Cable Forum
Page 1 of 5 1 2345
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Royal Family (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712257)

Ms NTL 08-11-2023 01:05
Royal Family
 
How long do we have to support these parasites?

https://news.sky.com/story/kings-spe...stage-13002485

TheDaddy 08-11-2023 01:23
Re: Not my King
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36163613)
How long do we have to support these parasites?

https://news.sky.com/story/kings-spe...stage-13002485
I'm kind of on the fence, if it were just Charlie and his children I could just about stomach it but they sit on top of a class system that's held this country back for generations and if them going means we can rip down that whole rotten edifice then so be it

Paul 08-11-2023 01:41
Re: Royal Family
 
Title amended.

We've already been down this road, he IS your king, whether you like it or not.

I'm pretty sure you could have found a previous topic as well.

Hom3r 10-11-2023 10:20
Re: Royal Family
 
Exactly how are the parasites?


They bring in millions in tourism every year.


All I sat if you don't want a monarchy, you can easily move to a country that isn't apart of the Commonwealth.


(I have bit my tongue here)

TheDaddy 10-11-2023 12:27
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36163752)
Exactly how are the parasites?


They bring in millions in tourism every year.


All I sat if you don't want a monarchy, you can easily move to a country that isn't apart of the Commonwealth.


(I have bit my tongue here)
Not quite as easy to move to another country these days though is it and if they are the reason for the millions in tourism how comes the palace of Versailles gets more visitors, in fact Buckingham Palace gets 500k per year, Windsor castle 1.5 million per year and Versailles gets 15 million per year but they're the reason :rolleyes:

Sephiroth 10-11-2023 17:41
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36163613)
How long do we have to support these parasites?

https://news.sky.com/story/kings-spe...stage-13002485

The 'Socialist Worker' agrees with you.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/featur...tes-on-parade/

Hugh 10-11-2023 17:43
Re: Royal Family
 
That’s twice you’ve quoted the SW in the last week, you sneaky undercover Trot… ;)

Mr K 10-11-2023 18:36
Re: Royal Family
 
Ah one of those threads that keep coming back just like ones about the BBC licence fee ;)

Anyway, here goes, not particularly anti Royal but they've failed at the job over the last 30 or so years. Its well paid, not particularly tough and has plenty of fringe benefits . So like anyone who doesn't deliver the goods they should be on their last warning. At least they could trim it all own in terms of budget and people by 80%.

As for the Kings speech it's not his speech it's the Govts. You could tell he didn't believe anything he was being forced to say about climate u turns. Coupled with all the ludicrous ceremony, and stupid clothes it's an incredible waste of time and money that this country should have dumped decades ago. Could have bought a few dialysis machines for the cost.

Ms NTL 22-11-2023 09:59
Re: Royal Family
 
1 Attachment(s)
Today. Have a look at his tie. Daddy's country flag.

Is he abandoning the Union Jack? :D

jfman 22-11-2023 10:04
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36163758)
Not quite as easy to move to another country these days though is it and if they are the reason for the millions in tourism how comes the palace of Versailles gets more visitors, in fact Buckingham Palace gets 500k per year, Windsor castle 1.5 million per year and Versailles gets 15 million per year but they're the reason :rolleyes:
So if we beheaded them we could get more? Interesting. :p:

Pierre 22-11-2023 10:07
Re: Royal Family
 
Just nice to see someone displaying a flag other than the Palestinian, Ukraine or Pride flag.

Maggy 22-11-2023 10:17
Re: Royal Family
 
Frankly I'd rather have the two tier system of government that we have than that in other countries. Imagine how much more damage el presidente Boris could inflict upon us.

Chris 22-11-2023 10:44
Re: Royal Family
 
Well, we could appoint a commoner as head of state instead, and call them something like Lord Protector. It might upset the Irish a bit but the last one cost about a tenth of what we pay the royals so it’s not all bad.

It’s worth noting however that we tried it before, decided republicanism wasn’t for us, and brought back the monarchy after a mere 6 years. So maybe we just accept that as we already have a head of state with no real executive power (like Ireland or Germany), and we don’t want to replace him with one who has actual power (like France or the USA), we’re really no worse off as we are, and probably better as there’s absolutely no way a faded politician or sleb can get elected to the job this way.

ianch99 22-11-2023 11:01
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36164730)
Well, we could appoint a commoner as head of state instead, and call them something like Lord Protector. It might upset the Irish a bit but the last one cost about a tenth of what we pay the royals so it’s not all bad.

It’s worth noting however that we tried it before, decided republicanism wasn’t for us, and brought back the monarchy after a mere 6 years. So maybe we just accept that as we already have a head of state with no real executive power (like Ireland or Germany), and we don’t want to replace him with one who has actual power (like France or the USA), we’re really no worse off as we are, and probably better as there’s absolutely no way a faded politician or sleb can get elected to the job this way.
You are being very silly. Going back to a time, nearly 400 years ago, when we still burnt witches at the stake for a comparison?

What you are not addressing is the moral failure of endorsing a monarchy. The wish to place an entitled, ultra wealthy, selected by birth, individual in a position where you are required/encouraged to literally be subservient to them, bowing in their presence. This is a point of principle: one man/woman is more equal than any other. The Americans got the right idea.

It really is a point of principle, not money and not imperial nostalgia. Some people voted for Brexit on principle, knowing that they, and the country, would be poorer but still were happy to do so. The whole thing, in the 21st century is an historical anachronism.

Sephiroth 22-11-2023 11:28
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36164735)
You are being very silly. Going back to a time, nearly 400 years ago, whenwe still burnt witches at the stake for a comparison?

What you are not addressing is the moral failure of endorsing a monarchy. The wish to place an entitled, ultra wealthy, selected by birth, individual in a position where you are required/encouraged to literally be subservient to them, bowing in their presence. This is a point of principle: one man/woman is more equal than any other. [COLOR=“RED”]The Americans got the right idea.[/COLOR]

It really is a point of principle, not money and not imperial nostalgia. Some people voted for [COLOR=“RED”]Brexit [/COLOR]on principle, knowing that they, and the country, would be poorer but still were happy to do so. The whole thing, in the 21st century is an historical anachronism.

You are so wrong. A political president as per the US system brings the divisions you now see there.

As to Brexit, you can’t resist bringing it in. Everyone in the EU countries is currently poorer and it’s not due to Brexit. People were happy too vote for Brexit because of sovereignty and not being governed by Brussels. That you are content to be governed by Brussels destroys your credibility on the matter.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02.
Page 1 of 5 1 2345
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum