[Closed] Wills and Kate

Take short term populism, personal gain and a desperate need to win reelection to stay on the gravy train out of politics and we could actually start getting somewhere as a country!

Well the impression that you are living under seems to be a little out of touch - simply look at the reaction to the visit? And in a country that regularly expouses Republican wishes. Do you think all those happy crowds were forced to be there under threat?

As I say a slight trauma for the misery.......how can so many people react in such a positive manner?????

I was living under the impression that forelock-tugging royalists only existed in Hello magazine and on BBC Sunday tea-time dramas, but here they are.

I know - just look at what we've seen here, with crowds of republicans, clearly marching forward with one purpose towards Buckingham palace:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

If they're so popular why don't we just fund them by subscription, you want them you pay?

Its not a non-argument - its a bloody strong argument why having a head of state that is not elected is a fantastic idea! We need more of this, not less.

Take short term populism, personal gain and a desperate need to win reelection to stay on the gravy train out of politics and we could actually start getting somewhere as a country!

So what your saying is that in a country which has pretty much always had an unelected head of state, the solution to the short term governance it suffers would be an unelected head of state?

Maybe you would like to point out all the countries without democracy that are serving their people so well.

Not really thought that one through have you?

Of course there is some merit to the ideal of the benevolent dictator, unfortunate thing with dictators is that benevolence is rarely one of their guiding characteristics, coming some way down the list from greedy insane power hungry self serving murderous twunt.

anagallis_arvensis - Member
So we are back to the "other people are worse" non argument very good. No pro royal type want to comment on Charlies letters to government?

You've got a very loose tongue for someone who in their own words is "oppressed" everyday.

I can't figure out if you are taking the piss out of the English language, taking the piss out of people who are genuinely oppressed, or simply so lacking in an intelligent argument that you have to instead rely on the ludicrous.

Many things now considered morally wrong were once very popular. Lots of rubbish bands get lots of big crowds, big crowds are pretty meaningless many millions more dont go to see Boyzone. That little iris fella seemed to do a good job meeting go queen ie what's wrong with that system? I'm pretty unclear why are two house system needs a monarch or president anyway.
Still not seeing any good pro arguments or anyone defending Charlies letters.

You're right. Weird. But I suppose there's always 10-15% of the population vote for Farage, Le Pem and other nut cases so getting a good holiday turnout should not be a surprise.

Ernie as I pointed out in my second post there's more important things to worry about. That doesn't detract from the fact that as subjects we are oppressed every day. Obviously the level of oppression is mostly symbolic like the monarchy however I firmly believe if something is wrong it's wrong and what royalty stands for reflects on all of us

So what your saying is that in a country which has pretty much always had an unelected head of state, the solution to the short term governance it suffers would be an unelected head of state?

Not really thought that one through have you?

If only there was some sort of third way, with perhaps an unelected second chamber that was made up of hereditary peers, that acted as a revising chamber for the elected politicians, Nah, that would never survive for hundreds of years, and in that time the country could never rise to the forefront of world power and influence, because then the elected politicians would clearly try and weaken its authority over time, with a view to disestablishing it and increasing their own powers,

Of course there is some merit to the ideal of the benevolent dictator, unfortunate thing with dictators is that benevolence is rarely one of their guiding characteristics, coming some way down the list from greedy insane power hungry self serving murderous twunt.

Yes, again we're into the 'if only' land, where experience had taught us that having people win power by force or subterfuge led to power hungry nutters in charge, and in the longer term it was better to have these things settled by heredity... no, that wouldn't work and could never lead to a few hundred years of peaceful transition of the reins of power, would it?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26544124

?

ninfan - it's getting. hard to understand you For my benefit could you possibly mark the ironic bits in bold, or something? Ta.

Ernie as I pointed out in my second post there's more important things to worry about.

Indeed there are....

Still with the monarchy doing a good job, a religions festival and the economy improving all at the same time, there is plenty for the haters to get agitated about this weekend.

Suns out, time for some tennis....

it was better to have these things settled by heredity... no, that wouldn't work and could never lead to a few hundred years of peaceful transition of the reins of power, would it?

Ah yes, life was so good for subjects in those times, a return to the dark ages is what we need, far better than democracy.

Or maybe it is Victorian England and the old fashioned values so popular with soundbite politicians you crave.

Lets just brush over the reality and pretend everyone is well off and valued in those historical periods, ignore the reality that the majority of the population suffered during those times of make believe utopia.

