Let him be his own man

[vidcc]

Prince Harry doesn't want special treatment.



Army commanders are grappling with an unprecedented security headache as Prince Harry prepares to deploy to Iraq.

The third in line to the throne appears to have won the battle to join his men on operations in a war zone after months of high-level discussions during which he threatened to quit if he was left behind for his own safety.

Insiders say, however, that officials are still grappling with practical issues - including whether the Metropolitan Police personal protection officers who guard Harry around the clock in the UK should continue doing so in Iraq.

Time to resolve such issues is short. The prince's unit, 'A' Squadron of the Blues and Royals regiment, was warned unofficially last week to expect a six-month tour of duty in southern Iraq starting in April.

It will be the first time a member of the Royal Family has served on military operations since Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the Falklands War 25 years ago - and will force his senior commanders to confront some difficult choices over security.

Southern Iraq remains extremely dangerous for UK forces, with six soldiers killed since Christmas, four of them by roadside bombs.

Harming or capturing the third in line to the throne would be a massive coup for insurgents or terrorists and in the grim humour of the Army the 22-year-old prince is already being referred to as a 'bullet magnet'.

Senior officers will have to weigh up the options, including keeping Harry out of harm's way with a relatively safe job inside a headquarters.

Alternatively, he could be allowed to lead a 12-strong armoured reconnaissance patrol - the role for which he has spent months training - while being restricted to remote desert areas where he would be difficult to track down or recognise.

Hundreds of British soldiers are operating in outlying areas of the volatile Maysan Province, trying to stop the flow of weapons and drugs across the nearby Iranian border.

Although the area is dangerous, it is deemed safer than towns and cities, and Harry could remain relatively anonymous.

On the issue of bodyguards, one royal source said it was a 'distinct possibility' that police representatives would accompany him to 'oversee' his security, but acknowledged practical problems.

The officers are not trained to operate in a war zone, there would be no space for them in the Scimitar armoured vehicles used by Harry's unit, and their expertise would offer little protection against roadside bombs.

An alternative is to assign a team of Royal Military Police bodyguards, who specialise in guarding senior commanders and VIPs on operations.

One Army source said: 'Harry's always wanted to be treated as an ordinary soldier and I think people respect him for that. He's not an ordinary soldier, of course, but it looks like he's got his way over Iraq.

'Frankly I don't envy his commanders. Losing any soldier under your command is awful. Lose the third in line to the throne and you'd unfortunately go down in history as well.'

Defence Secretary Des Browne will make an official announcement on the April rotation of units in the next two weeks.

source (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385938-details/Iraq+security+nightmare+for+%27bullet+magnet%27+Harry/article.do)

So what if he is third in line, he wants to serve his country and his unit. He wants no special treatment. If the powers that be think combat too risky for the royal family why allow them to serve at all?

Let him serve, if he pays the ultimate price at least he made the choice himself and it's to his credit. Let him earn the respect of those he is serving alongside. It would be offensive to his dignity as a man to send "guards" to protect him.
I wish him well, along with all the other servicemen and women in harms way.

[Busyman™]

Isn't the royal family kinda like celebrity bullshit now anyway?

Let him go. Fuck the lineage.

[Ava Estelle]

Isn't the royal family kinda like celebrity bullshit now anyway?

You mean like peanut brain Reagan and the Bush monkey?

They should make a film about those two and call it Bedtime For Bonzo, oh, just a minute ...

[Busyman™]

Isn't the royal family kinda like celebrity bullshit now anyway?

You mean like peanut brain Reagan and the Bush monkey?

They should make a film about those two and call it Bedtime For Bonzo, oh, just a minute ...

Wtf does that have to do with royalty?:blink:

[Barbarossa]

So what if he is third in line, he wants to serve his country and his unit. He wants no special treatment. If the powers that be think combat too risky for the royal family why allow them to serve at all?

Hear hear.

It seems to really come as a shock to some people that if you join the armed forces, there's a good chance that at some point you will be asked to shoot at people, and get shot at in return.

This condition is not exclusive to the Royal Family. :dry:

The idea of sending policemen out there to protect him is ludicrous :lol:

Is he or is he not a trained killing machine now :unsure:

[Ava Estelle]

Wtf does that have to do with royalty?:blink: It has to do with the head of state, Bozo, yours isn't exactly a shining example, is it? People who live in glass houses, and all that.

[Busyman™]

Wtf does that have to do with royalty?:blink: It has to do with the head of state, Bozo, yours isn't exactly a shining example, is it? People who live in glass houses, and all that.

Wow you are an idiot.

We have elected officials so again, wtf does Reagan and Bush have to do with royalty?

