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: 8
66
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
It sounds like someone is jealous they were deprived of a high royal birth.

2nd.




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I don't think it should be as hyped up for us as it is. I'm glad that we managed to get over the distant past and become friends with our former advesaries, in a time when it was needed, but. . . .as to why they think we're all interested in the royals, is probably the same reason they think we're all interested in what the Celebrities do.
(As to the Royals we have our Amercan version....The Elite, and TheCeleb.)

A very good way to distract the sheeple of this country while not having to report the real news.

By the way.... they just interupted regular scheduled programming to show "His Royal Highness"

P. S. It'll probably be non stop over here, if the queen decides to abdicate.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
As far as I'm concerned, the royal baby coverage is just a facade to keep the Entertainment Tonight mouthbreathing droolers entertained. This is the same contingent that is mezmerized by the Kardashians, Honey Boo-Boo, and Amanda Bynes. This is to keep the sheeple (who I believe is @ 85% in this country) preoccupied with fluff to divert attention from domestic spying, Syria, rising gas prices, the failing economy, etc.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

I'm noticing that there is an incredible amount of doublethink when it comes to this issue.

Someone messaged me and said that those who dont support the "royals" are "socialist scum".



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



Also it's quite annoying when people keep saying "The Brits" like this, and "The Brits" want that. I'm a brit, and I don't feel that way at all.

I want the Royals gone. The farce needs to end.


My apologies. It was an implied assumption of course, but based on the many Brits I've known and called friends over the years. I'm not so sure I agree on the outdated concept though. The way I see it, having folks who can do the PR stuff frees up the real leaders to actually do the things that need doing. I imagine it as if our President could focus on more pressing tasks, while the First Lady did all the PR bits. Lets face it, they don't really RULE as monarchs of old did. They are basically the PR branch of government.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I don't even think PR is the right word, they seem completely detached from the government and law etc. It's nonsense pageantry under the guise of "tradition" and "heritage".

It's like one big show or circus, but a really terrible one you'd never want to go to but you can't avoid.

Times change, just because something used to be useful doesn't mean it is relevant today, otherwise we'd still endorse slavery.
edit on 23-7-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The British royal family is nauseating.

God Save the Queen
She ain't a human being




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I'm one of the many people who are not interested. As an American; and I know I have mentioned numerous times, the British Royal Family are celebrities here in America and to me that's boring. I cannot be more blunt, but they really serve no purpose than just popular figures who do everything like average people.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 




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


First, I am a citizen of a nation that tossed off such (royalty) over 200 years ago. We're still a lot provincial (at times) but we're also damned sure (at times) independent in spirit as well.

Now then, with my 1776 spirit in full array, let me stop off briefly at this tavern and embrace my heritage...

I don't think that anyone really mistakes modern royalty for what it once was. Even in the UK, it holds position as much for decoration as anything else. Moreover, if we took the time to note the birth of ancestors of Washington or Lincoln or Patton or Lee or Eisenhower... wait, we DO follow the Eisenhowers, lol.

Dang...

It's okay. We still mow our lawns, pay taxes and bitch about the same. (Lawn mowers just are not as tough as they used to was...)

My best wishes to the young prince



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I don't believe this? I want proof! Where is the broken shell to this newly hatched parasitic reptoid?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I am not angered by it, but I think it is more than ridiculous the amount of press they're receiving here in the US. I can understand a mention here and there, but an hour or more coverage? Makes me convinced that the MSM isn't "allowed" to report what they want/need, but what they are told.

I don't know how anyone could become a journalist these days. They usually have an innate need of wanting to break the story, getting the scoop, etc. These days, they're so controlled, that truly must be disappointing and maddening to them (the real journalist types, not these absurd hosts like on Extra or ET). We need more journalists to take risks and not do what they're "told." Then, maybe the important stories and news would actually get out.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
WARNING may contain strong language...