Suns out, time for some tennis....

You mean time for fox hunting, deer hunting, grouse shooting and a spot of croquet with the corgis, surely? 🙂

So, given that Jimmy Savile visited Jersey fairly regularly and was often seen in the company of Royals on the island, just why is it that the home secretary felt it prudent to intervene when a journalist chose to investigate the island?

And why did Jimmy Savile attempt to sue for defamation in 2008 when it was suggested he'd been seen at Haut de la Garenne, only to be forced to backtrack when a photo was produced proving he'd been there...

Now remind me how closely the heir to the throne Prince Charles was to Mr Fix it?

you're being duped I tells ya

The working class and the upper class have a lot in common and they don't spend all their waking lives whinging and whining.

you're being duped I tells ya

What about the Yorkshire Ripper connection which you illustrated jivehoneyjive ?

I think it's obvious that Prince Charles wanted the advice of a serial killer who had plenty of experience in bumping off women when he was planning the murder of Princess Diana.

What do you reckon jivehoneyjive, since you posted the picture of the Yorkshire Ripper you must have an opinion ?

Or don't you want to go beyond insinuations ?

THM essentially your point is some people, who wanted to see them, went to the trouble of going to see them and were happy to see them....therefore what exactly?

You would get the same if you held a public execution , a cock fight or a street riot in that there London.You seem to have proved that people often do what they like even down under.

FWIW I dont think the republicans on here are helping themselves with their arguments tbh but it is an outdated anachronistic system that enshrines privileged and class.
Its largely a side show distraction in terms of real democracy but its clear a real democracy wont have hereditary positions.

Imagine the reaction if the EU did this for the head of state

FWIW Thailand is an interesting study in constitutional monarchy and its not the most popular choice for democracy and emerging countries since about the 18th Century tend to not pick monarchs.

outdated anachronistic system that enshrines privileged and class.
Its largely a side show distraction

^^ This.

The argument is surely simple enough - either you believe that men are created equal, or you don't. If you do, then you can't (logically) support the monarchy. If you don't, then you can approve of the monarchy, slavery, and a host of other inequalities.

You would get the same if you held a public execution

Isn't this one of the strongest arguments against democracy? 63% in favour of death penalty in recent poll!

Well put DrJ.

Ninfan scribble with someone else
You had a brief lapse where you were a useful contributor before reverting to type.

Just in case anyone is heading off topic again they are popular here

Thousands of people have welcomed the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Brisbane on day four of their first Australian tour.

Prince William and wife Catherine arrived in Brisbane after earlier being welcomed to Queensland by an honour guard at the Amberley Air Force base.

The Royals took a public stroll down Grey and Russell streets towards South Bank, where adoring fans had been lining up all day, after a reception at the nearby Brisbane Convention Centre.

Anyway I'd much rather have a proper head of state who has been well educated and helped to behave properly in front of important people and who knows how to present themselves - and Prince Phillip over some self loving publicity seeking idiot who slimed their way into the job.

The royals do a great job of putting up important people and giving them a slap up tea. Think of them as retained B&B owners.

Junky - WTF?

you don't think that the death penalty is the perfect example of the weakness of democracy? The majority of people are in favour of it, so why don't we have it?

Or are you just now playing the man with this fake passive aggressive wounded child persona because someone revealed the weakness of your argument, just like Ernie pointed out yesterday?

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/osbourne-says-no-to-currency-union/page/105#post-5940528

What about the Yorkshire Ripper connection which you illustrated jivehoneyjive ?

I think it's obvious that Prince Charles wanted the advice of a serial killer who had plenty of experience in bumping off women when he was planning the murder of Princess Diana.

What do you reckon jivehoneyjive, since you posted the picture of the Yorkshire Ripper you must have an opinion ?

Or don't you want to go beyond insinuations ?

If that's your opinion, so be it... seems a touch far fetched to me, especially since there is no proven direct link between big ears and the man charged as the Yorkshire ripper. Anyway, surely he'd distance himself from such an undertaking and use the expertise of other more covert operators to get the job done.

What I can say is body language suggests the power balance in the relationship might not be quite as you'd expect:

[img] [/img]

And Frank Bruno seems to be pretty strong on his eye contact and have a very precise way of placing his thumb whilst shaking hands...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Of course there were no direct links, Peter Sutliffe was a patsy - Charles was the real ripper, easily proven by the fact that

i) one of the murders was near his best mate Jimmys flat
ii) The press and police never reported that the killer had big ears - because it was an establishment cover up!

