BS: Long live the Queen

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 10:17 AM

Wiki,
"Mind control (also known as brainwashing, reeducation, coercive persuasion, thought control, or thought reform)"

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 10:16 AM

Steve, you referred to " the massive spin machine that helps to persuade a lot of people that the royals are worth having."

That sounds like " some organised campaign" and "persuade" suggest brainwashing.

"Brainwashing | Define Brainwashing at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/brainwashing
a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries"

So my post about you was wholly accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 09:54 AM

"Steve reckons they have all been brainwashed by some organised campaign."

All who? Where did I say brainwashed? Did I say organised ? What campaign?

Apart from those small points, Keith, your statement above is entirely accurate. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 09:50 AM

You claim that the Royal family bring masses of wealth into Britain
No I do not.

You have claimed that those who criticise the Royal family are leftie misfits

On this forum, it is the lefties, and they did not just criticise.
My first comment was about their vitriol against them.

who are out of step with"the will of the people"

Yes they are, and the Guardian survey and every other confirms that fact.
Have you found a survey that found different?
No.
That is because there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 09:07 AM

Thank you for your kind words Jim, but I am a socialist and recognise that Royalty or even the Conservative Party are no danger to socialism. Keith is perfectly straight with the facts he provides, you just find it hard to accept that he takes the time and effort to back his views with sourced facts

You people are the problem! with your myths and half baked ideas. You inhabit a fairyland(no pun intended)the real world works slightly differently.
If we want socialism we must remember that we really will "all be in it together....and demonising half the population will make it impossible to achieve.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:52 AM

"I have not even made any pro-royalist comments."
'Course you haven't
You have claimed that those who criticise the Royal family are leftie misfits who are out of step with"the will of the people" - which is utter garbage.
You claim that the Royal family bring masses of wealth into Britain, which is highly questionable, but if it is true, little of it filters down to the people we have contempt for and you claim to be defending.
"I just point out that most people want to keep the institution."
There you go again claiming something you cannot possibly know.
I don't have to prove anything - I make no claim on "most of the people" - I point out that the majority are probably those who don't give a toss - you prove your claim, I have made none.
I seldom agree with Ake on anything, but the one thing I admire about him is he states his beliefs clearly, no matter what the consequences.
You, on the other hand.....!!!!!
"Papers publish royal supplements because it massively boosts their circulation"
Precisely - the reason why we have wall-to-wall Corrie, Eastenders and the X Factor on our televisions night after night - never mind the quality, feel the wealth.
Selling Royalty has become more and more of a business enterprise since their role as rulers.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:16 AM

I said I have never met as vociferous a royalist s you - I doubt if anybody occupying the real world has

Complete garbage!
I have not even made any pro-royalist comments.
I just point out that most people want to keep the institution.
You challenge that fact, but I backed it with hard evidence and you produced nothing, because you can't.

Steve reckons they have all been brainwashed by some organised campaign.
Pissing in the wind Steve.
There is no such campaign.
Papers publish royal supplements because it massively boosts their circulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:14 AM

"The conspiracy theory is still gibberish."
Unproved, but not beyond the realms of possibility.
This family includes among its members an elderly, some what crude racist, a prince who struts his stuff in a Nazi uniform and another who envies his lover's sanitary device - inbreeding really hasn't done them a lot of favours.
For someone who claims to be a socialist, you have your nose inserted in some of the most unlikely bums.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 07:09 AM

Speaking to the geraniums? And here's me thinking he was pretending to be one of Camilla's tampons. I don't wish to be curmudgeonly about her charitable enterprise, Jim, which was very worthwhile, but she had all the publicity, the resources and, above all, all the time in the world to promote it. I suppose it was a lot better than sunning herself hidden away on Mustique or on a millionaire playboy's yacht, or shooting innocent animals for the fun of it on vast private estates in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 07:03 AM

Sorry Jim, on re-reading I see that it was Mr Al Fayed who was "not one of their sort"
The conspiracy theory is still gibberish.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 07:00 AM

She, of all that lot, certainly didn't deserve to be 'taken out' by an irate family because she was dating 'not one of our sort'.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:53 AM

"She, of all that lot, certainly didn't deserve to be 'taken out' by an irate family because she was dating 'not one of our sort'."

Oh get a grip Jim, I though you were against mad conspiracy theories...and she WAS one of their sort, if slightly deranged.

