Prince Philip accuses others of 'sponging'. Watch

Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

Rather ironic don't you think considering that the Royal Family are the biggest bunch of benefit claimers in the land.
1
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Don't they rake in millions for the UK tourism industry?
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Sigh. That's not what he meant. Quote has been, not surprisingly, deliberately taken out of context by journalists for a cheap headline.
0
reply
Maid Marian
Badges: 20
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
It was a joke, and taken out of context at that.
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
Don't they rake in millions for the UK tourism industry?
France makes more out of its monarchy than Britain does despite all of the French monarchy being dead.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Charlie1111)
France makes more out of its monarchy than Britain does despite all of the French monarchy being dead.
Any numbers for that? I read somewhere that they generate 500 Million pounds per year (will go hunt for this source). Though whether this is because of the buildings themselves or the family themselves is debatable.
0
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by littlenorthernlass)
It was a joke, and taken out of context at that.
No, we should get rid of the parasitic monarchy and replace them with the Commonwealth of England like in 1649.

The Commonwealth of England did far more to helping make Britain great and developing the British Empire than the parasitic Windsor's ever did.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Charlie1111)
No, we should get rid of the parasitic monarchy and replace them with the Commonwealth of England like in 1649.

The Commonwealth of England did far more to helping make Britain great and developing the British Empire than the parasitic Windsor's ever did.
My, what an original argument. Did this really warrant a separate thread if you're just going to drag it down to the same thing that's been said a few thousand times before and always gets precisely nowhere?
0
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
haha, he's hilarious.
0
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Drewski)
My, what an original argument. Did this really warrant a separate thread if you're just going to drag it down to the same thing that's been said a few thousand times before and always gets precisely nowhere?
Just proving that not all of us who are Republicans are luvvy lefties. I think the British Empire was fabulous, it just didn't need a monarch. Especially not of the inbred line that there currently is.
0
reply
PopaPork
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
1
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Charlie1111)
Just proving that not all of us who are Republicans are luvvy lefties. I think the British Empire was fabulous, it just needed a monarch. Especially not of the inbred line that there currently is.
I don't really think so? At least not for the people who were getting ruled over and treated as second class citizens in their own country.
0
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
Any numbers for that? I read somewhere that they generate 500 Million pounds per year (will go hunt for this source). Though whether this is because of the buildings themselves or the family themselves is debatable.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/royal...great-britain/


Versailles's Palace has far more visitors than any site in Britain.

Britain should be a republic along the lines of the Commonwealth in 1649.
0
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
I don't really think so? At least not for the people who were getting ruled over and treated as second class citizens in their own country.
Cromwell's Republics achievements.

Religious toleration. Jews allowed back into England.

Greater press freedom.

Better armed forces. The New Model Army were the greatest army in the world.

Removed the parasitic monarch that was Charles I.

Made Ireland tap out repeatedly.

Strong Navy.

Cromwell was so epic that the scum that was the Restoration had to wait until he was dead before they cowardly dug him up and tried him. All because Cromwell not only kicked Charles I ass, but also his son.
0
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
I don't really think so? At least not for the people who were getting ruled over and treated as second class citizens in their own country.
They should read. Didn't need a monarch. Empire would have been far greater without the flotsam of the Royal family.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Charlie1111)
Cromwell's Republics achievements.

Religious toleration. Jews allowed back into England.

Greater press freedom.

Better armed forces. The New Model Army were the greatest army in the world.

Removed the parasitic monarch that was Charles I.

Made Ireland tap out repeatedly.

Strong Navy.

Cromwell was so epic that the scum that was the Restoration had to wait until he was dead before they cowardly dug him up and tried him. All because Cromwell not only kicked Charles I ass, but also his son.
I was referring to the people of British occupied territories, not English people. They certainly didn't have it anywhere near as well as the English.
0
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
I was referring to the people of British occupied territories, not English people. They certainly didn't have it anywhere near as well as the English.
Actually, they did. Sati the process of burning widows alive was outlawed by the British in India (so Indians women should look at statues of British colonial rulers and bow as the British treated them with infinite more kindness than Indian males do.

All of the colonies were better under British rule now they are all just **** holes.

And as for the dominions. Australia, New Zealand etc. They became rich because of Great Britain.

People should kneel before statues of Oliver Cromwell, except for the Royal family they should be beheaded In front of Cromwell's statue.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Charlie1111)
Actually, they did. Sati the process of burning widows alive was outlawed by the British in India (so Indians women should look at statues of British colonial rulers and bow as the British treated them with infinite more kindness than Indian males do.

All of the colonies were better under British rule now they are all just **** holes.

And as for the dominions. Australia, New Zealand etc. They became rich because of Great Britain.

People should kneel before statues of Oliver Cromwell, except for the Royal family they should be beheaded In front of Cromwell's statue.
Sati was never a common practice in India, and was by far and large a relatively rare practice by a few radical sects, as was supposedly a largely voluntary form of suicide (although this is subject to a lot of debate)

Yes, the English-Origin people benefited greatly in New Zealand and Australia, but the same can hardly be said about the Aboriginals.
0
reply
Charlie1111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
Sati was never a common practice in India, and was by far and large a relatively rare practice by a few radical sects, as was supposedly a largely voluntary form of suicide (although this is subject to a lot of debate)

Yes, the English-Origin people benefited greatly in New Zealand and Australia, but the same can hardly be said about the Aboriginals.
Nope, they need to bow as it was very widespread.

Yeah, well the Aboriginals were nor the kindest people themselves. Evolution simply passed them by.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Charlie1111)
Nope, they need to bow as it was very widespread.

Yeah, well the Aboriginals were nor the kindest people themselves. Evolution simply passed them by.
1) Seeing how nearly every reputable academic disagrees with you there, good luck proving this.

2) No they weren't the kindest people, but neither were we. But that hardly gives us the right to go and subjugate them for our own greed.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (112)
17.55%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (68)
10.66%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (110)
17.24%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (93)
14.58%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (63)
9.87%
How can I be the best version of myself? (192)
30.09%

Watched Threads

View All