-
Posts
-
@(f)politics? wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
Surely those on here who are royalists are part of a pack?
A subservient pack who think that wealth and privilege is ok to come by through an accident of birth and not through merit and genuine hard work?
A pack that has such a low opinion of themselves they are happy to be “subjects.”
I don’t understand. You wouldn’t put up with being second class anywhere else, would you?
Alternatively royalist are part of a “pack” that are confident enough in themselves not to feel threatened by a long serving constitution, can admire the hard work that they do both personally and publicly for charities, for our country. They don’t feel the need to belittle, find fault, want to change… aren’t bothered by such titles as “subject” it is after all just a word, as is citizen a word, a word that would apply to each and everyone of a republican “pack”.
Acceptance is different to subservient, they are prepared to agree or disagree openly about something that may or may not happen within the monarchy and accept it, nothing is perfect, but they realise with an open mind how much the monarchy can do for us, how “they” work for their “subjects”, for the greater good, with no “personal” political agenda.So true poli … agree with all you have said here… especially no political agenda. I also think having a royal family sets us apart… its part of our heritage and one of the reasons tourists visit… Up the Royals…. sorry Panda :D
I really liked Jen’s oringial reply, especially wiht regard to that over-worshipped term ‘citizen’.
Totally agree with anc re packs. A lot of people do travel in packs, gangs, but a pack is unthinking and conformist. I can have friends, agree with a lot of what they say, disagree with other parts of what they say. I keep away from packs if I can.
I really think panda is barking up the wrong bamboo shoot. This is not a monarchy as you describe it, panda. It’s ceremonial. not substantive. If you annoy the Queen, you don’t get your head cut off, or even thrown into prison. Unlike many republics, this is not a despotism. We have had certain civil rights, and they have grown under a monarchy which has been transformed since the days of the Tudors and Stuarts. Britain’s monarchy isn’t as you describe it. It’s rapidly becoming like the cycling monarchy of the Netherlands – a crowned republic.
Time to move away from sham radicalism and face the real problems of a real Britain-in-Europe.
Soz Panda, but scep’s “wrong bamboo shoot” made me :lol:
I’m not sure the monarchy – should it cease to exist – is something that the British public would lose too much sleep over. There are far more important issues facing the country. Like how do we get out of the EU without anybody noticing us doing it? And tony Blair. When is that t**t going to be cuffed and stuffed behind bars? I’m sure the celebrations if that were to happen would be like winning the Olympics.
Pffft! Next you’ll all be telling me that “Prince” Harry and “Prince” William really do fly helicopters for a “living!”
Where do their armed bodyguards sit? :P
:-
Prince Harry does! :) Reckon Prince William up to other ‘stuff’ – along the lines of Prince Harry too! 8) :lol:
@anc wrote:
Prince Harry does! :) Reckon Prince William up to other ‘stuff’ – along the lines of Prince Harry too! 8) :lol:
I doubt either of them do. The lives of the heir and the spare would not be simultaneously put in danger.
A well controlled propaganda machine is behind the “flying” princes. There’s nothing stopping terrorists or would be assassins faking the need to be rescued when dear Billy boy is in his chopper. And unless his chopper is full of his body guards there’s nothing stopping a terrorist or would be assassin from taking him out.
As for Harry? Funny how his tour of duty has come along so soon after his indiscretions. Obviously just a mere coincidence. :P
Yeah, I go along with that!
I wonder if ‘father-to-be’ will be transported elsewhere soon as well? NOT methinks! 8)
the propaganda machine is the most conspicuous part of it.
I think it started after Queen Victoria told her subjects to just p iss orf when he hubby died and went into longmourning and a quiet life. Republican sentimentbecame quite strong in this country, and it was decided to schnazz things up with a couple of Jubilees at the end fo that century. Like HM today, Victoria just sighed and got on wiht the job as told.
But the importance of it all is constituional, rather than political, surely? My response to the propaganda tends to be bemusment, but a lot of people get very enthusiastic, as they do over football and Wimbledon (like me on the latter).
The Monarchy is also good for confused old people. Apparently, they found a common fantasy among old dears is to be having tea in the Palace gardens, and for the Queen to notice them form the corner of he eye and come to speak to them. HM can then receive the wisdom of the people – better than a Lond taxi-cab really.
So I remain a shoulder-shrugger.
Like Tel-boy, I think there are worse problems such as how to make the EU democratic (becoming a real problem now) and effacing Blair’s smile from the memory-pads.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!