FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Harry, formally known as Prince...
Harry, formally known as Prince...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know, with Harry, I kind of understand where he is coming from. Now I'm not against the monarchy, but being born into it...... It's kind of like you don't have your own life, it's dictated based on what the monarchy is. I would personally feel trapped, be expected of, not truly free. It would be an honour of course, but I think with Harry he wants free choice to live his life, as he, as any person would want to. His wife however, well, she annoys me." So now, instead of being trapped by the monarchy, he's trapped by Meghan  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying." Yes, The Queen is amazing. The World adores her, and rightly so. I do feel for the Queen, with Harry doing this. But I'm sure she'll understand. x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know, with Harry, I kind of understand where he is coming from. Now I'm not against the monarchy, but being born into it...... It's kind of like you don't have your own life, it's dictated based on what the monarchy is. I would personally feel trapped, be expected of, not truly free. It would be an honour of course, but I think with Harry he wants free choice to live his life, as he, as any person would want to. His wife however, well, she annoys me." Couldn't agree more... It was only a couple of weeks ago he was talking of taking up more on his military patronage and charity work over here, I guess she put pay to that. If they want to live their lives out of the spotlight and anonymously the good on 'em, but the hypocrisy of then booking yourself on an Oprah Winfrey special makes it all a bit laughable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? " And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public" Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Are people conspiracy theorising about this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this? "I don't know about conspiracy theories but its a rumour that's been doing the rounds for years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
I don't know about conspiracy theories but its a rumour that's been doing the rounds for years."Wow I never knew this. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way " No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously" I don't look like my brothers or my mum, I'm also much smaller than my brothers. People have commented on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... oh dear. Has he not heard of Edward and Mrs Simpson? ffs! He's not going to modernise the family like this!" Edward and marge???? What will homer say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
I don't know about conspiracy theories but its a rumour that's been doing the rounds for years.
Wow I never knew this.
X"Imagine living in a goldfish bowl with people speculating on your parentage and what that implies about your mother! I'm not really surprised he wanted out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this? "It's a thing. It's pretty gross. I'm the only one in my family with blue eyes. I can't imagine the crap I've got over it being blown up into the press forever and ever. (I have a grandparent on each side with blue eyes. The fact neither of my parents do means nothing) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
I don't know about conspiracy theories but its a rumour that's been doing the rounds for years.
Wow I never knew this.
X
Imagine living in a goldfish bowl with people speculating on your parentage and what that implies about your mother! I'm not really surprised he wanted out"I hope he finds happiness. I think he and his brother can really do alot regarding mental health. It's a massive crisis now and I'm sure they will help make a difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
I don't know about conspiracy theories but its a rumour that's been doing the rounds for years.
Wow I never knew this.
X
Imagine living in a goldfish bowl with people speculating on your parentage and what that implies about your mother! I'm not really surprised he wanted out
I hope he finds happiness.
I think he and his brother can really do alot regarding mental health. It's a massive crisis now and I'm sure they will help make a difference."I'm no monarchist Cindi, it's an institution that cares little for the people within it who are no more than pawns really. I think that if members of the royal family get behind an issue it does get more attention | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? " Have a look at the Duke of Edinburgh in his younger years next to Harry. There is no doubt looking at that, that he is one of them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
I don't know about conspiracy theories but its a rumour that's been doing the rounds for years.
Wow I never knew this.
X
Imagine living in a goldfish bowl with people speculating on your parentage and what that implies about your mother! I'm not really surprised he wanted out
I hope he finds happiness.
I think he and his brother can really do alot regarding mental health. It's a massive crisis now and I'm sure they will help make a difference.
I'm no monarchist Cindi, it's an institution that cares little for the people within it who are no more than pawns really. I think that if members of the royal family get behind an issue it does get more attention "Yes that's true. I know and have seen first hand what 'The Princes Trust' does to help youngens into work and give them life skills. I used to help run a class (many years ago) and helped some get jobs through it. Something needs done on mental health. And quickly. The current system isn't working and if Harry and William can help it would be most welcome. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 .. and let’s face it, have any of u met him and know them? So why bother.. love the queen and Philip but the hanger one’s and media players can fuck off ... just get on with it, like the rest of us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? Have a look at the Duke of Edinburgh in his younger years next to Harry. There is no doubt looking at that, that he is one of them "Also his great-great grandfather. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tbh, if it wasn’t for lockdown, would the vast majority of us really give a fuck? He wasn’t Charles anyway .. and let’s face it, have any of u met him and know them? So why bother.. love the queen and Philip but the hanger one’s and media players can fuck off ... just get on with it, like the rest of us "I think many would care, given the investment some have in the monarchy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
I don't know about conspiracy theories but its a rumour that's been doing the rounds for years.
Wow I never knew this.
X
Imagine living in a goldfish bowl with people speculating on your parentage and what that implies about your mother! I'm not really surprised he wanted out
I hope he finds happiness.
I think he and his brother can really do alot regarding mental health. It's a massive crisis now and I'm sure they will help make a difference.
I'm no monarchist Cindi, it's an institution that cares little for the people within it who are no more than pawns really. I think that if members of the royal family get behind an issue it does get more attention
Yes that's true.
I know and have seen first hand what 'The Princes Trust' does to help youngens into work and give them life skills. I used to help run a class (many years ago) and helped some get jobs through it.
Something needs done on mental health. And quickly.
The current system isn't working and if Harry and William can help it would be most welcome. X" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. " My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? Have a look at the Duke of Edinburgh in his younger years next to Harry. There is no doubt looking at that, that he is one of them "I remember remarking when their wedding photos and official photos of them introducing Archie to the Queen and Phillip were published that he’s the image of Phillip and anyone who still questions his parentage needs to get themselves to specsavers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. " If it can survive an abdication it can survive this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more." Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Harry Hewitt? Don't have a problem with him" Hilarious.... 
No wonder he wants out. Imagine a nation constantly questioning your parentage and pretty much calling your mum a slag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more." If past votes are anything to go by god knows who will get voted in as president | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse" I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
It's a thing. It's pretty gross.
I'm the only one in my family with blue eyes. I can't imagine the crap I've got over it being blown up into the press forever and ever. (I have a grandparent on each side with blue eyes. The fact neither of my parents do means nothing)"Yeah, my three younger siblings all had straight blonde hair and there was me with my dark curly hair. Come to think of it, my dad was away at sea a lot when I was a baby, so it's not *that* far-fetched... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
It's a thing. It's pretty gross.
