In the 21st century, do we need a monarch?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • Hardly an amazing revelation is it? If it was a straight choice of your life or that of a stranger, you would no doubt make the same choice.............as would most others!I

    What are you talking about strangers for?

  • And which ridiculous option would that be?

    ??? The ridiculous option of being able to substitute someone else, whether it be of Royal personage or any stranger, as an option of nominating a surrogate to save your own life...and of course, your unsurprising revelation that many people would choose the royal's money.....obviously, IF given that option.

  • ??? The ridiculous option of being able to substitute someone else, whether it be of Royal personage or any stranger, as an option of nominating a surrogate to save your own life...and of course, your unsurprising revelation that many people would choose the royal's money.....obviously, IF given that option.

    No idea what you are talking about Stevlin. The conversation, I thought, was about whether someone would want a life like the royals, not saving lives, whatever you mean by that??

  • No idea what you are talking about Stevlin. The conversation, I thought, was about whether someone would want a life like the royals, not saving lives, whatever you mean by that??


    I apologise Horizon, ( and to Hoxton too!!) I should learn to read properly before opening my big mouth!! I totally misread Hoxton's post, which I soon realised when I revisited the post in an attempt to see why you couldn't understand my response!! Doh......maybe I should enrol in night school to revise my ability to comprehend the written word........

    However, my comments on your postings wrt the Royals remain unaffected.

    However - not only do I appear to unintentionally 'demean' other posters, I also appear to have the knack of misreading a post, and therefore making incoherent responses....maybe I'm not cut out to participate in forums.......I'll need to take a holiday methinks......;o)

  • However - not only do I appear to unintentionally 'demean' other posters, I also appear to have the knack of misreading a post, and therefore making incoherent responses....maybe I'm not cut out to participate in forums.......I'll need to take a holiday methinks......;o)

    We have spoken about this in PM, but can I ask you again to try and post in proper paragraphs so it makes your posts easier to understand. I want your voice to be heard as clearly as everyone elses's here and that may, in part, save some misunderstanding. Also, please reduce the repeated full stops.

    thanks.

    (By the way, when I, or any other staff member posts in red writing, that is a moderator instruction and/or decision.)

    And, take your holiday here, what better place.:):P

  • Exactly......so your response would equally apply to ANYONE , ( with a few family exceptions presumably), and therefore not just Royalty!

    No. We know enough about the life of the royals in question to be able to make such a judgement - the chances I know a similar amount about some chap picked at random from the rest of the Earth's population is pretty low.

  • No. We know enough about the life of the royals in question to be able to make such a judgement - the chances I know a similar amount about some chap picked at random from the rest of the Earth's population is pretty low.

    See post 48......

    Edited once, last by Stevlin (July 22, 2017 at 7:39 PM).

  • ...ok, understand, I think. Your're answering my original point about whether it would be better to have a royal or not.

    Well I would much prefer any of the Royals, ( even Andrew!!), to represent the country than another Blair!!

    But Blair is not a stranger, though. I agree, I wouldn't want him either.

    But what if we could find someone, even a total stranger unbeknown to the public, to be elected president? Although, a stranger getting elected would be unlikely as they would need to have a high enough profile. Surely that would be better than "handy" Andy?

  • ...ok, understand, I think. Your're answering my original point about whether it would be better to have a royal or not.

    But Blair is not a stranger, though. I agree, I wouldn't want him either.

    But what if we could find someone, even a total stranger unbeknown to the public, to be elected president? Although, a stranger getting elected would be unlikely as they would need to have a high enough profile. Surely that would be better than "handy" Andy?

    ??? But if that stranger was illiterate, he wouldn't be able to authorise those Presidential instructions....................would he?

    However, at least it seems that you now accept that the cost of maintaining the UK 'traditional', politically neutral Head of State is only a very minute portion of the money that we waste..................

  • I most definitely do not accept that and don't put words into my mouth. I said I would get back to you on that and I will, can't really be bothered to dig up all the info right at this moment, but will be delighted to debate with you on finances in a few days, once I've had some sleep.

    As to your first "sentence", again, I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that we would not elect a illiterate person to be president. We already have such persons now in Buckingham Palace.

  • I most definitely do not accept that and don't put words into my mouth. I said I would get back to you on that and I will, can't really be bothered to dig up all the info right at this moment, but will be delighted to debate with you on finances in a few days, once I've had some sleep.

    As to your first "sentence", again, I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that we would not elect a illiterate person to be president. We already have such persons now in Buckingham Palace.

    It's not a huge step to go from being a "total stranger unbeknown to the public, to be elected president", (unquote), to having someone who is illiterate.....after all, how malleable an individual would that person be to those who 'nominated' him.....and don't you accuse me of putting words into your mouth when I haven't!! And whilst you are at it, how about you support your claim that such persons are in the Royal Palace......................................................................................................especially as it wouldn't be relevant whatsoever if those persons were not ever going to assume the role of Head of State.

  • Whether we need a monarch or not, I don't think we need any royals emoting all over the press and t.v. about their dead mothers. Why they've chosen to take part in this exposé I do not know, perhaps to get a little public sympathy and oohs and aaaahs from Diana worshippers. Who can ever forget the mass hysteria which went on for well over a year when she died? Now I expect the Daily Mail will again start offering tasteless roses and dolls and other tat as well as 'souvenir issues'. I never had an ounce of sympathy for the woman, I thought she was a user and a professional victim, with her well rehearsed coy glances and 'Queen of hearts' drivel.

    Coming soon, Harry and William on the Jeremy Kyle show?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

  • Whether we need a monarch or not, I don't think we need any royals emoting all over the press and t.v. about their dead mothers. Why they've chosen to take part in this exposé I do not know, perhaps to get a little public sympathy and oohs and aaaahs from Diana worshippers. Who can ever forget the mass hysteria which went on for well over a year when she died? Now I expect the Daily Mail will again start offering tasteless roses and dolls and other tat as well as 'souvenir issues'. I never had an ounce of sympathy for the woman, I thought she was a user and a professional victim, with her well rehearsed coy glances and 'Queen of hearts' drivel.

    Coming soon, Harry and William on the Jeremy Kyle show?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

    What a horribly churlish outlook to have! Yes, she was one of the privileged set, but so what? She clearly had a very caring nature and used her position to encourage the growth of humanity towards the less fortunate. Only an idiot would believe that there was a profession of 'victimhood',

    but at least the majority of people admired her for her good intentions - despite the flaws that she obviously had..... but then again, as well as being a drivel merchant yourself, you probably believe that you are perfect!!

  • I luv the old bird ; shes fab :)

    Our Nation is wrapped up in Royalty; Heritage & the like. Its an important part of what makes us, us. Shes also Head of State to nearly 1/3rd of the World too through the Commonwealth.

    Besides, she luvs a gin & can drive a lorry .

    And Camillas a good stick ; she smokes fags, drinks whisky, tells rude jokes to the Squaddies & can drive a tank ?

  • I've no beef with the Queen and am happy that she is head of state. I'm not a rabid republican as someone else has suggested.

    But, it is the 21st century, the Royal Family are in their positions because their ancestors raped and pillaged the country. Their wealth is what was gleamed from others. Once the Queen is gone, do we really want this tradition to be carried on?

    I like the changing of the guards outside Buckingham Palace and all that, the same as the next person, but do we need a royal family to go along with all the other pomp and ceremony?

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!