Ha ha - I’m laughing and pointing at you now.

WAYNE

Bike Photo of the Year winner 2021
Subscriber
doggo-cute.gif
 

Noobie

Bona fortuna
Subscriber
Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages

Now just need the rest of the parasites to bugger off so we can redistribute the property and wealth to the poor and homeless.

I'm okay with Queenie, bit worried about Chas but see Wills and kate as a good build forward.

Must have taken a lot for Liz to basically surrender her son to allow him to be treated in court as a private citizen.

Couldn't have been easy for her but fair play, she made the right decision
 

West Cork Paul

Shed Expert
Subscriber
Stripping him of his titles before the case against him is proven is tantamount to saying he’s guilty in the eyes of Buck House and the Crown, but we all know he’s guilty in the public eye anyway. His manoeuvrings to have the case thrown out appear to be nothing more than legal tactics. His car crash interview, his denial of the photo etc all lead the court of public opinion to find him guilty as alleged. He has brought the Crown into disrepute and I, for one, believe the Queen has, finally, done the right thing.

However, I don’t believe the Monarchy, represented by the current Queen, should be removed as Head of State. The Queen had done a brilliant job over the past 70 years of steering an apolitical path through the changes of the 20th century and into this century. There is a consistency there that elevates the position far above anything an elected Head of State who is part of the political party machine could ever dream of bringing in their short few years of power. Just look at the U.S. and how divisive that environment is with regards to Presidents, their election and their politics.

I have a great deal of respect for the Queen.
 

Barry Hell

Elite Member
Subscriber
Stripping him of his titles before the case against him is proven is tantamount to saying he’s guilty in the eyes of Buck House and the Crown, but we all know he’s guilty in the public eye anyway. His manoeuvrings to have the case thrown out appear to be nothing more than legal tactics. His car crash interview, his denial of the photo etc all lead the court of public opinion to find him guilty as alleged. He has brought the Crown into disrepute and I, for one, believe the Queen has, finally, done the right thing.

However, I don’t believe the Monarchy, represented by the current Queen, should be removed as Head of State. The Queen had done a brilliant job over the past 70 years of steering an apolitical path through the changes of the 20th century and into this century. There is a consistency there that elevates the position far above anything an elected Head of State who is part of the political party machine could ever dream of bringing in their short few years of power. Just look at the U.S. and how divisive that environment is with regards to Presidents, their election and their politics.

I have a great deal of respect for the Queen.
Perhaps true, but we're about to get big ears at the helm, that's not going to go as well.......
 

Gimlet

Elite Member
Subscriber
Stripping him of his titles before the case against him is proven is tantamount to saying he’s guilty in the eyes of Buck House and the Crown, but we all know he’s guilty in the public eye anyway. His manoeuvrings to have the case thrown out appear to be nothing more than legal tactics. His car crash interview, his denial of the photo etc all lead the court of public opinion to find him guilty as alleged. He has brought the Crown into disrepute and I, for one, believe the Queen has, finally, done the right thing.

However, I don’t believe the Monarchy, represented by the current Queen, should be removed as Head of State. The Queen had done a brilliant job over the past 70 years of steering an apolitical path through the changes of the 20th century and into this century. There is a consistency there that elevates the position far above anything an elected Head of State who is part of the political party machine could ever dream of bringing in their short few years of power. Just look at the U.S. and how divisive that environment is with regards to Presidents, their election and their politics.

I have a great deal of respect for the Queen.
I agree. The Queen has done exactly the right thing. He got himself into this mess and there is no reason why the institution of monarchy should be tainted by it, and not the Queen, the Crown Estates nor the tax payer bail him out financially. He could have quit while he was ahead but he maintained a public association with Epstein even after the latter's activities had come to light.
I'm not overly concerned with his "victim". She had twenty years to come forward and whatever the outcome she'll make a fortune out of it, which is why she was there letting him get his hands on her in the first place, even if the payday was a long time coming.
But I feel sorry for the Queen. What a thing to burden your mother with at her time of life. Doesn't matter that she's the monarch, she a very old lady, she lost her husband only a few months ago, her grandson has slapped her in the face to please his grasping wife and now she's got to deal with this shit in the final years of her life. What an arsehole he is.
 

