i mean just wtf have they done to deserve them ? (royals)

Glaucus · 26 Dec 2007 at 23:14

Barracuda said:
Lol how predictable. I knew someone would latch onto that line and use it as an excuse to rubbish the post. The bit about jade goody was intended as a throwaway bit of hyperbole to drive home my point. But i guess what i should have said is we may as well make any respectable, dignified and humanitarian celebrity type figure royal

But on second thoughts, maybe i wasn't that far off the mark with the jade comment after all. Is jade really that mush worse than prince harry for instance? Swastika armbands anyone?

perhaps before sprouting crap. You should spend some time reading and learning what the royals do. Snippets are in this very thread. Although they do a lot more than that.

Have a :rolleyes:

It's better to know the subject before posting or to later admit you are wrong/don't know.

growse · 26 Dec 2007 at 23:17

I detect a whiff of jealousy in this thread. Mmmmmm.

Barracuda · 26 Dec 2007 at 23:53

AcidHell2 said:
perhaps before sprouting crap. You should spend some time reading and learning what the royals do. Snippets are in this very thread. Although they do a lot more than that.

Have a

It's better to know the subject before posting or to later admit you are wrong/don't know.

I am well aware of what the royals are good for. Cash cow tourist attractions and imperious figures heads that other leaders can ooh and aah about. Have i missed anything?

My point, which i cant understand why you wont acknowledge, is it is simply unfair to officially elevate a person to a position of responsibility and privilege just becasue they happen to be born to a particular family. In my opinion it goes against the ideas of meritocracy and equality that i think we all hold dear.

Also could you cool it with the "sprouting crap"[sic] stuff. This is a forum for expressing opinions and all i have done is express mine. You are welcome to disagree but lets keep it civil, ok.

inferno · 26 Dec 2007 at 23:55

For Queen and country. We have the best and most well respected royal family in the world. When you say Queen, people know you are talking about our Queen. The Royal family are part of our heritage and we should be proud of it. Never forget what this small nation has done!

growse · 26 Dec 2007 at 23:56

Barracuda said:
I am well aware of what the royals are good for. Cash cow tourist attractions and imperious figures heads that other leaders can ooh and aah about. Have i missed anything?

My point, which i cant understand why you wont acknowledge, is it is simply unfair to officially elevate a person to a position of responsibility and privilege just becasue they happen to be born to a particular family. In my opinion it goes against the ideas of meritocracy and equality that i think we all hold dear.

Also could you cool it with the "sprouting crap"[sic] stuff. This is a forum for expressing opinions and all i have done is express mine. You are welcome to disagree but lets keep it civil, ok.

Why? Most people rise to different levels of responsibility and privilige all the time, just because of their circumstances. The alternative is to have everyone the same. That's called communism.

Your comments give the impression that you don't really have any idea what our head of state actually does, which is why some might be getting a *little* rattled.

Jambo · 26 Dec 2007 at 23:56

I couldn't care less about the Royals. Well I only care about them in the same way I care about any other human being on the planet.

Glaucus · 26 Dec 2007 at 23:57

Barracuda said:
I am well aware of what the royals are good for. Cash cow tourist attractions and imperious figures heads that other leaders can ooh and aah about. Have i missed anything?

My point, which i cant understand why you wont acknowledge, is it is simply unfair to officially elevate a person to a position of responsibility and privilege just becasue they happen to be born to a particular family. In my opinion it goes against the ideas of meritocracy and equality that i think we all hold dear.

Also could you cool it with the "sprouting crap"[sic] stuff. This is a forum for expressing opinions and all i have done is express mine. You are welcome to disagree but lets keep it civil, ok.

can keep it civil no problem, now you have said something with substance.

The royals do far more than that. It's not just meetings other state leaders. It's negotiates, it's respect it's knowledge. The royals have a unique advantage. World leaders change every few years. the royals have memorys and knowledge that span decades. When the royals meet someone. That someone will probably say I met you at some engagement in 1987. Not only that the royals have very good memory and can then tell that someone something relavent. It all adds up to a huge and respected power. That is extremely beneficial to the uk.

You can not elect people like this. They have to be trained from birth.

SexyGreyFox · 27 Dec 2007 at 00:01

Ghosteh said:
Was that meant to sound like Baddiel and Newman's Historians Sketch? First thing I thought off haha.

You know that elephant that doesn't forget? - thats you that is

Barracuda · 27 Dec 2007 at 00:29

AcidHell2 said:
can keep it civil no problem, now you have said something with substance.

Thanks.

AcidHell2 said:
The royals do far more than that. It's not just meetings other state leaders. It's negotiates, it's respect it's knowledge. The royals have a unique advantage. World leaders change every few years. the royals have memorys and knowledge that span decades. When the royals meet someone. That someone will probably say I met you at some engagement in 1987. Not only that the royals have very good memory and can then tell that someone something relavent. It all adds up to a huge and respected power. That is extremely beneficial to the uk.