Wtf do glass houses have to do with whateverthefuck?

Did the Prince make the decision to send brat troops into Iraq?

Why the fuck does the head of state have to be a shining example? He is still the head of state and not the celebritybullshithistoricalfigurehead of state.:dry:

Please help educate me on head of the monarchy and his/her relation to the parliamentary decision making process. I was unaware of his/her veto power as head of state...or maybe he/she simply has a vote in parliament but I really didn't know of such power.

[ilw]

queenie has veto power on all new laws i think, but never uses it

[bigboab]

queenie has veto power on all new laws i think, but never uses it

She still has a lot of powers. She can confer peerages etc(without bribes:rolleyes:)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/openup/story/0,,1067480,00.html

There is a list of them in this link.:)

[Busyman™]

queenie has veto power on all new laws i think, but never uses it

She still has a lot of powers. She can confer peerages etc(without bribes:rolleyes:)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/openup/story/0,,1067480,00.html

There is a list of them in this link.:)

That sounds like bullshit. It seems parliament could tell the Queen to piss off and she could do squat about it. Thanks for the link, however.

Also that would be kinda weird in this day and age that a person's lineage could allow them to make life or death decisions.

It would seem better to have millions of idiots vote that person in so there'd be someone to blame.

[Ava Estelle]

Please help educate me ..

Good god man, what am I, a miracle worker?

[Busyman™]

Please help educate me ..

Good god man, what am I, a miracle worker?

Naw, boab already did it...with a short post and a link at that.

It sounds like the Queen's powers were shrouded in mystery until '03.

[Skiz]

Being third in line to the throne is kinda like being senate majority leader except you dont have to do a job, create and process legistlation and or report to the people that you represent. So essentially nothing, right?

I say if he wants to go then LET HIM! He wants to be a soldier, like all of his ancestors, and I don't blame him for that. He would have a lifetime of having to live down the fact that his contemporaries went to war and he did not, special treatment and all that. I salute him for having the guts to go. He did not join the army because he wanted a lawn chair and a drink with anumbrella in it. He's a man and can decide for himself. As BM said, the royal family is more a figure head rather than a governing body in England, but many still feel a very strong dedication to the "throne" of England.

It will be interesting to see if either William of Harry make any sort of attempt to be involved in the goings on of their country. I am not all for Kings and shit, but if I was one, I certainly would not only show up in the latest edition of the Enquirer boning one of the Olsen twins. Has everyone forgot that Kings used to lead Crusades across Europe? LET HIM GO!

As far as protecting him, that is something of a joke for the police to even think about going over to Iraq. Why not have them go and kill all the fanatics, and the soldiers could just go home? It's the job the soldiers have, and they need to do it. There's no way the police could protect him, as the article points out.

And as far as the royal family goes, that is British tradition, and that's one thing the British are very good at, is tradition. I hope it never changes.

[peat moss]

Ah give me break , thier proud young men but hate to see the Al qaeda brag about killing a member of the Royal family. Keep them at back of the front lines .

After some refection it must be hard if I was a father of a British soldier, not to question why the monarchy can't be at the front .

[Busyman™]

And as far as the royal family goes, that is British tradition, and that's one thing the British are very good at, is tradition. I hope it never changes.

Why? It's an outdated tradition.

Historically it was excellent since had to do with governing a nation. Now it seems like stuffy bullshit.

[Skiz]

And as far as the royal family goes, that is British tradition, and that's one thing the British are very good at, is tradition. I hope it never changes.

Why? It's an outdated tradition.

Historically it was excellent since had to do with governing a nation. Now it seems like stuffy bullshit.

I don't believe they should be forgotten about either. I think somewhere in the middle would be appropriate. How much money is pumped in to supporting that family?

[Busyman™]

Why? It's an outdated tradition.

Historically it was excellent since had to do with governing a nation. Now it seems like stuffy bullshit.

I don't believe they should be forgotten about either. I think somewhere in the middle would be appropriate. How much money is pumped in to supporting that family?

Of course it wouldn't be forgotton.:dry: I actually think that the history is very cool.

It also think it is outdated for a country that has clearly embraced democracy.

If there is a monarchy, it should have power. Those powers stated in boab's link seem more like malarky.

[Colt Seevers]

How much money is pumped in to supporting that family?

Here's how much the parasites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm) have cost us, (according to Beeb from 2005), so it may have changed.....Come on now, higher or lower? :blink:

http://www.gameshow-galaxy.net/images/DzlItem246.jpg

[Ava Estelle]

And as far as the royal family goes, that is British tradition, and that's one thing the British are very good at, is tradition. I hope it never changes.

Why? It's an outdated tradition.

