FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should the Queen be given more crown jewels?
Should the Queen be given more crown jewels?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They should break up the ones she has, return the bits to who really owns them, and sell off the scraps. That should raise a few quid to give to the poor. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think she would value trees more. Is she allowed to dictate what presents are gifted to her for cemonary purposes "
The event I was at today had a tree planting for her..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don’t think she uses the ones she has much and during a cost of living crisis, it wouldn’t get much popularity. Having said that, the Crown Jewels are essential to our identity, statehood, monarchy and our tourism industry. Without them, we are a culturally poorer nation!
I don’t care where they came from, they are national treasures and are phenomenal works of masterful craftsmanship which deserve to be cared for and cherished as symbols of British identity. Every country has their own equivalent - we have a right to ours too! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t think she uses the ones she has much and during a cost of living crisis, it wouldn’t get much popularity. Having said that, the Crown Jewels are essential to our identity, statehood, monarchy and our tourism industry. Without them, we are a culturally poorer nation!
I don’t care where they came from, they are national treasures and are phenomenal works of masterful craftsmanship which deserve to be cared for and cherished as symbols of British identity. Every country has their own equivalent - we have a right to ours too! "
I couldn’t have said it better, good work Joe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t think she uses the ones she has much and during a cost of living crisis, it wouldn’t get much popularity. Having said that, the Crown Jewels are essential to our identity, statehood, monarchy and our tourism industry. Without them, we are a culturally poorer nation!
I don’t care where they came from, they are national treasures and are phenomenal works of masterful craftsmanship which deserve to be cared for and cherished as symbols of British identity. Every country has their own equivalent - we have a right to ours too!
I couldn’t have said it better, good work Joe"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *idsAndyMan
over a year ago
Worcestershire |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Like the USA? How's that working out for them?"
Not necessarily like the USA, my thinking is more along the lines of Ireland.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *idsAndyMan
over a year ago
Worcestershire |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Too many of us are Monarchists mate, it would lead to a very uncivil war"
A majority is irrelevant if you don't agree with democracy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Too many of us are Monarchists mate, it would lead to a very uncivil war
A majority is irrelevant if you don't agree with democracy "
A fair point but numbers would be needed to overthrow a system/institution by undemocratic means and I’m of the opinion there are too many of us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *idsAndyMan
over a year ago
Worcestershire |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Too many of us are Monarchists mate, it would lead to a very uncivil war
A majority is irrelevant if you don't agree with democracy
A fair point but numbers would be needed to overthrow a system/institution by undemocratic means and I’m of the opinion there are too many of us"
Also a fair view, sounds like you'd be happy to put it to a vote then?
My problem with the Monarchy is that it's undemocratic and so I'd obviously only want it changed by democratic means. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *idsAndyMan
over a year ago
Worcestershire |
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen! "
1) like the powers to declare war and dissolve a government?
2) I agree with the need for a backstop, all the more reason for those powers to belong to an elected and accountable individual.
I've no real problem with the Queen, he hey she could stand for election, what's wrong with that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen! "
The monarchy is still a representation of horrible atrocities committed around the world that still have repercussions on peoples experiences today. The idea that they would no longer exist to be glorified feels like a step in the right direction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *idsAndyMan
over a year ago
Worcestershire |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them. "
Why would the country be worse off, would less people visit our palaces if they were fully open, would less people come to see the guards ceremony, would yhe crown lose its appeal and symbolism.
And even if what say were true, is your argument seriously that our system for deciding on a head of state should be decided by tourist dollars? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them. "
I'm not sure this is true. People would still come to see the palaces & castles etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen!
The monarchy is still a representation of horrible atrocities committed around the world that still have repercussions on peoples experiences today. The idea that they would no longer exist to be glorified feels like a step in the right direction. "
Well, people will project onto groups they hate whatever they want.
Personally, I think you can argue quite easily that historically, the monarchy has been an oppressive force in the world. I think that it’s hard to blame the current monarchy for the sins of their forefathers, even though you might like to. You wouldn’t like to be blamed for a crime your great-grandfather commited just as I wouldn’t.
In the same way I’m not going to blame the current monarchy for three Queens being beheaded during the Tudor period. I know it was wrong but it’s also wrong to lay the blame at the door of the innocent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago
East London |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them.