HootOwl

Well-known member
Subscriber
Charlie needs to be bypassed.
He is a dinosaur but without any kudos like the Queen has. It needs to go to William and Kate, whatever additional legal adjustments to the succession line need to be made.
All Lizzie's sons must be a real disappointment to her, they all bat both sides of the fence, usually marry for appearance sake (Eddy!!) and Andy is clearly a paedo as well.
I can still recall the tales of Charlie's alleged 'meetings' with some of his footmen before and during Diana.
He keeps sticking his snout in on the environment while enjoying a life of massive privilege and judging by his cheeks, also enjoys the old port more than quite a bit. Being fair mind, if my other half looked like a horse too, I'd wanna be stoned all the time :D
HRH has more than served the country well. I am no royalist either. If Charlie takes over - it'll be the end though. I suspect she also knows the same and will hang on to her role until she dies.
Andy needs bringing to task and it looks ever more like he will be. The Crown is dumping him now before more damage is done. He, We and HRH all know he is guiltier than the man behind the grassy knoll ;)
 

Barry Hell

Elite Member
Subscriber
Charlie needs to be bypassed.
He is a dinosaur but without any kudos like the Queen has. It needs to go to William and Kate, whatever additional legal adjustments to the succession line need to be made.
All Lizzie's sons must be a real disappointment to her, they all bat both sides of the fence, usually marry for appearance sake (Eddy!!) and Andy is clearly a paedo as well.
I can still recall the tales of Charlie's alleged 'meetings' with some of his footmen before and during Diana.
He keeps sticking his snout in on the environment while enjoying a life of massive privilege and judging by his cheeks, also enjoys the old port more than quite a bit. Being fair mind, if my other half looked like a horse too, I'd wanna be stoned all the time :D
HRH has more than served the country well. I am no royalist either. If Charlie takes over - it'll be the end though. I suspect she also knows the same and will hang on to her role until she dies.
Andy needs bringing to task and it looks ever more like he will be. The Crown is dumping him now before more damage is done. He, We and HRH all know he is guiltier than the man behind the grassy knoll ;)
The Queen will never abdicate, so it will be until death.

King Billy, hmm, name change required or trouble afoot 🤣
 

Outintheopen

The Wonky proper
Subscriber
That in the 21st Century people are still happy to be subjugated still baffles me.
There’s a whole mechanism in place to have the masses believe that somehow these parasites are “Royal” by lineage, that there’s regal blood in their vein and we are supposed to bow to them as people.
Sheep.
 

HootOwl

Well-known member
Subscriber
I am not really a Royalist and not especially against them. I think HRH has done a fantastic job and devoted her life to the role. I also think that for anyone to continue the role on, it has to be Will and Kate, who at least have some fresh blood to add to the line :)
-
 

West Cork Paul

Shed Expert
Subscriber
Nah it will go straigh to Kate and Willy
My old mum god rest her soul said Charles would never be king
Nope, no way, sadly much as people might want this it won’t happen. Queenie will stay as the Crown until she dies then Charles will take over until he dies then William. Whilst I don’t disagree for one moment William is cast in the Queen’s mould and will make a better King than Charles they, the Instituition, and convention will not change. Monarchs don’t abdicate unless they’re stiffing a divorced Yank.
That in the 21st Century people are still happy to be subjugated still baffles me.
There’s a whole mechanism in place to have the masses believe that somehow these parasites are “Royal” by lineage, that there’s regal blood in their vein and we are supposed to bow to them as people.
Sheep.
There’s absolutely no subjugation these days, even if you’re in the armed forces. It’s a symbolic role more than anything and, despite what people believe, it brings more into the country in £££ than it takes out through the Civil List. Long may it last.
 

Loz

5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...
Subscriber
Nope, no way, sadly much as people might want this it won’t happen. Queenie will stay as the Crown until she dies then Charles will take over until he dies then William. Whilst I don’t disagree for one moment William is cast in the Queen’s mould and will make a better King than Charles they, the Instituition, and convention will not change. Monarchs don’t abdicate unless they’re stiffing a divorced Yank.

There’s absolutely no subjugation these days, even if you’re in the armed forces. It’s a symbolic role more than anything and, despite what people believe, it brings more into the country in £££ than it takes out through the Civil List. Long may it last.
The monarchy us indeed a purely symbolic role.

It's just that it is a symbol for undeserved privilege - and subjugation.

It is the subtle yet over-arching argument in favour of de facto feudalism. It normalises the idea behind "your Betters know best because they are better than you".
 