Historically it was excellent since had to do with governing a nation. Now it seems like stuffy bullshit.

Busyman, you obviously know fuck all about heads of state, one thing the British DON'T want, or need, is a US style head of state, multi-millionaire pea brains.


I don't believe they should be forgotten about either. I think somewhere in the middle would be appropriate. How much money is pumped in to supporting that family?

There is nothing wrong with the Royal Family as head of state, they don't interfere in the running of the country, and that's how it should be. The unwritten rule in the UK is that the head of state doesn't enter politics, and if they do they will be abolished. At the same time they have the power to act against an unpopular government by calling an election.


It also think it is outdated for a country that has clearly embraced democracy.

If there is a monarchy, it should have power. Those powers stated in boab's link seem more like malarky.

What does the fact that the UK has democracy, the oldest in the world, have to do with the powers of the head of state? The reason the UK system has lasted so long, 300+ years, is because of the way it works, why would you want to change it?


Here's how much the parasites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm) have cost us, (according to Beeb from 2005), so it may have changed.....Come on now, higher or lower?

Here we go, the same old bullshit, someone had to post it! Now show us how much the Royal Family PAY the government each year through the Crown Estates. In 2005 the Crown Estates, owned by the Royal Family and run for the government, paid 188,000,000 pounds into the Exchequer, the money they were paid is then taken from that amount. So it makes people who call them parasites look stupid. If the monarchy were abolished the Crown Estates would be handed back and the Queen would be far richer.

Add that to the estimated four BILLION pound a year tourist industry the Royal Family attract, and the billions in trade they generate, and the people calling for their heads begin to look uneducated an ill-informed.

[Skiz]

Seems he's going.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253619,00.html

[Colt Seevers]

Ava, I hate them and everything they stand for. You obviously disagree. To be honest I don't really care, they are a waste of space. They may do something to boost your economy but they do fuck all for mine. :dry: I think they are a complete and utter waste of resources. You can throw your tourist income figures around with gay abandon all you like. Personally I could happily live without them. :whistling

We agree to disagree, you can defend them to the hilt all you want mate, but I won't be joining you on this Merry Monarchy Bandwagon.

Cheers!
;)

[vidcc]

@ colt

looking at what Ava wrote it appears that he was responding to the parasite remark.

par·a·site Pronunciation (pr-st)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

I can't see that he was posting a "lovefest" for the royals but was pointing out that "parasite" is a description based on something other than reality.

Like them or not the UK makes more money out of the royals than the royals get back.

[Colt Seevers]

I can't see that he was posting a "lovefest" for the royals but was pointing out that "parasite" is a description based on something other than reality.

Like them or not the UK makes more money out of the royals than the royals get back.

Aye I did notice that point, the point I was making is I think they are parasites. I think they are a drain on resources, and I think we could all live happily ever after without them. :ermm:

Make money out of the Royal brand is it, better business links? I believe without them tourists and business would still continue to thrive without their input, lets give it a try! Eh? Your arguments seem to be we would be diminished without them, lesser for it, I just don't see it that way, I think we would be better off without them, and everything they stand for...I think we should have taken a leaf out of Russia's book and shot the lot of them! :yup: Viva la Revolution!

Sorry my meaning is not to offend it's just the way I feel, I'm sure a few mint Jubilee mugs are flying my way. :ermm:


All the best, :mellow:

[vidcc]

Aye I did notice that point, the point I was making is I think they are parasites. I think they are a drain on resources, and I think we could all live happily ever after without them. :ermm:
How can they be parasites if they bring in more revenue than they take?


Make money out of the Royal brand is it, better business links? I believe without them tourists and business would still continue to thrive without their input, lets give it a try! Eh? Your arguments seem to be we would be diminished without them, lesser for it, I just don't see it that way, I think we would be better off without them, and everything they stand for...I think we should have taken a leaf out of Russia's book and shot the lot of them! :yup: Viva la Revolution!

Sorry my meaning is not to offend it's just the way I feel, I'm sure a few mint Jubilee mugs are flying my way. :ermm:


All the best, :mellow:

Of course the economy wouldn't collapse if the royal family didn't exist, but that is something of a strawman argument. Nobody has said that tourism money etc. is dependent on the royals, the point is that the royals generate more money not just for the economy but for the tax payer than they take. They don't just bring money into the economy through tourism either.

I don't care if you hate the royals for whatever reason, all I am pointing out is the reality that they are not parasites.

[Ava Estelle]

They may do something to boost your economy but they do fuck all for mine.

How can you claim that when the Scots get £5 per capita to every £4 per capita for the English? The English have subsidised your arses for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. That's the reason the Scots have never pushed for independence, they know when they're well off!