The Queen didn't like her because she was a publicity seeking airhead, who let herself be used by the media.

The Queen has enough sense to know that THEY use the media not the other way round...... The Royal family have to be very circumspect to survive, and survive they have, as Keith says, still supported by many Brits.
Diana may have been made a "Peoples Princess" by the media, but the monarchy would not have lasted ten minutes in her hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:17 AM

"for the funeral of the dreadful diana"
The "dreadful Diana" at least launched a humanitarian charity on land mines with the best of intentions - probably while hubby was deeply involved in deep conversation with with the geraniums.
She, of all that lot, certainly didn't deserve to be 'taken out' by an irate family because she was dating 'not one of our sort'.
Credit where credit's due.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:05 AM

You did the right thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:02 AM

I do agree with you there Steve, while thousands stayed glued to their TV screens for the funeral of the dreadful diana, we enjoyed a wonderful meal in a local restaurant, which we had to ourselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:46 AM

"They have shown sneering contempt for what ordinary people think, want and believe."

I have sneering contempt for the massive spin machine that helps to persuade a lot of people that the royals are worth having. One upshot of this occurred in 1997, when tens of thousands of hysterically-tearful people and acres of cheap flowers characterised mass "mourning" for a naive playgirl divorcee that none of them had ever met. The country is replete with royal press officers, spokesmen and royal correspondents, not to speak of almost universally complicit media, all of which ensure that we all get the message and that even vague hints of royal tomfoolery are suppressed. It's also telling that the royals, with the glorious exception of Prince Charles of Bellend, who more or less makes an idiot of himself every time he opens his mouth, are kept very quiet, hardly ever allowed to make off the cuff public statements. Scarcely surprising when you consider some of Phil The Greek's past gaffes. When I think about it, Keith, it's you showing the contempt for ordinary people by arguing for perpetuating the mass sycophancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:42 AM

At least you have sunshine in UK today!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:11 AM

"Stalin lives on in our Mudcat hard left."
Do you have to drag these arguments down to gutter level Keith and risk having them deleted?
The will of the people on Royalty is an unknown factor here and your claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact.
Your contempt for the will of the people is shown in your attempts to present it as your own Alf Garnerish views on Royalty and politics in general and claiming that by opposing your views, the rest of the world is 'out of step'.
I said I have never met as vociferous a royalist s you - I doubt if anybody occupying the real world has
Your picture of real life appears to be that presented on programmes such as 'Have I Got News For You' to give the rest o- us a laugh, the Sarah Parker Tomkinsons of this world with their
funny hats accentuating their bad nose-jobs or the two ladies wetting themselves with hysteria over the new Royal baby - that is what you give us as 'the will of the people' and that is deeply insulting and deeply contemptuous of 'the will of the people'.
Royalty, as with any other institution, should be able to stand on its own merits on not the image that the right-wing media gives us to digest.
Do not start slinging your "hard left-Stalinist" accusations - not with your right-extremist track record - it's bound to end in tears.
We have enough to cope with, with your friend Bozo's scrounging scum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 04:41 AM

Just followed a Spanish gentleman down stairs to breakfast room in our excellent Spanish 4* hotel, who 4 years ago had a new heart. How nice to speak to someone normal!

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 04:20 AM

Just making a point Al.
They have shown sneering contempt for what ordinary people think, want and believe.
In a recent thread they were all described as "feeble minded."

I think that the hard left posting here forget how extreme their views are.
The distribution from far left to far right is the typical Gaussian bell curve.

Along with the far right they are all, literally, bell ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 04:14 AM

somewhat putting words into peoples mouths, Keith.
i think a lot of us are unsure if the monarchy is worth hanging onto. its an anachronism, and sends a lot of the wrong signals out about our society.....who knows, perhaps some right ones as well.

longevity, stability, power is not absolute, etc.

nobody sugessted sending anyone to the gulag.

the wrong signals it sends are that wealth and respect do not have tobe earned. they are reserved for the financially rich. it reinforces the class system. it spends too much of the country's wealth preserving the past at a period when we desperately need to invest in the future, it reinforces a very unfair tax system. not only are we required to upkeeep our own households, we have the added burden of all the queens men, horses, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 03:52 AM

I don't give a toss how many are for it or how many are against.

