http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13207190
Did anyone else read this?
Chat Forum
[closed]
The Smiths' Morrissey: 'Royals are benefit scroungers'
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
arch old queen in not liking competition shocka ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
He is right though.
'Divine Right To Rule'? Really? Sez who? Not me.
Sooner we get rid, the better.
Posted 1 year ago # -
That may well be a valid point, but at least they haven't bailed out of three concerts that I purchased tickets to in a row!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Although I don't particularly care for the royal family, those views are a bit dim-witted really. About one rung up the ladder from 'I don't like you because you smell of poo and your mum is a prossie'.
Posted 1 year ago # -
He's got an album out soon so he needs to gob off a bit to shift some units ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
An ageing controversial (in his time) entertainer says something controversial about a large public event. Not really news is it?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not at all, Winegums. The Royal Family serve no dolphin whatsoever in a democracy. They aren't elected, they're just in a position of incredible wealth and privilege because their ancestors where nasty buggers, mainly.
Having a monarchy is what's holding Britain back, in terms of democratic progression. Perpetuates the socially divisive class system and 'divide and rule'.Get rid. Soon as.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elfin - you may have a point and you put it across much better than Morrisey and that is my problem - he is just gobbing off trying to be controversial so he can make more wealth for Morrisey it appears.
If he had something constructive to say then all is good but I am disappointed at this half-arsed attempt at being controversial. As I say - I don't really care for them myself.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Elfinsafety - Member
The Royal Family serve no dolphin whatsoever in a democracySo, you're saying they're not fit for porpoise?
Posted 1 year ago # -
'Divine Right To Rule'? Really? Sez who? Not me.
I think that particular point was disproved by us snicking off Charlie's head some time back.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, we let them back in.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So, you're saying they're not fit for porpoise?
he cetaceanly doesPosted 1 year ago # -
TBH, I wish more prominent figures in all areas of life would come forward and speak the truth about the royals. Too scared of missing out on a knighthood I spose.
Often-controversial pop star sez owt, and people are 'oh look he's only doing it for attention/sell a new album etc'. What we need is for all sorts of bods to say 'we don't need an unfair and anachronistic system of rule which only serves to prevent true democracy, any longer'.
Nah. Get rid.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cod knows, these fish-related puns are terrible. Giving me a bad haddock, it is. Is there an op-perch-tuna-ty to stop?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I quite like Queen Elizabeth. I am in favour of a non-political head-of-state so accept the hereditary principle on the basis that it provides continuity and is clearly separate from the policy-making part of the political system. I even support the idea that parliament and the armed forces report to the head-of-state, and of the privy council.
However, I think we totally overindulge our "royalty" - all that dreadful bowing and scraping like they are our betters, and spending our tax money on maintaining the vast royal estate and their security when they can afford it themselves or scale back.
I hope Wills takes a good, hard look at the "Royalty" scene when he becomes King and reforms the whole institution.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Often-controversial pop star sez owt, and people are 'oh look he's only doing it for attention/sell a new album etc'
I just wish he could have said something a little more intelligent.Posted 1 year ago # -
The metro reckons it costs each of us 62p a year to keep the royal family - I think these extra bank holidays will be compensation enough for several years of contributions!
Didn't the royal family give up loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Idiots can sometimes be right.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I quite like Queen Elizabeth. I am in favour of a non-political head-of-state so accept the hereditary principle on the basis that it provides continuity and is clearly separate from the policy-making part of the political system. I even support the idea that parliament and the armed forces report to the head-of-state, and of the privy council
Yup. The thought of Blair, Brown or Dave being head of state makes me nauseous.
I hope Wills takes a good, hard look at the "Royalty" scene when he becomes King and reforms the whole institution
You seem to have forgotten Charley. I'd like to as well mind.Posted 1 year ago # -
Didn't the royal family give up loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?
And that land came from where, exactly?
Posted 1 year ago # -
And that land came from where, exactly?
Same place that all land came from. It was taken by force.Posted 1 year ago # -
Once God had been proven to be a myth we needed someones else to believe in a be steared by, hence the royals oh and they used big sticks to beat up the poor and berate the rich into a truncated view of society..
Still the same thing going on now "cept" the Gov't have taken to thinking they're the new royals... which they're not.
