Really? That's your biggest concern, what we would call the country if it didn't have a Monarchy? How about Great Britain, just Britain, or the Commonwealth of <whatever countries are still in union>.
Royal Baby soon to put in an appearance
- Thread starter Minxy
- Start date
Really? That's your biggest concern, what we would call the country if it didn't have a Monarchy? How about Great Britain, just Britain, or the Commonwealth of <whatever countries are still in union>.
Same, it's always been my favourite too!
Don't worry Bio, when Scotland get it's independence you'll have seen the end of all this... Oh! Wait! No, she will apparently still be head of state of the Scotland n the United Kingdom (just a different UK...)
As I've already said, I don't think I'll see an end to it in my life. There will be an end though. I don't feel much for them admittedly, but it has been said that the Queen is at her happiest when in residence in Scotland.
Elizabeth will become Elizabeth I, and it will be by invitation of a Sovereign Scotland.
Saor Alba.
PooBrain said:
He isn't the first Royal to see combat! Our politicians aren't soldiers, they aren't employed to fight wars, more like just to start them. They are paid to run, or poorly run, this nation.
I don't see the correlation between the Monarchy and the roles they take in the military to our democracy.
Last edited:
I'm honestly getting to the point now where I can't tell whether people are joking any more.
Do you genuinely think that the British government would allow a potential king to go out into enemy territory like any other British soldier? Can you imagine the fall out if he'd have been killed?
Secondly, just because plenty of our lads have been killed doesn't mean they're protecting us from any one thing, every soldier out there I feel for but I have nothing but contempt for the 'mission' they're to do.
I don't want this to descend into an argument about the war but really, what threat do you think the guys fighting our soldiers pose to you? We've been hit by one terrorist attack since it started, and the guys that did that went to the college my mother ran.
The fact you're even saying about how Harry was treated as 'one of the lads', he's just a guy, what do you think he is, some divine presence on earth?
How many of Harry's so called best pals do you think got to go to Vegas on the taxpayers' dime when they got back? How many do you think have been back since, without all the extra security and in real harm's way because their grandmother isn't the figurehead of an outdated concept that teaches every one that they're not as important as he is?
Just think mate, think about what you're saying, think for yourself, not what you've been told.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
The butthurt is strong in this one.
I'm happy that mother and baby are doing well, but I have to confess I've seen / heard a total of 2 minutes of coverage, so perhaps it's not been rammed down my throat enough to annoy me.
The gathering outside the hospital and the general press attraction is a dangerous game to play and does annoy me though. What if there are complications? If mother or baby died, or both?! It would be horrendous for any family, even moreso when you're life is on news 24/7.
Good luck to them, I wish I had the benefits and perks they get, when our daughter was born
I'm happy that mother and baby are doing well, but I have to confess I've seen / heard a total of 2 minutes of coverage, so perhaps it's not been rammed down my throat enough to annoy me.
The gathering outside the hospital and the general press attraction is a dangerous game to play and does annoy me though. What if there are complications? If mother or baby died, or both?! It would be horrendous for any family, even moreso when you're life is on news 24/7.
Good luck to them, I wish I had the benefits and perks they get, when our daughter was born
They say people aren't born with enemies but it looks like HRH has
There is always one who want's to spoil the party, that's the that goes home alone
I hear what a great country we live in, maybe to some country's yes, but have a look on the streets, shops boarded up, people getting chucked on the scrap heap, cuts cuts, no wage rises, food and petrol prices keep rising, whats so great about this country when more and more people are going to food banks etc.
The Royals live in a different world to many, how is that fair when they are just humans like the rest of us.
The Royals live in a different world to many, how is that fair when they are just humans like the rest of us.
u wot m8
That isn't how it works, do you think she's Elizabeth I of Australia? Canada? The number 'controversy' is such a joke...
Last edited:
Republicanism is not borne from laziness and a lack of ambition or drive in life - well not always - but a different perspective on the way things should be in society and the nation state.
It can quite easily be a genuine political stance as opposed to the negativity you ascribe, just as it can be for Royalists on the other foot.
The new born prince can be traced back to King Egbert of Wessex and beyond.
But for someone who hates the royal family you are posting a lot, post count?
Of course it is how it works. Scotland has never had an Elizabeth for our current Monarch to be Elizabeth II, she is technically Elizabeth I to Scotland even though the UK political establishment wouldn't and won't stand for that as it would imply that Scotland was still a valid Kingdom, and thus country, in a time where recognition of the Unitary State - well, it's supposed to be - was patently ignored.
This was quite a strong subject long before I was born, and led to quite a few Scottish Royalist Unionists to become Scottish Nationalists.
Should Scotland become independent, then the Queen would be the only Monarch named Elizabeth we have had.
It is therefore quite simple in that we would refer to her, if it happens, as Elizabeth Queen of Scots or Elizabeth I. She would still be known in England separately as Elizabeth II, as England did have a previous Queen Elizabeth the I. At the moment, styles are the prerogative of HRH, but I think she would be quite mindful of the Scottish Royal tradition.
It's not that whacky you know, just counting up small numbers.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Can I ask a stupid question..
What does it matter if the family tree can't be traced back 1000 years?
What does it matter if the family tree can't be traced back 1000 years?
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 4,223
- Location
- Returning video tapes
Good luck to all three of them.
As for the ranting in the thread. I never had much time for all that Republican nonsense. Terribly dull.
As for the ranting in the thread. I never had much time for all that Republican nonsense. Terribly dull.
Surprised to see William driving himself about (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23427180), good on them I say. Hopefully people will leave them alone a little for now, give them some space.
I don't understand what significance the age of a bloodline has at all? Do you not think that over 1,000 years the number of ancestors everyone has got you'd be related at least in part to someone of historical significance?
I think the royals should be well to do people proud of their bloodline and the significant part in history, but that's it.
They could all make pretty decent livings as A list celebrities banging on about how great they all are but if you removed HRH from the beginning of their names everyone would see them for the non-entities that they are.
This whole thing is nothing but bread and circuses, as pointed out our economy is still circling the drain, unemployment is ridiculous, we're waging a war on free speech, we've got lads going over to countries to get blown up for nothing but who cares about all that because some baby has just thrown up for the first time.
This issue is becoming untenable. How can we justify it in this day and age, really?
They have plenty of space in their mansion
Dave. King Dave. Bring em' down to grassroots.