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.

 

I am a British Citizen NOT an “English Subject”!!!

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
So do they have a money tree?

Just like here, the governments money comes from the people.


They are not the Government, for starters.

But only the Queen and her husband receive any money and that is as a proportion of the profit derived from the Crown Estate, which was the Monarchs private property until it was handed over in the 18th century in return for a salary. The profits off the Crown Estate deliver some £400 million into the Treasury every year, but the Monarch only gets £30 odd million to cover the expenses which she incurs performing her role as dictated to by the Government.


Originally posted by timetothink
You guys are really defensive.


As anyone would be if people spouted total garbage about your own country.


Originally posted by timetothink
My comment meant that in the rest of the world it is mostly common knowledge that Monarchs have subjects.


Again with the gross generalisation without any corroborating evidence. Like I said, I only ever here this nonsense from Yanks, never a Chinese, Japanese, Indian or anyone else.


Originally posted by timetothink
It is the long held definition, a subject is under a monarchs rule.


Our "definition" has been changed under Law. End of.


Originally posted by timetothink
You guys really are sensitive to a common description of one layer of your government.


Again, because you're talking crap.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


I don’t think I am being soft skinned, I just don’t have much tolerance for ignorance.

I am Scottish by nationality but I am a British citizen, just like I would assume that you are English by nationality but you are still a British citizen, you are never a subject (well ok again you might be but it’s pretty unlikely)

All I am asking is that Americans and others recognise me as a citizen and not a subject



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


You OP was more about how people address you than the gun issue.

You are a citizen.

And no calling you a subject is not the same as calling me a Spanaird.

You have a Royal Family, but I have no Spanish blood nor a Spanish president.

Bad analogy.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


If I am not a citizen then I am not a subject, the royal family does not come into it



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
It seems there is a lot of ignorance when it comes to knowing what Britain is all about. I'm English and British and have no allegiance whatsoever to the Queen. As far as I am concerned, the whole royal family is now a glorified tourist attraction.

There is a lot of hypocracy coming from across the pond. There is no nation on Earth (bar North Korea) that are as patriotic and defensive of their own country. How many Americans own the USA flag and know the national anthem off by heart. Isn't this indicative of a nation wrapped around it's leaders little finger? Most Brits couldn'g give a flying fifty pence piece about the union flag and even the devout football fans only know the first verse and the chorus of the national anthem, the rest is just mumbled or made up to fit the tune.

As far Sharia law.. PAHAHA! Come on! You've been watching too much Fox News.


The kids will know God save the queen off by heart soon..




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Oooo kkkkk

Whatever helps you sleep.

You have a huge royal family who you say has no power, tons of money....but the money doesn't come from the
Citizens, yet they don't run a corporation or anything to produce all that money.

Ok.

Really, why keep them?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by Suspiria
 


No I am sure it doesn't.

I am at a loss though why any royalty even exists. NO ONE even likes them.


That's not true. I used to be ambivalent to them as I've always understood that tourists love them and I've never really believed reptile-type conspiracies. The financial crisis left me less tolerant to a wealthy elite though: I'm not sure how the Queen's accident of birth should really ring-fence her from the fuel poverty that impacts a lot of women her own age this winter.

However, I'm conscious of the fact that following the Jubilee, the Royal Wedding, Kate getting up the duff, the Olympics and so on, Royal approval ratings are up.

I think what's important now is that, since Diana, the Royalty is more of a celebrity issue than a 'genuine respect for Royalty'. The Royals now belong to the same paradigm as Michael Jackson, Beyonce, Beckham etc., than 'some doff the cap and tug the forelock and 'please cure my daughter of evil'' paradigm.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by stumason
 


Oooo kkkkk

Whatever helps you sleep.

You have a huge royal family who you say has no power, tons of money....but the money doesn't come from the
Citizens, yet they don't run a corporation or anything to produce all that money.

Ok.

Really, why keep them?


Do you often stick your head in the sand? That is an honest question by the way. I have never come across anyone else as obtuse on this site as you are. You simply fail to accept when you are wrong. That is so pig headed it is almost admirable.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


The American president costs 20 times more to the American taxpayer than what the Royal family does to the British tax payer.

And no the Royal family has no real power they are however a pretty good tourist attraction.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Suspiria
 


Wow, what a trailer! Hmmm. If anything, the British youth are subjects to the gaming industry. I think they have the monopoly over what they think and care about.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by stumason
 


You have a huge royal family who you say has no power, tons of money....but the money doesn't come from the
Citizens, yet they don't run a corporation or anything to produce all that money.


That might be handy for Charles at the moment, he can use that in defence as to the accusations of not paying tax on his businesses. He should just say, 'I don't run any businesses! Everyone knows that! Including ill-informed American women!'


Really, why keep them?


Because Americans, Chinese and Germans spend millions visiting England in order to look at their ridiculous houses.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Here you go....


Who is a British subject? Other British nationality Republic of Ireland citizens Children Stateless people This page explains what a British subject is and what that status means. In some circumstances, British subjects are able to register as British citizens. The rules about British subject status changed in 1949 and again in 1983, so those dates are important when deciding if someone is a British subject. Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a British subject. And all citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983. Since that date, very few categories of people have qualified as British subjects. You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, up to that date, you were: a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who did not become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a citizen of a Commonwealth country, a citizen of Pakistan, or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland; a person who had been a citizen of Eire and a British subject on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject; or a woman who had registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man who was in one of the two categories above. If you are a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who was born before 1 January 1949 and you did not make a claim to remain a British subject, as above, you may do so in certain circumstances. British subjects normally cannot pass on that status to their children if the children were born after 1 January 1983. But a child may be a British subject in certain circumstances. A person who is stateless may be able to register as a British subject in certain circumstances. Since 1 January 1983, a person who gains citizenship of any other country can no longer be a British subject. However, this does not apply to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who has made a claim to remain a British subject as explained above. If you are not sure of your position or need more information, contact us.


www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 




Why do you Brits deny you have a royal family living off you like leeches and serve no purpose or so you say?

That would be like me saying the president is just arm candy because the house and senate have all the power.

And the White House is just a tourist attraction.


Sounds ridiculous right?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


You do release if you had just bothered to read that link I proved in the OP you would have realised that none of us posting in this thread therefore are British subjects.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





Why do you Brits deny you have a royal family living off you like leeches and serve no purpose or so you say?

I am no fan of the royal family but I don’t think I would ever go as far as getting rid of them, they are a huge part of our history serve as a huge tourist attraction and do loads for charity while serving as fantastic representatives for Brittan to the rest of the world.

They also cost us 20 times less that the cost of your president.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Oh his organic farm he dabbles in?

And the real estate they rent out which is mostly part of their estates which were all purchased with money from the surfs.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Since I am not psychic, that would be hard to tell wouldn't it?

There are people that are subjects and not citizens....I did read all the links, not just that page.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


In other words you never read the OP……

As I am sure that page has now shown you, there are very few actual British subjects so you were incorrect to call me a subject rather than a citizen.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink

That would be like me saying the president is just arm candy because the house and senate have all the power.



He is. He's a figurehead for those that bought him. And he costs more that the Royal family too.


Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family



dailycaller.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Links to those figures please?

And our president is not just a figure head, he has a job in the government. They may suck at it, but they have a say in the day to day operations of the country and are Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

We can not go to war without his say etc. Big difference.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join