Kate Middleton, The Royal Wedding and general nobility bashing - Page 3

**Sharkhunter** · April 30th, 2011, 12:30 PM

I endured some of it as Mrs Sharky wanted to see the dress, etc. etc. - but generally I have little time for the the royals and even less for the armies of chinless hangers-on. Hasn't anyone noticed how they all look the same?

I found myself laughing at the BBC's interviewing of "ordinary folk" - which in the main consisted of young children who will quickly grow out of that sort of nonsense, old people whose love of the royals was shaped by wartime images of Princess Elizabath touring bomb-damaged parts of London, and foreigners who were at best fascinated by the whole thing.

The others were all fat people in silly outfits.

**dohupa** · April 30th, 2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davemetalhead

Humans are not equal - never have been, never will be.

There have always been those that lead, and those that follow. It's like that in the animal kingdom too remember. Alll packs have a leader (or leaders).

Believing in equality may be a noble thing, but it's not natural.

Leaders proven to be worthy yes. Smart people, brilliant minds with pioneering ideas that can help a nation given they have management skills, yes.

Not a wealthy lot that sit on their butts all day drinking tea and playing polo and expect everyone to bow down on them.

**Sharkhunter** · April 30th, 2011, 12:37 PM

In fairness to William he does spend a few hours a week doing a proper job, and Harry has always wanted to do more in the Army. The one I have a particular loathing for is Charles - I wince every time I see those medals across his chest knowing that many of my relatives got far less for a lot more. The tea-quaffing polo player who talks to trees.

**Mal Hombre** · April 30th, 2011, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharkhunter

The one I have a particular loathing for is Charles - I wince every time I see those medals across his chest knowing that many of my relatives got far less for a lot more. The tea-quaffing polo player who talks to trees.

I agree about the medals,Men came out of the trenches and got far less.

**billybunter** · April 30th, 2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davemetalhead

Humans are not equal - never have been, never will be.

There have always been those that lead, and those that follow. It's like that in the animal kingdom too remember. Alll packs have a leader (or leaders).

Believing in equality may be a noble thing, but it's not natural.

With the greatest respect you are wrong. We are all born the same. Yes some of us are leaders, but that does not make us any better than anyone else. As human beings we have the intellect to know this. We are not worms.

**Davemetalhead** · April 30th, 2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

With the greatest respect you are wrong. We are all born the same. Yes some of us are leaders, but that does not make us any better than anyone else. As human beings we have the intellect to know this. We are not worms.

You're looking at it from a moral perspective. Nature doesn't work that way. Species desire to survive, to multiply. Stronger members of that species (stronger can mean both physically or mentally in this case) are most likely to be the leaders, to get the best food, to have the best chance to mate. Humans are still animals - we may like to think that we're better because we can think, plan, formulate, communicate and are self-aware.

Humans are not equal - a baby born into a wealthy family is more likely to be healthier and become better educated than one born into poverty. Now, that doesn't make the wealthy child "better" than the poor one, but it does mean that the wealthy one is more likely to attain a position of power in human society over the poor one.

**Sharkhunter** · April 30th, 2011, 02:24 PM

Dave, Billy - I think there's a middle ground here.

Yes, it is true that those born into wealthy families are more likely to be healthier - though the likes of Tara PT do through a spanner into the works of this theory - and better educated. Generally speaking, I'd say fair play to them - so long as that position has been earned in some way and not gifted out of some nebulous idea of privilege. I believe in meritocracy - and if the best get the most, than so be it.

Leaders and national figureheads should be made, not born - of course, this way we can be sure that most of the time we'd get a leader rather than a limp noodle who'd prefer to have someone hold his cock when he's taking a piss.

I do actually imaging someone like Paul Burrell "putting the royal tool inside the royal mimsy" when Charles was breeding with Diana.

**billybunter** · April 30th, 2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davemetalhead

You're looking at it from a moral perspective. Nature doesn't work that way. Species desire to survive, to multiply. Stronger members of that species (stronger can mean both physically or mentally in this case) are most likely to be the leaders, to get the best food, to have the best chance to mate. Humans are still animals - we may like to think that we're better because we can think, plan, formulate, communicate and are self-aware.

Humans are not equal - a baby born into a wealthy family is more likely to be healthier and become better educated than one born into poverty. Now, that doesn't make the wealthy child "better" than the poor one, but it does mean that the wealthy one is more likely to attain a position of power in human society over the poor one.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Someone from a non wealthy background can achieve just as much as someone from a wealthy background. If you have outside influence pushing you up the ladder then yes you will make more money drive a big car etc. But when a human is born we are equal. I'm from a working class background and I never asked for a shilling in my life. I worked. Some people have never worked an hour in their lives. They are not human they are leeches.

dogsbreath · April 30th, 2011, 03:26 PM

New generation of Royals. Harry has gone to Afghanistan (nice balls considering what a prize he would be to the enemy). And William does work. Their paying thier dues.

