Jump to content

Monarchy debate/discussion


Richey Edwards

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MONKMAN said:

 


I was very adamant on the other thread about this topic, in relation to the French method of dealing with the royals. I’d execute the fucking lot of them.

 

There was the Nepalese heir to the throne shot up the palace. Anybody want to put money on Prince Andrew going radge sometime.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This has been rumbling on for a little while now without much traction in the main stream press. Pretty sure he was the same boy embroiled in the Italian mafia trial so not great news for him, he of course says he is innocent.

Screenshot_20210509-140730.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, once we become a Republic (which won't be tomorrow, given the obstacles currently being placed to avoid a referendum on our political constitution) how can we legally arrange for the handing over of the acres of land that the royals own? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 09/04/2021 at 11:23, latapythelegend said:

To be honest I have no issue with them, as a monarch the Queen seems to be the best there has ever been (in my limited knowledge of the history of the monarchy).

Any issue I do have is more to do with the hangers on out-with the immediate family and the gammons who idolise them in a creepy way.

If I met the queen or any high ranking royals I'd look forward to it and would show them respect accordingly. 

At lining her own pockets, maybe. The old c**t has only ever been interest in amassing wealth (estimated at hundreds of millions). She became the first monarch to privately organise a secret deal with the PM (that other old corpse, Churchill) to legally avoid paying tax. This continued until it was outed in the 90s, whereupon she reluctantly agreed to pay on a voluntary basis. Previous monarchs, for all their faults, had paid their taxes and so hadn’t managed to screw the country over purely to make themselves privately rich. She put the private accumulation of wealth first, and always has. 

My hot take is that she looked around Europe (and beyond) in the early 50s and was shitting her silken knickers that the UK public might rumble the massive con job the monarchy was and boot them out. As a safeguard, she realised screwing her “subjects” and the UK over for the sake of private profit was the best means of ensuring her incestuous family’s comfort if that ever happened. No doubt she’s shocked and delighted that successive generations have continued to be snowed by her “majesty” - despite a brief fall from grace in the 90s

So aye - she’s a decrepit, greedy old b*****d who puts her predecessors to shame when it comes to private greed (all under a media-led mask of “duty”). The sooner she joins her cadaverous husband in the grave the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/05/2021 at 17:32, Cosmic Joe said:

In all seriousness, once we become a Republic (which won't be tomorrow, given the obstacles currently being placed to avoid a referendum on our political constitution) how can we legally arrange for the handing over of the acres of land that the royals own? 

By making up the law as we go along. We're going to have to do that for abolishing the Royal Family anyways, given that the monarchy has all the constitutional levers in place to prevent that happening. Parliament can't even discuss the abolition of the monarchy without the monarch's permission, let alone pass the relevant law, which then requires explicit, formal, permission from the monarch.

The constitutional problem of nationalising and reallocating the Crown estates/Duchy of Cornwall will be a piece of cake compared to getting them out of power in the first place.

Edited by Aim Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/05/2021 at 17:32, Cosmic Joe said:

In all seriousness, once we become a Republic (which won't be tomorrow, given the obstacles currently being placed to avoid a referendum on our political constitution) how can we legally arrange for the handing over of the acres of land that the royals own? 

We nationalise them.  Without compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aim Here said:

By making up the law as we go along. We're going to have to do that for abolishing the Royal Family anyways, given that the monarchy has all the constitutional levers in place to prevent that happening. Parliament can't even discuss the abolition of the monarchy without the monarch's permission, let alone pass the relevant law, which then requires explicit, formal, permission from the monarch.

The constitutional problem of nationalising and reallocating the Crown estates/Duchy of Cornwall will be a piece of cake compared to getting them out of power in the first place.

Also worth pointing out the royals don’t own the crown estates in a private capacity. It belongs to the offices. Abolish the offices and it reverts to whoever or whatever replaces them as the holders of the crown (a corporation sole). This is why Edward VIII didn’t abdicate and retain swathes of crown estate.

Edited by Antlion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bennett said:

Genuine lol moment...

 

@Telegraph 

🔴 EXCLUSIVE: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex rejected the title Earl of Dumbarton for their son Archie because it contained the word "dumb", it has emerged https://t.co/ZiAurWfPHo

 

It'd get changed to Dungbeetle or Dumpfartin at Eton, Gordonstoun or wherever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Also worth pointing out the royals don’t own the crown estates in a private capacity. It belongs to the offices. Abolish the offices and it reverts to whoever or whatever replaces them as the holders of the crown (a corporation sole). This is why Edward VII didn’t abdicate and retain swathes of crown estate.

You're right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bennett said:

Genuine lol moment...

 

@Telegraph 

🔴 EXCLUSIVE: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex rejected the title Earl of Dumbarton for their son Archie because it contained the word "dumb", it has emerged https://t.co/ZiAurWfPHo

 

They've opted for Duke of Assynt insread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The royal press corps get paid a heap of cash to massage the reputation of our monarchy and after months of being battered about by Meghan and Harry the best they can come up with "they rejected a title because their wean might get called names and actually they threw a huff cause Charles was about to get them telt." Unreal.

Edited by NotThePars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

You're right there.

Apologies - Edward VII died after rupturing himself on his Paris sex chair. It was his grandson Edward VIII who preferred Yankee-doodling (to the strains of the Horst-Wessel-Lied) to being a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bennett said:

Genuine lol moment...

 

@Telegraph 

🔴 EXCLUSIVE: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex rejected the title Earl of Dumbarton for their son Archie because it contained the word "dumb", it has emerged https://t.co/ZiAurWfPHo

 

I'd been supportive of them since they told the royal family to GTF, but they can f**k off now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...