[Closed] Royal Succession changes (RANT)

I'd rather have the Queen as our head of state than Tony Blair.

As I've got older I've begun to quite like the fact that we don't have a politician in the job.

I'd rather have my mum as head of state than Tony Blair but I dont see how the fact that many many people would be better than Tony Blair is relevant to anything.

I've begun to quite like the fact that we don't have a politician in the job

WHAT ****IN JOB?

I've got no problems with the queen keeping in the role.

But her son? A wannabe tampon as head of state? **** me

😆 at this thread

While it doesn't make my piss or any other bodily fluids boil, I find it amusing that 'fairness' is being wheeled out as part of the reasoning as to which inbred will be our next head of state.

[i]WHAT **** JOB? [/i]

If we had a politician as head of state they'd invent things to do. Things that would either just **** things up further or cost lots of money and then **** things up further.

As it is we have a nice old dear we can roll out when other heads of state visit and she does no more than shake hands, look regal and sign bits of paper put in front of her by parliament.

The problem is not with having politicians.

It's having politicians whose first loyalty is to their corporate sponsors and not their constituents.

WIth an upper house a non-elected body, and us being subjects not citizens, maybe we need a local version of the "Arab Dawn".

Does this mean Wills doesn't want the job?? 😯

rule of law in action. interesting stuff.

If we had a [s]politician[/s] inbred as head of state they'd invent things to do. Things that would either just * things up further or cost lots of money and then * things up further.

Fixed....

Thats exactly what they do do isn't it? 😕

There are no girls even close in the line to succession..
Unless Kate is up the duff and they already know its a girl!

I like the Royals.. they give the UK a sense of comedic value that as a nation we are generally missing.

Thats exactly what they do do isn't it?

I personally like the Royals, they make the UK a mountain of cash, which means I pay less tax.

Given that the American president spends close to a billion dollars just to get the job I can't see that anythign we spend on royalty in this country each year is a 'bad thing' in itself.

I don;t really care if we have a titular head of state or an elected one but I can;'t see the latter saving the country money or making things 'fairer' for the population as a whole?

Life isn't fair. Boo hoo. I don't know why people waste so much energy getting bent out of shape about the Royals.

Plus i love all the associated history and heritage. Much more interesting for us as a country than yet more politicians.

At the risk of calming down from my rant, why do we need a head of state? I mean she does **** all thats worthwhile so why bother?

I personally like the Royals, they make the UK a mountain of cash, which means I pay less tax.

can you prove that?

Life isn't fair. Boo hoo. I don't know why people waste so much energy getting bent out of shape about the Royals.

Oh excuse me but its that tit Cameron spending his time on this shit that boils my piss almost as much, arent there a few important things he could be dealing with going on at the moment?

Getting rid of the Royals wouldn't get rid of the history you know.

Getting rid of the Royals wouldn't get rid of the history you know.

indeed, France seems to have lots of history and old buildings for tourists to visit

I personally like the Royals, they make the UK a mountain of cash, which means I pay less tax.

But do they really? I'm not so sure. Tourists come over to look at where British royalty lived and the history and pageantry of it not to meet the actual royals themselves. And it only actually makes money if they would actively choose not to come to the uk at all if we did not have a sitting royal family. And even then what money they do spend mostly goes into the coffers of the large hotel chain conglomerates who I'd imagine manage their accounts offshore somewhere and pay sod all tax.

But that's missing the point - some things are more important than money and personally I'd like to be a citizen not a subject - it leaves a bad taste in the mouth in this age of supposed equality.

But what do I know, the whole country seemingly got suckered in to the wedding in the summer - bunch of mugs.

The world's going to Sheol in a handcart, and all you can find to rant about is a change to the royal line of succession? How about corporate bosses pay up by 45%, while everyone else has an effective pay cut. Get a sense of perspective.

The world's going to Sheol in a handcart, and all you can find to rant about is a change to the royal line of succession? How about corporate bosses pay up by 45%, while everyone else has an effective pay cut. Get a sense of perspective.

They can get it too come the revolution!

How about corporate bosses pay up by 45%, while everyone else has an effective pay cut. Get a sense of perspective.

FFS thats the point, what the **** are the government up to pissing about withtrying to make something thats wrong less wrong when all sorts of other shit that affects people is going on....

Because you have to start somewhere ...... and its an easy win

Because you have to start somewhere ...... and its an easy win

surely its just more promotion of Royalty and moves us further away from ever getting rid of the wasters

For an indication of how much impact having a current Royal family has on tourism look at the worldwide coverage of the Royal wedding this spring and the amount of visitors, in particular yanks, to that occasion. That is directly due to the existence of the current Royals, not the "buildings and pageantry" of a bygone royal family.

