Dithering rich prat in a 4x4 causes car crash and almost kills a baby

Wibble said:
It really is an anacronysm but then Brits seem to love being told what to do by posh people, even when they demonstrably don't have their best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

The Royals don't tell anyone what to do anymore. They have zero real power and act as no more than symbolic figureheads. The death of The Queen will sever a lengthy connection with the past and no doubt hasten their continued slide into irrelevance.

And this country has a long and proud history of protest, civil disorder and riot on the part of the common man. People here most certainly do not "love being told what to do by posh people"
 
Barca84 said:
The Royals don't tell anyone what to do anymore. They have zero real power and act as no more than symbolic figureheads. The death of The Queen will sever a lengthy connection with the past and no doubt hasten their continued slide into irrelevance.

And this country has a long and proud history of protest, civil disorder and riot on the part of the common man. People here most certainly do not "love being told what to do by posh people"
Click to expand...

So why do they keep voting for them? Why do they generally like the anacronism that is a (not at all merely symbolic) unelected head of state selected by the luck of birth?
 
Wibble said:
So why do they keep voting for them? Why do they generally like the anacronism that is a (not at all merely symbolic) unelected head of state selected by the luck of birth?
Click to expand...

They are absolutely merely figureheads - the last monarch to refuse assent to legislation was over 300 years ago. The gradual decline of their power largely began with the civil war which is the starting point if you want to read up on the establishment of the supremacy of Parliament over the crown. By the time of Victoria all authority pretty much lay within the elected government.

Who are these posh people that people keep voting for?
 
Last edited:
Prince Philip should be taken off the road for his own good and for the safety of other road users. Driving around a couple of days later whilst not wearing a seatbelt stinks to high heaven of pure arrogance and being above the law.

I really think he doesn’t believe he has done anything wrong which shows how out of touch the royals are in this day and age. Not even contacting and apologising to the lady he injured is downright disgusting and any criticism he receives is fully warranted.

He has always been a rude, racist old bastard which has been laughed at and swept under the carpet over the years as that is just how he is.


Clone your own Phil.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/...awking_debris_left_over_from_royal_car_crash/
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
I would say the reverse, I'm sure they're not, but they might be absolute arses to know, but the fact they serve the country so well, imo offering a genuine focul point, & sense of pride to the country, which is pretty much respected worldwide (other than the usual loud mouths), this bringing in untold riches in tourism, etc, in my eyes needs respecting, but a lot of people just want hammer them at any opportunity.
Click to expand...
This archaic view depresses me!
 
Barca84 said:
And this country has a long and proud history of protest, civil disorder and riot on the part of the common man. People here most certainly do not "love being told what to do by posh people"
Click to expand...
Only take issue with this because we also have a long and not so proud history of the use of public servants, ie. the Police/Army, putting down civil disorder and politicians ignoring protest.

See Orgreave or The Battle of Bossenden Wood for examples.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
O dear, I didn't realise having respect for such things could have that effect on people, but I hope you cheer up anyway.
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it. This place wouldn't need to exist if we all thought the same. :)
 
oates said:
Only take issue with this because we also have a long and not so proud history of the use of public servants, ie. the Police/Army, putting down civil disorder and politicians ignoring protest.

See Orgreave or The Battle of Bossenden Wood for examples.
Click to expand...

Agreed but the point stands. We had a civil war to sort out our governance 400 years ago. The idea that we're still under the boot of a powerful crown is completely wide of the mark.
 
Barca84 said:
Agreed but the point stands. We had a civil war to sort out our governance 400 years ago. The idea that we're still under the boot of a powerful crown is completely wide of the mark.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree that there was a civil war but the people reinstated the Monarchy afterwards.

I used to be a rabid anti-monarchist myself but now I'd be more than happy to just prune the hangers on, the clingers and parasites down to bare bones. What has changed within me is that I'm absurdly proud of our Queen, a purely ceremonial role but she hasn't stopped working since she inherited the crown. She is an extra-ordinary woman who, let's face it has had the best that life has to offer - if she wants it, but hasn't scrimped on her workload either. What has happened to me, daft sod?
 
oates said:
Don't disagree that there was a civil war but the people reinstated the Monarchy afterwards.

