Jump to content

The Royal family


HartleyLegend3

Recommended Posts

Pasquale for King
43 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I think Buckingham palace would remain a popular tourist attraction even if we fed the scrounging parasites to lions to be quite honest.

If you wish to be lorded over then your lords will appear. 

 

Exactly, nobody goes to see the inhabitants. France is the most popular tourist destination in the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • FWJ

    70

  • Unknown user

    69

  • jack D and coke

    67

  • A Boy Named Crow

    54

Maple Leaf
1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

Their old sea going palace is moored in Leith docks at Ocean Terminal. Is second only to Edinburgh Castle as the most visited tourist attraction in Edinburgh.

I think it will be a lot harder to get rid of the Royal family than people imagine.

I think the UK as a whole is a long way off from becoming a republic, England even more so.

 

I think you're right, John.  I've no idea what the polls say, but I suspect that in the UK as a whole, the Royals are still very popular.

 

Even in Canada, where you'd think that getting rid of a foreign monarch as head of state would be a slam dunk certainty, republicanism just can't gain any traction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/23/shut-up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-awesome/
 

It’s from a few years ago but once you get past the rather silly headline there are a few interesting points - especially relating to elected presidents becoming involved in parliament and further elections for a president leading to ‘voter fatigue’ for the legislative body elections.

 

If it’s good enough for the Scandi countries that Scotland wants to be, it’s good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

I think Buckingham palace would remain a popular tourist attraction even if we fed the scrounging parasites to lions to be quite honest.

If you wish to be lorded over then your lords will appear. 

 

France is the top tourist destination on the planet. US 3rd, China 4th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckingham Palace had a "whites only" recruitment policy in place and refuses to say when that rule was relaxed.

The Royal Family are STILL exempt from racial and sex discrimination laws.

 

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
21 minutes ago, Cade said:

Buckingham Palace had a "whites only" recruitment policy in place and refuses to say when that rule was relaxed.

The Royal Family are STILL exempt from racial and sex discrimination laws.

 

:rofl:

 

Quite right imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
9 hours ago, Cade said:

Buckingham Palace had a "whites only" recruitment policy in place and refuses to say when that rule was relaxed.

The Royal Family are STILL exempt from racial and sex discrimination laws.

 

:rofl:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal

 

Makes you wonder, they shielded Andrew from any investigation into his association with a convicted beast, then it turns out they had a policy like this.  I'm beginning to wonder, maybe they're not very nice after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke

Liking the royals...

:cornette:

Scotland will be free of this bullshit in my lifetime 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🥰freeeeedooom 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
39 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Liking the royals...

:cornette:

Scotland will be free of this bullshit in my lifetime 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🥰freeeeedooom 😂

I'm fairly sure a lot of the die hard royalists on here are just at it,  they must be,  surely...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:

 

There was a vote years ago (maybe 20 years back) and I'm trying to remember the details. There was an election style programme to present the results and a colour coded map. 

 

England was firmly in favour of the royals, Scotland was firmly not. 

 

Obviously not everyone voted but it must have been a reasonable sample as it was quite a big thing at the time. 

 

Can anyone remember this?

Wee Ann Robinson was the host, I think. 

The Scotland(75% against) result came back and the establishment shat themselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure if I’m included as one of the “die hard royalists” on here or not, but my satisfaction with our current constitutional monarchy doesn’t seem as fevered as the desire for a republic amongst most others.

 

It is possible to not really fancy having a popularly-elected President Farage and at the same time not have a cupboard full of coronation tea-sets.

 

(But I suppose in social media there’s no place for nuance and moderation - as a glance at the coronavirus thread will show)

Edited by FWJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Burgundy
21 hours ago, FWJ said:

I’m not sure if I’m included as one of the “die hard royalists” on here or not, but my satisfaction with our current constitutional monarchy doesn’t seem as fevered as the desire for a republic amongst most others.

 

It is possible to not really fancy having a popularly-elected President Farage and at the same time not have a cupboard full of coronation tea-sets.

 

(But I suppose in social media there’s no place for nuance and moderation - as a glance at the coronavirus thread will show)

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
1 hour ago, BarneyBattles said:


Farage? Why would he or anyone like him be involved?😂 Why do royalists always say no queen = trump / farage type will be head of state?
 

Are they in charge of any other country which doesn’t have a royal family and if so is that only because that country doesn’t have a royal family?

 

Personally, I’d much rather have an elected head of state than one born into privilege by fluke. 
 

The current royal family have had centuries of training for the job and they’re absolutely shite at it. 
 

Totally dysfunctional, a bit racist, extra marital affairs, groomers, nazi connections, total spongers, running folk over etc. 
 

How anyone could prefer this is to me quite incredible, although I do recognise that the queen is the only one of them hasn’t put a foot wrong. 

