Fuck the Queen and all who sail in her

[Smellyoldgit]

And about time too. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/8939402/Queens-role-as-head-of-Church-of-England-may-no-longer-be-appropriate.html)
Reforms agreed earlier this year by Commonwealth countries would create a potential conflict of interest because they allow a monarch to marry a Roman Catholic, said a parliamentary committee. It said that if a future heir to the throne were raised as a Catholic, there would be an “obvious difficulty” in that person becoming head of the Anglican Church on their succession.A fine example of how advancing secularisation is showing just how retardedly stupid some of our alleged 'treasured' traditions are now being seen. Perhaps the church should just be fucked off out of it - or is that too simple?

[Kinich Ahau]

Why does the monarch have to be head of the bloody church? Wouldn't it be easier just to end that tradition?

[Eva]

well, ok. at least that friend helps you in secular ways...because even she can see that only prayer does nothing.

[Smellyoldgit]

Why does the monarch have to be head of the bloody church? Wouldn't it be easier just to end that tradition?For fuck's sake man - we can't have you talking sense and agreeing with semi-reputable press! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/monarchy-anglicanism)
Slowly but steadily, some of our more obvious constitutional absurdities are being pruned back. First, the Commonwealth agreed a few weeks ago to allow the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic. Yesterday, MPs on the political and constitutional reform committee pointed out that any future heir raised as a Catholic would face an "obvious difficulty" to becoming head of the Church of England. Of course it would, so why should the monarch have to be the supreme governor of the Anglican church? Such questions should not be the sole prerogative of aggressive secularists.
This rather obvious little bit of nonsense is drawing some interesting flak and hopefully be the forerunner of the end of some of the 'constitutional absurdities' - some call it a can of worms, (http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2011/12/07/questioning-the-queen-s-religious-role-opens-up-a-real-can-o) whilst others want to cling to some of the old wreckage. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100122060/lets-change-the-law-to-allow-a-catholic-on-the-throne-but-the-british-monarch-must-be-a-christian/) Whatever happens, the status quo will not be retained and at least one piece of residual bullshit will be wiped from our little country's arse.

[Professor Chaos]

Or perhaps you should, you know, not have a fucking monarch anymore.

[Smellyoldgit]

I'd ditch the monarch and the church in no particular order, but maybe that's being greedy.
Fuck it - I'm a glutton for pleasure.

[Broga]

I'd ditch the monarch and the church in no particular order, but maybe that's being greedy.
Fuck it - I'm a glutton for pleasure.
The Queen does sod all, wanders around grimacing, sticks some badges on her "subjects" and reads speeches written by someone else. She has been a disaster as a parent and reared an emotionally deprived family who have proved unable to sustain mature relationships. I recall a few years ago in her Address to her People or whatever she calls it that she said the only solution to the problems of the world was religion. I don't listen to this stuff but someone, might have been the estimable Barry Duke of Freethinker fame, spotted it.
The Queen, and her family, are like a lead weight on the UK. No one, no matter how talented, can be seen as worthwhile as them. Her dopey son Charles plagues government ministers with his dotty ideas including wanting homeopathy on the NHS. The Queen is said to be a fan of this nonsense and supposedly one of her butlers has to carry her medecine around.

She is the wealthiest woman in the world and pays her servants, even those in expensive London, close to the minum wage - just over £7 and hour, I think. No wonder they need two or three jobs. She is greedy and wants massive amount of tax payers cash spent on the upkeep of her palaces. A vast amount has recently been spent on decorating a place for her vacuous grandson William. Why couldn't they pay for this themselves. However, strapped the UK citizen, oops sorry subject, is for cash the government can always find money without limit for the Windsors.

[dogpet]

I'd ditch the monarch and the church in no particular order, but maybe that's being greedy.
Fuck it - I'm a glutton for pleasure.
Might be more important to end the gender privilege in hereditary peerage, because those fuckers really do rool, unlike the monarch. Loading government to favour men is common everywhere, but nowhere else can it be so blatant.

