BS: The UK Royal Family

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 08:21 PM

I agree with what Eric The Viking said.( Every word of it)

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:58 PM

Cllr. You,sir, are most welcome. as for the opinions of others (respected though they are) it is fairly obvious that possesion of knowledge and facts will never change their emotionally confused minds.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,dharmagirl
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 10:15 PM

Wallice & Grommitt are funnier than the Windsors. I vote for them!!!!!! hg

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 10:28 PM

dharmagirl. If humour were a deciding factor, then I would choose the Wombles of Wimbledon. I assume you mean Wallace and Gromit? I'm not familiar with Wallice and Grommitt? I would liken myself to Preston.. who lives in the basement of Wendolene's wool shop; and is something of a sheep shagger and truck driver....lol

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: English Jon
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:01 AM

Well, the monarchy is constitutional only, yes? So, the queen hasn't any real political clout, merely signing things for the Commons/Lords So she's a paid administrator, effectively?

So, why not advertise for a new secretary? I bet there are temp agencies out there who could get us someone with better typing skills for a tenth of the salary...

What do the other royals do? Can't think of too much in the way of kingly business that falls outside the realms of what anyone else could do? Again, off to Alfred Marks...

Buckingham palace... Very expensive office building... There are some great industrial units free in Tottenham - much cheaper. We'll use the palace as a new hospital, and staff it and equip it with some of the money saved (see above).

EJ

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Cllr
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:12 AM

Nice Humourous response EJ but you forgot to mention whose face would be the replacement on the coins.! Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:55 AM

I would be happy to see Vanessa Mae on the coins, I reckon she is a lot better looking than the queen.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:24 PM

Would you really want someone like Blair to be the constitutional head of state? Or some prat like Byers. Or a Goon like Hoon? How would you prevent it?

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: English Jon
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:46 PM

By not voting for them. Not that we get to vote for the queen anyway.

How about Spike Milligan's head on all british coins, talking of Goons? He's popular with the present lot of royalty at any rate, and with the great unwashed, to boot.

My evil ex-girlfriend's brother (who was a college friend of that bloke who does "Ali G") did a TV show in which he pretended to be "The Earl of Newmarket" and spent a week or two duping Americans to comic effect. OK, he's a twat, but it did show that if you tell enough people you're royalty with a straight face, they believe you. He even conferred a "knighthood" on a college professor in Philadelphia, and no one thought to question it. Maybe this shows that a title actually has no value whatsoever?

Oh dear. Just got myself struck off the birthday honours list there, didn't I?

EJ

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST,Charles two
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 04:50 PM

EAR!EAR1

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:38 PM

Firstly Cllr, I am obviously not intellegent-but more intellegent than you or you wouldn't be a tory!! (only joking, well sort of- you can hold whatever beliefs you wish and I have no desire to enter a personal arguement) But my point was that I would prefer to address you by a name personally, not by your position in society,( which, irrespective of political colour does not need stating to us peasents and is of NO relavence from my point of view)and also not by your accademic qualifications.Perhaps others might like to call themselves; PhD or MA or Dr etc (then where would we be?)and,as I feel we are all of equal status in this forum (except in musical talent) Why should I need to refer to an earlier post to form my own opinion? ( It WAS you, in a much earlier thread who stated you'd called yourself Cllr "because you are one"!-as if it gave importance or creedence to your words above others, perhaps bus driver or nurse is of less importance, we have both here-but they don't name themselves as such)But I digress.

There is only one truth or fact scientifically speaking. Unfortunately people distort and re-write the truth to suit them.(There is a link beteen knowledge and power) So much "factual" evidence is from the writers interpretation of the truth and can be slurred to fit the required purpose without becoming untrue, merely biased in one direction or another to fit the required audience.(Such as Maggie taking Milton Friedmans work and making her distorted view fit her political dogma or history from the winners point of view)

That as it maybe, I still have no love for royalty.

Next-the princes trust does indeed do splendid work and some of the young people I work with have been direct recipients of such(but they bloody well need it, living near to or below the poverty line-artificially set at a low level so it doesn't seem so bad!). It is good that the advantaged help the disadvantaged-so they should (not enough do and with not enough impact on the lives of those they are helping, or their own wealth) This is not a brag, but a statement of fact, that my children have been encouraged never to pass a charity collection of any description for any purpose and not make a donation of even the smallest coin that they have in their possession. This they now do freely, with a consideration for their fellow beings, irrespective of race, religion or creed. It is a shame however that those of such privallege, have so much that they are in a much more fortunate position than the common man, who often cares more for his fellows than those of privallege.

Guest, the prince and others being patrons of so many organisations is a good thing-the other snooties have to keep up with the rest of the mob, so they join and sit there eating good free lunches, drinking champers, getting tax breaks for their donations and generally spending much more in one day than the monthly wages of a very hard working family man on basic minimum wage (not envy-fact). Most of them are sycophants.(And before it is suggested that I am denigrating the efforts of human beings to make more of their potential, to develop their skills and talents I am not- I applaud the eforts of everyone who manages improvement in even the smallest directions in their lives, but realise that many are prevented from doing so in our society for a variety of reasons)I also have to state that I equally despise the fact, we have prime ministers who consider themselves "presidential" and a dictator is a dictator no matter what political colour, Blair, Thatcher they are all the same(as are many politicians who use their role for their own ends or gain).

I'd also remove the church as well-in it's physical state, give the lands back to the people as common lands, return the huge wealth of the secular wing in this country to the poor from which it was stolen or extorted by fear. I would also make sure that those who devote their lives to their parish got a decent wage whilst the bishops etc, could walk barefoot and naked for all I care. Since the church and the monarchy have conspired over time to enslave and control the poor and weaker, I'd let those with genuine faith,though I do not but respect their position, have a decent life.

I'd have a Jimmi Hendrix head on the coins, or Ewan McColl- Hendrix for his being not british, black and against the establishment-and a heavy metal guitar player to boot. McColl for his sensitivety and documenting the suffering of his fellow man or Tony Benn, Gerald Nabaro (A most eloquent speaker in his time)Ken Livingstone or Lenny Henry-to prove the whole thing and idea is a joke! I'd actually prefer the Euro!

Still as one so lacking in intelegence, my words will carry no weight ( I do however know the difference between your and you're!)So for the time being, I'll leave it there.

A president, you vote for and can vote out. A monarchy believe it is their divine right to rule. It is by an accident of genetics and luck that we are who we are and are born where we are.

I've said it before-it is the worth of the person that counts, not what the person is worth.

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:48 PM

Good few pints were it Eric ?

Guest we were trying to discuss, objectivly, the Royal Familly - Still its nice to know that Ian Duncan-Smith is a lurking Guest.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:53 PM

Could ypu please show a little respect to John, who started this thread, and has technical problems with threads over 100 messages, by posting your rants to:

Royal Family - Part 2

Thank you

Subject: RE: BS: The UK Royal Family
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 10:14 PM

i thot yo bew re9sted fru ays thins lik this