All first born Windsors are equal!

At last and finally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607

Great news and such a relief. Perhaps now they're on a bit of a roll they'll start to realise the whole institution of monarchy and heriditary rule is based on inequality. Makes me laugh.

When they realise that they represent the class system that has ruined this country,then perhaps we can move on.

God save our gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,

God save the Queen!

Send her victorious,

Happy and Glorious,

Long to reign over us;

God save the Queen!

Oh, what a relief. I can sleep well at night now knowing that.

It doesn't matter what sex the offspring of the German usurpers is, they are all equal.

feel the pride running throught the bones of the Englishman

To be born into a position of authority and influence is only slightly worse than those who stand by and allow themselves to be ruled over by people who were born into that position.

I am a polite republican.

I respect Elizabeth Windsor; there can be no doubt that she has served her country impeccably and has given her life to her country.

That said, it is plain wrong and undemocratic that someone should be afforded special treatment by simple virtue of who their parents were.

The monarchy must end. I doubt it will in my life time but I will never bow to Elizabeth Windsor, Charles Windsor, William Windsor or any other of their family. I will treat all of them just the same as the fellow who occupies the seat next to me at football.

Democracy can not be complete whilst there is still an unelected elite ruling over us. Whether they have any power or not is not the issue. The very nature that a person is deemed better, higher and more worthy because of his/her parents is plain wrong.

End the monarchy now. Be polite about it, thank Elizabeth for her service but ask her to move on.

Off with their heads, the lot of them. Sponsored by coca cola.Actually, I think this is a ploy to stop camilia becoming queen.I don't lick stamps, I spit on em.

1976 child. The bloke sat next to you at football will have paid for his (her) own ticket and not cost a squillion quid in security, putting YOU at risk.in the process. F uck em, f uck em all.

1976 child. The bloke sat next to you at football will have paid for his (her) own ticket and not cost a squillion quid in security, putting YOU at risk.in the process. F uck em, f uck em all.

I share your position on the 'royal' family.

Just don't get carried away with cliches about 'squillions on security' or 'millions on palaces' etc. It does our republican cause only harm, as it is absurd to believe that an elected head of state would not also incur such costs.

It is not the costs of the 'royal' family which I detest. It is the inequity. All humans are equal before God. To raise one family above all others is anathema. It is a fraud committed on the human condition; that one is not good enough and should 'know one's place'. It must end - not because of how much it costs us - but because of what it is.

The 'cost' is a good starting point for any newcomer to republicanism though. The finer points are for the deeper thinking amongst us.

The 'cost' is a good starting point for any newcomer to republicanism though. The finer points are for the deeper thinking amongst us.

No. Disagree.

The cost is a complete red herring.

The only pertinent issue is that it is wrong to promote one human being - nay, the whole damn family - above others purely on the basis that their daddy was also the son of their grandfather who was the son of their great-grandfather who was.....

That is it. In a nutshell. William and his first born may both be wonderful people; kind, honest and honourable but in no way does that give him and his first-born the right to be my head of state when I, you and any other citizen can not aspire to be the head of state of the country too.

Leave the cost etc out of it. It is tabloid rubbish and easily to knock down, as an argument.

No. Disagree.

 

The cost is a complete red herring.

 

The only pertinent issue is that it is wrong to promote one human being - nay, the whole damn family - above others purely on the basis that their daddy was also the son of their grandfather who was the son of their great-grandfather who was.....

 

That is it. In a nutshell. William and his first born may both be wonderful people; kind, honest and honourable but in no way does that give him and his first-born the right to be my head of state when I, you and any other citizen can not aspire to be the head of state of the country too.

 

Leave the cost etc out of it. It is tabloid rubbish and easily to knock down, as an argument.

Well said and I agree with you. Money is a distraction to the argument.

No. Disagree.

 

The cost is a complete red herring.

 

The only pertinent issue is that it is wrong to promote one human being - nay, the whole damn family - above others purely on the basis that their daddy was also the son of their grandfather who was the son of their great-grandfather who was.....

 

That is it. In a nutshell. William and his first born may both be wonderful people; kind, honest and honourable but in no way does that give him and his first-born the right to be my head of state when I, you and any other citizen can not aspire to be the head of state of the country too.