Institutional misogyny of course, but off topic I guess so sorry :silenced:.

[Smellyoldgit]

OK, so after ditching the monarchy and the church of England - we'll scrap the misogynistic, religotist, landed, wealth-laden, priviliged bollocks that is the House of Lords peerage selection 'process'. I guess we've got it sorted then?

[Irreligious]

Aren't you fearful that ol' Lizzie might hit you with her sceptor and have you locked away in a dungeon somewhere under Buckingham Palace?

[Smellyoldgit]

I think the ol' buzzard is probably more fearful of The Git.
Way back in the bowels of the 1990's, I was scheduled to grasp & shake her mittened paw at the opening of some snotty new building on Windsor Great Park, but I was strangely withdrawn just before the event as my perceived attitude did not portray the desired welcoming ambiance to our ruling elite.
I'll admit to being not very heartbroken - but I did piss on her roses during a half marathon a few years later.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I don't know the exact figures, but don't they draw a lot of business to our shores, together with mooching with opposite royalty?

[Michael]

I really wish Australia was a republic. That would be nice.

Having said that, I don't care enough to do anything about it.

[nkb]

I don't know the exact figures, but don't they draw a lot of business to our shores, together with mooching with opposite royalty?Can't they draw the business, without having a say in your politics?

[Broga]

Can't they draw the business, without having a say in your politics?
The attracting business bit is much over stated. In fact, I think the number of visitors dropped during the celebrity wedding bore of William Windsor and his missus. The royals have no right to interfere in politics but our slavish politicians think they have to take them seriously. Charles Windsor, with a non job, hasn't much else to do and interferes as an ignoranant layman in many things. I hope it isn't ageist to say that with Elizabeth Windsor "working" as head of state aged 85, it can't be too demanding. Charles, aged 65, thinks he is entitled to take over.

When they drive around whole streets are closed not to inconvenience them, hundreds of cops employed, and school kids given flags to wave. Their favourite past-time is slaughtering animals. Philip Windsor has a crude line in racism which our arse licking media regard as wit. The BBC employs what they grandly describe as "Our Royal Correspondent". This man does not do journalism. He is there to massage royal egos and put a spin on their non activities which is shameless in its sycophancy.

[dogpet]

They'd draw good crowds riding in a tumbril. :\ The apology of bringing in business is just that, & even if true hereditary religious leaders are embarrassing, what are we, Saudi Arabia? This is why we still have gender preference hereditary rule makers in our government, how embarrassing is that? Cut it off at the neck, more tourists visit dead people anyway.

[Smellyoldgit]

Ahh, the Robespierre solution - always goes down well with us plebs! :thumbsup:

[ILOVEJESUS]

Can't they draw the business, without having a say in your politics?
I agree here. I guess I am just not that big a royalty basher. They all look miserable mostly anyway, and cannot enjoy the freedom many of us have due to the press and their protocols. People seem to like them. Not in my top ten of things to abolish I suppose. It's not like they could sell Windsor castle and piss off to live in Australia on the proceeds.

[Kinich Ahau]

It's not like they could sell Windsor castle and piss off to live in Australia on the proceeds.

pleeeze. Don't even mention it as a joke.

[Broga]

I agree here. I guess I am just not that big a royalty basher. They all look miserable mostly anyway, and cannot enjoy the freedom many of us have due to the press and their protocols. People seem to like them. Not in my top ten of things to abolish I suppose. It's not like they could sell Windsor castle and piss off to live in Australia on the proceeds.
In fact, they have enormous freedom. They have vast estates, including in Scotland, and Charles has an attractive pad in Wales. These estates are maintained and serviced by taxes. What they love to do on these estates is slaughter animals. Diana was unpopular because she could not bring herself to shoot deer. When photographers, trying to earn a crust, were on a public road near a royal estate they were threatened with arrest. Of course, they want the publicity when it suits them.

