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.

 

Anyone else sick of/angered by this "royal" baby nonsense?

page: 12
66
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabravo1942
 


First post on ATS and you come up with that

Prove it with evidence thats what we like on ATS.
edit on 24-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I was baffled at how stupid people must be worshiping this crap. Thanks OP.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmology
 


A difference between worship and respect fella.
(Does anyone read a thread anymore or just the title?)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I understand why this topic is important to those who are British/have family in Britian/etc.
But I don't really understand why it's such a big deal in the USA. It's really got nothing to do with us.

Let the kid grow up and stay out of the publicity until he is old enough to understand it and make intelligent choices based on situations that he is put in.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
 


How exactly was the British government tyrannical might I add? I would love to hear this! You are aware that the taxes imposed upon America were overstated and additionally it was essential. Do you know why? Because Britain was at war with the French both in America protecting its colonies and also in Europe. Without those taxes I'm afraid the thirteen colonies, and their colonists would have fallen to the French.

The Thirteen Colonies got a good deal if you ask me, protection by one of the greatest powers of the time, against another great power: France. I'm veering off a little too much so I'm just going to bring this back to my original query: How was the America, under British rule "oppressed"?

Ironically these "oppressed" people went on to try and take over Canada in 1812! So they went beyond simply fighting this mythical "tyrannical" rule they actually went and declared war trying to oppress others of their own accord. But that's when they were defeated and the White House was burnt down.

When the colonists got angry is when King George and the parliament had decided that the colonies should fund their own defense, not too much to ask for really.

edit on 24-7-2013 by Wulfric because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wulfric
 


compare the definition of empire to tyranny and then come back with your red sympathy



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


NOBODY!! Where I am in Scotland gives a crap...
Seriously.
We don't care..

Cheers




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I would like to say that the statement about Guinness is the biggest pile of crap: I do not insist that everyone drinks Guinness even id they do not want to. People like things trivial on the tv and in magazines. The royal family are now just reality television. If ever they were phased out it would be by a big brother style palace.

Look at Alnwick, a place with fairly expensive property prices and yet when the duke of northunberlands daughter got married, all the locals were apparently there like dazzled peasants.

Most people are too stupid to look past the chav mobile (gold coach) and other stuff to see how shafted they are being. They effectively have no rules. When Willian did his dgree he said: hiw now wife, helped him. So basically he cheated ( no one cares though) as they are royalty.

They lied in ww2 claiming the queen was staying in the palace ( a lie still repeated on tv). The royal family were a bloody long way away in Scotland, in the country where no one was going to bomb.

They have a simple plan.
1. Dazzle the masses.
2. Get all officialdom to lie for you if required
3.Milk the country dry as that is what we are for.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Nope, at least not me.

Babies of any kind never sicken or anger me; quite the opposite actually but I guess that's just me.

In fact, I'll go one further and say, "I hope the couple have a dozen babies!"

We know they'll have a good home



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I am Canadian and you know what? i dont give a dam about "royal" baby shower along with the paid smiling news anchors whom i dislike.


I have 99 problems and the "royal" baby isn't it.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I agree with you 100%. I was actually thinking of the exact same thing today after hearing about this baby. I have though of the same thing in the past as well, as you yourself probably have. We know enough today to realize that a person's relatives has very little to do with the "greatness" of a person. Sure there are genetics, but if the "royal" bloodlines were never any different from other people, except that one of these relatives happened to acquire a position of power over other individuals, then even genetics does not really matter.

Therefore there is absolutely nothing that sets apart "royalty" from ordinary people. We do know however that the opportunities given to children with wealthy parents often set up these children for later success in life. But some child born dirt-poor could be more of a moral, ethical, more intelligent, etc person than someone who is supposedly royalty. And as we have seen throughout history, when royals actually rule by "divine right," they often prove to be inept leaders. More often than not actually. Great kings and queens were few and far between throughout history, which just goes to show that "divine right" rule is ridiculous and has no basis in science or fact.

That was a term that was created and used to convince or trick the masses into submission, by claiming that the royals had God on their side, and that they were meant to rule over an area or a people. Why any country still has royalty, whether they have any part in ruling or not, is beyond me. It is completely against what most people know and accept in this day and age about democracy and fairness. And I am also sickened by the people who actually give celebrities and anyone in these types of positions a pedestal, by treating them like they are above everyone else. I mean think about it. There are people out there who are actually GREAT people, but who are not seen in movies or who were not "born" into a royal family, yet no one chases after and talks about them, even though they are better people in a variety of different ways.

It is a testament to the ignorance and pettiness of human beings in my opinion. That people cannot overcome these simple little falsehoods should be somewhat surprising, but it is not, and then people wonder why we still have so many problems in the world today. Well there are a variety of other reasons...Why do we pay professional athletes millions of dollars a year, to play a game, while the people who are actually making a difference in the lives of others have a hard time scraping by? And these "royals," what sets them apart other than who their parents were? Similar types of dynasties are seen in America as well, but they are usually only financial, without the titles. And that is still ridiculous as well. I wish there were a way that every person started on an equal footing, no matter how much money their parents had, etc...THAT is a big problem that promotes unfairness and is against democracy, yet most people don't think about this fact.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 

Dear stirling,


You usually show a little more common sense my friend. (yer on my list as such anyways.....


