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.

 

Prince Charles - 'Don't think above your station'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The woman in fact does not seem very competent. The man she accuses of sexual harassment is in fact gay and she admitted that she was aware of this.

A competant sexual harassment scam would at the very least involve a heterosexual assailant.




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I wonder what they call Trailer-trash in England?


Caravan-rubbish?





posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg

It's a rather large corporation, you know--farms and tourist businesses combined. All their jewels belong to the UK; and they pay most of their own expenses.

Not an easy or sweet job, they have.


Oh the poor royals it's such a hard life, they deserve to be wealthy beyond sence while others starve and live in poverty. They deserve to take a cut from my pay cheque for the oh so hard and important job they sacrifice their lifes to do oh so unselfishly. What could possibly be more important than keeping expensive, obsolete, outdated middle age traditions alive?
And that royal wave, takes years of training.

members.tripod.com...

Well the queeny didn't want to pay for the repair of her castle and almost got away with charging it to the tax payers....
They pay most of their own expenses? They just agreed to pay taxes on their income. Income? The royals are so wealthy they could give away half of their wealth and still not have to worry about money for the rest of their's and their offspring's miserable live's.
Not an easy or sweet job? If you haven't noticed not too many jobs are easy or sweet, but they don't come with masses of land and castles in Windsor.
Sorry but you can't justify the royal family that way. It's not needed, it's not wanted. Sell the stoopid royal jewls (to rich americans) and give everybody a house to live in. Turn windsor castle and pukeinham palace into low income apartments for single families.
The royal servants can serve the poor! Set the corgies free!
Prince Willy is the anti-christ.
Life in the UK is not as easy as it is in the US, cutting off the royals and letting them fend for themselves could do a lot to help those in the northern parts of great britania who don't benefit from tourist income. IF the money was re-directed correctly of course, but seeing as the governing body of the UK is in the south and can't see beyond the M25 it would probably not happen.
Anybody been to Glasgow lately?
Class War is the only War!



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
When they put the crown jewels up for auction on Ebay, I bags the crown


Seriously, although I consider the Windsors to be anachronistic, the monarchy hasn't had any real power since Victorian times and the British Empire. The Queen is a figurehead, thats all.
Officially any law written into statute needs her signature, but I doubt she would ever refuse, and some parts of the military swear allegiance to her, but apart from that the only real power she has is symbolic. She is also the only person who can't be summonsed to appear in court.

I think Charles et al are the last vestiges of the class system in Britain. Charles just happens to have been born as a child of the current queen. I wonder if he'd be so arrogant if he'd been born the child of a single mother struggling to make ends meet ?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
And they have a job to do. Their job is to encourage who and what is good about British society, from the grassroots up.

I don't see anybody in THIS NATION doing anything of the sort. Pity.

I know a few people who could USE SOME ENCOURAGEMENT.




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Charles' comments are indeed PC incorrect, but they do have validity!

The education systems both in the US and UK are very much oriented toward promoting "self-esteem" for the students. You might be incredibly stupid and untalented, but you are as equally valid as the class valedictorian so far as the school system is concerned.

Think about it, though, if you're a moron, why should you have any self-esteem? If you're a slacker who could do better but is too lazy.....why do you deserve self-esteem?

God may have created all humans equal, but what you do with what God gave you is up to you.

People who have talent and people who work hard deserve the riches that they reap. Others just expect that they deserve good things without having to work for them a whit. THAT is what Charles was addressing in his remarks.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Lol, the British manarchy as examples of good behaviour. I like that.

Assume your only need the right bloodline for status and rightful position, a history of inbreeding, marriage as political move, building power and wealth through a class system, these are just a few of their favourite things.

Seriously though, personally I think they are are an outdated institution. Sure an interesting tourist attraction for a historical perspective of England, but when I am looking for influences on how I live my life I don't go to a family that seems to live like a cheap soap opera.

Btw, New Zealand is looking at shedding our ties to them. As you can guess I don't mind that much


www.scoop.co.nz...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sissy
Seriously, although I consider the Windsors to be anachronistic, the monarchy hasn't had any real power since Victorian times and the British Empire. The Queen is a figurehead, thats all.


True, but I'd rather have the Queen and Charles than some tosser like 'President-wannabe' Tony Blair any day.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   


Prince Charles - 'Don't think above your station'



Prince Charles? Yeah... He should talk. What a moron.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Can anyone here read?



"People think they can all be pop stars,
high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or
infinitely more competent heads of state without
ever putting in the necessary work or having
natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism
which believes humanity can be genetically and socially
engineered to contradict the lessons of history."
--Prince Charles



The prince is saying that we can't expect what we aren't willing to work for and some things are just beyond our innate capabilities. Even Mr. Incredible has his limitations.

And he is "dissing" eugenics, although a perfected genetic engineering would, in my view, create people who could be guaranteed to have certain aptitudes, just as we can be sure that mating a horse and a donkey will produce a mule or a hinnie.

Essentially, the prince is offering pretty sound advice.


[edit on 04/11/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SgtNFury
Charles' comments are indeed PC incorrect, but they do have validity!

The education systems both in the US and UK are very much oriented toward promoting "self-esteem" for the students. You might be incredibly stupid and untalented, but you are as equally valid as the class valedictorian so far as the school system is concerned.

Think about it, though, if you're a moron, why should you have any self-esteem? If you're a slacker who could do better but is too lazy.....why do you deserve self-esteem?

God may have created all humans equal, but what you do with what God gave you is up to you.

People who have talent and people who work hard deserve the riches that they reap. Others just expect that they deserve good things without having to work for them a whit. THAT is what Charles was addressing in his remarks.