Lack of freedom does not stop Harry Windsor, built up as a hero, scurrying home from Iraq so that he could get pissed in nightclubs with his chinless wonder mates. The same Harry attacked a photographer, standing in the cold to photograph him, in the early hours of the morning. No action was taken against the contemptible berk.

Charles has a great need to be flattered. At his gatherings his serfs warn those present not to mention points of view with which he disagrees. Richard Dawkins said that Charles turned his back on a Nobel Prize winning scientist who held an opinion with which Charles disagreed. These are contemptible people maintained and sustained by a gullible public fed pap by the UK media.

[ILOVEJESUS]

In fact, they have enormous freedom. They have vast estates, including in Scotland, and Charles has an attractive pad in Wales. These estates are maintained and serviced by taxes. What they love to do on these estates is slaughter animals. Diana was unpopular because she could not bring herself to shoot deer. When photographers, trying to earn a crust, were on a public road near a royal estate they were threatened with arrest. Of course, they want the publicity when it suits them.

Lack of freedom does not stop Harry Windsor, built up as a hero, scurrying home from Iraq so that he could get pissed in nightclubs with his chinless wonder mates. The same Harry attacked a photographer, standing in the cold to photograph him, in the early hours of the morning. No action was taken against the contemptible berk.

Charles has a great need to be flattered. At his gatherings his serfs warn those present not to mention points of view with which he disagrees. Richard Dawkins said that Charles turned his back on a Nobel Prize winning scientist who held an opinion with which Charles disagreed. These are contemptible people maintained and sustained by a gullible public fed pap by the UK media.
They seem no different than any other paprazi "celebrities". They don't really own their estates as they couldn't sell them to suit their own needs, like I could sell my own house. I don't have much time for the royals I admit, I just don't see them as being that big a problem. As for shooting animals, many people do it.

[Broga]

They seem no different than any other paprazi "celebrities". They don't really own their estates as they couldn't sell them to suit their own needs, like I could sell my own house. I don't have much time for the royals I admit, I just don't see them as being that big a problem. As for shooting animals, many people do it.
They don't need to own them. They have them for life, and maintained by taxes, and they then hand them on to the heirs. As for animal slaughter. There are of course arguments for this and I suppose anyone he eats meat leaves themselves open to criticism. However, when it comes down to the delights of "cubbing" when the fox cubs are ripped to bits to train the hounds and exhausted foxes are dragged out of an earth on the end of tongs then I draw the line. At present they have been stopped from these pleasures. Charles "threatened" to leave the UK if fox hunting was banned. He and his missus are still here.

OK, I'm biased perhaps. But I have a visceral loathing and detestation from this bunch of wasters. They have a destructive effect on the UK. The Queen is unelected as is much of the House of Lords. So much for democracy which the UK peddles to "lesser breeds."

[ILOVEJESUS]

They don't need to own them. They have them for life, and maintained by taxes, and they then hand them on to the heirs. As for animal slaughter. There are of course arguments for this and I suppose anyone he eats meat leaves themselves open to criticism. However, when it comes down to the delights of "cubbing" when the fox cubs are ripped to bits to train the hounds and exhausted foxes are dragged out of an earth on the end of tongs then I draw the line. At present they have been stopped from these pleasures. Charles "threatened" to leave the UK if fox hunting was banned. He and his missus are still here.

OK, I'm biased perhaps. But I have a visceral loathing and detestation from this bunch of wasters. They have a destructive effect on the UK. The Queen is unelected as is much of the House of Lords. So much for democracy which the UK peddles to "lesser breeds."
They get to live in them, but they are not free to use them as they choose. They would be worth a fortune if sold. They are merely tennants, all be it in luxury.
I am not sure if they have as destructive a hand as many other problems with the UK. Don't get me wrong, if they dissapeared I wouldn't notice really, and I suppose that is why I am not bothered either way.

