You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
"Royal Family" as in the bunch of has-beans lounging around at our expense, not the comedy series. Has it always been this bad? Feels like it's reached Daily Express levels of propaganda and brown-nosing.
Thought it was bad enough with the hysteria after the Queen popped her clogs, but I think I'd prefer it that the "BREAKING NEWS" push notifications were reserved for things like incoming nuclear apocalypse and not the interesting stool sample that Princess Beatrice provided last week.
Has it always been this bad?
I always found it odd that they had a specific 'Royal Correspondent', which in the 21st century seemed about as relevant as having a specific 'Baked Beans Correspondent'
Always been that way with all news channels.
surely that down to you, I haven't actually read anything about them in years, though I do know the King has had an op, but no much more. I'm vaguely aware Harry and what's her face split, but haven't watch any interviews, or read the book, or paid it any attention TBH.
I don't hate them, I like having a 'royal family', but I also don't worry about what there up to in a day to day sense.
Don't think it's any worse than the amount of 'news' time being dedicated to their own TV program traitors. That is something I'm equally uninterested in but many people are invested hence the reporting. The Royals are the same.
Can't stand the lot of them.
The blanket coverage of the Queens funeral on the BBC was a joke.
Get rid of the lot of them.
And no, they don't bring in tourists. Paris etc.
1. I don't think they are any more obsessed than they always were?
2. I have just assumed it reflects a sentiment in the home counties where news editors loiter?
3. Whilst I don't think the head of state is a position that should be inherited, it is presumably vaguely newsworthy that he's had surgery and cancelling official engagements for a month?
4. Journo's are quite lazy. These are easy stories.
5. In a world driven by analytics they know exactly which articles get the most clicks/opens and therefore a good guess about the interest of the public in general.
6. If you think you are seeing lots of it, and others are not, are you (or someone else using your devices) engaging with it and reinforcing their algorithm's "belief" that you want more of this?
I seem to get most of my Royal family information from the MiL, and threads on here; both of which come from the viewpoint of "what are these scroungers doing wasting public money and why is it news?"
People who don't like them seem to be very heavily invested in them, if just for something to talk about... so maybe that is their purpose. Kind of an hereditary version of Piers Morgan.
People who don’t like them seem to be very heavily invested in them, if just for something to talk about… so maybe that is their purpose. Kind of an hereditary version of Piers Morgan.
I think comparing them to Piers Morgan is treason?
While the streets are lined with brain dead gormless morons waving flags, cheering and all that other sickening crap they do then the BBC will still pump out their usual guff about the scroungers.
Imagine being one of those flag waving idiots though. Shouldn't be allowed to breed.
I’m vaguely aware Harry and what’s her face split<br />
eh? Did they?
I’m vaguely aware Harry and what’s her face split
eh? Did they?
Split from the royal family, I think it means. I thought I'd missed some news which would have been everywhere, as well! 😀
Stand down everyone, he's out.
The Royal Walnut has been trimmed.
Old Charlie certainly has a look of relief on his face. Just like the fella on the Clag-Gone advert.
They know their audience
I for one , am glad that we have at least one sane to represent our country in Europe.
Long may he do his job. Surprisingly I own a Crass t shirt.
Does seem to be the royal haters who give them all the publicity.
What would you replace them has head of state? President Johnson or Cameron maybe
I’m no fan of the Royals. But a quick glance at the front pages of major newspapers tells me that their faces and stories sell news papers. So it hardly wrong for the BBC to report the same stories.
Those are the articles I just pass over, it makes me wonder why I buy a paper every day.
When the king sounds more clued up on the environment, domestic and foreign policy than the incumbent gov plus spends less money then for the first time in my life I might be inclined to say don’t chop his head off….but it’s a fine line. I’d like to see a bit more outspokenness over here and a bit more building bridges over there and he might (just might) be worth his cost.
What would you replace them has head of state?
A pickled turnip. I am sure it could do nothing just as well and cost a lot less to preserve.
Or that little Irish fella you see at rugby matches, we could do a job share or something.
