans or grants for new business ideas, it could prevent a lot of people from losing their homes due to redundancy and a lot more. I agree that the military budget is a waste of our money too (though of course we need defence). The problem is that our taxes are wasted in a number of ways that we have no control over.
There really are people living in abject poverty in this country (as well as in the US) and the divide between rich and poor has never been greater. These are facts, not opinions.
edit on 9-1-2011 by subby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill


"If they were absolute monarchs, then I might be bothered (and get my head chopped off for the trouble) but as it stands, they are just an occasionally entertaining symbol of britishness, outdated and occasionally offensive, but entitled to their privacy where they can get it."

Cummon man. This is the family that has ruled the world for the last 40 generations, with blood ties to most of the US Presidents... They are not just an occasionally entertaining symbol of britishness and you are a fool for believing so.

We should start to worry. Lots!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by subby
 


I would rather have the Queen as head of state, rather than some corrupt Politician being President. The day the United Kingodm becomes a republic. The United Kingdom will no longer exist. Can you imagine a President Bliar god forbid that ever happens. I would buy a one way ticket out of this country if it did.
edit on 9-1-2011 by Laurauk because: Correctingspeling



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


Blood ties to the US presidents? This is intriguing, please explain.

They did hold a totalitarian regime over the entire world for a considerable period of time, until the concept of an absolute monarch lost popularity and Charles I correspondingly lost his head.

Which do you feel is a more appropriate comeuppance for tyranny - being held eternally to the public eye, once supreme rulers with godlike power, but now absolute only in your impotence and fallibility, or just obscurity?

If we banished them, they could fight for the return of their throne, and might even divide the country again. As it is, they have lost nothing, and so have no cause around which they can rally supporters, but nor can they do anything.

This, surely, must be more humiliating?
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anam Gra

Unfortunately this lends a lot of credence to the joke "How do you get 20 brits into a Mini Cooper? Make one a Royal and the rest will crawl up their ass" lol Try to recognise when you're being manipulated, lads!!


How do you get one paddy out a Mini Cooper? Tell him to light the fuse

How you get him back in? Chuck a spud in the footwell

Enjoying your bail out? Want me to chuck a couple more pennies your way?

Aww gosh, aren't stereotypes fun? idiot



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by rebeldog
 


And what was the last war the USA actually won without UK assisstance?

Grenada!

What a fine addition to you nations battle honours that was!

Your ignorance of history and inane and unsubstantiated ramblings about The Picts beggar belief.

You do yourself and your country no favours by spouting such blatant anti-Brit hatred and rhetoric and I suggest you try to gain even a basic and rudimentary education free from bias and ignorance before publicly voicing your opinions again.
Perhaps even a bit of honest introspection and self-examination of the history of the USA and it's dealings with the rest of the world would not go amiss, unfortunately I suspect such honesty maybe beyond you.

As for the royal family; they are an anachronism and are viewed by many as quaint but eccentric distant relatives and are treat with amusing disdain.
Liz is ok but Phil The Greek and Charles are a pair of pompous arses who are so far removed from 'the common man' that they are openly ridiculed and even reviled.
William and Harry seem like ok people.

Like a lot of Brits I think, I have conflicting opinions on the royal family / monarchy.
But on matters of secrecy they should be treat no different to anyone else.
Drafting seperate laws for royalty etc will only ultimately lead to confrontation and I for one know which side of the fence I would be on.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Same kinda stuff happening in South Africa. People in power protecting themselves. Do they know something we don't



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by rebeldog
 

Like a lot of Brits I think, I have conflicting opinions on the royal family / monarchy.
But on matters of secrecy they should be treat no different to anyone else.
Drafting seperate laws for royalty etc will only ultimately lead to confrontation and I for one know which side of the fence I would be on.


Well said on all your post Free. Personally I think very much like you do. But when outsiders ride in and open their gobs about matters that don't concern them, I have to have a go back! I'm quite open to a dialogue with fellow Brits regarding the royals, and any other matters. Foreigners however can get their beaks out and look after their own affairs before sticking their noses into ours



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ridcully
 


Ha, good one!! How do you get 21 brits in a mini Cooper, again one make one a royal, climb up ass etc and of course Mountbatten in the ashtray!!! Oh Dear, past glories!!!



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join