NationStates Jolt Archive

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?
Would you rather fight for Queen or Country?


Personally I think they are parasitic

She's a bit frumpy but the tourists like her.
Having a Queen is good...if thats all youve got.

She's a bit frumpy but the tourists like her.
Having a Queen is good...if thats all youve got.
Hey. If Americans can stick two fingers up at the world so can we.

I think that the U.K. should give back northern Ireland to the Irish. It's their island, not yours! And they were the centre of learning for the Celtic peoples there before the damned Romans conquered everything. Or at least it's believed to be so. And plus, I'd rather die for my country than its image. Screw the Queen, fight for your country! She's just a figurehead matriarch. The exception is for the Japanese...I permit them to fight for their Tennō... But they get special privileges simply because they're the Japanese.

I think that the U.K. should give back northern Ireland to the Irish. It's their island, not yours!
What about the Irish who want to remain part of the UK (who actually make up the majority of NI)?

HM The Queen represents all that it means to be British, she is a figurehead of our great nation. The majority of world leaders all respect the British Monarch for what they do, are and just beacuse they are British.

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?

The family is no more than a symbol, so I wouldn't fight for either Queen or country. Besides, she has no real power anymore. Technically the monarch has to be the one to declare war, but its under instruction from the PM.

HM The Queen represents all that it means to be British,

How?

she is a figurehead of our great nation.

How?

The family is no more than a symbol, so I wouldn't fight for either Queen or country. Besides, she has no real power anymore. Technically the monarch has to be the one to declare war, but its under instruction from the PM.

Not really, its generally 'healther' for her position to have the support of the PM but not his permission or instruction.,

I think that the U.K. should give back northern Ireland to the Irish. It's their island, not yours! And they were the centre of learning for the Celtic peoples there before the damned Romans conquered everything. Or at least it's believed to be so. And plus, I'd rather die for my country than its image. Screw the Queen, fight for your country! She's just a figurehead matriarch. The exception is for the Japanese...I permit them to fight for their Tennō... But they get special privileges simply because they're the Japanese.

Shut up.

How?



How?

As well as being the Head of State, she is also the Supreme Govenor of the Church of England, Head of the British Army and other things. Statistics show that their is more support for the Queen than any political party/leader, which proves people look up to her as our Sovreign.

As well as being the Head of State, she is also the Supreme Govenor of the Church of England, Head of the British Army and other things. Statistics show that their is more support for the Queen than any political party/leader, which proves people look up to her as our Sovreign.
1. Not everyone is Anglican.
2. Being Head of the Church, the British Army and 'other thing things' doesn't show how she represents all things British.
3. Or a figurehead.

Actually, what does it mean to be British

As a Hertfordshire lad, I can honestly say that Royalty is about as useful as, I don't know, a chimp for a President.

shes not completely German, just has German Routes

Actually, she's closer related to the Russian monarchy than the old Germanic lines as far as I know.

You mean the old Russian Monarchs

HM The Queen represents all that it means to be British, she is a figurehead of our great nation. The majority of world leaders all respect the British Monarch for what they do, are and just beacuse they are British.

dude i think you have a screwed up image of the Monarchy - people respect them "just because they are British"?! Nobody respects anybody 'just because...' anymore.
Im sorry to break it to you dude, but the Monarchy is a waste of taxpayers money, they have no real world political influence, they are, in a word, pointless to modern society. And the worst part is what did they do to deserve all that money, influence and power - all that land, the castles, estates, art collections, etc? Nothing; they were born into it and we, the taxpayers have to pay to keep them in that situation! Why should they have all that when their money could be absorbed into the economy, providing a number of benefits - the wealth of the monarchy could be used to pay off (some of) Britain's national debt, for example.
Dissolve the monarchy now.

Actually, she's closer related to the Russian monarchy than the old Germanic lines as far as I know.
They were German too iirc

dude i think you have a screwed up image of the Monarchy - people respect them "just because they are British"?! Nobody respects anybody 'just because...' anymore.
Im sorry to break it to you dude, but the Monarchy is a waste of taxpayers money, they have no real world political influence, they are, in a word, pointless to modern society. And the worst part is what did they do to deserve all that money, influence and power - all that land, the castles, estates, art collections, etc? Nothing; they were born into it and we, the taxpayers have to pay to keep them in that situation! Why should they have all that when their money could be absorbed into the economy, providing a number of benefits - the wealth of the monarchy could be used to pay off (some of) Britain's national debt, for example.
Dissolve the monarchy now.

All i'm going to say to that is - you need need to research British History a but more and then you will see what the Monarchy did to get there postition. You will find also that hardly any taxpayers money goes straight to the Monarchy, they make it out of working (just different to our work).

i am in the british Army i fight for my nation and for my queen she might not have power but she is the only one who can sign off lands i have put my life on the line for my nation please respect the UK monarchy if you want to pick on someone pick on your president

All i'm going to say to that is - you need need to research British History a but more and then you will see what the Monarchy did to get there postition. You will find also that hardly any taxpayers money goes straight to the Monarchy, they make it out of working (just different to our work).
History is all well and good, but we are not and should not be tied to it. I prefer to judge modern things and individuals on their own merits not on their predessessors merits.

The ancestors of the current monarchy fought for the position they hold now, taking it away is just like refusing parents to pass down their assets to their children.

Also with Britain losing their traditional ways of life as we become more multi-cultural, keeping an institution that has lasted intact since 1066 (appart from that wee 12 year break) and has stood the test of time from WW2 to medieval wars, is something we should hold dear to us.

Also bear in mind that this idea of ridding us of the monarchy is not new, opposition to the crown has been going on for hundreds of years, just in different forms. And the monarchy is still here. And always will

Plus taxpayers money that goes to the monarcy is returned from tourism and other national income as a result of the monarchy.

And the Queen still has some powers, as she also represents the people and is not bothered about spin and trying to stay in power in the next election. There is some sort of balance of power between the PM and the Queen, I do beleive our system is better than that of the Americans

The British Monarchy is the oldest functioning political institution of any kind in Europe (possibly the world). I think it would be a great shame to lose it. It is a link directly to our past. It reminds us of our history as a monarch run nation. The idea of "Fighting for Queen and country" is more a turn of phrase these days than an actual truth. And the reason that it is respected around the world is that no other head of state can pull of the real glamour and ceremony that the Queen does as well as she does. Most other heads of state are elected now and seem to act like regular politicans. For those who say "History is history, its in the past" I say this is living history. This is histroy that is still here today. It still does its job. And for those who say that the queen leads a posh lifestyle but does no work, she effectively has NO private life. She cant go out without a hundrued cameras pointed at her. She gets far more attention than many celebraties and has even less of a private life than them. I think she is a great asset to the UK.

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?
God save the Queen.

The British Monarchy is the oldest functioning political institution of any kind in Europe (possibly the world).
Denmark.

Denmark.

What about it?

What about it?
The Danish monarchy is the oldest in Europe. Not the British.

All i'm going to say to that is - you need need to research British History a but more and then you will see what the Monarchy did to get there postition. You will find also that hardly any taxpayers money goes straight to the Monarchy, they make it out of working (just different to our work).

sorry i probably came off a bit harsh - some of my mates are total monarchists and I've gotten used to drumming my side of the arguement into them, otherwise they wont even listen :) Thanks for taking the time to debate the issue and not just ram your opinion down my throat (like I did ^ :( )

That is true, I know little about exactly how the current "Windsor" monarchy got to power, but I still think that they don't derserve what they have. If the royal family had become the equivalent of the monarchy, in terms of wealth & power, through legitimate business practaces, I would have the utmost respect for them. However, Elizabeth simply inheriting 'daddies country' leaves me with no respect for them whatsoever. Again, why do they deserve it?
And working... their 'work' is comprised of sucking rent out of people from the thousands of acres of land that they own - be it the Crown's or personally. In a time when property and rent prices are higher than ever in this country, the monarchy must be creaming it in! Plus, what would help alleviate the dangerously high property market? Well for one if all those thousands of acres were released back into the market, out of the hands of the monarchy, this would bump supply up enough to lower property prices and rent noticeably.

The Danish monarchy is the oldest in Europe. Not the British.

When did it start? And is it still functioning today? Because said oldest functioning political instiution

When did it start? And is it still functioning today? Because said oldest functioning political instiution
Some think King Göttrik. Who united the several small states against Charlemagne. But usualy Gorm the elder is seen as the statefounder. So somewhere in the 9th or 10th century. And it functions pretty much the same way the Britsh, Dutch, Norwegian etc...monarchies.

Well according to the official Danish Monarchy website, it dates back to AD 958 (for certain). However if you include Offa who claimed to be the King of the English (his realm ran from the Ruver Humber south, ie Mercia and Weesex) our goes back to AD 757. Then there were warrior kings in Northumbria and what is now known a Scotland. Make you own mind up

When did it start? And is it still functioning today? Because said oldest functioning political instiution

Are you an idiot? Before you make comments, please back them up. Don't just say it because you think it's true. Actually KNOW it's true. The Danish monarchy is older than the English one. This is a well-known fact. Though I don't know the exact date of it's beginning, it is the oldest one around. Queen Margarethe(sp) is the Queen of Denmark, and she is related to Queen Elizabeth the Loser of England. Unlike Elizabeth, Denmark's Queen is actually quite close to the people, and more modest. She doesn't stay locked down in some fancy palace the majority of the time like Elizabeth usually does, nor does she have all of the wealth Elizabeth does. Granted, she is still rich, but not as, and she doesn't flaunt it like that English (by the way, how English is she? not much.) whore.

You mean the old Russian Monarchs
The last Czar was the cousin of the German emperor. Queen Victoria was his grandmother. Through the widespread inbreeding of the old days all noble houses are related to one another to some degree.

Some think King Göttrik. Who united the several small states against Charlemagne. But usualy Gorm the elder is seen as the statefounder. So somewhere in the 9th or 10th century. And it functions pretty much the same way the Britsh, Dutch, Norwegian etc...monarchies.

Something tells me that the position of Emperor of Japan dates back farther than that, and I don't know of any case where it was interrupted for an extended period of time the way Britain's was with Oliver Cromwell's regime...I could be wrong, but I always thought the Japanese Imperial position was as old as dirt. The Americans didn't even take it away after World War II, and though Hideki Tojo just about stole all his power, he was still there and managed to end the war by telling the Japanese people to surrender.

I will search for a source sometime later between calls; I am at work right now (yes, I work Thanksgiving, but I get time-and-a-half and it's dead here, so it's OK...)

Well according to the official Danish Monarchy website, it dates back to AD 958 (for certain). However if you include Offa who claimed to be the King of the English (his realm ran from the Ruver Humber south, ie Mercia and Weesex) our goes back to AD 757. Then there were warrior kings in Northumbria and what is now known a Scotland. Make you own mind up
Those kings usualy were often nothing more then the chief of a village back in Scandinavia. And when they came to England proclaimed themselves king.

You fools! Can you not see the gloating possibilities for having a monarch who has as much power as she does over countries besides out own?! Personally I think queen and country are the same. A figurehead maybe, but ENGLANDS figurehead and part of it.

Something tells me that the position of Emperor of Japan dates back farther than that, and I don't know of any case where it was interrupted for an extended period of time the way Britain's was with Oliver Cromwell's regime...I could be wrong, but I always thought the Japanese Imperial position was as old as dirt. The Americans didn't even take it away after World War II, and though Hideki Tojo just about stole all his power, he was still there and managed to end the war by telling the Japanese people to surrender.

