The Queen / The Monarchy

[Ian H]

A lot on here certainly DO need to grow up, improve their own standard of living and stop whining about people lucky enough or have had the opportunity to do more with their lives.

I was at a race meeting over the weekend and chatting to a fella in the pits, the weekend was going to cost 10k in all and they were leaving for Sweden on Tuesday to race there next weekend.

Should he be able to do this or is he a 'parasite' ?

Should I resent him, hate him?

I just thought "fair play to ya mate, you're only here once ".

FFS you people.

You seem to be arguing against a point that no-one is actually making.

 

[BoldonLad]

You seem to be arguing against a point that no-one is actually making.

The tone I get is it depends on how the "man in the (motorsport) pits" acquired the money to indulge his hobby/passtime?, if he earned it, in an approved none parasite way, then, fine, if he inherited it or was paid out of the public purse, not so fine.

Perhaps I have miss-understood?

 

[matticus]

What do visitors to Versailles pay, do we know?

Does the UK have a Versailles?

 

[BoldonLad]

What do visitors to Versailles pay, do we know?

Depends what you want to actually visit, but it ranges from 19.50Euro to 28.50Euro per person.

There are whole range of options here, in English.

There are some concessions for EU citizens under 18, for example, I believe.

There is a "meal inclusive deal" for 115.50Euro.

We visited a few years ago, in my opinion, the grounds were much more interesting/enjoyable than the Palace, but, each to their own I suppose.

 

[multitool]

Does the UK have a Versailles?

Sadly not yet

 

[Pale Rider]

I couldn't name one single thing she had done for our nation.

You need to look harder, but that would require approaching the matter with an open mind, so it's not going to happen.

You keep on about bottlicking.

That's yet another dumb assertion with nothing to back it up.

I've covered many Royal visits, there was never any bootlicking from anyone.

I did have a few words with the Duke of Edinburgh (he made a sarky remark about the press).

OK, I called him 'sir', calling him 'your grace' was never going to happen.

Equally, calling him 'Phil the Greek' would have been rude and achieved nothing.

You should go to a Royal visit - sour faced abolitionists also welcome - it will make you realise how nonsensical your posts on here have been.

 

[Bromptonaut]

We visited a few years ago, in my opinion, the grounds were much more interesting/enjoyable than the Palace, but, each to their own I suppose.

Grounds better than palace was my experience too although we were there in peak season so shuffled thorough the interior in a like a crocodile of school kids.

 

[multitool]

You need to look harder, but that would require approaching the matter with an open mind, so it's not going to happen.

You keep on about bottlicking.

That's yet another dumb assertion with nothing to back it up.

I've covered many Royal visits, there was never any bootlicking from anyone.

I did have a few words with the Duke of Edinburgh (he made a sarky remark about the press).

OK, I called him 'sir', calling him 'your grace' was never going to happen.

Equally, calling him 'Phil the Greek' would have been rude and achieved nothing.

You should go to a Royal visit - sour faced abolitionists also welcome - it will make you realise how nonsensical your posts on here have been.

All your posts are huge voids of meaningful content.

You have nothing informed to say about anything. Even your talk of Royal visits tells us nothing. I note that all you have is derisory remarks and an exhortation to 'Look deeper'. If there was anything to look for you would have told us what it was.

As ever with you, you can't back up your assertions. Your cognitive dissonance and blind indoctrination has condemned you to a life of reflexive bootlicking.

 

[Pale Rider]

All your posts are huge voids of meaningful content.

You have nothing informed to say about anything. Even your talk of Royal visits tells us nothing. I note that all you have is derisory remarks and an exhortation to 'Look deeper'. If there was anything to look for you would have told us what it was.

As ever with you, you can't back up your assertions.

My limited direct experience of Royal Family is obviously relevant to a thread about the monarchy.

At least I have some experience, unlike - it appears - all the abolitionists on here who are merely sniping from the sidelines.

Your last post is nothing other than yet another attack on my credibility.

That's all you have, no answers, so all you can do is shoot the messenger.

Is that what you meant when you posted that psychobabble about having the ability to overlay social structures of society, or whatever it was?

 

[multitool]

My limited direct experience of Royal Family is obviously relevant to a thread about the monarchy.

At least I have some experience, unlike - it appears - all the abolitionists on here who are merely sniping from the sidelines.

Your last post is nothing other than yet another attack on my credibility.

That's all you have, no answers, so all you can do is shoot the messenger.

Is that what you meant when you posted that psychobabble about having the ability to overlay social structures of society, or whatever it was?

Again, nothing from you.

You are claiming that the Queen did something for the country, but you are unable to say what it was.

 

[mudsticks]

My limited direct experience of Royal Family is obviously relevant to a thread about the monarchy.

At least I have some experience, unlike - it appears - all the abolitionists on here who are merely sniping from the sidelines.

Your last post is nothing other than yet another attack on my credibility.

That's all you have, no answers, so all you can do is shoot the messenger.

Is that what you meant when you posted that psychobabble about having the ability to overlay social structures of society, or whatever it was?

I've lunched with royalty.

They were very bland, dreary even.

The lunch however was great - but then they (the royalty) had nothing to do with sourcing the ingredients, nor with cooking the food.

That this country still has a hereditary system of 'God Given' 'State Sponsored' in-built celebration of inequality, which is glorified, cheered on even, is infantile at best.

I'm sure most of the reasonably intelligent royals know that, but they go along with it anyway, because..

Well partly because they can - but also they may self justify it by various bits of patronage of charities and so on.

We could do much better than hold onto this anachronistic pantomime, that promotes hierarchy, and self serving privilege.

But 'we' probably won't bother to change..

Above all else, political apathy 'rules' this country.

And look where that has got us.

 

[Pale Rider]

I've lunched with royalty.

They were very bland, dreary even.

Well done.

I've seen Phil the Greek operate up close several times - he was certainly not dull, you never knew what he was going to say next.

Dunno much about the others.

I imagine they feel under pressure to suppress their characters in public, although Anne is one who has been known to use her waspish tongue on occasion.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

“How d’you become king then?”

 

[Julia9054]

Surely how likeable/unlikeable individual members of the royal family are is about as far from the point as you can get.

 

[mudsticks]

Well done.

I've seen Phil the Greek operate up close several times - he was certainly not dull, you never knew what he was going to say next.

Dunno much about the others.

I imagine they feel under pressure to suppress their characters in public, although Anne is one who has been known to use her waspish tongue on occasion.

My mum used to have a lot to do with Princess Anne , because of her work.

She said that she was a proper laugh.

But also that she gave the impression that she thought the whole thing was a load of tosh really - that in many ways she'd rather have been living another life - but she only went along with it in order to promote charitable causes.

That by itself isn't good enough reason to keep the whole charade going.


People give to and support charities for many reasons other than royal patronage.

Furthermore, It could easily be argued that the furtherance, and acceptance of baked in 'inevitable' inequality, creates the conditions where charity is needed.

The need for charities to step in to meet basic needs, which is what many of them do, is a failure of government.

A government is more likely to fail at its task of promoting fairness if the institutions upon which it rests (in this case hereditary monarchy) is by it's very nature unequal.

And so it all perpetuates...