I'm the only one in my family with blue eyes. I can't imagine the crap I've got over it being blown up into the press forever and ever. (I have a grandparent on each side with blue eyes. The fact neither of my parents do means nothing)
Yeah, my three younger siblings all had straight blonde hair and there was me with my dark curly hair. Come to think of it, my dad was away at sea a lot when I was a baby, so it's not *that* far-fetched... "Lol I've got genetic problems from both sides But for the purposes of this stuff, the crap I used to get about it blown up to international scale...  Nope. Not good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion. "You would at least be able to. Vote for a president. And a president wouldnt have anywhere near the wealth or privilege. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse" Spot on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on." You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people." Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying. Yes, The Queen is amazing. The World adores her, and rightly so. I do feel for the Queen, with Harry doing this. But I'm sure she'll understand. x" Couldn’t disagree more. As for the Queen - well her day is over and she continues to live and expect outdated and irrelevant court homage. Time the whole lot of them were told it is over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion. "The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
"A modern democracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying. Yes, The Queen is amazing. The World adores her, and rightly so. I do feel for the Queen, with Harry doing this. But I'm sure she'll understand. x Couldn’t disagree more. As for the Queen - well her day is over and she continues to live and expect outdated and irrelevant court homage. Time the whole lot of them were told it is over. " When people come to the U.K what do they come and see? They head to London to see the Palace. When there is a wedding or funeral thousands of people line the streets, watch the television, have street parties etc, it brings people together. I AM NOT A ROYALIST, but I do think that we are losing our charm and traditions as a country. All our highstreets look the same, I don't know why people honestly want to come to this country as every town is virtually the same these days. If nothing else the royals give tradition. I agree they are on their way out though and I think its falling apart for them. I think our Great Britain days in the traditional flag waving days are gone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying. Yes, The Queen is amazing. The World adores her, and rightly so. I do feel for the Queen, with Harry doing this. But I'm sure she'll understand. x Couldn’t disagree more. As for the Queen - well her day is over and she continues to live and expect outdated and irrelevant court homage. Time the whole lot of them were told it is over. " When people come to the U.K what do they come and see? They head to London to see the Palace. When there is a wedding or funeral thousands of people line the streets, watch the television, have street parties etc, it brings people together. I AM NOT A ROYALIST, but I do think that we are losing our charm and traditions as a country. All our highstreets look the same, I don't know why people honestly want to come to this country as every town is virtually the same these days. If nothing else the royals give tradition and a British sort of identity. I agree they are on their way out though and I think its falling apart for them. I think our Great Britain days in the traditional flag waving days are gone
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
A modern democracy?"The head of state by the very fact of the name means the position has to answer to the will of the electorate. There can be no higher will than the majority played out in a free and fair election. I voted to remain in Brexit but I had to submit to the will of the majority. Royalty and institutions such as the House of Lords are dinosaur organisations that surprises the majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying. Yes, The Queen is amazing. The World adores her, and rightly so. I do feel for the Queen, with Harry doing this. But I'm sure she'll understand. x Couldn’t disagree more. As for the Queen - well her day is over and she continues to live and expect outdated and irrelevant court homage. Time the whole lot of them were told it is over. When people come to the U.K what do they come and see? They head to London to see the Palace. When there is a wedding or funeral thousands of people line the streets, watch the television, have street parties etc, it brings people together. I AM NOT A ROYALIST, but I do think that we are losing our charm and traditions as a country. All our highstreets look the same, I don't know why people honestly want to come to this country as every town is virtually the same these days. If nothing else the royals give tradition and a British sort of identity. I agree they are on their way out though and I think its falling apart for them. I think our Great Britain days in the traditional flag waving days are gone
"My point is proven. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
A modern democracy?
The head of state by the very fact of the name means the position has to answer to the will of the electorate. There can be no higher will than the majority played out in a free and fair election.
I voted to remain in Brexit but I had to submit to the will of the majority.
Royalty and institutions such as the House of Lords are dinosaur organisations that surprises the majority. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying. Yes, The Queen is amazing. The World adores her, and rightly so. I do feel for the Queen, with Harry doing this. But I'm sure she'll understand. x Couldn’t disagree more. As for the Queen - well her day is over and she continues to live and expect outdated and irrelevant court homage. Time the whole lot of them were told it is over. When people come to the U.K what do they come and see? They head to London to see the Palace. When there is a wedding or funeral thousands of people line the streets, watch the television, have street parties etc, it brings people together. I AM NOT A ROYALIST, but I do think that we are losing our charm and traditions as a country. All our highstreets look the same, I don't know why people honestly want to come to this country as every town is virtually the same these days. If nothing else the royals give tradition and a British sort of identity. I agree they are on their way out though and I think its falling apart for them. I think our Great Britain days in the traditional flag waving days are gone
My point is proven.
"Sorry, what was your point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
A modern democracy?"That was the plan, but democracy only works where there is a significant majority, or people who actually believe in democracy. what most people mean is democracy as long as I am in the majority. Look at the divison caused in the UK over the close Brexit call. Look at the US right now where the newly elected president still has to be guarded by 5000 troops, and it took 25000 just to get him there. More like a banana republic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
A modern democracy?
The head of state by the very fact of the name means the position has to answer to the will of the electorate. There can be no higher will than the majority played out in a free and fair election.
I voted to remain in Brexit but I had to submit to the will of the majority.
Royalty and institutions such as the House of Lords are dinosaur organisations that surprises the majority.
"Suppress! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying. Yes, The Queen is amazing. The World adores her, and rightly so. I do feel for the Queen, with Harry doing this. But I'm sure she'll understand. x Couldn’t disagree more. As for the Queen - well her day is over and she continues to live and expect outdated and irrelevant court homage. Time the whole lot of them were told it is over. When people come to the U.K what do they come and see? They head to London to see the Palace. When there is a wedding or funeral thousands of people line the streets, watch the television, have street parties etc, it brings people together. I AM NOT A ROYALIST, but I do think that we are losing our charm and traditions as a country. All our highstreets look the same, I don't know why people honestly want to come to this country as every town is virtually the same these days. If nothing else the royals give tradition and a British sort of identity. I agree they are on their way out though and I think its falling apart for them. I think our Great Britain days in the traditional flag waving days are gone
My point is proven.
Sorry, what was your point "That the sole existence of the monarchy is to have the streets of London lined with people for a funeral or a wedding. Now if we had a state funeral for Sir Tommy Moore I could understand that and I would have voted for him in a head of state election in a heartbeat. He represented what this country is all about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more." uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? " You have one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
A modern democracy?
That was the plan, but democracy only works where there is a significant majority, or people who actually believe in democracy. what most people mean is democracy as long as I am in the majority. Look at the divison caused in the UK over the close Brexit call. Look at the US right now where the newly elected president still has to be guarded by 5000 troops, and it took 25000 just to get him there. More like a banana republic."Trump caused a lot of that division but for all their faults, that was through a democratic process. That fact that one family should have untold wealth and privilege,through an accident of birth,is positively feudal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. " but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one" yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head " Then why bother spending the money? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
A modern democracy?
That was the plan, but democracy only works where there is a significant majority, or people who actually believe in democracy. what most people mean is democracy as long as I am in the majority. Look at the divison caused in the UK over the close Brexit call. Look at the US right now where the newly elected president still has to be guarded by 5000 troops, and it took 25000 just to get him there. More like a banana republic.
Trump caused a lot of that division but for all their faults, that was through a democratic process.
That fact that one family should have untold wealth and privilege,through an accident of birth,is positively feudal.
"I have a feeling though that just like brexit divided the country roughly 50/50, people would be 50/50 divided on this. It's all politics. Including the Royal family. The chances are if you are a tory you may want the royal family to remain. But if you vote Labour then you probably aren't a royalist. The country is split by two main parties the last few years. Brexit divided the country by half (was it something like 16m and 15m?) and the Royal debate would be the same I feel. Sorry for the generalisations. Don't mean to offend. Just an observation from my point of view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head " Who is ridiculously wealthy and is afforded ridiculous privilege.Along with the rest of the family.Which we pay for. Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head Then why bother spending the money?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? " With a royal head of state you have no choice the privilege is bestowed by an accident of birth. An elected head of state means you can get rid via a Democrat vote if they are not delivering the will of the majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head Then why bother spending the money?" its been proven over and over to bring in just as much money, the members of the family themselves do great work for charities and bring them focus and attention that i don’t think anyone else could achieve, for some people its kind of a morale and proud to be british thing, it keeps us connected with the commonwealth im actually honestly not a huge royalist, i was never paid much attention but always felt sorry for harry and william, got a bit more interested off the back of the crown but still not one of these people that would be lining the streets and yet i can think of those reasons off the top of my head - what reasons other than some weird random hatred of them do people really have for getting rid of them - in what way would it improve the country or peoples lives? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But even with a President those homeless problems etc would still occur while he or she would live a comfortable life. The Queen was born into the Monarchy. It's an integral part of what our country is. Change that for a President and the 2 opposing sides and the factions resulting from it, thus splitting the country would be worse. In my humble opinion.
