astraboy

Besides, its not just the royal family that would have to go...
TaTa the ROYAL Navy
Toodle pip the ROYAL Airforce
Cheerio the ROYAL national lifeboat institute
Laters HER MAJASTY's Customs Excise.
Theres prolly loads more but you get the picture.
Republic? no thanks I'd prefer oral sex with Bernard manning.
astraboy.

megabusa! ha!

ASTRABOY
any reference in the deep and distant history of this country of any reasonable %age of the population placing this family into this position?????

democracy is beautifull, it should not be degraded by these people.
you get your vote every 4years or so, don't waste it.

dsmith

"Republican system is the only sensible way for this country to progress"

Why ? What direct benefit do I gain ? Do I feel a better person because "I can aspire to be head of State" , I could aspire to be Prime Minister but I'd rather shoot myself first.

Elected Head of State (e.g. France) = Another politician costing just as much but bringing in £0 in return

Prime Minster becomes Head of State (e.g. America) = President Blair, President Major, President Thatcher ? cant say any of those seem particularly sensible. What do we gain ? What do we lose ?

Current system may need more reform (it has been changing over recent years already) but haven't yet seen a single justified explanation of a system that brings real widespread benefits across the entire country (and I've been browsing various pro/anti websites)

Change is not in itself a sufficent reason to change something

Deano

megabusa! ha!

GREAT BRITISH ARMY
GREAT BRITISH NAVY
ETC ETC............................

dsmith

If they are all to be "Great British" then I presume Northern Ireland has become part of a single United Ireland ?

That will delight some, and I suspect anger some others

astraboy

<democracy is beautifull, it should not be degraded by these people.>
No, politicians are doing a good enough job as it is.
I can see this going on and on as the monarchy is always a touchy subject.
Suffice to say, the monarchy will never go away, simply cos whichever government so much as mentions getting rid of the Royal family, will instantly lose the next election.
As for revolution, yeah right. The British public cant even organise a fuel protest properly, let along a mojor constitutional change.
In laymans terms, the status quo is here to stay.
enjoy the rest of the thread gentlemen...
astraboy.

megabusa! ha!

i see nobody has answered my question....

in simple terms, who put them in the current position, and what methods where used to achieve it??????

Sbradley

Who put the Royal Family where they are now?

Um, we did, actually. When we decided that the last republic we had was far worse than the autocracy it replaced. That'll be the restoration, then. Around 1640, I think.

So we have a simple choice. An apolitical moderating influence with generations of experience and a lifetime of preparation before taking to the throne, or...

...a f*ckwit polititian elected by virtue of having the most money to throw at an advertising agency.

I know which one gets my vote...

astraboy

<So we have a simple choice. An apolitical moderating influence with generations of experience and a lifetime of preparation before taking to the throne, or...

...a f*ckwit polititian elected by virtue of having the most money to throw at an advertising agency.>
Damn, and there was me thinking I was articulate.
I see a nail that has been hit. On the head if I am correct.
astraboy.

scoobylover

All this from the queen mothers death, would all of this had been discussed on here if she had not died. At the end of the day she is dead so why do people have to question what she was like now?

As for this post being started on the day of her funeral i find that pretty insensitive. People are obliged to have their own opinions on the subject.

As for Blair, well what can i say, not a lot.

ANDY330

i didnt post this deliberately on the day of her funeral, i just got the info on the same day and posted it for all to see like i had, but then, if it is true, then why should we care, sounds like we would have been duped for years and something should be said!

Look at some of the things the Royals get up to now, this cant be that hard to believe may be true, and the only reason its come out now is -because- she has died and whoever originally put it together did so to remind everyone that they shouldnt be moping around mourning someone who isnt as they appear

ANDY330

if not, makes interesting reading, however, quite a few say it rings home truths...

I didnt type this and if its tosh its tosh, but if its not, dont we all have a right to know about it???

---
THE QUEEN Mother was a racist snob who excelled in extravagant living.
Amid all the grovelling, hypocritical tributes paid to her this week,
here are some facts to remember. The Queen Mother referred to black
people as "nig-nogs" or "blackamoors". She backed white minority rule in
Rhodesia. She criticised Lord Mountbatten, viceroy of India, "for giving
away the empire" and his wife because "her mother was half-Jewish".

She opposed immigration, and thought black Africans incapable of running
their own countries. The media call her the "nation's favourite granny",
but she enjoyed luxury beyond most people's wildest dreams. The Queen
Mother squandered millions on vintage champagne, racehorses and parties.
She had five homes, including a Scottish castle with 25,000 acres worth
£20 million.

The castle cost half a million pounds a year to run. She refused to give
it up even though she only stayed there for six weeks a year. A small
army of 80 servants was employed to look after her. The Queen Mother
dined out at the poshest restaurants, like Claridge's and the Ritz. She
liked to have "drinky-poos" before her lavish lunches.

Her fortune was estimated at £60 million. Even so, she couldn't manage
on the £643,000 she creamed off us from the civil list every year.
Luckily for her, the queen regularly chucked her a million quid or two.
Prince Charles had to cough up another £80,000 a year to pay her
long-suffering servants.

A royal aide denied she was mean, saying, "She is simply out of touch
with the costs of modern life and believes that what she pays is a
living wage." When officials pointed out that she had amassed a £4
million overdraft, she refused to economise or sell any of her huge
jewellery collection. This included a necklace once owned by Marie
Antoinette.