Stalin lives on in our Mudcat hard left.
Not a toss for the will of the people.
Not even the pretence of upholding it.
Uncle Joe should decide what we get, and the millions who do not like it get exterminated by starvation or shipped to the Gulag.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 03:14 AM

"But the point of an if-ain't-bust attitude is that...."
Don't know who this is addressed to Mike , but it's a flawed analogy.
As far as I can see, the Royals are a fairly useless, do-nothing institute who provide a degree of entertainment value for some, but on the whole, have no practical function whatever.
They are remote symbols of what Britain once was - not particularly something to be proud of.
If they have a role, what it it, other than a glossy figurehead?
I've been following the Minefields Charity affair with a degree of interest - a well-meaning enterprise set up by a Princess, now turned into a jobs-for-the-the-already-well-off-boys in order to educate their children and make a bit on the side - a humane idea turned into a profitable career for a few.
Hopefully, whether Buck House remains a royal palace or is turned into affordable homes for the homeless, Britain is still going to use its extremely limited democratic right to elect who runs the country.
In the past, the monarchy had a role as a symbol for colononising the world and sending Britain's youth to die in the mud of its battlefields - now it's no more than an elaborate diversion of attention away from predatory nature of the society we live in.
You talk as if a presidency is going to change things - what exactly? If they do nothing, what's to change?
I have little time for politicians, but strangely, I find the most inspiring examples of humanity have come from presidents such as Mandela and Allende - and Ireland's two women presidents, particularly Mary Robinson, a true humanitarian and an example I'd be happy to point out to any aspiring world-changer.
"huge number of utterly useless lazy scrounging people."
And there speaks the patriotic right of Britain - the Hitler-saluters, Nazi-uniform doners and those who use our taxes to build palaces for their ducks are worth doffing our caps to - the rest of us are scrounging scum.
Well said Bozo - now there's an example worth preserving - a real symbol of how things are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 02:53 AM

"Ceremonial stuff" is the very cornerstone of our society, and we are the best in the world. We also seem to produce the best whinging gold medal lefties!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 02:48 AM

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth ll or President Camermoron
For fuck's sake, it's a no-brainer.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 02:33 AM

'...the amount of money provided to the Royal Family is but a fraction of the amount of benefits wasted on a huge number of utterly useless lazy scrounging people.'

must be quite a large fraction, taking in the grand dutchy etc,

perhaps an improper fraction.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 12:39 AM

...the amount of money provided to the Royal Family is but a fraction of the amount of benefits wasted on a huge number of utterly useless lazy scrounging people.

Was that posted without a hint of irony? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 09:45 PM

She is completely unnecessary for those roles. Lots of countries with normal heads of state manage it just as well. In fact, we don't do it very well at all compared to some. Give me John Kerry any day. She is no power broker. She does ceremonial stuff only and she represents the very worst aspects of unearned privilege. Make sure you read the right history books. Keith's here to advise.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: gnu
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 09:34 PM

I find it odd that so many people fail to grasp the power and influence she wields though liaisons and diplomacy with other nations. The present "situation" has changed greatly over the past 1000 years but her value as a power broker for The Commonwealth cannot be denied to any student of history and, more so, of political/military science studies.

Ya wanna say she should fuck off? Cool. But, she ain't gonna. Too much history. Read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 09:02 PM

God help the Queen, more like. I hope you're not flying the flag, if you'll excuse the allusion, for all that tourist tat. As for assessing how much tourist dough they bring in, (a) I don't give a damn, (b) however much you think it is, prove it. I expect Prince Harry, bare arse a-wagging, shagging that lovely young lady from behind (jealous, moi?), brought in quite a lot of dough for whoever took/published the pic. Remind me, which one of them likes to dress up as a Nazi? And doesn't our future king talk to his plants, conduct the LSO in front of his bedroom mirror and believe in snake oil? And wasn't his much-loved gran just a little gin-soaked and a near-fascist?

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 06:36 PM

If we get a run of knobheads of the ilk of Charlie, they'll get shut of themselves. He's a joke on (short) legs. A disreputable one at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 06:08 PM

great idea getting shut of them.

the trouble is, last time we tried, we had a civil war.

don't fancy the idea of that, and they do have some fanatical supporters. not to mention the police and the armed forces who have all sworn allegiance to her.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 04:24 PM

Refer to post at 09.22am

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 04:24 PM

Admittedly not sure, but I seem to recall hearing that Obama costs the yanks loads more than Liz costs the Brits.....I am open to correction on this.    Royalty pads not in the top 50 ?. Seems a limited way of assessing royalty tourist income. I,m pretty sure all those gift shops in London don't stock all that tat out of loyalty !    Not really mega royalty, especially all the hangers on, but I,ll say it too....God save the queen .