 

Leave the cost etc out of it. It is tabloid rubbish and easily to knock down, as an argument.

I have a lot of sympathy for your position, 1976_Child.

Where do you stand on the wider concept of inherited status?

Hereditary peers are an obvious example, but even a child born into wealth is going to have a lot of advantages over a kid who is raised in relative squalor.

I think I agree with 1976_child... on respecting that the Queen does a good job, but that job needn't be done. It's probably about time we had an elected head of state, though I'm not in any massive hurry, as there are more important constitutional issues to deal with first.

However, it does make me laugh how they say this change reflects the modern country we have become, when we are talking about the Royal Family.

If you'd been born royal, do you think you'd be more inclined to be religious? i.e. clearly I've been granted a special privilege?

 

I guess there's some instance of that in which country you're born in and then nationalism stems from that. Although paradoxically you have mass religion in awful areas of Africa etc. But then it usually comes down to severe lack of education.

 

Anyway, how would getting rid of a monarchy actually work? When it does happen, will the PM just announce it? Will the opposition party of the time suddenly become all royalist to gain favour? I imagine the majority of the public would be against it and demand their say. Sadly the majority are a bit thick. Amazing how important many find having their say, when they place so little importance on actually researching and understanding the issues.

 

I see today's papers banging on about most the country wanting out of Europe. I'd be more interested to know what proportion of them have actually bothered to look into the pros and cons and come to an informed decision, rather than reactionary, shouty nationalist bull**** of the same ilk that keeps Ma and Pa Windsor in corgies and caviar.

There would have to be a Referendum on removing the Monarchy, and I imagine whoever instigated it would lose a lot of votes with those staunch Monarchists that still exist, so we won't have a say for a long time until the Monarchy are truely truely unpopular, which they aren't at the moment, largely thanks to the respect the Queen carries.

Long to reign over us;

......

"And keep Chuck off the throne".

never to be a republic

Quote from 1976-Child "I will treat all of them just the same as the fellow who occupies the seat next to me at football."

If you shout in their ears and swear and jump up and down you might be arrested by their protection cops. :lol:

On a serious note I agree 100 percent with regards to the position that 1976 holds about the royals.

.

I have a lot of sympathy for your position, 1976_Child.

 

Where do you stand on the wider concept of inherited status?

Hereditary peers are an obvious example, but even a child born into wealth is going to have a lot of advantages over a kid who is raised in relative squalor.

I stand no where near it!

Inherited status? Good grief. How the hell can one inherit status? Would we accept Adam Lalana's first born into the mid-field at SMS just because his dad was so feking awesome at the job? No!

Inherited status? That is the very definition of an oxymoron.

I stand no where near it!

 

Inherited status? Good grief. How the hell can one inherit status? Would we accept Adam Lalana's first born into the mid-field at SMS just because his dad was so feking awesome at the job? No!

 

Inherited status? That is the very definition of an oxymoron.

Well, it happens all the time. Do you honestly think that the Murdoch kids would be in such high flying positions within News International if not for dear old dad? What about people born into the Rothschild or Rockefeller families?

I know that you're talking specifics with regard to the monarchy, and forgive me if I am over-generalising, but it seems to me that the bone of contention here is people getting something others cannot because of who their parents are. Being born into any of the family empires I've just mentioned would give you massive advantages over 99.99999% of the rest of the world.

I am proud and loyal Royalist.

I think that opinion may change when the Queen goes to the great palace in the sky.

Charles is by no means universally liked, and the other two aren't exactly the brightest sparklers in the box.

Once Lizzie's gone, there may be more searching questions asked about their role and value to the country.

I think that opinion may change when the Queen goes to the great palace in the sky.

 

Charles is by no means universally liked, and the other two aren't exactly the brightest sparklers in the box.

 

Once Lizzie's gone, there may be more searching questions asked about their role and value to the country.

No.

William and Katherine have reinvigorated the monarchy.

Harry is also well liked.

The future looks secure.

No.

 

William and Katherine have reinvigorated the monarchy.

 

Harry is also well liked.

 

The future looks secure.

So it's a popularity contest? Surely the whole point is not whether they are well liked or not but because they are there by divine right?

