In spite of these austere time lets give the Queen a new yacht

Solair

getz wrote: »

that a person from catholic ireland finds it strange that the head of the church of england also should be looked upon as being appointed by god, [apparently]

A) I'm not Catholic.

Ireland is not "Catholic". It's a Republic, and yes the constitution is a bit ridiculous in terms of its references to God in the preamble, but it does not have hereditary monarchs who are also head of the church. It also guarantees religious freedom and specifically forbids the state from making any church 'established', which is very much not the case in the UK.
Instead, the UK has a monarch who double-jobs as head of the Church of England and the Church of England bishops sit in the upper house of the legislature as the "Lords Spiritual".

I am by no means saying that Ireland's situation is perfect. Far from it, it needs to do a lot to remove some of the nonsense that remains the legacy of Dev & McQuaid.

However, really I think it's you who has put your foot in it.

later12

getz wrote: »

catholic ireland

How quaint! I just want to pick you up and squeeze a little bit of 1955.

getz

Solair wrote: »

A) I'm not Catholic.

Ireland is not "Catholic". It's a Republic, and yes the constitution is a bit ridiculous in terms of its references to God in the preamble, but it does not have hereditary monarchs who are also head of the church. It also guarantees religious freedom and specifically forbids the state from making any church 'established', which is very much not the case in the UK.
Instead, the UK has a monarch who double-jobs as head of the Church of England and the Church of England bishops sit in the upper house of the legislature as the "Lords Spiritual".

I am by no means saying that Ireland's situation is perfect. Far from it, it needs to do a lot to remove some of the nonsense that remains the legacy of Dev & McQuaid.

However, really I think it's you who has put your foot in it.

i must have read it wrong,i was under impression that the irish tax payer was paying out for the churches crimes, anyway ,over 2 million people came to london for the royal wedding,if each one had only spent £100,that would have represented a income of £200 million for the capital city,whereas the wedding cost around £25 million,the royal family brings in millions of pounds in income to the UK,at a total cost to the british tax payer of around 62 pence per year,the money the goverment pays the monarch[civil list] is fixed at £7.9 million which covers less than half the cost of the royal engagements,therefore,the queen does not spunge off the state,she contributes far more to the treasury than anyone else. there are also a number of charities in the republic that members of the royal family are patrons,

ejmaztec

getz wrote: »

i must have read it wrong,i was under impression that the irish tax payer was paying out for the churches crimes, anyway ,over 2 million people came to london for the royal wedding,if each one had only spent £100,that would have represented a income of £200 million for the capital city,whereas the wedding cost around £25 million,the royal family brings in millions of pounds in income to the UK,at a total cost to the british tax payer of around 62 pence per year,the money the goverment pays the monarch[civil list] is fixed at £7.9 million which covers less than half the cost of the royal engagements,therefore,the queen does not spunge off the state,she contributes far more to the treasury than anyone else. there are also a number of charities in the republic that members of the royal family are patrons,

Are they a bunch of Bonos, telling everyone to cough up, and at the same time hanging onto their stash?

latenia

I just feel really sorry for British people who are so deeply brainwashed that they think having a monarch is a good thing. It's nothing more than a multi-billion pound scam. How many are aware that Kate Middleton was a (vaginal?)virgin until her wedding night and that this archaic requirement would have been dictated by senior members of the royal family?
Following the embarrassment caused to Diana by having a public declaration of her virginity made before her wedding to Charles they kept quieter this time around but if Will had managed to knock her up before the wedding that would have been the entire racket down the swanee.

summerskin

latenia wrote: »

I just feel really sorry for British people who are so deeply brainwashed that they think having a monarch is a good thing. It's nothing more than a multi-billion pound scam. How many are aware that Kate Middleton was a (vaginal?)virgin until her wedding night and that this archaic requirement would have been dictated by senior members of the royal family?
Following the embarrassment caused to Diana by having a public declaration of her virginity made before her wedding to Charles they kept quieter this time around but if Will had managed to knock her up before the wedding that would have been the entire racket down the swanee.

What a load of total tripe! I'm British but definitely not a royalist and even I can see how much they generate through tourism, after years living in London.

As the the "virgin" bollix, have you been reading old historical fiction or something??? Total sh1te!

Try living in the UK before you spout drivel like that.

ejmaztec

There are probably more staunch royalists in NI than there are in England, Scotland and Wales, and I'd say that the majority in those places don't give a sh1t either way, and just let the royals get on with it.

latenia

summerskin wrote: »

As the the "virgin" bollix, have you been reading old historical fiction or something??? Total sh1te!

Try living in the UK before you spout drivel like that.

It is a fact that Diana and not Camilla was approved as Charles' bride because of her virginity. Her uncle made a public statement before the wedding confirming this. A simple google search will show this to be true. If Kate became pregnant before they were married the entire scam topples due to laws of succession.

getz

summerskin wrote: »

What a load of total tripe! I'm British but definitely not a royalist and even I can see how much they generate through tourism, after years living in London.

As the the "virgin" bollix, have you been reading old historical fiction or something??? Total sh1te!

Try living in the UK before you spout drivel like that.

there are a lot of irish and british people actually believe that kind of tripe ,

later12

This thread's starting to feel a bit like HEAT magazine.

Stiffler2

Doesn't the aul hag have an ocean liner already ??
is it not big enough for her ??


Christ

Fratton Fred

Solair wrote: »

A)
Ireland is not "Catholic". It's a Republic................It also guarantees religious freedom and specifically forbids the state from making any church 'established.

Shouldn't this be in the "You laugh you lose" board???

93% of primary schools run by the Catholic Church.
The state broadcaster plays the Angelus at 6pm every day.
The sale of Alcohol is banned on Good Friday.

Yep, sounds like a secular republic to me.

Fratton Fred

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Doesn't the aul hag have an ocean liner already ??
is it not big enough for her ??


Christ

No she doesn't.

Fratton Fred

latenia wrote: »

It is a fact that Diana and not Camilla was approved as Charles' bride because of her virginity. Her uncle made a public statement before the wedding confirming this. A simple google search will show this to be true. If Kate became pregnant before they were married the entire scam topples due to laws of succession.

So despite living together since University, you really think Wills and Kate never got past the holding hands bit??

KeithAFC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Shouldn't this be in the "You laugh you lose" board???

93% of primary schools run by the Catholic Church.
The state broadcaster plays the Angelus at 6pm every day.
The sale of Alcohol is banned on Good Friday.

Yep, sounds like a secular republic to me.

It isn't a secular republic. Anyone who thinks it is wrong.

latenia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So despite living together since University, you really think Wills and Kate never got past the holding hands bit??

I reckon he used the servants' entrance.

jonnyfingers

Scanned most of the thread and didn't see it but I presume someone pointed out that this proposed new yacht will be privately funded so won't cost the British tax payer anything. Also it will be mainly used for training young people on all things sailing related. Lizzie will just have a few private cabins in it and can use it from time to time.

But as and Irishman living in England I don't mind the Royal Family too much. Yes I don't like some of my taxes going to a family that is already rich but I knew that before coming to work here so I either get on with it or refuse to work here. The tourists do love them and Buckingham Palace is always busy. Plus I got a day off for the wedding last year. Getting a day off for the Jubilee this year. So that's not bad!

getz

latenia wrote: »

It is a fact that Diana and not Camilla was approved as Charles' bride because of her virginity. Her uncle made a public statement before the wedding confirming this. A simple google search will show this to be true. If Kate became pregnant before they were married the entire scam topples due to laws of succession.

some people want believe anything,you know if you are on the roman walls of chester at dusk,and you see a welshman you are allowed to shoot him with a bow and arrow,also the isle of mann is still at war with russia,is does meen you can act on them,

KeithAFC

getz wrote: »

some people want believe anything,you know if you are on the roman walls of chester at dusk,and you see a welshman you are allowed to shoot him with a bow and arrow,also the isle of mann is still at war with russia,is does meen you can act on them,

Really?

Fratton Fred

latenia wrote: »

I reckon he used the servants' entrance.

Well he is 1/4 Greek....

latenia

getz wrote: »

some people want believe anything,you know if you are on the roman walls of chester at dusk,and you see a welshman you are allowed to shoot him with a bow and arrow,also the isle of mann is still at war with russia,is does meen you can act on them,

So which part of my post is untrue?

getz

KeithAFC wrote: »

Really?

honest ,the country is full of eccentric and not repealed laws[i think fred knows a few]

getz

latenia wrote: »

So which part of my post is untrue?

its a royal tradition to say those things[going right back to 1066]but you dont believe he had her pussy checked do you ?well maybe you do

ejmaztec

getz wrote: »

some people want believe anything,you know if you are on the roman walls of chester at dusk,and you see a welshman you are allowed to shoot him with a bow and arrow,also the isle of mann is still at war with russia,is does meen you can act on them,

How would you know that he was a Welshman if he wasn't singing and waving a leek?

jonnyfingers

ejmaztec wrote: »

How would you know that he was a Welshman if he wasn't singing and waving a leek?

The sheep he's shagging is a dead giveaway.

ejmaztec

jonnyfingers wrote: »

The sheep he's shagging is a dead giveaway.

He could be from Chipping Norton.