Like it or not the Royal family is still a big noise internationally.

Prince Charles is currently on a diploamtic visit in Saudi Arabia, at short notice, due to the death of their crown prince. It is this sort of international diplomacy that they do. And it means that it is them, not the actual leader of the country who apparently has better things to be doing, that is doing it.

I'm no Royalist, but I can see the positives in what they do. There is a lot of blinkered ill-informed vitriol above.

<Adds in two peneth>
Without reading all of the above posts, I can safely say that I am generallyin favour of a monarchy, despite their shortcomings.
Cameron, Blair or any other head of state were brought up with choices. You would expect that, as a minimum, each sibling is educated to the knowledge that this is to be their role in life from a very young age? Firstly, that is a lot of responsibility and secondly, they should be better prepared for it than afore mentioned elected ministers?

Additionally, I like the fact that the queen has certain veto powers over the government. Keeps the plebs in check see.

Edit, not s royalist, just a cyclist. Woz out on bike while the wedding was on.

As for Royals making the UK a ton of cash, lets break it down into easy to understand chunks; we *KNOW* a lot of people come to the UK and spend *ALOT* of money to visit the royals, as the Royal family a hell of a tourist pull to people in the US/China/Japan as well as commonwealth countries.

By removing them, people *MIGHT* still come here and spend their cash to see the remnants; however that's a hell of a *might*

So, what you are proposing is changing; our current cash cow system, with a gamble to save a minor amount of money compared to the return. Great business sense, are you George Osborne is disguise?

And that's without working out what we do with the Royal estates and properties ......

and finally the majority of UK citzens want to keep the Royal family (during the last YouGov opinion poll only 13% of people, indicated that they would like the Monarchy abolished) so why should we follow the opinion of the minority?

As for Royals as making the UK a ton of cash, lets break it down into easy to understand chunks; we *KNOW* a lot of people come to the UK and spend *ALOT* of money to visit the royals, as the Royal family a hell of a tourist pull to people in the US/China/Japan as well as commonwealth countries.

absolute tosh. There is NO evidence to support that whatsoever.

Firstly, The royals would not soil themselves with being seen by tourists. Except by complete chance few if any tourist have ever seen any member of the Royals. FACT

Secondly, Our near european neighbours list Tourism as one of the major planks of their economy, last time I checked I think it produced directly and indirectly something like 45% of GDP. They executed their royals in the 1700's. What people actually go for are much more mundane things than visiting the royals, which off course none of them can actually do. ALSO A FACT!

Hands off H R H. She's alright by me and I own a Crass album.
Even if you don't like them just think of them as a tourist attraction.

Our near european neighbours list Tourism as one of the major planks of their economy, last time I checked I think it produced directly and indirectly something like 45% of GDP. They executed their royals in the 1700's.

Yes. Generally our European neighbours have a better climate and are joined, by land roads, to other European neighbours.
I suggest you join a Japanese photography forum and inform oneself.
It is the remainder of our country that is more shit than theirs why our %ages are down.

I'd rather have the Queen as our head of state than Tony Blair.

Now that makes the assumption that given the choice the British Electorate wouldn't do something bloody-minded for a bit of a laugh. Boris Johnson is mare of London FFS!!!

If it was put to the vote, I reckon we'd end up with someone like Gazza. Imagine what a laugh thAt would be when visiting foreign dignitaries pitched up. Who's up for getting a campaign going? 🙂

[img] [/img]

Prince Charles is currently on a diploamtic visit in Saudi Arabia, at short notice, due to the death of their crown prince.

Nothing to do with the old boy network, prince to prince obviously.... just doing it as his own expense to save us poor old taxpayers the burden yeah right!

People still go to France and take pictures of the palaces dont they?
Anyway I'm an idealist, if something is wrong its wrong and I dont care about the money and Royalty is very wrong.

Yes. Generally our European neighbours have a better climate and are joined, by land roads, to other European neighbours.

Which is what I said, people go for reasons other than royalty.

Regarding how many photos are taken by Japanese tourists, presumably all of those are of members of the royal family ?? Get a life, have you ever been near any Japanese, Chinese, or Korean tourists?? For reasons that escape me they fire off more cameras per second than you can imagine. Subject matter rarely relevant. Evidenced by the fact that when I am in those places which I often am I am routinely photographed either on my own of with their kids. Does that make me worthy of a huge segment of the public purse???? I'd hope not

Erm, yes? We seem to agree on certain points but not on others. From an outsiders point of view (read foreigner), what attracts them to the UK to spend their money?