You can not elect people like this. They have to be trained from birth.

What you have described above is basically diplomacy. While i concede that permanency in the post of royal/diplomat means one can rack up more experience, relationships and credibility than when in a short term elected post, i don't think that this justifies the idea of royals. I think the negatives i mentioned in previous posts outweigh this minor benefit. Plus automatically giving the "job" to someone regardless of aptitude and propensity will definitely mean that some one better suited/harder working will be denied it.

Going back to OP, it does seem that royals do get awarded medals and titles more readily than their not royal counterparts. Would prince Phillip really have been appointed first lieutenant at the age of 21 if he had not been a royal.

Orcish-Horde · 27 Dec 2007 at 00:34

When looking at westmister and some of the things that come out of the place, Im ever so glad we have the royal family.

jamoor · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:10

all this royal family bringing in money is total ******* ********.

I mean cmon,if the royal family disappear tomorrow, will no one ever come to the UK again? of course they will.
People dont come here and meet the queen/king/whatever they only see their palace etc which will still be there if they were wiped off the earth.

Look at the Forbidden city in China, once used by rulers, now its obselete, however people still visit there! this is repeated accross the globe. Them bringing in money is just generated to justify their sorry existance.

Even if they are the face of the UK, why don't we pay HER (yes the queen, not her cling ons) the same as the prime minister, he seems to get on OK.

FrostedNipple · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:17

tbh, anyone mocking the monarchy is a pure fool, they made the foundations on which we live today!

Don't like it? Then buggar off back to your own country, if this is your country then either enjoy it, or emigrate

people from 100 years ago would turn in their grave if they saw the fools mocking the country's backbone

stukacat · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:19

my granddad was called up for king and country in ww2 he got a lot of medals . he was at dunkirk elalamain and trobrouk and montecasino.he said he did not go for king and country but for his children and his childrens children.i wonder what he thinks of the uk today.this goverment would not have fought the nazis it would have got them all over here to do low paid jobs.

FrannoBaz · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:31

The whole idea of the monarchy is ridiculous in modern society.

FrannoBaz · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:32

...Leading on from my previous post:

The queen is a whore tbh.

Ghosteh · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:36

jamoor said:
all this royal family bringing in money is total ******* ********.

I mean cmon,if the royal family disappear tomorrow, will no one ever come to the UK again? of course they will.
People dont come here and meet the queen/king/whatever they only see their palace etc which will still be there if they were wiped off the earth.

Look at the Forbidden city in China, once used by rulers, now its obselete, however people still visit there! this is repeated accross the globe. Them bringing in money is just generated to justify their sorry existance.

Even if they are the face of the UK, why don't we pay HER (yes the queen, not her cling ons) the same as the prime minister, he seems to get on OK.

Yes, people come to see where they live, but its also part of the heritage of the country. If they were no longer there, the building would still be there yes, but this history that effectively goes with it would be lost.

The Royal Family only cost about 62 pence per person per year, hardly a lot, considering the amount of work she does.

And why on earth do you say she has a sorry existence? I'm genuinely interested in that point of view...

Phog · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:38

FrannoBaz said:
...Leading on from my previous post:

The queen is a ***** tbh.

'Sweary' and shows what an idiot you are. Also how unfunny you are.

FrannoBaz · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:40

Phog said:
'Sweary' and shows what an idiot you are. Also how unfunny you are.

Whore isn't a swear word. and im not trying to be funny - I only deal in facts

PurpleDinosaur · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:44

Barracuda said:
I struggle to see the difference between the royals and any other celebrity. The only real difference is while most celebrities are famous for being on big brother or some other such garbage, the royals are famous because they happen to be related to monarchs of old. Like any celebrity they can generate cash from people who take an interest ( for whatever reason ) and are prepared to travel around the country just to see them. So If being a glorified celebrity is what people mean by work fine maybe we should make jade goody a royal for the same reason.

While i don't care one way of the other, the problem i see with the monarchy is it that it seems to totally contradict ideas meritocracy and instead bolsters an outdated class systems.

Absolutely clueless idiot, you clearly don't have the slightest clue of what the royal family do for this country.

jamoor · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:45

Ghosteh said:
Yes, people come to see where they live, but its also part of the heritage of the country. If they were no longer there, the building would still be there yes, but this history that effectively goes with it would be lost.

The Royal Family only cost about 62 pence per person per year, hardly a lot, considering the amount of work she does.

And why on earth do you say she has a sorry existence? I'm genuinely interested in that point of view...

Actually sorry existance was a bit harsh, didnt mean it

, got wound up.

But no it wont be lost, have the egyptian pharoes (sp?) been totally lost because they no longer exist, of course not! People flock to see the pyramids etc.

62p is better in my pocket than anyone elses.