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 04:20 PM

Of which they represent a proportion. The main difference being that they never get hassled by IDS's rules or get subjected to means testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 04:16 PM

Actually, the amount of money provided to the Royal Family is but a fraction of the amount of benefits wasted on a huge number of utterly useless lazy scrounging people.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 04:05 PM

I don't give a toss how many are for it or how many are against. I don't care how many silly tourists come into specifically to wave cheap plastic flags outside an empty palace. I care somewhat more about what's right and wrong. Here we have an extended family, full of especially useless hangers-on, who receive massive stipends from the state for doing nothing of use to man nor beast and who represent the pinnacle of the pyramid of undeserved privilege. Their wealth and status was obtained by their ancestors fleecing ordinary people. If they are popular, it's largely because they can afford the finest spin doctors and have the mass media in their pockets. It seems that every paper and every TV channel has its "royal correspondent". It's not a question of letting the people have what they want. It's a question of letting the people have what they've been persuaded they want. They exploit the media to promote their lifestyles to the ends of the earth. But just see what happens when someone gets a blurry snapshot of lazy-bugger Kate Middleton's tits. Talk about shit hitting fans. Speaks volumes, it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:56 PM

Pretty much why I said I was"weak republican", M. I don't see much advantage in changing the ceremonial face of the country, but it is important we get the letter writing and similar back doors to power under control.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:46 PM

But the point of an if-ain't-bust attitude is that, if you try to fix it, you will finish up having expended a whole lot of money & effort & energy only to be no better off at the end than you were before. In what way, precisely, do all these inveighers think the country would be better off if we went thru all the hassle of abolishing the Royals and substituting an elected President Blair or Cameron or Corbyn or Who-the-hell-ever to open things and play those ceremonial roles which seem to be an essential part of the DNA of any sort of state or national entity? The Windsors & that lot aren't perfect, either personally or institutionally [who or what is, for crying out loud?], but they happen to be what we've got; so why not just live with it? What possible advantage, or satisfaction apart from a sort of symbolic yah-sux-boo, do any of these moaners think would emerge from a change to some sort of republic?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:30 PM

"I can't imagine the cost will be any less."
It probably isn't - but it doesn't justify either.
As for, "if it ain't bust..."
Can't claim it is particularly - I tend to be a bit of an agnostic on the matter - but I'm constantly having my ear bent about keeping things I don't use any more - "It's taking up space...etc"
I really don't care that much, but I do object "God-save-the Queeners" suggesting I'm out of step because I choose not to salute.
They seem to live in Lemmingland, these people.
The joke with the little Brits is that the British Royals aren't that British - if er Maj got into an argument with them on Mudcat, she'd be told, "your'e only saying that because you hate Britain", or 'at least it's better than happens in your country' and I'm being constantly told.
I watched an old QI a couple of weeks ago with some amusement when Stevie the Friar informed the panel that, had the laws of male/female succession been different prior to W.W.1. Kaiser Bill would have been King of England - now that would have been interesting!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: GUEST,Cj
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:26 PM

The best thing the royal family ever gave us is this song below - even better than Al's masterpiece:

http://youtu.be/jzxZ6hWAExo

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:18 PM

What I take offence at is the assumption, as exemplified by Keith A of Hartford, that the majority of British people are blithely in favour of the monarchy.

It is not an assumption.
Numerous surveys beside the Guardian one I quoted have confirmed that fact.

small wonder, given the tumult of sycophantic reporting that rains (reigns?) down on us via the Mail, the Express and all the other bits of biased media.

Do you really believe that but for the media everyone would think like you?
Are you somehow immune to it, but lesser mortals are helpless?
The fact is that only a small minority of people read any newspapers at all.
Face it. Most people just do not like, want or believe the stuff that all you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:17 PM

...sorry - don't know what happened there; to continue

...[1971 iirc], watched a guard-changing ceremony outside the White House. The two GIs involved screamed and yelled at one-another in most undignified fashion, I recall, as part of the procedure. I must say that I think our own Household Brigade make a much better, and more worthwhile and watchable, fist of that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:15 PM

Long live the Queen!