I will search for a source sometime later between calls; I am at work right now (yes, I work Thanksgiving, but I get time-and-a-half and it's dead here, so it's OK...)
No. The Japanese monarchy was interrupted in 1636 I think. Then it became a Shogunat.(Tokugawa) (sp) The monarchy was reinstalled in 1868.
And anyway, I said in Europe.

No. The Japanese monarchy was interrupted in 1636 I think. Then it became a Shogunat.(Tokugawa) (sp) The monarchy was reinstalled in 1868.
And anyway, I said in Europe.

I am well aware that the Tokugawa era vested power in the hands of shoguns and not the Emperor, but the Emperor was still there and the Meiji Restoration involved restoring him as head of state. Emperors were still present, even if in a reduced role, but Queens and Kings are largely in reduced roles today and they are still considered valid figureheads.

My source for Japanese Emperor timelines:

http://www.sizes.com/time/CHRNJapan_emper.htm

Are you an idiot? Before you make comments, please back them up. Don't just say it because you think it's true. Actually KNOW it's true. The Danish monarchy is older than the English one. This is a well-known fact. Though I don't know the exact date of it's beginning, it is the oldest one around. Queen Margarethe(sp) is the Queen of Denmark, and she is related to Queen Elizabeth the Loser of England. Unlike Elizabeth, Denmark's Queen is actually quite close to the people, and more modest. She doesn't stay locked down in some fancy palace the majority of the time like Elizabeth usually does, nor does she have all of the wealth Elizabeth does. Granted, she is still rich, but not as, and she doesn't flaunt it like that English (by the way, how English is she? not much.) whore.

Whore? that's nice. Have some respect.

Whore? that's nice. Have some respect.

This just proves the limited intelligence and the shallow minds of the Americans - there just jealous that they will never get the same excellent reputation as the British and can't bear to admit that they were once one of Britains Colonys

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?

Hoorah for Cromwell!

This just proves the limited intelligence and the shallow minds of the Americans - there just jealous that they will never get the same excellent reputation as the British and can't bear to admit that they were once one of Britains Colonys

Colonies...not Colonys dumbass. Anyhow, that isn't true at all. Britain has no excellent reputation. It has the reputation Spain has; a fallen empire. It's not on top anymore, and having a Queen is elitist and obsolete. She does nothing but sit on her ass, and be a bitch to her children's former spouses. As for limited intelligence....hmm, well whose education system is better? As shitty as the American education system is, compared to Britain's, it looks perfect. You know, here an F is the lowest grade, and depending where you live, it could start as high as 69%. I heard in Britain, failing is something around 30%. How fucked up is that. What a bunch of losers. Not to mention all most people care about there is shacking up and getting high, nevermind about their futures. Let's all sit on our asses for the rest of our lives! The Queen does it, why not us?!

This just proves the limited intelligence and the shallow minds of the Americans - there just jealous that they will never get the same excellent reputation as the British and can't bear to admit that they were once one of Britains Colonys






Okay, not all Americans are jelous of the Monarchy or Britain, in fact most of us do not give a damn. Also, most of us would not call the Queen a whore. Most people I know just accept that you have a Queen and that is that.

As for British reputation... colonialism does not give one a good reputation. Just ask the Indians, Ausssies, Irish or Kenyans. Rather we should look at the integrity of the UK and its people.

I would add, that as someone who is Hawaiian I have grown up knowing about the Hawaiian Monarchy, which still holds a place in the hearts of the Hawaiian people. So I understand how a monarch can be representative of a people.

Colonies...not Colonys dumbass. Anyhow, that isn't true at all. Britain has no excellent reputation. It has the reputation Spain has; a fallen empire. It's not on top anymore, and having a Queen is elitist and obsolete. She does nothing but sit on her ass, and be a bitch to her children's former spouses. As for limited intelligence....hmm, well whose education system is better? As shitty as the American education system is, compared to Britain's, it looks perfect. You know, here an F is the lowest grade, and depending where you live, it could start as high as 69%. I heard in Britain, failing is something around 30%. How fucked up is that. What a bunch of losers. Not to mention all most people care about there is shacking up and getting high, nevermind about their futures. Let's all sit on our asses for the rest of our lives! The Queen does it, why not us?!


I wonder how vitriolic you would be if a Brit were to start slagging off the American dream?

I am no Royalist, far from it, I would have the monarchy dismantled in a minute and all the tax payers money redirected to health or education. The Monarchy are rich enough to survive without the tax payers footing the bill.
But.......Whilst we do have a monarchy I am glad that they do try and justify their positions by "selling" Britain across the world and championing our industry etc. The Monarchy are, by default, a much maligned organisation but are powerless to answer their critics so it's hardly fair to be so scathing in your attack.
Personally I wouldn't have their job for anything! imagine not being able to fart in public without it becoming general knowledge within five minutes, imagine having to put up with the smell of fresh paint every time you open a public building or visit a nursing home, imagine not being free to say "Sod church, I'm having a lie in this Sunday"?

Being the queen, or any of the top royals, is not an easy thing to be.

This just proves the limited intelligence and the shallow minds of the Americans - there just jealous that they will never get the same excellent reputation as the British and can't bear to admit that they were once one of Britains Colonys

Yep, someones opinion proves their intelligence.

You see, outside of britain the queen holds no respect and no power over citizens.
Also, remember your history. America beat back the British forces. It wasn't like the queen suddenly became a philanthropist.
"Rebels" winning against an empire, sheesh...

"Rebels" winning against an empire, sheesh...

Check your Histroy. You would have lost had the French not turned up and saved you.

Check your Histroy. You would have lost had the French not turned up and saved you.

Great to have friends on those times of need, is it not?
They were paid back later, in their time of need.

British royalty is a joke. The Queen can suck a dick for all I care.

:rolleyes: Stop arguing about an event that is completely inevitable in the fact that it has already happened! Also it's a ludicrous thing to do to associate people nowadays with an ancestrial set- no American alive today chose to rebel against the British, just as no Briton today is responsible for exploiting the American settlers. Admit it and live with it!

Also, get your facts straight! America as we know her nowadays was never a British colony!

British royalty is a joke. The Queen can suck a dick for all I care.

Arsehole alert!!

an ancestrial set

woops typo- ancestrAl

As shitty as the American education system is, compared to Britain's, it looks perfect. You know, here an F is the lowest grade, and depending where you live, it could start as high as 69%. I heard in Britain, failing is something around 30%.
Congratulations, you're an asshole. The average American student is two years behind the average British student. In Maths they're just about ewaul and the same in sciences but Americans know fuck all about Geography and English. The pass mark depends on the paper so it could be anything from 0% to 99% dumbass!

Congratulations, you're an asshole. The average American student is two years behind the average British student. In Maths they're just about ewaul and the same in sciences but Americans know fuck all about Geography and English. The pass mark depends on the paper so it could be anything from 0% to 99% dumbass!

Nice flame. Way to be mature.

Being born in england meself...
I have a lot of respect for the queen.

But her position its more like a Simbolic position in Britain.
All the decisions are made by the Parlaiment and the Prime Minister.

Cut her head off with the crown on it!

Nice flame. Way to be mature.

I don't think YOU should be talking about maturity; need I remind you of your comment:

British royalty is a joke. The Queen can suck a dick for all I care.

Yah, real mature. You provide such an intelligent and compelling argument there!

Yep, someones opinion proves their intelligence.

You see, outside of britain the queen holds no respect and no power over citizens.
Also, remember your history. America beat back the British forces. It wasn't like the queen suddenly became a philanthropist.
"Rebels" winning against an empire, sheesh...

No, an opinion doesn't prove intelligence, but the way you express it does. And, just as many ignorant, obnoxious, stupid Americans (I am not referring to all Americans, just the the stupid ones), you've burst onto the internet with the grace of an elephant on ice skates and blown your trumpet as obtrusively as possible. Start arguing in an intelligent, respectable manner and you might get some respect.

I am Australian, but I am a strong royalist. If I had a choice, I would restore Australia to the Commonwealth and pledge allegiance to the rightful Queen of the British Commonwealth. I hold extreme respect for the British royalty, and I am not alone in this - hey, guess what? This means the British monarch DOES hold respect outside of Britain! Fancy that.

Besides, what does it matter if you won the civil war? Disregarding the fact that rebels are filthy traitors, the Commonwealth thrived and superceded America in power, prestige, economy and size well into the 20th Century. It is only recently that you have overcome the Commonwealth, and even now you only exceed it in economy and power. America will NEVER amount to the prestige that the British rightfully procured for themselves. The British are right, upstanding people. Americans are far too numerous in obnoxious people such as yourself.

Actually, she's closer related to the Russian monarchy than the old Germanic lines as far as I know.

Queen Victoria I was married to a Prussian, Prince Alfred. That's where the Germanic line comes into it. I don't know where anyone got the Russian part from.

dude i think you have a screwed up image of the Monarchy - people respect them "just because they are British"?! Nobody respects anybody 'just because...' anymore.
Im sorry to break it to you dude, but the Monarchy is a waste of taxpayers money, they have no real world political influence, they are, in a word, pointless to modern society. And the worst part is what did they do to deserve all that money, influence and power - all that land, the castles, estates, art collections, etc? Nothing; they were born into it and we, the taxpayers have to pay to keep them in that situation! Why should they have all that when their money could be absorbed into the economy, providing a number of benefits - the wealth of the monarchy could be used to pay off (some of) Britain's national debt, for example.
Dissolve the monarchy now.

Being of noble stock myself, descended from an ancient line of Aragonese knights that staffed the Knights of Malta for many years, and still reaping the benefits of their rightful nobility and wise management of money, I understand the importance of heraldry and inheritance. Left wing communists like you would undo the fabric of society and spread the wealth around to all. My family is extremely well to do, but we EARNED that right. While your ancestors were tilling the dirt, mine were making wise investments and increading our wealth. I, too, make wise decisions with my money, as does my family, and you have absolutely no right to get your hands on my money. It will only ever happen over my dead body. Thus, the royalty have just as much right to their position as I do mine. Long live the Queen.

Don't mind me asking, but what other countries/colonies does the Queen of England still has ruling over?

I heard that she can order Wales, Australia and Northern Ireland's army to war if she wants.

Don't mind me asking, but what other countries/colonies does the Queen of England still has ruling over?

I heard that she can order Wales, Australia and Northern Ireland's army to war if she wants.
Well, she doesn't really rule over the UK in any sense of the word.

Don't mind me asking, but what other countries/colonies does the Queen of England still has ruling over?

I heard that she can order Wales, Australia and Northern Ireland's army to war if she wants.
Wales has its own army???

Wales has its own army???
Yes, the fifth sheep buggering brigade. Guess the mascot

Lol..

But can she really do call them to war? She should be right? But it's also whether Australia and other nations would be willing to send out their troops for some lady thousands miles away.

Lol..

But can she really do call them to war? She should be right? But it's also whether Australia and other nations would be willing to send out their troops for some lady thousands miles away.
Possibly in theory, but not in practice, any more than she could send the British Army to war without parliamentary approval.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that the army is Parliament's to dispose of, not the Queen's. Hence it has no 'royal' prefix to its name. It's a post-Civil War restoration of the monarchy thing.

I just think they should start marrying outside of the family. I mean, take a look at Prince Charles.