[Broga]

They get to live in them, but they are not free to use them as they choose. They would be worth a fortune if sold. They are merely tennants, all be it in luxury.
I am not sure if they have as destructive a hand as many other problems with the UK. Don't get me wrong, if they dissapeared I wouldn't notice really, and I suppose that is why I am not bothered either way.
I guess we will just have to differ on this.

[dogpet]

They don't really own their estates as they couldn't sell them to suit their own needs, like I could sell my own house.
Pulled out your arse as usual. Name the "estates" the queen couldn't sell because she doesn't own them.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Pulled out your arse as usual. Name the "estates" the queen couldn't sell because she doesn't own them.
Are you for real? Do you really think the queen could just sell Buck palace, or Balmoral, and piss off to live in the Bahamas with the proceeds? There would be outrage and it would never ever be allowed to happen. At the end of the day she is a "token" head of state that is there due to history and tradition and does very little harm.:rolleyes:

[dogpet]

Are you for real? Do you really think the queen could just sell Buck palace, or Balmoral, and piss off to live in the Bahamas with the proceeds? There would be outrage and it would never ever be allowed to happen. At the end of the day she is a "token" head of state that is there due to history and tradition and does very little harm.:rolleyes:
She can't flog off buck house as we will need it for the ministry of public safety. Balmoral on the other hand, & you did specifically mention estates, well, her dotage can leave it to a cats home according to its want.
Stop posting moopoo on an informative forum.

[Broga]

She can't flog off buck house as we will need it for the ministry of public safety. Balmoral on the other hand, & you did specifically mention estates, well, her dotage can leave it to a cats home according to its want.
Stop posting moopoo on an informative forum.
@dogpet: We have just been witnessing another abomination concerning the Queen - the BBC giving it slavish publicity on radio and television. While the rest of the UK is struggling financially a massive barge is being constructed for the "Royal Party" to sail along the Thames next year. The barge is to have a clear roof so that the crowds can get the best possible view of the "Royal Party." The rest of this boat is to be draped in gaudy colours. They have an architect and various boat builders working on this grotesque nonsense now. The cost, and the inconvenience next year to celebrate her decades of looking grim, will be massive and tax funded.

None of this will enter her head. She has a lust for admiration and seems unaware of how so much of this is contrived. They had to change her routes in Australia because so few people turned out. In the UK children are given flags and lined up to wave them. She has a reputation for meaness. Pays low wages (and don't tell me these are nothing to do with her. They have nothing to do with her in the sense that they are tax funded. But she could influence the low payments. She was quick enough to want Windsor Castle refurbished after a fire and from taxes.)

She also has a nasty reputation of hanging on to expensive gifts from heads of other countries on her tours. These gifts should belong to the UK. She wants everything her own way. But then the population are her subjects. No citizens here.

[psychodiva]

yup The Queen- or whoever is the current monarch- owns the Balmoral Estate cos it was bought by Vicky around 1850 something. Buck Palace is different- it is not actually owned by them- Sandringham also belongs to them- as does one other one to Prince idiot Charlie cos it was left to him by his drunken old granny tho I cannot remember which one. The rest are held by us / the people/ the govmt in trust.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx

[Broga]

yup The Queen- or whoever is the current monarch- owns the Balmoral Estate cos it was bought by Vicky around 1850 something. Buck Palace is different- it is not actually owned by them- Sandringham also belongs to them- as does one other one to Prince idiot Charlie cos it was left to him by his drunken old granny tho I cannot remember which one. The rest are held by us / the people/ the govmt in trust.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx
Another abomination from this family of scroungers is that the estates they were given were to be used to fund the royals. They kept the estates and they are funded mostly from taxes. They actually think the are entitled to all this. They don't do any real work. A few years ago Charles was calculated to turn out to do something on eight days a month.

