Elizabeth the Last

Same_as_before said:
I never attacked anyone's opinion, I leave that too others. I said this board as a whole does not represent the real world.

If you want rid of the royals that's your view, it's an open democracy.

I wasn't surprised it was started by a bloke who is an open admirer of a pro British non-sectarian party.
Click to expand...

Strange, you're entire opening post (pre edit) in this thread was a dig at most of the people on this board for absolutely no reason other than they have an opinion that differs from yours.

Anyway, I'm not going to get involved any further in what's going to happen to this thread now.
 
wilkos_perm said:
Why would people adore William and his wife? They're just people who they've never met who've had no impact on them personally. Personally i find it hard to comprehend. I'd agree it's a minority at the moment who are pro republic, but it's nothing like as insignificant as you suggest
Click to expand...
Boro fans adored Juhinho, I doubt few had met him, but you are right not on here.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Boro said:
Strange, you're entire opening post (pre edit) in this thread was a dig at most of the people on this board for absolutely no reason other than they have an opinion that differs from yours.

Anyway, I'm not going to get involved any further in what's going to happen to this thread now.
Click to expand...
I edit as my English is shocking, I reread and put the wording right. 'if to of' I will add to it rather than start a new message.

I disagree with your premise, I put forward the argument that this site does not go anywhere near representing the views of most of the country.
 
You have to realise the thread was started by a bloke who previously said if he was in a room where the national anthem was being played he would get a whistle, not a flute, and whistle it throughout.
 
junos_boots said:
Whilst it is against the rules of Parliament to discuss the royals, there is no way we can be classed as an open democracy.

Especially as she has to sign every law before it gets on the statute books.
Click to expand...
A bloke in a black dress with a stick knocks on a door to open parliament. We are a nation of history.

Are you suggesting parliament would not open without him?
 
Same_as_before said:
You have to realise the thread was started by a bloke who previously said if he was in a room where the national anthem was being played he would get a whistle, not a flute, and whistle it throughout.
Click to expand...
I'm a republican and would do away with the Monarchy, given the chance but I wouldn't boo the national anthem - I understand that there are plenty who it means a lot to.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Not sure about that, Harry as an example has lived a pretty full life that many people of his age would love to have experienced.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but he's not the child of the monarch and he is still having a bit of a job leaving, with pressure from the family and the media and open racism toward his wife. But look at the freedoms that normal people have compared to a child of the queen.

Can they go to the Buccaneer for a couple?
Dangle their legs over a canal and smoke a joint?
Go to Spain for a fortnight of debauchery with the lads?
Hitchhike to an away match?
Stand in the crowd at a Stones concert?
Work away?
Go shopping on a whim?
Cycle to the countryside alone?
Swim in the sea alone?
Decide to pop out for fish and chips?
Get 3/4 drunk in the Englischer Garten?
Go to the Westgarth or Ku to see an unknown band?
Walk the streets of a city just for the feel of it?

You can keep all the state ceremonies, the balcony wavings and the gala luncheons, give me personal autonomy anytime.
Right, I'm off to the gym.
 
Same_as_before said:
I edit as my English is shocking, I reread and put the wording right. 'if to of' I will add to it rather than start a new message.

I disagree with your premise, I put forward the argument that this site does not go anywhere near representing the views of most of the country.
Click to expand...

You added a whole paragraph to the end, I quoted you before you did which is why I said pre edit to clarify my "entire" point.

But as I'm a Labour supporting, pro remain, anti Royalist republican then my opinion isn't representative. Not that it needs to be of course.

Anyway.
 
Same_as_before said:
A bloke in a black dress with a stick knocks on a door to open parliament. We are a nation of history.

Are you suggesting parliament would not open without him?
Click to expand...
Except we're not, we're only a nation of a curated history that's comfortable to us.