I used to be a rabid anti-monarchist myself but now I'd be more than happy to just prune the hangers on, the clingers and parasites down to bare bones. What has changed within me is that I'm absurdly proud of our Queen, a purely ceremonial role but she hasn't stopped working since she inherited the crown. She is an extra-ordinary woman who, let's face it has had the best that life has to offer - if she wants it, but hasn't scrimped on her workload either. What has happened to me, daft sod?
Click to expand...

What work does she do ?
 
VidaRed said:
What work does she do ?
Click to expand...
She represents this country at home and abroad, visits heads of state in her diplomatic role and also visits institutions, charities and industry here at home. If you Google her number of engagements in any one year you'll probably see that she had more engagements than days in the year and still finds time to feed the corgi's and groom Prince Charlie. I wouldn't have the energy. As a titular head of state for this country she is admired and respected all over the world if not universally and that is more than we can say about our elected Prime Minister, at least currently.
 
oates said:
Don't disagree that there was a civil war but the people reinstated the Monarchy afterwards.

I used to be a rabid anti-monarchist myself but now I'd be more than happy to just prune the hangers on, the clingers and parasites down to bare bones. What has changed within me is that I'm absurdly proud of our Queen, a purely ceremonial role but she hasn't stopped working since she inherited the crown. She is an extra-ordinary woman who, let's face it has had the best that life has to offer - if she wants it, but hasn't scrimped on her workload either. What has happened to me, daft sod?
Click to expand...

I blame @Penna for making you soft.
 
oates said:
Don't disagree that there was a civil war but the people reinstated the Monarchy afterwards.

I used to be a rabid anti-monarchist myself but now I'd be more than happy to just prune the hangers on, the clingers and parasites down to bare bones. What has changed within me is that I'm absurdly proud of our Queen, a purely ceremonial role but she hasn't stopped working since she inherited the crown. She is an extra-ordinary woman who, let's face it has had the best that life has to offer - if she wants it, but hasn't scrimped on her workload either. What has happened to me, daft sod?
Click to expand...

To an extent perhaps but the war was a significant step to where we are now.

I also used to think we should have them rounded up and flogged but there are far greater (elected) villains to focus on. The current Royals are a largely benign and harmless bunch of crackpots.

You've done it now saying she works hard.
 
oates said:
She represents this country at home and abroad, visits heads of state in her diplomatic role and also visits institutions, charities and industry here at home. If you Google her number of engagements in any one year you'll probably see that she had more engagements than days in the year and still finds time to feed the corgi's and groom Prince Charlie. I wouldn't have the energy. As a titular head of state for this country she is admired and respected all over the world if not universally and that is more than we can say about our elected Prime Minister, at least currently.
Click to expand...

An elected "king/queen"/"president" could do the same. Why should the head of state be unelected ? It need not even be a direct election like in usa, the elected representatives in parliament could themselves pass a vote and elect the head of state, in which case they could elect the current royals aswell!
 
VidaRed said:
An elected "king/queen"/"president" could do the same. Why should the head of state be unelected ? It need not even be a direct election like in usa, the elected representatives in parliament could themselves pass a vote and elect the head of state, in which case they could elect the current royals aswell!
Click to expand...
I'm sure it is possible however I don't have confidence that we'd elect a president who would be as respected and let's be honest here, loved by a large proportion (however large that is 'cos I don't know, haven't looked it up) of the British People and some remaining of the Commonwealth.

See Donald Trump & Emmanuel Macron as examples of much loved Presidents.
 
Barca84 said:
They are absolutely merely figureheads - the last monarch to refuse assent to legislation was over 300 years ago. The gradual decline of their power largely began with the civil war which is the starting point if you want to read up on the establishment of the supremacy of Parliament over the crown. By the time of Victoria all authority pretty much lay within the elected government.

Who are these posh people that people keep voting for?
Click to expand...

Tories first and foremost, if not solely.

And if the crown has no authority why not abolish them? Just because it is over 100 years since the monarch dismissed a a PM doesn't mean they are powerless. I'd very much hope their power is vastly reduced but it is far from zero. And she did dismiss an Australian Government in 1975 - no way the Governor General did this without without consulting his boss.

And I do have an idea that would reduce the royal's influence to almost zero :)

Irrespective of how much power they do or don't have it is ludicrous that a modern democracy still has a monarchy.
 