[psychodiva]

yup- I'd quite happily- in fact with relish!- kick them into touch - useless lot of wankers that they are

[Broga]

yup- I'd quite happily- in fact with relish!- kick them into touch - useless lot of wankers that they are
And, relevant to comments here, she is super religious. Head of the Church of England, thinks "only religion" (in one of her boring messages to the subjects) can solve the problems of the world, loves parading around in cathedrals.

[ILOVEJESUS]

She can't flog off buck house as we will need it for the ministry of public safety. Balmoral on the other hand, & you did specifically mention estates, well, her dotage can leave it to a cats home according to its want.
Stop posting moopoo on an informative forum.
I was only posting my indifference. If they sold Blamoral for their own profit and ends, that would be the end of the Monarchy and you know it. They could well leave it to a cats home, but that is also not "etiquet".

[dogpet]

I was only posting my indifference. If they sold Blamoral for their own profit and ends, that would be the end of the Monarchy and you know it. They could well leave it to a cats home, but that is also not "etiquet".

I don't follow. How would cashing in on a holiday home lose them their titles?

Balmoral & Sandringham are private property. When Edward 8 went off to join the nazis, his brother Albert had to buy them off him. You mean ignorance not indifference, look it up ffs.

[Broga]

I don't follow. How would cashing in on a holiday home lose them their titles?

Balmoral & Sandringham are private property. When Edward 8 went off to join the nazis, his brother Albert had to buy them off him. You mean ignorance not indifference, look it up ffs.
The history of the royals is a history of grotesque expenditure always paid off by the government. They have been serial shaggers, gluttons, gamblers and idlers. Edward 8, a weak and incompetent fool, was pro Nazi and the strain is still there. Reading about the way these kings and queens have stolen vast sums of money through the ages, usually when the subjects were poor, is sickening. The idea, of course, that the royal line has been preserved is ludicrous. The women were being shagged as well and who knows who fathered the progeny. Di and Harry is only the latest example to raise questions assuming you think it is in any way important who fathered whom.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I don't follow. How would cashing in on a holiday home lose them their titles?

Balmoral & Sandringham are private property. When Edward 8 went off to join the nazis, his brother Albert had to buy them off him. You mean ignorance not indifference, look it up ffs.
My point is simple, they cannot trade their properties as we can. If I sell my house to emigrate and retire, I cannot see the British public causing much fuss, or trying to stop it. If the Royals flog Balmoral to "retire" I can't see their positions remaining tenable, or the British public allowing it to happen with things as they are. The royals would not hold much sympathy if they carried themselves as if they were Henry the viii. I would take their money maybe, but not the protocols they have to follow to have it.

[Kate]

http://www.nataliedee.com/121111/the-happiest-muffins-are-lemon-poppyseed.jpg

[dogpet]

My point is simple, they cannot trade their properties as we can. If I sell my house to emigrate and retire, I cannot see the British public causing much fuss, or trying to stop it. If the Royals flog Balmoral to "retire" I can't see their positions remaining tenable, or the British public allowing it to happen with things as they are.

Simple? You do yourself a disservice, your point is positively retarded.

Explain why qe2 couldn't abdicate in favour of her son, & live abroad on the proceeds of the sale of Sandringham estate? How is it different to someone from a tied flat above the key cutters shop they live in in Luton, selling the fleabitten caravan they own in Southend, & moving to Benidorm for the sake of their rheumatics?

[Broga]

Simple? You do yourself a disservice, your point is positively retarded.