If, as per your statement above, the royal family ceased to exist. Would more or less people want to visit?

Now, I wouldn't spend my hard earned on a weekend in that London to see the royals. My money is better spent in a pub near a good trail, as I expect yours is too. But, I'm not one to discount Jonny's opinion, infact, I understand it is a vitals part of our economy.

Ps, my life is pretty good thank you. 8.5/10.

The queen was an army car mechanic in the second world war.
Not many politicians have that sort of real-world base in life; despite her wealth etc, she still seems to be a lot wiser than most elected heads of state to my mind.

Prince Charles has someone apply paste to his toothbrush and I think quite ****ing right, tax payers money should be spent on such important things as this otherwise all those looney lefties will blow it on health care and education for the dirty general public, even northerners in some cases.

The queen was an [s]army car mechanic[/s] photo opportunity in the second world war

Not bad keeping the same job for 60 odd years.... not many miners could claim that, mark you different reasons though.

Prince Charles has someone apply paste to his toothbrush and I think quite ****ing right

Well if we are moaning about what people choose to spend their own money on, then I've heard that some mental people spend thousands on bikes! when a £99 one would do the job.

Anyway I'm an idealist, if something is wrong its wrong and I dont care about the money and Royalty is very wrong.

Well who died, and made you arbiter of what's right or wrong?

Sounds like you want to remove a democracy (remember that the Royal Family is wanted by the majority of the populace) with a authorisation dictatorship. Seems a funny attitude for a self confessed (albeit deluded) idealist

D'you think we'll ever get a black, gay atheist for a Queen?

PS: Boris Johnson is a horse?

D'you think we'll ever get a black, gay atheist for a Queen?

Well who knows what'll drop out given the shennaigans the royal prodgeny get up to?

Well who died, and made you arbiter of what's right or wrong?

Richc - the op is expressing his opinion about how he would like the country he lives in to be structured on a mtb forum. This is not a precursor for national change - just a bored bloke mouthing off to a bunch of other bored nobodies. Why do you find it so objectionable for someone with (what you claim to be) a minority opinion expressing it? Is it because it is not the same as your own?

Why do you find it so objectionable for someone with (what you claim to be) a minority opinion expressing it?

Self Evident: He's a royalist

I dunno why people start threads like this.

Yes, we know some people don't care about Royalty. We also know some people do.

If you don't care, don't post about it. End of.

molly you started a thread about which car to buy even though you've got no intention of buying a car, and then you ask why someone starts a thread posting an opinion?!

I don't, don't care QUITE enough to not post about it...

If you don't care, don't post about it

Precisely, thats why I do, I object very bloody strongly to the bottom dwelling scum suckers leaching off me and mine.

YEAH! ME TOO! Sort of....

Precisely, thats why I do, I object very bloody strongly to the bottom dwelling scum suckers leaching off me and mine.

Well you know the old saying, 'if you don't like it; **** off' as they were (and can prove it) here first, and the majority of the country doesn't want them to change.

What makes your opinion worth more than everyone else's? As you are coming across as a narcissistic megalomaniac

i'm related to the queen

I'm related to one of the "pleasurers" of the Queen's former namesake...

If you don't care, don't post about it

Precisely, thats why I do, I object very bloody strongly to the bottom dwelling scum suckers leaching off me and mine.

What he said!

What makes your opinion worth more than everyone else's? As you are coming across as a narcissistic megalomaniac

what does a narcissistic megalomanic mean?

Anway someone accused me of being anti democratic because I cannot stand royals and would like to be rid of them???Its not like they were elected. What are you smoking, surely the point of a democracy is that I am free to express my minority view and if i want to, try and convince others I am correct.

Well you know the old saying, 'if you don't like it; **** off' as they were (and can prove it) here first

With all due respect no they can't, they are Germans who are relatively new imports into the country. Phil is a Greek.

My family are Scottish borderers and can be traced back a looooooooooong way further than that......

......and thereby hangs the tale, the whole myth relys on them being in some way "special", and the reality is that there is no test where they stand up under scrutiny as being anything other than just like anyone else, with the exception of the ability to con people into believing they are special.

i've seen Braveheart, i know exactly how nasty the british royals are, pushing your sons gay lover out of a window isnt the sign of a nice person from where i come from.

Happens all the time in my street

My family are Scottish borderers and can be traced back a looooooooooong way further than that......

So you think you can trace your family history further back than 847? .......... really ......... you honestly believe you can?

I thought my family was doing well with records going back to 1692, but to have records going back 370 before the Magna Carta is pretty amazing.

So to prove this isn't just internet BS, do you have any proof?

Well, mine goes back to the fifth century, apparently. I think it's in that wikipoedia thingy.

