Are they British citizens, or are they British subjects.
I for one am glad I am not a subject of any crown.
You mention the one thing royalty is supposed to do but doesn’t and that is deliver value. What has the british royal family done for anyone?
Pretty petty
Not to mention, they aren’t even fully British, they are German.
Why post this nonsense here.
Go see a shrink to get it off your chest.
How did she personally harm you?
Did she harm your Mother or Father?
She was a beautiful human being.
Queen Elizabeth got off easy
she does not have to endure
King Charles the Turd
thanks lisbeth
Confused melange of politics, home made religiosity and who knows what personal problems. You should think twice before doing this again.
thought this was about Mooooshel Obama!
I won't dispute your view that British royalty are elite welfare recipients. However, I find your comparison of the elite pushing us into Communism as wrong. I believe we are being pushed into Fascism not Communism.
Communist revolutions worked to eliminate the elites in their society and replace private and public corporations and institutions with (communist) state ownership and management.
"Benito Mussolini created the word 'fascism.' He defined it as 'the merging of the state and the corporation.' He also said a more accurate word would be 'corporatism.' This was the definition in Webster's up until 1987 when a corporation bought Webster's and changed it to exclude any mention of corporations." - Adam McKay
It is never seemly to piss on a grave before it is covered over.
Case of QDS? (Queen Derangement Syndrome)
.
Spot on. It’s high time to retire the Monarchy and make all her kids and grandchildren get jobs and support themselves.
Never have a seen such a gaggle of sentimentalist morons.
If you’re going to worship moronic, useless figureheads, at least use a REAL royal family.
Not these inbred imported protetant frauds.
Wow so tacky. Don’t worry, when you die no one will write so nasty about you.
The job of the Labor Party was to destroy nobility and Royalty.
In the process the Labor party destroyed that which is British and a great nation
Oh yes, I watched the true Brits milling around the gates of Buckingham Palace yesterday.
I didn’t see one brown or black face in the crowd of real Brits
I am no admirer of monarchy, the royals, the wealthy, or the elite, but modern Britain has made its system work by having a monarch as a unifying national symbol in a country that has experienced considerable ideological and political turmoil. Having a monarch as head of state lets politicians and the people be their usual, scheming, greedy, and foolish selves with a diminished risk of the country coming apart at the seams.
As for a case against the British monarchy, I think it rests most strongly on three points.
First, the British monarchy props up Britain's class system, which offers an endless source of resentment and distraction and justification for cheating by the populace. Why not go on the welfare dole as a fiddle when the country is governed by the great fiddle of the monarchy and the class system?
Another result of the class system is that Brits tend to have a sense of manners and boundaries that contrast with American directness, the idea that the customer is king, and a get it done ethic. That is one of the reasons why Brits find America so appealing.
Here, the idea killer of "that's just not done" is virtually unheard outside of Ivy League faculty lounges and elite private clubs. A common American response to "that's just not done" is why not? If a good answer is lacking, the idea can move forward for discussion of the merits.
Second, the bad behavior of Britain's royals is a major problem. It is often deeply unseemly and gets them into association with shady characters. Prince Andrew's friendship and frolics with Jeffry Epstein is the most recent example but is hardly an isolated one. Again and again, being a wealthy and titled celebrity has the to be expected corrosive effects on character and conduct.
Third, money-grubbing by the royals can have an effect on government favors and policies. It is no secret that if you wish to get on the royal honors list or get a special immigration permit, the way to do it is to spread money around via charitable donations and favorable business deals for both politicians and royals.
The more troubling aspect is when this kind of pay for play extends to money-making contracts with the government and policies that are questionable in their effects on the public interest. Britain's foolish embrace of mass immigration, especially Muslim immigration, was due in part to covert royal influence after the British monarchy entered into lucrative business arrangements with the Saudis.
Similarly, royal investments can be said to have resulted in the monarchy supporting more favorable policies toward countries in the British Commonwealth. The sentimental claptrap about "the Commonwealth" is in part a disguise for a lot of wheeling and dealing over trade and investment.
So, the Queen is visiting a Commonwealth country? Outside of the ceremonial stuff, she likely has a member of her entourage checking on her investments and sniffing out new deals. And if that goes well, the elected British government will get a talking to about the need to improve relations with that country by giving them the trade deal that has long been under discussion.
The British royalty's investments are mostly undisclosed to the public, but the British government has the benefit of intelligence on them. Supposedly, that is one of the reasons why Thatcher and the Queen has a sometimes rocky relationship. Maggie knew that, behind the scenes, Liz was often taking care of personal money interests when she and her minions urged the government one way or another.
Yet it is not at all clear that Britain would do better as a federal republic like the US. Even now, regional antagonisms tend to undermine the unity of the United Kingdom. A further downsizing of the British monarchy though makes sense. In a way, that is what Queen Elizabeth seems to have had in mind by drawing a distinction between royals with public duties and those who have a title but no public role.
We shall see if King Charles is more or less of a dolt than he has seemed to be, and if horse-faced Queen Camilla can put her seedy sleeping around and multiple prior marriages behind her. Who knows, but the House of Windsor's royal minders and rule book may manage to make them into respectable figures pending the accession of the genuinely popular William as king.
Oh my. This diatribe is really no different that the tweets reported by Breitbart from a Uju Anya, a Nigerian-Lesbian DEI linguistics professor out of Carnagie-Mellon. The only difference, IMO is the lack of profanity and foul expletives.
Well you’ve got a big thread going which is saying something these days why don’t you tell us why you really don’t like Great Britain don’t tell me it’s because of what you say because it’s never that it’s always what you are to be honest
Tucker Carlson last night said it exactly like I think there has never been an empire as powerful as the British were never more benevolent as it was considering the power they had is everywhere they have touched the world is usually better off than before with the possible exception of the Boers
The monarchy is their legacy tradition same as our founders are for us in addition to their constitutional heroes and documents which by the way most of the civilized world mimicked
By the way envious people call people with money wealthy
people who understand these things call those same people rich
I have been told this by someone on this forum who indeed does understand these matters
Journalist love to call people with money wealthy
I’m talking independent money where you can live real well just off dividends or interest say 50 million to 100 million net worth
America is chock-full of millionaires today
It’s really incredible to be honest
Which is the main reason I think we will not have a Civil War anytime soon like some people here wish for we are too prosperous and fat