algy Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Nothing to stop Betty standing in a vote for head of state. ) For goodness sake Nick, stop 'Bloody' moaning, if you want a sodding dictator why don't you emigrate, there are still sufficient countries with dictatorships to quench your thirst for oppression. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 For goodness sake Nick, stop 'Bloody' moaning, if you want a sodding dictator why don't you emigrate, there are still sufficient countries with dictatorships to quench your thirst for oppression. Oh dear that again - this is my country (If you are so keen on an hereditary head of state, algy, I believe North Korea's very nice this time of year. ) I don't want a dictator - where have I ever said that ? I want an elected, accountable and removable, by the people, through the ballot box, head of state. It's not that complicated. Unfortunately it gets confused by some people unable, or unwilling, to get past confusing the institution with the individual or confusing republicanism with communism or, bizarrely anarchism. it is also ridiclously seen as treason to the nation which it most definitely isn't. My patriotism is not dependent on the nature of the head of state, I do wonder about some of the feudalists, though. Not too surprising with the obvious limited brainpower of some feudalists. it would not surprise me, entirely , if some pratt accused me of being a paedo on the basis of my republican views. The issue is also clouded by those who choose examples of regimes with presidents which are corrupt and not democratic - there is no reason to suppose that our nation, with its history, social and political background, would join that list. Perhaps I have a greater opinion of this country - a greater sense of true patriotism - not restricted to worship of an individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Alas, dear nick, you are in a minority here. Why not keep your anti-royal propaganda on the other site, where all your cohorts frequent and willingly support your anti-royal comments? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Nick, you are confusing the issue! Who said anything about Charles succeeding the Queen? I presume under your system there would have to be another vote?? Again, I didn't say privations, but normal family life has often been put to one side for visits abroad on behalf of the country, yes, in some but not all cases at our expense, but I don't grudge it as she is a great ambassador for the UK. It is rather insulting to say I confuse self-sacrifice with Princess Margaret's problems, they are 2 completely different situations, the one is 60 years of duty to the nation and the other something which was probably out of her hands in terms of what could be done. As you are no doubt aware, the Queen is only titular head of the country as monarch and the government would have dictated what was acceptable. I'm sure it wasn't her decision alone. At 85 will you be prepared to stand for 6 hours in the freezing cold as part of your duty to anyone?? I think she is only too aware of real life and the financial constraints people suffer, but the millions who went to London this weekend don't appear to bear her any ill-will, they seem rather to feel she is the one constant and reliable person to have been at our helm for the past 60 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Oh dear that again - this is my country (If you are so keen on an hereditary head of state, algy, I believe North Korea's very nice this time of year. ) I don't want a dictator - where have I ever said that ? I want an elected, accountable and removable, by the people, through the ballot box, head of state. It's not that complicated. Unfortunately it gets confused by some people unable, or unwilling, to get past confusing the institution with the individual or confusing republicanism with communism or, bizarrely anarchism. it is also ridiclously seen as treason to the nation which it most definitely isn't. My patriotism is not dependent on the nature of the head of state, I do wonder about some of the feudalists, though. Not too surprising with the obvious limited brainpower of some feudalists. it would not surprise me, entirely , if some pratt accused me of being a paedo on the basis of my republican views. The issue is also clouded by those who choose examples of regimes with presidents which are corrupt and not democratic - there is no reason to suppose that our nation, with its history, social and political background, would join that list. Perhaps I have a greater opinion of this country - a greater sense of true patriotism - not restricted to worship of an individual. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much! You should not put words into peoples mouths, Nick. :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Alas, dear nick, you are in a minority here. Why not keep your anti-royal propaganda on the other site, where all your cohorts frequent and willingly support your anti-royal comments? My mistake, your Ptoloemic majesty, I thought this was the warrington worldwide forum - a place for discussing issues - not www.kiss-royal-butt.org Which site so you mean? Surely not the Guardian - even more feudalists there than here - some of whom the verse about cabbages and kings could sum up both their IQs and their beliefs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Alas, dear nick, you are in a minority here. Why not keep your anti-royal propaganda on the other site, where all your cohorts frequent and willingly support your anti-royal comments? Nick has as much right to air his views as anyone else. I find myself between the 2 extremes. I am in favour of a monarchy, but I do have to question the media overkill, the cost and the implication that if you haven't joined in the paranoia that you should leave the country. A single bank holiday costs the country about £2.3 billion, and we have just had 2, not counting the cost of organising the events, the concerts, security and fly pasts. But at least it has exploded 2 myths. One being that this country is broke, and 2 that we are all in it together. It seems strange that on the one hand we are giving people an extra paid for bank holiday while telling some of those same people that they have to work 5 days without pay. PS. Nick is correct about Charles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Nick, you are confusing the issue! Who said anything about Charles succeeding the Queen? I presume under your system there would have to be another vote?? At 85 will you be prepared to