Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Markg125)
    She is a worthless good for nothing parasite, which survives purely on the work of others, being able to carry on her ludicrously outdated regime by diluting her power to a democratic body.

    She for me embodies the stupidity of the English people, she literally does not and is treated to a life of luxury. It would actually be more cost efficient and moral to abolish her and stick her in a council house (which is generous considering there is a line for normal people), so that she can wait in line on the NHS for any procedures she might need in her old age like my dad.

    But you know the real depressing thing about the monarchy is, is that we like to think she holds no real constitutional powers or influence, but this is easily refuted by the release of prince Charles letters and the fact she is the head of the church and the lord spirituals sit in the house of lords.

    So how would I reflect on her many years of service, I'd say.....**** the born-to-rule pony ****er.
    Maybe this will explain why you are misinformed. I had this viewpoint until I watched this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by agentawesome)
    Maybe this will explain why you are misinformed. I had this viewpoint until I watched this.
    I've seen this before but hadn't noticed when he says 'tijuana professional services' :laugh:

    That gave me a good chuckle.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    My favourite queen after The Queen of Pop Madonna.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by agentawesome)
    Maybe this will explain why you are misinformed. I had this viewpoint until I watched this.
    There is also a nice new video from the same author uploaded just yesterday, explaining the very confusing line of succession to the British throne.

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    There is also a nice new video from the same author uploaded just yesterday, explaining the very confusing line of succession to the British throne.

    Do people really find it confusing?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do people really find it confusing?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Perhaps complicated would have been a better word. I meant not only the line itself but also the circumstances and historical details underlying every change over those ca. thousand years.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    She is one of the greatest figures in our history and I hope that she has yet many more years of strong health and happiness to come. If I could meet one famous person, it would be her and I think she's been a great role model for generations. Long live Her Majesty, God save the Queen!

    Keep your insults to yourselves at least on this occasion, envious lefty plebs.
    how is she a role model? Lets be honest no one knows what exactly she does so how the hell is anyone supposed to look up to her?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrawlx101)
    how is she a role model? Lets be honest no one knows what exactly she does so how the hell is anyone supposed to look up to her?
    No one knows? :eek: Have you seen the news in like 50 years? Perhaps a documentary about the Royal Family? She has been, among other things, the quintessence of a British lady and as such a role model for generations. Unfortunately, today's spoiled brats prefer the likes of slutty pop and movie stars but that's what we get for abandoning conservative moral values.

    Edit: I almost forgot to mention her military service in the ATS during WWII.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Or we save money and time and effort by leaving her where she is.
    Sometimes it's necessary to spend money, time and effort in the short term in order to save it in the long term.


    (Original post by gladders)

    Schoolboy error: Buckingham Palace is not a private house. It's a public building, reserved for the use of the Head of State.
    Yes, I'm fully aware of that. Where did I say that Buckingham Palace was a private house?


    (Original post by gladders)
    She is the Head of State. To expect her to pay for her own security is nonsensical. By the same token, we pay for security for MPs and the Prime Minister.
    MPs and the Prime Minister are important for the running of the country. She is not.

    (Original post by gladders)
    I don't want to get into the tourism issue as it's a weak one for either side, but in the specific case of Buckingham Palace I'd argue there is little to redeem the place beyond the royal presence, unlike the Tower.
    If it was marketed right it would attract a large number of visitors, as the royals do seem to have tourist-magnet star dust about them.


    (Original post by gladders)


    You contradict your first sentence with your second. 'I'm not more informed, but I'm using logic and common sense, inferring the experts don't have that. Also, I am dogmatic.'
    That isn't a contradiction.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Well, yeah. She's a landlord. They're on her land. I pay rent to my landlord in the same vein. What's your problem with that?

    I suspect you don't have a problem with it, but you simply object to it being the Queen.
    I don't have a problem with it at all, it's her land after all, but I was just making the point that a large part of that portion of her income still ultimately comes from ordinary people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Sometimes it's necessary to spend money, time and effort in the short term in order to save it in the long term.
    I don't think we'd save any money at all. I suspect you underrate considerably how frequently Buckingham Palace is used for work.

    Yes, I'm fully aware of that. Where did I say that Buckingham Palace was a private house?
    Here:

    Why would the security for a private house for the Queen need to be paid for by the taxpayer?
    MPs and the Prime Minister are important for the running of the country. She is not.
    Again, you seem to think yourself better qualified than generations of statecrafters. A separate Head of State in a parliamentary system is just as important as a Prime Minister.

    If it was marketed right it would attract a large number of visitors, as the royals do seem to have tourist-magnet star dust about them.
    As I said above, I suspect you vastly underrate the frequency of Buckingham Palace's occupancy.

    That isn't a contradiction.
    It pretty much is. You consider your ignorant point of view to be equally valid as those of various assessors qualified to make such judgement calls.

    I don't have a problem with it at all, it's her land after all, but I was just making the point that a large part of that portion of her income still ultimately comes from ordinary people.
    And again: so what? Ultimately, all our private wealth does. I get a salary; I sell things on eBay. I may own a house one day and charge rent. I don't see what point you are making.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by agentawesome)
    Maybe this will explain why you are misinformed. I had this viewpoint until I watched this.


