[Closed] The Smiths' Morrissey: 'Royals are benefit scroungers'

Spot on Fred - True Democracy! thats whats needed, none of this representative democracy bollocks, we could have a true democracy in this country, we could vote for our head of state and everything!

[img] http://blogs.orange.co.uk/.a/6a00d8345192e469e20120a66ea035970c-800wi [/img]
For Cheryl, ring 08709 127491

[img] [/img]
For Katie, ring 08709 127492

[img] [/img]
For Peter, ring 08709 127493

They are powers as such but they are really formalities. Yes the Queen could use those powers but do you honestly think she ever would ?

Well ok Mol; explain to me why loads of people were arrested just before the wedding, held in cells, then released without charge once it was over?

Monarchic Fascism, that's why.

I personally can't explain why.

Although this kind of thing happens at all these big events doesn't it?

You're straying into conspiracy theories now. I do think it is explicitly without power. I doubt that people were arrested because they Queen asked them to be.

selecting the PM -technically the crown asks someone to form a government]

If the Queen (or Charles or anyone) ever asks someone OTHER than the leader of the majority party to form a Govt, and it happens, I will eat my Kenda Negaval Blue grooves.

EDIT: A quick Google suggests that the crown can't legally do anyhting that is against the wishes of Parliament...

Privatise the bu**ers - keep Dave and Boy George happy.....and all you jingoistic types can go wrap yourselves in the union jack, for all the good it may do you!

Spot on Fred - True Democracy! thats whats needed, none of this representative democracy bollocks, we could have a true democracy in this country, we could vote for our head of state and everything!
For Cheryl, ring 08709 127491
For Katie, ring 08709 127492
For Peter, ring 08709 127493

Oh look, the resident sad WUM can't engage in intelligent discussion, so attempts to try to make himself look all clever, and fails miserably once more. 😐

Which is why you shall be ignored henceforth, Labby.

If you can show that you are capable of engaging with others in a respectful and considerate manner, then you may be allowed back in to play.

Although this kind of thing happens at all these big events doesn't it?

What, the suppression of people's democratic right to protest? Yep, it does, sadly.

With alarmingly greater frequency, too...

..and do you think the removal of the monarchy would solve this?

Well, a more meritocratic society without such deeply entrenched class divisions perpetuated by the retention of an elitist undemocratic system of rule might be a tad more 'free', so yes, basically. 🙂

Elfin - Why do you feel you have a right to suppress my democratic right to protest against your arguments for a meritocratic, truly democratic society? 😉

Trouble with you Lefties, is that you think that freedom of speech and democracy only applies as long as people stick to your policies and beliefs! You demand people cow down and respect your rules of 'intelligent' discussion, but abandon the same rules when it suits!

[i]Lefties, with one or two notable exceptions, are a sour, boot-faced lot. They are inevitably so because they are motivated by grievance and envy, neither of which is a sentiment guaranteed to put joy in one's heart. They seek offence where none is intended; they strive to suppress individuality of expression; they like to control others. Humour, whose main purpose throughout existence has been to deflate such priggish, pompous and sour attitudes, is therefore the enemy of militant Lefties, who wish to standardise attitudes and behaviour, and whose political project is to enforce and inflict as much control as possible over others.
[/i]

I think Simon Heffer must have spent some time on STW 😆

The point is that this country is blighted by a class system that is solely in place to keep the vested interests who are already at the top of the pile in place. If you think about where the royals originally came from that was the human version of survival of the fittest, i.e I'm smarter than you/have a bigger army/am more ruthless and thus became leader. So in fact the hereditary system that we now have overrides any possible genetic logic for a monarchy.

Without competition for the top places, it is a biological fact that sooner or later you will get a weakling in charge. So the smart move for us as a species is to make sure that whatever method we chose to find our leaders looks as far and wide as possible and genuinely seeks to find the best there is...... so what actually happens? Oh yeah we have a class system which virtually gurantees that about 90% plus of the population never even get a look in and guess who is at the pinnicle of the class system that guarantees their own security??

In the meantime you have a bunch of brainwashed turkeys, such as Molgrips who continue to insist in voting for Christmas with all sorts of ridiculous arguments that don't stand a moments scrutiny, like the tourism one, for example.

[i]Trouble with you Lefties, is that you think that freedom of speech and democracy only applies as long as people stick to your policies and beliefs![/i]

Oii, i am a leftie and you are entitled to whatever beliefs you want. Although i disagree with a lot of what you say politically, i do agree with you in this case in reference to this thread ie.

[i]You demand people cow down and respect your rules of 'intelligent' discussion, but abandon the same rules when it suits![/i]

The point is that this country is blighted by a class system that is solely in place to keep the vested interests who are already at the top of the pile in place.

The absence of one would see another similar system put in place - but it might have different people in power. Like the 'state' or the 'party' or whoever had siezed power. It is the way of the world.