stand for 6 hours in the freezing cold as part of your duty to anyone?? I think she is only too aware of real life and the financial constraints people suffer, Who said anything about Charles succeeding - inevitable unless he pegs it first - that's the herditary principle in action. What do you mean another vote - I must have missed the first one Agree it is ludicrous that an 85 year old should do that - but then the whole thing is ludicrous. I would be quite happy to see her relieved of such duties (I'm just nice like that ) As for her being aware of real life - as any contact she has with us peasants is stage-managed I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 On balance, I'm not opposed to Monarchy, on the grounds that it is the least worst option for a head of State. However, I would like to see some radical modifications in terms of costs, to something like the Scandanavian model. What does tee me off, is the gut wrenching obsiquious nature of BBC reporting and the survile sycophancy of the public, encouraged by some of the pomp and ceremony. I think we can bet on a knighthood for Gary Barlow, with others lining up for OBEs; and Sir Elton and Sir Paul, will no doubt make the House of Lords - not bad for a pop singer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 One thing is certain - there will be no knighthoods for you and nick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 What Wolfie said <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 I'm with the Republicanists. Or, at the least what obs said about the Scandanavian approach. Oh, and Grace Jones, at 64, stole the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Who said anything about Charles succeeding - inevitable unless he pegs it first - that's the herditary principle in action. What do you mean another vote - I must have missed the first one Agree it is ludicrous that an 85 year old should do that - but then the whole thing is ludicrous. I would be quite happy to see her relieved of such duties (I'm just nice like that )As for her being aware of real life - as any contact she has with us peasants is stage-managed I don't think so. You said you wanted an elected head of state - I said I voted for the Queen - following your logic, after the Queen is elected and has ended her period of office, there has to be another vote! Just trying to follow your plan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 BTW - Prince Philip now has to be addressed as ur-iness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted June 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 As for her being aware of real life - as any contact she has with us peasants is stage-managed I don't think so. And you think Obama or Sarcastic or any president around the world is in touch with real life? You are a disgrace and you should be ashamed to call yourself British. This country is built on the values we have adhered to for centuries and the Monarchy is as much a part of being British as having crap weather. As others have said, bugger off to some banana republic if that is the kind of life you want.... the overwhelming majority in this country want the Monarchy. And stop calling yourself British..... no republican deserves that right 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Do you actually believe the crap you have just posted Baz, Why Are republicans a disgrace, because they do not follow your very narrow view of what it is to be British, what a very sad view you hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 I'm with the Republicanists. Oh, and Grace Jones, at 64, stole the show. ... we fast forwarded through her as she was scarey and stomach churning of you ask me. At least she didn't punch anyone this time We did the same for Cliff Richard (Oooh embarrasing) but watched every bit of Paul Macartney twice just for a laugh as we really couldn't believe he was the final act and given all the limelight and was that bad..... he was of course and is certainly the one everyone is talking about. Something else for him to stick on his "I think I'm brill and I'll be remembered because I........ WAS SHITE AGAIN' list Anyway... long may the Queen reign and I hope when I am her age I have a quarter of her energy and determination as even that would be a lot. And here's hoping Prince Philip makes a speedy recovery. I really don't know how either of them have done what they have over the past few months in the run up the the celebrations and over the weekend. Amazing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted June 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Do you actually believe the crap you have just posted Baz, Why Are republicans a disgrace, because they do not follow your very narrow view of what it is to be British, what a very sad view you hold. You may think its crap Kije because you and nick believe in selling this country down the river. You have no pride in being British.... you especially with your EU nonsense. This country was great on its own but has been systematically destroyed by successive governments. The Monarchy is the only stabilising factor we have had for the past 60 years and long may it continue.... even after the death of the Queen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 My only regret about the royal family is that I doubt I shall live long enough to see King William (and Queen Catherine) on the throne. Hopefully I will not see a Queen Camilla either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Guess the next monarch will be a right Charlie?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Cameleon wouldn't be Queen she'd just be the King's second wife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Not necessarily. Anything could happen. Charles could even predecease his mother -either naturally or by accident. He could, if he wished, decline the throne in favour of William. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Even as the king's second wife she would still be 'queening' it over everyone. Now there's a thing - if not Queen Camilla it would be HRM King Charles and who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 ...she was scarey... Yes, that's what Grace Jones does. The rest (from what I saw) were insipid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 What I find crap Baz, is your narrow view, anyone not thinking as you do is a traitor, anyone not conforming to your narrow view of what it is to be British is a traitor. Anyone not wearing Union Jack underwear is a traitor ect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.