The US is the perfect modern example of this. Look what ditching a monarchy (although it seemed a good idea at the time) has done for them in only 244 years.
A modern democracy?
That was the plan, but democracy only works where there is a significant majority, or people who actually believe in democracy. what most people mean is democracy as long as I am in the majority. Look at the divison caused in the UK over the close Brexit call. Look at the US right now where the newly elected president still has to be guarded by 5000 troops, and it took 25000 just to get him there. More like a banana republic.
Trump caused a lot of that division but for all their faults, that was through a democratic process.
That fact that one family should have untold wealth and privilege,through an accident of birth,is positively feudal.
I have a feeling though that just like brexit divided the country roughly 50/50, people would be 50/50 divided on this. It's all politics. Including the Royal family. The chances are if you are a tory you may want the royal family to remain. But if you vote Labour then you probably aren't a royalist. The country is split by two main parties the last few years. Brexit divided the country by half (was it something like 16m and 15m?) and the Royal debate would be the same I feel.
Sorry for the generalisations. Don't mean to offend. Just an observation from my point of view. "The media play a huge part. One of them gets married or has a sprog and there are pull out souvenirs and all sorts. On the news they have royal 'watchers' what so your job is to watch the royal family ? They have a huge pr machine and are practically above the law(look at andeew) It's a circus | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? " An elected President or an hereditary Monarch is the highest level of legal power in a country so you couldn’t have both without one losing their need to exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head Then why bother spending the money? its been proven over and over to bring in just as much money, the members of the family themselves do great work for charities and bring them focus and attention that i don’t think anyone else could achieve, for some people its kind of a morale and proud to be british thing, it keeps us connected with the commonwealth im actually honestly not a huge royalist, i was never paid much attention but always felt sorry for harry and william, got a bit more interested off the back of the crown but still not one of these people that would be lining the streets and yet i can think of those reasons off the top of my head - what reasons other than some weird random hatred of them do people really have for getting rid of them - in what way would it improve the country or peoples lives? " It hasn't really Do you think people would stop coming here if we didnt have a royal family? They still visit France etc That tourism argument is hugely flawed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there?" Are they worse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? With a royal head of state you have no choice the privilege is bestowed by an accident of birth. An elected head of state means you can get rid via a Democrat vote if they are not delivering the will of the majority." yep i understand the difference between them but it still doesn’t answer my question - if we get rid of a monarch do we NEED. to have a president and if so why also you post raises another question for me the queen isnt a political figure , so why do you attach this idea of the head of state being required to deliver the will of the majority? we already have a prime minister for that purpose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i dont understand the argument that we need to ditch he royals to have modern democracy - we already live in a country with modern democracy in what way do people expect that would differ that makes any real change if we didn’t have the royal family " Many of the most liberal democracies have Monarch- Holland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Canada, New Zealand. As you say, there’s no contradiction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? With a royal head of state you have no choice the privilege is bestowed by an accident of birth. An elected head of state means you can get rid via a Democrat vote if they are not delivering the will of the majority." Of course there are counter arguments. After watching a programme this evening, in disbelief I have to say, the cost of the new Air Force One plane to ferry the US big cheese around the world is estimated at $5 billion...............the colours were chosen by the Don! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? With a royal head of state you have no choice the privilege is bestowed by an accident of birth. An elected head of state means you can get rid via a Democrat vote if they are not delivering the will of the majority. yep i understand the difference between them but it still doesn’t answer my question - if we get rid of a monarch do we NEED. to have a president and if so why also you post raises another question for me the queen isnt a political figure , so why do you attach this idea of the head of state being required to deliver the will of the majority? we already have a prime minister for that purpose " She can and does still interfere with the law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? An elected President or an hereditary Monarch is the highest level of legal power in a country so you couldn’t have both without one losing their need to exist." so its because the courts would no longer serve for “the crown” they would serve for a president? i mean lets be honest its just terminology really right? our laws are made in parliament, the crown haven’t written them for quite some time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head Then why bother spending the money? its been proven over and over to bring in just as much money, the members of the family themselves do great work for charities and bring them focus and attention that i don’t think anyone else could achieve, for some people its kind of a morale and proud to be british thing, it keeps us connected with the commonwealth im actually honestly not a huge royalist, i was never paid much attention but always felt sorry for harry and william, got a bit more interested off the back of the crown but still not one of these people that would be lining the streets and yet i can think of those reasons off the top of my head - what reasons other than some weird random hatred of them do people really have for getting rid of them - in what way would it improve the country or peoples lives? " Where is your proof? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? With a royal head of state you have no choice the privilege is bestowed by an accident of birth. An elected head of state means you can get rid via a Democrat vote if they are not delivering the will of the majority. yep i understand the difference between them but it still doesn’t answer my question - if we get rid of a monarch do we NEED. to have a president and if so why also you post raises another question for me the queen isnt a political figure , so why do you attach this idea of the head of state being required to deliver the will of the majority? we already have a prime minister for that purpose She can and does still interfere with the law" when? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head Then why bother spending the money? its been proven over and over to bring in just as much money, the members of the family themselves do great work for charities and bring them focus and attention that i don’t think anyone else could achieve, for some people its kind of a morale and proud to be british thing, it keeps us connected with the commonwealth im actually honestly not a huge royalist, i was never paid much attention but always felt sorry for harry and william, got a bit more interested off the back of the crown but still not one of these people that would be lining the streets and yet i can think of those reasons off the top of my head - what reasons other than some weird random hatred of them do people really have for getting rid of them - in what way would it improve the country or peoples lives? Where is your proof?" proof of what? I’ve given you some ideas why i think they could be a positive , I’ve asked you to provide some way you think we would be better off without them and you’ve said nothing - you started the conversation about scrapping them, why is the burden of proof on me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there? Are they worse?" Well they spent the last 3 years rioting in yellow vests so I’m not sure things a rosy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? An elected President or an hereditary Monarch is the highest level of legal power in a country so you couldn’t have both without one losing their need to exist. so its because the courts would no longer serve for “the crown” they would serve for a president? i mean lets be honest its just terminology really right? our laws are made in parliament, the crown haven’t written them for quite some time " There again you are totally misinformed. The courts in this country serve justice and have no political or royal masters, well at least in theory! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? With a royal head of state you have no choice the privilege is bestowed by an accident of birth. An elected head of state means you can get rid via a Democrat vote if they are not delivering the will of the majority. yep i understand the difference between them but it still doesn’t answer my question - if we get rid of a monarch do we NEED. to have a president and if so why also you post raises another question for me the queen isnt a political figure , so why do you attach this idea of the head of state being required to deliver the will of the majority? we already have a prime minister for that purpose She can and does still interfere with the law when? " https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-08/claims-the-queen-tried-to-change-legislation-to-keep-her-wealth-secret | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there? Are they worse? Well they spent the last 3 years rioting in yellow vests so I’m not sure things a rosy." And if they had a monarchy, that wouldnt have happened? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? With a royal head of state you have no choice the privilege is bestowed by an accident of birth. An elected head of state means you can get rid via a Democrat vote if they are not delivering the will of the majority. yep i understand the difference between them but it still doesn’t answer my question - if we get rid of a monarch do we NEED. to have a president and if so why also you post raises another question for me the queen isnt a political figure , so why do you attach this idea of the head of state being required to deliver the will of the majority? we already have a prime minister for that purpose She can and does still interfere with the law when? " Via the House of Lords and the prince of Wales trying to influence elected officials. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously" Dianas family have red hair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
It's a thing. It's pretty gross.
