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: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I never called YOU a subject.

Let it go.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Are you American?

Because you are wrong about the role of the president.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:19 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. They just mooch of the their people and don't provide any real purpose besides behind the scenes marionetteering. I mean I might understand their overt purpose if it stood as it was historically, but most people don't buy into that anymore and consider them to be figure heads.

So, why even keep them around. Royal titles still get you state funds, and other perks...Why?

I have not really met Europeans that even entertain the idea of their necessity culturally or otherwise.

I know most citizens of the UK are not the stereotypical, bad teeth, cup O tea, God save the queen types. Mostly we kid around with that stuff.


Where on earth do you get your " NO ONE even likes them " from ? Do you realise that the Queen currently enjoys a 90 % approval rating :-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Every country needs a head of state and we have one of immense prestige and experience who has served us well for 60 years.

Americans keep banging on about how they must have guns coming out of their ears to keep the big bad government away. Well we don't need all those guns because we have a seperation of powers with the head of state different from the head of government. We couldn't have a rogue Prime Minister because the Queen could dismiss him and she is titular head of the armed forces.

Monarchy is a symbol of unity for us and has practical purposes.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


hereare your figures, American president costs 20 times more than the Royal family.

Also can I just say that the head of state, the Queen also serves as our Commander in Chief, now yes this is mostly symbolic as she has no real power over the job the armed forces do however in the UK you will find that many members of the Royal family serve in the forces. Prince harry for example has served in Afghanistan fighting on the front line and Prince harry serves with the RAF flying rescue helicopters.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Found this.....but it doesn't account for 312,000,000 citizens vs 65,000,000 and that our president is NOT a figurehead.



U.K. newspapers are having a little chuckle about a new book reporting that Obama's family cost U.S. taxpayers $1.4 billion last year alone, whereas the royal family cost the U.K. a measly $57.8 million – more than 20 times less than the First Family. Obama's expenditures include the salaries of his staff and Secret Service, as well as the maintenance of Air Force One, which he's required to take (and has been using increasingly in this election year). The comparison is being emphasized to advertise "non-partisan" author Robert Gray's book "Presidential Perks Gone Royal." Still, before you get too hot under the collar, if you estimate the current number of taxpayers in the U.S. at around 216 million, that's roughly $6.48 per taxpayer. [Source]


now.msn.com...
edit on 18-12-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I said Europeans. And no they don't. The UK night be different, but most Europeans speak ill of them.

But hey, if you guys like to pamper people who don't actually like you beyond what you can give them then fine, your prerogative.

edit on 18-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


For comparison the royals cost each taxpayer $0.80 a year.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
reply to post by timetothink
 


For comparison the royals cost each taxpayer $0.80 a year.

I spend more than that keeping Sanctuary radio on the air.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Pretty expensive for a whole family with no power.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by khimbar
 


Pretty expensive for a whole family with no power.



Yet Americans, Japanese, Chinese and many other people still come all the way over here to look at their pretty houses and buy tat with their flag on it.

Who said they have no power?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





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

Actually technically speaking in the UK under her “Royal prerogative” the Queen is the only one who can declare war and can declare and an end to war.

Also for America to go to war, the president also needs the backing of congress something of a technicality but it hasn’t happened since WWII I believe. You may wish to go and read your constitution again because I am fairly s sure if memory serves that it says that it is congress that has the power to declare war not the president he/she only requests they declare war.In that sense the Queen has more power than the president because if she wanted to she could declare war on France tomorrow, the president would need to ask congress to do it for him.


The Queen is not “powerless” she actually wields quite a lot of power it’s a common myth that she does not. For example the queen can refuse to dissolve parliament she also choses the PM which after an election is usually a formality but if there is no clear majority such as in the last general election or more famously in 1974 the Queen really does become the most powerful which can become very controversial.

She is also the head of the Church of England so getting rid of her would be a bit like asking Catholics to get rid of the Pope.

.

edit on 18-12-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink


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


Nope but you can get into a lot of 'kinetic actions', and 'peacekeeping' though?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by khimbar
 


Pretty expensive for a whole family with no power.



