Personally I would like to focus on the origins and the thinking behind having a monarchy. I know some sciforumers may read up on the topic, and obviously out-do me, but I am intersted with the history. It is my opinion, from thinking alone, that the royal family is born out of an admiration for the strength of the insect species'. We (humans) do not have a natural king or a queen, however the insects that do, are a strong species indeed, and may last longer than us. I am aware Queen Elizabeth (our current one I believe) married a German, to provide a truce at this level between the two countries after the War. This women has given her life for us, and sacraficed her body so the two countries may live in peace, and so her citizens may continue to prosper. How many of you would agree to marry a person for this reason; 'through duty'?? I am also aware she worked as part of an ambulance team during the war, and she refused to leave london during bombing raids, giving a stand for every English person alike, and as such I think she is a Queen to be proud of. Not like any of these twentieth century royals. However maybe the Monarchy's value is really quite useless, and it's role rarely needed, but when it is needed in times such as that, then the 'carefree' lifestyle (they do not work and they pay little tax etc. on their palaces) all descendants live, can be considered to have been paid for by just one such service?
Mr Cigar, I hope that post is somewhat in jest. naw it must be. heheh For starters, queen elisabeth the first of the united kingdom of great britain and nortehrn ireland. Or else elizabeth teh 2nd as she is also know, if you are a stickler for detail, i think she cant be the second elizabeth because the first one was only queen of england. THis ones the first of the UK. Anyhow, her husband is a greek prince, who fled the country after ww2, not german. your thinking of the fact that the royal name thanks to Albert was something like saxe-coburg-gotha. Changing it to Windsor in WW1 was a good pr move. I thought that royal families were born out of the need for leaders who boss people around, and then these people naturally try and leave their children in charge. Who sometimes do a worse or bettter job.
I think the question should be re-phrased "Does the British public with their anti-royalist views deserve a Royal family?" I think not. Perhaps they would prefer a Presidency or a Dictatorship. It is common knowledge that the British public are a bunch of moaners, they are such an ungrateful lot. BTW, Didn't the Eurovision results send you a token message - the respect your country had - is dying.
quotePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!idn't the Eurovision results send you a token message - the respect your country had - is dying. This has nothing to do with respect of a country..the singing was crap and off key....I think we are lucky to still have a MonarchyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Royal family is the jewel of the Island, it is the last thing of value the country holds, and you are lucky to have it. Everything else you have is mediocre or just downright bad. You are reknowned throughout the world for football thuggery, and using lame excuses to wage war on Iraq. No wonder the world has little respect for Britain. As for the Eurovision - the singing was crap and off key; and it was the best you had to offer. Even the worst songs in previous years struggled a few points out of pity, but "nil points" speaks volumes. Britain has little to be proud of, apart for your Royal family it doesn't have much else.
I will not take the bait...however fact:1. Our football team is better than yours 2.We have won the "Eurovision" more than your country has 3 . we have a better Athletic team than your country 4.my dads bigger than you dad nah , nah na na nah! ....do I go on! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure the 'royalty' is worth preserving as much as the nobility and the commonality is worth preserving. Heck, lets give the royalty 50 percent of all lands, the nobility a further 35 percent and oh yea, lets not forget the church--the clergy, the remaining 15 %. Crap did I just travel back in time to stupid wars, famine, etc? Kick the damn 'royal' family out of buckingham palace and stop viewing and treating them differently--it defeats the whole purpose of equal 'rights'. But then what of the 'celebrities' and politicians? Ah fuck it, just give me some :m:; I aint British, etc plus I want their money and excessive lifestyle.
my dads bigger than you dad ?........Nah, nah,na,na,nah......???? And you are a teacher.....is there any hope for the children at your school????? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Beckham???????? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....wait....LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....wait....LMAFBAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......wait....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHJA. FUCKING HAH. He sucks. One feet. two skills: freekicks & crosses. Girls adore him---advertisers love that, the media loves that...the result is a bunch of football illiterates who adore a player whose skills are pathetic compared with the game's true elites: Zidane, Henry, Raul, Vieira, Schechenko, Totti, Samuel, Aimar, Scholes, Nedved, Ronaldo, Ballack, R. Carlos, etc
ITS IRONY.....meaning there is good and bad in each country!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Royal family are ambassadors for this country. I have been told 9though I am not sure how reliable the source is) that it is through royalty, that industry contracts, etc, are given to this country. I cannot see this being wholly true, however it is true that certain products (such as some brands of cigar-ettes) are given the Royal aproval, and as such have 'By Appointment of H.M...' printed on them. I cannot see how this encourages people to buy such things, because I doubt if many people (except maybe eager arabs), pay much attention to this. I think 'By Appointment of H.M...' probably just means a portion of the profit goes to them (the royal family). I do think it is more of a social experiment by (probably) upper class idiots who have nothing better to do than to tinker with society, and I do think it is based upon insect societies. Why else would they be called the King and Queen? Maybe, but what's going to happen to it? Who will take the crown, in your opinion? Apparently the Queen will be very reluctant to give it to Charles. Why else won't she step down? And do you think prince harry, being the smack-head he is, has done more good than harm by growing up as a normal lad should? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But what would you do with it, and what would you do all day??!! You have to live your life publicly, and that is something I am not envious of. You couldn't do anything exciting with the money for that reason either! I thank God I am not royalt. I much prefer being a peasant Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One feet fountainhead?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Stu43t, you should stick to the topic instead of childish abuse about the merits , right or wrong of my country
Royalty should be charted to preserve the line, etc., but all I can see it doing is leaching resources away from England. Find a way to make it work guys. I know you can.
Its a stupid soccer thing. (EDIT: Supposed to be disparaging. As good players are equally good with either foot, and thus "can use both FEET", he can only use "one FEET". Saying he is one-footed is not insulting enough; especially coming from a gooner (Arsenal FC fan--insane rivalry with Manchester -- that clumsy twat's football club)) Just the money and excessive lifestyle, thank you. If publicity is a price, then so be it.
I did, a lot of people from your country - UK would like to get rid of the Royal family. I was merely illustrating that it is the only thing you have left which is a "plus", and I think UK should hang on to it. I wasn't being childish, this is how the world see's UK - OK! Get over it.
All I can say is who cares if the royal family is all the UK has. We don't need them so why keep them? Why keep a tight grip on a tradition that is now more or less redundant? And is a very expensive tradition. I'm sure the money used by the royal family could be put to better use. Why does one family get so much for being born while everyone else has to work from the bottom down. It's a primitive system that needs, yes needs, to be abolished. The UK can operate just as well, if not better, without the royal family. They are not needed for anything other than PR purposes. Enough is enough, the Government, Parliament and the EU run the UK. The royals do nothing. Much like a snail on a hot day, it does nothing! I have some serious issues regardin the royal family. Could what I'm saying be regarded as treason?
so what about the mention of football, war Eurovision etc, evenif some of that is true, what has it to do with royalty?, just what is your problem with my country?