Thank you, over and over. I respect you a lot and to know that you've chosen me as one of your friends makes me happy. And to add joy upon joy, you tell me I usually show some common sense. Thanks.

But this has nothing to do with common sense. It is love, respect, admiration, awe, whatever you want to call it. It's moonstruck foolishness if you desire to call it that.

Do we use common sense when we choose our spouse? Do we calculate potential income, social status, education level, history of family diseases? Of course not. It would not be "common sense" to do that. Only someone with a calculator for a heart would think that way. Only such an automoton could listen to "Rule Brittania," and say "Decent enough tune, can't really dance to it though." Only a machine could listen to Churchill's speeches, or Shakespeare, and say "Bit wordy, isn't it?"

Are people inspired by "St. Crispin's Day," or by military planners who declare "Let's give it a go, we have a 56% chance of victory?"

It is happiness, joy, the contentment that comes from sitting in a small pub with friends after work and laughing about United's latest escapades. It is not about so many square miles, producing such and such a GDP, with an approved diversity plan, and sufficient benefits.

It is a dance through the woods with Merlin's spells, fairies, castles, the Black Prince, evil plots, St.George and the victory of courage and valor over evil, faithlesness and treachery.

It is a fairy tale, to be sure, but a fairy tale that is far truer than any truth to be found in a "common sense" report.

You've felt that "Fairy tale." The whole world has. Outside of Heaven and God's true tale, which is being told by all Creation throughout history, there is none greater or more wonder-full.

Dance with it, be happy.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
To all non Royalists in this thread

To all Royalists in this thread



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


The British royal family is rich beyond your and my dreams.

They perhaps control the UK government, indirectly.

Crying does not help and UK citizens are still the royal's subjects.

Democracy exists in name only. If you think otherwise, try running for a public office.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by gladtobehere
 



They perhaps control the UK government, indirectly.


Democracy exists in name only. If you think otherwise, try running for a public office.


Perhaps? Meaning, they might? I could say the same thing about there might be a chance that perhaps the world is run by the flying spaghetti monster. I do concede a little though, the monarchy does have -some- power left which it may use across the commonwealth such as the example of I can't exactly remember when but some time in the 20th century the Australian parliament was dissolved, or the PM was removed I can't quite remember you'll have to do some searching to find it.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Wulfric
 


This article explains it pretty well.


With the French defeated, the British government could turn its attention to tightening control over the colonies. It needed revenues to pay for the war, and looked to the colonies for that. Also, the colonial trade had become more and more important to the British economy, and more profitable: it had amounted to about 500,000 pounds in 1700 but by 1770 was worth 2,800,000 pounds.

So, the American leadership was less in need of English rule, the English more in need of the colonists' wealth. The elements were there for conflict.

The war had brought glory for the generals, death to the privates, wealth for the merchants, unemployment for the poor. There were 25,000 people living in New York (there had been 7,000 in 1720) when the French and Indian War ended. A newspaper editor wrote about the growing "Number of Beggers and wandering Poor" in the streets of the city. Letters in the papers questioned the distribution of wealth: "How often have our Streets been covered with Thousands of Barrels of Flour for trade, while our near Neighbors can hardly procure enough to make a Dumplin to satisfy hunger?"


So, with American colonies already suffering from financial backlash, the British attempted to squeeze more and more money out of them. I'd say that's a move tyrants would make.

This part in particular;


So, the American leadership was less in need of English rule, the English more in need of the colonists' wealth. The elements were there for conflict.


Yeah...

That sums up how a war sparked, pretty short and sweet.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
 


You are aware that the information which you are quoting is the equivalent to saying "well this author believes this and this is his interpretation of it so I'm going to take his words as fact". I am not criticising yourself, just your methodology of debating. Pretty much ALL nations around that time had a large amount of inequality, America was no different from say Britain where the lower classes lived in poverty.

I stand by my previous statement. Additionally the British had told the settlers not to advance any further into Native American lands which I believe is a fair and moral stance however this was ignored by the settlers preferring genocide and greed. Every country in the world has to pay tax and the colonies were no different, additionally the British were against slavery so all in all I don't think that sounds very tyrannical. Do you?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Wulfric
 


Ever seen killing them softly?

A quote by Jackie Coogan (pitt) about the USA that makes me giggle.

My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and f****** his slave girl. This guy wants to tell me we're living in a community? Don't make me laugh. I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now flippin' pay me.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I haven't but now that you've mentioned it I might take a look at it. That quote you gave seems fairly believable really the quote comes to mind with many of these figures "practise what you preach". While there were the obvious factors for justifying things back in the day such as religion now it isn't so powerful so it seems in more modern times it seems all someone has to do is point out everything bad about a particular argument or point of view and take it out of context all while behind the scenes doing exactly what they are against, sometimes without them even realising it!



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Maybe good old commoner blood will wipe out that
Opps but a commoner will be naïve to their ways ! So we shall see.
edit on 25-7-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join