They also bring tourists into London, as people have already said. In England we have rubbish weather, we are part of a small island and honestly, I have no idea why tourists would want to visit here
. The Royal family essentially puts us on the map along with our history, I do not personally know anyone who cares about the queen, however they are like the Egyptian pyramids, a bit pointless in the modern age but also great branding potential.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by khimbar
 


Pretty expensive for a whole family with no power.



You obviously know nothing about it. The "whole family " doesn't come into it. Only our head of state, the Queen, and her spouse gets a regular income from the treasury and that is greatly exceeded by the income from the Crown Estates which goes to the treasury.

By convention the monarch doesn't exercise power except on the advice of her ministers. But it is still there and is a protection against a rogue government that some Americans seem to constantly worry about.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink

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.


Actually, most of them do run their own business and provide their own income. The Heir to the throne also gets a nice business called the Duchy of Cornwall, which provides his/her income, the Monarch has their business, called the Crown Estate, run on their behalf by the Government which takes a nice hefty slice of the profits. The rest provide for themselves. Your reply clearly demonstrates a total lack of any kind of awareness on your behalf, hence the sarcasm.


Originally posted by timetothink
Ok.

Really, why keep them?


Why not? Link to our history, good tourist trap, an apolitical Head of State which in many people's opinion is better than an elected President Blair for example. Why follow the US lead and have some high-school popularity contest with no substance and who loves God the most?
edit on 18/12/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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. They just mooch of the their people and don't provide any real purpose besides behind the scenes marionetteering. I mean I might understand their overt purpose if it stood as it was historically, but most people don't buy into that anymore and consider them to be figure heads.

So, why even keep them around. Royal titles still get you state funds, and other perks...Why?

I have not really met Europeans that even entertain the idea of their necessity culturally or otherwise.

I know most citizens of the UK are not the stereotypical, bad teeth, cup O tea, God save the queen types. Mostly we kid around with that stuff.


Where on earth do you get your " NO ONE even likes them " from ? Do you realise that the Queen currently enjoys a 90 % approval rating :-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Every country needs a head of state and we have one of immense prestige and experience who has served us well for 60 years.

Americans keep banging on about how they must have guns coming out of their ears to keep the big bad government away. Well we don't need all those guns because we have a seperation of powers with the head of state different from the head of government. We couldn't have a rogue Prime Minister because the Queen could dismiss him and she is titular head of the armed forces.

Monarchy is a symbol of unity for us and has practical purposes.



Those polls are deceptive though, just for the sake of pointing it out. 90% are happy with how the Queen is doing her job, that's on how the question is worded, but ask people whether they're for or against the monarchy and you'll find more than 10% in opposition. You ask a question in a certain way you'll get the favourable answer you're looking for.

And lots has changed these last few years as your link shows. It's not like those who support the monarchy do so because they're super wonderful and beneficial to the country all of a sudden, it basically comes down to the fact the country has been hit these last few years, repeatedly, by nuclear bomb sized assault of pro-monarchy pro-"british" propaganda.

You're right of course to call his untrue statement out. There are more than enough conservatives and other collectives of mentally disturbed individuals who like these royal people as you say



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


The Queen has a high approval rating and plays an important role in British politics and society.

It’s really that simple I don’t know why you would wish to argue any differently.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


The Queen has a high approval rating and plays an important role in British politics and society.

It’s really that simple I don’t know why you would wish to argue any differently.



That's completely subjective. In your opinion she plays an important role in British politics and society, in mine we would lose nothing worth losing if she were to die tomorrow.

Many despots and wholly useless individuals enjoy high approval ratings.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


If you are driven to argue that the great majority, who wish to retain the monarchy, are "mentally disturbed individuals " then you've lost it.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





Are you American?

Because you are wrong about the role of the president.


Are you American because you are also wrong about the role of the President, specifically in declaring war.

I think you need to start being more cautious in how you post because you are opening yourself up for quite a lot of criticism.




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join