Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Monarchy


Remmie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Past caring about how much we have to pay to do up the royals houses,

It gets a bit of bad publicity for a day or two and then they'll fly Arry off to some deprived area in the middle of fuck knows where they'll stick a poor blind kid with him and maybe a game of football or a dance with the locals and Nicholas Witchell will go "ahh isn't he lovely"

Hey presto normal service is resumed

 

Image result for prince harry playing football with poor kids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

I have't read all of this but are we all basically in agreement that the monarchy should be abolished?

 

I think so, although some people seem to believe that whatever we replace it with won't cost an arm and a leg too, and bring its own set of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Royals cost taxpayers money"

 

WHAT'S THIS YOU SAY!?!?! 

 

Deploy the fleet!

 

Piers Morgan was moaning about it this morning, nothing to do with the fact he's mentioned a few times he doesn't like her. Probably because she wouldn't go on his shit show.

 

Don't remember all this brouhaha when Andrew's ugly kid was getting married off on our nipple.

 

The Queen's Corgis' food bill alone is probably enough to cure cancer but the usual suspects won't give a fuck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the Royals still exist and are defended/propped up by the establishment is because of the message it sends, the idea that there's nothing unusual or untoward about the idea of  there being people in society who are by default inherently worth more than you and your kids.

 

If you accept that, then you accept it with, say, army officers doing a job you're excluded from because you have a Northern accent, or getting into Oxbridge, or becoming a politician. 

 

Know your place, stand there in your Union Jack gear like a simpleton. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

The reason the Royals still exist and are defended/propped up by the establishment is because of the message it sends, the idea that there's nothing unusual or untoward about the idea of  there being people in society who are by default inherently worth more than you and your kids.

 

If you accept that, then you accept it with, say, army officers doing a job you're excluded from because you have a Northern accent, or getting into Oxbridge, or becoming a politician. 

 

Know your place, stand there in your Union Jack gear like a simpleton. 

Yep. "We are opening millions on a few cunts having the best roof over their head with annexes for hats and shit despite thousands sleeping rough but keep calm and carry on" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I think so, although some people seem to believe that whatever we replace it with won't cost an arm and a leg too, and bring its own set of problems.

Maybe so, I quite like the Irish way, elected President, but simply a figurehead, no executive powers, and you can get rid of the cunts after 7 years!

 

Grandpa Munster seems to be doing ok as Irish President!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Section_31 said:

The reason the Royals still exist and are defended/propped up by the establishment is because of the message it sends, the idea that there's nothing unusual or untoward about the idea of  there being people in society who are by default inherently worth more than you and your kids.

 

If you accept that, then you accept it with, say, army officers doing a job you're excluded from because you have a Northern accent, or getting into Oxbridge, or becoming a politician. 

 

Know your place, stand there in your Union Jack gear like a simpleton. 

A total meritocracy and nothing to do with how rich your parents are. 

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/private-schools-social-mobility-commission-sutton-trust-education-elitist-a8972731.html

 

It adds that power rests with a “narrow section of the population” – the 7 per cent who attend private schools in Britain and the 1 per cent who graduate from Oxford and Cambridge.

 

“Social mobility, the potential for those to achieve success regardless of their background, remains low. As our report shows, the most influential people across sport, politics, the media, film and TV, are five times as likely to have attended a fee-paying school.”

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/oxbridge-admissions-acceptance-pupils-school-uk-fee-costs-students-a8671246.html

 

Eight schools and colleges had more students accepted to Oxbridge in the last three years than three quarters of all other schools, a report has revealed.

The group, most of which are fee-paying independent schools, gained more than 1,300 admissions to courses at Oxford and Cambridge between 2015 and 2017.

 

By contrast, some 2,900 schools and colleges, equating to three quarters of all further education centres in the UK, saw just 1,200 of their students accepted to Oxbridge in the same timeframe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

A total meritocracy and nothing to do with how rich your parents are. 

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/private-schools-social-mobility-commission-sutton-trust-education-elitist-a8972731.html

 

It adds that power rests with a “narrow section of the population” – the 7 per cent who attend private schools in Britain and the 1 per cent who graduate from Oxford and Cambridge.

 

“Social mobility, the potential for those to achieve success regardless of their background, remains low. As our report shows, the most influential people across sport, politics, the media, film and TV, are five times as likely to have attended a fee-paying school.”

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/oxbridge-admissions-acceptance-pupils-school-uk-fee-costs-students-a8671246.html

 

Eight schools and colleges had more students accepted to Oxbridge in the last three years than three quarters of all other schools, a report has revealed.

The group, most of which are fee-paying independent schools, gained more than 1,300 admissions to courses at Oxford and Cambridge between 2015 and 2017.

 

By contrast, some 2,900 schools and colleges, equating to three quarters of all further education centres in the UK, saw just 1,200 of their students accepted to Oxbridge in the same timeframe.

 

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/dominated-posh-boys-number-public-school-army-officer-cadets-jumped-fifth-last-year/11/08/

 

I wrote this a couple of years back. Took me about a year of back and forth with the MOD using Freedom of Information submissions to get the info, the number of privately educated officers in the military actually went up. 

 

I tried to pitch this to all and sundry but nobody wanted it, had to give it away to these clowns in the end. 

 

You could make Sharpe today and it would still make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I think so, although some people seem to believe that whatever we replace it with won't cost an arm and a leg too, and bring its own set of problems.

Do they need replacing with anything? Apart from the monarch going through the motions of giving assent to every Act of Parliament (a ludicrous process that any democracy would cheerfully consign to history) what do any of them actually do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Section_31 said:

The reason the Royals still exist and are defended/propped up by the establishment is because of the message it sends, the idea that there's nothing unusual or untoward about the idea of  there being people in society who are by default inherently worth more than you and your kids.

 

If you accept that, then you accept it with, say, army officers doing a job you're excluded from because you have a Northern accent, or getting into Oxbridge, or becoming a politician. 

 

Know your place, stand there in your Union Jack gear like a simpleton. 

This.

 

This is the strongest argument against the monarchy. Support for any form of monarchy is incompatible with democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Do they need replacing with anything? Apart from the monarch going through the motions of giving assent to every Act of Parliament (a ludicrous process that any democracy would cheerfully consign to history) what do any of them actually do?

 

I think we'd need a head of state of some kind. Plus representatives to fill the ambassadorial roles that the senior royals currently do. The British monarch is also head of state in fifteen other countries too, so they'd probably need to be involved somewhere along the line too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...