Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2011, 12:42 PM   #16
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,834
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.

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 02:53 PM   #17
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,581
Ahh, the Robespierre solution - always goes down well with us plebs!

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 04:20 PM   #18
ILOVEJESUS
I Live Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
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.
ILOVEJESUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 06:49 PM   #19
Kinich Ahau
Obsessed Member
 
Kinich Ahau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Great Ocean Road
Posts: 2,917
Quote:
ILOVEJESUS wrote View Post
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.

Once you are dead, you are nothing. Graffito, Pompeii
Kinich Ahau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 02:15 AM   #20
Broga
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
ILOVEJESUS wrote View Post
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.
Broga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 04:40 AM   #21
ILOVEJESUS
I Live Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Broga wrote View Post
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.
ILOVEJESUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 06:03 AM   #22
Broga
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
ILOVEJESUS wrote View Post
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."
Broga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 09:03 AM   #23
ILOVEJESUS
I Live Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Broga wrote View Post
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.
ILOVEJESUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 09:12 AM   #24
Broga
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
ILOVEJESUS wrote View Post
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.
Broga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 01:20 PM   #25
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,834
Quote:
ILOVEJESUS wrote View Post
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.

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 03:19 PM   #26
ILOVEJESUS
I Live Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
dogpet wrote View Post
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.
ILOVEJESUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 03:46 PM   #27
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,834
Quote:
ilj wrote View Post
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.
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.

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 02:55 AM   #28
Broga
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
dogpet wrote View Post
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.
Broga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 02:56 AM   #29
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
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

'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 03:02 AM   #30
Broga
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
psychodiva wrote View Post
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.
Broga is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational