The_Kincardine Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Shades75 said: You need some fresh material. This isn't, actually, a debating point. That few people contend simply affirms it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 The monarchy is a fantastic tourist attraction and a decent window for charities to make money. That's about the extent of their use in modern day Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 The monarchy is a fantastic tourist attraction and a decent window for charities to make money. That's about the extent of their use in modern day Britain. Erm yes, because the Palace of Versailles has been bereft of visitors ever since the French got rid of their monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, Kyle said: The monarchy is a fantastic tourist attraction and a decent window for charities to make money. That's about the extent of their use in modern day Britain. And rightly so. Your truism doesn't stop The Ghirls getting their collective drawers in a fankle about it. God Save Our Tokenistic Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 It's bizarre to me just how much Tories - on here and in forums/comments sections generally - reference how intelligent and sensible they are. It's every second sentence with these dullards. You really have to hand it to Lynton Crosby and the lads. It's almost impressive anyway that a party can win election after election whilst communicating almost entirely in soundbites and contrived public school debating society bantah. Gaining such electoral success by treating the public like they're all thick as shit is one thing. Having folk believe they're leading some kind of intellectual movement whilst doing that is some Jedi shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im_Rodger Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Religion oriented schools should also stop receiving public funding. Shambolic that the conservatives do not agree with me on this issue. [emoji107]???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 55 minutes ago, virginton said: Erm yes, because the Palace of Versailles has been bereft of visitors ever since the French got rid of their monarchy. Fair point. Charity is their only use in modern day Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said: And rightly so. Your truism doesn't stop The Ghirls getting their collective drawers in a fankle about it. God Save Our Tokenistic Queen. That would be great. I fully endorse the tokenistic "point at out of curiosity" idea of monarchy. Except that is not the case in modern Britain. The monarchy still wields a hefty unofficial clout. The system of patronage, through the whole honours/class system. The amount of saddo members of the public who listen for every fart or utterance from the queen or other senior royals and set their thoughts and opinions by such, or indeed how the Daily Mail/BBC royal reporters interpret the respective hot air produced. And most importantly, the official weekly meetings with the prime minister we plebs elected. F@ck knows what is discussed at these meetings, but it ain't solely for our welfare. The monarch still does hold a significant hand in the unwritten constitution of this strange wee country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 minute ago, git-intae-thum said: That would be great. I fully endorse the tokenistic "point at out of curiosity" idea of monarchy. Except that is not the case in modern Britain. The monarchy still wields a hefty unofficial clout. The system of patronage, through the whole honours/class system. The amount of saddo members of the public who listen for every fart or utterance from the queen or other senior royals and set their thoughts and opinions by such, or indeed how the Daily Mail/BBC royal reporters interpret the respective hot air produced. And most importantly, the official weekly meetings with the prime minister we plebs elected. F@ck knows what is discussed at these meetings, but it ain't solely for our welfare. The monarch still does hold a significant hand in the unwritten constitution of this strange wee country. Pretty-much everything you described would hold true for any head of state elected or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: Pretty-much everything you described would hold true for any head of state elected or not. They ain't tokenistic. Even after Williamism (??) revolutions and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Just now, git-intae-thum said: They ain't tokenistic. Even after Williamism (??) revolutions and stuff. They are. Hence the 1688 'the constitution is what parliament decides it is' business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Has Im_Rodger been banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: They are. Hence the 1688 'the constitution is what parliament decides it is' business. Royal patronage. In the 21st century. Really! As I said. I am not anti monarchy. I appreciate the whole "look and see" tourist/charity argument. However that is not the UK's monarchy. Regardless of what they set down in the iron ( or was it orange ) age, these royal type folk still wield considerable political clout. It was not a constitution. But you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said: Royal patronage. In the 21st century. Really! Some folk are flattered by patronage and others fawn over those in power. Wee Nikla's undeserved adulation is exemplified by a group think of arse-lickers. I'm sane enough to know Britain's royalty always defers to Westminster and this is how it should be. The rest is baubles and geegaws. The rank is but the guinea's stamp, as some bloke once said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: Some folk are flattered by patronage and others fawn over those in power. Wee Nikla's undeserved adulation is exemplified by a group think of arse-lickers. I'm sane enough to know Britain's royalty always defers to Westminster and this is how it should be. The rest is baubles and geegaws. The rank is but the guinea's stamp, as some bloke once said. Aye that boy fair described them right enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 minute ago, git-intae-thum said: Aye that boy fair described them right enough. Indeed. So the only justification for a hereditary Head of State IMO, is that it prevents many others trying to clamber up the greasy pole. This is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Indeed. So the only justification for a hereditary Head of State IMO, is that it prevents many others trying to clamber up the greasy pole. This is a good thing. Aye. But without all the unofficial power that the UK monarchy currently wields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said: Aye. But without all the unofficial power that the UK monarchy currently wields. Ivanka Trump's ear rings or Princess Anne's head scarves? Compare and contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im_Rodger Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Has Im_Rodger been banned? Nope. Assets to this forum cannot get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, Im_Rodger said: Nope. Assets to this forum cannot get banned. Maybe you have me on ignore. I tried replying to you earlier. Edit: Seemingly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.