In her will she left some money to "her darlings", not relatives but
racehorses. The Queen Mother was hailed as the first commoner to marry
into the royal family. In fact she was the daughter of the Earl of
Strathmore, and her full name was Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite
Bowes-Lyon. Hers was a typically caring aristocratic family.

Two of Elizabeth's nieces were born disabled and were secretly locked
away in a mental institution for the rest of their lives. The public was
told they were dead. She married Prince Albert, who was second in line
to the throne. One biographer, Michael Thornton, writes, "Elizabeth
Bowes-Lyon was determined to marry into the royal family so, after his
third proposal, she settled for the runt of the litter."

When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, Albert
became king and Elizabeth queen. The Second World War was, the media
say, the Queen Mother's greatest hour as she stuck by the people of
London during the Blitz. But the idea that she shared the wartime
privations of ordinary people is a complete myth.

The king and queen visited Buckingham Palace during the day, but slept
every night in Windsor Castle. East Enders booed, jeered and pelted the
Queen Mother with rubbish on her first tour of east London. She believed
her pampered appearance would "raise morale". It just showed how she
still lived the high life while everyone else endured rationing.

For some 50 years the Queen Mother guarded royal documents in vaults at
Windsor Castle that detailed the abdicated king's relations with Hitler
and the *****. They included captured German documents describing the
Windsors' meeting with Hitler in 1937 and plans to restore the Duke of
Windsor to the throne if the ***** won the war. Some of these documents
remain hidden from the public.

Before the war began the Queen Mother was a supporter of making
concessions to Hitler and the *****. She once sent a copy of Hitler's
Mein Kampf to a friend, saying, "Even a skip through gives you a good
idea of his obvious sincerity."

The Queen Mother was vicious to anyone she thought undermined the royal
family. Her treatment of the royal nanny Marion Crawford was described
by one writer as "symptomatic of the ruthless and brutal
cold-heartedness of that family and the way they treat the victims they
leave in their wake who have generally done them great service".

She did not step willingly aside for her daughter to become queen. The
then prime minister, Winston Churchill, had to bribe her to get her out
of Buckingham Palace. The media praise her "devotion to duty", but she
was far more devoted to drinking and betting. The establishment is
uneasy about what the response to the Queen Mother's death will be. So
they should be. For 100 years we paid to keep her in the lap of luxury.
---

[Edited by ANDY330 - 4/9/2002 4:55:57 PM]

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

Don't think anyone should start attacking Andy, this is just "one of those" emails that is doing the rounds, not necessarily his personal opinion . . . .

[Edited by DJ Dunk - 4/9/2002 4:54:54 PM]

juan

What a load of crap from the original poster, not to mention insensitive. Did you try and time it to coincide exactly with her funeral?


post your sources or don't bother posting

Have you bothered watching any of the recent documentries on the queen mum before sl@gging her off?

[Edited by juan - 4/9/2002 5:30:12 PM]

neilc

Chris you sound like you have a real problem with these comments. Was she your mum? Ever met her? Did she have a significant impact upon your life? Why do you care?

She was old, she died. All old things die. Not all of them get 5 hips in the process; prolonging the inevitable seems like a complete waste of time.

[Edited by neilc - 4/9/2002 5:31:05 PM]

catflap

im sorry if this is not the pc view i should have BUT

i simply can not justify the vast amounts of money spent on the royals when i had to spend 6+ hrs in a casualty waiting room last night and watch young babies scream for hours and hours coz there was not enough money to employ more doctors (there was only 1 doc on shift)

I watched people come in from road accidents bleeding and screaming in pain and having to wait hours to get attention, why?

NO MONEY

what do the royals give v`s what they take. DO THE MATH. youll see that even if they do a good job, the money could(and in my opinion should) be used elsewhere.

Seems we are all entitled to our own opinion, and so are the royals, and its their opinion that they should get MORE of our money for nothing.

money for schools and hospitals please
im not anti royal, it just needs perspective, surly they could manage with ought all the rich extravagant things they have, possible just give a little less? Maybe, you know to help the thousands of babies in hospitals who don’t have doctors???

Sure a vist, oooo yeh the helps loads, that`ll pay for the blood transfusion.

They have their place, and they often do wonders, but sadly this country needs money, they must see that? dont they?

[Edited by catflap - 4/9/2002 5:52:53 PM]

dsmith

It is precisely the strength of the democracy in this country that means we can enjoy a true apolitical Head of State. We seemed to have enjoyed a good strong democracy far longer than most side by side with a Monarchy - why is democracy suddenly in Danger ? Should we expect a coup led by Prince Harry ? err no.

The trend in recent years for the Government to avoid the Parliamentry process and annouce things direct to the Press. The increasing lack of accountability of ministers for actions taken in their departments are all far far greater threats to the democracy of this country than the continued presence of the Monarchy.

Without even starting on the steady transfer of power to Europe - Now theres a group of unelected people we could start on. Cost a fair bit more than the Monarchy. And "Parasite" might even be justified...

[Edited by dsmith - 4/9/2002 9:06:48 PM]

carl

I should imagine that in v.early days small clans either elected a leader or he got there by beating everybody else up. Then they fought with other clans and so on, until one was the biggest in the country. Then their direct descendants took over and so on. Somewhere along the line being able to kill any opposition became less relevant (can't see Liz being much good in a fight).

Answer is here -- during Anglo-Saxon times the country was divided into small 'kingdoms' ruled by someone who was stronger than everyone else. Eventually they were gobbled up in a few wars by the bigger kingdoms. Then the Normans invaded and took over the lot.

[Edited by carl - 4/9/2002 9:41:53 PM]