Charlie Hebdo - Front cover

I really hope not, that would be a damning indictment on our society, if we thought that type of unfounded insinuation was acceptable.
It happens all the time though- if you are black, foreign, a different religion, disabled, poor, where you live. It is rooted in our corrupt society. FFS., when I went to school in the 60's I was not allowed music lessons because my parents could not afford the 35 pence (equivalent) to buy a recorder.
The only time I saw the school tennis courts was when we were on a cross country run. Only kids whose parents could afford tennis raquets were allowed on them.
And yet we have a family robbing us fkn blind and we all bow before them-
We can't even serve our country unless we swear allegiance to the Queen.
 
Trug said:
I really hope not, that would be a damning indictment on our society, if we thought that type of unfounded insinuation was acceptable.
It happens all the time though- if you are black, foreign, a different religion, disabled, poor, where you live. It is rooted in our corrupt society. FFS., when I went to school in the 60's I was not allowed music lessons because my parents could not afford the 35 pence (equivalent) to buy a recorder.
The only time I saw the school tennis courts was when we were on a cross country run. Only kids whose parents could afford tennis raquets were allowed on them.
And yet we have a family robbing us fkn blind and we all bow before them-
We can't even serve our country unless we swear allegiance to the Queen.
Click to expand...
How does this relate to the insinuation that the Queen is racist, sounds like you are trying to bring other things into play here, it’s not about the wealth, it is about the character assassination.
 
the_holgate_roof said:
The Queen and Royal Family are heads of state, that’s it, they don’t govern the country, they don’t make the laws. And thankfully most of the country don’t agree with the majority on this board, this is not representative.
Click to expand...
If you think 'thats it' thats all they do and they just sit in their castle and don't get involved in politics, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. They are the head of the elite. They ensure the continuation of their own family through royal approval, they ensure that their scam, keeps their elitist hangers on in good money and with great opportunity to progress in life. This institute and all it stands for is paid for by us, not just directly financiing, but indirectly through the various scams they operate. They are not benign, they actively participate in politics.

Now, it's clear you are not ready to understand this, and you think she's just a sweet old lady that would never hurt a fly. That's your loss, maybe one day the rose tinted spectacles will be removed but you clearly aren't ready for that yet. Good night
 
the_holgate_roof said:
How does this relate to the insinuation that the Queen is racist, sounds like you are trying to bring other things into play here, it’s not about the wealth, it is about the character assassination.
Click to expand...
The Queen clearly represents the royal family. You can't take it literally, it's satire. The queen doesn't literally have her knee on Meghan, but through the classist institution she represents and is the figurehead for she does have her knee on all our necks and particularly the commonwealth countries she has subjugated over the years and the non-whites that are oppressed more than most in the hierarchical socioeconomic system she ensures is maintained......you may masochistically enjoy that, but that's not for me thanks.
 
BoroMart said:
If you think 'thats it' thats all they do and they just sit in their castle and don't get involved in politics, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. They are the head of the elite. They ensure the continuation of their own family through royal approval, they ensure that their scam, keeps their elitist hangers on in good money and with great opportunity to progress in life. This institute and all it stands for is paid for by us, not just directly financiing, but indirectly through the various scams they operate. They are not benign, they actively participate in politics.

Now, it's clear you are not ready to understand this, and you think she's just a sweet old lady that would never hurt a fly. That's your loss, maybe one day the rose tinted spectacles will be removed but you clearly aren't ready for that yet. Good night
Click to expand...
😁😁😁
 
BoroMart said:
The Queen clearly represents the royal family. You can't take it literally, it's satire. The queen doesn't literally have her knee on Meghan, but through the classist institution she represents and is the figurehead for she does have her knee on all our necks and particularly the commonwealth countries she has subjugated over the years and the non-whites that are oppressed more than most in the hierarchical socioeconomic system she ensures is maintained......you may masochistically enjoy that, but that's not for me thanks.
Click to expand...
Well I for one was stood waving the Union Jack flag in 1977 stood on the top at Normanby when the Queen was driven through and at Tees port on the night when she left on Britannia and enjoyed the street party and I bet a few others on here did, I wonder when the cynicism crept in.
 
Imagine if society was rebooted today. For whatever reason we go back to zero and need to rebuild our country from nothing upwards. Imagine coming up with the concept of monarchy as the way to go forward. It's ludicrous. No one would say, "Yes, let's give wealth privilege and power to one family.....forever........with no way to ensure they are not corrupt and no way to get rid of them, and we will give it to the most murderous and ruthless family we can find. Oh and we will deify them for ever"! Unbelievable. This is middle ages level nonsense what surprises me is so many people have middle ages brains to continue to support them.
 
BoroMart said:
Imagine if society was rebooted today. For whatever reason we go back to zero and need to rebuild our country from nothing upwards. Imagine coming up with the concept of monarchy as the way to go forward. It's ludicrous. No one would say, "Yes, let's give wealth privilege and power to one family.....forever........with no way to ensure they are not corrupt and no way to get rid of them, and we will give it to the most murderous and ruthless family we can find. Oh and we will deify them for ever"! Unbelievable. This is middle ages level nonsense what surprises me is so many people have middle ages brains to continue to support them.
Click to expand...
Our history and traditions, whether you like it or not sets us aside from the rest, our pomp and circumstance, otherwise we just become another bland republic, you have no idea how much our Royal Family are an asset to this country, you only see them as leaches.
 
the_holgate_roof said:
I didn’t know it was secret?? Do you realise how much tourism the Royal Family bring in, you can see that pretty much 365 days a year at any of the given palaces, far far more than it costs to keep the Royal Family.
Click to expand...

I’ve lived overseas for years and never met one person who visited the UK for the Royal Family. France no longer has a RF but receives more tourists than UK.

I admit for some visitors it will be a pull but the numbers suggest that the monarchy has a tiny impact on UK tourism. If the £500m suggested by VisitBritain is correct then it still is 0.01% of UK economy and 0.3% of tourist industry. People likely come for heritage, not the monarchy so the tourism argument is a weak one at best.
 
Smoggle said:
I’ve lived overseas for years and never met one person who visited the UK for the Royal Family. France no longer has a RF but receives more tourists than UK.

I admit for some visitors it will be a pull but the numbers suggest that the monarchy has a tiny impact on UK tourism. If the £500m suggested by VisitBritain is correct then it still is 0.01% of UK economy and 0.3% of tourist industry. People likely come for heritage, not the monarchy so the tourism argument is a weak one at best.
Click to expand...
Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy.
 
BoroMart said:
That isn't a racist slur. It's a slur on someone as a racist.

Although I would argue that the queen is metaphorical for the royal family in this image, which then might be true
Click to expand...
That’s how I read it too. As someone on Twitter posted: “anyone shocked by revelations that the royal family are racist are really going to get upset when they find out about the whole of history”
 
SmallTown said:
That’s how I read it too. As someone on Twitter posted: “anyone shocked by revelations that the royal family are racist are really going to get upset when they find out about the whole of history”
Click to expand...
Yes but people are confusing history with modern day, everything has changed as life moved on, lots of organisations work differently and of course the people are different.
 
There are 60 million of us and about 100 of them. If we really wanted to we could storm Buckingham Palace anytime. That's why they appear to like us but behind closed doors laugh at us
 
Is tourism a strong enough reason to keep them? How many tourists see a member of the Royal Family on their travels?

We wouldn’t erase their history or demolish their castles, palaces and stately homes. They would remain and be enhanced from a tourist perspective because they can be completely opened up to the public.

Royals feel more like the Kardashians today. Just their to entertain those who are more interested in celebrity culture than the real world. I guess that is very big business these days but they are an expensive celebrity brand.

Saying that they do have too much influence (as do the church which is another outdated institution) and that should be revoked.

I don’t think tourism would be so affected by their removal. The UK has thousands of attractions for tourists including those linked to the royals and their history.
 
the_holgate_roof said:
Another statistic from consultancy Brand Finance said that in 2017 the monarchy contributed £1.8 billion to the UK economy.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t that supposedly due to the royal wedding? Visit Britain claimed it was just under $1b - these figures, whilst huge to us, are still pretty small when evaluating an economy and certainly don’t make a great argument for a monarchy - also the Visit Britain figures have been heavily scrutinised and criticised.

The VB figures often quoted in the press and by journalists are dubious as they include tickets sold for any remotely royal attraction - I’ll happily go to a castle or similar but not because of the Windsors

In summary, what I’m saying is is that the tourism angle is irrelevant to the monarchy argument. The numbers are small in economic terms so it’s neither here nor there whether they are a net profit or drain, and we’re not going to get a clear picture anyway because the figures bandied about contain some very dubious “royal” assumptions.

I can see why some people like the “pomp and circumstance” and the romance of the RF, it’s not my cup of tea but I get it. But you have to take that along with the political interference, secrecy, immortality etc. I’ll not hammer someone for their views but I know what mine are.
 
Smoggle said:
Wasn’t that supposedly due to the royal wedding? Visit Britain claimed it was just under $1b - these figures, whilst huge to us, are still pretty small when evaluating an economy and certainly don’t make a great argument for a monarchy - also the Visit Britain figures have been heavily scrutinised and criticised.

The VB figures often quoted in the press and by journalists are dubious as they include tickets sold for any remotely royal attraction - I’ll happily go to a castle or similar but not because of the Windsors

In summary, what I’m saying is is that the tourism angle is irrelevant to the monarchy argument. The numbers are small in economic terms so it’s neither here nor there whether they are a net profit or drain, and we’re not going to get a clear picture anyway because the figures bandied about contain some very dubious “royal” assumptions.

I can see why some people like the “pomp and circumstance” and the romance of the RF, it’s not my cup of tea but I get it. But you have to take that along with the political interference, secrecy, immortality etc. I’ll not hammer someone for their views but I know what mine are.
Click to expand...
If they opened up the public royal residences, there would be a huge increase in tourism spending . . . even without a monarchy.
 
SmallTown said:
That’s how I read it too. As someone on Twitter posted: “anyone shocked by revelations that the royal family are racist are really going to get upset when they find out about the whole of history”
Click to expand...
Royal family are built on a socio-political system of some people being more worthy than others.

1 - monarch
2 - in line to the throne
3 - not in line to the throne
4 - Hereditary titles such as life peers, viscounts, etc. that underpin the royal institution
5 - common people with royal betowed awards such as OBE and CBE
6 - common people
7 - immigrants and commonwealthers
8 - foreign to the commonwealth

It's the way the royal family is and always has been. It wouldn't exist without the concept of not all people are equal
 
bear66 said:
If they opened up the public royal residences, there would be a huge increase in tourism spending . . . even without a monarchy.
Click to expand...
absolutely they'd be able to sell the queens rooms in Windsor, Balmoral, Buck Pal, and Sandringham for 10k/night to foreign billionaires as a hotel. 40k/365 days = circa 14.6mill just on 4 rooms. Buck Pal has about 300 bedrooms and could rake in 80mill alone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top