Well, a more meritocratic society without such deeply entrenched class divisions perpetuated by the retention of an elitist undemocratic system of rule might be a tad more 'free', so yes, basically

It would take a whole lot more than the removal of the monarchy to achieve that. Even if you go [i]all the way[/i] there's no guarantee you'll get what you want in a "more free society".

[i]In the meantime you have a bunch of brainwashed turkeys, such as Molgrips who continue to insist in voting for Christmas with all sorts of ridiculous arguments that don't stand a moments scrutiny, like the tourism one, for example[/i]

Did you read the thread ?? I can't find anywhere that Molgrips actually says he supports the monarchy. In fact all he actually did was ask for some real facts rather than people just bandy about figures willy nilly.

So "brainwashed turkey" hardly applies, at least to him 😉

I don't think Molgrips is a turkey.

I see him more as a woodpecker, for some bizarre reason.

[img] [/img]

Well, a more meritocratic society without such deeply entrenched class divisions

What, like the one we don't live in? Ironically, this very wedding is from a future monarch's first born son (can't get much more upper class than that) to a commoner whose father made all his own money. Now if that's not a society without class barriers I dunno what is.

In the meantime you have a bunch of brainwashed turkeys, such as Molgrips who continue to insist in voting for Christmas with all sorts of ridiculous arguments that don't stand a moments scrutiny, like the tourism one, for example

Lol, on the subject of turkeys I am not at all a monarchist 🙂 With thanks to mancjon and others all I am doing is trying to dig out as many facts as we can for the sake of the debate (nice woodpecker analogy Elf if you meant it that way) so that we can all learn.

It's a complicated and subtle issue, so saying 'the Queen costs us £Xm a year' based on a reported stat is silly.

Ok then, Morrisey is a miserable tosser and I don't like him. There you go.

I have more issue with freeloading immigrants and jobless people who have no intention of working than I do with a royal family. At least they are keeping up some Britishness.

I couldn't careless what Morrisey has to say so he can F off.

I have more issue with freeloading immigrants and jobless people who have no intention of working than I do with a royal family

Et Voila; two for the price of one!!!

[img] [/img]

To right!

Twoundred! 🙂

Ironically, this very wedding is from a future monarch's first born son (can't get much more upper class than that) to a [b]commoner[/b] whose father made all his own money. Now if that's not a society without class barriers I dunno what is.

WTF is a 'commoner'? 😕

See, it's terms like that which prove what a divided society we have, and just how much having a monarchy keeps it divided.

You big toikey....

How is Phil an immigrant?

His mother was born in Windsor Castle - and Phil himself carried British Citizenship from birth.

Elfin-FAIL!

Whats more, I'd suggest its unfair to call him Jobless: He's 89 for ****'s sake - a retired naval officer who saw distinguished service in WW2!

it is a good point that monarchs never led us into expanionist wars and very hard to counter [thats sarcasm as you may miss it]

I have no doubt at all that monarchs indulged in many expansionist wars,

My point is at least they were open about it ... i fancy a bit of your country and if you don't give me it I'll take it ... none of this ... WMD, 15 minutes away from an immediate danger to the UK type rubbish ,

Elf

IMO what divides us more now is those with money and those without and you don't have to have been born into money to have it now.

It's the every man for himself attitude (in no small part thanks to Maggie) that affects our society far more than a few upper class people.

Personally i think having royalty + upper class is nothing to get too worked up about in comparison with the increasing gap between the rich and poor.

and Phil himself carried British Citizenship from birth.

Are you sure ? I don't think he did.

"[i]1946 saw the future Duke of Edinburgh returning to Britain to take up a staff officer position at Greenwich Naval College. The following year he took up British citizenship and that is when he changed his surname to Mountbatten[/i]"...... as opposed to being from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg 😯

At least they are keeping up some Britishness.

Yep, they certainly are:

Adultery, selling influence, marriages of convenience, sponging off the taxpayer, rank hypocrisy, being ashamed of disability, casual rascism, sexism, fear of other cultures.

All fine British traditions upheld by the wonderful Sax Coburg Gothas.
Makes you proud to have been born on this septic Isle, doesn't it?

What would we do without them to set such a fine example?

No I agree; the corruption that is rife within British politics is far more worrying.

But getting rid of the monarchy would be a good start along the path to a fairer, more egalitarian society.

And it's not just the Queen and her kids and grandkids, but all the other hangers on too, who use their social status which is in no way whatsoever 'earned', to gain advantage over others.

Like this scheming cah:

[img] [/img]

My case resteth, M'Lud.

Are you sure ? I don't think he did.

Yep!

http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-29

[i]30. Was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark a British subject before he became naturalized in 1947?