I'm the only one in my family with blue eyes. I can't imagine the crap I've got over it being blown up into the press forever and ever. (I have a grandparent on each side with blue eyes. The fact neither of my parents do means nothing)"I'm the only one in my family who had blonde hair. My twin had almost black hair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. Potentially. Just saying it how i see it. Queeny lives in Buck house and less than a mile away from her front door has a queue of homeless people about 60/70 deep waiting in line for soup every morning at 7am. All the while she has over 100 rooms and staff to wait on her hand and foot. She’s the epitome of disgust and greed. Would a president be any better? Who knows, from my stand point it’s very difficult to be much worse Spot on. You can vote an elected head of state out if they don’t reflect the will of the people. Course you can Thats what happens in a modern democracy. but we already do this with the prime minister the queen doesn’t run the country or even interfere in politics - shes pretty much just a figure head Then why bother spending the money? its been proven over and over to bring in just as much money, the members of the family themselves do great work for charities and bring them focus and attention that i don’t think anyone else could achieve, for some people its kind of a morale and proud to be british thing, it keeps us connected with the commonwealth im actually honestly not a huge royalist, i was never paid much attention but always felt sorry for harry and william, got a bit more interested off the back of the crown but still not one of these people that would be lining the streets and yet i can think of those reasons off the top of my head - what reasons other than some weird random hatred of them do people really have for getting rid of them - in what way would it improve the country or peoples lives? Where is your proof? proof of what? I’ve given you some ideas why i think they could be a positive , I’ve asked you to provide some way you think we would be better off without them and you’ve said nothing - you started the conversation about scrapping them, why is the burden of proof on me? " You said “ it’s been proven” By whom? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there? Are they worse? Well they spent the last 3 years rioting in yellow vests so I’m not sure things a rosy. And if they had a monarchy, that wouldnt have happened?" Well can’t answer that one but I’m saying that if people thing that life would change for tha better, I recon that they’d be mistaken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair" Do you know them personally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there? Are they worse? Well they spent the last 3 years rioting in yellow vests so I’m not sure things a rosy. And if they had a monarchy, that wouldnt have happened? Well can’t answer that one but I’m saying that if people thing that life would change for tha better, I recon that they’d be mistaken." Without a monarchy we wouldnt be worse off We would still get tourism and that's literally the only argument used to keep them around. The fact that they live in palaces and castles whilst we have people living on the streets is dickensian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there? Are they worse? Well they spent the last 3 years rioting in yellow vests so I’m not sure things a rosy. And if they had a monarchy, that wouldnt have happened? Well can’t answer that one but I’m saying that if people thing that life would change for tha better, I recon that they’d be mistaken." And some how the streets of the Uk are peaceful and serene? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say " so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there? Are they worse? Well they spent the last 3 years rioting in yellow vests so I’m not sure things a rosy. And if they had a monarchy, that wouldnt have happened? Well can’t answer that one but I’m saying that if people thing that life would change for tha better, I recon that they’d be mistaken. Without a monarchy we wouldnt be worse off We would still get tourism and that's literally the only argument used to keep them around. The fact that they live in palaces and castles whilst we have people living on the streets is dickensian." so should we start trying to get rid of anyone that has a big house then? or should we realise that the royal family don’t cause homelessness, scrapping them wont end homelessness and perhaps there are other more practical ways avenues to solve those problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair Do you know them personally?" Do I need to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They got rid of their monarchy in in France in fine fashion a while back. Are they any better off there? Are they worse? Well they spent the last 3 years rioting in yellow vests so I’m not sure things a rosy. And if they had a monarchy, that wouldnt have happened? Well can’t answer that one but I’m saying that if people thing that life would change for tha better, I recon that they’d be mistaken. And some how the streets of the Uk are peaceful and serene?" Wasn’t saying they weren’t to be fair, was just pointing out the position of one of our nearest countries that used to have a monarchy and is now a republic. Basically it’s no different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair Do you know them personally? Do I need to?" Yes, it's the only way to truly see hair colour!  You need to know if the drapes match the curtains to be truly sure  . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave " Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? An elected President or an hereditary Monarch is the highest level of legal power in a country so you couldn’t have both without one losing their need to exist. so its because the courts would no longer serve for “the crown” they would serve for a president? i mean lets be honest its just terminology really right? our laws are made in parliament, the crown haven’t written them for quite some time There again you are totally misinformed. The courts in this country serve justice and have no political or royal masters, well at least in theory!" which is why i said its not a real issue its just a case of terminology then - the terminology used in court is the prosecution for the crown | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair Do you know them personally? Do I need to?" Just interested to know how you can confirm hair colour if you don’t know them personally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair Do you know them personally? Do I need to? Yes, it's the only way to truly see hair colour! You need to know if the drapes match the curtains to be truly sure . "Oh, in which case nope I don't know if Diana's sisters have ginger pubes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair Do you know them personally? Do I need to? Just interested to know how you can confirm hair colour if you don’t know them personally?" How do you know Harry has red hair ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. " This is true, but it’s the same in France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. " because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair Do you know them personally? Do I need to? Just interested to know how you can confirm hair colour if you don’t know them personally?" It is called the internet, you can search for things and little pictures come up showing you lots of things you want to know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Monarchy, in this day and age, is fundamentally flawed. If Harry and Meghan take it down then so bit. That way we might possibly get his uncle in a courtroom to face the charges that his mum is saving him from. My own opinion, I'd prefer a Monarchy over a President. I think a President would split our country even more. uneducated question sorry ! do you have to have one or the other? You have one yes i know we currently have one, my question was is there a requirement to have one or the other and if so who says so? An elected President or an hereditary Monarch is the highest level of legal power in a country so you couldn’t have both without one losing their need to exist. so its because the courts would no longer serve for “the crown” they would serve for a president? i mean lets be honest its just terminology really right? our laws are made in parliament, the crown haven’t written them for quite some time There again you are totally misinformed. The courts in this country serve justice and have no political or royal masters, well at least in theory! which is why i said its not a real issue its just a case of terminology then - the terminology used in court is the prosecution for the crown " The mind boggles. The whole essence of the debate is that the prosecution should be the state. You still have not pointed to the proof to which you refer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain " Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do you really think the monarchy is the cause of the gap between rich and poor and that being a federation or whatever we would be called would improve that gap? " It's not the cause but its symbolic. Serious does 1 family need that much wealth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. " and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do you really think the monarchy is the cause of the gap between rich and poor and that being a federation or whatever we would be called would improve that gap? It's not the cause but its symbolic. Serious does 1 family need that much wealth?" and there we are again back to your problem is with people having wealth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? " Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do you really think the monarchy is the cause of the gap between rich and poor and that being a federation or whatever we would be called would improve that gap? It's not the cause but its symbolic. Serious does 1 family need that much wealth? and there we are again back to your problem is with people having wealth " No it's not I've already stated it's the whole circus. Why should you be expected to bow to another person or address them as your majesty or your highness? Look at that prince Andrew situation?do you think if that was a normal fella, they would get away with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously Dianas family have red hair Do you know them personally? Do I need to? Just interested to know how you can confirm hair colour if you don’t know them personally? It is called the internet, you can search for things and little pictures come up showing you lots of things you want to know. Ah, the Internet! Just googling Spencer family hair colour! I am sorry if pointing out that he could have gone his red hair from the other side of his family upsets you so much but your comments are looking a tad childish now. Maybe just accept you didn't know and do now "My dad is ginger and neither of his parents are. Same with one of my partners and his nephew. Recessive genes and all that. Similar to how my brother has blue eyes when my mum has brown and my dad has green. