British Royal Family

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

No.

I think Loosegoose has it about right. Not the subject for discussion.

"The Queen is not a subject" Oscar Wilde

[scoundrel]

I myself hope that the abolition of the monarchy in Great Britain will be a far far day from now, and I not here to see it. But it is reasonable and fair that this is discussed, and inevitable in any country which has any right to consider itself to be a democracy that this matter must be discussed. It concerns directly every British citizen and it is legitimate that every country which has a relationship with Britain [and all citizens in those countries] is/are interested in the shape our country takes. I would never lose my composure because others disagree with me concerning the monarchy; its not remotely the same as being disloyal to the country: for disloyalty to the country, in extreme cases, I would kill the disloyal one; whereas, merely for wishing to see the monarchy abolished, I wouldn't hurt a fly.

I dont know anyone who seriously dislikes HMQ herself, though of course such people must exist. I am aware of some Australians who are firmly republican in their principles but who respect HMQ deeply as a persona and are quietly waiting for her to pop her clogs before raising the republican debate over there. I will be surprised if Australia remains a monarchy for long after our present Queen departs, and while I would rather keep the link as an emotional thing - it expresses the special place Australia as in British affections - I totally respect any Australian who thinks its time to break it. The same applies to Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and any other remaining Commonwealth realm. It doesn't have to mean our nations stop being friends.

As for we British, we are a conservative crew. This includes our minorities, of whom the Asian communities [plural] are probably the most influential politically. I don't know, but I suspect that monarchist feeling in these minority groups is quite as strong as in the majority ancestrally British white community. We all live here and all our feelings count; everyone has a right to be heard. But when it comes to our traditions and our sense of identity, we are indeed conservative.

Abolishing the monarchy is a radical departure which goes against the grain of our society. It would have to be triggered by an event which forces people to re-consider the whole constitutional settlement. It would be far more radical than leaving the EU. The only precedent is 1642-47, when King Charles I declared war on his own people for not being suffuciently servile. He was the worst King we ever had, a monster of egotism and arrogance and incidentally a very incompetent ruler; but it was for his crime of thinking that we were his slaves that we as a people turned on him and cut off his head. I think it would need something as bad as that, something truly intolerable, before the British people as a body would reject the monarchy again.

[buttsie]

The first time Australia tried to become a republic two thirds said yes but none could agree on the model

Until they work out a compromise between the politicians choosing the president
or the people choosing their favourite australian celebrity I cant see much changing

I'm no legal eagle but i've been led to believe most of the queens powers over Australia have largely been made ceremonial and handed back to us.

So if the latest Governor general decides the current republican prime minister Malcolm Turnbull is actually Gough Whitlams lovechild who needs removing its little more than a rubber stamp.

As much as i loathe the idea of being born into a leadership role with power
i cant really see any republic around the world that isnt just as bad except those behaving badly in power arent royals.



I'd sooner see an end to multi-national corporations being allowed to grow unrestricted
They have far more of an effect on all of our lives than royalty ever will today.

[Mal Hombre]

The choice of a replacement for a hereditary monarch is the only real stumbling block for a possible republic.That was the reason that Britain's only republican experiment failed,When Oliver Cromwell died,There was no one to replace Him as Lord Protector.

[Sir Honkers]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I myself hope that the abolition of the monarchy in Great Britain will be a far far day from now, and I not here to see it.

I whole heartedly concur. We need a little sparkle, a little razzle dazzle and indeed, a bit of pomp and circumstance to brighten up the day.

[haroldeye]

Scounds not trying to silence anyone but I was agreeing with Loose about irrelevance.

As for the failure of our attempt at being Republic it was not so much the failure of Cromwell to either nominate an heir (he did his son) or to create a system whereby a new leader could be elected, it failed because it gave the people something they did not want.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Scounds not trying to silence anyone but I was agreeing with Loose about irrelevance.

As for the failure of our attempt at being Republic it was not so much the failure of Cromwell to either nominate an heir (he did his son) or to create a system whereby a new leader could be elected, it failed because it gave the people something they did not want.

It begs the question , if we get rid of our Monarchy what the hell do we put in its place ?
I don't want a politician. In any case, any politician has more people who don't want him than there are people who don't want a monarchy.There will be all sorts of horse trading , bad feeling and general lack of respect from other countries.
We have a Monarch without real power (though a lot of influence and respect as somebody who has been at the top table for so long) who is above politics. After 60 years nobody has a clue where she stands on the political spectrum.
I don't think a republic will in a practical sense offer as much ; the only argument for one is more theoretical than real. An ordinary Joe or Josephine in the street is not going to be made President . If they could, the odds would be 1 in 60 million which is so small it's effectively zero.

[TCrout]

I think us Brits are massively hypocritical on the subject of the Royals. They are special people or their not. If they are, then we pay for them and should treat them with respect and reverence, not call her 'Liz'and constantly bring up the 'Ch1nkys' quote of Prince Phillip (He's 93 FFS!)

If they're not, then it's a Windsor nursing home for both of them and sell the crown jewels to a Russian Oligarch...

[aegean]

Harry & Meghan or should I say Henry and Rachel because after all those are their actual names.

**one rule please - lets not have this thread about Prince Andrew, Prince Andrew should be thrown under a bus, that bus being driven by his mum - the Queen, whom should then reverse over him at least twice and then souvenir tea towels of the queen driving a classic red double decker should be sold - so no Prince Andrew please**

And obviously we all know who's side I'm on

If Meghan (Rachel) is interviewed in a garden, be careful which tree you sit under, because bird poo on your shoulder is bad optics.