Ellis Dee

latenia wrote: »

I just feel really sorry for British people who are so deeply brainwashed that they think having a monarch is a good thing. It's nothing more than a multi-billion pound scam. How many are aware that Kate Middleton was a (vaginal?)virgin until her wedding night and that this archaic requirement would have been dictated by senior members of the royal family?
Following the embarrassment caused to Diana by having a public declaration of her virginity made before her wedding to Charles they kept quieter this time around but if Will had managed to knock her up before the wedding that would have been the entire racket down the swanee.

How did they check the virginity thing? Did Phil the Greek get to give Kate a fingering, while the aul Windsor wan looked on? "Yes, Lilbeth, the hymen's quite intact. I just hope Wills isn't a queer. Golly, this is giving me rather a stiffy. Ho, ho, ho!":D:D

Today's Guardian has an interesting piece with examples of what you could get for the £60 million that the royal yacht would cost.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2012/jan/16/royal-yacht-gove-money-interactive

getz

ejmaztec wrote: »

How would you know that he was a Welshman if he wasn't singing and waving a leek?

in them days you would shout at him in latin if he could not understand, or had a rugby shirt on ,let him have it

ejmaztec

getz wrote: »

in them days you would shout at him in latin if he could not understand, or had a rugby shirt on ,let him have it

What if he was deaf and rugby shirts hadn't been invented?

getz

ejmaztec wrote: »

What if he was deaf and rugby shirts hadn't been invented?

shoot him anyway,it might be a mad irishman trying to capture that patrick chap

mike65

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Scanned most of the thread and didn't see it but I presume someone pointed out that this proposed new yacht will be privately funded so won't cost the British tax payer anything. Also it will be mainly used for training young people on all things sailing related. Lizzie will just have a few private cabins in it and can use it from time to time.

I doubt anyone here knows that somehow!

partyatmygaff

KeithAFC wrote:

I agree Bwatson. I think the Royal wedding was brilliant. We celebrated it and it was a great time to be British.

What a remarkable sight.

Taxpayers have their hard earned money taken from them to pay for the extravagant lifestyle, pomp and possessions of their nepotist rulers and it makes them proud. Watching the self-appointed family of state leeches using public funds to hold a party is somehow a cause for celebration.

Enjoy being a "commoner" and ensuring the survival of a completely unmerited hereditary "Royal class".

Solair

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Shouldn't this be in the "You laugh you lose" board???

93% of primary schools run by the Catholic Church.
The state broadcaster plays the Angelus at 6pm every day.
The sale of Alcohol is banned on Good Friday.

Yep, sounds like a secular republic to me.

If you actually read my post, rather than just quoting it selectively to suit your argument, you would see that I did not say that the Republic of Ireland was perfect and actually said that there were a lot of hangovers from the dark ages of Dev. and McQuaid who in my opinion actually undermined the very concept of a Republic by what they did.

I am not arguing that the Republic of Ireland's a perfect model. It has huge flaws that, in my opinion, need to be corrected by constitutional amendments and secularisation of the primary and secondary education systems.
It's far from a perfect example of what a secular Republic should be.

However, that does not take away from the argument that the British monarchy system takes screwy to a whole other level entirely i.e. by institutionalising a state religion, placing bishops in the upper house of the leglsiature, landed gentry, hereditary peers etc etc..

Basically, it's still the same medieval system of Government with the addition of a modern parliamentary and courts system.

The lack of secularity in the system is not the biggest flaw. It's the lack of democracy in the upper house, the monarchy, and the whole system of landed aristocrats and inherited legal and financial privilege that is a little weird.

It really should be reduced to something purely ceremonial at this stage and the House of Lords totally reformed and replaced with something elected.

Freddie59

KeithAFC wrote: »

It isn't a secular republic. Anyone who thinks it is wrong.

Maybe not. But at least we're not taking it up the ass without any lube from a "royal" family.:D While idiots bow and scrape to them.

Chuck Stone

The British Royals were chosen by God to the Brit's No 1 welfare family.

KeithAFC

Freddie59 wrote: »

Maybe not. But at least we're not taking it up the ass without any lube from a "royal" family.:D While idiots bow and scrape to them.

I enjoy the pomp and ceremony and respect many who are part of the Royal family. If that is sad to you, that is ok.

getz

Freddie59 wrote: »

Maybe not. But at least we're not taking it up the ass without any lube from a "royal" family.:D While idiots bow and scrape to them.

you dont need a royal family,you have banks and a church to do that

al28283

Let's = Let us.

But it's not us giving her a yacht

Solair

No, but the banks are currently screwing the whole world financial system at the moment.