She's a bit frumpy but the tourists like her.
Having a Queen is good...if thats all youve got.

Well, I have been a tourist in UK and I didn't like the queen. I think monarchy is a bit strange.

Lol..

But can she really do call them to war? She should be right? But it's also whether Australia and other nations would be willing to send out their troops for some lady thousands miles away.

We would and do. We maintain very close relations with our mother country. During WWI and WWII we were called to arms in defence of England and we heeded the call both times.

What about the Irish who want to remain part of the UK (who actually make up the majority of NI)?
They can move to england.

I don't think YOU should be talking about maturity; need I remind you of your comment:



Yah, real mature. You provide such an intelligent and compelling argument there!



No, an opinion doesn't prove intelligence, but the way you express it does. And, just as many ignorant, obnoxious, stupid Americans (I am not referring to all Americans, just the the stupid ones), you've burst onto the internet with the grace of an elephant on ice skates and blown your trumpet as obtrusively as possible. Start arguing in an intelligent, respectable manner and you might get some respect.

I am Australian, but I am a strong royalist. If I had a choice, I would restore Australia to the Commonwealth and pledge allegiance to the rightful Queen of the British Commonwealth. I hold extreme respect for the British royalty, and I am not alone in this - hey, guess what? This means the British monarch DOES hold respect outside of Britain! Fancy that.

Besides, what does it matter if you won the civil war? Disregarding the fact that rebels are filthy traitors, the Commonwealth thrived and superceded America in power, prestige, economy and size well into the 20th Century. It is only recently that you have overcome the Commonwealth, and even now you only exceed it in economy and power. America will NEVER amount to the prestige that the British rightfully procured for themselves. The British are right, upstanding people. Americans are far too numerous in obnoxious people such as yourself.



Queen Victoria I was married to a Prussian, Prince Alfred. That's where the Germanic line comes into it. I don't know where anyone got the Russian part from.



Being of noble stock myself, descended from an ancient line of Aragonese knights that staffed the Knights of Malta for many years, and still reaping the benefits of their rightful nobility and wise management of money, I understand the importance of heraldry and inheritance. Left wing communists like you would undo the fabric of society and spread the wealth around to all. My family is extremely well to do, but we EARNED that right. While your ancestors were tilling the dirt, mine were making wise investments and increading our wealth. I, too, make wise decisions with my money, as does my family, and you have absolutely no right to get your hands on my money. It will only ever happen over my dead body. Thus, the royalty have just as much right to their position as I do mine. Long live the Queen.


What? bahahahahah im a knight riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggght

From someone living in canada, family has been here for 250 years, english, I say without a doubt the monarch is a complete joke. Canada needs to be a republic ASAP.

They can move to england.
They evidently don't want to though and it would be wrong to force them to move.

Anyway, since republicans are in the minority, shouldn't they be the ones moving?

I don't think YOU should be talking about maturity; need I remind you of your comment:



Yah, real mature. You provide such an intelligent and compelling argument there!



No, an opinion doesn't prove intelligence, but the way you express it does. And, just as many ignorant, obnoxious, stupid Americans (I am not referring to all Americans, just the the stupid ones), you've burst onto the internet with the grace of an elephant on ice skates and blown your trumpet as obtrusively as possible. Start arguing in an intelligent, respectable manner and you might get some respect.

I am Australian, but I am a strong royalist. If I had a choice, I would restore Australia to the Commonwealth and pledge allegiance to the rightful Queen of the British Commonwealth. I hold extreme respect for the British royalty, and I am not alone in this - hey, guess what? This means the British monarch DOES hold respect outside of Britain! Fancy that.

Besides, what does it matter if you won the civil war? Disregarding the fact that rebels are filthy traitors, the Commonwealth thrived and superceded America in power, prestige, economy and size well into the 20th Century. It is only recently that you have overcome the Commonwealth, and even now you only exceed it in economy and power. America will NEVER amount to the prestige that the British rightfully procured for themselves. The British are right, upstanding people. Americans are far too numerous in obnoxious people such as yourself.



Queen Victoria I was married to a Prussian, Prince Alfred. That's where the Germanic line comes into it. I don't know where anyone got the Russian part from.



Being of noble stock myself, descended from an ancient line of Aragonese knights that staffed the Knights of Malta for many years, and still reaping the benefits of their rightful nobility and wise management of money, I understand the importance of heraldry and inheritance. Left wing communists like you would undo the fabric of society and spread the wealth around to all. My family is extremely well to do, but we EARNED that right. While your ancestors were tilling the dirt, mine were making wise investments and increading our wealth. I, too, make wise decisions with my money, as does my family, and you have absolutely no right to get your hands on my money. It will only ever happen over my dead body. Thus, the royalty have just as much right to their position as I do mine. Long live the Queen.


The Queen doesn't deserve any respect, and neither do freeloading "nobles" such as yourself.

What? bahahahahah im a knight riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggght

From someone living in canada, family has been here for 250 years, english, I say without a doubt the monarch is a complete joke. Canada needs to be a republic ASAP.

If you actually read what I wrote, then you would realise I said my ancestors were knights, not I. But the Knights of Malta still exists as an exclusive organisation, like the Knights of Santiago and the Knights of the Templar. Or, if you haven't heard of that, then take the Stone Cutters for an example. The fighting orders are no longer around, but the organisations themselves still exist. To that extent, I am still a member of the prestigious organisation, but I never said I was, and I do not consider myself to be, a knight.

It saddens me that there are people who could have such treacherous infidelity. If it wasn't for Britain (and/or France in your case) your country wouldn't even exist. Show some respect.

The Queen doesn't deserve any respect, and neither do freeloading "nobles" such as yourself.

Freeloaders? Hah! Poor people are the ones who whinge and whine about not getting enough free money from the government. Poor people are poor because they expect everything to be handed to them and not to do any work. The nobility were the people who realised that life is tough, and it's survival of the fittest, so they got off their asses, did something about it, and carved a place in history for themselves. I'm proud of that, and I display my title and family crest with pride, knowing that we earnt it with hard work and wise choices. That's more than you can say.

I would happily die for my Queen and country. And if there was another civil war, I would fight for HM to the bitter end!

Freeloaders? Hah! Poor people are the ones who whinge and whine about not getting enough free money from the government. Poor people are poor because they expect everything to be handed to them and not to do any work. The nobility were the people who realised that life is tough, and it's survival of the fittest, so they got off their asses, did something about it, and carved a place in history for themselves. I'm proud of that, and I display my title and family crest with pride, knowing that we earnt it with hard work and wise choices. That's more than you can say.

I called YOU a freeloader, not your ancestors. Because YOU didn't do SHIT to earn your fortune, or your title. WE shouldn't be in the second to last sentence.

It saddens me that there are people who could have such treacherous infidelity.

Tell me, why do the Windsors automatically deserve lifelong loyalty?

If it wasn't for Britain (and/or France in your case) your country wouldn't even exist. Show some respect.

Bares no relation to the current situation. The current royal family had nothing to do with the 'new' world since they weren't alive.

Freeloaders? Hah! Poor people are the ones who whinge and whine about not getting enough free money from the government. Poor people are poor because they expect everything to be handed to them and not to do any work. The nobility were the people who realised that life is tough, and it's survival of the fittest, so they got off their asses, did something about it, and carved a place in history for themselves. I'm proud of that, and I display my title and family crest with pride, knowing that we earnt it with hard work and wise choices. That's more than you can say.
There are people between the poor and the nobles. And just because you think the poor are freeloaders doesn't mean that you have shown the nobility and royal family aren't.

Also the Nobles weren't the the ones that realised life was tough when no one else did (I kinda think a medieval peasant realised that too), they were simply the most blood thirsty and least humane people willing to damn themselves so they could have land and power.

If your proud of rape, murder and pillage we really must have different values

I called YOU a freeloader, not your ancestors. Because YOU didn't do SHIT to earn your fortune, or your title. WE shouldn't be in the second to last sentence.

Actually, I did. I went through school, studied hard, got into University, learnt finance, investment and the ways of the world. Already I own several estates across Australia, further increasing my wealth and prestige, so that my family fortune shall be ensured and that I may leave an empire in my own right to my heirs. If I didn't work hard, I would simply sit around and squander my fortunes, leaving nothing for the future generations of my family. That wouldn't happen, however, our family rewards work, not tardiness. If I hadn't worked to achieve the above, I would not have received my inheritance, it was always a condition of my father, as it should be.

I called YOU a freeloader, not your ancestors. Because YOU didn't do SHIT to earn your fortune, or your title. WE shouldn't be in the second to last sentence.
I wouldn't bother arguing the point. Some people don't like judging people on their individual standards, judging the standard of a family always looks better

The Monarchy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the Commonwealth, is an essential institution which has been around for centuries and shouldn't be got rid of now. If we had wanted to have no Queen, then we would have had a referendum to get rid of her years ago, but we haven't. The vast majority of people in the UK support the Royal Family much more than any political party, leader, etc, and The Queen is an essential symbol which the whole of the UK unites around.

Also, because 1066 doesn't really change anything to do with the Monarchy, we just got a new King, which has happened many times, the British Monarchy has been around all the way down to the 8th Century when the Vikings were attacking, and is therefore probably the oldest monarchy in the whole world.

I would gladly die for my Queen and my Country, and would stand by them to the bitter end if Tony Blair ever tried to get rid of her.

(PS. To whoever says that Canada and Australia should be made Republics, just remember that your government can call a referendum at any time to lose the Queen as its Head of State, but they haven't. In Australia, the referendum that was held voted for the Queen to STAY as the Head of State. So it just shows that its not only us Brits who want the Royal Family to stay!!!)

Actually, I did. I went through school, studied hard, got into University, learnt finance, investment and the ways of the world. Already I own several estates across Australia, further increasing my wealth and prestige, so that my family fortune shall be ensured and that I may leave an empire in my own right to my heirs. If I didn't work hard, I would simply sit around and squander my fortunes, leaving nothing for the future generations of my family. That wouldn't happen, however, our family rewards work, not tardiness. If I hadn't worked to achieve the above, I would not have received my inheritance, it was always a condition of my father, as it should be.
http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

I wouldn't bother arguing the point. Some people don't like judging people on their individual standards, judging the standard of a family always looks better

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Plus, this guy's so full of himself he's bursting at the seams.

If your proud of rape, murder and pillage we really must have different values

Oh we do, believe me. I'm frighteningly reactionary to most people.

Bares no relation to the current situation. The current royal family had nothing to do with the 'new' world since they weren't alive.

No, but they are still the British Monarchy, and they assumed control of the entire Commonwealth. They fought for the power, and they achieved it. It was a rightful usurpation.

There are people between the poor and the nobles. And just because you think the poor are freeloaders doesn't mean that you have shown the nobility and royal family aren't.

All nobility had to struggle against those who would rob them of their rightful fortunes. It still happens today, those less fortunate believe they are entitled to what is rightfully ours, and given the chance they would sieze it. We have to work against such undignified lawlessness. That, if nothing else, is enough to make us work very hard for our positions.

Also the Nobles weren't the the ones that realised life was tough when no one else did (I kinda think a medieval peasant realised that too), they were simply the most blood thirsty and least humane people willing to damn themselves so they could have land and power.

I call that courage, not damnation.

The Monarchy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the Commonwealth, is an essential institution which has been around for centuries

Meaningless. Legitimacy through prescription doesn't work.