What exactly are you on about? The first photo looks staged/planned and I have no idea what sort of body language analysis your are heading for except for finding whatever you can to prove your theories then coming up with ideas as to why the pics match them.

ninfan - firstly, democracies don't work like that. People delegate their authority to representatives who are, by and large, better placed to make decisions on their behalf. That's why we have MPs, plumbers, car mechanics. We can't decide on everything ourselves. If we don't think our representative is doing a good job, we get a new one.

Secondly - and this may be harder to grasp - people make mistakes. That's unfortunate, but it is their right.

Thirdly, if you think a monarchy is some sort of guarantee against capital punishment , then I suspect you weren't paying attention in history class.

simply look at the reaction to the visit? And in a country that regularly expouses Republican wishes.

Republicans have gone on record as saying they're fed up of royal visits down here - every time one happens it sets their cause back about ten years...

I can't figure out if you are taking the piss out of the English language, taking the piss out of people who are genuinely oppressed, or simply so lacking in an intelligent argument that you have to instead rely on the ludicrous.

Usually a mixture of the three, with a focus on the latter.

s like republicanism just took another step back over here 

Anyway I'd much rather have a proper head of state who has been well educated and helped to behave properly in front of important people and who knows how to present themselves - and Prince Phillip over some self loving publicity seeking idiot who slimed their way into the job.

I think you are missing the point of tours and photo shoots. The cult of celebrity thrives within the royals.
I'm still to see good arguments in favour. France and Ireland seem to do on without royals and no one seems to be able to take on Charlies letters to ministers which even those covering up seem to say bring into question the constituency and Charlies impartiality.

ninfan - firstly, democracies don't work like that. People delegate their authority to representatives who are, by and large, better placed to make decisions on their behalf.

So, democracy [i]only[/i] works if we don't let the common people decide 😆

Even the Athenians would be impressed by your doublethink!

Is that why we're still in the EU?

So, democracy only works if we don't let the common people decide

Err no. That's not all what I wrote. The common people DO decide but it's not practical for them to decide on every item. Therefore they decide on a representative.

I think you need to go and read up on the history and origins of Democracy DrJ, lest I accuse you of being brainwashed by the presence of a self serving bourgeois elite 😆

Thats if you can do that without asking for permission from someone you feel is better placed to decide on your behalf...

Sorry, mate, you're not making much sense. You know that election thing we do every few years? That's people choosing. One man one vote. If you have a better plan, bring it on.

Again Ninfan scribble/troll with someone else - thought that is a well crafted and fantastic to be fair...sublime irony as well.

For a brief period you made actual points that were rational and you believed in rather than just say anything to get someone to respond 😥

You are a bright fell dont be a Shiboleth light who stays just inside the ban hammer with goads like this and saying stuff just to rile folk.
See still pointlessly believing in the good in all despite the evidence 😉

So, yeah, exactly what Ernie said yesterday then!

I think most of the Royal haters on here seem to think that the Royals are looking down from their ivory towers and life of luxury. I wouldn't swop for one minute. I can go to the shops when I want, buy what I want. See who I want, we have relative freedom. Every aspect of their lives is controlled, checked and vetted. No thanks. Subjugation I don't think so, maybe during the medieval period. I don't give them much thought really other than thinking that Wills and Harry seem like a couple of good lads that have been through a load of sh!t that would test any bodies sanity. You haters are almost subjugating yourselves with your bitterness.
Lighten up chaps.

I can see a way of saving them. Join us and we can all be free.
Still no takers on the pro arguments and Charlies letters I see.

One man one vote. If you have a better plan, bring it on.

OK, so this is straying off the original topic a bit, but given the wonders of modern technology and telecommunications, we have the tools necessary to bring about a system of direct democracy... rather than voting in puppets who lie in the run up to an election, only to renege on their promises, we could disband parliament, retaining the civil service to suggest changes which we the populace could then vote on in direct referendums.

This would remove much of the lobbying and corruption which occurs behind closed doors, and free up a good few fat expenses claims.

Sounds shit to be fair.

Every aspect of their lives is controlled, checked and vetted.

More fuel for the 'Why the hell was the heir to the throne so pally with a man known to have a number of perverse habits' fire I'm afraid, along with the explosive 'how in the hell did they allow a knighthood?'

This extensive vetting would also ring bells as to the company Prince Andrew keeps...

One man one vote. If you have a better plan, bring it on.

I do, as it happens.. 🙂