A Question for the British People

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 




.... some people say Richard the 3rd was the last English king


The only Northern King this country has had and as much a King of the people as one could have been in those days - and he was killed because of it.

Those who replaced him then orchestrated a campaign to besmirch and discredit him, only now is the truth about him becoming widely known.

reply to post by SageRivers
 




....british humour can tell you alot about them


One of our greatest assets - our ability to see humour in any given situation and to be able to take the mickey out of both other's and our ourselves.

reply to post by Flavian
 




Then again, i would have loved Queenie to stage a coup when Tony Blair and Gordon the Grump were in charge!


So you would have supported The Queen opposing a democratically elected government?
It may be uncomfortable to many but Bliar and his cronies had far more of a mandate from the electorate than this current administration has.

I have an intense dislike of the current electoral and parliamentary processes but they are the legal one's of this country and it is within that framework that we must work for reform.

I would never support the monarch over Parliament.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I loathe every single one of them with a passion, and everything they stand for.

However, my view is probably in the minority as most people either think favourably of them, or like having them around like an embarassing, dirty old rug.

It's such an outdated concept, it really is.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl

I guess its the idea that someone can be "born" into a position of such tremendous wealth and power, perhaps?


For me, this is precisely what's so horribly wrong and infuriating about it.

I'm supposed to bow and treat these people with immense respect because they were born into a position of power, when in reality, most of them would be completely unable to survive in the real world. I have respect for Harry, but I suspect he'd rather not be a Royal at all.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by michael1983l
 


I just don't like the way the British public fornicate over the queen and the rest of the firm. I don't like the idea of putting a very unimpressive family on a pedestal with no direct challenge.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think you will find that when the Queen goes on foreign visits, she is always met with the greatest respect. Plus the body language of so called powerful people like Obama and Bush when he was president shows that she is by no means unimpressive, if you compare this with visits of british Prime Ministers then you will see a massive difference. Normally the British Prime Minister behaves like the lap dog to the President. When the President meets the Queen, it is always the other way around. I saw a detailed documetoary on body language that highlighted this fact excellently.


I would say this is a slant on the characters of those foreign dignitaries, who feel they-somehow deserve less respect than the Queen. She is just a woman the head of a firm of quite unimpressive characters. I would like to think if I ever met the Queen, I would not bow down to Royal protocol.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I actually may well have supported the Monarch in such a position. However, i will state categorically here, what has happened to our country is exactly what i said would happen in the run up to the 1997 election. The subsequent ruin of our economy was so easy to spot and yet i was something of a lone voice back then (or so it felt) - it was obvious as they couldn't even get their figures to add up correctly whilst they were still in opposition.

It was also totally obvious that Blair did what he wanted, not what he thought was right for the country (Iraq War, Dr David Kelly, etc).

So, to be fair, it was only in these obvious and explicit circumstances that i would have supported the monarchy. For your general, run of the mill government (that i either accept or hate) then no, i wouldn't it support under any circumstances. It's just because i feel TB should be in prison for treason (amongst many other charges) that i feel this way.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
They are parasites, leeches.

God said they could rule us apparently, so i think its about time they proved this as fact. If they cant (which obviously they cant) they should give up their fake titles obtained by fooling and killing thick pig farmers or whatever they were back in the day.

Royals are a waste of money, time and air.
Tourism isnt based on the royals, its based on what the royals had/have. The properties, the jewels. If the royals were brought back to reality, we would still get tourists.

Our entire tourism economy isnt based upon the royal family, there is more to the UK than the royals and their ill gotten gains.

Everyone one i know despise the royals, we are all in our early to mid 30s or late 20s.

God given rights to rule us, its an utter joke

The fact is, only the most violent, psychopathic scum could ever be royalty. Im sure when the notion was first dreamed up they didnt go and ask people if they would like to give them money and support them. Im pretty sure all royalty was given power through sheer violence, murder, and other horrific methods. The royals are a long line of murderous, parasitic scum.
edit on 14-1-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
They keep the class system alive in this country which is despicable in it self. The run of the mill sun / daily mail readers over here still love them. The middle classes who still belive in the lie of national pride, patriotism etc still love them. The clear thinkers either are totally indifferent to them or as my self totally despise them.What really gets me about the entire shower of #e that they are, is that they never use there considerable influence/ wealth to do anything of any importance.Or speak out on any injustices or illegal wars etc.They just take the money and smile.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I am largely indifferent to the monarchy. I feel sorry for them at times. I would have hated to have been born knowing exactly, without room for deviation, what I was going to grow up to be. To live in a fish bowl, without real freedom, let alone, privacy. Sure, it is a very well provided for and comfortable existence, but still, give me choice and independence any day.

In terms of what purpose they actually play, I believe that the formation of the Constitutional Monarchy, and the role of the reigning Monarch as a 'servant of the people', in this country's case, is an important one. The Queen while relatively disempowered does serve as a buffer between the government and corporate interests, and we the people of this country, and given the limitations on the UK's land resources, those resources that remain under the protection (if not the control) of the 'Crown' and which cannot be sold by changing governments are vital in preserving the quality of life in this country.

I certainly have respect for the sacrifices that the monarchy makes to retain it's position, and while I would most likely observe protocol and etiquette if I was to meet royalty, I consider them to be my servants in the long term governance of this country. So that respect is given because of what they have given up for me and for my country's benefit. I wouldn't change places with them for the world and appreciate the role that they play.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Hi Smylee

I do apologise if this has already been posted but i,m having difficulty with the ATS pages loading up.

This link www.derry32csm.com... will take you to a web page explaining what happened prior to the Queens last visit to Belfast.