(Goes and has a look)...

[img] [/img]

HTH x

So you think you can trace your family history further back than 847? .......... really ......... you honestly believe you can?

You might want to study here for a while [url= http://www.britroyals.com/windsor.htm ]Especially the bit about the family names Saxe Coburg-Gotha and Hanover[/url]

PS: 1326 is the offical date that the clan (with incidentally the same name from then to now) was first recognised, and your point was I believe not how far back the family history goes, but that the Windsors were here before me thus I should **** off.

If memory serves she is the 30 oddth great grand daughter of Alfred the Great which is I presume where you are getting that date from. The snag is the bit of history lesson that I dragged that fact back up from also claimed something ludicrous like 5 million (or was it 50 million, I forget) people worldwide can also claim that accolade. Most of em interestingly live in mainland Europe. Queeny is just great at having serfs to keep the record of descent to prop up her case.

I think one is more accurate, if you want to see the full tree back to 847

http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm

If memory serves she is the 30 oddth great grand daughter of Alfred the Great which is I presume where you are getting that date from

True, which brings the discussion back nicely to the title about succession; it doesn't matter what claim you have to the throne there is an order of succession, and she is at the top of that list.

Apocrypha:

Landowner to Rambler: [i]Get off my land.[/i]

Rambler to Landowner: [i]Oh yeah? So how come it's YOUR land, then?[/i]

L to R: [i]My ancestors fought for it[/i].

R to L: [i]Well, take off your coat and I'll fight you for it now[/i] 😆

[img] [/img]

😉

Tenuous links

William 1st

Richard 1st

Jame Stuart

George 1st

We can all claim that your dog smelt my dogs bum and therefore we are related, but are we really?? Direct line of succession back to 847 ??? Like the man said so are 50 million others, so your point is precisely?
Its more like the Royle Family IMHO

We can all claim that your dog smelt my dogs bum and therefore we are related

You do know, that not how mammal reproduce don't you?

Direct line of succession back to 847 ??? Like the man said so are 50 million others

You do know what succession is don't you? It doesn't matter if you can trace yourself back to Alfred the Great, if your great-great-great....... grandfather wasn't the first son you don't qualify for shit, and you can throw as much as a strop as you like, but the Queen is going to come around to your house and give you the throne because life is so uuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnfffffffffffffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

i've was born in aldershot, do i win anything?

if your great-great-great....... grandfather wasn't the first son you don't qualify for shit

Ahh, this is where your history might need a little work. To get where we are now the "king makers" had to dodge that rule once or twice.

To get where we are now the "king makers" had to dodge that rule once or twice.

Precisely!

Like I keep saying, when you actually get to it none, and I mean none of the arguments actually stack up other than actually they are no different to the rest of us. So unless the argument is that we are totally egalitarian and the Royal Family is inteneded as some living form of the "unknown soldier" for our head of state, then its utter toss.

you can throw as much as a strop as you like, but the Queen is going to come around to your house and give you the throne because life is so unfair

You really dont understand do you 😆 , bless

Isn't it true that there are more germans with a claim to the throne than british people?

I'd be happy with the immdeiate family being kept, the uncles and anuties and all their butlers and servants we can get rid of. Oh, and they get to live in just one house like the rest of us.

+1 on being a citizen too

I would just like to state that I also think the royals are scummy parasites who deserve the guillotine, just for the record when it comes to the final count.

**** HELL, THE VERY IDEA OF ROYALTY IS SO WRONG ANYWAY WHO GIVES A SHITE ABOUT MAKING A FEW CHANGES ROUND THE EDGES? IN FACT WHY BOTHER WITH ANY CHANGES AT ALL ITS NOT LIKE THE CONCEPT OF ROYALTY IS FAIR ANYWAY....... MAKES MY PISS BOIL

You are Prince Charles and I claim my £5

Oh be nice.

Not bad keeping the same job for 60 odd years.... not many miners could claim that, mark you different reasons though.

Of course I'm sure a lot of it is what they want us to hear - but then I doubt they wanted us to hear about the drugs, dressing up as a Nazi etc!

Can we at least agree the prince Philip should be taken to the tower of London and shot from a giant catapult, while Chinese tourists blast him with shotguns as he sails through the air.

At least then the royal family will be making a real contribution to their claimed effect on tourism.

From what I've read etc, they generally did/do play a reasonably active part when they've been in the armed services.

If you actually believe that you are frankly potty.

Have a go at getting your kin into Sandhurst with a grade B in art and a D in Geography at A level, and then see what happens when hes in Afghanistan and the Taliban get to hear of it. Let alone try to get into Apache training.