Explain why qe2 couldn't abdicate in favour of her son, & live abroad on the proceeds of the sale of Sandringham estate? How is it different to someone from a tied flat above the key cutters shop they live in in Luton, selling the fleabitten caravan they own in Southend, & moving to Benidorm for the sake of their rheumatics?
Charles, her dopey heir, certainly thinks he could live abroad. He said that if he was stopped hunting foxes with dogs he would live abroad. He obviously thought that he was so valued that there would be an outcry. There wasn't and there were some comments that the sooner he left these shores the better. These are not harmless people. The PM has to trot over, like the obedient serf he is, to brief the Queen once a week. He then cannot reveal what occurs in the discussion. The fact that he must report to this unelected woman, of no known achievement, once a week is bad enough. But should not these meetings be minuted so that the people she arrogantly claims to serve at least know what they are discussing and what influence she has. Are these meetings with servile politicians unconnected with the vast privilges still bestowed, at tax payers expence, on this family of scroungers.

What happens when Charles Windsor becomes king? He has crazy enthusiasms including wanting homeopathy funded by the NHS. He wants fox hunting legal. He is an interfering busybody. He is said to burden Ministers with his endless letters urging his personal agenda. Of course, these must be answered at length and the contents kept secret from the rest of us. These people are unelected and an offense to democratic government. They are a drag on the country emphasising the "Rich man in his castle/ Poor man at his gate/ God made them high and lowly/ And ordered their estate." belief. They have no place in any country that even aims at being democratic.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Simple? You do yourself a disservice, your point is positively retarded.

Explain why qe2 couldn't abdicate in favour of her son, & live abroad on the proceeds of the sale of Sandringham estate? How is it different to someone from a tied flat above the key cutters shop they live in in Luton, selling the fleabitten caravan they own in Southend, & moving to Benidorm for the sake of their rheumatics?
It comes down to how yo read that move politically. I cannot see the royal family selling up a major property, pissing off with the proceeds, and not being stopped. The threat of the public backlash to such a move would be gigantic. If I lived in a flat in Luton No one would care a rats bum if I sold it and retired. Technically the queen is head of the state. I wonder if Cameron consulted her before his Veto the other day? Maybe after the Queen expressed concern over Iraq Blair stopped his plans of an invasion? In my opinion, the royals are stuck within the very protocols you consider give them power, only they have none. Who the fuck listens to Prince Charles? All the royals are, are a historical celebrity family, used to send around the world reminding other countries of what the UK used to be about. I see them as harmless, powerless and quite often manipulated, paid very very well, yet trapped by that wealth in a way most rich people don't have to contend with. But hey... fucking key cutting machine.....

[dogpet]

I cannot see the royal family selling up a major property, pissing off with the proceeds, and not being stopped.

Who will stop them, & how exactly.
The line of succession goes on for ever, if you still feel worthless enough to need betters by birth, just pick the next on the list. You can have King Xan if those above turn catholic.

The fact ,which you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, is the estates were purchased privately, are privately owned, & can be disposed of privately. They are nothing to do with the institution of monarchy, & being a monarch is in no way dependent on their ownership.

Which bit of this are you struggling with?

Whether ilj can see it happening or not is as important as this discussion..

[dogpet]

What happens when Charles Windsor becomes king? He has crazy enthusiasms including wanting homeopathy funded by the NHS. He wants fox hunting legal. He is an interfering busybody. He is said to burden Ministers with his endless letters urging his personal agenda. Of course, these must be answered at length and the contents kept secret from the rest of us. These people are unelected and an offense to democratic government. They are a drag on the country emphasising the "Rich man in his castle/ Poor man at his gate/ God made them high and lowly/ And ordered their estate." belief. They have no place in any country that even aims at being democratic.

I think yhe longer they go on the more they thing they were born special. Have you seen this Tudoresque barge procession (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16124689) they're holding next year on the Thames? Gods chosen few, to be worshipped as proxies. There will be lightning storms if Thor is willing.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Who will stop them, & how exactly.
The line of succession goes on for ever, if you still feel worthless enough to need betters by birth, just pick the next on the list. You can have King Xan if those above turn catholic.

The fact ,which you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, is the estates were purchased privately, are privately owned, & can be disposed of privately. They are nothing to do with the institution of monarchy, & being a monarch is in no way dependent on their ownership.

Which bit of this are you struggling with?

