Off Topic Royal Wedding
- Thread starter Zanjinho
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Sorry thats a false analogy. Lenin did represent the Working class and when he was in power they system worked (to the extent it could ever work when the whole system had been destroyed and re-established) He just didn't live long enough to make it work properly.
It was Stalin who broke the Communist ideology and he never represented anyone other than himself. Self interested and power hungry.
As for the Royal family, perhaps they should be encouraged to stand own their own feet.
The tourism argument is also a specious argument. People would still come to the UK if the Royals were abolished, its the Building and History people come for. We're not going to remove those just because you remove the people. In fact if you opened up some of those buildings you might attract more visitors
look in sure we can all agree one thing at least
Meghan is no longer a virgin
[/QUOTE]
You are aware she has been married once before, and I doubt she had her V cards before that wedding either.
You are aware she has been married once before, and I doubt she had her V cards before that wedding either.[/QUOTE]
shock.. she wore white.
and here I had assumed Charles had examined her hymen personally
I thought that was a prime tradition in royal circles.
shock.. she wore white.
and here I had assumed Charles had examined her hymen personally
I thought that was a prime tradition in royal circles.
You don't need a president. Canada doesn't have a president. Australia doesn't have a president. Israel doesn't have a president... Ok 2 out of 3 of those they technically have the Queen... But she's even less really in power there than in Britain.
Britain doesn't have a president now, why would she have a president if we got rid of the Queen.? For the minimal official role she has?
Not necessary.
Self-interest and power hungry: that's always the danger. Hitler was another example of that.
Gone are the days of the absolute monarchy.
The British won't get rid of the royal family. We got Brexit because we didn't like being told what to do by faceless power hungry European bureaucrats.
Different ****, same argument.
Saying that Harry is Ginger, probably the best they could hope for
look in sure we can all agree one thing at least
Meghan is no longer a virgin
Based on the Las Vegas orgies that Harry had, I'm pretty sure he wasn't a virgin before the wedding either.
If Charles had had daughter he would have examined the grooms for a hymen.
Now you're acting daft.
Russia(the Soviet union), the USA or any other country's leadership has no bearing on this country, when Ireland gained independence from Britain they chose the Roman senate system to replace the existing British parliamentary system and chose a Taoiseach(roughly translated means Chieftain)appointed by an appointed President, I'm not advocating the same or similar for this country, but I'm saying that going by your comments about Russia and the US you appear to think this country is perfect.
I could give you many examples of British brutality, because its not like brutality belongs only to the US and The Soviet Union (Russia).
When you're singing the national anthem next time take in the lyrics, in the context in which they were written, Royalty belongs in the past in my humble opinion.
it doesn't count for princes. They are expected to sow oats in all sorts of mucky pastures.
princesses must be chaste and pure.
i cant believe you lot have missed how well the new Mrs Windsor has taken to the royal way and conservative dress and how to get out of a care like a chaste and pure little royal.
Her ex boyfriends include a 6ft 8" basketball player and a porn star. Harry has a lot to measure up to
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
Meghan's something blue was from Diana
On Meghan's right-hand ring finger was a sparkly new jewel, and it wasn't her wedding ring. It's an emerald-cut aqua blue super-gem that Princess Diana was photographed wearing several times in the '90s.
You must log in or register to see media
Last edited:
hI flicked over during adverts on the horror channel. All i saw of it was David Beckham in the congregation chewing gum like Fergie in fergie-time. Classless **** 
The system worked?
“based directly upon force, and unrestricted by any laws.”
Quality system that allows if not actually encourages men like Stalin. 100k killed to get a one party system... a continuation of rule by a tiny elite ...just a different elite ... millions killed pretending it worked.
I love the revisionism of every time this experiment has failed miserably. . "It would have worked if only . ....."
On the monarchy To repeat myself.
Those buildings are open to the tourists ... it goes towards paying for costs. Only the private residence sections are off limits.
Those buildings will still need a third of the current cost of the royals to maintain if you get rid of the royals.
You'll still need the staff, admin and security to protect the buildings and priceless artefacts within. (A big chunk still of the current costs of the royals)
Alternatives put forward so far:
No replacement. .. we'll end up with the PM being head of state and the destruction of what's left of cabinet collective accountability ... a look at Thatcher or Blair on steroids ... a president in all but name ...elected by only one constituency I might add.
An elected President with executive powers ... more party politics (inevitable) gridlock, populism ...nice.
An elected President with only the queens role? So replacing a trained diplomat with an expert supporting team with flavour of the month who has an ego big enough they feel they should represent the country ....
This all boils down to a dislike of one element of the current system a rich family inheriting the role through accident of birth.
Mweh.... the same happens in the likes of yankland ... I give you the Kennedy's (until they are shot) and the Bushes... even Stalin's son despite the fact his father hated him... didn't stop him gaining positions his talent didn't warrant.
Elites look after their own and invariably their children get ahead based on their parents wealth or position.
We've just kept it official.
The taxpayer paid for the security at the wedding - approx. £6.5m - the Royal family paid for the rest. The last wedding - according to the British Retail Consortium - saw shops, hotels, restaurants and pubs making £500m and the economy in general boosted by £2bn. The fashion industry alone made and continue to make huge profits from shoppers eager to buy everything Kate is seen wearing.
I think, as Frank also has pointed out, with the income they generate themselves from Crown Estate etc., the Royals pay for themselves. Objections to maintaining a monarchy as a system is a different argument.
I think, as Frank also has pointed out, with the income they generate themselves from Crown Estate etc., the Royals pay for themselves. Objections to maintaining a monarchy as a system is a different argument.
you do realise folks that the commonwealth is tied together (barely) on a bit of good will and expediency.
The tradition is 75% of it and trade the rest.
Frankly australia/newzealand and canada are the main ones for big markets and the rest are looking for a dig out to supply into the big markets.
If the UK is a republic why would the convicts and bitter convicts and boring twats bother having a union jack on their flag any more.
The tradition is 75% of it and trade the rest.
Frankly australia/newzealand and canada are the main ones for big markets and the rest are looking for a dig out to supply into the big markets.
If the UK is a republic why would the convicts and bitter convicts and boring twats bother having a union jack on their flag any more.