Gimlet

Elite Member
Subscriber
The Queen demonstrated her symbolic role all too effectively when pictures were broadcast of her sitting quietly with her mask on, alone in an empty pew at the memorial service to her husband; obediently complying with the rules drawn up by her elected government, while almost simultaneously the inner circle of that same government headed by Boris Johnson was throwing an illegal piss-up in the no. 10 rose garden.

There were thousands of ordinary people who were in a similarly tragic position to HM at that time, but their stories would never have the leverage. The Queen unwittingly spoke for all the little people in that small way, and that image will probably prove to be the defining moment in the downfall of Boris Johnson. That in a nutshell is the subtle point of the monarchy. No political appointment as head of state could ever transcend politics in such a way to carry so much collective weight. Hardly subjugation, in my view.
 
Last edited:

West Cork Paul

Shed Expert
Subscriber
The monarchy us indeed a purely symbolic role.

It's just that it is a symbol for undeserved privilege - and subjugation.

It is the subtle yet over-arching argument in favour of de facto feudalism. It normalises the idea behind "your Betters know best because they are better than you".
I believe we’ve moved on a long way from those times and the Monarchy no longer has any means or power to subjugate the people. It all began to change over 400 years ago when Cromwell was forced to reinstate the Crown albeit with severely limited powers which have been limited further over the intervening centuries.
 

Loz

5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...
Subscriber
The Queen demonstrated her symbolic role all too effectively when pictures were broadcast of her sitting quietly with her mask on, alone in an empty pew at the memorial service to her husband; obediently complying with the rules drawn up by her elected government, while almost simultaneously the inner circle of that same government headed by Boris Johnson was throwing an illegal piss-up in the no. 10 rose garden.

There were thousands of ordinary people who were in a similarly tragic position to HM at that time, but their stories would never have the leverage. The Queen unwittingly spoke for all the little people in that small way, and that image will probably prove to be the defining moment in the downfall of Boris Johnson. That in a nutshell is the subtle point of the monarchy. No political appointment as head of state could ever transcend politics in such a way to carry so much collective weight. Hardly subjugation, in my view.
I believe we’ve moved on a long way from those times and the Monarchy no longer has any means or power to subjugate the people. It all began to change over 400 years ago when Cromwell was forced to reinstate the Crown albeit with severely limited powers which have been limited further over the intervening centuries.

You are both missing my point.

The Monarchy does not obviously subjugate. Aside from the pull it has with the UK Government to get personal favours done - stories quashed, critics warned off, men and women murdered in tunnels (WTF?), small stuff like that - it has little direct power over people's lives. There is no dispute there.

The idea of monarchy though ...
These are people with influence, some measure of power, a claim to the public purse, fuck-off land and properties and a truly elevated lifestyle compared to all but the richest billionaires and oligarchs and they have all this because of their lineage, not because they started from nothing and then earned it. If such wealth, power and privilege can indeed be "earned".

And this "proof-of-principle", that privilege is owed to those who have the right surnames, who come from the right families provides cover for every other entitled POS that comes along. Doubt me? Have you heard of the House of Lords?
Aside from the handful of hereditary free-loaders, Peers now get appointed by corrupt politicians. Hereditary peers come from an age when Manarchy was largely in charge and the system of an Upper House that is based upon former regal privilege and current corrupt old-boy-network sleaze can only persist under a monarchy. Without monarchy, it is more clearly the anachronism it truly is.

By all means tell me how Elizabeth Windsor has paid her dues - arguably, she has but that is not the point. Your argument that the Monarch and her extended family deserve their lofty position and role by dint of their fucking DNA is about to be utterly trashed when the current monarch leaves her role.
 

Gimlet

Elite Member
Subscriber
Your argument that the Monarch and her extended family deserve their lofty position and role by dint of their fucking DNA is about to be utterly trashed when the current monarch leaves her role.
No one has made that argument.
 

Noobie

Bona fortuna
Subscriber
When ever some claims having the monarchy allows Subjugation and you ask them, in your daily life how does the monarchy subjugation effect you in the real world? you get a lot of flip flopping going on but very little in the way of real world events.
 

Gimlet

Elite Member
Subscriber
Effectively, they have. Anyone supporting the position of current monarch has done so, implicitly.
No they haven't. That's just you being tendentious and dictating the terms of debate. It's not always about what you think it's about, or what you'd like it to be about.

Indeed, if you approach any debate wanting it to be about something or to confirm a position you've already taken, it isn't a debate. It's a lecture.
 
Top