How about a revolving head of state? Any member of the public could be called up for a one or two year stint  like being called up for jury duty. 

 

I'm pretty sure the training wouldn't take long...

 

...cut ribbon here.

Edited by A Boy Named Crow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BarneyBattles said:


Farage? Why would he or anyone like him be involved?😂 Why do royalists always say no queen = trump / farage type will be head of state?
 

Are they in charge of any other country which doesn’t have a royal family and if so is that only because that country doesn’t have a royal family?

 

Personally, I’d much rather have an elected head of state than one born into privilege by fluke. 
 

The current royal family have had centuries of training for the job and they’re absolutely shite at it. 
 

Totally dysfunctional, a bit racist, extra marital affairs, groomers, nazi connections, total spongers, running folk over etc. 
 

How anyone could prefer this is to me quite incredible, although I do recognise that the queen is the only one of them hasn’t put a foot wrong. 

You’re quite right.

It’s not like the great British public would vote a reprobate into a high office of state, would they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
22 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said:


Given the conduct of royal families everywhere over millennia, the high percentage of regicide, and our current incumbents, that doesn’t make any sense. At all.

 

If you prefer the lucky draw of having a head of state ‘ordained by god’ to rule over you as a subject rather than voting for who you believe should be head of state then I guess our race is run here. 
 

N night. 

 

 

The people who assert that the monarch is "ordained by god" haven't the faintest idea what God wants or intends.  It's all part of the charade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said:


Given the conduct of royal families everywhere over millennia, the high percentage of regicide, and our current incumbents, that doesn’t make any sense. At all.

 

If you prefer the lucky draw of having a head of state ‘ordained by god’ to rule over you as a subject rather than voting for who you believe should be head of state then I guess our race is run here. 
 

N night. 

 

As I said, I’m not particularly bothered about it but, all-in-all, like the people of Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Luxembourg, Australia etc etc I’m happy enough with a constitutional monarchy.

 

A good night to you, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
13 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:


Indeed. It’s mainly monarchs who have played the ‘ordained by god card’ over the millennia. 
 

The idea of being ordained and god existing are anathema to me ML but I’m absolutely aware that I may well have the latter wrong.

 

Belief in the existence or non/existence of a deity are both just examples of a belief system, neither of which are based on any fact. 
 

I’m rambling now so will bid you a good night. 

It’s what I believe. Some people seem to desire to be lorded over. Worshipping these lizards?! Ooh William this or Harry that :lol: 

Their lords will appear in that case. 
It’s utterly bizarre in this day and and age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
29 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

It’s what I believe. Some people seem to desire to be lorded over. Worshipping these lizards?! Ooh William this or Harry that :lol: 

Their lords will appear in that case. 
It’s utterly bizarre in this day and and age. 

 

It's batshit mental is what it is.

 

Think of the most ridiculously over the top, disgustingly posh wankers possible - they're waaaaay below these ****ers! The royal family are THE poshest, THE wankiest, THE most superior, self entitled, awful *******s on the entire island. They think they're here by god's will to rule over us ffs!

 

Get off your knees royalists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
16 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It's batshit mental is what it is.

 

Think of the most ridiculously over the top, disgustingly posh wankers possible - they're waaaaay below these ****ers! The royal family are THE poshest, THE wankiest, THE most superior, self entitled, awful *******s on the entire island. They think they're here by god's will to rule over us ffs!

 

Get off your knees royalists

The British (and I include myself in this) are one of the most brainwashed peoples alive. Imagine having a royal family...paying these people...lording over us...ooh the queen works hard...naming hospitals and bridges and buildings after them...her majesty’s this and that...that national anthem, little cretins like Nicholas Witchell making a living tongue punching their arseholes :rofl: what a ****ing riddy. England using the anthem for themselves then forcing it on us and actual Scottish people singing it!! God save our gracious queen hahahaha for the love of ****.

Embarrassing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

The British (and I include myself in this) are one of the most brainwashed peoples alive. Imagine having a royal family...paying these people...lording over us...ooh the queen works hard...naming hospitals and bridges and buildings after them...her majesty’s this and that...that national anthem, little cretins like Nicholas Witchell making a living tongue punching their arseholes :rofl: what a ****ing riddy. England using the anthem for themselves then forcing it on us and actual Scottish people singing it!! God save our gracious queen hahahaha for the love of ****.

Embarrassing. 