I remember the BBC following Phillip's return (by road) from a London hospital to Sandringham, I think, in 2019.
They filmed the entire journey from a helicopter and televised most/all of it.
What did they expect the 98 year old to do on the M11 in December?
How much did it cost?
What would you replace them has head of state? President Johnson or Cameron maybe
At least that would be vaguely democratic.
Currently we have a vaguely elected lower chamber (if FPTP counts for much).
We have a completely unelected upper chamber.
We also have an unelected Head of State with secret powers to change all legislation in their favour without it being reported. The Head of State also has the power to veto any legislation (although they've not done that for a very long time). They have, however, been making secret changes for decades, only exposed the other year by The Guardian.
Blimey. have a care for the brown-nosers of this world.
When the king sounds more clued up on the environment, domestic and foreign policy than the incumbent gov plus spends less money then for the first time in my life I might be inclined to say don’t chop his head off….
A valid point. Do we get to chop the government's head off instead?
Bread and circuses
The fawning is the same as ever, certainly in the time I've been on this planet and the print media and BBC have a parasitic relationship with the royals.
I think the difference is that the popularity of the royals is dropping year-on-year and if they carry on with stupid stuff like protecting Andrew, propping up the dodgy mess of peerages and the HoL, the insane wealth and the way they don't practice what they preach (Billy's £1m prize for climate change but they own tons of land kept artificially bare with no trees..), the interfering with parliament law text - then we will hopefully get rid, or at least have a major restructuring.
I think the best thing would be to have an annual ballot like jury service and you do a year being a royal with a massive taxfree wage at the end of it and the deal that your job is there for you when you are done - unless you're a small business owner etc and have a good reason to not
propping up the dodgy mess of peerages and the HoL,
Don't let the government convince you this is the Royals fault.
The whole Royal family, with all it's pomp, titles and excess really do detract from the fact that they are still quite powerful people who own large chunks of this country, still not sure why anyone would be interested in them.
But are they any worse than the other talentless celebs that people revere? Probably.
If you despise the parasitic inbreds and the charade that is the BBC’s coverage then do something about it.
REPUBLIC
They’ve been quite successful with their complaint to the Beeb after this one-sided piece of propaganda:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001tw41
And honestly, anyone who says ‘I’m not a fan of the royals, BUT . . .’ can get on their bike.
And honestly, anyone who says ‘I’m not a fan of the royals, BUT . . .’ can get on their bike.
Is that a Republican perogative?
If you despise the parasitic inbreds and the charade that is the BBC’s coverage then do something about it.
REPUBLIC
I'm not sure vitreolic language like that is particularly helpful to the debate. Do you despise the monarchy because it has resulted in lots of close intrafamily relationships? Does that mean it will be OK when Kate is queen because she broaden's the gene pool? Do you despise them because you perceive they are a financial burden on the rest of us (I assume that is what you meant by parasitic) - would the concept be fine if they were operating on a free-of-charge basis or paid at the rate of a gov minister [lets face it there will be a replacement that will not be FOC either]? If you want to oppose them surely those are the least important reasons and its the fundamental concept of hereditary power that would be difficult to justify?
They’ve been quite successful with their complaint to the Beeb after this one-sided piece of propaganda:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001tw41
/blockquote>
Was Emily Maitless' interview of Andrew sufficiently broad for them? I've not watched the link but the fact its still on iPlayer suggests that their complaint hasn't been quite as successful as you imply!And honestly, anyone who says ‘I’m not a fan of the royals, BUT . . .’ can get on their bike.
Where would you like me to go on my bike? Is it just that you find it difficult to have a civilised conversation when someone distinguishes the personalities from the functions or points out that just because you don't like someone you can see a story being newsworthy?
As I say each time this rolls around, if you think getting rid of the royals would materially improve your life, you are likely to be disappointed. Unintended consequences, careful what you wish for.
As I say each time this rolls around, if you think getting rid of the royals would materially improve your life, you are likely to be disappointed. Unintended consequences, careful what you wish for.
Like getting rid of wolves allows deer to bred and eat all the trees, and then you need to get a load of chinless toffs to slaughter the deer and they need a leader...