If we had wanted to have no Queen, then we would have had a referendum to get rid of her years ago, but we haven't.

No we wouldn't have.

1. Governments call referenda not private citizens
2. It would be illegal for Parliament to call such a referendum

The vast majority of people in the UK support the Royal Family much more than any political party, leader, etc, and The Queen is an essential symbol which the whole of the UK unites around.

1. Proof?
2. Just because the Queen is more popular than any politician != that UK is united around the Queen.

Also, because 1066 doesn't really change anything to do with the Monarchy, we just got a new King, which has happened many times, the British Monarchy has been around all the way down to the 8th Century when the Vikings were attacking, and is therefore probably the oldest monarchy in the whole world.
Denmark

http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

The Monarchy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the Commonwealth, is an essential institution which has been around for centuries and shouldn't be got rid of now. If we had wanted to have no Queen, then we would have had a referendum to get rid of her years ago, but we haven't. The vast majority of people in the UK support the Royal Family much more than any political party, leader, etc, and The Queen is an essential symbol which the whole of the UK unites around.

Also, because 1066 doesn't really change anything to do with the Monarchy, we just got a new King, which has happened many times, the British Monarchy has been around all the way down to the 8th Century when the Vikings were attacking, and is therefore probably the oldest monarchy in the whole world.

I would gladly die for my Queen and my Country, and would stand by them to the bitter end if Tony Blair ever tried to get rid of her.

(PS. To whoever says that Canada and Australia should be made Republics, just remember that your government can call a referendum at any time to lose the Queen as its Head of State, but they haven't. In Australia, the referendum that was held voted for the Queen to STAY as the Head of State. So it just shows that its not only us Brits who want the Royal Family to stay!!!)


When canada gets a government with the guts to call a referendum on this issue, I can assure you that we wont have a queen as our head of state any longer.

the British Monarchy has been around all the way down to the 8th Century when the Vikings were attacking, and is therefore probably the oldest monarchy in the whole world.

No, that is incorrect. In the 8th century there were fractured kingdoms in the British Isles. There were the Irish tribes, the Scots in northern Ireland and western Scotland, the Picts in eastern Scotland, Northumbria just to the south, Mercia below that, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the south, and Wales in Wales, obviously. They each had their own Kings, they never had a King of England. Also, their forms of government were radically different from the modern day one. All lines of descent, and modern day government, in England come from the Norman conquest of 1066.

Otherwise I agree with you completely.

Plus, this guy's so full of himself he's bursting at the seams.

Oh and don't I know it? I deserve to be arrogant though, my ancestors earned our greatness and I carry it on.

Lol..

But can she really do call them to war? She should be right? But it's also whether Australia and other nations would be willing to send out their troops for some lady thousands miles away.

you should off asked me this question since i am the the british army yes she can send us to war if the prime minister is disposed off

I would happily die for my Queen and country. And if there was another civil war, I would fight for HM to the bitter end!

Up Parliament!

Oh we do, believe me. I'm frighteningly reactionary to most people.

Seems we have to agree to disagree on that point then :)

No, but they are still the British Monarchy, and they assumed control of the entire Commonwealth. They fought for the power, and they achieved it. It was a rightful usurpation.

1. They don't control the Commonwealth
2. Usurpation by its nature cannot be right
3. They didn't fight for their power. The national elite gave it to them.

All nobility had to struggle against those who would rob them of their rightful fortunes. It still happens today, those less fortunate believe they are entitled to what is rightfully ours, and given the chance they would sieze it. We have to work against such undignified lawlessness. That, if nothing else, is enough to make us work very hard for our positions.

1. Noble fortunes weren't 'rightful' anymore then the profit made from slave labour was 'rightful.'
2. Many nobles didn't have to fight to retain their lands, it was quite secure.
3. What makes it rightfully yours?
4. "And given the chance they would seize it." This seems to be a contradiction in your reasoning. On one hand you celebrate your fore-fathers doing this, but damn any of your contemporaries doing the same thing.
5. The nature of the system means that you didn't work for it, it was given to you.

I call that courage, not damnation.

I said they risked damnation, which I suppose inplies courage. As well as immorality, cruelty and unscroupalous behaviour.

http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

Oh and don't I know it? I deserve to be arrogant though, my ancestors earned our greatness and I carry it on.

Yeah, but you still have a funny accent, worship the queen like a God, and live in a voiceless country. So I guess it all evens out.

Oh and don't I know it? I deserve to be arrogant though, my ancestors earned our greatness and I carry it on.
No one deserves the right to be arrogant for something they have not done.

I may as well go around acting like I own the place because I claim Marshal Ney as an ancestor.

http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

British royalty is a joke. The Queen can suck a dick for all I care.
So can you. Now, have at it.

"As for British reputation... colonialism does not give one a good reputation. Just ask the Indians, Ausssies, Irish or Kenyans. Rather we should look at the integrity of the UK and its people."

I'm from NZ a former British colony if there were to be an election tomorrow to replace the queen as head of state its highly probable it would be defeated.

An election in Australia to replace the queen was defeated a few years ago.

Obviously not all former colonies have a bad opinion of being a former colony

I'm Canadian and I'm sick of a person who lives thousands of kilometers away have supreme executive authority over my country, even if it is just tradition and in name only.

Down with the monarchy.

Seems we have to agree to disagree on that point then :)

Certainly.

5. The nature of the system means that you didn't work for it, it was given to you.

On the whole, it comes down to a deep seated belief in tradition and heraldry. I believe in heraldry and noble right as strongly as a religious fanatic would in his religion. I don't expect you to understand that, but that is the answer to your comments on the subject.

Yeah, but you still have a funny accent, worship the queen like a God, and live in a voiceless country. So I guess it all evens out.

If you call taking extreme pride in one's speech, wishing to be eloquent and intelligent, speaking in a right and proper manner in the most formal of the Queen's English "funny", then I gladly accept that I have a "funny" accent. I should much prefer such an accent to speaking like a common pauper with little grasp upon the language itself.

Furthermore, I do not worship the Queen as a God, I worship her as someone with her heraldric standing deserves. As a fellow Human being, and a fellow noblewoman, albeit one of much, much greater standing than myself. Also, I don't know where you get your information from, though as an American I would have to expect it would be substandard, but Australia is hardly a country without a voice.

"As for British reputation... colonialism does not give one a good reputation. Just ask the Indians, Ausssies, Irish or Kenyans. Rather we should look at the integrity of the UK and its people."

I'm from NZ a former British colony if there were to be an election tomorrow to replace the queen as head of state its highly probable it would be defeated.

An election in Australia to replace the queen was defeated a few years ago.

Obviously not all former colonies have a bad opinion of being a former colony
Well, not those that have a large European rooted population at any rate.

http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

On the whole, it comes down to a deep seated belief in tradition and heraldry. I believe in heraldry and noble right as strongly as a religious fanatic would in his religion. I don't expect you to understand that, but that is the answer to your comments on the subject.

I take it you concede the rest of the points then :)

If you call taking extreme pride in one's speech, wishing to be eloquent and intelligent, speaking in a right and proper manner in the most formal of the Queen's English "funny", then I gladly accept that I have a "funny" accent. I should much prefer such an accent to speaking like a common pauper with little grasp upon the language itself.

You can hardly say Prince Charles sounds intelligent with his accent.
http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

I take it you concede the rest of the points then :)



You can hardly say Prince Charles sounds intelligent with his accent.

Oh indeed. I am an academic, I know my history and you have trumped me on that one, your knowledge here agrees with mine. I acquiesce to you superb display.

As for Prince Charles, while I respect his standing, I do not respect his person. No, he does not sound intelligent, but then I do not sound like him. The Queen's accent is quite charming, however.

Fantastic argument, you do credit to the lesser classes. If more of them were like you the world would be a far greater place. I have no problem finding a person with an opposing view, so long as they can express it with intelligence and reason, not devolving to ignorance and insults as our friend Florida Oranges did. Must be off now, though if you find something to bring to the fore of discussion I shall rebut it when I get the chance.
:)

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?

Does that title imply penis envy? :D

Down with the monarchy.

Well said.

I have numerous points:

1. Ireland should, and will, be re-unified. It's only a matter of time. The Protestants may be in the majority at present, but Catholics traditionally believe in having large families, and so they will eventually out-breed Protestants and be the majority, at which point re-unification will look a more probable future. I'd give it about 50 years.

2. The Royal Family is an arcane and useless tradition. They are merely Parliament's puppets. Give me one use the Queen has, apart from pleasing the tourists and reading a few meaningless speeches every year.

3. Public opinion of Britain around the world is a lot less positive than many of you lead yourselves to believe. Let me tell you why. Britain was the sole superpower in the world pre-WWII with a vast empire, and they were feared/respected across the world. Fast-forward 80 or so years. Britain has no more empire. The only colonies to speak of are tiny insignificant islands dotted around the globe, e.g. Gibraltar and the Falklands, and Britain is now America's bitch. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

4. How can any of you be proud to be British? How can you be proud of a nation that throughout history has invaded, conquered and shed the blood of millions of people? Whenever anyone calls me British, or worse, English, I feel ill. I can't stand Britain.

5. Your actions in Ireland over the past 300 years are appalling and shameful, to say the VERY least. You've oppressed, slaughtered and ravaged our country and people for hundreds of years and we're still here, stronger than ever. We may not be a large country in terms of economic strength or global influence, but we are rich in culture and traditions. Around the world, everyone loves the Irish, we have a reputation as being everybody's best friend, always friendly, always smiling. Compare us to the British stereotype, skinhead racist hooligans. I know this is just with football mainly, but compare our football fans, that speaks volumes. You'll never beat the Irish.

Well said.

I have numerous points:

1. Ireland should, and will, be re-unified. It's only a matter of time. The Protestants may be in the majority at present, but Catholics traditionally believe in having large families, and so they will eventually out-breed Protestants and be the majority, at which point re-unification will look a more probable future. I'd give it about 50 years.

Hasn't Catholic growth slowed down quite considerably so they won't become the majority in the forseeable future?

Also, the Republic of Ireland has taken the part that claims NI out of its constitution. Who's to say they'd want it.

Needless to say, I'd like to see a United Ireland
4. How can any of you be proud to be British? How can you be proud of a nation that throughout history has invaded, conquered and shed the blood of millions of people? Whenever anyone calls me British, or worse, English, I feel ill. I can't stand Britain.

Britain has many positive factors and things to proud of, many completely unrelated to the monarchy or even the state. Such as Blake, Paine, Turing, Newton etc etc.

5. Your actions in Ireland over the past 300 years are appalling and shameful, to say the VERY least. You've oppressed, slaughtered and ravaged our country and people for hundreds of years and we're still here,
How many Brits do you think are alive that commited these atrocities?

Welcome to the modern world, judge people by their own merits not on the actions of the state they happened to be born in.

http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

How many Brits do you think are alive that commited these atrocities?[/img]

January 30th, 1972. I'd say there are quite a few people still alive who were involved in Bloody Sunday, wouldn't you agree?

January 30th, 1972. I'd say there are quite a few people still alive who were involved in Bloody Sunday, wouldn't you agree?
I find it hard to believe that the whole of Britain was there and fired into the crowd. Those people were bastards and don't reflect anything on the British population. Nor does everyone in Britain agree with the actions of those soldiers. In fact many people I have spoken to about it agree with me that the soldiers were bastards

http://forum.sacredeng.ascaron-net.com/images/smilies/horse.gif

Yeah, but you still have a funny accent, worship the queen like a God, and live in a voiceless country. So I guess it all evens out.

