[Closed] Wills and Kate

The last time I went to Buckingham palace it was for the Olympic triathlon:
[img] [/img]

Me and other spectators

Never mind all that, my GF thinks baby George is gorgeous 🙂

Were there no public toilets nearby?

A French peasant child in un pantalon de Nîmes begging for food at the gates:[img] [/img]

[quote=teamhurtmore ]Were there no public toilets nearby?
😆 took me a while for the penny to drop

Some people need to find out the meaning of the word oppression

I think he is being a bit OTT but it also shows the power of conformity here where we have grown up so used to their interference and undemocratic roles in our lives that we just accept it as normal and fine. Interesting look how UKIP ers and other rails against undemocratic oppressive EU with it its unelected [ they all are to some degree but it may be weak] and ignoring our head of state and the Lords in our executive. Its certainly not equality/democratic whatever you wish to call it.

Granted the antis are not helping themselves here with the high levels of hyperbole and oppression is a OTT. I see their point even though it has been badly made

The real problem with the anti rant and their oppression is that it would be no different under an elected head of state and in a lot of cases worse. Look a the the good old US of F'd up A, a president elected by the masses without the democratic law making powers to enact his policies. Standing there looking for some electoral Viagra to make a difference. Hunting down those that dare speak against them (snowdon & assange) suppressing their people and sending them off to war when more die on their own streets than in any war or terror attack.

The real problem with the anti rant and their oppression is that it would be no different under an elected head of state and in a lot of cases worse. Look a the the good old US of F'd up A, a president elected by the masses without the democratic law making powers to enact his policies. Standing there looking for some electoral Viagra to make a difference. Hunting down those that dare speak against them (snowdon & assange) suppressing their people and sending them off to war when more die on their own streets than in any war or terror attack.

That's a very fair point... though it is easy to chase ideals, it's far harder to achieve and sustain them, however, direct electronic democracy would remove the power hungry middlemen and the laws they devise to perpetuate the military industrial media complex and their own self interest. I doubt we'd suddenly be living in a perpetual utopia of unicorns and rainbows, but all improvement is incremental; it'd be a giant step in the right direction (and hence you should vote for me so I can dictate this brave new world and skim the perks 😳 )

Look a the the good old US of F'd up A, a president elected by the masses without the democratic law making powers to enact his policies. Standing there looking for some electoral Viagra to make a difference. Hunting down those that dare speak against them (snowdon & assange) suppressing their people and sending them off to war when more die on their own streets than in any war or terror attack.

To be fair the same could be said of the UK under a monarchy. Tony Blair who as Prime Minister had all the executive powers of a head of state, even if not the official title, was completely unable to enact his policies without the support of Parliament, the House of Commons to be specific. Royal prerogative or not.

And Tony Blair's behaviour was not in any fundamental way different to that of George Bush's. He was fully prepared to go to war on the pretext of fighting terrorism, despite the fact that terrorism is a very small problem in the UK and many more die on UK streets than in any war or terror attacks (he did create the conditions for terrorism to flourish in other countries though)

The bottom line is that having a constitutional monarchy is a complete irrelevance.

Despite what the haters or lovers want to say.

The bottom line is that having a constitutional monarchy is a complete irrelevance.

Despite what the haters or lovers want to say.

Oh FFS me and ernie agree, now where is the plug in that makes jivetroll disappear.

The bottom line is that having a constitutional monarchy is a complete irrelevance

Which is the problem, either they are irrelevant so whats the point or they do have power which is wrong. I hate what royalty symbolises but Charlies letters suggest that their influence may be greater than we are led to believe.
If they do **** all lets be rid of them and if they do hold power lets be rid of them. Win win for me 😀

Be careful what you wish for... I'm on your side (unless you're a tool), even if you don't realize it 😀

Oh I am a tool!!

Treason laws have been modified but still stand, Molgrips. It came close with Lady Di.

Rubbish. Back that up.

No one has been convicted of treason in the UK for nearly 70 years.

Obviously this means that according to Edukator's constitutional analysis of the situation no one has bad mouthed the royal family in that time. Which proves one of two things, either, everyone loves Her Majesty and the rest of the Royal Family, gawd bless'em, or, gripped by fear through oppression and subjugation no one has dared to speak out against their tyrannical rule.

BTW I would like to point out to any members of the security services who might be monitoring this forum for treasonous acts, that I love the Royal family as if they were my own family. And no mistake.

I spoke out from my oppression and the mods deleted it... thats double oppression!!

Love the irony 🙂

but Charlies letters suggest that their influence may be greater than we are led to believe.

So let us know what were in these letters then.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very much against the royals having any influence in politics, and I think it's bad that they won't publish the letters.

However that still doesn't mean we are an oppressed people.

I think they've got better people to monitor, Ernie. Some of the articles, sites and blogs I've read on the royals today have been pure gold. Tomorrow is a new day though, back to reality after a day of wayward royals, ding donging drivers, evil solar panels and an hour on the home trainer as the only productive effort.

You've spend your whole Easter Sunday on here?

At least I went riding!

I think they've got better people to monitor, Ernie.

Oh go on, tell me - who ?

According to you :

[i]"The head of the protestant church is the Queen which somewhat limits a protestant's freedom of speech."[/i]

So is it wayward protestants ?

o let us know what were in these letters then.

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

Your link doesn't provide any information about what was in the letters beyond describing them as : [i]"letters the prince had written in 2004 and 2005 seeking to advance the work of charities or to promote views".[/i]

So you're outraged but you're not entirely sure what you're outraged about ?

And this provides your prime evidence that you are oppressed and subjugated by the Queen, along with the claim that Princess Anne wants badgers gassed ?