**knobby109** · April 30th, 2011, 03:58 PM

I feel that republicans are really missing the point.I can see fully that there is inequality involved but nevertheless the Monarchy gives us a lot and costs us little.In fact it runs at a profit which benefits us taxpayers.There is of course the question of an alternative.
Look at the disgraceful squabble involving "choosing" a President across the pond.Is it in any way a democratic selection?Technically it's open to all Americans but effectively what are the chances of a penniless individual entering the Oval Office?And when selected, can he give his full attention to furthering the nation? Half the time he's more interested in looking after his own political supporters and backers and keeping an eye either on reelection of himself or a successor.At best he only has the support of a minority in the country and often direct opposition.Can the American voter vote for whoever he chooses? No, it's narrowed down to a couple before he has his say.
I didn't vote for the Queen but she just gets on with representing the nation superbly well both at home and abroad.She doesn't impinge directly on my everyday life.But a bunch of prats in Brussels do and they weren't elected either.They pass edicts and directives and orders which our government is supposed to rubber stamp.Ask me to choose between the Queen and Rumpy (who?) and it's a no brainer.

April 30th, 2011, 12:30 PM	#21
Sharkhunter Gusset Man & Jizzmaster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Wanking, but not the city in China Posts: 2,037 Thanks: 5,197 Thanked 34,660 Times in 2,021 Posts	I endured some of it as Mrs Sharky wanted to see the dress, etc. etc. - but generally I have little time for the the royals and even less for the armies of chinless hangers-on. Hasn't anyone noticed how they all look the same? I found myself laughing at the BBC's interviewing of "ordinary folk" - which in the main consisted of young children who will quickly grow out of that sort of nonsense, old people whose love of the royals was shaped by wartime images of Princess Elizabath touring bomb-damaged parts of London, and foreigners who were at best fascinated by the whole thing. The others were all fat people in silly outfits. __________________ "Birth Control Tip #2431: Shoot your load in a girl's mouth or on her face instead of inside her sweet bits. Result: no expensive burden, stretch marks or saggy tits". To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

April 30th, 2011, 12:37 PM	#23
Sharkhunter Gusset Man & Jizzmaster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Wanking, but not the city in China Posts: 2,037 Thanks: 5,197 Thanked 34,660 Times in 2,021 Posts	In fairness to William he does spend a few hours a week doing a proper job, and Harry has always wanted to do more in the Army. The one I have a particular loathing for is Charles - I wince every time I see those medals across his chest knowing that many of my relatives got far less for a lot more. The tea-quaffing polo player who talks to trees. __________________ "Birth Control Tip #2431: Shoot your load in a girl's mouth or on her face instead of inside her sweet bits. Result: no expensive burden, stretch marks or saggy tits". To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

April 30th, 2011, 02:24 PM	#27
Sharkhunter Gusset Man & Jizzmaster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Wanking, but not the city in China Posts: 2,037 Thanks: 5,197 Thanked 34,660 Times in 2,021 Posts	Dave, Billy - I think there's a middle ground here. Yes, it is true that those born into wealthy families are more likely to be healthier - though the likes of Tara PT do through a spanner into the works of this theory - and better educated. Generally speaking, I'd say fair play to them - so long as that position has been earned in some way and not gifted out of some nebulous idea of privilege. I believe in meritocracy - and if the best get the most, than so be it. Leaders and national figureheads should be made, not born - of course, this way we can be sure that most of the time we'd get a leader rather than a limp noodle who'd prefer to have someone hold his cock when he's taking a piss. I do actually imaging someone like Paul Burrell "putting the royal tool inside the royal mimsy" when Charles was breeding with Diana. __________________ "Birth Control Tip #2431: Shoot your load in a girl's mouth or on her face instead of inside her sweet bits. Result: no expensive burden, stretch marks or saggy tits". To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

April 30th, 2011, 03:26 PM	#29
dogsbreath Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: America Posts: 114 Thanks: 5,556 Thanked 901 Times in 109 Posts	New generation of Royals. Harry has gone to Afghanistan (nice balls considering what a prize he would be to the enemy). And William does work. Their paying thier dues.

April 30th, 2011, 03:58 PM	#30
knobby109 Vintage Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,736 Thanks: 144 Thanked 14,338 Times in 1,702 Posts	I feel that republicans are really missing the point.I can see fully that there is inequality involved but nevertheless the Monarchy gives us a lot and costs us little.In fact it runs at a profit which benefits us taxpayers.There is of course the question of an alternative. Look at the disgraceful squabble involving "choosing" a President across the pond.Is it in any way a democratic selection?Technically it's open to all Americans but effectively what are the chances of a penniless individual entering the Oval Office?And when selected, can he give his full attention to furthering the nation? Half the time he's more interested in looking after his own political supporters and backers and keeping an eye either on reelection of himself or a successor.At best he only has the support of a minority in the country and often direct opposition.Can the American voter vote for whoever he chooses? No, it's narrowed down to a couple before he has his say. I didn't vote for the Queen but she just gets on with representing the nation superbly well both at home and abroad.She doesn't impinge directly on my everyday life.But a bunch of prats in Brussels do and they weren't elected either.They pass edicts and directives and orders which our government is supposed to rubber stamp.Ask me to choose between the Queen and Rumpy (who?) and it's a no brainer.