1.) A Funny accent? You can't talk, you live in the US. The American accent is mocked around the world just as much as the British is... maybe you should open your eyes instead of assuming everyone thinks your god because you talk like a hick that lives in a hut and shoots anyone that has money as he passes.

2.) Worship like a god? What are you talking about?

3.) A Voiceless country? Checked currency rates recently? Last time I checked (five minutes ago) it was
1 GBP = 1.89383 USD.

Voiceless? Tell that to your worthless dollar. Even the Euro is beating it.
Really, Monarchy-Bashing Americans should look at themselves and their tiny penis before they go off bashing other countries. Stop acting like the World Police and get yourself a brain. Oh, and a job. That might help.
---------

Not all Commonwealth nations are ashamed that they were colonies. Alot, like NZ, Australia, Malaysia, Canada, etc etc are mostly glad that they were Colonies. Great Britain brought alot to their people.

2.) Worship like a god? What are you talking about?

I was talking to Mughead or whatever his name was. You're a big boy, you can read.

3.) A Voiceless country? Checked currency rates recently? Last time I checked (five minutes ago) it was
1 GBP = 1.89383 USD.

Voiceless? Tell that to your worthless dollar. Even the Euro is beating it.
Really, Monarchy-Bashing Americans should look at themselves and their tiny penis before they go off bashing other countries. Stop acting like the World Police and get yourself a brain. Oh, and a job. That might help.

Let me clarify this. When I said voiceless, I meant internationally nobody gives a flying fuck about Australia. Your country is insignificant. You can whine and bitch about whatever, but nobody is going to listen.

By the way, thanks for the personal attack. Rather than attack my opinion, you've decided to attack me, despite the fact that you don't know me or anything about me. Tell you what, you wanna be a big guy and find out what I'm really like? Buy a plane ticket to Cape Coral, Florida, and you can meet me personally. We'll see who has a small penis then.

I don't think YOU should be talking about maturity; need I remind you of your comment:



Yah, real mature. You provide such an intelligent and compelling argument there!



No, an opinion doesn't prove intelligence, but the way you express it does. And, just as many ignorant, obnoxious, stupid Americans (I am not referring to all Americans, just the the stupid ones), you've burst onto the internet with the grace of an elephant on ice skates and blown your trumpet as obtrusively as possible. Start arguing in an intelligent, respectable manner and you might get some respect.

I am Australian, but I am a strong royalist. If I had a choice, I would restore Australia to the Commonwealth and pledge allegiance to the rightful Queen of the British Commonwealth. I hold extreme respect for the British royalty, and I am not alone in this - hey, guess what? This means the British monarch DOES hold respect outside of Britain! Fancy that.

Besides, what does it matter if you won the civil war? Disregarding the fact that rebels are filthy traitors, the Commonwealth thrived and superceded America in power, prestige, economy and size well into the 20th Century. It is only recently that you have overcome the Commonwealth, and even now you only exceed it in economy and power. America will NEVER amount to the prestige that the British rightfully procured for themselves. The British are right, upstanding people. Americans are far too numerous in obnoxious people such as yourself.



Queen Victoria I was married to a Prussian, Prince Alfred. That's where the Germanic line comes into it. I don't know where anyone got the Russian part from.



Being of noble stock myself, descended from an ancient line of Aragonese knights that staffed the Knights of Malta for many years, and still reaping the benefits of their rightful nobility and wise management of money, I understand the importance of heraldry and inheritance. Left wing communists like you would undo the fabric of society and spread the wealth around to all. My family is extremely well to do, but we EARNED that right. While your ancestors were tilling the dirt, mine were making wise investments and increading our wealth. I, too, make wise decisions with my money, as does my family, and you have absolutely no right to get your hands on my money. It will only ever happen over my dead body. Thus, the royalty have just as much right to their position as I do mine. Long live the Queen.

BRAVO

Possibly in theory, but not in practice, any more than she could send the British Army to war without parliamentary approval.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that the army is Parliament's to dispose of, not the Queen's. Hence it has no 'royal' prefix to its name. It's a post-Civil War restoration of the monarchy thing.

The reason Army does not have a 'royal' prefix is because the word 'army' is a collective noun - practically all of the regiments IN the army are Royal.

The reason Army does not have a 'royal' prefix is because the word 'army' is a collective noun - practically all of the regiments IN the army are Royal.
Look at the ships. HMS´s all around.

Look at the ships. HMS´s all around.

They together make up on Royal Navy though where as there are many different regiments with different historys and traditions

They together make up on Royal Navy though where as there are many different regiments with different historys and traditions
Isn't Navy a cllective noun too though?

They together make up on Royal Navy though where as there are many different regiments with different historys and traditions
It's the same in the Netherlands. The collective army is just that. The branches of it by themselves are Royal. Royal army, airforce, navy.

Isn't Navy a cllective noun too though?
It's a branch of the armed forces. Uuum....maybe...not sure....

It's the same in the Netherlands. The collective army is just that. The branches of it by themselves are Royal. Royal army, airforce, navy.
The British Army is land units only.

And, though I was wrong on nomenclature, I was half-right on authority, the army in the UK requires parliamentary consent. It says here (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/British-Army)

I was talking to Mughead or whatever his name was. You're a big boy, you can read.



Let me clarify this. When I said voiceless, I meant internationally nobody gives a flying fuck about Australia. Your country is insignificant. You can whine and bitch about whatever, but nobody is going to listen.

By the way, thanks for the personal attack. Rather than attack my opinion, you've decided to attack me, despite the fact that you don't know me or anything about me. Tell you what, you wanna be a big guy and find out what I'm really like? Buy a plane ticket to Cape Coral, Florida, and you can meet me personally. We'll see who has a small penis then.

I'm British, not Australian. I do not believe that any "country" should be "insignificant". That is a deploration of everyone that lives there. Australia can whine and bitch as long as it wants, but when Europe and the Tiger Economies start to whine and bitch then the United States is the one that is insignificant. Again, your starting statements have shown that you have nothing but disregard for other nations and cultures.

Originally, you attacked me by saying, and I quote "[i] but you still have a funny accent". That, as a statement, offends me and any non-American person in the entire world. There is no such thing as a "Funny Accent" since all national accents are inherently different.

I was talking to Mughead or whatever his name was. You're a big boy, you can read.



Let me clarify this. When I said voiceless, I meant internationally nobody gives a flying fuck about Australia. Your country is insignificant. You can whine and bitch about whatever, but nobody is going to listen.

By the way, thanks for the personal attack. Rather than attack my opinion, you've decided to attack me, despite the fact that you don't know me or anything about me. Tell you what, you wanna be a big guy and find out what I'm really like? Buy a plane ticket to Cape Coral, Florida, and you can meet me personally. We'll see who has a small penis then.

!. I am Australian, and resent your description of my nation. It is not only inaccurate and offensive, but has no relation to the topic. Many Australians, myself included, believe that an Australian republic is inevitable.

2. Given your previous comments, you are hardly in a position to complain about personal attacks. Your posts have consisted of little else.

3. Given your general offensiveness, propensity to personallly attack those who disagree with you, and apparent lack of education, it is not really surprising to see you issue an invitation to engage in bizarre homo-erotic behaviour.

I was talking to Mughead or whatever his name was. You're a big boy, you can read.



Let me clarify this. When I said voiceless, I meant internationally nobody gives a flying fuck about Australia. Your country is insignificant. You can whine and bitch about whatever, but nobody is going to listen.

By the way, thanks for the personal attack. Rather than attack my opinion, you've decided to attack me, despite the fact that you don't know me or anything about me. Tell you what, you wanna be a big guy and find out what I'm really like? Buy a plane ticket to Cape Coral, Florida, and you can meet me personally. We'll see who has a small penis then.

Australia is only a nation in its own right of one hundred years. You try forging a world power in that time, it's not easy. America, and especially Europe, have had a huge head start in the race. However, you are totally and utterly wrong. If you weren't American, you would actually be able to see the scope of the whole world, not your narrow, biased view where America owns and dictates all. Australia is one of the greatest powers in the world; economically it is one of the top ten nations in the world, we have a much greater education system than Britain or America, much better healthcare than America, and the single best trained army in the world. It may be a small army, but it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it (by the way, it's sad that you have to resort to arguing over the size of an organ to try and win your argument). We also have great political clout, and we gained a lot of prestige through our aid in WWI and WWII.

Here's an idea: get a clue. Read a history book. Think outside your Americocentric universe. Australia is terribly influential, and if you can't see that you're blind or stupid.

Americans never cease to amaze me with new levels of ignorance and stupidity.

When canada gets a government with the guts to call a referendum on this issue, I can assure you that we wont have a queen as our head of state any longer.
I'm glad you're so sure of yourself...fortunately you don't speak for all Canadians. I'm Canadian and very proud that the Queen is our Queen. I think that you would change your opinion if you understood history.

If I were the dictator of Britain, I'd keep them. For one, they make an extremely good tourist attraction. For another, they are the engine behind the British media. And finally, they are great ceremonial heads, so that the PM doesn't have to be one.

I'm glad you're so sure of yourself...fortunately you don't speak for all Canadians. I'm Canadian and very proud that the Queen is our Queen. I think that you would change your opinion if you understood history.
Why? What great acheivement has the Queen done that merits here position?

Why? What great acheivement has the Queen done that merits here position?

She has :

1. Selected her parents with due care.

2. Not upset parliament by threatening to marry an American.

3. Valiantly continued to breathe.

What more is required?

Great to have friends on those times of need, is it not?
They were paid back later, in their time of need.

You mean 1939?

She has :

1. Selected her parents with due care.

2. Not upset parliament by threatening to marry an American.

3. Valiantly continued to breathe.

What more is required?

Here, here! Long live the Queen!

OK, here's my take:

First up, I'm a monarchist but not a royalist, as far as the UK is concerned. That means that I believe in maintaining the institution of the monarchy but I couldn't give a flying fig who they have in the position. It could be a Norwegian Grey parrot for all I care. I do wish the tabloids would shut up about the latest indiscretion/oh-so-meaningful trip to support the latest trendy cause some minor member of the royal family has done, though.

I believe the monarchy to be a decent enough part of the UK political system. I mean, seriously, all bias apart, can anyone point to another senior member of the UK system who's done their job as competently as the queen? Sure, it's not that important a job but don't underestimate the diplomatic role the queen can play (going over to maintain relationships with countries the PM can't get to and not doing anything disastrous, as long as Philip is kept on a muzzle). Basically I see the monarch as a non-partisan head of state, thus limiting the danger of political gridlock, who can perform a number of symbolic roles (enacting bills, state visits, showing support for approved causes etc). It does this without actually costing much, if anything (I'd be interested to see a cost comparison of the UK monarch versus the Italian president) or creating the kind of personality-obsessed image-conscious presidential politics we see in other states.

As for those ardent royalists or republicans who are obsessing about what the queen represents I say this: get over it. Political institutions shouldn't be about representing ideals, they should be about protecting those ideals. No, removing the monarchy wouldn't result in British history becoming irrelevant. Equally, having a monarch does not mean the UK is still a feudal state.