To quickly summarize the events........

The day before the Queen was to arrive here in British Belfast a huge Irish Flag was displayed on the mountain over looking the city with the statement above "Eriu is our Queen". To those who may not know Eriu was the eponymous matron goddess of Ireland. The people who were involved in this stunt were then violently set upon by Loyalists which is the name for people who support the British Monarch but live in N.Ireland. The flag was then removed so the Queen wasn't subjected to it the following day. There's therefore no free speech here in Belfast.

Personally i was indifferent to the Royal Family until the Lady Diana cover-up and am now in two minds, either the monarch are bullied by the state or as sinister as the conspiracies make out.
edit on 14-1-2013 by sharkz because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by sharkz because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by sharkz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Firstly I havent read through previous posts but here is my view.

I Like the idea of a royal family, I like having history and I think our Royal family could be a very good vocal point. However that doesn't mean I like those currently travelling the world spending OUR money. Diana was by far my favourite royal of recent times. She was murdered, by sick corrupt racists who are in-line with the Vatican and Rothschilds. They have simply lost all Patriotism. The future will be no better, they are tied with all evil in the world and that isnt going to change. I want my Royal family to be those I can be proud of.

Although im sure this has been mentioned before but OP, Royal family is most definitely not anything like Hollywood.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Unfortunately the Queen's role is not just ceremonial.

The Queen's vetoes - The Guardian

Why should she have more say over how the country is run purely because of the family she was born into?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
It's strange really...I would say most people are apathetic. They aren't terribly interested come 3pm Christmas day, I'm sure she's just background noise to grandads snoring. The weird thing is how people wet their knickers the moment one of them visits their town or theres a royal anniversary. To be fair though, we will use any old excuse to throw a party.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavmas

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by pavmas
 


Okay, I understand now. Thank you for clarifying.

Although I knew the Queen was the head of the Church of England, I did not know that Catholics were still discriminated against.

Please believe me when I say that I meant no disrespect to you.


No disrespect taken, in fact just last week the church says just how important it is for this discrimination to continue
www.telegraph.co.uk...


That isn't discrimination towards Catholics on the whole now is it? Church of England saying a future monarch shouldn't be Catholic and you believe that is a direct discrimination against YOU? It's making a point about that particular religion being at risk of losing any further credibility if the monarch is not a member of their faith, sheesh, I think you are looking for reasons to be offended, and yes, I am Catholic and no I do not feel I am subject to any discrimination whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
They don't interest me at all, I only enjoy hearing about Harry's antics.. other than that Meh.. dunno if its my generation I am 27.

rgds Jay



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by VenomandSerum
Unfortunately the Queen's role is not just ceremonial.

The Queen's vetoes - The Guardian

Why should she have more say over how the country is run purely because of the family she was born into?


To be honest, that simply demonstrates to me how clueless people actually are about our political system - even our elected representatives.

For me, any MP that isn't aware of this is not fit to be an MP.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I personally do not see why there should be any constitutional crisis should this event ever happen. I understand there is obviously some historical bad blood with Catholics and the UK, mostly bourne out of the dispute over Ireland. But I do not see why belonging to any particular ethnic or religious group should be used against somebody, especially if their intentions are for the good.

I personally would be saddened to see any form of activists against a Catholic marrying into the Royal Family.


Iain Duncan Smith, formerly leader of the Conservatives - Catholic
Charles Kennedy, formerly leader of the Liberal Democrats - Catholic

Both could have become Prime Minister and they are but two examples. It's not a law as far as I understand. The issue would have been about them advising on appointing COE clergy to the Lords as far as I can see.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Those born in the UK don't understand the British, let alone anyone from outside, no two people have the same view on anything,must be their weather, no two days the same!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
They keep the class system alive in this country which is despicable in it self. The run of the mill sun / daily mail readers over here still love them. The middle classes who still belive in the lie of national pride, patriotism etc still love them. The clear thinkers either are totally indifferent to them or as my self totally despise them.What really gets me about the entire shower of #e that they are, is that they never use there considerable influence/ wealth to do anything of any importance.Or speak out on any injustices or illegal wars etc.They just take the money and smile.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)


Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall, pays income tax on his income from the Duchy, and does not get anything from the civil list. His son, the duke of Cambridge, has a job, he pilots a search and rescue helicopter in the RAF.
The British unwritten constitution forbids the royals saying anything much.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I personally love the fact we have a royal family.

They do a lot for our nation, bringing it lots of money for charity and the economy e.g Tourism.

Yes the Queen is sometimes portrayed as miserable, and yes there is sometimes controversy.. but every family has that, just they have their arguments in public! The queen is old don't forget.... she's probably tired and just wants to rest for her last years.

Royal events are also one of very few times the whole nation forgets it's issues and just has fun and comes together.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 




Iain Duncan Smith, formerly leader of the Conservatives - Catholic
Charles Kennedy, formerly leader of the Liberal Democrats - Catholic

Both could have become Prime Minister and they are but two examples.


But neither of them actually were Prime Minister - and if the truth is told neither of them had any realistic chance of becoming so.

The FACT remains that no Catholic has ever been Prime Minister and it is highly unlikely that one will do so in the foreseeable future.

ETA



That isn't discrimination towards Catholics on the whole now is it?


Of course it is - it specifically targets Roman Catholics and exclusively bars them for the Line Of Succession - there is no mention of any other faiths.
There is no mention that Muslims, Hindus, Jews are prohibited.

As I said previously, Catholics are NOT discriminated against in normal, everyday life but when it comes to the monarchy and PM they are the only faith openly discriminated against.
edit on 15/1/13 by Freeborn because: Add ETA





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join