 

I was surprised that the Dutch are into their royal family, but I think it's more that they don't have a lot of physical links to the past, they tend to knock everything down rather than preserve due to their limited land. 
They liked the old queen, she could be seen cycling around Apeldoorn with bags like everyone else, and they seem to have taken to the king. But to be fair he's done things like the elfstedentocht, a mental 200km ice skate across the country and run marathons under pseudonyms - that'll win you respect in Holland, as will Queen Maxima

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

I was surprised that the Dutch are into their royal family, but I think it's more that they don't have a lot of physical links to the past, they tend to knock everything down rather than preserve due to their limited land. 
They liked the old queen, she could be seen cycling around Apeldoorn with bags like everyone else, and they seem to have taken to the king. But to be fair he's done things like the elfstedentocht, a mental 200km ice skate across the country and run marathons under pseudonyms - that'll win you respect in Holland, as will Queen Maxima

Decent👍🏼

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Decent👍🏼

Probably helps that King's day is an absolute riot! Everyone gets the day off and you don't have to pay tax on anything you sell, so the pubs are going radge selling pints out the window, in the street. There's food, music, dancing, it's an epic day. If you were going to go to Amsterdam for one day, make it King's day.

 

Kings-Day-1024x683.jpg

 

Kings-Day-in-Amsterdam-1.jpg

 

Kingsday-7.jpg

 

I miss holland sometimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood

I'm having a bad day but this thread has cheered me up particularly the last few posts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Probably helps that King's day is an absolute riot! Everyone gets the day off and you don't have to pay tax on anything you sell, so the pubs are going radge selling pints out the window, in the street. There's food, music, dancing, it's an epic day. If you were going to go to Amsterdam for one day, make it King's day.

 

Kings-Day-1024x683.jpg

 

Kings-Day-in-Amsterdam-1.jpg

 

Kingsday-7.jpg

 

I miss holland sometimes

The Dutch are class people. Met loads of them over the years and don’t think I’ve disliked any of them. The Dam is truly epic🥰

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/05/2021 at 14:25, Maple Leaf said:

They're dysfunctional, over-privileged parasites, leftovers from a bygone age.

 

After The Queen dies, the whole mess should be disbanded.

 

Kings and queens, princes and princesses, dukes and duchesses, etc in 2021? :facepalm:

Couldn't have put it any better myself ML.

Time to call it a day on the lot of them !👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/05/2021 at 19:35, Sharpie said:

For all the displeasure on JKB about Royalty, , I remember Hearts crowned Wullie Bauld, King of Scotland. No bad for a laddie from Bingham/Newcraigall.

Did you know that they have a street in the 'new build' area of Newcraighall named after him ?I think it's called 'Bauld Drive'.👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
5 minutes ago, bairdy said:

Did you know that they have a street in the 'new build' area of Newcraighall named after him ?I think it's called 'Bauld Drive'.👍

 

I didn't know that. Good to hear.  It's a pleasant change from having streets and things named after politicians and royalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked at Newcraighall today, its all new houses one of which was shown as 1 Bauld Drive. Just another Edinburgh landmark that no longer exists a I knew it. Good to see progress, but so sad to lose your past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always puzzled me why the Queen is known as Elizabeth the second when she is actually Elizabeth the first of Scotland and also Elizabeth the first of the UK. 

Another example of this unequal partnership we are part of imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, luckydug said:

It's always puzzled me why the Queen is known as Elizabeth the second when she is actually Elizabeth the first of Scotland and also Elizabeth the first of the UK. 

Another example of this unequal partnership we are part of imo. 

Yup, it was a bit of an issue when the current Queen took the throne. 
They got round it (at Churchill’s suggestion so the story goes) by saying that the monarch would take the higher regnal number of either Scotland or England when they took the throne of the U.K. 

So (this) Elizabeth is the second of either England or Scotland.  If there is a King Alexander (for example) they would be Alexander IV - because we’ve already had three, although England hadn’t had any.  A King James would be James VIII because although he’d only be the third for England, he’d be our eighth.

 

 

And what’s this?  The Dutch have a constitutional monarchy?  Really?

 

What a ridiculous, downtrodden, rooted-in-the-past, illiberal, reactionary people they must be.  Forced to suffer under a bizarre medieval system.  Just like the Danes.  
And the Swedes.

And the Norwegians.

 

How much more modern they’d be.  How much happier with President Boaty McBoatface they’d be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
1 hour ago, luckydug said:

It's always puzzled me why the Queen is known as Elizabeth the second when she is actually Elizabeth the first of Scotland and also Elizabeth the first of the UK

Another example of this unequal partnership we are part of imo. 

 

This was a huge issue in Scotland in 1952/53 and emotions ran very high.  A letter box with the new "EIIR" logo was installed on Gilmerton Road near the inch and it generated a lot of attention.  It was defaced several times with paint and tar, but cleaned up afterwards.  Eventually someone stuck a bomb inside it and blew it to bits.  The replacement letter box had no logo, or maybe just "ER".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

This was a huge issue in Scotland in 1952/53 and emotions ran very high.  A letter box with the new "EIIR" logo was installed on Gilmerton Road near the inch and it generated a lot of attention.  It was defaced several times with paint and tar, but cleaned up afterwards.  Eventually someone stuck a bomb inside it and blew it to bits.  The replacement letter box had no logo, or maybe just "ER".