Yes, Prince Philip was a British subject before he became naturalized in 1947. In fact, he had been from birth because of the Sophia Naturalization Act . This Act, passed in 1705, gave in perpetuity the right of British citizenship to Sophia's non-Catholic descendants. At the time of Prince Philip's naturalization in February 1947, no one seemed aware that this procedure was unnecessary, not even his uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten who "worked diligently towards the granting of Philip's British citizenship" (Prince Philip: A Biography, by Denis Judd, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1980). This fact was discovered only after the legal victory of his cousin, Prince Ernst August of Hanover, in which he won his right to British citizenship. In 1956, HRH Prince Ernst August of Hanover (1914-1987) sought and won his battle to claim the status of British citizen because of the Sophia Naturalization Act. Prince Ernst August's claim to this right was based on the fact that he was a lineal descendant of the Electress Sophia and a Protestant.[/i]

See, it's terms like that which prove what a divided society we have

No they don't! Commoner = non royal. That is, almost everyone. So it can hardly be pejorative can it?

But getting rid of the monarchy would be a good start along the path to a fairer, more egalitarian society

It would make zero difference I reckon. The old class structure is gone, but (surprise surprise) people have found other ways to be crappy to each other. Like race or wealth. The monarchy is simply a vestige of the old system which is already thoroughly gone. Who is lording it over me simply on hereditary grounds?

It's the every man for himself attitude (in no small part thanks to Maggie) that affects our society far more than a few upper class people

Spot on.

Didn't know that. But I think that a "British Subject" was different to a "British Citizen".

yes molgrips no one minds if they are told they are common

Class warriors like Fred perpetuate the class structure more than anyone with money.

The belief that humans could create the utopia so desired by said class warriors has yet to be proven. I've not seen evidence of it anywhere else in the world. Everywhere that has tried appears to have ended up with a lot less freedom, less justice and a lot more corruption and fighting than we have in the United Kingdom. Or have I missed some warm sunny upland of a country where it works?

Class warriors like Fred perpetuate the class structure more than anyone with money.

😆

Explain please.

No, seriously, go on. I'd love to read why you think such nonsense*.

* I am of course joking. I have absolutely no interest in what wibbling rubbish you have to say, because it's not going to be at all intelligent or insightful, just an attempt at having a personal dig at me. Pathetic. Please be quiet now, thanks.

J_me - AIUI, since 1949 you can technically be born a subject, without attaining citizenship.

Legally, Phil is both, and has been from birth - its just that when he applied for naturalisation in 1943 nobody realised this 😀

Fred - are we going to see an acceptance of being wrong about Phil the Brit?

Since 1949 you say?

J-me; do what I do and simply ignore it. Life's simpler that way. 😀

Let it get itself worked up all on it's own. It'll eventually get bored and leave us in peace.

Fred agree? Not in his blood. Which runs red, red for the revolution.

Fred - have you got an example of the utopia you seek anywhere in the world? You'd look a bit like a Lib Dem if the Royal Family was gotten rid of - a bit like 'hang on - you mean we actually have to fess up and walk the walk?'

Wiki gives a good explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

However its irrelevant, as the court case established that Phils cousin (& therefore Phil too) carried full status as both British Subject and Citizen from birth (nowadays, we'd say he carried dual citizenship) - so the naturalisation process he undertook prior to marrying HRH was, in hindsight, unnecessary

Whats that sound I hear from "Chez Fred", hark, is it the sound of frantic googling to prove me wrong? 😆

Fred - to re-instigate a theme...

WRONG!

Class warriors like Fred perpetuate the class structure more than anyone with money.

The belief that humans could create the utopia so desired by said class warriors has yet to be proven.

I've not seen evidence of it anywhere else in the world. Everywhere that has tried appears to have ended up with a lot less freedom, less justice and a lot more corruption and fighting than we have in the United Kingdom.

Or have I missed some warm sunny upland of a country where it works?

I'm sorry TT, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore you too from now on. This is due to the fact that you jolly well have not said anything I deem worthy of response, just some idiotic personal rubbish. I don't make the rules, that's just the way things are I'm afraid.

Feel free to blether nonsensically away to yourself, though, if it makes you happy.

(Adds TT to the 'Ignore' filter)

Bye!

Ignore that with which you disagree. Beats flouncing, I suppose.

yes molgrips no one minds if they are told they are common

A commoner is not the same as common. Surely? In any case it's not important. Non royals are common. They are all over the place, I can walk down the street and see loads. Royals are quite scarce though, I've only seen a couple once.

Or have I missed some warm sunny upland of a country where it works?

I think he's talking about revolutionary class-warrior style egalitarianism not republicanism - and hence referring to communist states.

No Flashy; I choose to ignore those who are simply out to cause unnecessary argument and resort to personal attacks because they can't fink of anyfing clever to say. Bit of banter's ok, but some folk just have sand in their knickers all the time. Better to ignore than let it bother me, woon't you say?

When my daughter plays at the sandpit, she actually does get sand in her knickers. Well, nappy actually. Which is how I know it's in there.