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth?" but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc " You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world?" She certainly is in the uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do you really think the monarchy is the cause of the gap between rich and poor and that being a federation or whatever we would be called would improve that gap? It's not the cause but its symbolic. Serious does 1 family need that much wealth? and there we are again back to your problem is with people having wealth No it's not I've already stated it's the whole circus. Why should you be expected to bow to another person or address them as your majesty or your highness? Look at that prince Andrew situation?do you think if that was a normal fella, they would get away with that?" you mean like many of the other people involved are getting away with it? was bill clinton not someone on that island and on those planes, pretty sure he has abused his position of power too and it has nothing to do with birthright - scumbags exist in all walks of life , and there is injustice everywhere but abolishing a monarchy doesnt solve it this is where my brain just cant fathom - getting rid of them achieves absolutely nothing, no positive change, none of the reasons people want rid of them would improve or get better, homeless people wont disappear, people that abuse their power wont disappear, the rich poor gap wont disappear, we wont suddenly become a democracy we already are one, the money required to upkeep the castles and palaces wont disappear (unless the plan is to let treasury assets fall into disrepair) - not one of the arguments against them gets better by getting rid of them , except you will wake up tomorrow and not be someones subject and what a weight off your mind that must be | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? She certainly is in the uk." 6.6 billion acres across the world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world?" sorry i thought it was obviously implied - the same as what richard bransons sons will do - they inherited it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do you really think the monarchy is the cause of the gap between rich and poor and that being a federation or whatever we would be called would improve that gap? It's not the cause but its symbolic. Serious does 1 family need that much wealth? and there we are again back to your problem is with people having wealth No it's not I've already stated it's the whole circus. Why should you be expected to bow to another person or address them as your majesty or your highness? Look at that prince Andrew situation?do you think if that was a normal fella, they would get away with that? you mean like many of the other people involved are getting away with it? was bill clinton not someone on that island and on those planes, pretty sure he has abused his position of power too and it has nothing to do with birthright - scumbags exist in all walks of life , and there is injustice everywhere but abolishing a monarchy doesnt solve it this is where my brain just cant fathom - getting rid of them achieves absolutely nothing, no positive change, none of the reasons people want rid of them would improve or get better, homeless people wont disappear, people that abuse their power wont disappear, the rich poor gap wont disappear, we wont suddenly become a democracy we already are one, the money required to upkeep the castles and palaces wont disappear (unless the plan is to let treasury assets fall into disrepair) - not one of the arguments against them gets better by getting rid of them , except you will wake up tomorrow and not be someones subject and what a weight off your mind that must be " No that's completely different People get off with all sorts, of course there is injustice, but Andrew won't even be questioned,just because of his family. How in any way in the world can that be right? He even gets his own TV interview to defend himself Its absolutely ridiculous I completely disagree. We should have a say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? sorry i thought it was obviously implied - the same as what richard bransons sons will do - they inherited it " No. Richard Branson earned it through his business. If you domt like Branson you dont use his services. The comparison doesn't work How did the royal family somehow earn 6.6 billion acres? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? sorry i thought it was obviously implied - the same as what richard bransons sons will do - they inherited it No. Richard Branson earned it through his business. If you domt like Branson you dont use his services. The comparison doesn't work How did the royal family somehow earn 6.6 billion acres?" im talking about richard bransons heir , because the royal family inherited it from their parents who inherited it from the generation before snd so on and so on its how all generational wealth works - it becomes yours just by birthright also the 6.6 billion is an entirely misleading figure - its calculated based on the queen owning the landmass of the entire commonwealth when we know that many many people actually own land in those places for example i own the plot of land my house sits on , my name is personally on the land registry , i leave that to someone in my will and it passes over to them , it only goes back to the crown if i die with no beneficiary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? sorry i thought it was obviously implied - the same as what richard bransons sons will do - they inherited it No. Richard Branson earned it through his business. If you domt like Branson you dont use his services. The comparison doesn't work How did the royal family somehow earn 6.6 billion acres? im talking about richard bransons heir , because the royal family inherited it from their parents who inherited it from the generation before snd so on and so on its how all generational wealth works - it becomes yours just by birthright also the 6.6 billion is an entirely misleading figure - its calculated based on the queen owning the landmass of the entire commonwealth when we know that many many people actually own land in those places for example i own the plot of land my house sits on , my name is personally on the land registry , i leave that to someone in my will and it passes over to them , it only goes back to the crown if i die with no beneficiary " It's still not answering the question Bransons kids will inherit the money ,but he made that money through his businesses. Who exactly made that money and land for the royal family in the 1st place? Did they 'earn it? But it's still ridiculous. Why does 1 family/person need that amount of land? They are unelected and we contribute to their upkeep with no say in the matter. I think in 2021 the whole system is an utter anachronism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world?" The British East India Company is a good place to start looking at how the current line of the British RF has so much wealth. Existing and new Royal Charters were granted to them with a hefty percentage of the profits going directly to the Crown. During the early 1800's, the BEIC accounted for half of the world's trade. That's a lot of money. The BEIC were also heavily involved in the sl*ve trade and opium sales to the Chinese, so not a great organisation to be living off the profits of | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She still has a large property portfolio, I think the largest in the UK, where she collects rents from business. She own a whole street of property in Birmingham town centre. And the royals don't just inherit wealth, like Richard Branson's kids will, the royals inherit titles and privilege which is the main issue. In a world and society where we are supposed to be equal. In a world where there have been killings and riots in the last year because we are not seen as equal. They continue with their unequal privilege. "
Spot on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And let's not even mention she was only made to start paying tax in 2011." I think that you should start organizing a revolution. Maybe design a nice modern day guillatine. Set it up in Trafalgar Square and invite all the royals to test it. When all they’ve been done, who would be next? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? The British East India Company is a good place to start looking at how the current line of the British RF has so much wealth. Existing and new Royal Charters were granted to them with a hefty percentage of the profits going directly to the Crown. During the early 1800's, the BEIC accounted for half of the world's trade. That's a lot of money. The BEIC were also heavily involved in the sl*ve trade and opium sales to the Chinese, so not a great organisation to be living off the profits of "That programme tom hardy was on was based around that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? sorry i thought it was obviously implied - the same as what richard bransons sons will do - they inherited it No. Richard Branson earned it through his business. If you domt like Branson you dont use his services. The comparison doesn't work How did the royal family somehow earn 6.6 billion acres? im talking about richard bransons heir , because the royal family inherited it from their parents who inherited it from the generation before snd so on and so on its how all generational wealth works - it becomes yours just by birthright also the 6.6 billion is an entirely misleading figure - its calculated based on the queen owning the landmass of the entire commonwealth when we know that many many people actually own land in those places for example i own the plot of land my house sits on , my name is personally on the land registry , i leave that to someone in my will and it passes over to them , it only goes back to the crown if i die with no beneficiary It's still not answering the question Bransons kids will inherit the money ,but he made that money through his businesses. Who exactly made that money and land for the royal family in the 1st place? Did they 'earn it? But it's still ridiculous. Why does 1 family/person need that amount of land? They are unelected and we contribute to their upkeep with no say in the matter. I think