LordSutch

latenia wrote: »

I just feel really sorry for British people who are so deeply brainwashed that they think having a monarch is a good thing. It's nothing more than a multi-billion pound scam.

Not a fan of the Royals I take it :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff

KeithAFC wrote: »

I enjoy the pomp and ceremony and respect many who are part of the Royal family. If that is sad to you, that is ok.

Do you also enjoy being one of the many "lowly commoners" charged with paying for their pomp and extravagant lifestyle?

Solair

I wonder did Thatcher ever consider selling her off to Disney Corp back in the 80s?

KeithAFC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you also enjoy being one of the many "lowly commoners" charged with paying for their pomp and extravagant lifestyle?

Yes. What is the big deal?

getz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you also enjoy being one of the many "lowly commoners" charged with paying for their pomp and extravagant lifestyle?

i dont mind paying my 62 pence per year to keep them,its better than wasting money on euro countries ,who seem to be incapable of running their own economies,

getz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you also enjoy being one of the many "lowly commoners" charged with paying for their pomp and extravagant lifestyle?

i dont mind paying my 62 pence per year to keep a royal family, but i do mind paying out to prop up the euro countries,because they cannot run their own economy ,because of their passed extravagant lifestyle

partyatmygaff

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes. What is the big deal?

Nothing.

Anyway, while you're being so generous, can I have some of your money? As of today, I am the King of Northern Ireland. Seeing as I have no merit to be King, I am of equal standing to any member of the British Royal Family.

getz wrote: »

i dont mind paying my 62 pence per year to keep them,its better than wasting money on euro countries ,who seem to be incapable of running their own economies,

This is not about any country within the Eurozone nor about the economy. It's about the absurdity of British taxpayers paying even one pence to ensure the survival of a superior "Royal Class" who consider those taxpayers who fund their existence as being lower class "commoners". As far as i'm concerned, they have no merit to warrant their position in society. Not all traditions should be kept on.

KeithAFC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Nothing.

Anyway, while you're being so generous, can I have some of your money? As of today, I am the King of Northern Ireland. Seeing as I have no merit to be King, I am of equal standing to any member of the British Royal Family.


This is not about any country within the Eurozone nor about the economy. It's about the absurdity of British taxpayers paying even one pence to ensure the survival of a superior "Royal Class" who consider those taxpayers who fund their existence as being lower class "commoners". As far as i'm concerned, they have no merit to warrant their position in society. Not all traditions should be kept on.

No. William will be our next king. So there would be no point in paying you to be our king.

Fratton Fred

Solair wrote: »

If you actually read my post, rather than just quoting it selectively to suit your argument, you would see that I did not say that the Republic of Ireland was perfect and actually said that there were a lot of hangovers from the dark ages of Dev. and McQuaid who in my opinion actually undermined the very concept of a Republic by what they did.

I am not arguing that the Republic of Ireland's a perfect model. It has huge flaws that, in my opinion, need to be corrected by constitutional amendments and secularisation of the primary and secondary education systems.
It's far from a perfect example of what a secular Republic should be.

However, that does not take away from the argument that the British monarchy system takes screwy to a whole other level entirely i.e. by institutionalising a state religion, placing bishops in the upper house of the leglsiature, landed gentry, hereditary peers etc etc..

Basically, it's still the same medieval system of Government with the addition of a modern parliamentary and courts system.

The lack of secularity in the system is not the biggest flaw. It's the lack of democracy in the upper house, the monarchy, and the whole system of landed aristocrats and inherited legal and financial privilege that is a little weird.

It really should be reduced to something purely ceremonial at this stage and the House of Lords totally reformed and replaced with something elected.

You might want to check out Tony Blair's reform of the Lords.

You're right though, a lot needs to change and the separation of "The Church" and the state is already under discussion.

As for the Royals, it is a system that works and changing it to a system like Ireland's is a lot of hassle for relatively little gain.

A British president would still have all the security that a monarch does and when you chuck in pensions etc, is it any cheaper?

getz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Nothing.

Anyway, while you're being so generous, can I have some of your money? As of today, I am the King of Northern Ireland. Seeing as I have no merit to be King, I am of equal standing to any member of the British Royal Family.


This is not about any country within the Eurozone nor about the economy. It's about the absurdity of British taxpayers paying even one pence to ensure the survival of a superior "Royal Class" who consider those taxpayers who fund their existence as being lower class "commoners". As far as i'm concerned, they have no merit to warrant their position in society. Not all traditions should be kept on.

30% of the words population say different and thats just those within the commonwealth,

ejmaztec

KeithAFC wrote: »

No. William will be our next king. So there would be no point in paying you to be our king.

Wouldn't it be ironic for the next King Billy to witness the formation of a united Ireland?




:pac: