Royal Baby soon to put in an appearance

Except of course (as I mentioned several hundred posts earlier or maybe in a different thread) the UK monarchy hasn't ruled by "Divine Right" for over 300 years. Surely you should be arguing against what the monarchy actually is rather than some easily debunked straw man?


Game. Set. And match :D
 
You honestly have no place telling people to stop talking ****....

Also


OMG if your going to have a go at me at least do it right. OH god that reminds me schools are out soon :(


But at least the roads will be empty :)
 
As I clearly stated that was the case & honestly thought that - thanks dude! ;) - (funny that you went for that straw-man after making the same accusation yourself) - nice try though....

Oh come off it, you clearly implied it. However if you really want to be a **** about it, find someone else to argue with.
 
Not everyone agrees with you that it is a childish institution, to be honest so far most of the childishness is coming from the republicans...

How is 'I'm in charge because my dad was in charge' not a childish concept?

How is the notion that our head of state should be elected based on their morals and character and achievements a childish concept?

How can you justify teaching your children that this person is better purely because of who they were born of an acceptable form of parenting?

Kids should be taught that if they commit themselves properly and work hard they can be whatever they want to be. They shouldn't be taught that some are just handed things and they should be submissive to.
 
Set phasers to rage...

pFGd8FR.png
 
How is 'I'm in charge because my dad was in charge' not a childish concept?

How is the notion that our head of state should be elected based on their morals and character and achievements a childish concept?

How can you justify teaching your children that this person is better purely because of who they were born of an acceptable form of parenting?

Kids should be taught that if they commit themselves properly and work hard they can be whatever they want to be. They shouldn't be taught that some are just handed things and they should be submissive to.

The problem is, some people need to be told what to do, know their place and have somebody to look up to because they were born that way.

The concept of actually earning status is just... wrong :p
 
How is 'I'm in charge because my dad was in charge' not a childish concept?

That really isn't how our monarchy works. They aren't really "in charge" and their role is mostly ceremonial.

How is the notion that our head of state should be elected based on their morals and character and achievements a childish concept?

I was actually talking about you being childish and not the idea of republicanism.

How can you justify teaching your children that this person is better purely because of who they were born of an acceptable form of parenting?

I don't teach my child that a person is better purely because of who they were born.

Kids should be taught that if they commit themselves properly and work hard they can be whatever they want to be.

I personally prefer not to lie to children...
 
The problem is, some people need to be told what to do, know their place and have somebody to look up to because they were born that way.

The concept of actually earning status is just... wrong :p

Alright so why don't we let your kid just be born a ditch digger or a bin man? Or a male escort?

That really isn't how our monarchy works. They aren't really "in charge" and their role is mostly ceremonial.



I was actually talking about you being childish and not the idea of republicanism.



I don't teach my child that a person is better purely because of who they were born.



I personally prefer not to lie to children...

You might not teach your child that a person is better purely because of who they were born but a society that supports a monarchy by definition does.

If you're supporting the monarchy and are under any allusions that your child comes close to the status of this baby born yesterday then you're sadly deluded mate.
 
Doesn't this depend on what YOUR definition of truth is? :D, pfffft monarchy - supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person, just lol :D.

Read the statement I was quoting when I wrote that line, it is blatantly untrue.
 
Lol at the people bashing our monarchy when it's our monarchy who does more for us than the posh gimps you all vote to put in power. Nowt wrong with having a monarchy just as long as it cannot do the things it used to do. I'd like to think ours is the only monarchy worth having on this earth and it falls in line with 21st century Britain.
 
Alright so why don't we let your kid just be born a ditch digger or a bin man? Or a male escort?



You might not teach your child that a person is better purely because of who they were born but a society that supports a monarchy by definition does.

If you're supporting the monarchy and are under any allusions that your child comes close to the status of this baby born yesterday then you're sadly deluded mate.

How do you know that monarchy supporters actually believe the royal baby is more special? I support our monarchy and am under no such illusion. You don't speak for society and status isn't everything. Take tamara ecclestone for instance. I think we could all agree our children will be better than her status or no status.
 
I am not really a huge fan of "sins of their fathers, fathers, fathers". Bit too biblical too me. Untangling how their ancestors came to own the land they own and which bits are legal, illegal, etc would be nigh on impossible. So as far as the legal framework of the UK goes, yes it is "Their stuff". Even if they stopped being the monarchy they would still be stupidly rich.

I have no problem with them being wealthy, as that is someone every can aspire to regardless of their social starting ground.

Royalty and its ilk however, do not give such a choice. By their existence they limit peoples social mobility.
 
I was being ironic...

Personally, I think we should sterilise the monarchy.

Fair enough.

How do you know that monarchy supporters actually believe the royal baby is more special? I support our monarchy and am under no such illusion. You don't speak for society and status isn't everything. Take tamara ecclestone for instance. I think we could all agree our children will be better than her status or no status.

The thousands of people standing outside the hospital/palace trying to take pictures is probably my first clue. The blanket media coverage another.

If your children were the same age as Tamara Ecclestone and they met they wouldn't be expected to curtsy, not look her in the eye and only speak when spoken to mate.

Q. Is the Queen's job difficult?

Q. Could anyone do it?

Her job boils down to a large amount of patience listening to people bang on about the latest wing they've added on a hospital, smiling (occasionally), shaking people's hands and bestowing honours.

I bet a lot more people could do her job than she could do theirs, even if she did get to keep the private jets and 24 hour arse licking that she gets in her current 'job'.
 
So would you rather the queen didn't appoint a government way back in the day and instead kept ruling as a royal family?

I wish some people would shut the hell up
 
Back
Top Bottom