Royal Baby

[Kirk]

14 minutes ago, Ormond said:

A dated a lassie a few years ago and she asked me to treat her like a Princess. So I took her to Paris and smashed her head off the wall of a tunnel.

*stolen from a poster on here. Some of us will know who. 

A classic

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, DoonTheSlope said:

The poor wummin was washing her hair at the time. I think she was washing her hair anyway, their was head and shoulders found on the dashboard

[Ormond]

13 minutes ago, DoonTheSlope said:

The poor wummin was washing her hair at the time. I think she was washing her hair anyway, their was head and shoulders found on the dashboard

There’ll be some sad bastard along in a minute to tell you how poor a post this is. You know, the ones who have read the news about the rise in foodbank use or how austerity in general makes the plebs worse off while the rich get richer. 

[TDYER63]

3 hours ago, phart said:

My Gran is convinced Diana was assassinated.

 

Think on the other side though, they never asked to be Royal's your whole life planned out for you. I'd fucking hate it, it'smy worst nightmare being tied to a routine not of my choosing.

As usual a stewart lee song will help everyone understand.

 

The Royals perhaps did not ask to be Royals,  but their partners had a choice. Its not like Kate suddenly found out she was dating a future king 6 months after they met. 

William and Kate dont bother me too much as individuals, they seem a nice enough young couple , but if I did have a choice the monarchy would be binned . For me , the picture Ormond posted pretty much sums up the whole circus surrounding the Royal family and the weirdos that fawn over them .

 

[phart]

9 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

The Royals perhaps did not ask to be Royals,  but their partners had a choice. Its not like Kate suddenly found out she was dating a future king 6 months after they met. 

William and Kate dont bother me too much as individuals, they seem a nice enough young couple , but if I did have a choice the monarchy would be binned . For me , the picture Ormond posted pretty much sums up the whole circus surrounding the Royal family and the weirdos that fawn over them .

 

Some choice, maybe not a complete choice? you don't choose who you fall in love with.

The whole concept i hate, but the folk born into it are sort of in a weird position. I'm no royalist , just have a sense of pity for the them born into this weird existence like the most well cared for slaves. Lives of luxury but loads of boring mundane tasks. I'd rather have my freedom to do what the fuck i want.

[TDYER63]

6 minutes ago, phart said:

Some choice, maybe not a complete choice? you don't choose who you fall in love with.

The whole concept i hate, but the folk born into it are sort of in a weird position. I'm no royalist , just have a sense of pity for the them born into this weird existence like the most well cared for slaves. Lives of luxury but loads of boring mundane tasks. I'd rather have my freedom to do what the fuck i want.

Slavery/weird existence/boring mundane tasks/no freedom. You could be describing any marriage Phart.

At least  the Royals are well cared for and living in luxury 🙂

[Big Col]

Kate changed uni to get on the same course as big willie didn't she ?

she wasn't born into it, she actively went chasing after the royal lifestyle.

[Dave78]

If being born into royalty is really akin to being a pampered 'slave', then why do almost zero of them abdicate/renounce their titles?

[DonnyTJS]

Duty?

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

If being born into royalty is really akin to being a pampered 'slave', then why do almost zero of them abdicate/renounce their titles?

Spot on. These total cretins and the very pinnacle of the class society that keeps all us in our subserviant place could just abdicate if it was such a burden. That fucking cow Diana would gie me the boak. Upper class piece of shit who batted her eyelids when a camera was upon her. Swanning around in a ten grand frock with a security team costing millions so the spunk bucket that she was could say she was doing something for charity. The film King Ralph had a good idea. Electrocute the fucking lot of them. 

2018. Citizen not a subject. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Ormond

[DonnyTJS]

19 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Spot on. These total cretins and the very pinnacle of the class society that keeps all us in our subserviant place could just abdicate if it was such a burden.

Just out of interest, how precisely have these total cretins kept you in your subservient place? In what ways are you subservient (apart from feeling the need to call a dead woman "a fucking cow", thereby displaying subservience to a group mentality that thinks this is in some way shocking and therefore both commendable and effective)?

[Ormond]

1 minute ago, DonnyTJS said:

Just out of interest, how precisely have these total cretins kept you in your subservient place? In what ways are you subservient (apart from feeling the need to call a dead woman "a fucking cow", thereby displaying subservience to a group mentality that thinks this is in some way shocking and therefore both commendable and effective)?

When we are raised in a dictatorship society that allows those fuckheads to spunk out child after child that we pay for and then they keep telling us plebs that we should know our place by culling back on reproduction if we can’t afford it. To continually have our money stolen from us to pay for whatever billions it’s going to cost us each year to keep these bastards. Then come back to me and tell me that we live in a fair, unsubserviant society. 

[DonnyTJS]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

When we are raised in a dictatorship society that allows those fuckheads to spunk out child after child that we pay for and then they keep telling us plebs that we should know our place by culling back on reproduction if we can’t afford it. To continually have our money stolen from us to pay for whatever billions it’s going to cost us each year to keep these bastards. Then come back to me and tell me that we live in a fair, unsubserviant society. 

I nearly stopped reading at 'dictatorship'. That's just silly.

So's the rest of your argument. Give me a breakdown of the burden on the taxpayer represented by this sprog - or any of the royals if you prefer. Balance it with the supposed benefits to the economy that the soap-opera that is the royal family is said to provide. Then factor in all the other stuff our taxes go on that we might not approve of. The cost-to-the-taxpayer argument is daft.

[Flure]

4 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

I nearly stopped reading at 'dictatorship'. That's just silly.