Wibble said:
Tories first and foremost, if not solely.

And if the crown has no authority why not abolish them? Just because it is over 100 years since the monarch dismissed a a PM doesn't mean they are powerless. I'd very much hope their power is vastly reduced but it is far from zero. And she did dismiss an Australian Government in 1975 - no way the Governor General did this without without consulting his boss.

And I do have an idea that would reduce the royal's influence to almost zero :)

Irrespective of how much power they do or don't have it is ludicrous that a modern democracy still has a monarchy.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a CIA/MI6 plot to remove that Australian PM since he was moving away from the crown?
 
Wibble said:
Tories first and foremost, if not solely..
Click to expand...

Where are you from? This is absolute nonsense. Are you aware of how much support there is for the Tories in what would traditionally been called the working class? No posh Liberals or lefties? What's your version of posh?
 
Barca84 said:
Where are you from? This is absolute nonsense. Are you aware of how much support there is for the Tories in what would traditionally been called the working class? No posh Liberals or lefties? What's your version of posh?
Click to expand...

Manchester originally. And yes I am aware. Greatest con trick of all time getting working class people to vote against their own interests.

Posh = Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Cameron, Rees-Mogg and the like. Those who aren't by birth mostly want to be.
 
Wibble said:
And she did dismiss an Australian Government in 1975 - no way the Governor General did this without without consulting his boss..
Click to expand...

A brief search informs me that Kerr was responsible for the dismissal and that Heseltine doesn't share your view. According to him The Queen was not happy with what had transpired nor was her Private Secretary and that the dismissal had come as a surprise to all of them. It seems requests to involve the crown were rejected
 
At the end of the day, people will still visit the UK as tourists whether there's a Royal Family or not. The fact that we still suck up to these Royals disgusts me honestly. It's the 21st century.

We're all equal, are we not? There's no need for someone to be born in absolute wealth, power and luxury because they happen to belong to a Royal family.

I don't know, I guess it might sound radical. But if we're gonna push "equality", we can't just ignore the Royals.
 
Wibble said:
Manchester originally. And yes I am aware. Greatest con trick of all time getting working class people to vote against their own interests.

Posh = Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Cameron, Rees-Mogg and the like. Those who aren't by birth mostly want to be.
Click to expand...

Less than half of the current Tory party are privately educated. Are they posh?
 
Wibble said:
Lots of good ideas don't have a democratic consensus. But if they have no political function, as has been claimed, why not abolish them and keep.them as a tourist attraction if we must.
Click to expand...

Not even Corbyn would move to mess with the Royal Family, its political poison and frankly just not worth it.
 
Barca84 said:
A brief search informs me that Kerr was responsible for the dismissal and that Heseltine doesn't share your view. According to him The Queen was not happy with what had transpired nor was her Private Secretary and that the dismissal had come as a surprise to all of them. It seems requests to involve the crown were rejected
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone believes that and most likely Kerr took the flak to.protect the Queen. There is smoke but no smoking gun yet. Many documents are apparently still supressed.
 
VorZakone said:
At the end of the day, people will still visit the UK as tourists whether there's a Royal Family or not. The fact that we still suck up to these Royals disgusts me honestly. It's the 21st century.

We're all equal, are we not? There's no need for someone to be born in absolute wealth, power and luxury because they happen to belong to a Royal family.

I don't know, I guess it might sound radical. But if we're gonna push "equality", we can't just ignore the Royals.
Click to expand...

You must be having a laugh? The class system is still alive and kicking in the UK.

Tug your forlock and be grateful. Fecking peasant ;)
 
Barca84 said:
Less than half of the current Tory party are privately educated. Are they posh?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Probably a combination of social climbers, wanabe toffs and others with no social conscience.
 
What's it gonna take for him to actually die?

Also, down with the Monarchy always and forever, they need to go.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
I would say the reverse, I'm sure they're not, but they might be absolute arses to know, but the fact they serve the country so well, imo offering a genuine focul point, & sense of pride to the country, which is pretty much respected worldwide (other than the usual loud mouths), this bringing in untold riches in tourism, etc, in my eyes needs respecting, but a lot of people just want hammer them at any opportunity.
Click to expand...

Most people, especially young people, don't seem to understand this.

All they see is these people who have more than them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.