I'm not sure this is true. People would still come to see the palaces & castles etc"
Or the President could live in them.
There won't be a Crown, so no Crown Jewels, and some of the gems would go back to the countries they came from.
No Changing of the Guard either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should the Queen be given more crown jewels, perhaps in acknowledgement of her service? Obviously ownership could be varied, between the state and her personal ownership. "
No |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen!
1) like the powers to declare war and dissolve a government?
2) I agree with the need for a backstop, all the more reason for those powers to belong to an elected and accountable individual.
I've no real problem with the Queen, he hey she could stand for election, what's wrong with that? "
No! This is one of the mistakes America has made! Everyone is elected therefore everything is political! Once you lose a politically impartial element you have the potential for massive power imbalances which are lay the path to power for dictators. The Royals, for all their imperfections, with their hereditary, non-political role actually serve as that final safeguard in a way no alternative could! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *idsAndyMan
over a year ago
Worcestershire |
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen!
1) like the powers to declare war and dissolve a government?
2) I agree with the need for a backstop, all the more reason for those powers to belong to an elected and accountable individual.
I've no real problem with the Queen, he hey she could stand for election, what's wrong with that?
No! This is one of the mistakes America has made! Everyone is elected therefore everything is political! Once you lose a politically impartial element you have the potential for massive power imbalances which are lay the path to power for dictators. The Royals, for all their imperfections, with their hereditary, non-political role actually serve as that final safeguard in a way no alternative could!"
They are not non political, the Queen has chaired a cabinet meeting!
Your argument hardly stands up in North Korea.
Isn't it also crazily unfair to impose this life on somebody with absolutely zero choice in the matter? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen!
The monarchy is still a representation of horrible atrocities committed around the world that still have repercussions on peoples experiences today. The idea that they would no longer exist to be glorified feels like a step in the right direction.
Well, people will project onto groups they hate whatever they want.
Personally, I think you can argue quite easily that historically, the monarchy has been an oppressive force in the world. I think that it’s hard to blame the current monarchy for the sins of their forefathers, even though you might like to. You wouldn’t like to be blamed for a crime your great-grandfather commited just as I wouldn’t.
In the same way I’m not going to blame the current monarchy for three Queens being beheaded during the Tudor period. I know it was wrong but it’s also wrong to lay the blame at the door of the innocent. "
So do you reckon they think empire was bad? Have they said that? Do their fans know they think that? Maybe they do. I hope so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them.
I'm not sure this is true. People would still come to see the palaces & castles etc"
But if the Monarchy were abolished the palaces etc would be sold off, and become privately owned so no money from them along with all the crown estates land which brings in millions. The tourist attractions such as changing of the guard etc would stop. So yes the tourism would dramatically drop.
We actually pay approximately £1 a year each in tax to support the Monarchy were as they bring in more than we pay out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t think she uses the ones she has much and during a cost of living crisis, it wouldn’t get much popularity. Having said that, the Crown Jewels are essential to our identity, statehood, monarchy and our tourism industry. Without them, we are a culturally poorer nation!
I don’t care where they came from, they are national treasures and are phenomenal works of masterful craftsmanship which deserve to be cared for and cherished as symbols of British identity. Every country has their own equivalent - we have a right to ours too! "
Hhhm, you don't care where they came from? Even if people died to obtain them? A quite outdated symbol of British identity IMO. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them.
I'm not sure this is true. People would still come to see the palaces & castles etc
But if the Monarchy were abolished the palaces etc would be sold off, and become privately owned so no money from them along with all the crown estates land which brings in millions. The tourist attractions such as changing of the guard etc would stop. So yes the tourism would dramatically drop.
We actually pay approximately £1 a year each in tax to support the Monarchy were as they bring in more than we pay out. "
The wouldn't have to be sold off. The ownership could just be transferred to a govt body. The crown estate is independently run so that body could continue, with all the profit going to the treasury and not having then to give back the sovereign grant.
The palaces could be turned into tourist attractions. Like the tower of London. Again these could be publicly owned or leased to a private company with either the profit or fees going to the treasury. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them.