in 2021 the whole system is an utter anachronism." well depending on if you are an adam and eve or evolved from monkeys kinda guy , choose your own “first men” because they are “the first place” you refer to, the size of the world is the size of the world, no new land has been created , all land has been inherited so i still don’t get why inheriting land by birthright is a reason to scrap a royal family but not a reason to scrap another wealthy family (it should be a reason for neither) we contribute to the upkeep of the unemployed , shall we scrap them too? (i really hope nobody reads this and thinks i am serious) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And let's not even mention she was only made to start paying tax in 2011. I think that you should start organizing a revolution. Maybe design a nice modern day guillatine. Set it up in Trafalgar Square and invite all the royals to test it. When all they’ve been done, who would be next?" Nigel farage or Clarkson | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its 2021 and we are still seen as her 'subjects' We dont even have a say so is it a pride thing? in what say does being her subject impact your life at all im asking these questions trying to understand because honestly I’ve never been a big royalist - they were always just kind of there- but i just don’t understand this hatred of them especially when nobody can explain in what way practically their lives or the country would differ without them its generally from people who seem to have a real hatred for anyone who has access to wealth or privilege but ill tell you i wouldn’t swap my life for their privilege even if you doubled the money they had - to me it seems like a miserable controlled thankless existence that you have no choice over joining and hell of a hard to leave Why is not believing in an hereditary monarch who we have to bow and scrape too always put down to envy? We have a massive gap between rich and poor in this country and they are right at the top,through an accident of birth. They are an anachronism. because all of your arguments are about money or power that someone else is not able to obtain Because they were born into and we have literally no say over. and richard bransons sons will be born into his fortune should we have a say over that? presumably not because he doesn’t impact your life , so again i ask how having a queen impacts your life and how removing her would change it thats the bit i just cant understand - other than stamp stamp they got this by chance and its just not fair what is the reason? if its not envy what is it? Richard Branson Whatever you think of him,earned his millions What exactly did the royal family do to earn that wealth? but his sons won’t have earned it - what will they do to earn it - they will just be born and inherit it , so should we abolish them and vote for the next head of the branson family? - again im assuming you think that’s ridiculous (as do i), and yet thats the arguments being put forward for abolishment of the monarchy - poor people exist, wealth they don’t need, being born into it and didnt earn it etc You didnt answer my question? How did one family end up with so much wealth and land? Ismt the queen one of the biggest landowners in the world? sorry i thought it was obviously implied - the same as what richard bransons sons will do - they inherited it No. Richard Branson earned it through his business. If you domt like Branson you dont use his services. The comparison doesn't work How did the royal family somehow earn 6.6 billion acres? im talking about richard bransons heir , because the royal family inherited it from their parents who inherited it from the generation before snd so on and so on its how all generational wealth works - it becomes yours just by birthright also the 6.6 billion is an entirely misleading figure - its calculated based on the queen owning the landmass of the entire commonwealth when we know that many many people actually own land in those places for example i own the plot of land my house sits on , my name is personally on the land registry , i leave that to someone in my will and it passes over to them , it only goes back to the crown if i die with no beneficiary It's still not answering the question Bransons kids will inherit the money ,but he made that money through his businesses. Who exactly made that money and land for the royal family in the 1st place? Did they 'earn it? But it's still ridiculous. Why does 1 family/person need that amount of land? They are unelected and we contribute to their upkeep with no say in the matter. I think in 2021 the whole system is an utter anachronism. well depending on if you are an adam and eve or evolved from monkeys kinda guy , choose your own “first men” because they are “the first place” you refer to, the size of the world is the size of the world, no new land has been created , all land has been inherited so i still don’t get why inheriting land by birthright is a reason to scrap a royal family but not a reason to scrap another wealthy family (it should be a reason for neither) we contribute to the upkeep of the unemployed , shall we scrap them too? (i really hope nobody reads this and thinks i am serious) " The unemployed dont live in castles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She still has a large property portfolio, I think the largest in the UK, where she collects rents from business. She own a whole street of property in Birmingham town centre. And the royals don't just inherit wealth, like Richard Branson's kids will, the royals inherit titles and privilege which is the main issue. In a world and society where we are supposed to be equal. In a world where there have been killings and riots in the last year because we are not seen as equal. They continue with their unequal privilege.
Spot on"its not spot on , the crown estate has a large property portfolio, the crown estate collects rents, the queen gets 15% profit and the remainder goes to the treasury which a 10 second google will tell you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She still has a large property portfolio, I think the largest in the UK, where she collects rents from business. She own a whole street of property in Birmingham town centre. And the royals don't just inherit wealth, like Richard Branson's kids will, the royals inherit titles and privilege which is the main issue. In a world and society where we are supposed to be equal. In a world where there have been killings and riots in the last year because we are not seen as equal. They continue with their unequal privilege.
Spot on
its not spot on , the crown estate has a large property portfolio, the crown estate collects rents, the queen gets 15% profit and the remainder goes to the treasury which a 10 second google will tell you "Well if she didn’t have a head, we’d be 15% better off! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She still has a large property portfolio, I think the largest in the UK, where she collects rents from business. She own a whole street of property in Birmingham town centre. And the royals don't just inherit wealth, like Richard Branson's kids will, the royals inherit titles and privilege which is the main issue. In a world and society where we are supposed to be equal. In a world where there have been killings and riots in the last year because we are not seen as equal. They continue with their unequal privilege.
Spot on
its not spot on , the crown estate has a large property portfolio, the crown estate collects rents, the queen gets 15% profit and the remainder goes to the treasury which a 10 second google will tell you "She collects rents because she owns a ridiculous amount of land. And it's the entire family. Even the minor ones we still have to pay for their security. We aremt gonna agree on this..personally I'd flog them all to the highest bidder | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And let's not even mention she was only made to start paying tax in 2011." The monarchy has given all its income to the treasury for 100s of years and then is allowed a proportion of it back. Seems a bit long winded to then pay back tax to the treasury from money given to them by the treasury rather than just calculate a tax free sum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The unemployed dont live in castles " so are we back to the envy of her wealth thing? to be honest , every argument made against them seems to be ok if its not them so that only really leaves bigotry “its because they didn’t earn their wealth” but neither did anyone else who inherited from their parents and thats ok “its because we fund them” but we fund tons of stuff out of the public purse that dont put anything back in and thats ok “its because they have too much (land/ money/ whatever) ” but we aren’t trying to scrap any other wealthy people “it because we want to be a democracy” and yet we are a democracy even with them “its because they live in castles and we have homeless people” okay but footballers in mansions are ok? and homeless people will still exist even if we scrap the monarchy “its because they are born into privilege” and so is pretty much any child of money or fame - don’t see us cancelling all celebrities “its because we have a wealth gap” which will still exist without them “its because she doesn’t work for the will of the majority of the people” and most likely neither will an elected head of state unless we reduce to a 2 party state “its because her son is a P*** above the law” and so was jimmy saville and probably bill clinton and people in power will always abuse their positions of power everything that people complain about is rampant and accepted in wider society , just seems like they are something to be hated because you can | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And let's not even mention she was only made to start paying tax in 2011. The monarchy has given all its income to the treasury for 100s of years and then is allowed a proportion of it back. Seems a bit long winded to then pay back tax to the treasury from money given to them by the treasury rather than just calculate a tax free sum. " don’t let facts get in the way of an irrational hatred | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She still has a large property portfolio, I think the largest in the UK, where she collects rents from business. She own a whole street of property in Birmingham town centre. And the royals don't just inherit wealth, like Richard Branson's kids will, the royals inherit titles and privilege which is the main issue. In a world and society where we are supposed to be equal. In a world where there have been killings and riots in the last year because we are not seen as equal. They continue with their unequal privilege.
