Quantcast
Monarchy - Page 36 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Remmie

Monarchy

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Red said:

I'll say one thing for a private education, the confidence it gives many of them when entering adult life is fantastic. I'd have ruled the fucking world.

I read a really good article a while back  (and I think I posted a link on the Inequality thread) written by a public school alumnus, explaining that the essence of a public school education is found in the rituals, the language, the games and all the other exclusive cliquey things that tell you repeatedly "you are one of us and your role is to lead".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

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.

A Head of State with no formal political power is like a Lord Mayor: might look good on the front of the local paper opening a new sewage works, but if they weren't there, the important stuff would still get done. The same is true for every country with a Windsor on their money.

 

More than a Head of State, we need a Head of Government  - ideally, a directly-elected head of the Executive branch, which needs to be separated from the Legislative branch. Actually, we need lots of reform to get some democracy into the way we are governed.

 

We could fill the ambassadorial roles with people who get the job because they're good at it; not because God says their family is inherently better than your family and mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

This.

 

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

Genuinely amazes me that in a country so eager to embrace every form of equality under the sun, where progress has been made in so many areas, if some pleb's kid was at the top of the queue for a new kidney and HRH Jnr suddenly needed one, pleb's kid would get passed over no questions asked with  not a hint of brouhaha from any quarter save probably for the Daily Mirror. In 2019. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

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.

It would be quite amusing if the British decided to get rid of the Monarchy - presumably because it was the only way to guarantee Brexit or something - to see what would happen with the other Commonwealth countries.  Would the Royals just up sticks to Canada and carry on like nothing happened?

What would Britain do if a country decided it still wanted a British head of state?  The fume and confusion from the old conservatives down here would also be delicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't deal well with authority. Of course there needs to be some form of order but the monarchy don't make decisions. Its all a load of bollocks. Nothing will change in the next 10 lifetimes. Lets all kill each other instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scores of complaints have been made about rented properties on royal land and tenants have faced more than 100 evictions, a Guardian investigation has found, prompting anger over how the Queen’s £14bn property portfolio is managed.

The crown estate, which helps bankroll the Queen by giving the monarch 25% of its profits, has sought to evict 113 tenants in the past five years so they can sell their homes for profit.

It comes after it has emerged on Tuesday that the taxpayer has footed a £2.4m bill to renovate Frogmore Cottage, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official residence, according to royal accounts. While the royals have no direct oversight role in crown estate’s dealings, Prince William and Prince Charles have both spoken before about the importance of ensuring good quality housing is available for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, moof said:

Do you ever get sick of the taste of boot?

 

 

Accuracy is bootlicking now?

 

What a strange, cretinous world you inhabit.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

 

Accuracy is bootlicking now?

 

What a strange, cretinous world you inhabit.

 

Oh my word the fucking hypocrisy ! 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

 

Accuracy is bootlicking now?

 

 

 

You do seem to get defensively pedantic when it comes to the Royal family  (in a way that contrasts, for example, with the way you play fast and loose with every conceivable accusation against anybody on the left of the Labour Party). Each to their own, like, but I just find it odd coming from someone who  (I assume) considers himself an atheist, a rationalist, a liberal and a democrat. From any of those viewpoints, I can't conceive of any opinion of monarchy other than it needs to be abolished. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You do seem to get defensively pedantic when it comes to the Royal family  (in a way that contrasts, for example, with the way you play fast and loose with every conceivable accusation against anybody on the left of the Labour Party). Each to their own, like, but I just find it odd coming from someone who  (I assume) considers himself an atheist, a rationalist, a liberal and a democrat. From any of those viewpoints, I can't conceive of any opinion of monarchy other than it needs to be abolished. 

He is Prince Andrew mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You do seem to get defensively pedantic when it comes to the Royal family  (in a way that contrasts, for example, with the way you play fast and loose with every conceivable accusation against anybody on the left of the Labour Party). Each to their own, like, but I just find it odd coming from someone who  (I assume) considers himself an atheist, a rationalist, a liberal and a democrat. From any of those viewpoints, I can't conceive of any opinion of monarchy other than it needs to be abolished. 

 

I strive for accuracy in all things. The royals have nothing to do with the running of the Crown Estate. 

 

You know I want to abolish the monarchy. I don't see why that should entail spreading fictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

He is Prince Andrew mate. 

I think we established earlier in the thread that Dennis Tooth and the Duke of Edinburgh are one and the same.

 

Is it true, Stronts? Are you the Son of Tooth?

 

Say it ain't so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I strive for accuracy in all things. The royals have nothing to do with the running of the Crown Estate. 

 

You know I want to abolish the monarchy. I don't see why that should entail spreading fictions. 

You have posted something in this thread to the contrary but yeah you won't acknowledge that because you don't like it when you get caught out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I strive for accuracy in all things. The royals have nothing to do with the running of the Crown Estate. 

 

You know I want to abolish the monarchy. I don't see why that should entail spreading fictions. 

 

When did you change your mind? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

When did you change your mind? 

 

I've never changed my mind. I've literally never advocated retaining the monarchy.

 

Consistency, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I've never changed my mind. I've literally never advocated retaining the monarchy.

 

Consistency, folks.

Wrong account mate

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I've never changed my mind. I've literally never advocated retaining the monarchy.

 

Consistency, folks.

 

Your position used to be you didn't have strong feelings either way but you’d probably keep them due to the revenue they bring in. 

 

I remember as I was so surprised you weren’t a staunch republican.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

 

Your position used to be you didn't have strong feelings either way but you’d probably keep them due to the revenue they bring in. 

 

I remember as I was so surprised you weren’t a staunch republican.  

 

I don't recall saying anything like that and it doesn't sound like anything I would say (or believe).

 

I have searched through dozens of my own posts on terms like royal, monarchy, queen, republican, republicanism etc and found nothing like it.

 

I did find this exchange from last year:

 

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 12:20, lifetime fan said:

Stronts, how do you square being a liberal but not a republican?

 

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 12:51, Sixtimes Dog said:

Eh? I am a republican, so I don't understand the question.

 

I am and always have been a republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I don't recall saying anything like that and it doesn't sound like anything I would say (or believe).

 

I have searched through dozens of my own posts on terms like royal, monarchy, queen, republican, republicanism etc and found nothing like it.

 

I did find this exchange from last year:

 

 

 

I am and always have been a republican.

 

If I gave a fuck, or knew how to use the search function I’d go back and find it. 

 

I know for a fact you said it in a thread where you, I and NV were discussing the royal family. 

 

Like i said, I don’t really give a fuck. Was just surprised back then when you said it. 

 

Glad you're a republican. We need as many as possible to get rid of the useless cunts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×