Royal big mouth. - Page 2




 
--
Royal big mouth.
 
February 9th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Royal big mouth.
Spends a lot of time on exotic golf courses?
February 9th, 2008  
Del Boy
 

Spends ALL his time free-loading and partying on golf courses around the world outrageously at tax-payers expense to a great extent. And that ain't the half of it.

I would appreciate any positives you could advise me of - I might then be able to water down my take on the issue.
February 9th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
sounds like the ex-governor of my fine state, Ohio
--
Royal big mouth.
February 9th, 2008  
Del Boy
 

Well you see TOG - we have a very special relationship with our Royal Family. We support their position because we wish to. Generally, we admire our Queen and we are pleased to be ableto seperate our patriotism for our country from support of our government necessarily, seeing as our head of state is definitely not a politician and keeps out of politics. We keep them in high style and they are very wealthy themselves of course, the main ones, and all we ask in return is that they remember their place, behave themswelves politically and do not bring us into disrepute. It is unheard of for one of them to interfere between us and our allies. If something needs to be said, it is not their place to do so.

Things like this rock the stability of the Royals as an institution, so it is dangerous.

So there you go, that's the widely held view.
February 9th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
I say that they are entitled to their opinion but that's about it.
February 9th, 2008  
Fox
 
 
Sorry for the off-topic, Del Boy, I'm curious which one are more power to control England, the Royal Family or Prime Minister? I'm kinda confused on this one since I know that the Prime Minister or Ministry of Defence can control the British military and troops in A-Stan and Iraq.
February 9th, 2008  
Del Boy
 

Pleasure Fox. No question- our Prime Minister. Generally the Queen has no political clout, nor does she want such. HOWEVER - our Government is the Queen's government and the Prime Minister would be taking the Queen into confidence, discussion and account on important issues.

Example. The Labour government, in its election manifesto, promised to give us (the electorate) a vote on whether to adopt the constitutional issues of the new EU treaty. Now on the basis of the clearly untrue claim that this these treaty alterations are not the same thing in disguise, Gordon Brown has refused to put the matter to a referendum as promised, because he fears he might lose. Everyone, including many of his own party, is up in arms regarding this rejection of democracy and scorn of the views of the people.

From the Queen - nothing. And quite right too. But the voters will remember him.

HOWEVER - in a time of serious confrontation and emergency, under the necessary conditions, with Britain under sufficient stress, then I am sure that England would rally behind its head of state. Remember that the Queen has no political affiliations, so is not opposed on that count. We have experience. The last time it happened, Parliament won under Oliver Cromwell. King lost his head. When Cromwell died we brought back his son as our King, probably the most popular King ever.

We now set the conditions for allowing Royal succession, who we feel work for us, which is more than we can say for our current career politicians.

As for our forces - The Queen I suggest. In fact, I am sure.

Who is the most trusted - The Queen.


Imagine a scenario where your constitution seperated politics from head of state.
Imagine Geo Washington as head of state, President. Of no political allegiance.
Imagine Geo Bush as Prime Minister.

You can see the both the benefits and the problems thereby.

Which is why we are so fortunate to have a trusted line of heads of state, ready made, not having to be elected, having no political corruption, and expected, by US, always to behave in the most careful and responsible manner. So there you have our Queen, and she has been fantastic.

We can be of any political colour, up in arms with our government, and still rally together around the Queen. Perhaps the closest you have to this is your flag, which is why I have objected in the past to folk not respecting it.

These are my own opinions, I am a strong independent of strong democratic (lower-case)
convictions.
February 9th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
I believe that folk here would be happy to let the commonwealth have him - if they think they can afford him and his entourage. He has no popularity here any longer.
So Andrew is bad for stating that he doesnt support the Iraq war and because he spends a lot of time travelling (I am assuming your complaint is that he is using pupblic money?) yet you support his younger brother who got booted out of the Royal Marines for being a bit "prissy" (and I am being polite there) and his older brother who in his own words wants to be a tampon of the woman he was having an affair with throughout his entire marriage (I wont bother getting into Chucks naval career which in itself was an embarassment) are fine in your books?

At least Andrew has the balls to stand up and say what he thinks.
February 9th, 2008  
Englander2
 

Sorry I wanted to write something, but I do not want end up like Dr. Kelly or Princess Diana!
February 9th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
So Andrew is bad for stating that he doesnt support the Iraq war and because he spends a lot of time travelling (I am assuming your complaint is that he is using pupblic money?) yet you support his younger brother who got booted out of the Royal Marines for being a bit "prissy" (and I am being polite there) and his older brother who in his own words wants to be a tampon of the woman he was having an affair with throughout his entire marriage (I wont bother getting into Chucks naval career which in itself was an embarassment) are fine in your books?

At least Andrew has the balls to stand up and say what he thinks.


What a weak and pathetic contibution to a serious discussion. I find it hard to imagine what you sought to achieve; it was like listening to a man heckling and hurling insults from the very back of a crowd. Great stuff.

You have a great penchant for putting words into other peoples' mouths.

NO-NO - I did not say that he was 'bad'; I'm not an infant.


NO-NO - I did not say that he stated that he did not support the Iraq war.


NO-NO - I did not say that I suported either of his brothers.

NO-NO - I did not say that they were fine with me.

So what are you spouting on about (again). Why don't you show us where I said those things?



I enjoyed your rant regarding Edward and especially Charles. I am pleased to see that you support our Prince Andrew so. You are very welcome I'm sure. Why don't you tell us what you like about him, apart from the fact that he has balls!
I did invite any positives that were out there.


Please try to do better next time and address what is written and not what wanders slowly around in your head. I have warned you before about putting up your own statements and then arguing with yourself.
Stop attributing them to me. Your post was rubbish, as it happens, but that's life I guess.

BTW - re. your comment on Edward, a question occurrs to me - are you a trained Royal Marine then?
 


Similar Topics
The Royal Navy of Oman has recently ordered both Exocet and VL Mica Systems to equip
Barber ends career with another big day - and another loss
5 Big Ten teams accept bowl bids
Why did the RN get rid of big Carriers?
Can USA really win a big war?