I'm not sure this is true. People would still come to see the palaces & castles etc
But if the Monarchy were abolished the palaces etc would be sold off, and become privately owned so no money from them along with all the crown estates land which brings in millions. The tourist attractions such as changing of the guard etc would stop. So yes the tourism would dramatically drop.
We actually pay approximately £1 a year each in tax to support the Monarchy were as they bring in more than we pay out.
The wouldn't have to be sold off. The ownership could just be transferred to a govt body. The crown estate is independently run so that body could continue, with all the profit going to the treasury and not having then to give back the sovereign grant.
The palaces could be turned into tourist attractions. Like the tower of London. Again these could be publicly owned or leased to a private company with either the profit or fees going to the treasury. "
Do you really think a future republican government would keep tourist attractions, when it's all on prime London real estate?! It'd be sold off before you can say "Chinese consortium" and the myriad forces of the world's multi squillionaires would be building all sorts on the land. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them. "
France had the right idea. Paris, in particular is a massively popular tourist destination, and they topped (literally) their lot in 1789. They still have the palaces, chateau, and all the stuff we'd have for tourists to visit easily if we didn't have a bunch of inbred spongers living in them.
Anyway, in the words of Terry Jones, "She's not my queen, I didn't vote for her". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them.
I'm not sure this is true. People would still come to see the palaces & castles etc
But if the Monarchy were abolished the palaces etc would be sold off, and become privately owned so no money from them along with all the crown estates land which brings in millions. The tourist attractions such as changing of the guard etc would stop. So yes the tourism would dramatically drop.
We actually pay approximately £1 a year each in tax to support the Monarchy were as they bring in more than we pay out.
The wouldn't have to be sold off. The ownership could just be transferred to a govt body. The crown estate is independently run so that body could continue, with all the profit going to the treasury and not having then to give back the sovereign grant.
The palaces could be turned into tourist attractions. Like the tower of London. Again these could be publicly owned or leased to a private company with either the profit or fees going to the treasury.
Do you really think a future republican government would keep tourist attractions, when it's all on prime London real estate?! It'd be sold off before you can say "Chinese consortium" and the myriad forces of the world's multi squillionaires would be building all sorts on the land. "
Yeah, it would end up being the Buckingham Palace Hilton or worse. People forget what a valuable and tireless ambassador the Queen has been for this country, which hopefully, Charles will be and William in his turn. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen!
The monarchy is still a representation of horrible atrocities committed around the world that still have repercussions on peoples experiences today. The idea that they would no longer exist to be glorified feels like a step in the right direction.
Well, people will project onto groups they hate whatever they want.
Personally, I think you can argue quite easily that historically, the monarchy has been an oppressive force in the world. I think that it’s hard to blame the current monarchy for the sins of their forefathers, even though you might like to. You wouldn’t like to be blamed for a crime your great-grandfather commited just as I wouldn’t.
In the same way I’m not going to blame the current monarchy for three Queens being beheaded during the Tudor period. I know it was wrong but it’s also wrong to lay the blame at the door of the innocent.
So do you reckon they think empire was bad? Have they said that? Do their fans know they think that? Maybe they do. I hope so. "
The fact our Queen has presided over the dismantling of the Empire and the building of the Commonwealth which is a peaceful alliance of nations says it all I think.
The Empire was certainly good for Britain but at gunpoint and at the expense of many other nations certainly. That wrong has been consigned largely to history. We are trying to build a better future for all the ex-Empire nations and one not dictated at gun-point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We should abolish the Monarchy and have an elected head of state. Simples.
Do you realise how much money the royals bring in to the economy?
The country would be a lot worse off without them.
France had the right idea. Paris, in particular is a massively popular tourist destination, and they topped (literally) their lot in 1789. They still have the palaces, chateau, and all the stuff we'd have for tourists to visit easily if we didn't have a bunch of inbred spongers living in them.
Anyway, in the words of Terry Jones, "She's not my queen, I didn't vote for her". "
Fine, if you want to live under a Robespierre or a Napoleon, or end up under a guillotine yourself! Yep, just the sort of society I want to live in! NOT!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, to those who aren’t monarchists:
1) Britain, over centuries, has curbed the abuse of power by monarchs to leave them very few but necessary powers, unlike other nations who either live under autocratic monarchs or power-hungry presidents.