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 03:12 PM

Not a committed post either way -- as I never tire of saying, I am not a royalist exactly, more of an if-it-ain't-bust-don't-fix-it·ist -- but all this about what they cost. Out of interest, how does it compare with, eg the upkeep of the White House, presidential motorcades, generally keeping a Presidency on the road? Not just in US, but other republics. I can't imagine the cost will be any less.

I hyave a recollection of having once, long since [1

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 02:42 PM

"The Guardian, a respected left wing publication,"
It is not a left-wing paper, it is middle of the road, though to some people anything more moderate than Mein Kampf would be left wing.
Anybody who claims to know that %36 of anywhere thinks one way or the other is telling porkies - the statistics for such a claim simply do not exist - or you can show me they do other than by presenting a claim by a paper you have invented a political stance for.
No statistic - no basis for a claim - we don't even get a vote on the issue, which, at least would show how much of a minority the monarchy is.
You claims have no foundation in either fact or reality.
I think you are one of the only vociferous pro-Royal cap-doffer I have ever come across in my life - most people, as I have said, ton't give a toss.
And again, I repeat, if it were a fact that the majority of people were pro-royal, it wouldn't mean a thing - have you looked at the charts lately!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 02:04 PM

What I take offence at is the assumption, as exemplified by Keith A of Hartford, that the majority of British people are blithely in favour of the monarchy. If it's true, then small wonder, given the tumult of sycophantic reporting that rains (reigns?) down on us via the Mail, the Express and all the other bits of biased media. Tell you what lads. Turn off the shower, give us some honest reporting on the activities of this peculiar family, complete with costings, and then see whether a majority of the British public still favour a monarchy.

If the monarchy is such a capital asset in terms of tourism, then I would find that very difficult to believe. Earlier this year, Visit England published a list of the top 50 tourist attractions in England. There was not one single royal residence on it. And this for an institution, be it remembered, which costs a phenomenal amount of public money to maintain.

So there's no suggestion, never mind evidence, that removal of the monarchy would in any way endanger the tourist trade. In fact I can think of one way in which those royal residences could be turned into real money spinning tourist attractions. Get rid of the present occupants and open the buildings to members of the public. Then we can all go and have a look at where our money has been going all these centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 01:44 PM

The will of the people is not known on this matter

The Guardian, a respected left wing publication, conducted a survey.
I linked to their report of it.

"Pro-royal feeling is spread remarkably equally among the social classes, and across the regions of England and Wales. It is less marked in Scotland – where 36% say the country would be better off without the Windsors – but even there a solid 50% feel the opposite way. Support is stronger among the older, and especially among Conservative voters, in whose ranks it reaches 82%. But across every age group and among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters alike, the monarchy is enjoying solid support."

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 01:40 PM

I am no monarchist but the idea of a ruler trained to govern is becoming more and more attractive as it becomes obvious that our democratically elected representatives have no idea how to run a piss up in a brewery, let alone a country.

It is not my idea (The late great Terry Pratchett mentions it) but a benign ruler, versed in the ways of state may not be a bad thing. So, I hear you ask, what happens when they go off the rails and stop following the will of the majority? Easy, they get their heads chopped of and we replace them with someone who will listen to the people. Hell of an incentive to make sure you get things right :-) Of course this means that the monarch must have no armed forces to impose their will. Is that a bad thing :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Long live the Queen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 15 - 01:36 PM

I note the sneering contempt from the hard left for the will of the people.
The will of the people is not known on this matter - nobody has bothered to consult them to the extent to have an idea how they feel.
Figures for anti monarchists range from around 24% to 50% - depending who and where you ask - but either end of the scale, that's an awful lot of "hard left".
Even if these figures were reliable, which they are not, it doesn't take into consideration those who couldn't give a toss either way which probably accounts fort the majority.
Short of actually asking them, there is no way whatever of knowing what people think - people watch Royal Weddings changing ot the Guard, et al, the way they would watch The Rose of Tralee Festival or the Oscars - not because they support it, but because it's spectacle - something to look at.
How much they actually bring into the revenue is a bit of a con anyway, typified by one of the biggest claims of the Royal knob-holders - tourism.
There are no figures of how many visitors would come to Britain if Buckingham Palace wasn't there - I doubt if gawking through the railings at a nondescript building you will never see the inside of can't be high on anybody's bucket list.
Give us a break you cap-doffing pair of sycophants - Eastenders and Corrie have topped the ratings for as long as I can remember, but they're both shit.
Jim Carroll