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Reading the OP, my initial thoughts were that I agree, then it went down that road.

That same road that many threads seem to go down, whereby some american makes underhanded jibes as if to elude to the fact that brits are more slaves than americans, and it irked me.

Especially given recent revelations regarding the NSA, the lockdown, almost martial law imposed in boston, where people had their homes turned over without as much as a warrant being produced.

There's more to being free than having accesss to guns, and that's what this thread will boil down to, eventually.

I'll make a point here, the real slave is the one who believes everything they hear or read in the news...I live in the UK, I don't see many people partying or celebrating.

I'm under no allusions to the contrary...the average american is a slave as much as the average brit, you made some valid points, but then you took an almighty poop on them by trying to be self-righteous.

You're no better in the states than we are...when our police, army whatever start rampaging through our streets and raiding our homes, or trap some cult or fugitive ilike a rat in a corner - and burn him to death or whatever, then, you can give us advice about breaking free the shackles of slavery - because you guys got the jump start on us there.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Is there anything more repulsive than the idea of "royalty", a class of people allegedly better than or more important than everyone else, not because of their accomplishments (no no no) but because of their "royal bloodlines"???


Yes, actually there is something more disgusting. The fact that the sheeple not only accept this lump, but celebrate it!


I'm just going to come right out and say (write) what many of us are thinking/feeling: screw the "queen", screw the "royals" and screw their baby (as innocent as it may be).

And what about the Brits? How long are you going to allow this monstrosity to exist? Oh wait, thats right, they took your guns...

While the British government is imposing "austerity" measures on the slaves and raising your already astronomical taxes, the "royals" just gave themselves a 5% increase in their $130 million/year allowance.

No one spends money like that. Not even Bill Gates. If a billionaire spent $100 million a year, they'd be bankrupt within 10 years. But not the "roayls", nooooooooooooo.

And dont give me this crap about the revenue from "their land" offsets their expenses. "Their land" was stolen from peasants simply because they felt that it was their "right" to take it.

To the people of Britain. Throw off your chains. Embrace the spirit of 1776 and do as the Americans did. Storm that "royal" palace, arrest these freeloading bums, strip them of their possessions, give them each a potato sack, kick 'em in their "royal" bums and tell 'em to go get a g-damn job!




edit on 23-7-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)


Elizabeth baby? huh? Guess im lucky. We don't talk about pointless things around these parts expecially english babies.

Who cares. They wear diapers and stuff. No one cares about elizabeth baby. Obama has a baby, Kim jan ill had a baby. And so too did elizabeth baby.

So whats everyone else up to? more important things right besides some new celebrity.

Just ignore it. And don't talk about it. and it will go away. Dont feed the trolls attention. Thats what that is.

edit on 23-7-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 

To be honest, you're pretty much correct.

We Americans talk a good game but I dont see people doing much (myself included)...



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 

I'm a republican not a royalist BUT........royalty is the practical choice.

So my literal answer to your question is NO because of the consequences.

Consider these points:

1. The royal family (despite all brainless incorrect rants) has NO power in Britain. All power lies with parliament. There is theoretical power not used for hundreds of years and has zero chance of ever being used.
2. The loss to UK income due to royal family subsidies and tax "avoidance" is considerably less than tax avoidance by the richest 1%.
3. It's the richest 1% that are bleeding this country dry and shipping the cash offshore at a frightening rate.
4. The royal family does actually attract tourists BANKERS DONT !!!!!
5. If we didn't have a monarch we would have a President.....hmmmmm......a paid politician? All the will in the world won't change the fact that presidents (worldwide) are not exactly pearly white representatives of the people are they.
6. A president WOULD have power and is more likely (with the defense of "I was elected") to exercise that power.
7. Royalty WILL come under scrutiny, tax wise, only after the corrupt politicians start to get the unpaid tax from their pals in industry.

So I consider the present situation theoretically wrong but practically the only choice.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I posted this on another forum, and i felt like posting it here.

