Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 16 11.28am | |
---|---|
Traditionally of course, the downside of being King was that if you f**ked up, you probably lost status and power, to the barons, or had 'an accident whilst hunting' etc. Its like being the Godfather. You don't actually do the work, you received tribute and shares, based on your ability to maintain your position, and the fortunes of those who swore loyalty to you. I don't think its necessarily an easy life, because even a holiday or dinner, can be 'work'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
JL85 London,SE9 20 Apr 16 11.31am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Frickin Saweet
so you're a big supporter of the monarchy then JL? Massive. Got me bunting out and everything. Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 11.32am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 16 11.41am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by JL85
Massive. Got me bunting out and everything. Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 11.32am) Is it like mine, involving rope and a stool.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 20 Apr 16 1.22pm | |
---|---|
No, that's Prince Andrew. Even Harry does more than Edward, Anne and he does.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
JL85 London,SE9 20 Apr 16 1.59pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Is it like mine, involving rope and a stool.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 20 Apr 16 2.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Meow... I doubt its what we would call work per se. Typically monarchs have been more about decisions and political activity, rather than actually working - with many monarchs 'work' being what we'd regard as socialising and hobnobbing. A large part of traditional feudal monarchs work was largely keeping the barons onside and happy. If you're actually 'doing what most people would call a job' you've failed at Monarchy. Besides, they'd have someone who's role was updating the HOL for them, Queens Council to the Palace Forum or some such. Ok, I confess. My posts are actually on behalf of the Duke of Edinburgh.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 20 Apr 16 2.17pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by JL85
He does literally f*** all. If we really must insist of maintaining this medieval overlord fantasy, why not just pick someone at random? As long as its not you mate as you do not know what you are talking about. Why you have this thing about the royal family beats me. They do a good job believe it or not and bring millions into this country both with tourism and investment. Get your facts right instead of spinning the sh1t....
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
JL85 London,SE9 20 Apr 16 2.55pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by susmik
As long as its not you mate as you do not know what you are talking about. Why you have this thing about the royal family beats me. They do a good job believe it or not and bring millions into this country both with tourism and investment. Get your facts right instead of spinning the sh1t.... Ponying on about fact's and prevent none yourself, eh? But whilst we are on fact's, you do realise that the most popular Royal residence is Windsor Castle, right? And that Windsor Castle is less popular a tourist destination than a Flamingo Zoo? Anyone could bring money in as King/Queen through tourism, in fact the Palace's and places of interest would do that quite well by themselves. But that's irrelevant, it's the need to continuously perpetuate some neolithic overlord status decided by hereditary hand me downs. It's a load of old nonsense, much like the house of lords. If anything, i'd like to see it become a voluntary payment system so as more people opt out, those ardent fans, like yourself, can pick up the remainder of the bill. Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 2.58pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 16 2.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Ok, I confess. My posts are actually on behalf of the Duke of Edinburgh.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 16 3.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by susmik
As long as its not you mate as you do not know what you are talking about. Why you have this thing about the royal family beats me. They do a good job believe it or not and bring millions into this country both with tourism and investment. Get your facts right instead of spinning the sh1t.... Good job might be pushing it a bit, it does mostly seem to involve going places, waving, talking to people and trying not to pass on haemophilia. But they probably do turn a bit of a profit for the UK. But the question with tourism is that a lot of people would still come anyhow. Especially if they could actually walk around Buckingham Palace 365 days a year, at fifty quid a pop. Its not like they're the sole reason tourists come to London. My main objection to royalty is that it represents the ideals of class elitism, where in people were supposed to know their place and betters, and the very elite believed themselves to be ordained by god and entitled to rule over any aspect they chose of peoples lives. But in truth, rather than jest, I'd just phase the f**kers out over a few generation or 'privatise them' like the Euro lot, and stop paying them. They can earn their own living.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 20 Apr 16 3.23pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by JL85
Ponying on about fact's and prevent none yourself, eh? But whilst we are on fact's, you do realise that the most popular Royal residence is Windsor Castle, right? And that Windsor Castle is less popular a tourist destination than a Flamingo Zoo? Anyone could bring money in as King/Queen through tourism, in fact the Palace's and places of interest would do that quite well by themselves. But that's irrelevant, it's the need to continuously perpetuate some neolithic overlord status decided by hereditary hand me downs. It's a load of old nonsense, much like the house of lords. If anything, i'd like to see it become a voluntary payment system so as more people opt out, those ardent fans, like yourself, can pick up the remainder of the bill. Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 2.58pm) You'll be waiting a long time to see it. The Monarchy is infinitely better than the alternative. Just look at France.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
JL85 London,SE9 20 Apr 16 3.29pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
You'll be waiting a long time to see it. The Monarchy is infinitely better than the alternative. Just look at France. Maybe, maybe not. I think with Charles the appetite for a monarchy will dwindle.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.