We all loved Meghan, we all thought it was awesome, Harry!, we always had (had) a soft spot for him. Harry wed Meghan and all was bliss - we weren't even interested in her embarrassing family (not her mother - the white trailer trash side).

And what went wrong? Well, Rachel (Meghan) quickly found out that being a royal was not all palace balls and riding a unicorn around a champagne filled swimming pool.

Being a Royal is opening a remodeled disabled toilet in
Barrow-in-Furness on a wet Wednesday morning to a group of cheering plebs whom you have to meet and greet and smile.

That isn't her idea of a Disney™ Princess, so that to me is what went south and quickly. The Royal family has always been put up and shut up, never complain never explain.

What we understand so far with the clips uploaded. Rachel (Meghan Disney™ Princess) has played the race card - I've never seen such a white person of colour and she claims that the colour of her child was questioned -as-fucking-if-, they will need to name and shame that person - I totally but totally call bullshit on that one. Nobody in the employment of HRH would even dare to think that of a child of Prince Harry (soon to be just plain Henry).

She was also told that there would be no title and NO security for little Archie. Well, the title would probably been given later providing he is a working member of the "firm" and as for no security? A high profile target such as Archie - give me a break FFS.

But basically it comes down to being all about her - because after the media frenzy with the marriage and is was a very nice bedazzling media frenzy then limelight shut off - because being married to a Royal and especially the "spare heir" is a none job.

Unless you make sure that the limelight is focused on her as she is doing now.
But unfortunately she doesn't understand the British mindset and the Queen, because the one thing we can claim to be the best at - it's Royalty.

If there is a premiere league of Royalty, then Her Royal Highness the Queen has been number one for decades.

So whats next for Rachel? Well, she's now going from beloved to hated because the Queen will not respond, that's her best and proven tactic - which will infuriate Meghan, who will carry on ranting and will fall foul of her own mouth.

She's also doing this at a silly time, Prince Philip (Grandfather to Harry and Great Granddaddy to Archie) is still in hospital aged 99.
If he or the Queen shuffle off in the near future, then that ungrateful pair are for the high jump.

Note: I thought this was about Harry and Meghan - not just Meghan.

Well Harry is in love, Harry is c*nt struck, Harry is tit blind. She is beautiful and an actress - probably has an epic bushy retro black clout and who doesn't like that?

**And remember - No Prince Andrew, Big Ears (Charles) or Noddy (his name will come to me later)**

Rant away please my little ranters - rant away . . . . . .

[Sabbers2]

Originally Posted by aegean

Harry & Meghan or should I say Henry and Rachel because after all those are their actual names.

**one rule please - lets not have this thread about Prince Andrew, Prince Andrew should be thrown under a bus, that bus being driven by his mum - the Queen, whom should then reverse over him at least twice and then souvenir tea towels of the queen driving a classic red double decker should be sold - so no Prince Andrew please**

And obviously we all know who's side I'm on

If Meghan (Rachel) is interviewed in a garden, be careful which tree you sit under, because bird poo on your shoulder is bad optics.



We all loved Meghan, we all thought it was awesome, Harry!, we always had (had) a soft spot for him. Harry wed Meghan and all was bliss - we weren't even interested in her embarrassing family (not her mother - the white trailer trash side).

And what went wrong? Well, Rachel (Meghan) quickly found out that being a royal was not all palace balls and riding a unicorn around a champagne filled swimming pool.

Being a Royal is opening a remodeled disabled toilet in
Barrow-in-Furness on a wet Wednesday morning to a group of cheering plebs whom you have to meet and greet and smile.

That isn't her idea of a Disney™ Princess, so that to me is what went south and quickly. The Royal family has always been put up and shut up, never complain never explain.

What we understand so far with the clips uploaded. Rachel (Meghan Disney™ Princess) has played the race card - I've never seen such a white person of colour and she claims that the colour of her child was questioned -as-fucking-if-, they will need to name and shame that person - I totally but totally call bullshit on that one. Nobody in the employment of HRH would even dare to think that of a child of Prince Harry (soon to be just plain Henry).

She was also told that there would be no title and NO security for little Archie. Well, the title would probably been given later providing he is a working member of the "firm" and as for no security? A high profile target such as Archie - give me a break FFS.

But basically it comes down to being all about her - because after the media frenzy with the marriage and is was a very nice bedazzling media frenzy then limelight shut off - because being married to a Royal and especially the "spare heir" is a none job.

Unless you make sure that the limelight is focused on her as she is doing now.
But unfortunately she doesn't understand the British mindset and the Queen, because the one thing we can claim to be the best at - it's Royalty.

If there is a premiere league of Royalty, then Her Royal Highness the Queen has been number one for decades.

So whats next for Rachel? Well, she's now going from beloved to hated because the Queen will not respond, that's her best and proven tactic - which will infuriate Meghan, who will carry on ranting and will fall foul of her own mouth.

She's also doing this at a silly time, Prince Philip (Grandfather to Harry and Great Granddaddy to Archie) is still in hospital aged 99.
If he or the Queen shuffle off in the near future, then that ungrateful pair are for the high jump.

Note: I thought this was about Harry and Meghan - not just Meghan.

Well Harry is in love, Harry is c*nt struck, Harry is tit blind. She is beautiful and an actress - probably has an epic bushy retro black clout and who doesn't like that?

**And remember - No Prince Andrew, Big Ears (Charles) or Noddy (his name will come to me later)**

Rant away please my little ranters - rant away . . . . . .

10/10 for the Barrow mention