Bring back beavers, I say. That'll sort out the royal family. Or is it cane toads?
What unintended consequences?.
Why do we need a ceremonial head of state? Answer is we do not.
Charlie boy is NOT clued up on anything much. Total hypocrite. He is in favour of homeopathy, bloodsports and his record on the environment stinks
Anyone else’s BBC news feed currently look like this??
As I say each time
And as people say each time. As fun as your patronising passive aggressive superiority is it misses the point every single time.
However keep patting yourself on the back at what a great retort it is
What unintended consequences?
Why do we need a ceremonial head of state? Answer is we do not
Charlie boy is NOT clued up on anything much. Total hypocrite. He is in favour of homeopathy, bloodsports and his record on the environment stinks.
TJ has it bang on here. The king attends no important international functions with any authority. For all the royal family's "environmental" concerns, I don't see any of then renouncing bloodsports. Complete and utter waste of time, money, oxygen.
As I say each time this rolls around, if you think getting rid of the royals would materially improve your life, you are likely to be disappointed. Unintended consequences, careful what you wish for.
I have a blank page. Let's see if you can get halfway down with genuine reasons why we should endure this pantomime.
How many times on this forum do we feel the need to cover this topic.
It's royally tedious now.
I have a blank page. Let’s see if you can get halfway down with genuine reasons why we should endure this pantomime.
I have no problem getting rid of the pantomime. But it won't make any material difference to who actually runs/****s up the country. Which is what I actually said.
I won't be any richer. Or more "free".
A lot of land and property will be freed up, so the rich and clueless will be keen to jump in and try and make money from it. So no change there.
I suspect we'd end up with a head of state, democratically elected or not. Not convinced we need one, as TJ has pointec out.
Just because I'm not demanding their heads on spikes doesnt mean I'm a supporter. Pretty patronising of some of you to jump to that conclusion.
What unintended consequences?.
Well I used to believe that whilst it was essentially a ceremonial role it provided a safeguard against things like a PM just deciding to pro-rogue parliament to get their own way... but alas that seemed not to be so.
Why do we need a ceremonial head of state? Answer is we do not.
Ceremonial - no - but many countries do have a separate HoS and PM. One of your unintended consequences could be that the simply hand all the monarch's powers to parliament without reforming parliament to build in suitable safeguards. The Borris-Truss-Sunack mess with the minimal democratic input is bad enough - but to give them even more power without a public vote would be even more dangerous.
At least some of the countries that have one figure above them all, also seem to have political involvement in their judicial system. Is that something we would want? All those issues can (and should) be thought through, but its a bit like Brexit or Indy, just because there is probably a sensible least damaging compromise option available doesn't mean thats the one you'll get. That said, "better the devil you know" is a shit excuse for not changing.
Although if you honestly think the status quo is acceptable try explaining it to some 14 year olds. Especially if you explain that in their lifetime the inheritance was only passed to boys (until they ran out of them).
I have no problem getting rid of the pantomime. But it won’t make any material difference to who actually runs/**** up the country. Which is what I actually said.
I won’t be any richer. Or more “free”.
A lot of land and property will be freed up, so the rich and clueless will be keen to jump in and try and make money from it. So no change there.
So, the revolution starts with getting rid of the people hiding behind the royals and then working outwards? Which means that at some point we'd have to get rid of the royals because they are a symbol of everything that the revolutionary comrades are getting rid of. Why not start with the most obvious symbol?
The adoption of proportional representation voting, binning off the HoL and replacement of the royal family with a person who can do the job* properly, can all be done at the same time.
Tax reform and getting rid of all private schools can also be done simultaneously with the above and would also have a massive positive benefit to the UK
(*Challenge of the performance of the prime minister and cabinet)
Seem to remember they have a TV production company that knocks this shit out.
Caught some of the early morning news over the last few weeks, well it's news in loosest sense! People trying to catch each other out over gender labels, in a competition of who's got the moral high ground, ****less kids and their useless parents etc... A load of diversionary right wing bollocks designed to motivate older voters, you know the one's who are always right about everything and always vote!