@ vidcc, cheers mate, a voice of reason as usual.

[Colt Seevers]

They may do something to boost your economy but they do fuck all for mine.

How can you claim that when the Scots get £5 per capita to every £4 per capita for the English? The English have subsidised your arses for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. That's the reason the Scots have never pushed for independence, they know when they're well off!

@ vidcc, cheers mate, a voice of reason as usual.

Oh aye Ava, I vote SNP and I am all for full Independence as well. :w00t: After I watched Braveheart I just couldn't handle the injustice!! :dabs: But maybe this is for another thread.

@ Bumchum, thx bumchum, I luv u. :naughty:

[Colt Seevers]

I don't care if you hate the royals for whatever reason, all I am pointing out is the reality that they are not parasites.

Yes, and I'm pointing out that they are! You go on keep quoting the dictionary definition of words to get your point across, keep up the good work! :shutup:

[Biggles]

They may do something to boost your economy but they do fuck all for mine.

How can you claim that when the Scots get £5 per capita to every £4 per capita for the English? The English have subsidised your arses for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. That's the reason the Scots have never pushed for independence, they know when they're well off!

@ vidcc, cheers mate, a voice of reason as usual.


Hotly disputed figures those.

The Union was 300 years ago this very year and was an English contrivance which caused rioting in Scotland. (Money changed hands to bribe key votes in the Scottish Parliament to secure a Yes vote) It was unwanted and unpopular by the ordinary population. The question should be if we are such a drain why have the English wanted to maintain the Union for so long? Do they love us that much?

I am neutral on the Royals although they represent a class society that is alien to modern British political and social interaction. Nevertheless I certainly believe that Harry will enjoy his time roughing up a few Johnny foreigners :whistling - he has done the training so he deserves to get to go.

[vidcc]

Yes, and I'm pointing out that they are! You go on keep quoting the dictionary definition of words to get your point across, keep up the good work! :shutup:

Ok, then explain how they are. Explain exactly what it is about them that is parasitic (remember what the word means, they must contribute nothing and only take).

You could have used many other descriptions.... privileged, hyped, out of touch, spoilt....the list could go on, but parasite is inaccurate.

[Busyman™]

Why? It's an outdated tradition.

Historically it was excellent since had to do with governing a nation. Now it seems like stuffy bullshit.

Busyman, you obviously know fuck all about heads of state, one thing the British DON'T want, or need, is a US style head of state, multi-millionaire pea brains.

Pea brains that are involved in making decisions versus a figurehead of state that wasn't voted in...fantastic.


It also think it is outdated for a country that has clearly embraced democracy.

If there is a monarchy, it should have power. Those powers stated in boab's link seem more like malarky.

What does the fact that the UK has democracy, the oldest in the world, have to do with the powers of the head of state? The reason the UK system has lasted so long, 300+ years, is because of the way it works, why would you want to change it?


Here's how much the parasites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm) have cost us, (according to Beeb from 2005), so it may have changed.....Come on now, higher or lower?

Here we go, the same old bullshit, someone had to post it! Now show us how much the Royal Family PAY the government each year through the Crown Estates. In 2005 the Crown Estates, owned by the Royal Family and run for the government, paid 188,000,000 pounds into the Exchequer, the money they were paid is then taken from that amount. So it makes people who call them parasites look stupid. If the monarchy were abolished the Crown Estates would be handed back and the Queen would be far richer.

Add that to the estimated four BILLION pound a year tourist industry the Royal Family attract, and the billions in trade they generate, and the people calling for their heads begin to look uneducated an ill-informed.

OIC, the Royal family pays royalties so they can solidify their figurehead position.

It sounds to me like the Royal family is simply a tourist attraction.

Hey that's great if brings in more money. However, decision making based on lineage is outdated.

I can totally respect them hanging around to bring in loot for the gubment.

Don't fanny about the "nonono they really doooo have power".:dry:

[Ava Estelle]

After I watched Braveheart I just couldn't handle the injustice!! Many a true word ...




I don't care if you hate the royals for whatever reason, all I am pointing out is the reality that they are not parasites.

Yes, and I'm pointing out that they are! You go on keep quoting the dictionary definition of words to get your point across, keep up the good work! :shutup: Is there another way of using words apart from the dictionary definition? The word 'parasite' has a difinite meaning, if you use it, you use the meaning of it. In this case you are wrong, they are not 'parasites', whatever you say.


The Union was 300 years ago this very year and was an English contrivance which caused rioting in Scotland. (Money changed hands to bribe key votes in the Scottish Parliament to secure a Yes vote) It was unwanted and unpopular by the ordinary population. The question should be if we are such a drain why have the English wanted to maintain the Union for so long? Do they love us that much? The English saved Scotland from going bust after the Darien debacle, it also stopped hundreds, maybe thousands of years of wars.