Whenever actual history is brought up (the failings of the empire, the Irish famine, Churchill's racism etc) those who hark back to our history suddenly seem unwillling to discuss or focus on it.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Possibly, but he's not the child of the monarch and he is still having a bit of a job leaving, with pressure from the family and the media and open racism toward his wife. But look at the freedoms that normal people have compared to a child of the queen.

Can they go to the Buccaneer for a couple?
Dangle their legs over a canal and smoke a joint?
Go to Spain for a fortnight of debauchery with the lads?
Hitchhike to an away match?
Stand in the crowd at a Stones concert?
Work away?
Go shopping on a whim?
Cycle to the countryside alone?
Swim in the sea alone?
Decide to pop out for fish and chips?
Get 3/4 drunk in the Englischer Garten?
Go to the Westgarth or Ku to see an unknown band?
Walk the streets of a city just for the feel of it?

You can keep all the state ceremonies, the balcony wavings and the gala luncheons, give me personal autonomy anytime.
Right, I'm off to the gym.
Click to expand...

Harry managed to squeeze a trip in to Vegas in to his schedule, and whilst a couple of pints in the Buccaneer may have eluded him he's has plenty of nights at Annabells and the like with Hugo and Sebastian.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Except we're not, we're only a nation of a curated history that's comfortable to us.

Whenever actual history is brought up (the failings of the empire, the Irish famine, Churchill's racism etc) those who hark back to our history suddenly seem unwillling to discuss or focus on it.
Click to expand...
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Possibly, but he's not the child of the monarch and he is still having a bit of a job leaving, with pressure from the family and the media and open racism toward his wife. But look at the freedoms that normal people have compared to a child of the queen.

Can they go to the Buccaneer for a couple?
Dangle their legs over a canal and smoke a joint?
Go to Spain for a fortnight of debauchery with the lads?
Hitchhike to an away match?
Stand in the crowd at a Stones concert?
Work away?
Go shopping on a whim?
Cycle to the countryside alone?
Swim in the sea alone?
Decide to pop out for fish and chips?
Get 3/4 drunk in the Englischer Garten?
Go to the Westgarth or Ku to see an unknown band?
Walk the streets of a city just for the feel of it?

You can keep all the state ceremonies, the balcony wavings and the gala luncheons, give me personal autonomy anytime.
Right, I'm off to the gym.
Click to expand...
That's twice in a few weeks we have agreed on something. Your image is getting a battering.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Except we're not, we're only a nation of a curated history that's comfortable to us.

Whenever actual history is brought up (the failings of the empire, the Irish famine, Churchill's racism etc) those who hark back to our history suddenly seem unwillling to discuss or focus on it.
Click to expand...
Yes that's one side of it. I know far to much about the Irish famine a potato disease throughout Europe. The actions of the Whig government of laise-faire is a national disgrace. Churchill has many elitist views, but he pretty much by personal will won over parliament to fight Nazism, other countries chose non-intervention.
 
By and large I don't mind the monarchy, though I'm probably more ambivalent following the Prince Andrew scandal. I don't really feel they impact on my life in any way, though I accept they are part of the branding and image the UK presents to the world.

I've never really bought the argument that monarchies are backwards or more primitive than republics though. However you measure it, standard of living, human development, social mobility, monarchies constitute 50% or more of the 10 highest ranked nations; meanwhile the lowest ranked nations are all republics.

I suppose I tolerate the monarchy rather than support it. I don't think I'd be better off under a republic, and I suspect it would just create the office of president for some ex-Eton boy.
 
Let's not personalise it, I get the feeling Betty, Chaz and Will are all nice people, it's the institution that's Bad.
It promotes inherited superiority and so the Class system. Let it pass into history, but as someone earlier said, its a long way down the list of priorities.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I suppose I tolerate the monarchy rather than support it. I don't think I'd be better off under a republic, and I suspect it would just create the office of president for some ex-Eton boy.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much my feeling too, and the thought of President Johnson is far worse than having to pay a few quid for the royal family in tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top