The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Post Reply
mattheus
Posts: 5121
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by mattheus »

pwa wrote:From what I have seen of the posts on this thread, I can't see much evidence of Royal Family fanatics or die-hard royalists. If asked to vote on the matter I would choose a republic over a monarchy. This scandal makes that vote just a bit more likely.


I think they're bloody brilliant! Much better than that orange oaf Trump.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56366
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by Mick F »

Plus One.
Mick F. Cornwall
pwa
Posts: 17409
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by pwa »

mattheus wrote:
pwa wrote:From what I have seen of the posts on this thread, I can't see much evidence of Royal Family fanatics or die-hard royalists. If asked to vote on the matter I would choose a republic over a monarchy. This scandal makes that vote just a bit more likely.


I think they're bloody brilliant! Much better than that orange oaf Trump.

Is that the full range of choice we have? The Royals or Trump? :lol:
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56366
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by Mick F »

The devil and the deep blue sea. :wink:
Mick F. Cornwall
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by pete75 »

mattheus wrote:
pwa wrote:From what I have seen of the posts on this thread, I can't see much evidence of Royal Family fanatics or die-hard royalists. If asked to vote on the matter I would choose a republic over a monarchy. This scandal makes that vote just a bit more likely.


I think they're bloody brilliant! Much better than that orange oaf Trump.


The problem I think is the term Royal Family. We're expected to pay for the whole bloody lot. France pays a salary to their President alone. They don't support any adult children, cousins, grand children etc. The same should happen here - the ruling monarch is head of state and should be the only one to receive state funding. Let the rest of them work and, if they can't do that, sign on the dole.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by pete75 »

pwa wrote:
mattheus wrote:
pwa wrote:From what I have seen of the posts on this thread, I can't see much evidence of Royal Family fanatics or die-hard royalists. If asked to vote on the matter I would choose a republic over a monarchy. This scandal makes that vote just a bit more likely.


I think they're bloody brilliant! Much better than that orange oaf Trump.

Is that the full range of choice we have? The Royals or Trump? :lol:

The choice would be a monarchy or whoever we elect as head of state.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by mercalia »

Put Andrew Windsor on Universal Credit now he not getting his £250,000 pa. I might even get the job at Windsor Job Centre to process him. He would of course turn up late for his interview so lose his benefit and get sanctioned :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Maybe see him dossing on the streets there? give him a kick :twisted: He's a real down and out aint he?
pliptrot
Posts: 710
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 2:50am

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by pliptrot »

The issue is that any Republic votes for a president - and so there is some semblance of democracy. Our alternative is the pointless and very expensive Royal Family. While the Queen has shown some dignity and poise, she is the only one. And when you look at the civil list - that endless queue of hangers-on who are on the take for no good purpose, you realize what a ridiculous sham the whole thing is. The Royal family and their endless tail of scroungers belong with the British empire: in an ignominious past. Their continued presence is to the chagrin of the nation. It may be offensive to some, but if we had lost The Falklands War (WWII was a genuine struggle against evil, and one wonders where The UK went wrong after that) that would have sparked some real change in the nation's psyche, shaken us out of our imperialist fantasies, stopped us living in the past and made the UK a better place.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by Oldjohnw »

I was pretty sickened this morning to see most of the front pages of the newspapers with photos of Mr Mountbatten Windsor covered in gold braid and rows of medals.

What a fraud.
Last edited by Oldjohnw on 21 Nov 2019, 4:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
John
mattheus
Posts: 5121
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by mattheus »

pliptrot wrote:While the Queen has shown some dignity and poise, she is the only one. And when you look at the civil list - that endless queue of hangers-on who are on the take for no good purpose, you realize what a ridiculous sham the whole thing is.


"The Civil List" could become the new "Road Tax":

On 1 April 2012 the arrangements for the funding of The Queen’s Official Duties changed. The new system of funding, referred to as the ‘Sovereign Grant’, replaces the Civil List and the three Grants-in-Aid (for Royal Travel, Communications and Information, and the Maintenance of the Royal Palaces) with a single, consolidated annual grant.
pliptrot
Posts: 710
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 2:50am

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by pliptrot »

mattheus wrote:"The Civil List" could become the new "Road Tax":
If only. The change in name was obfuscation, and nothing more. It still involves directly paying very large sums to a self-entitled family and their excessive cohort of sycophants. None of which have any place in this century. but of course so many still live in the last......
mattheus
Posts: 5121
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by mattheus »

I'll take the 1920s please (assuming you're done with them).

Although the summer of '66 wouldn't be too bad ...
pliptrot
Posts: 710
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 2:50am

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by pliptrot »

mattheus wrote:I'll take the 1920s please (assuming you're done with them).

Although the summer of '66 wouldn't be too bad .


Didn't exist then, so they are all yours. I have been told that my grandfather, who fought at The Somme (and was injured and taken prisoner there) was unemployed in the 1920s and so the family didn't have enough to eat, or even shoes for the kids. A fitting reward for his sacrifice for King and Country?

I was going to suggest that in the next one we put the royals over the top first. But I would be reminded that Andrew was in The Falklands, where he was scared sweatless.
mattheus
Posts: 5121
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by mattheus »

I've found your Christmas pressie, phlip:

https://www.teepublic.com/en-gb/t-shirt ... row-in-eye
reohn2
Posts: 45180
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread ( was Poor Old Harry or Andy)

Post by reohn2 »

Pliptrot
Spot on,a good analysis of what is the root cause of the state of this septic isle.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply