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

To be honest I never minded them. I'm not a sun reading xenophobe. But I'm largely indifferent. My dad's best mate is an old school hard core socialist his opinion was " I don't mind them, because no matter how much money the likes of Cameron and obsourne make, no matter the power, they'll never be in that bubble"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It wouldn't matter if they shat enough gold to pay for themselves: the mere notion that one family of people are born superior to all other families is as revolting as it is absurd.

 

Are we taking about the Windsors here or the Castros?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It wouldn't matter if they shat enough gold to pay for themselves: the mere notion that one family of people are born superior to all other families is as revolting as it is absurd.

I know, but imagine a twat president in our corrupt electoral system, and the money it would take to sustain their overblown self important fucking lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Are we taking about the Windsors here or the Castros?

Remind me, was it Fidel's son or Raul's son who - being so ordained by God - inherited the Presidency?

 

 

 

(That was a really stupid take btw, Dog. You're usually smarter than that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Red Shift said:

I know, but imagine a twat president in our corrupt electoral system, and the money it would take to sustain their overblown self important fucking lifestyle.

We can have a President or we can have our corrupt electoral system; not both. Bin the Monarchy and the aristocracy; rip up our shit anti-democratic Parliamentary system and replace it with a directly-elected Executive (whether that's a President or whatever) and a bicameral Legislature in which both houses are elected. This is the sort of model of democracy that works, with varying degrees of success, in countries all over the world; and nobody has to bow before another person and address them as Your Highness.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Remind me, was it Fidel's son or Raul's son who - being so ordained by God - inherited the Presidency?

 

(That was a really stupid take btw, Dog. You're usually smarter than that.)

 

Neither, it was his brother who inherited the Presidency.

 

Just trying to establish whether all unelected heads of state are bad, or just the royal ones with no real power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Neither, it was his brother who inherited the Presidency.

 

Just trying to establish whether all unelected heads of state are bad, or just the royal ones with no real power.

They're all bad obviously.

Although at least Raul was elected out of a very narrow choice of options by a very small group of people.  

Would be good to see the Royals do the same when the Queen pops her clogs, bit of a Royal Rumble to see who the next head of state would be, rather than just passing it on to the first born heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Neither, it was his brother who inherited the Presidency.

 

Just trying to establish whether all unelected heads of state are bad, or just the royal ones with no real power.

Oh I think they've got a bit of cash and pull.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Neither, it was his brother who inherited the Presidency.

 

Just trying to establish whether all unelected heads of state are bad, or just the royal ones with no real power.

If that's the point you were trying to make, you bollocksed it. The leaders of the revolution formed the revolutionary government. Obviously. When they got too old, there was a peaceful transition of power to a younger politician. If you wanted to have a pop at non-royal dynastic power, you would have looked less silly if you'd have gone for North Korea or even the Kennedys.

 

It really is odd, though, that you're so protective about something as fundamentally anathema to liberalism as the monarchy. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

If that's the point you were trying to make, you bollocksed it. The leaders of the revolution formed the revolutionary government. Obviously. When they got too old, there was a peaceful transition of power to a younger politician. If you wanted to have a pop at non-royal dynastic power, you would have looked less silly if you'd have gone for North Korea or even the Kennedys.

 

It really is odd, though, that you're so protective about something as fundamentally anathema to liberalism as the monarchy. 

 

Who was defending the monarchy? I was just trying to establish how principled your objection to unelected elites was. I now have my answer. Good day.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Are we taking about the Windsors here or the Castros?

Daft comparison as the Castro family hasn't a family lineage born into a position of power for generations/for hundreds of years.

 

Plus they are only in power as they started a revolution against the Batista government & America.

 

Sorry but your comparison doesn't make sense, whatsoever.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Again serving the public, the cunt will pop his cloggs during lock down and hence no public holiday/mourning and a day off work as we are already in lockdown. Think of the money the selfless man will be saving us by going now. 

But won't lockdown restrictions be lifted for such a tragic event, so thousands can pour onto the London streets to sob hysterically for the loss of such a great, devoted, hardworking public servant?

 

 

And catch coronavirus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Juniper said:

Daft comparison as the Castro family hasn't a family lineage born into a position of power for generations/for hundreds of years.

 

Plus they are only in power as they started a revolution against the Batista government & America.

 

Sorry but your comparison doesn't make sense, whatsoever.

How very dare you!

 

Good day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Who was defending the monarchy? I was just trying to establish how principled your objection to unelected elites was. I now have my answer. Good day.

The comparison between the UK monarchy and the Cuban Presidency doesn’t work at all. The Monarch gets their position purely by birth. The Cuban President  - like the UK Prime Minister - gets their position by being elected by a tiny minority of the population (as opposed to a proper popular vote). You can argue about the degrees to which the UK Prime Minister and the Cuban President have democratic credibility; nobody can claim that a hereditary monarch has any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, General Dryness said:

He's a fucking space lizard. When he can no longer maintain human form he'll just retire to the massive luxurious alien vivarium underneath Buck palace.

 

They're all there.

I reckon you've hit on something here mate . Great work 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The comparison between the UK monarchy and the Cuban Presidency doesn’t work at all. The Monarch gets their position purely by birth. The Cuban President  - like the UK Prime Minister - gets their position by being elected by a tiny minority of the population (as opposed to a proper popular vote). You can argue about the degrees to which the UK Prime Minister and the Cuban President have democratic credibility; nobody can claim that a hereditary monarch has any.

 

I'm just trying to get you to admit that a literal dictator has no more democratic legitimacy than our monarch, while wielding considerably more power. I can see it would be easier to get blood out of a stone.

  • Downvote 1
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...