Whether ilj can see it happening or not is as important as this discussion..
It would end the monarchy as you would have MASSIVE public outcry. So for the monarchy to continue, especially in todays times, they aint selling the crown jewels. The government runs the country not the royals. The government may welcome a distraction away from recessions and French hating, by a royal own goal of selling Windsor castle and buggering off on a bender, but I don't think that it is something the royals would like. Though I am sure they would love to sell off some of the family silver. Aren't they told to sell bits off to survive anyway, by the government ? They are constrained by the very protocols that allow them their wealth.
Oh and I thought I made my indifference clear. I just don't see them as as big a problem as you do.

[dogpet]

I give up. Like playing ping-pong with a quadriplegic.

[lostsheep]

Charles, her dopey heir, certainly thinks he could live abroad. He said that if he was stopped hunting foxes with dogs he would live abroad. He obviously thought that he was so valued that there would be an outcry. There wasn't and there were some comments that the sooner he left these shores the better. These are not harmless people. The PM has to trot over, like the obedient serf he is, to brief the Queen once a week. He then cannot reveal what occurs in the discussion. The fact that he must report to this unelected woman, of no known achievement, once a week is bad enough. But should not these meetings be minuted so that the people she arrogantly claims to serve at least know what they are discussing and what influence she has. Are these meetings with servile politicians unconnected with the vast privilges still bestowed, at tax payers expence, on this family of scroungers.

What happens when Charles Windsor becomes king? He has crazy enthusiasms including wanting homeopathy funded by the NHS. He wants fox hunting legal. He is an interfering busybody. He is said to burden Ministers with his endless letters urging his personal agenda. Of course, these must be answered at length and the contents kept secret from the rest of us. These people are unelected and an offense to democratic government. They are a drag on the country emphasising the "Rich man in his castle/ Poor man at his gate/ God made them high and lowly/ And ordered their estate." belief. They have no place in any country that even aims at being democratic.

Wow, I had no idea...it is very undemocratic...not to mention wasteful of resources, as you pointed out.

[Broga]

I think yhe longer they go on the more they thing they were born special. Have you seen this Tudoresque barge procession (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16124689) they're holding next year on the Thames? Gods chosen few, to be worshipped as proxies. There will be lightning storms if Thor is willing.
This barge is the ultimate in kitsch and the entire extravaganza will be vastly expensive. There is, of course, a tranche of society that wants the royals. The high ranking army officers get their titles and rewards when they slip an apparently non too bright royal (Harry) into Sandhurst after one of his teachers is alleged to have written some of his work for him. She was soon shut up - official secrets. The Queen hands out medals (Charles is almost weighed down with them) at will. Of course, the plebs do not get the same medals as the aristos even for the same activities.

The newspapers feed the plebs with royal stories because these still sell papers. What must not happen is any analysis of this vast rip off. And, of course, the policians are complicit in all this. You can also be sure that the BBC, via their Royal Correspondent (propagandist) will spin this story from now on. Eventually the "Royal Party", with the Queen baring her teeth in an attempt at a smile will give her little wave as she sails down the Thames and enjoys the greatest ego massage of the century.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I give up. Like playing ping-pong with a quadriplegic.
Or not. You cannot be nasty......it is Christmas after all.:heart:

[Smellyoldgit]

Jesus fucking Christ on a splinter – the next four days will be sheer hell and come close to ridding me of the will to shit. I’m sick of the Liz piccies, flags, the saturation of jubilee horseshit on every tele channel and the throng of ‘experts’ telling me how lucky I am to have such a wonderful defender of the faith as guiding beacons for my country. One stroke of luck – my favourite pub is having a ‘celebration free’ weekend. I think I’ve found a temporary new home.

[psychodiva]

DITTO!!!