My last comment is the classic axiom: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The monarchy has a set role which it has performed capably in recent history. In the meantime the UK has been through liberalism, socialism, thatcherism et al, the execution of which were carried out independently of the monarchy and were not hampered by it in any way. Is the British system ideal? No. Would it be changed in the slightest by replacing the monarch with a president with the same powers? No. Would it be changed by replacing the monarch with a president with greater powers? Yes. Would it be changed for the better? God only knows.

To those who are keen in making the British system better I say stop looking at the monarchy and start looking at the House of Commons, that's where the real power is and the real problems are. And to those of you campaigning against the monarchy for what it represents, I say stop focusing on the monarchy and start focusing on the parts of British society which put what you see the monarchy as representing into practice.

OK, here's my take:

First up, I'm a monarchist but not a royalist, as far as the UK is concerned. That means that I believe in maintaining the institution of the monarchy but I couldn't give a flying fig who they have in the position. It could be a Norwegian Grey parrot for all I care. I do wish the tabloids would shut up about the latest indiscretion/oh-so-meaningful trip to support the latest trendy cause some minor member of the royal family has done, though.

I believe the monarchy to be a decent enough part of the UK political system. I mean, seriously, all bias apart, can anyone point to another senior member of the UK system who's done their job as competently as the queen? Sure, it's not that important a job but don't underestimate the diplomatic role the queen can play (going over to maintain relationships with countries the PM can't get to and not doing anything disastrous, as long as Philip is kept on a muzzle). Basically I see the monarch as a non-partisan head of state, thus limiting the danger of political gridlock, who can perform a number of symbolic roles (enacting bills, state visits, showing support for approved causes etc). It does this without actually costing much, if anything (I'd be interested to see a cost comparison of the UK monarch versus the Italian president) or creating the kind of personality-obsessed image-conscious presidential politics we see in other states.

As for those ardent royalists or republicans who are obsessing about what the queen represents I say this: get over it. Political institutions shouldn't be about representing ideals, they should be about protecting those ideals. No, removing the monarchy wouldn't result in British history becoming irrelevant. Equally, having a monarch does not mean the UK is still a feudal state.

My last comment is the classic axiom: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The monarchy has a set role which it has performed capably in recent history. In the meantime the UK has been through liberalism, socialism, thatcherism et al, the execution of which were carried out independently of the monarchy and were not hampered by it in any way. Is the British system ideal? No. Would it be changed in the slightest by replacing the monarch with a president with the same powers? No. Would it be changed by replacing the monarch with a president with greater powers? Yes. Would it be changed for the better? God only knows.

To those who are keen in making the British system better I say stop looking at the monarchy and start looking at the House of Commons, that's where the real power is and the real problems are. And to those of you campaigning against the monarchy for what it represents, I say stop focusing on the monarchy and start focusing on the parts of British society which put what you see the monarchy as representing into practice.
I could not agree more. You are absolutely right, on every point that you make. Bless you! You restore my faith in the ability of the rest of humanity to hold a sensible viewpoint - by which, of course, I really mean that I am relieved that someone out there agrees with me... :) :) :) :)

Bah, humbug. The British monarchy should be replaced with a democratic system. Its one thing to have a figurehead, it's quite another, better thing to have a figurehead that the people choose, lets say, every 5 years.

OK, here's my take:

First up, I'm a monarchist but not a royalist, as far as the UK is concerned. That means that I believe in maintaining the institution of the monarchy but I couldn't give a flying fig who they have in the position. It could be a Norwegian Grey parrot for all I care. I do wish the tabloids would shut up about the latest indiscretion/oh-so-meaningful trip to support the latest trendy cause some minor member of the royal family has done, though.

I believe the monarchy to be a decent enough part of the UK political system. I mean, seriously, all bias apart, can anyone point to another senior member of the UK system who's done their job as competently as the queen? Sure, it's not that important a job but don't underestimate the diplomatic role the queen can play (going over to maintain relationships with countries the PM can't get to and not doing anything disastrous, as long as Philip is kept on a muzzle). Basically I see the monarch as a non-partisan head of state, thus limiting the danger of political gridlock, who can perform a number of symbolic roles (enacting bills, state visits, showing support for approved causes etc). It does this without actually costing much, if anything (I'd be interested to see a cost comparison of the UK monarch versus the Italian president) or creating the kind of personality-obsessed image-conscious presidential politics we see in other states.

As for those ardent royalists or republicans who are obsessing about what the queen represents I say this: get over it. Political institutions shouldn't be about representing ideals, they should be about protecting those ideals. No, removing the monarchy wouldn't result in British history becoming irrelevant. Equally, having a monarch does not mean the UK is still a feudal state.

My last comment is the classic axiom: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The monarchy has a set role which it has performed capably in recent history. In the meantime the UK has been through liberalism, socialism, thatcherism et al, the execution of which were carried out independently of the monarchy and were not hampered by it in any way. Is the British system ideal? No. Would it be changed in the slightest by replacing the monarch with a president with the same powers? No. Would it be changed by replacing the monarch with a president with greater powers? Yes. Would it be changed for the better? God only knows.

To those who are keen in making the British system better I say stop looking at the monarchy and start looking at the House of Commons, that's where the real power is and the real problems are. And to those of you campaigning against the monarchy for what it represents, I say stop focusing on the monarchy and start focusing on the parts of British society which put what you see the monarchy as representing into practice.

Here here!
I said much the same in an earlier post (though not as eloquently),I wouldn't be a modern day royal for anything but as a figure head the Queen is second to none.
The sycophantic posturing by Royalists and certain parts of the media have made the Queen look like a parody of herself and it's only natural that because of that many people outside of Britain just don't get it.
I do think though that they [the royals] should stop getting handouts from the public purse, at least the minor ones, and the money could be used in better ways, like health and education, the Royalty already has fabulous wealth and could easily sustain itself without the public purse footing the bills for all their expenses, that is the only real gripe most ordinary citizens of the UK have as far as the Monarchy is concerned.

Being of noble stock myself, descended from an ancient line of Aragonese knights that staffed the Knights of Malta for many years, and still reaping the benefits of their rightful nobility and wise management of money, I understand the importance of heraldry and inheritance. Left wing communists like you would undo the fabric of society and spread the wealth around to all. My family is extremely well to do, but we EARNED that right. While your ancestors were tilling the dirt, mine were making wise investments and increading our wealth. I, too, make wise decisions with my money, as does my family, and you have absolutely no right to get your hands on my money. It will only ever happen over my dead body. Thus, the royalty have just as much right to their position as I do mine. Long live the Queen.

And what did YOU do to earn your wealth? Apart from inherit it from daddy, of course? You might do a fantastic job of managing and investing all that money, but did you, yourself, actually go out and earn that money? From that post, i think not.
Same arguement for the royalty.

And what did YOU do to earn your wealth? Apart from inherit it from daddy, of course?
And whats wrong with inheriting it?

And whats wrong with inheriting it?

well the rest of us have to "work" to earn a living - to earn enough money to pay mortgages, bills, taxes, etc... Did you work and earn your money yourself? Granted, perhaps your ancestors were financial geniouses, but that doesnt mean, imho, that you deserve to have more money than you need, after not having actually earned it yourself; while the rest of us work our asses off just to pay the bills. Imo this is not fair.

I'm dead-set against the monarchy. I don't care if it's only as a figurehead, it's wrong in a supposedly equal society to just give one person this position.

We'll never get rid of them, though, because all joe public cares about is immigration. The British don't really care about freedom as a whole. If we introduced facism tomorrow, they'd moan about it for a week and then just get on with their lives. Damned nihilists.

Bah, humbug. The British monarchy should be replaced with a democratic system. Its one thing to have a figurehead, it's quite another, better thing to have a figurehead that the people choose, lets say, every 5 years.

I'm dead-set against the monarchy. I don't care if it's only as a figurehead, it's wrong in a supposedly equal society to just give one person this position.

Gah, I voluntarily run the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome and then people don't even bother to read my post before adding their tuppence. Or read and then ignore.

well the rest of us have to "work" to earn a living - to earn enough money to pay mortgages, bills, taxes, etc... Did you work and earn your money yourself? Granted, perhaps your ancestors were financial geniouses, but that doesnt mean, imho, that you deserve to have more money than you need, after not having actually earned it yourself; while the rest of us work our asses off just to pay the bills. Imo this is not fair.
So, if you would ever become incredibly succesfull and rich you would disown your kids. Cause they should go and make their own fortune or live their days out in the gutter.

I'm dead-set against the monarchy. I don't care if it's only as a figurehead, it's wrong in a supposedly equal society to just give one person this position.

We'll never get rid of them, though, because all joe public cares about is immigration. The British don't really care about freedom as a whole. If we introduced facism tomorrow, they'd moan about it for a week and then just get on with their lives. Damned nihilists.

So what do you suppose the Second World War was about?

I haven't got any time for the queen, but I don't care wether she's there or not. Even if we got rid of the inbred German aristocrats lording it over us, it wouldn't make any difference to the way in which scumbag politicians are running the country into the ground.

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?

My personal feeling is that I don't know enough about the Queen, and would like to at least double the length of her title so people are truly aware of what she does.
Actually, I think it's cool to have a figure that reminds a person of their nation's history, although that would be the only reason. She gives some people warm, fuzzy feelings but doesn't contribute anything. Now her family, they contribute by keeping tabloids in business. Could our world function if we didn't know what Harry had for dinner or who William is shagging at the moment? I think not

So what do you suppose the Second World War was about?

Nationalism.

So what do you suppose the Second World War was about?
TV ratings.

Yeah, but you still have a funny accent, worship the queen like a God, and live in a voiceless country. So I guess it all evens out.

We don't all have a funny accent and say stuff like: "Pip pip, tally ho, Cor' blimey we're in a bit of a sticky wiggit, shine your shoes guvner?"

Maybe like 100 years ago, but not now. Duh.

EDIT: And I couldn't care less about the queen. If we worshiped her like a god, we would have a church to pray to her, and a liddle-iddle temple. BTW, we don't have any of those things. In case you were wondering. :D :D

Huh. Where r u peeps?? REPLY!!!!

So, if you would ever become incredibly succesfull and rich you would disown your kids. Cause they should go and make their own fortune or live their days out in the gutter.

now thats not what im saying. Your ancestors, much like those of the royal family, assertained their fortune in a different society to today's modern one. Although I know nothing of your family history, and i dont want to turn this into a personal arguement - so ill stick to topic - the royal family got rich in a different age, before the capitalism we know today. They got their wealth and power, and now i'm not just talking about the current family but the whole institution, on the back of subterfuge, wars & battles, and generally unpleasant & violent means, not to mention doing their utmost throughout british history to keep the peasants & poor in check.
IMHO People who earn their wealth in modern society deserve what they have (like Bill Gates, Richard Branson). People who's ancestors were simply bigger & more violent bastards than everyone else, and now have a massive fortune (or, indeed, a crown) to show for it do not deserve this in modern society - it was not "earned" in the normal/modern meaning of the word.

I reckon everyone should have exactly the right amount of money.

I live to surive Her Royaly Heriness i am going to join the Royal Aiur Force, and i will gladly lay down my life for her and my country.

now thats not what im saying. Your ancestors, much like those of the royal family, assertained their fortune in a different society to today's modern one. Although I know nothing of your family history, and i dont want to turn this into a personal arguement - so ill stick to topic - the royal family got rich in a different age, before the capitalism we know today. They got their wealth and power, and now i'm not just talking about the current family but the whole institution, on the back of subterfuge, wars & battles, and generally unpleasant & violent means, not to mention doing their utmost throughout british history to keep the peasants & poor in check.
IMHO People who earn their wealth in modern society deserve what they have (like Bill Gates, Richard Branson). People who's ancestors were simply bigger & more violent bastards than everyone else, and now have a massive fortune (or, indeed, a crown) to show for it do not deserve this in modern society - it was not "earned" in the normal/modern meaning of the word.


You're forgetting, the ages of wars and general unpleasentness were a completly different time to the age we live in today. We're talking about a completely different set of morals, values, laws etc. whereby this was the norm. Just because it was not earnt in your normal/modern capitalist idealogical eyes, doesn't mean it's ill-gotten.

I agree with those who say keep the monarchy, even if it is just for symbolic value, if we loose it then we're just left with....well... the French way of doing things. Personally I'm proud to be British and proud to be in a country embedded in such tradition, such as the monarchy.

Persoanly im a royalist to the end and would gladly fight for my Queen and Country. But what do you all think of our Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and other members of the Royal Family?

I think the royals are the world's most famous welfare family (that's living on the dole for you Brits).

When the revolution comes they will be the first ones against the wall.

I'd like to apologize for the few of my fellow Americans (they seemed to be mostly from Florida, hmmmmm) that made mindless insults and arguments in this thread. Considering that we are not part of the Commonwealth it's not really our place to talk here at all. Hell, the only reason I'm reading this is because a bunch of Kanucks, Kiwis, Aussies, Micks, and Limeys arguing is fecking hilarious (if I left out anyone, please forgive me :D).

now thats not what im saying. Your ancestors, much like those of the royal family, assertained their fortune in a different society to today's modern one. Although I know nothing of your family history, and i dont want to turn this into a personal arguement - so ill stick to topic - the royal family got rich in a different age, before the capitalism we know today. They got their wealth and power, and now i'm not just talking about the current family but the whole institution, on the back of subterfuge, wars & battles, and generally unpleasant & violent means, not to mention doing their utmost throughout british history to keep the peasants & poor in check.
IMHO People who earn their wealth in modern society deserve what they have (like Bill Gates, Richard Branson). People who's ancestors were simply bigger & more violent bastards than everyone else, and now have a massive fortune (or, indeed, a crown) to show for it do not deserve this in modern society - it was not "earned" in the normal/modern meaning of the word.

It's the legacy of my family, handed down from generation to generation. The work that we do is to preserve that, and keep goddamned Communists like yourself far, far away from our money. That is work enough to earn the money that I rightfully inherited from my father. The royalty have an even bigger job, because they're a greater target for you liberal airheads. So they do have to work to earn their money - otherwise they'll lose it.

It's the legacy of my family, handed down from generation to generation. The work that we do is to preserve that, and keep goddamned Communists like yourself far, far away from our money. That is work enough to earn the money that I rightfully inherited from my father. The royalty have an even bigger job, because they're a greater target for you liberal airheads. So they do have to work to earn their money - otherwise they'll lose it.

Total published tax payer supported payments to Her Majesty, the Queen, are about £35 million. Add to that another £8.1 million for the civil list (government payments to Buckingham Palace and the royal family).

As I said, the royals are the world's most famous welfare family.

Personally I think they are parasitic

What you say my friend verges on Treason

I am in favour of keeping the monarchy.

It shows a respect for tradition, and they bring in a fair bit of money from tourism; as well as doing a good deal of work for various charities.

I would fight for my country but not specifically my Queen.

Personally I think they are parasitic

What you say my friend verges on Treason

Actually, I think the description is spot on. A parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

The royals feed on the labor of millions (see below) while contributing nothing in return. Hire actors to stand around for tourists to take pictures of. It's cheaper.

Total published tax payer supported payments to Her Majesty, the Queen, are about £35 million. Add to that another £8.1 million for the civil list (government payments to Buckingham Palace and the royal family).

As I said, the royals are the world's most famous welfare family.

The fact remains Ogiek that it is still verging on treason wether you like it or not, and actually the Royals do contribute to the "host" as you have named us brits, they contribude £billions to us with the tourist industry

This thread reminded me of 'Johnny English'... Remember that film? Heh. There's a part in it where the evil french guy goes off and talks about how the Queen of England is the most powerful person in the world and, if she exploited her power, could easily be a lot more respectable than she is today. Now don't interrogate me on that, because I have always meant to get around and find out what she is actually capable of, but never have... but it is an interesting thought (for me, at least).

However, the queen is just a docile old woman who foreigners love to come and see (they never do... they just go to her house and hope she might flash her tits out or something, O.o). We pay what? Less than a penny in tax? And she probably brings in a lot of money through tourism. And being the old, charitable wrench that she is, she keeps a lot of people at rest. It's true that a lot of people don't like her... or what she stands for to be more precise, but what else would people have to say if we didn't have a monarchy?

England: The land where Tony Blair lives and pisses us all right off?

The monarchy represents our history, and as useless as they are today, the mention of the royals, for me, spurs off a whole load of thoughts about why I think Britain is great. If it really bothers you so much... get rid of her... just don't complain here and do nothing elsewhere - it really gets on my tits.

The fact remains Ogiek that it is still verging on treason wether you like it or not, and actually the Royals do contribute to the "host" as you have named us brits, they contribude £billions to us with the tourist industry


Free people do not commit treason by criticizing or even mocking their rulers. That definition for treason is reserved for those who live under tyranny.

It's the legacy of my family, handed down from generation to generation. The work that we do is to preserve that, and keep goddamned Communists like yourself far, far away from our money. That is work enough to earn the money that I rightfully inherited from my father. The royalty have an even bigger job, because they're a greater target for you liberal airheads. So they do have to work to earn their money - otherwise they'll lose it.

i really cannot be bothered to argue with you anymore. this is pointless.

Total published tax payer supported payments to Her Majesty, the Queen, are about £35 million. Add to that another £8.1 million for the civil list (government payments to Buckingham Palace and the royal family).

As I said, the royals are the world's most famous welfare family.

Source?

And I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of expenditure if you're really going to be able to support your claim. Money paid to finance state visits or for the hosting of foreign heads of state, for instance, would not, in my opnion, fall under the category of welfare.

Oh, and for the welfare family analogy to really work you'll need to compare the money received to that paid to the state in direct taxation.

You're forgetting, the ages of wars and general unpleasentness were a completly different time to the age we live in today. We're talking about a completely different set of morals, values, laws etc. whereby this was the norm. Just because it was not earnt in your normal/modern capitalist idealogical eyes, doesn't mean it's ill-gotten.

I agree with those who say keep the monarchy, even if it is just for symbolic value, if we loose it then we're just left with....well... the French way of doing things. Personally I'm proud to be British and proud to be in a country embedded in such tradition, such as the monarchy.

fair enough. at least you understand what im getting at.
See, I understand that I'm British, but I really couldnt care less. I would prefer to see myself as European as it is, so doing things "the French way" isnt so bad to me.

...and keep goddamned Communists like yourself far, far away from our money. That is work enough to earn the money that I rightfully inherited from my father. The royalty...have to work to earn their money - otherwise they'll lose it.

Poor people are the ones who whinge and whine about not getting enough free money from the government. Poor people are poor because they expect everything to be handed to them and not to do any work.

Ah, Communism. That was when the masses of Russian people would toil and work and yet their rulers lived off that labor in luxury and opulence. Why I believe they even brought in tax money from tourism, as well (anyone here ever been to Lenin's tomb?). Yes, the ruling class of Russia had everything handed to them.

And the modern British royals are different how?

Free people do not commit treason by criticizing or even mocking their rulers. That definition for treason is reserved for those who live under tyranny.
I never said you would be arrested or anything, because we live in a free speech land however it still doent cahnge the fact that if you act on what you say, like go out and try and remove her it IS treason, you havent done that hence why i am saying you VERGE on treason and i am sure if you said this in the streets of london you WOULD be arrested :)

Source?

And I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of expenditure if you're really going to be able to support your claim. Money paid to finance state visits or for the hosting of foreign heads of state, for instance, would not, in my opnion, fall under the category of welfare.

Oh, and for the welfare family analogy to really work you'll need to compare the money received to that paid to the state in direct taxation.

The secrets of the Queen's finances are published

http://www.theinternetforum.co.uk/rf/queen1.html

http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1108309

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0%2C2763%2C407426%2C00.html

now thats not what im saying. Your ancestors, much like those of the royal family, assertained their fortune in a different society to today's modern one. Although I know nothing of your family history, and i dont want to turn this into a personal arguement - so ill stick to topic - the royal family got rich in a different age, before the capitalism we know today. They got their wealth and power, and now i'm not just talking about the current family but the whole institution, on the back of subterfuge, wars & battles, and generally unpleasant & violent means, not to mention doing their utmost throughout british history to keep the peasants & poor in check.
IMHO People who earn their wealth in modern society deserve what they have (like Bill Gates, Richard Branson). People who's ancestors were simply bigger & more violent bastards than everyone else, and now have a massive fortune (or, indeed, a crown) to show for it do not deserve this in modern society - it was not "earned" in the normal/modern meaning of the word.
Actually thats exactly what you are saying. Inheritance is a sin. Those who earned their fortunes deserve those who inherited it don't. Be they Royals, business people, industrialists whatever. And where did you get the impression that me or my family were rich? (I wish!!!)

I never said you would be arrested or anything, because we live in a free speech land however it still doent cahnge the fact that if you act on what you say, like go out and try and remove her it IS treason, you havent done that hence why i am saying you VERGE on treason and i am sure if you said this in the streets of london you WOULD be arrested :)

You mean like when the Sex Pistols sang, "God Bless the Queen, she's a fascist regime"?

That is NOT treason and if you were arrested on the streets of London, just for speech, then Britian could no longer call itself a free country.

OK, this is going to be a long post. It got waaay more complicated than I thought it would.

The secrets of the Queen's finances are published

http://www.theinternetforum.co.uk/rf/queen1.html

http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1108309

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0%2C2763%2C407426%2C00.html

The first link was about the exact expenditure on the civil list. I'll get to this later.

The second mostly lost me, I'm afraid. For an accountancy site it seemed very poor at making it clear exactly where the costs went (apart from a brief, far from comprehensive list at the end). There is one key passage, however, which I'll mention later.

The Guardian was better. From my reading of the Guardian it seems clear that the £35 million is expenditure on the institution and the civil list on the person. So the bulk of the cost would be cost of executing the functions of the head of state, with the cost of maintaining the estates bolted on top. Assuming the cost of maintaining the estates remains the same whether or not we have a monarchy that leaves the question of whether we pay too much for our head of state.

Unfortunately none of the above articles, as far as I can tell, make it clear what proportion of the £35 million is spent on the head of state and what proportion on the estates, and I haven't been particularly successful in finding the costs of other nations presidents. There was one quite decent source, though:

http://www.britishrepublic.org.uk/money.htm

Now this is quite partisan, obviously, so should be taken with a pinch of salt. Some of the figures, like the £54 million cost of the monarchy, are out of date. Its main source is also a Tripod site which makes me suspicious as to its authority, though it must be said that this is a monarchist Tripod site. But, it's all I have so far.

OK, so according to the British Republic site the French and Irish presidencies cost around £2 million. Assuming it wouldn't cost more to maintain a British president than a French one (and I see no reason to believe it would) that's a saving of £52 million according to British Republic. Even allowing for the new figures that's still £33 million, right?