    Maybe this will explain why you are misinformed? Seriously, it bewilders me how people jump to the defence of someone that is picked out of society and elevated to an immoral level of privilege....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Markg125)


    Maybe this will explain why you are misinformed? Seriously, it bewilders me how people jump to the defence of someone that is picked out of society and elevated to an immoral level of privilege....
    As with many republican materials, this video makes some unbased assertions. For example, it slaps on the security bill as if the British monarchy is the only institution in the world that demands security. It's a made-up figure.

    Additionally, it throws in another load of cost because of 'loss through inflexibility' with zero explanation of what that is. It's extremely fishy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad;[url="tel:59224293")
    59224293[/url]]Today Her Majesty the Queen becomes the longest serving monarch of this country.

    I invite members of the House to pay tribute and reflect upon her reign of over 63 years.
    How ironic would it be if she met her last.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    May she reign victorious over us peasants.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by gladders)
    As with many republican materials, this video makes some unbased assertions. For example, it slaps on the security bill as if the British monarchy is the only institution in the world that demands security. It's a made-up figure.

    Additionally, it throws in another load of cost because of 'loss through inflexibility' with zero explanation of what that is. It's extremely fishy.
    \

    "As with many republican materials" lol
    The video makes it quite obvious that the pro-monarchy argument it is in response to has made some serious mistakes.

    What security bill?
    It does explain how loss through inflexibility works.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    As with many republican materials, this video makes some unbased assertions. For example, it slaps on the security bill as if the British monarchy is the only institution in the world that demands security. It's a made-up figure.

    Additionally, it throws in another load of cost because of 'loss through inflexibility' with zero explanation of what that is. It's extremely fishy.
    Can't work out if you are being deliberately stupid?

    The whole argument of republicanism is the abolition of the monarchy, so their security costs are totally relevant because as he points out we wouldn't need to spend the millions protecting them if they didn't exist. Really don't know how this is an unbased assertion?

    Seriously! Did you even watch it or are you in year 9? They are inflexible about the business practises on their land, which in itself incurs a cost.

    The fact that you have used these two examples just demonstrates how poor the argument for an undemocratic head of state is.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Markg125)
    The whole argument of republicanism is the abolition of the monarchy, so their security costs are totally relevant because as he points out we wouldn't need to spend the millions protecting them if they didn't exist. Really don't know how this is an unbased assertion?
    T repeat what they said, in slightly different words, does this mean that the British Monarchy is the only institution in the world with security costs? Does the US secret service work for free? How about those who are tasked with protecting the PM and all past PMs? How about the security for Hallande, Gauke, Mattarella, Putin, Xi Jinping etc? Do all those security people work for free? Or are you suggesting that we have no independent head of state or that said head of state has no security if we became a republic?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    T repeat what they said, in slightly different words, does this mean that the British Monarchy is the only institution in the world with security costs? Does the US secret service work for free? How about those who are tasked with protecting the PM and all past PMs? How about the security for Hallande, Gauke, Mattarella, Putin, Xi Jinping etc? Do all those security people work for free? Or are you suggesting that we have no independent head of state or that said head of state has no security if we became a republic?
    You're completely missing the point. The reason why MI5 protect David Cameron of the secret service protect Obama is for one important reason. They are ELECTED.
    Chosen by the people on their behalf to represent them nationally and internationally. Therefore the 'will of the people' if you like should be protected. They are important figures who make life changing decisions for everyone in the county.

    On the contrary the Queen sits on her arse.

    If we became a republic, then it would be pretty obvious that the PM would become the head of state, since as he mainly serves all its primary functions through the royal prerogative.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    T repeat what they said, in slightly different words, does this mean that the British Monarchy is the only institution in the world with security costs? Does the US secret service work for free? How about those who are tasked with protecting the PM and all past PMs? How about the security for Hallande, Gauke, Mattarella, Putin, Xi Jinping etc? Do all those security people work for free? Or are you suggesting that we have no independent head of state or that said head of state has no security if we became a republic?
    Elite bankers that control trillions rule the state. Not the queen or PM.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Markg125)
    Can't work out if you are being deliberately stupid?

    The whole argument of republicanism is the abolition of the monarchy, so their security costs are totally relevant because as he points out we wouldn't need to spend the millions protecting them if they didn't exist. Really don't know how this is an unbased assertion?
    Because they seem to believe that, in a republic, we'd be guarding nobody. The security cost would, likely, be the same as present - the royal family is protected, and if we extrapolated the practice of foreign republics, the families of presidents would also be protected.

    Seriously! Did you even watch it or are you in year 9? They are inflexible about the business practises on their land, which in itself incurs a cost.
    No need to throw insults.

    That's the crux of the thing - on what basis do they claim their business practices are inflexible and, therefore, costly? It simply states it as a fact, without explaining (or citing further) what practices specifically make them so.

    Seeing as the Queen and the rest of the royals are not personally involved in the management of the lands, too, I am puzzled exactly what it's talking about.

    The fact that you have used these two examples just demonstrates how poor the argument for an undemocratic head of state is.
    On the contrary, care to comment on the above?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.