Ok, then explain how they are. Explain exactly what it is about them that is parasitic (remember what the word means, they must contribute nothing and only take).

You could have used many other descriptions.... privileged, hyped, out of touch, spoilt....the list could go on, but parasite is inaccurate. Game set and match!


Pea brains that are involved in making decisions versus a figurehead of state that wasn't voted in...fantastic The Royal Family make NO political decisions at all, NONE. You can believe what you want, it doesn't make it so, ALL political decisions in the UK are made by Parliament, and they don't have to be millionaires to get elected.



OIC, the Royal family pays royalties so they can solidify their figurehead position. You either can't read or don't want to, nothing unusual there then.


It sounds to me like the Royal family is simply a tourist attraction. At least tourist attractions don't take the country into disastrous, illegal, wars.


Hey that's great if brings in more money. However, decision making based on lineage is outdated. See above.


Don't fanny about the "nonono they really doooo have power".:dry: No they don't.

[Barbarossa]

Scottish independence eh, I'm all for it.

Were any of you people watching Question Time last night? If that panel were representative of Scottish politicians then God help you! The only one that talked any sense was that Asian guy.

[Busyman™]

Pea brains that are involved in making decisions versus a figurehead of state that wasn't voted in...fantastic The Royal Family make NO political decisions at all, NONE. You can believe what you want, it doesn't make it so, ALL political decisions in the UK are made by Parliament, and they don't have to be millionaires to get elected.


OIC, the Royal family pays royalties so they can solidify their figurehead position. You either can't read or don't want to, nothing unusual there then.


It sounds to me like the Royal family is simply a tourist attraction. At least tourist attractions don't take the country into disastrous, illegal, wars.

DUHHHH no shit if they don't make fucking decisions. :wacko: Eh, aren't you guys in Iraq too? Someone in your country sold the that decision. How about a little less talking and a little more STFU?:huh:


Hey that's great if brings in more money. However, decision making based on lineage is outdated. See above.


Don't fanny about the "nonono they really doooo have power".:dry: No they don't.

With all your other responses I guess we agree. You argue what I've been saying all along.

The Royal family are nothing more than rich tourist attractions. Cool.

It sounds to me like your gubment wants to protect one of your walking, talking tourist attractions. I thinks it's comical but hey we try to protect past Presidents (ya know, real decision makers from the past) so I guess I can understand a wee bit.

[Biggles]

The Union was 300 years ago this very year and was an English contrivance which caused rioting in Scotland. (Money changed hands to bribe key votes in the Scottish Parliament to secure a Yes vote) It was unwanted and unpopular by the ordinary population. The question should be if we are such a drain why have the English wanted to maintain the Union for so long? Do they love us that much? The English saved Scotland from going bust after the Darien debacle, it also stopped hundreds, maybe thousands of years of wars.



Most of the wars between Scotland and England revolved around English claims to Scotland not because Scotland was short of a merk or two.

Darien was an ill-conceived and stupid venture but thousands of years of war? Now that is what I call hyperbole. It is because you love us isn't it? :naughty:

[Ava Estelle]

How about a little less talking and a little more STFU? Yes please, how long do you think you can last?

[Ava Estelle]

Most of the wars between Scotland and England revolved around English claims to Scotland not because Scotland was short of a merk or two.
Most of the wars between England and Scotland was over the Scots raiding parties against English towns and villages, the 'walls' weren't built by the Scots to keep the English out!



Darien was an ill-conceived and stupid venture but thousands of years of war? Now that is what I call hyperbole. It is because you love us isn't it? :naughty:
Darien bankrupted Scotland, you should be grateful we bailed you out. And I said 'maybe' thousands of years, who knows how long the conflicts have gone on, Hadrian's Wall was built nearly two thousand years ago.

[Biggles]

Most of the wars between England and Scotland was over the Scots raiding parties against English towns and villages, the 'walls' weren't built by the Scots to keep the English out!



Darien was an ill-conceived and stupid venture but thousands of years of war? Now that is what I call hyperbole. It is because you love us isn't it? :naughty:
Darien bankrupted Scotland, you should be grateful we bailed you out. And I said 'maybe' thousands of years, who knows how long the conflicts have gone on, Hadrian's Wall was built nearly two thousand years ago.

:D Fortunately we retained our own education, legal and social structures and our history is taught with rather more detail and sophistication than that.

Our track record

At war with

Romans who invaded us
Vikings who invaded us
Anglo Saxons who invaded us
Norman English who invaded us

English - at war with just about anybody you care to mention.