All this is great if you're content to live in a medieval theme park. If you would like to live in a progressive, egalitarian and truly democratic society it is profoundly depressing. Sadly, can't see it changing in my lifetime 🙁

Progressive - tick
Egalitaritan - tick
Deomcratic - tick

Blimey, as others said above, some folk need to look beyond their borders and appreciate what they have.....

(Tick as in broadly correct in absolute terms and correct in relative terms)

Mr Grieve argued that releasing the letters would undermine the principle of the heir being politically neutral.

Mr Grieve is the attorney general blocking release of the letters. Also where it says promote views those are his not charities.

Mr Smith said that law change gave the Royal Family "complete freedom to lobby the government in secret and on whatever issue they choose", adding: "This has nothing to do with their royal duties and everything to do with the Windsor family protecting their own interests and pursuing their own agendas."

If you dont think this is important then fair enough but I do.
We could go on to explore why Anne wants badgers gassed to.

Is it domocratic to have Charlie trying to influence ministers. If he wants to do that fair play to him but he needs to do it from an equal footing to the other voters.

Do you publish the letters you send to your MP? If you want equal footing..... (Blimey you really get agitated by some letters????)

Anne thinks that is a preferred method of culling - big deal.

We could go on to explore why Anne wants badgers gassed to.

That sounds absolutely fascinating. Unfortunately I've got to be in Leith Hill by 10.15 and I still need to get my bike and gear in the car. So I will have to hang on 'til later to find out.

Your arguments are confused. Could the pro royal people let me know. Do the royals have power and influence or not? If they do how does it help and if they dont whats the point of them.
THM any letters could be released under the freedom of information act unless I am the heir to the thrown and they would bring into question my impartiality.

Yes a positive influence - read what the long list of PMs who have served under ER2 say about the value of her meetings for a start....

EL, has it right. Go and have a ride, you are stressing over little things. It can't be healthy.....

Progressive - Sometimes yes, othertimes not
Egalitaritan - Royalty shows not
Deomcratic - First past the post is a questionable version of democracy, it suits top down centralised rule, rather than representing the peoples wishes.

Yes a positive influence - read what the long list of PMs who have served under ER2 say about the value of her meetings for a start.

Establishment figures support the establishment, go figure 😆

So its democratic to have a family in a position of power and influence.. OK...your idea of democratic is different to mine.

Yes it can be obviously, especially if it has broad appeal - the definition of democracy.

We even give power and influence to lots or people when the majority don't want them to have it and more often than not. Funny old place, GB isn't it?

The idea that we are born equal is fanciful at best anyway. It is clearly not true since we are all born different and unique (except in the eyes of one who many here believe is fictional anyway). How dull would it be if we were all equal. Imagine having to watch a footie match when they were all as bad as me....at least that would keep the wages down I guess.

So we have established that you have some odd ideas about democracy and you believe people are not born equal. Fair enough that explains a lot.

It does doesn't it!

Of course we're all born different and unique - what a silly way to support your argument that the subjects of the royal family (again, of whom I'm not one, so I struggle to understand your deference...it's not something with which I've been indoctrinated) are somehow not equal to them. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "all men are born equal"? Either that or you're just condescendingly trolling a_a? (I mean, y'know, we have a well established history of you believing those who disagree with you are impertinent, don't we?) Maybe that's it, is it? Anyone who doesn't agree with the concept of royalty is "impertinent"?

Obviously, now off with your head...

So its democratic to have a family in a position of power and influence.. OK...your idea of democratic is different to mine.

So, if we had a referendum tomorrow about the disestablishment of the monarchy (yes or no) , and the majority voted to keep it

then would it be democratic, or not?

So, if we had a referendum tomorrow about the disestablishment of the monarchy (yes or no) , and the majority voted to keep it

then would it be democratic, or not?

That's a tricky one when you look at the bigger picture...

If for example that Monarchy had many friends in high places, skewing media output and thus public perception in their favour, not to mention laws preventing less savoury truths about their exploits being published, would it be an illusory democracy?

If for example that [s]Monarchy[/s] [b]politicians[/b] had many friends in high places, skewing media output and thus public perception in their favour, not to mention laws preventing less savoury truths about their exploits being published, would it be an illusory democracy?

Applies just as well, surely? All democracy could be argued to be an illusion, the problems of skewed media, vested interests and abuse of power are hardly restricted to a monarchy are they?

If for example that Monarchy politicians had many friends in high places, skewing media output and thus public perception in their favour, not to mention laws preventing less savoury truths about their exploits being published, would it be an illusory democracy?

Applies just as well, surely? All democracy could be argued to be an illusion, the problems of skewed media, vested interests and abuse of power are hardly restricted to a monarchy are they?

Certainly... all the more reason to ditch the current system in favour of direct democracy 😉

You think that wouldn't apply in a direct democracy?

So, there would be no vested interests and nobody running skewed media campaigns in a direct democracy?

What a quaint and impossible concept!

all the more reason to ditch the current system in favour of direct [s]democracy[/s] dictatorship

Then some people might learn what real oppression is and exactly how far the state could go to sort things out.

The funny thing is DD his example of footballers was a great example of people rising up on merit. He has to rely on being facetious as his points are not good enough to back up his argument.
Ninfan a referendum would be a start I suppose at least the points would be debated. Australia had one didnt they?

You think that wouldn't apply in a direct democracy?

So, there would be no vested interests and nobody running skewed media campaigns in a direct democracy?

What a quaint and impossible concept!

all the more reason to ditch the current system in favour of direct democracy dictatorship

Then some people might learn what real oppression is and exactly how far the state could go to sort things out.

Sounds like fear of the unknown to me... no system will ever be 100% flawless, but improvements beyond the current mess of a network of Monarchs, Etonians and Oligarchs skewing the entire picture in their favour, with minimal meaningful input from the populace are guaranteed.

Try it, you might like it...