2) In Italy during WWII, the King was able to depose Mussolini. There was no such political safeguard in Germany to depose Hitler. Our kind of monarchy exists as a final safeguard against totalitarianism in government. It works and I’m jolly grateful for it. It apparently costs us 50p per person per year. What else do you get for 50p per year? And it safeguards this country from being taken over by fanatics, extremists and butchers. I’ll keep the monarchy thanks! It may not appear to do much, but it’s a valuable layer of non-political stability during normal times and a safeguard against dangerous political madmen in less normal times!
Long live the Queen!
1) like the powers to declare war and dissolve a government?
2) I agree with the need for a backstop, all the more reason for those powers to belong to an elected and accountable individual.
I've no real problem with the Queen, he hey she could stand for election, what's wrong with that?
No! This is one of the mistakes America has made! Everyone is elected therefore everything is political! Once you lose a politically impartial element you have the potential for massive power imbalances which are lay the path to power for dictators. The Royals, for all their imperfections, with their hereditary, non-political role actually serve as that final safeguard in a way no alternative could!
They are not non political, the Queen has chaired a cabinet meeting!
Your argument hardly stands up in North Korea.
Isn't it also crazily unfair to impose this life on somebody with absolutely zero choice in the matter? "
What a load of baloney! The Queen chairs the historic Court of Star Chamber to which the leader of the opposition attends in addition to the Prime Minister, senior members of the Cabinet and top civil servants. She never chairs cabinet meetings.
My argument has nothing to do with North Korea. They are a one-party, communist state with a hereditary succession. Elections if there are any are a one-horse race and no-one is more political than Kim-Jong Un.
Yes it’s perfectly fine to impose that life on a person with zero choice. There is a quid pro quo. They get benefits in return fir their service to their nation. Seems fair to me and it’s a system which has worked around the world for centuries! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
She should do the rightful thing and return the goods back to where they have been stolen from history speaks for itself when those countries were invaded and striped of valuable jewels it's why most countries ended up being poor countries (the day will come a U-turn) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"Should the Queen be given more crown jewels, perhaps in acknowledgement of her service? Obviously ownership could be varied, between the state and her personal ownership. "
Why should the state have a thing? The government have no money of their own.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should the Queen be given more crown jewels, perhaps in acknowledgement of her service? Obviously ownership could be varied, between the state and her personal ownership. "
What for???... No |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t think she uses the ones she has much and during a cost of living crisis, it wouldn’t get much popularity. Having said that, the Crown Jewels are essential to our identity, statehood, monarchy and our tourism industry. Without them, we are a culturally poorer nation!
I don’t care where they came from, they are national treasures and are phenomenal works of masterful craftsmanship which deserve to be cared for and cherished as symbols of British identity. Every country has their own equivalent - we have a right to ours too! "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"OP, can I assume your initial question was to make mischief on here? If so, it worked, no love lost between Royalists and Republicans "
Uh oh the forum police are out making assumptions again. Give them a kick in the crown jewels and tell them if they don't like the topic then pass it .....oh wait just tell them to f... o..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyway who would wear a crown on their head walking down the High Street? Why you'd look silly and probably get mugged. "
Better police the pride parades then.
It's just fun |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
When I was growing up she was apparently the richest woman on earth! Now she’s been considerably left behind. J K Rowling has greater wealth than her and a whole bevvy of rich ladies. Additionally much of ‘her’ wealth actually belongs to the state rather than her personally, so the old communist idea of regicide and redistribution is a much weaker argument these days. Yes, the royals are kept in relative luxury but they’ve nothing compared to many. It’s the billionaire oligarchs who need taking down a peg or three, not poor old Betty! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When I was growing up she was apparently the richest woman on earth! Now she’s been considerably left behind. J K Rowling has greater wealth than her and a whole bevvy of rich ladies. Additionally much of ‘her’ wealth actually belongs to the state rather than her personally, so the old communist idea of regicide and redistribution is a much weaker argument these days. Yes, the royals are kept in relative luxury but they’ve nothing compared to many. It’s the billionaire oligarchs who need taking down a peg or three, not poor old Betty! "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