The gist is that as long as we were not being invaded we were quite friendly really. (Cow stealing excepted of course as that is a hobby not warfare)

[Busyman™]

How about a little less talking and a little more STFU? Yes please, how long do you think you can last?

Pretty long actually since through all your arguing you either said what I said already or brought up the dumbass meaningless shit like the fact your royal family doesn't get you into illegal wars like our President does.:wacko:

I'm sure your grandmum doesn't get your country into wars either. Wtf does that have to do with anything? You guys still went to Iraq, Billy, whether your Queenie decided it or your gubment decided.:1eye:

You're as idy-otick as ever.:no:

[Ava Estelle]

Wtf does that have to do with anything? Giving in busybody? I love the way you get mad and insulting when you're shown up, it's one of the reasons I come here.

[Busyman™]

Wtf does that have to do with anything? Giving in busybody? I love the way you get mad and insulting when you're shown up, it's one of the reasons I come here.

That's just it, Billy. I wasn't.

You bring up something that has nothing to do with the other and then claim a victory.

You bring up that your tourist attraction doesn't get your country into illegal wars so I brought up that neither does your grandmum. You bring all this up while you have soldiers in Iraq.:glag:

Again, please grab a can of STFU and suck it down to keep in practice.

[Ava Estelle]

Again, please grab a can of STFU and suck it down to keep in practice.
Haha, you just hate being wrong, don't you?

Did you get bullied at school too? :lol:

[Colt Seevers]

Game set and match!

Ok in his thread I posted a link for how much the royals cost the UK (2005) the figures I believe are heavily massaged anyway to make them look better, but none the less, that's why I said they are parasites and I still stand by this statement. They are a drain on society and thus are parasites.

"No but, yeah but no but yeah but no"....Ahh shut up! :ph34r:

You and yer bumchum Capt. Pedantic over in dictionary corner can argue otherwise, so where's YOUR chaps proof to say that they aren't parasites? Oh yeah back to better business links and tourism again!? Well since I've had to repeat myself again, I'll do it once more: lets give it a try! Get rid of them and see what happens..It's truly the only way to prove this argument, and like I predicted we wouldn't see eye to eye, I'm happy that we can agree to disagree. Now go away and search google for something to back up your claim, then I can laugh and say "so fuck, they are still parasites!" :yup: But I think we can go round in circles here.

So if it's victory you so crave, it's all yours my English friend, but I'll tell you what you can do with you dodgy figures and per capita subsidies as well. Shove them up your arse! :blink: Also it's your "we should be grateful" attitude that alienates you even further, we don't wan't nor ask for your help, keep your money, and your false wars and 'your' PARASITIC Royal family and yer Morris Dancing gimps.

Just think, with Scotland out the way you would have more money to build a giant rollercoaster / business centre in the grounds of Buckingham Palace!

Oh and good luck in your quest for an OBE. :noes:

[Ava Estelle]

.. so where's YOUR chaps proof to say that they aren't parasites?

Learn to read, because now you look stupid, I posted the proof, you just chose to ignore it.

Go and Google 'Crown Estates'. This is a company that runs the estates owned by the Queen. ALL the money earned from all her properties and businesses are paid to the government. In 2005, the year you gave figures for the cost of the Royal Family, the Crown Estates paid £180,000,000 to the government, far more than the government gives back. So your pathetic argument is blown right out of the water.

I hope you get your independence, the English will be far better off not paying dole money to you and all your mates.

[vidcc]

Of course the article by the BBC news is pointing to the cost of official duties and trips as ambassadors for the uk......you know....work. By this standard anyone in the foriegn office is a parasite. colt seems to suggest all they do is sit at home or go on personal junkets.

Forget the trade they bring to the country, forget the tourism they bring, what about the employment the royal estates produce?
He hates them, pure and simple,I get it. So he wants to throw around inaccurate descriptions and straw man arguments. Perhaps it's jealousy, one can only guess, but his hatred is so hot he doesn't care if his description is true or not, only that it's sounds as bad as possible. He can't even offer an argument to justify why he thinks the description applies without name calling.

He may not like the royal family, he may not like what they do for the money, he may think he could live without their contributions, but that doesn't come under the meaning of the word parasite.

As I said there are plenty of ways to accurately show the basis for his jealousy and contempt for their privileged life but parasite is inaccurate.

[Busyman™]

Again, please grab a can of STFU and suck it down to keep in practice.
Haha, you just hate being wrong, don't you?

Did you get bullied at school too? :lol:

Wow you just keep on with being stupid....

Ok I'll indulge.

Wrong about what, leftism?

