Queens speech, now the Kings speech

[Pembroke blue]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Why didn’t he mention Andrew and his dubious teddy bears hope he’s better now as he had that serious condition that no other human has ever had the misfortune of suffering that being not able to sweat
Apparently his mother was a good upright person note at being very very generous indeed on one occasion paying someone millions of pounds to someone Andrew had never met what a gesture
As you can guess by now I am the most anti royal person you are likely to meet so NO I didn’t listen to old FA cup ears Charlie boy on Christmas Day

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Why didn’t he mention Andrew and his dubious teddy bears hope he’s better now as he had that serious condition that no other human has ever had the misfortune of suffering that being not able to sweat
Apparently his mother was a good upright person note at being very very generous indeed on one occasion paying someone millions of pounds to someone Andrew had never met what a gesture
As you can guess by now I am the most anti royal person you are likely to meet so NO I didn’t listen to old FA cup ears Charlie boy on Christmas Day

The Queen would have known exactly about Andrew's movements all the way through. His 24-hour-a-day security team not only follow him everywhere at home and abroad but carry out investigations in advance about locations he was due to visit and check out medical experts and hospitals in those areas as a matter of course.
To think that the Queen was just a benevolent matriarch is utter codswallop.
It was known by her exactly where Andrew was when he stated he was in the pizza outlet, where he was when Victoria Guiffre said he was with her in Chelsea and every visit to Epstein and his island would have been known.
And Andrew's catalogue of financial corruption, along with Fergie's, was known too. Pushing him aside at a late stage just won't wash if you read a number of sources that have, not so strangely, gone unchallenged by Andrew and his family.

[Tuerto]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

I rgink that the Royals are great, great for the Economy like Mickey Mouse is for the Usa, yet nobody questions which bed Mickey was born in.

[Pembroke blue]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

I rgink that the Royals are great, great for the Economy like Mickey Mouse is for the Usa, yet nobody questions which bed Mickey was born in.

The establishment brainwashing theory that they are good for the economy through tourism is now exposed as false
NO ONE visits the uk to meet a royal when they come it is to visit buildings we can sack royals off and keep the buildings
On another note during both world wars the population was sent off to fight for king and country
Whilst at home the royal family we’re making provisions to flee the country with their wealth and hanger ons
Then when we won the war had the audacity to step out on the balcony of buck house waving to the peasants below while when the war wounded heroes came home were discarded

[jon1959]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Time for a Republic!

https://www.republic.org.uk

[Tuerto]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

The establishment brainwashing theory that they are good for the economy through tourism is now exposed as false
NO ONE visits the uk to meet a royal when they come it is to visit buildings we can sack royals off and keep the buildings
On another note during both world wars the population was sent off to fight for king and country
Whilst at home the royal family weÂ’re making provisions to flee the country with their wealth and hanger ons
Then when we won the war had the audacity to step out on the balcony of buck house waving to the peasants below while when the war wounded heroes came home were discarded

Sounds lke the script of a Disney Film. We've already got a Donald.

[Dorcus]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Why didn’t he mention Andrew and his dubious teddy bears hope he’s better now as he had that serious condition that no other human has ever had the misfortune of suffering that being not able to sweat
Apparently his mother was a good upright person note at being very very generous indeed on one occasion paying someone millions of pounds to someone Andrew had never met what a gesture
As you can guess by now I am the most anti royal person you are likely to meet so NO I didn’t listen to old FA cup ears Charlie boy on Christmas Day

Sorry Pembroke I claim that title (excuse the pun). I'm usually quite tolerant of benefit scroungers, but not these bunch of useless parasites

[Dorcus]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

The establishment brainwashing theory that they are good for the economy through tourism is now exposed as false
NO ONE visits the uk to meet a royal when they come it is to visit buildings we can sack royals off and keep the buildings
On another note during both world wars the population was sent off to fight for king and country
Whilst at home the royal family we’re making provisions to flee the country with their wealth and hanger ons
Then when we won the war had the audacity to step out on the balcony of buck house waving to the peasants below while when the war wounded heroes came home were discarded

This is spot on. Paris has more tourists than London and they haven't had a monarch for a very long time. The buildings and history will remain, mortals wont

[JamesWales]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

The royal family definitely helps with tourism, they also help in a soft power sense, in terms of exerting influence globally, representing the country etc. Some of that died with the queen perhaps, but will possibly gain again. I think there's also benefits to having a head of state who is essentially legislatively powerless but also apolitical. Its a bit ironic that many who want a republic spend a lot of their time bemoaning how people vote.

A far far bigger issue is the house of lords. It is beyond ridiculous that we have a wholly unelected chamber that has real power to impact upon the democratic process.

None of us would design a society now with a hereditary king and queen but I don't know in a practical sense what the big benefits we are seeking are. How is life better in republics than monarchies in a practical sense?

I know we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but there's far bigger issues in society in my opinion.

[Tuerto]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

This is spot on. Paris has more tourists than London and they haven't had a monarch for a very long time. The buildings and history will remain, mortals wont

I think London tops Paris for visitor numbers, although i agree with what you're saying. Get rid of the scrounging bastards.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

The royal family definitely helps with tourism, they also help in a soft power sense, in terms of exerting influence globally, representing the country etc. Some of that died with the queen perhaps, but will possibly gain again. I think there's also benefits to having a head of state who is essentially legislatively powerless but also apolitical. Its a bit ironic that many who want a republic spend a lot of their time bemoaning how people vote.

A far far bigger issue is the house of lords. It is beyond ridiculous that we have a wholly unelected chamber that has real power to impact upon the democratic process.

None of us would design a society now with a hereditary king and queen but I don't know in a practical sense what the big benefits we are seeking are. How is life better in republics than monarchies in a practical sense?

I know we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but there's far bigger issues in society in my opinion.

Republics can also have neutral Heads of State, as in Germany.

Such a Head of State should not have strained their position due to the bed he was born in.

Neither is he the Supreme Leader of the Protestant Church.

Elected members of Parliament shouldn't have to pledge an oath of allegiance to the King or Queen. Such a system rigs any chance of abolishing the royal family, which is outrageous.

Proof of corruption, immorality and ineptitude can have such Heads of State removed.

He or she wouldn't necessarily own enormous tracts of land all around the country housing a multitude of places and country homes.

Neither would it be expected that they would have any exemptions in law.

Nor would they wield the power to have individuals to receive establishment-approved honours and be installed in the second house.

They wouldn't expected to be unilaterally bowed to and deference to them in a National Anthem.

They wouldn't even own the swans throughout their country.

The list goes on.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

'strained' should read as 'attained'

[Crisp White Lines]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

The monarchy have (stolen) riches and privileges, and are cosseted in world upheld by subservient idiots.

They have absolutely no idea how the overwhelming majority of people struggle to get by.

Given that backdrop, it is completely obscene that they broadcast their thoughts on how we should be behaving and thinking.

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

The concept of a royal family is ludicrous to me. Historically wealthy landowners treated as demi-gods. Having to address them as if they were superior beings and affording them gravitas regarding their mutterings purely due to the bed they were born in.
The honours system based on their predilections and a national anthem that weaves them together with the other infantilisng concept of a god.
It's complete tosh.

Somebody got out the wrong side of the bed this morning!

[Dorcus]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Somebody got out the wrong side of the bed this morning!

Over the years Monarchs and their families have got out of many wrong beds.