Spot on
its not spot on , the crown estate has a large property portfolio, the crown estate collects rents, the queen gets 15% profit and the remainder goes to the treasury which a 10 second google will tell you "20 second Google will tell you it's gone up to 25%. And is worth a mere £82 million per year. It's gone up to 25%...so they can fix their houses! They can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? And if a DNA test had been? They'd hardly go public Why should they? I don't think there's any truth to the rumour any way No reason why they should, I just don't recall anyone ginger in the royal family previously and I don't see much resemblance to his brother or Prince Charles to be honest. Who knows but plenty have speculated previously" what about that guy called Henry a few years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She still has a large property portfolio, I think the largest in the UK, where she collects rents from business. She own a whole street of property in Birmingham town centre. And the royals don't just inherit wealth, like Richard Branson's kids will, the royals inherit titles and privilege which is the main issue. In a world and society where we are supposed to be equal. In a world where there have been killings and riots in the last year because we are not seen as equal. They continue with their unequal privilege.
Spot on
its not spot on , the crown estate has a large property portfolio, the crown estate collects rents, the queen gets 15% profit and the remainder goes to the treasury which a 10 second google will tell you
20 second Google will tell you it's gone up to 25%. And is worth a mere £82 million per year. It's gone up to 25%...so they can fix their houses! They can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years. "its not 25% on top of the money we give them - its all the same pot of money - read red laceys post it explains it the money is to repair the assets which generate the income in the first place , if you ran a pub and the roof was falling in and you had to close so then you had no beer money coming in would you wish you just took an extra 10% out of last years profit to fix the roof? cause its the same thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree, but you plan it with Queenie, and she'd understand. but yes, wifey, fooking annoying." Impressive, never met her. Tell me more about your relationship, please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She still has a large property portfolio, I think the largest in the UK, where she collects rents from business. She own a whole street of property in Birmingham town centre. And the royals don't just inherit wealth, like Richard Branson's kids will, the royals inherit titles and privilege which is the main issue. In a world and society where we are supposed to be equal. In a world where there have been killings and riots in the last year because we are not seen as equal. They continue with their unequal privilege.
Spot on
its not spot on , the crown estate has a large property portfolio, the crown estate collects rents, the queen gets 15% profit and the remainder goes to the treasury which a 10 second google will tell you
20 second Google will tell you it's gone up to 25%. And is worth a mere £82 million per year. It's gone up to 25%...so they can fix their houses! They can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years.
its not 25% on top of the money we give them - its all the same pot of money - read red laceys post it explains it
the money is to repair the assets which generate the income in the first place , if you ran a pub and the roof was falling in and you had to close so then you had no beer money coming in would you wish you just took an extra 10% out of last years profit to fix the roof? cause its the same thing "I didn't say it was 25% on top, you stated it was 15 and I said it's gone up to 25%. It's to repair Buckingham palace, that 10% uplift is in place for 10 years. She also has her private sources of income which she could have used to fix her house. The tower of London does very well, as a visitor attraction, I'm sure Buckingham palace would do just as well as a visitor attraction, it doesn't need the royal family to generate the income. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" they can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years." i read that to imply you meant it was money over and above , i might have misunderstood so its “her” house when we want to get angry at the cost to repair , but its “our money” when the repair is paid for from an increase in the portion she keeps from funds generated from her own assets which is it cause it cant be both? either the assets are mostly for the benefit of the treasury in which case its our responsibility for the upkeep, or its all hers in which case shes paying for it out of her own money anyway because we aren’t entitled to any percentage of that cash we are currently keeping 75% of | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
we dont want you anymore but we want you assets and your money when you are gone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" they can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years. i read that to imply you meant it was money over and above , i might have misunderstood so its “her” house when we want to get angry at the cost to repair , but its “our money” when the repair is paid for from an increase in the portion she keeps from funds generated from her own assets which is it cause it cant be both? either the assets are mostly for the benefit of the treasury in which case its our responsibility for the upkeep, or its all hers in which case shes paying for it out of her own money anyway because we aren’t entitled to any percentage of that cash we are currently keeping 75% of " Not strictly true. If it was a private business they'd pay corporation tax but yes, far less than 75%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" they can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years. i read that to imply you meant it was money over and above , i might have misunderstood so its “her” house when we want to get angry at the cost to repair , but its “our money” when the repair is paid for from an increase in the portion she keeps from funds generated from her own assets which is it cause it cant be both? either the assets are mostly for the benefit of the treasury in which case its our responsibility for the upkeep, or its all hers in which case shes paying for it out of her own money anyway because we aren’t entitled to any percentage of that cash we are currently keeping 75% of Not strictly true. If it was a private business they'd pay corporation tax but yes, far less than 75%." yes sorry the point was shes either paying for it out of her own money anyway or we are paying for the upkeep for an asset we get benefit of , either way its not an example of us funding her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please tell me this isn't a thing
Are people conspiracy theorising about this?
It's a thing. It's pretty gross.
I'm the only one in my family with blue eyes. I can't imagine the crap I've got over it being blown up into the press forever and ever. (I have a grandparent on each side with blue eyes. The fact neither of my parents do means nothing)"All three of my children look completely different. You would never think they were related. I have been asked many times if they share the same father. Even they joke about it. For what it’s worth I think it’s obvious Harry is a Windsor. There’s a huge likeness to his father and grandfather. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The unemployed dont live in castles so are we back to the envy of her wealth thing? to be honest , every argument made against them seems to be ok if its not them so that only really leaves bigotry “its because they didn’t earn their wealth” but neither did anyone else who inherited from their parents and thats ok “its because we fund them” but we fund tons of stuff out of the public purse that dont put anything back in and thats ok “its because they have too much (land/ money/ whatever) ” but we aren’t trying to scrap any other wealthy people “it because we want to be a democracy” and yet we are a democracy even with them “its because they live in castles and we have homeless people” okay but footballers in mansions are ok? and homeless people will still exist even if we scrap the monarchy “its because they are born into privilege” and so is pretty much any child of money or fame - don’t see us cancelling all celebrities “its because we have a wealth gap” which will still exist without them “its because she doesn’t work for the will of the majority of the people” and most likely neither will an elected head of state unless we reduce to a 2 party state “its because her son is a P*** above the law” and so was jimmy saville and probably bill clinton and people in power will always abuse their positions of power everything that people complain about is rampant and accepted in wider society , just seems like they are something to be hated because you can " This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The unemployed dont live in castles so are we back to the envy of her wealth thing? to be honest , every argument made against them seems to be ok if its not them so that only really leaves bigotry “its because they didn’t earn their wealth” but neither did anyone else who inherited from their parents and thats ok “its because we fund them” but we fund tons of stuff out of the public purse that dont put anything back in and thats ok “its because they have too much (land/ money/ whatever) ” but we aren’t trying to scrap any other wealthy people “it because we want to be a democracy” and yet we are a democracy even with them “its because they live in castles and we have homeless people” okay but footballers in mansions are ok? and homeless people will still exist even if we scrap the monarchy “its because they are born into privilege” and so is pretty much any child of money or fame - don’t see us cancelling all celebrities “its because we have a wealth gap” which will still exist without them “its because she doesn’t work for the will of the majority of the people” and most likely neither will an elected head of state unless we reduce to a 2 party state “its because her son is a P*** above the law” and so was jimmy saville and probably bill clinton and people in power will always abuse their positions of power everything that people complain about is rampant and accepted in wider society , just seems like they are something to be hated because you can " No because you made the comparison with the unemployed The welfare system is there to help people who fall through through the cracks in our society. Not to fund someone to drive around in a carriage. Bigoty
Pray tell how on earth being against a monarchy is anything resembling bigotry?
Why is the defence of them always resorted to claims ofenvy,hatred?
Why does thinking that its not particularly ethical to have 1 family live in a house with 1 60 bedrooms, whilst others live on The streets ,down to blind hatred?
It's called wanting to live in something resembling a fair society.
You still havent explained how 1 family came to own so much land and wealth?Despite the fact that I've asked several times.
Your Brandon/footballers argument is totally flawed.
He earned that money through his business.
What did the royal family ever invent or sell?
They were given that wealth.
How can you not see the difference in that?
People pay and go and watch footballers.If no one watched the game,they wouldn't be that wealthy.
You have a choice
Do we have a choice that we have a constitutional monarch?
Your argument seems to be based on the notion that because we live in an unequal society, we should do nothing about it.
We theoretically live in a meritocratic society.
The royal family are the utter opposite of that.Becaise of an accident of birth ,not only do they have ridiculous wealth and privilege,we are meant to be bow and scrape to them.
Even serve them..why?
The entire premise of someone being born to rule over is absurd.
The jimmy saville/clinton argument is similarly bizarre.
Saville was 40 odd years ago and was protected because people thought they wouldnt be believed.
Andeew is not even questioned because he is a Royal.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And let's not even mention she was only made to start paying tax in 2011. The monarchy has given all its income to the treasury for 100s of years and then is allowed a proportion of it back. Seems a bit long winded to then pay back tax to the treasury from money given to them by the treasury rather than just calculate a tax free sum. don’t let facts get in the way of an irrational hatred "Asking one of the richest women in the world to pay tax is now irrational | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't understand all this working class hero bullshit. No more are there any royal hangers on, they basically earn their own keep...PLUS through there entertaining of foreign state generate billions of pounds of business for our own industries. As you wave your flags next time Harry Kate is in the box remember what it is your holding. Most have little idea of the respect we get around the world not to mention the envy of having such history. They are our identity and are part of what it is to be proud of who we are as a nation. " Presumably the likes of France does no foreign trade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" they can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years. i read that to imply you meant it was money over and above , i might have misunderstood so its “her” house when we want to get angry at the cost to repair , but its “our money” when the repair is paid for from an increase in the portion she keeps from funds generated from her own assets which is it cause it cant be both? either the assets are mostly for the benefit of the treasury in which case its our responsibility for the upkeep, or its all hers in which case shes paying for it out of her own money anyway because we aren’t entitled to any percentage of that cash we are currently keeping 75% of " She owns and lives in the house How on.earth is it not "hers? Why is it our responsibly for the upkeep of someone who owns £17billion worth of properties and is one of the richest women on the planet? Dont you pay now if you want to visit Buckingham palace? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously I don't know either of them but they seem ok to me. I don't see much wrong with one of both of them being interviewed by Oprah. I think there's a big difference between offering information to the media and having an intrusive media presence every day of your life. We offer certain images and information about ourselves on fab but we wouldn't be happy if people tried to get further images and information that we had no control over. As to the continuing speculation about Harry's father, does nobody imagine that a DNA test wouldn't have been carried out? " A voice of reason. I agree totally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" they can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years. i read that to imply you meant it was money over and above , i might have misunderstood so its “her” house when we want to get angry at the cost to repair , but its “our money” when the repair is paid for from an increase in the portion she keeps from funds generated from her own assets which is it cause it cant be both? either the assets are mostly for the benefit of the treasury in which case its our responsibility for the upkeep, or its all hers in which case shes paying for it out of her own money anyway because we aren’t entitled to any percentage of that cash we are currently keeping 75% of She owns and lives in the house How on.earth is it not "hers? Why is it our responsibly for the upkeep of someone who owns £17billion worth of properties and is one of the richest women on the planet? Dont you pay now if you want to visit Buckingham palace?" lionel you’ve ignored all of the relevant bits of the posts and i can only assume you are being purposefully obtuse to try make a point youve asked where they got their land and said i haven’t answered - i must have said at least 4 times it was inherited you go on about branson earning his money and refuse to see the parallels that as soon as you move down 1 generation that no longer becomes the case and people everywhere have inherited stuff they did not earn you said asking the richest woman to pay tax is irrational when the post clearly says the hatred of her is irrational and lacey red has already explained how she comes about getting her money - everything she earns goes to the treasury, they then give her a portion,wether we call it tax or not whats shes handed over is effectively tax , so its circular and inefficient to actually hand her more money so she can pay tax back to the treasury on it just to satisfy someone like you yelling she must pay tax (shes paying 75% in at the moment )
and the post I've quoted you seem to have managed to read the bit that the house is hers , gotten annoyed that i said its not but ignored that the funds are then hers
ive actually not said the house is or isn't hers , i've said feel free to decide for yourself, but you cant have it half one way and half the other - if the house is hers, the cash its being paid for out of is also hers, if the cash belongs to the treasury so to does the asset and the responsibility to upkeep it
maybe im doing you a disservice and you dont understand how the finances of the crown estate work , but it seems alot more like cherry picking the parts you want to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" they can't even fix their houses with the excessive amounts of money we give them, they have to take more so they're not out of pocket for a couple of years. i read that to imply you meant it was money over and above , i might have misunderstood so its “her” house when we want to get angry at the cost to repair , but its “our money” when the repair is paid for from an increase in the portion she keeps from funds generated from her own assets which is it cause it cant be both? either the assets are mostly for the benefit of the treasury in which case its our responsibility for the upkeep, or its all hers in which case shes paying for it out of her own money anyway because we aren’t entitled to any percentage of that cash we are currently keeping 75% of She owns and lives in the house How on.earth is it not "hers? Why is it our responsibly for the upkeep of someone who owns £17billion worth of properties and is one of the richest women on the planet? Dont you pay now if you want to visit Buckingham palace? lionel you’ve ignored all of the relevant bits of the posts and i can only assume you are being purposefully obtuse to try make a point youve asked where they got their land and said i haven’t answered - i must have said at least 4 times it was inherited you go on about branson earning his money and refuse to see the parallels that as soon as you move down 1 generation that no longer becomes the case and people everywhere have inherited stuff they did not earn you said asking the richest woman to pay tax is irrational when the post clearly says the hatred of her is irrational and lacey red has already explained how she comes about getting her money - everything she earns goes to the treasury, they then give her a portion,wether we call it tax or not whats shes handed over is effectively tax , so its circular and inefficient to actually hand her more money so she can pay tax back to the treasury on it just to satisfy someone like you yelling she must pay tax (shes paying 75% in at the moment )
and the post I've quoted you seem to have managed to read the bit that the house is hers , gotten annoyed that i said its not but ignored that the funds are then hers
ive actually not said the house is or isn't hers , i've said feel free to decide for yourself, but you cant have it half one way and half the other - if the house is hers, the cash its being paid for out of is also hers, if the cash belongs to the treasury so to does the asset and the responsibility to upkeep it
maybe im doing you a disservice and you dont understand how the finances of the crown estate work , but it seems alot more like cherry picking the parts you want to me "And I've asked about 4 times how they got their land originally. At some point..at some point in history..they were given or took that land. They never 'earned'it like Branson did. And you cant see the flaw in the argument that if no one bought Branson's goods he wouldnt be rich. That simply doesnt apply to the royal family. And we are back to how she eans it? I think the fact that she lives in it and owns it..means that its hers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