I am, however, rather needing the four days off :D

[Smellyoldgit]

http://www.thegreatgiftcompany.com/assets/+size:305:305:1/+v:bf389a/product/11086_4.jpg

[ghoulslime]

http://www.thegreatgiftcompany.com/assets/+size:305:305:1/+v:bf389a/product/11086_4.jpg

Would it be politically incorrect of me to say that I find very erotic the thought of doing the queen anally, doggy style, while she honks, "One needs one to give it all to England! God save the queen!" :|

[Smellyoldgit]

Such activity would be politically most acceptable.

I assume you have no gag reflex. :vomit:

[Smellyoldgit]

What the fuck is this jerk on about? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/pope-praises-queen-elizab_0_n_1574955.html?ref=topbar)

Benedict said the British monarch has over the past 60 years been an "inspiring example of dedication to duty and a commitment to maintaining the principles of freedom, justice and democracy."
I didn't vote for her!

[Eternal]

Someone send the thick fuck an email explaining how the principles of Monarchy are directly opposed to the principles of democracy.

[Smellyoldgit]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/318198_2992630069378_1670957999_1782466_1760468557 _n.jpg

[Smellyoldgit]

Although I can’t see it happening in my lifetime (and I’d like to reach 110) there’s much interweb chatter about disestablishmentarianism (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/the-time-is-now-right-to-split-church-and-state-7848161.html) – splitting church from state on at least part of our little island.

Since 1688, the monarch has been our head of state not because of the Divine Right of Kings, nor because the English realm has been some sort of family heirloom. The monarch has been the monarch because Parliament says so.
The commentator suggests it would be a good thing to see church & state go their separate ways, as it would allow the Anglican church to thrive and prosper in an unimpaired climate. :lol:

Me? – I’m pretty sure the festering fools wouldn’t take long to either blow themselves up with even more suicidal infighting, or fade away into terminal obscurity and irrelevance. Oh wait, they’re well on the way to at least part of my wish list!

[Eternal]

I like the way the commentator suggests it would allow them to prosper. That must be the nicest way of saying 'fuck off' I have ever seen.

[Smellyoldgit]

Unless we miraculously ditch the monarchy in the next couple of years, it looks like there'll be more future queens to be pissed off with. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/04/royal-succession-laws-britain.html)
British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg pledged Tuesday that the law on Royal succession will be changed at the "earliest opportunity" and that "whether the baby is a boy or a girl, they will have an equal claim to the throne."No doubt this whole malarkey was kickstarted by the Anglicunt's recent debacle on their female bishop vote.

[Kinich Ahau]

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/pmel7/bishop.jpg

[Sinfidel]

Here in the Colony of Canada, we welcome the respite from such tedious news as the National Hockey League strike, the school teacher strike, the faltering economy, the Syrian debacle, etc., etc., by the thrilling news of the Royal coitus. While we have yet to hear the C of E proclaim it as another immaculate conception, could it be otherwise?
One shudders to think of Philip, or Charles, or Harry humping away like cattle breeding - such undignified behaviour is for commoners.
Alas, poor Kate's body seems to be rejecting the demon seed planted in her, and is hospitalized with "a cute morning sickness." Rest assured that the NHS does not discriminate, and any council flat occupant with morning sickness would also be immediately admitted.
As if this young couple haven't suffered enough! While commoners have a sense of entitlement to their council flats, the Royals have to make do with a "starter home", a modest apartment, in such decrepit shape, they couldn't even move in without extensive expensive renovations.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/06/article-1394660-0C58F54C00000578-6_468x286.jpg

[Smellyoldgit]

Ahh, The Royal Shag.
UK tv 'news' and most of the press is best avoided for the next 12 months.
At least the Royal Floozie won't be getting her tits out for the papperazzi wankers for some time.

[psychodiva]

Yes- any woman with hyperemesis gravidarum (actually a rare condition and not JUST morning sickness) is admitted to hospital for as long as deemed clinically necessary- the care is the same for all women who suffer it- that some of them don't get their porridge served by a butler doesn't change the state of care they receive