So it's a popularity contest? Surely the whole point is not whether they are well liked or not but because they are there by divine right?

I am a proud and loyal royalist. I'm not even going to debate the subject.

I am a proud and loyal royalist. I'm not even going to debate the subject.

Here is the full quote:

"I'm not even going to debate the subject because I haven't a leg to stand on."

Here is the full quote:

 

"I'm not even going to debate the subject because I haven't a leg to stand on."

He obviously realises that the Royals are far superior to him.

Some of us aren't so gullible.

William and Katherine have reinvigorated the monarchy.

"Chocolate box Britain", a theme park for American and Japanese tourists.

Harry is also well liked.

Harry is not a Windsor

The future looks secure.

For whom ? The sycophants hoping to gain some 'gracious' favour. or those bathing in reflected 'glory' ? The Royals are an irrelevance in the wider world.

To be fair you have quite a lot in common with the royal family in that you both have non jobs. That said the royals do bring in millions to the economy by attracting tourists, wheras you are just a waste of space drain on the public purse.

You really do need to engage your brain before letting your podgy public sector fingers loose on your keyboard.

feel the pride running throught the bones of the Englishman

except Gary Neville hahaha

Got a new found respect for Gareth Southgate watching that - he, Psyco and Tony "loon" Adams absolutely belting it out in a way no current England player could come close to!

Have to admit the rugby boys put the football squad to shame in the anthem stakes - this one from this years 6 nations is fairly average but still every player booming it out - great to see Harry and Zara doing the same in the stands.

God save the Queen!

To be fair you have quite a lot in common with the royal family in that you both have non jobs. That said the royals do bring in millions to the economy by attracting tourists, wheras you are just a waste of space drain on the public purse.

 

You really do need to engage your brain before letting your podgy public sector fingers loose on your keyboard.

Dunce, are you a hermaphrodite ? You manage to be a c o c k and a c u n t at the same time.

Harry is not a Windsor

.

How cruel.

Just because he's a carrot-top and looks nothing like the rest of the clan, that's no reason to cast aspersions on Saint Diana.

Dunce, are you a hermaphrodite ? You manage to be a c o c k and a c u n t at the same time.

Ho Ho Ho. Funny as f/ck.

Have you thought of becoming a comedian instead of a waste of space?

Ho Ho Ho. Funny as f/ck.

 

Have you thought of becoming a comedian instead of a waste of space?

Have you ever thought of doing us all a favour and dropping dead ?

Have you ever thought of doing us all a favour and dropping dead ?

No sign of a witty response from dune.

No sign of a witty response from dune.

Sometimes it's best not to engage with cringeworthy ripostes as you can end up looking as spazzy as the person making them, and Badgerx16 likes to have the last word so any further comeback on my part would undoubtedly coax another rib tickler.

To be fair you have quite a lot in common with the royal family in that you both have non jobs. That said the royals do bring in millions to the economy by attracting tourists, wheras you are just a waste of space drain on the public purse.

You really do need to engage your brain before letting your podgy public sector fingers loose on your keyboard.

Ho Ho Ho. Funny as f/ck.

 

Have you thought of becoming a comedian instead of a waste of space?

Sometimes it's best not to engage with cringeworthy ripostes as you can end up looking as spazzy as the person making them, .....

How true, and I feel that I have seriously let myself down by being dragged down to your level.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation

If any of this is true, I think it is about time we said goodbye to the royal family.

The Royal Family, a cause celebre for the chippy and those incapable of seeing the economic side effects of tradition and heritage in bringing in tourism. Abolition will not create one job but will cost thousands. Republicanism, flying the flag for the stupid.

The Royal Family, a cause celebre for the chippy and those incapable of seeing the economic side effects of tradition and heritage in bringing in tourism. Abolition will not create one job but will cost thousands. Republicanism, flying the flag for the stupid.

Given some of the complete ****wit royals that we've had to endure over the years its probably Royalists who are flying the flag for stupidity. Economics has **** all to do with it, you either think it is appropriate to have a hereditry and unelected head of state or you don't. In any case you can easily make a good financial argument for abolishing the Royal family - selling the numerous Royal estates (Buck palace etc) and treasures could raise billions to be reinvested for the good of the country.