AFAIK there are no “E II R” postboxes in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
10 minutes ago, FWJ said:

AFAIK there are no “E II R” postboxes in Scotland.

I'm not surprised.  I'm sure they're costly to replace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

My opinion is, only people with single digit IQs, and trolls, want a royal family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

According to today's Daily Nazi, William and Kate will be spending more time in Scotland to 'save the union'.

So to protect an outdated concept they send up the parasitic progeny of an outdated concept.

 

Who knew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dirty Deeds
21 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

According to today's Daily Nazi, William and Kate will be spending more time in Scotland to 'save the union'.

So to protect an outdated concept they send up the parasitic progeny of an outdated concept.

 

Who knew?

It's a risky strategy as Scottish Independence isn't currently a republican lead cause and I don't consider the monarchy to currently be at risk in the event of Independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
32 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

According to today's Daily Nazi, William and Kate will be spending more time in Scotland to 'save the union'.

So to protect an outdated concept they send up the parasitic progeny of an outdated concept.

 

Who knew?

It's an interesting one. Why should the royal family, as an institution, care about Scottish independence,  unless they thought the Scots, if left to their own devices would bin them? In which case, given the implied lack of support for the monarchy in Scotland,  why send them to defend the union???

 

I really hope this is a sign of the "tactical brilliance" we'll see from the No campaign next time round. 

Edited by A Boy Named Crow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson

I'm in favour of a republic - monarchy is a ridiculous idea in what is supposed to be a civilised democracy.

 

Having said that the Queen would be a good shout for 'person whose done their job best" award for this century and last. It's just that the job should no longer be required and hereditary jobs should be something we read about in history books after she 'retires'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scott herbertson said:

I'm in favour of a republic - monarchy is a ridiculous idea in what is supposed to be a civilised democracy.

 

Having said that the Queen would be a good shout for 'person whose done their job best" award for this century and last. It's just that the job should no longer be required and hereditary jobs should be something we read about in history books after she 'retires'.

In the same vein, there shouldn’t be any House of Lords either. 
Michelle Mone makes laws. Let that sink in for a minute. Ridiculous !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
10 minutes ago, Boab said:

In the same vein, there shouldn’t be any House of Lords either. 
Michelle Mone makes laws. Let that sink in for a minute. Ridiculous !

What about the guy who Boris Johnson made a lord recently. Peter Cruddas..

He’d been refused on some grounds but Johnson overrode the appointments commission rules and made him a lord and two days later he made the biggest ever single donation to the Tory party :lol: 

Democracy right there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that bugs me is on

TV shows people continue being allowed to refer to the 'QUEEN OF ENGLAND' and never being corrected on it. 

Even Lorraine Kelly on her morning show allows guests to frequently use the Queen of England terminology, never a word said. 

Cringeworthy from someone who is Scottish. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, luckydug said:

Another thing that bugs me is on

TV shows people continue being allowed to refer to the 'QUEEN OF ENGLAND' and never being corrected on it. 

Even Lorraine Kelly on her morning show allows guests to frequently use the Queen of England terminology, never a word said. 

Cringeworthy from someone who is Scottish. 

 

I think (and I might be wrong here) is that the monarch is “King / Queen of Scots” as opposed to King / Queen of Scotland - ie they are monarch of the people as opposed to the land.

I’m not sure if it’s the same but I notice the monarchy of Belgium is similar (King of the Belgians)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf

Deciding on her proper title is not clear cut, as shown by the following extract from Google.  But 'Queen of England" is always wrong.

 

Until 1953, her official style was by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith.[3] She was proclaimed as queen using that title in Canada and South Africa,[4][5] whereas, in Australia,[6] New Zealand, and the United Kingdom,[7] she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

A decision was reached by Elizabeth's prime ministers at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of 1952, whereby the Queen would accord herself different styles and titles in each of her realms, reflecting that in each state she acted as monarch of that particular country,[8] regardless of her other roles. Canada's preferred format was: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Canada and of Her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.[9] However, as Australia wished to have the United Kingdom mentioned in all the Queen's titles,[10] the resolution reached was a designation that included the United Kingdom as well as, for the first time, separate reference to the other Commonwealth realms. Thereafter, separate but parallel royal styles and titles acts were passed in each of the Commonwealth realms, granting Elizabeth a distinct but similarly constituted title in each state,[8] meaning that when Elizabeth was crowned in the same year, she held seven separate titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no

Meghan has dropped a sprog

 

gone for the sympathy vote big time with the name 

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.




×
×
  • Create New...