"It's sort of sad that a lot of Americans are so out of touch with their own history. The fact that the patriots opposed tyranny and refused to be ruled by the english is the whole reason you're called "an american".

Regardless of respect, forget this, and you completely dismiss your identity. Respect yourselves, before you respect others."

I may get some comments like "oh, everyone's happy for them, get over it" or "oh, he's bowing to the queen out of respect", but remember who they are to you!
You're Americans, getting excited over the future king of England. The sooner this reality hits all Americans, the better your country will be.

They are your absolute equals.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. It's something I've stopped myself from typing a few times in the past, I let my emotions get the better of me.

I've said it in the past, we're on an even keel, really. But recent revelations have caused a slight imbalance, it's sad to think what would happen should US authorities get their hands on Snowden, for example, given that one of the boston suspects ended up with a hole in his head while in custody.

I'm unaware if anything like that - warrantless property searches, waco...the chris dorner situation to name a few has ever happened in the UK...Raoul Moat, maybe, but he was mentally unstable., it wasn't about government, politics, conspiracies...just a nutter in a jealous rage because his ex had found a new man. It's about the closest we have to some of the incidents that have happened stateside of late.

I wonder why we need guns, when those who have access to firearms sat back and allowed these things to happen. Having access to firearms is about personal protection, people ought to stop clinging to this lame excuse that it's to fight against a tyrranical government, because if that's w3hat they're for...where's the action at?

It just bugged me that the birth of a baby to some royals can be used as yet another conduit to throw a better than thou argument out there regarding guns. It's a baby, I'll bet the parents of that baby are tired of it, I've no love for the royals, but I can't imagine anyone being all that happy at having to share the birth of their first child with some disingenuous news reporters. They're probably tired and want to be alone.

People ought to take stock of where they're coming from before they put others down. I apologise for being rude,



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
It is all part of the pyramid structure.

If it wasn't Royals it would be some other people.

There are celebs, moneyed families, actors, musicians, politicians all doing the fame / media thing, it is part of human nature.

Think of all the companies you might have worked for, the fabled boss that is rarely seen though held in feared esteem, it is everywhere, and has been for a very long time.

Only in a Utopian ideal would there be true equality.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   


Aaah the Pistols they were just a money making exercise in the end as well "cash from chaos" and all that.

I can't say that I really have any great interest in the Royal Family but I don't feel any revolutionary urge to dispense with them. The House of Lords probably needs reforming though.

But our Royals do provide interest and entertainment for the masses and media hype.

I'd lump them in with the Olympics, Wimbledon, the Open Golf, Ascot, Football, Cricket, Rugby, James Bond, Eastenders, Corrie, The Beatles, Stones and all the other forms of entertainment that I've forgotten and missed out down the years of our Queen's reign. Even though the Royals probably enjoy the Bundesliga, Kraftwerk and Oktoberfest
.

So we'll carry on getting jubilees, weddings, births and other Royal events. They are part of Britain PLC. Like someone else had said part of our PR. The Queen is probably the most famous woman in the world. That keeps Britain in the limelight.

I get the feeling most of my fellow Brits accept that our constitutional monarchy is a better alternative than having "President Cameron". The Queen and the Royals get on with the pleasantries of state visits without a political agenda (at least an obvious one - although Phil the Greek likes to make the odd verbal gaff now and again). The government of the day can fight the political issues.

Of course some are fiercely Republican and others are Royal worshippers who follow everything they do. They are a minority though. Most of us will wish Prince Billy, Kate and Charlie jnr
all the best and turn the page or switch over the news channels when it gets too much. We may pay a pound or two a year to keep them in their palaces and stately homes but deep down most of us accept that the Queen has a great sense of public duty and whilst our system ain't perfect, it's a pretty good one.



edit on 23/7/13 by mirageman because: edits




top topics



 
66
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join