So's the rest of your argument. Give me a breakdown of the burden on the taxpayer represented by this sprog - or any of the royals if you prefer. Balance it with the supposed benefits to the economy that the soap-opera that is the royal family is said to provide. Then factor in all the other stuff our taxes go on that we might not approve of. The cost-to-the-taxpayer argument is daft.

Is it really, though?

It's not a binary position. Surely we can object to two, more or several "costs to the taxpayer" without any reducing the effective argument of another?

The supposed benefits are quite interesting. I don't know what they are. Tourism is often cited, but many more visitors go to the Sun King's former French palaces now, than did when France had a reigning monarchy. So, perhaps visitor numbers wouldn't change much if we became a Republic.

Other than when they act like odious cretins, I wish none of them - personally - any ill.
 

[DonnyTJS]

4 minutes ago, Flure said:

Is it really, though?
 

In my view, yes. The whole tax burden / civil list set up has changed hugely in the past couple of decades anyway, as far as I'm aware. 

Of course the financial benefits of a monarchy such as ours is impossible to quantify, but I don't see much relevance in your French example as 18th century tourism wasn't quite the same as its 21st century counterpart. 

A constitutional monarchy is absurd in this day and age, but I don't think it's dangerous and I like the absurdity. The alternatives are also absurd, but in a less amusing way.

[Flure]

1 minute ago, DonnyTJS said:

In my view, yes. The whole tax burden / civil list set up has changed hugely in the past couple of decades anyway, as far as I'm aware. 

Of course the financial benefits of a monarchy such as ours is impossible to quantify, but I don't see much relevance in your French example as 18th century tourism wasn't quite the same as its 21st century counterpart. 

A constitutional monarchy is absurd in this day and age, but I don't think it's dangerous and I like the absurdity. The alternatives are also absurd, but in a less amusing way.

Aye, I can see that.

Now, about the Roman Catholic question that so forms the pillar of our Monarchial overstructure?

[DonnyTJS]

3 minutes ago, Flure said:

Aye, I can see that.

Now, about the Roman Catholic question that so forms the pillar of our Monarchial overstructure?

Yup - needs sorting and that means disestablishing the Church of England.  I don't see how doing that would affect the structural integrity of a constitutional monarchy. It's an historical anomaly (so is the monarchy as well, of course). I don't see how it affects the Scottish context at all, since the Church of Scotland has no episcopal element, does it? Ironically, when it happens, those kicking up the biggest stooshie will likely be Scottish ...

[Flure]

1 minute ago, DonnyTJS said:

Yup - needs sorting and that means disestablishing the Church of England.  I don't see how doing that would affect the structural integrity of a constitutional monarchy. It's an historical anomaly (so is the monarchy as well, of course). I don't see how it affects the Scottish context at all, since the Church of Scotland has no episcopal element, does it? Ironically, when it happens, those kicking up the biggest stooshie will likely be Scottish ...

Interconnections. Unelected Lords Bishop are lawmakers in matters governing Scotland.

[DonnyTJS]

1 minute ago, Flure said:

Interconnections. Unelected Lords Bishop are lawmakers in matters governing Scotland.

Ah, true, but once the C of E is disestablished, they won't.

[Flure]

Just now, DonnyTJS said:

Ah, true, but once the C of E is disestablished, they won't.

And that's not going to happen any time soon. Cos we have a Monarch who is head of that sect.

[DonnyTJS]

Just now, Flure said:

And that's not going to happen any time soon. Cos we have a Monarch who is head of that sect.

Sadly that's probably also true (though to be honest, a handful of bishops voting amongst hundreds of other unelected peers, on matters that have to have elected parliamentary approval to reach the statute book, is one of the less pressing reasons for Scottish independence, imho). If only William had fallen for a Catholic - this would all've been sorted by now ...

[Orraloon]

3 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Sadly that's probably also true (though to be honest, a handful of bishops voting amongst hundreds of other unelected peers, on matters that have to have elected parliamentary approval to reach the statute book, is one of the less pressing reasons for Scottish independence, imho). If only William had fallen for a Catholic - this would all've been sorted by now ...

How would another assassination have "sorted" things?

[Flure]

1 minute ago, DonnyTJS said:

Sadly that's probably also true (though to be honest, a handful of bishops voting amongst hundreds of other unelected peers, on matters that have to have elected parliamentary approval to reach the statute book, is one of the less pressing reasons for Scottish independence, imho). If only William had fallen for a Catholic - this would all've been sorted by now ...

You clearly look at this from a different perspective.

That unelected High Priests - of whatever cult - can legislate on Scottish issues (no matter to whatever degree of impact) is an absolute violation of the type of democratic society that I would chose to live in. And that includes a god-appointed monarch.

[DonnyTJS]

19 minutes ago, Flure said:

You clearly look at this from a different perspective.

That unelected High Priests - of whatever cult - can legislate on Scottish issues (no matter to whatever degree of impact) is an absolute violation of the type of democratic society that I would chose to live in. And that includes a god-appointed monarch.

Indeed I do. If you recall (though there's no reason why you should) the main reason I was in favour of a Yes vote was for the sake of the English constitution. It worked for a few centuries of union despite Scotland's anomalous Presbyterian context because most people felt that the 'absolute violation' of democratic principles that it represented wasn't actually all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things (which, for many Scots, included the barring of Roman Catholics from the throne, and, when that became less of an issue, folk just tended to live with it), but it wasn't designed to cope with devolved powers being added to the mix.

Edited April 25, 2018 by DonnyTJS

[ParisInAKilt]

I don’t think you need to be fully fledged conspiracy theorist to believe the upper levels of the royal family are evil bastards.