Not exactly. We still have the cost of the maintainance of the palaces, which would be paid regardless, to deduct. The source that British Republic sites, The Constantin Society states (note, these figures are not verified and subject to refutation) that this was £20,541,000 in 1994-5. (http://members.tripod.com/~constantian/expense.html). Assuming that no other costs would be paid under a republic (and I really can't be arsed to check any further) that's still a saving of £13 million, though.

Provided we go for the French or Irish spendthrift route. If we follow the Italians or Americans, though, we get a different story. The Constantin Society lists the Italian Presidency's costs as $144,883,257 (£76,550,586) and the US Presidency's as $310,441,000 (£163,996,797) (http://members.tripod.com/~constantian/expense2.html). I'm going to discount the US due to its greater size, world prominence and, most importantly wealth. But if we went for the same kind of presidency as the Italians we'd end up paying £61 million pounds a year extra.

Let's be optimistic and hope, despite the fact that spiralling government spending points the other way, that we could have a presidency of around the same cost as that of France. So we save £13 million.



Now, for the civil list. The British Republic site points out the monarchy get considerably more in wages than a president probably would. I can't verify the figures but I'll let them stand as is:

In their article on the issue the CMA states that "The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £7.9 million per annum until 2011." An elected president would receive a fraction of that, a salary that would be less even than that of the Prime Minister. Even if it were the same as the PM this would incur a cost of around £163,000. If, as the monarchists claim, we pay a substantial pension to former presidents this would no doubt be less still, perhaps £80,000. Lets be generous and say they get a pension of £120,000. At most there would be about five former presidents alive at any one time so altogether, including the incumbent's salary this would amount to £763,000. In fact you could pay a president and five former presidents £163,000 each and still it comes to less than £1m a year.

So a saving of £6.9 million a year in wages. Well, probably less since it's fair to pay the other members of the royal family. The British Republican argues otherwise, but misses the fact that some royals do take on head of state type roles, for example diplomatic visits (Prince Charles to Libya springs to mind). Of course Philip could perhaps be axed since he only tags along, much as Cherie Blair who gets paid nothing, but that doesn't mean that other royal spouses can't do visits on their own. It's just that Philip is a fecking idiot who can't be left to open his mouth without snipers on standby.

Anyway, let's give the other Royals another million, allowing for the cost that would accrue on wages for others to do the roles they perform in a republic. That's on the high end, granted, but still ends up with a saving of almost £6 million quid a year. Not a huge amount by governmental standards, about the same as the PM's liquor allowance, but still hardly chump change.

However, it's worth remembering the history of the civil list. The Guardian article points it out here:

The monarch agreed to hand over the revenue from the crown estate - which owns everything from large landholdings in Somerset to the freeholds of shops in London's Regent Street - in return for an allowance voted by parliament

So the Queen sacrifices her reveue from property in return for the civil list. Does the property belong to her? Yes. Should it belong to her? Hmmm, tricky question. I don't know the exact history but since Magna Carta property rights have been pretty strictly enforced with relation to the monarchy so anything acquired since then would have to have been purchased with some degree of fairness. Perhaps other property was less fairly acquired, I just don't know. Could the state claim it back in a republic? I'm not sure how without setting a dangerous precedent, not just for nobles but for any of us whose property was unjustly acquired from the people in the past. And Marx said that all property is theft, after all.

OK, so let's say we can't get the crown estates back, that they're the monarch's to do with as they see fit. Are we getting a good deal? Does it gain us more than the (conservative figure of) £6 million we spend on the monarchy over the costs for a republic? Or even the full whack of £7.9 million? The Accountancy Age page tells us:

Under the 1952 Civil List Act, the Queen surrenders the annual income from the Crown Estate, which amounts to £130m a year, in return for the Civil List and for parliament meeting other head of state expenditure.

I'd say we get a good deal, yes.

So, IMHO, a total saving of at best £21 million that means giving up £130 million of government revenue is not a great proposal.

BTW, I honestly knew none of these figures before I started researching. I was fully expecting, and prepared, to have to argue for a complete paring down or even removal of the civil list at least. Thanks for giving me the heads up :)

The Queen costs your average British taxpayer about 60p.

A year.

For a head of state, that's good value for money!

Stripe-lovers,

That is a damn fine post. Well argued and rather convincing. I object to the idea of a monarchy on philosophical grounds, but you make an excellent case that it is not a financial drain on the British people.

This just proves the limited intelligence and the shallow minds of the Americans - there just jealous that they will never get the same excellent reputation as the British and can't bear to admit that they were once one of Britains Colonys
Please don't bash all Americans in your own ignorance. I, along with others Americans I know, are Monarchists.

God save the Queen!!!!

I think that the U.K. should give back northern Ireland to the Irish. It's their island, not yours!

well the majoirt of people in NI are loyalists - that's why the borders are where they are - the greatest area of land, with a majority of loyalists.

also, the reclaimation of NI is no longer in the constitution of ROI...so they don't want it back that bad

well the rest of us have to "work" to earn a living - to earn enough money to pay mortgages, bills, taxes, etc... Did you work and earn your money yourself? Granted, perhaps your ancestors were financial geniouses, but that doesnt mean, imho, that you deserve to have more money than you need, after not having actually earned it yourself; while the rest of us work our asses off just to pay the bills. Imo this is not fair.
Okay. Go demand the Kennedys give all their money away. Demand the Bush family does the same. Demand that the Heinz-Kerry family give away all their money.

They don't deserve it. The dead earned the money. But you'd be laughed at, wouldn't you?

Inheritance is the same for everyone. Do what their families did. Get rich through hard and/or dangerous work then your descendants won't need to work. It's plenty fair.

fair enough. at least you understand what im getting at.
See, I understand that I'm British, but I really couldnt care less. I would prefer to see myself as European as it is, so doing things "the French way" isnt so bad to me.
Beeing an European doesn't mean we should get rid of our national identity. Thats not French. It's American. :gundge: I live in the Netherlands. And I'd hate to see the Oranje's leave so we could have yet another republic. I'd wish the Hohenzollern and Habsburgs were restored as well.

And I'd hate to see the Oranje's leave so we could have yet another republic. I'd wish the Hohenzollern and Habsburgs were restored as well.

Hear hear!

I, a former member of the United States Air Force, have this to say:
Long Live Monarchism! Restore the Monarchies!

The world was actually more stable back then.

Hear hear!

I, a former member of the United States Air Force, have this to say:
Long Live Monarchism! Restore the Monarchies!

The world was actually more stable back then.
An American who likes Royals? Other then homecoming royals? :eek: Miracles realy do exist.

The royals feed on the labor of millions (see below) while contributing nothing in return. Hire actors to stand around for tourists to take pictures of. It's cheaper.[/QUOTE]

Actually there not actors they are highly trained British guards, just beacuse you yanks (but not all of you) can't admit it.

Please don't bash all Americans in your own ignorance. I, along with others Americans I know, are Monarchists.

i did actually go to edit that, i know not all americans are bad or anti-monarchist but you hopefully can understand by some of the comments on here where i am coming from.

shes not completely German, just has German Routes
You are racist scum it doesnt matter where peoples roots are if they have lived here for generations they are British. God Save the Queen.

Hear hear!

I, a former member of the United States Air Force, have this to say:
Long Live Monarchism! Restore the Monarchies!

The world was actually more stable back then.

more stable? lmao. the 100 years war anyone? centuries of near-continuous warfare accross all of Europe? More stable my ass; maybe no less stable (doubtful) perhaps but not more stable.
Hell one of the many reasons for the outbreak of the First World War was the political wranglings, to incite a military response (that escalated and subsequently involved the Two Alliances), of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand.

monarchy: individuals with too much power wanting after more land, power and money - not doing what is right for their country or, more importantly, their people.

monarchy: individuals with too much power wanting after more land, power and money - not doing what is right for their country or, more importantly, their people.

absolute monarchy: individuals with too much power wanting after more land, power and money - not doing what is right for their country or, more importantly, their people.

constitutional monarchy: individuals with tonnes of authority and almost no power signing stuff, going to photo oportunities and giving tabloids something to write about

On a final note, something just occurred to me. It is commonly argued that the advantage of a republic over a monarchy is that in the UK we have a head of state who is not elected by a majority of voters and who owes their position to their parents. I just thought I'd point out that so did the USA until recently ;)

The royals feed on the labor of millions (see below) while contributing nothing in return. Hire actors to stand around for tourists to take pictures of. It's cheaper.

Actually there not actors they are highly trained British guards, just beacuse you yanks (but not all of you) can't admit it.

He was saying to just hire fake royals and get rid of the current ones. It's cheaper just to hire people in costumes is what he is saying.

I like the current queen, ironically she knows her place very well. Opening supermarkets, motor ways, smiling for the japense tourists. lol serousily the best monarch is a nice quiet one. Like geogre the forth lovely chap.
England is Democracy and has been since the English civil war.

However realistically the monarchies on its last legs. a socalist party in power thats about to gets its public school boy leash torn off. Price phillip, edward and charles are all bungeling indiots with bearly a GCSE between then, and Harry and William. Hell theyd never dare rule thelly probally abicate in a day or two.

Dont get me wrong the British monarcy has probally been the greatest driving force in history. But its day is over.

and Harry and William. Hell theyd never dare rule thelly probally abicate in a day or two.

Dont get me wrong the British monarcy has probally been the greatest driving force in history. But its day is over.

The fact that Prince William has said that if Charles didn't become King (which he may or may not do, even though he has decided that he will be George VIII if he is king) that he would become King, automatically makes you wrong.

Personally I would want Harry as our next king. Down to earth normal person, who doesn't listen to his nan's laws (smoking cannabis, drinking under-age), he would be a perfect king.

The British Monarchy will never truely die out, as NO British Government would EVER have the guts to try to get rid of it, as there would be public outcry. And the Royal Family can't run out of heir's to the throne, as the actual list of heirs goes over 300 people at the moment i think.

God Save the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the British Commonwealth!!!!!

The fact that Prince William has said that if Charles didn't become King (which he may or may not do, even though he has decided that he will be George VIII if he is king) that he would become King, automatically makes you wrong.


Why George? Granted he can go by whatever name he wants.......

Why not William V(just a guess)....???

Stripe-lovers,

That is a damn fine post. Well argued and rather convincing. I object to the idea of a monarchy on philosophical grounds, but you make an excellent case that it is not a financial drain on the British people.

Thanks for that. If only the rest of the internet, or the world for that matter, could actually possibly concede a point once in a while. My own attitude is that if you never actually admit when someone comes up with something valid then you never actually learn anything. Personally, I find it satisfying if someone produces something that challenges what I thought earlier.

Equally, I accept that it's reasonable to the monarchy on philosophical grounds, I have a good friend who is rabidly Republican and his arguments make perfect sense provided you come from the same basic philosophical position. I don't, but that doesn't make it invalid.

The britsh monarchy = outdated and pointless.

the british government = " "

so there's no hope for us really, is there???????

The British Monarchy...rules!?

The British Monarchy...rules!?
Hell YEAH!!!!! God save the Queen!!!!

Why George? Granted he can go by whatever name he wants.......

Why not William V(just a guess)....???

No, i meant that Charles has decided 2 become King George if he becomes king.

he wants a different name because he doesn't want to be Charles III, cos Charles I got his head cut off after the English Civil War, and Prince Charles doesn't want 2 b related to that in anyway.