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 Definitely outdated but a nice tourist attraction all the same.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

    • Walking last Friday early evening anywhere near where the bottom end of Lordship Lane meets the Goose Green roundabout, one would have been directly confronted - as I was - with this scene: Outside the East Dulwich Tavern an impenetrable phalanx of pushing yobs, shouty louts and selfish yahoos pressed outward from the open doors of this establishment, past the curtilage (the land in front of and owned by the business), all across the public right of way, to the kerbside. This was the situation all the way along, end to end. I watched as passersby, old people, children, parents with buggies, people just going about their business, were forced by these booze-sucking bellowing scumbags onto the road - where, at that hour, traffic rushed endlessly off the roundabout. We have, I realised, somehow become so used to this revolting spectacles as to believe it to be inevitable. It is not. This is why I'm dropping this post. Enough really is enough. This roiling boozy blockade represents a total failure by all the responsible authorities - the licencing authority, for example - but most of all (yet once more, again, as ever), by Southwark Council. Two very different comparisons to give you some perspective: 1. The Kings Head pub on the corner of Albermarle and Stafford Streets, London SW1. Here too, patrons like to drink and chat outside on a warm evening - why should they not. But here, on the latter side a line marks the curtilage on the pavement. Drinkers remain, respectfully, in good order, within the line, watched, quietly and carefully, by a security guard. I wager good money this arrangement is a condition of this pub's licence. 2. The Blue Brick is a cafe in the quiet backstreets of East Dulwich, on the corners of Fellbrigg and Shawbury Roads. Until a few months ago, about half its covers were tables out on the pavement. They bothered nobody. Oh! But they extended all of several centimetres too far into the footpath, so into fearless action swang Southwark Council officers - and now these tables are gone. Result, eh? "Well you see," some wiseacre said to me, "There needs to be a complaint." Not actually true, but for sure this is all too often how local authorities get pushed to do what they should be doing. Hard to think why a complaint trumps, say (and god forbid!) a child being injured on the road. In which circumstance, of course!, Southwark would swing into noisy, virtue-signalling, belated action. But in any case let this post be considered a big, very definite COMPLAINT about this prolonged abuse of our public right of way. I invite readers who agree with me to add their voices. Oh, and all those wee local ward councillors might get off their chufties, defy their party managers, and actually help sort this scandal out. Thanks for reading, Lee Scoresby
    • Hi there, I saw that Google lists the park opening time as 7:30am, but I was wondering if it might actually open earlier than that - maybe anyone who’s out running early or passing by has noticed?  
    • We are thrilled to announce that Little Stars Creche in Dulwich will be opening its doors on 28th April and we would love to invite you and your little ones to an open day where you can meet our team and visit our wonderful setting.  Little Stars is a fun creative space for children aged 2 to 4 years to enjoy whilst parents and carers get some well needed time to catch up on life! We are so excited to bring this much-needed service to the community, and we want to thank all the wonderful parents and carers for participating in our recent survey. Your feedback was invaluable in shaping Little Stars and ensuring it meets the needs of local families. For full information about Little Stars and a detailed schedule please visit our webpage here: Little Stars Crèche We can’t wait to meet you and your little stars soon!
    • Avoid any 2nd hand vehicle with the Ford petrol 1.0 Ecoboost engine and the Petrol 1.2 PureTech engine that can be found in Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall.... (you need to mention price for advice)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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