[Mr JP Fugley]

The fella joined up, there's no conscription. He has done his training, at Sandhurst and his unit is being deployed.

Why is this even a talking point. Of course he should go where his troops are going.

[Busyman™]

The fella joined up, there's no conscription. He has done his training, at Sandhurst and his unit is being deployed.

Why is this even a talking point. Of course he should go where his troops are going.

:)

[Biggles]

The fella joined up, there's no conscription. He has done his training, at Sandhurst and his unit is being deployed.

Why is this even a talking point. Of course he should go where his troops are going.

....... and as some wags have suggested - it is only right that he should follow his father's footsteps in the Army

Major Hewitt that is :)


Edit: Isn't it sweet that Royalty's main defenders are people who live in countries who have as little to do with Royalty as possible.

[vidcc]

Edit: Isn't it sweet that Royalty's main defenders are people who live in countries who have as little to do with Royalty as possible.

Oh I think that generally the royals are spoiled, privileged, often given unearned respect, extravagant, overpaid for what they do etc. etc.
I just don't think the word parasite is justified.

[Ava Estelle]

Isn't it sweet that Royalty's main defenders are people who live in countries who have as little to do with Royalty as possible.

Who's defending the Queen of Australia? Me?

I was merely pointing out the inaccuracies in people's posts.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think (for no particularly good reason) that the bulk of Australians would happily lose the monarchy as their head of state. As indeed would most other people. As I have said before I believe that in the 21st century it's an anachronism, the fact that people as considered subjects rather than citizens.

Let's be honest here, the best thing Americans ever did was say "Fuck that, I'm not your subject I'm a free man."

With regard to what they pay in, it's not that long ago that her majesty actually started paying tax. Prior to that she was exempt. A bit ridiculous for one of the wealthiest women in the World.

With regard to the Crown Estate. I would hope that, as and when we get rid of the monarchy we also say "No, actually that property belongs to the people of the UK. So we're keeping it. Please feel free to go back to Germany from whence you came".

[Ava Estelle]

I think (for no particularly good reason) that the bulk of Australians would happily lose the monarchy as their head of state.

In the 1999 referendum 65% of Australians voted to keep the monarchy.

[bigboab]

I think (for no particularly good reason) that the bulk of Australians would happily lose the monarchy as their head of state. As indeed would most other people. As I have said before I believe that in the 21st century it's an anachronism, the fact that people as considered subjects rather than citizens.

Let's be honest here, the best thing Americans ever did was say "Fuck that, I'm not your subject I'm a free man."

With regard to what they pay in, it's not that long ago that her majesty actually started paying tax. Prior to that she was exempt. A bit ridiculous for one of the wealthiest women in the World.

With regard to the Crown Estate. I would hope that, as and when we get rid of the monarchy we also say "No, actually that property belongs to the people of the UK. So we're keeping it. Please feel free to go back to Germany from whence you came".

I think that there is very little German blood left in the 'Line' now. More English, Scottish*, Greek etc. this is on the assumption that Charles is the boys father.:rolleyes:

I am counting Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as of Scottish descent.:)

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think (for no particularly good reason) that the bulk of Australians would happily lose the monarchy as their head of state.

In the 1999 referendum 65% of Australians voted to keep the monarchy.

Cheers for the info.

Couple of points, was it 65% of Australians or 65% of those who could be arsed voting. I believe the Australians are quite Draconian in their views on voting but maybe that's a misconception.

And also, they haven't exactly continued to cover themselves in glory during the intervening 7 or 8 years. One is reminded of Nazi uniforms and the like.

[Ava Estelle]

Couple of points, was it 65% of Australians or 65% of those who could be arsed voting.

Voting is compulsory in Australia, including referendums.

[Colt Seevers]

In 2005, the year you gave figures for the cost of the Royal Family, the Crown Estates paid £180,000,000 to the government, far more than the government gives back. So your pathetic argument is blown right out of the water.

ahaha you actually did go and do what i said, *claps* well done smacktard! Yes, their, ESTATES, now get rid of the royalty but keep the tourist attractions. LOL SO FUCK THEY ARE PARASITES! :w00t:

Stop running into my fist!

Oh aye and Capt Pedantic if you think members of the royal family actually work for a living you are living in some kinda alternate universe were you dont ken what real work is. :ermm: A couple of loyalist idiots from the colonies. :frusty:

[Ava Estelle]

ahaha you actually did go and do what i said, *claps* well done smacktard! Yes, their, ESTATES, now get rid of the royalty but keep the tourist attractions. LOL SO FUCK THEY ARE PARASITES! :w00t:
Are you really that thick, or is this just an act?

