Jump to content

The Royal family - murdering scum filth or an asset the the country?


Recommended Posts

So Prince harry is wondering what to do with his life and is considering leaving the army. Seesm like killing brown skinned people isnt as much fun as it used to be. poor lamb


His brother however is heavily involved with banging out successors to the line and travelling the world shakinhg hands with other rich royal scum with a long history of murder and enslavement.Just like his own lot really.


discuss


Extra points for bringing up


*tourists

*tourist money

*tradition

*Royals now paying tax

*the Queeen Mums role in WW2

*The sad death of mountbatten

*isnt his mrs pretty

*His mum would have been proud

The establishment would still exist without a monarchy. Every country that is a republic still has a class system, with public schools they can send their kids too (to shape the next leaders to keep the status quo) while everyone else scrambles in the state provision. Monetarism is the only ism that defines class and every system in the world operates under it.


The Queen is clearly an ambassador, especially to former colonies and the commonwealth. I don't know if that has any benefit in trade or public relations (I'm guessing it does), but politically no. And when a royal, like Charles, does get involved in controversial or political debate, it's frowned upon by even his own family. They may be heads of state but the Queen has never exercised the constitutional power she supposedly has. Puppets of the government come to mind. Definitely outdated but a nice tourist attraction all the same. They do own a heck of a lot of land though, and the armed forces swear an allegiance to them! So not so easy to get rid of either.

I'm absolutely not a monarchist - the Royal family strike me as being a bit like a very ill and old pet - extremely expensive to keep creakily going so that you wonder what the point is and euthanasia might seem a kindness. But it could be worse - we could have Putin...
Apart from the democracy angle, there's the financial argument. I forget how many millions HRH and her family cost us each year (I seem to remember an official figure of ?80M), but whatever it is Republic dispute this and claim a much higher figure. To me, the return on investment is dubious.

Also, the royal family is neccesary scapegoat for the government.


If there ever was massive dissent towards the government from the public, and people started clamoring for change - it would be the royal family they throw under the bus to settle us down.


They haven't had to yet, so maybe let's start lighting some fires?

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The sovereign grant is around ?30million per year.


Try replacing that with the full Presidential office and associated civil servants. I doubt you'd get much change and may even cost you more.


At the moment a meeting with the Queen equals and perhaps surpasses a meeting with the POTUS. Utterly invaluable for the UK. The UK President would be a comparative nobody on the world stage.

Well there are many countries that have a Presidental government..


Like :-


Argentina

* Armenia

* Belarus

* Bolivia

* Brazil

* Chile

* Colombia

* Costa Rica

* Cyprus




* Dominican Republic

* Ecuador

* El Salvador

* Guatemala

* Haiti

* Honduras

* Indonesia

* Iran

* Kenya

* Liberia

* Mexico

* Nicaragua

* Nigeria

* Panama

* Peru

* Philippines




* Seychelles

* South Korea

* Sri Lanka

* Suriname

* Tanzania

* Uganda

* United States

* Uruguay

* Sierra Leone

* Zambia


The presidents are all listed.. But I'll let someone else do that..


DulwichFox

I just think that if we removed them, very little would actually change. The monarchy does publish all their accounts online and I guess whether or not we think they are worth it/ good value depends on the price we place on the Queen's role as a ambassador. I think she is still very much respected among world leaders.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just think that if we removed them, very little

> would actually change. The monarchy does publish

> all their accounts online and I guess whether or

> not we think they are worth it/ good value depends

> on the price we place on the Queen's role as a

> ambassador. I think she is still very much

> respected among world leaders.


The question always is - who would we get instead

A politician, President Blair possibly, the speaker (Bercow), Boris.

or would it be a celebrity.

I am not a big royalist, but compared to a lot of people who have inherited large amounts of wealth, the Queen and some of her family at least seem to do some work for the country in return for it.


Not sure we'd do better with an elected president given the behaviour of most of our politicians.

It's the divine right of Kings etc. isn't it? They 'rule' (well, you know what I mean) because of a lottery of birth - I'd be all in favour of a switch to a more Babylonian Lottery approach a la Jorge Luis Borges (complete with punishment tickets to keep viewing figures high).

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alternatives would have been:

>

> President Thatcher

>

> President Blair

>

> I'll stick with the Windsors



Well we still had Thatcher and Blair and the Windsors were powerless do do anything about it..


So why do we need both.. ?


DulwichFox

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...