The royals do bring in £'s in tourism though, shame we have to pump in 14 times more into them to provide the service they provide.. loss leader IMHO.
Lets take on the Spanish Model where there contribution is self fullfilling and self funded.
Won't happen tho' Political Types enjoy being knighted.Posted 1 year ago # -
The metro reckons it costs each of us 62p a year to keep the royal family
suspect that's in addition to their "earnings" from their estate though
Agreed on the BH front though - we should at least wait for QE2 to die. I'm hoping for a week.Didn't the royal family give
dunnoupback loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?Posted 1 year ago # -
'we don't need an unfair and anachronistic system of rule which only serves to prevent true democracy, any longer'.
I'm hardly a raving royalist, but I do take issue with this point. What real influence do they have on how the country is run apart from procedural pomp? Now theoretically they could veto a governmental policy, but unless it really deserved vetoing (invading Iraq, anyone?), they know they'd be out of the door double-quick.
I know unofficially people like Charlie have been implicated in influencing planning decisions, but how is this any different to any large company's
lobbyingbribing our democratically elected politicians? At least the royals can be held to some recourse for this.Posted 1 year ago # -
You seem to have forgotten Charley. I'd like to as well mind.
I don't think King Henry will be a reformist. I think King William might be.
Posted 1 year ago # -
His understanding of economics is as great as his appreciation of charcuterie...
Posted 1 year ago # -
he is right though isnt he??? i mean dont get me wrong they generate money, but what else do they do other than that???
the life and lifestyle is all paid for by the taxpayer, they have made hundreds of millions through the name of being 'royal' and for what?? we havent had a war since the 50's, and what exactly do they contribute to the country other than income for 'being royal'?? all the family members and assocaited families are worth an absolute fortune....
basically everything they do/have is paid for by the country at somepoint....
at the end of the day they are just people like you or me..if we had a need for a royal family and a royal family that dictated how the country is run then id be all for it...but they dont, they live in a bubble of what people think england is...and its really not!
needles to say (partridge reference) i will not be watching that big pile of shite tomorrow....
Posted 1 year ago # -
I like Mozzers music, but this sounds tired and a bit pathetic
He lives in L.A. ffs
And while I'm not a Royalist, I can't see why so many people have a problem with them
They don't rule anything, but I think they definitely add something to this country of ours, even if it's just something for the tourists to point their cameras at
Posted 1 year ago # -
we havent had a war since the 50's
Posted 1 year ago # -
Maybe they could be sold to English Heritage or The National Trust to look after? It'd keep them in their palaces, but we could all go along and have a nosey and if they became really unpopular we could just leave them to crumble in a 5000 acre country park before the BBC came along to make a new series of Restoration.
Posted 1 year ago # -
5thElefant - Member
we havent had a war since the 50's
sorry i meant world war....not interested in the littles one since
Posted 1 year ago # -
Lets imagine there is no royal family and they attempted to sell the case for one to the public....
so we will take a family, let them live like royalty in castles and palaces, jetting all over the world etc. This will be paid for by the state out of tax revenue and the right to live like this will be heriditary
right
Posted 1 year ago # -
Having a monarchy is what's holding Britain back, in terms of democratic progression. Perpetuates the socially divisive class system and 'divide and rule'.
If they had any influence, maybe. But they don't. They've done even less for their fame than Big Brother contestants and have the clout to match, imo.
And I'm really not convinced about the stats for how much they cost us. I think it's too comlpicated to tot properly, isn't it?
Same place that all land came from. It was taken by force.
From whom? Other people who'd taken it by force? Every square inch of this country has been taken by force four or five times probably on the larger scale and countless times on a small scale.
Posted 1 year ago # -
royalty is shite, absolutly shite, it means nothing other than the rich get richer, whether it be our royal family, the netherlands etc etc etc....they are all a bunch of robbing barstewards in my eyes....
i bet they dont pay a single penny for anything in life and thats morrisseys point, they are as bad as the scrotes who claim endless beniefits and the same as politicians in my eyes
Posted 1 year ago # -
i bet they dont pay a single penny for anything in life
Don't they all now have to pay tax on their earnings? Wasn't that changed a few years ago? So they do pay something.Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