You've been proved wrong, shown up, shot down, and made to look illiterate and stupid, yet you come back claiming some sort of victory ... classic! :lol:



Oh aye and Capt Padantic if you think members of the royal family actually work for a living you are living in some kinda alternate universe were you dont ken what real work is. :ermm: A couple of loyalist idiots from the colonies. :frusty:
The Queen's 'job' is head of state, for which she carried out over 500 official duties last year, more work than you've done since you left borstal! :)

[Mr JP Fugley]

Couple of points, was it 65% of Australians or 65% of those who could be arsed voting.

Voting is compulsory in Australia, including referendums.

That's what I thought. Didn't know it counted for referenda tho'.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The bottom line is we don't need them for anything and they are an affront to any nation which describes itself a democracy. I feel the same for hereditary peers btw.

In fact they're worse because they actually have power.

[Colt Seevers]

The Queen is one of the richest people in the world. The pro-royal Mail on Sunday did a special investigation into her wealth last year. It argued that previous estimates had badly understated how rich she was. It reckoned her private wealth was £1.15 billion, not counting royal palaces, art collections and the like.
The Queen personally owns:
Property worth £61 million, as well as official residences like Balmoral, worth £4 million. She also owns a stud farm near Newbury and a deer forest in the Highlands.
Racehorses worth £3.6 million.
Stamps worth £102 million. Her stamp collection is a bit bigger than most. It is kept in 300 albums and 200 boxes.
Jewels worth £72 million. The most valuable are the 105 Cullinan diamonds, cut from what was the world's biggest diamond.
Furs worth £1 million. The queen has 30 luxury furs in special refrigerated storage units at Buckingham Palace.
Cars worth £7.1 million.
Wine worth £2 million.She also gets an annual income of £7.3 million from the lands and investments of the Duchy of Lancaster.

When the queen first came to the throne 50 years ago she cut a nice deal with then prime minister Winston Churchill. It means she is the only person in the country able to reclaim tax on dividends and interest from investments in British companies. That has netted her around £1 billion.

The Earl and Countess of Wessex are "retiring" from their business ventures.
They won't be short of money though. They will get £249,000 a year from public funds via the "civil list". And they will still live at their 57-room Surrey mansion which costs the public £250,000 a year to maintain.

The rest of the queen's family are just as parasitical and nearly as rich as her. Prince Charles has a personal wealth of around £346 million. The Queen Mother was worth around £53 million when she died recently. Prince Philip is worth £28 million in his own right.
Prince William already has £22 million stashed away and his younger brother, Harry, is even richer, with £25 million in his royal piggy bank.

The Queen gets massive handouts from public funds. Last year her "official" expenditure, funded by us, was £35 million.. She gets £7.9 million a year directly from public funds on the "civil list". As well as land she owns personally she also owns the "crown estate" through her position as sovereign.
This includes 120,000 hectares of agricultural land and the entire seabed around Britain. The crown estate produced £147.7 million profit last year. The queen's palaces at Balmoral in Scotland and Sandringham in Norfolk are her private property. But as queen she also has at her disposal Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle.

If all you have left to defend you position is personal insults and questioning my education, then I think the drawing room isn't for you.

[Mr JP Fugley]

See that's my point about the Crown Estate. It's not the person who personally owns the property. Its the position of sovereign. At least that's my understanding.

So if that were abolished then the properties would no longer be owned by anyone and would be returned to the people who really own them. Us.

[Ava Estelle]

If all you have left to defend you position is personal insults and questioning my education, then I think the drawing room isn't for you.

Haha! Who's a jealous little Jock then? You really are pathetic, are you jealous of everyone with more money than you, or just the Royal Family?

Let's hear your opinion of Bill Gates. :lol:

[bigboab]

I hope that Scotland becomes independent and 'drops' the idea of Royalty. As it stands then we have to accept the Status Quo. I also hope that an independent Scotland would not allow any political 'sway' to any of the various religions. People of whatever religion have a vote like the rest of us and should be content with that. Representatives should be elected in a general election. As it stands at the moment we have non elected peers and religious 'dignitaries' and 'toadies' with a vote in the House Of Lords.:(

[Biggles]

I think (for no particularly good reason) that the bulk of Australians would happily lose the monarchy as their head of state.

In the 1999 referendum 65% of Australians voted to keep the monarchy in the UK.

Fixed :)

[Mr JP Fugley]

In the 1999 referendum 65% of Australians voted to keep the monarchy in the UK.

Fixed :)

Not sure what you mean there. Or are you being a wee bit facetious..

[Biggles]

Fixed :)

Not sure what you mean there. Or are you being a wee bit facetious..

:whistling Moi?