Well said GradyPhilpott! Bravo.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Charles' kind of views are one of the reasons people left England to found America. If people didn't think "above their stations" as he put it, in America we wouldn't have had Abraham Lincoln as the president who ended slavery. He was born in a cabin in the woods. We wouldn't have had Bill Clinton as president, who was born into proverty. We wouldn't have had Martin Luther King Jr. "Having a Dream". We wouldn't have the airplane, the train, or the automobile.....The point is, it's when people start dreaming of a better world, they weren't thinking of what station of life they were born into....One of the reasons America has so much money is because the people that settled this county from Europe, for the most part, were poor dreamers. But those dreams built an empire. And it's not America's money that keeps it growing, it is it's inovativeness. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Charles' world. It would be a different world indeed!!



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by magickalworld
Charles' kind of views are one of the reasons people left England to found America. If people didn't think "above their stations" as he put it, in America we wouldn't have had Abraham Lincoln as the president who ended slavery. He was born in a cabin in the woods. We wouldn't have had Bill Clinton as president, who was born into proverty. We wouldn't have had Martin Luther King Jr. "Having a Dream". We wouldn't have the airplane, the train, or the automobile.....The point is, it's when people start dreaming of a better world, they weren't thinking of what station of life they were born into....One of the reasons America has so much money is because the people that settled this county from Europe, for the most part, were poor dreamers. But those dreams built an empire. And it's not America's money that keeps it growing, it is it's inovativeness. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Charles' world. It would be a different world indeed!!


Thankyou for making HRH's point for him.

Honest Abe worked very hard to get where got. Slick Willie was a Rhodes Scholar (I think) which makes him very intelligent, neither of them thought above their station or demanded what they didn't deserve.
Dr King followed the example of Gandhi...

All of these people were determined to contribute, not sit on the couch and watch MTV.

If you bothered to comprehend Charles' words he is attacking the fame culture that says you deserve to be famous and receive adulation just because you shafted someone on a Pacific Island on international television. Or because you look good in tight clothes and have a passable voice.
Success requires competence and sacrifice, if you have none of the former or aren't willing to give the latter you deserve no success.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   


If people didn't think "above their stations" as he put it,


He never said anything like that.

He was saying that schools encourage aspirations without also saying that people have to work for them. He is all for development of young people, he is charge of a charity that does just that! He was saying that you cannot expect to get what you want without putting in the hard work.

Before passing comment, perhaps you would like to read the actual statement made by him, not the cut and paste, out of contect blurb that is being spouted.

Besides, the Monarchy maybe powerless, but they are tradition, bring in vast sums in tourism to the economy, essentially pay for themselves (in comparison, we spend more on those damn assylum seekers than the entire Monarchy has ever cost us), so all in all, they are a benefit not a hinderance to the UK.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Although people may not like it the Royal Family play an important role in promoting the UK abroad. There are some Nations that would give their eye teeth for that kind of institution.
We kicked them out before, through Civil War, but after a while people recognised their importance to the Nation and begged Charles Stewart to come home from exile, albeit with vastly redused powers.
As for Charles, well he is entitled to his opinion and some people will jump on anything he says and twist it out of context. I dont believe he thought he was saying anything wrong, its just how he sees things.
It seems to me that this Lady, who ever she is, saw a good opertunity to earn some fast money by Suing Charles and took it. I think that says more about Society than what Charles said in his memo.
As for the Windsors being Germans or Honovarians, i too would like to see a Stewart King on the throne but its not going to happen so we have to live with what we have got.
Are there any Stewarts left? I heard there was one in France that had a good claim to the Throne.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I too agree with Prince Charles's statements in their entirety. Many people in this country think that they deserve more than they have without having to lift a bloody finger. It is work-shy slackers like this that are bleeding our country dry.

Vive Charles.

[edit on 19/11/04 by Merkin]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:53 AM
link   


It is work-shy slackers like this that are bleeding our country dry


I see plenty of those monkeys outside the job centre on my lunch break, just hanging around until they can claim their "ben-fits", and trying to pike money/fags/whatever else of anyone who passes by.

I always respond with "Get a Fecking job!", to which I always get the response: "Feck off you cu*t!" or "Why should i you fecking mother fecker!"

Makes me wonder exactly the same thing, why should I bother to pay for YOU, you lowlife, scrounging waste of genetic material? Why should I fork out, so you and you dog ugly cretin of a "Gerl Frend" can stand about outside the benefits office smoking other peoples fags and drinking White Bleeding Lightning at 11 in the morning?

Thats what Charles SHOULD have said......lol



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I remeber one edition of the guardian was actually questioning the use of the monarchy... way back when. But that was just about the ONLY time the question arose in the UK.

Its backward and un-justifiable to have a monarchy in this day and age!



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 05:40 AM
link   


Its backward and un-justifiable to have a monarchy in this day and age!


Why? Please explain. They serve us, not the other way around. they represent us abroad in Diplomacy, they pull in the big buck tourists to the UK. essentially, they are good for business, so why not keep them?



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
I remeber one edition of the guardian was actually questioning the use of the monarchy... way back when. But that was just about the ONLY time the question arose in the UK.

Its backward and un-justifiable to have a monarchy in this day and age!



You have to remember the Royal Family has no real power, we dont go around tugging our forlocks anymore lol.
People pay respect to the institution of Monarchy, they are supposed to represent all that is good about the UK and bring in the cash to boot.
And you have to admit the pomp and ceremony is pretty impresive.
Nothing like the changing of the Guard at buck house to get the blood flowing, even though its not PC it does bring out the Patriot in most of us.

And the tourists love it, you see? bringing in that Cash again.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Janus]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join