The Upper House

[Gordon]

One thing that was learnt - too late - from the invasion of Iraq was that you don't destroy something like even a bad government unless you have something better, and thoroughly and better-thought-out, to replace it.

Sometimes though you just need to get rid: in this case no replacement is required since the 'sell by' date of the institution of monarchy has in my view passed.

The Windsors are surplus to requirements and should be consigned to history, where they belong.

[Anchorman]

I wouldn't have wanted to chop off heads, but at that time that was how many people were when in rebellion  at that time in history although that doesn't mean I approve of these methods.

I don't see it in any way sensible or in any way justifiable to support any people including our royalty with undue privilege.

When I refer to undue privilege, it doesn't mean that I think this present head of state hasn't done a remarkable job, but it is to my mind plain silly to rely on the luck of the draw as to who we have performing this important job as head of state.

It's the principle for me I would rather burn the money that's taken from my taxes than contribute it to these kept people that should have been consigned to history long ago.

I cannot see where any common sense comes in this antiquated idea, you wouldn't bow and scrape to me or anyone similar why to these people? They're no better than the next person, it's a totally artificial idea.

Why do people look up to these royals that have been fed off of the fat of the land at no expense to themselves or look up to anyone else brought up in exactly similar circumstances? There is no sensible reason to do so.

They, the royals are no longer needed, they're surplus to requirements, they must go.
 
Regards ippy

Wot Ippy said.

[Harrowby Hall]

I'm so sorry that the nasturtiums I plant on the cuddly little Royal system seems to upset you people, why should I have take up this lovie-dovie drooling over this anachronistic system too?

Regards ippy

What do you mean, "you people"?  I am no royalist - there are several posts in this forum attesting to this. The difference between you and me on this matter, however, is that whereas you prance around like some latter day Robespierre (he lost his head, too, remember) I try to treat it with humanity. Charles is far more a victim of an inequitable system than you are.

[Anchorman]

Charlie's a nice enough chap in a bumbling, vague sort of way. He's put a lot into the Dumfries House project - I'll give him that. But his manner is somewhat cold...unless hes rehersed it first. Try bumping into him when he's walking his untrained mutts in the esteate (There's no law of trespass in Scotland). I've nothing against the chap personally, though I'll never bow and scrape and salaaam with cretious title like "HRH£ or tripe like that. As Burns wrote "A prince can mak a belted knight, A marquise, duke an a' that But an honest man's abune his might Guid faith, he mauna fa' that. For a that, and a, that, his dignities an a that The honest man, though er' sae poor is higher rank than a' that!

[ippy]

What do you mean, "you people"?  I am no royalist - there are several posts in this forum attesting to this. The difference between you and me on this matter, however, is that whereas you prance around like some latter day Robespierre (he lost his head, too, remember) I try to treat it with humanity. Charles is far more a victim of an inequitable system than you are.

Simple H H, I meant the people I was referring to when I wrote, 'I'm so sorry that the nasturtiums I plant on the cuddly little Royal system seems to upset you people', if the cap fits.

D'you mean, loyalty's my first name, old 'Big Ears' Charlie boy? What a shining example to us all?

Regards ippy

[ippy]

Charlie's a nice enough chap in a bumbling, vague sort of way. He's put a lot into the Dumfries House project - I'll give him that. But his manner is somewhat cold...unless hes rehersed it first. Try bumping into him when he's walking his untrained mutts in the esteate (There's no law of trespass in Scotland). I've nothing against the chap personally, though I'll never bow and scrape and salaaam with cretious title like "HRH£ or tripe like that. As Burns wrote "A prince can mak a belted knight, A marquise, duke an a' that But an honest man's abune his might Guid faith, he mauna fa' that. For a that, and a, that, his dignities an a that The honest man, though er' sae poor is higher rank than a' that!

Sorry, I only do Scottish when there are sub titles involved.

However I'll do my best: He puts money that's been given to him into projects, any of the work is done by others.

For some reason we're, I don't know about you, not supposed to speak to these, mostly drones, unless they speak to us commoners first, something I would make a point of ignoring, the best answer is to not go anywhere near them in the first place.

Wish I could go to somewhere like Ecuador to live for something like the next six months, wanna join me, you know why, warm sunny climate, radio and T V all in Spanish and I think it might be far enough away, yawn yawn if it isn't.

Regards ippy

P S In England you're only trespassing, provided you haven't damaged anything when getting into private land areas, if you don't leave when asked to do so by the owner or their agent, you would be trespassing, if you leave quietly when asked to do so you're not trespassing, it's probably different on government land or MOD land, I don't know. 

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting that a number of ardent atheists, who sneer at any mention of God or church, are keen supporters of an institution at least as illogical and anachronistic.

No, the relevance is with the individual's position.

[Anchorman]

Sorry, I only do Scottish when there are sub titles involved.

However I'll do my best: He puts money that's been given to him into projects, any of the work is done by others.

For some reason we're, I don't know about you, not supposed to speak to these, mostly drones, unless they speak to us commoners first, something I would make a point of ignoring, the best answer is to not go anywhere near them in the first place.

Wish I could go to somewhere like Ecuador to live for something like the next six months, wanna join me, you know why, warm sunny climate, radio and T V all in Spanish and I think it might be far enough away, yawn yawn if it isn't.

Regards ippy 

P S In England you're only trespassing, provided you haven't damaged anything when getting into private land areas, if you don't leave when asked to do so by the owner or their agent, you would be trespassing, if you leave quietly when asked to do so you're not trespassing, it's probably different on government land or MOD land, I don't know. 

 


OK.....just for you.
Burns nails it.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pGWkjwOBw

[Robbie]

(quote author=Harrowby Hall link=topic=15610.msg732274#msg732274 date=1526301295]
You still don't get it, do you!

Your brain is so full of bile that you cannot even see what is obvious to other people. Charles is not in charge of his own life. He is only permitted to do what others permit him to do. He is a prisoner.

He does "charitable work" because (other than playing soldiers in his mother's own army) he is not allowed to do anything else. He is not "a waster", his humanity is being wasted because - thanks to the British constitution - he is being preserved to be the biggest puppet in the world.

You betray your own humanity by your arrogant, vacuous and (to quote Robbie) rude utterances,
[/quote]

Yes and yes to your later post HH.

How do we avoid the ill educated, ill mannered and ignorant I wonder?

Nothing to do with being a royalist or not, a question of manners I would have thought. My late mother was a Quaker who believed everyone is equal or has equal value & nobody should kowtow to anyone else - never heard her say a word against the Queen (whom she appeared to find interesting and liked), never mind giving the Queen a nickname, or anyone else. TheQueen is not generally known as "Betty", nor is the Duke of Edinburgh known as "Phil the Greek",he is a Prince of Greece and Denmark and anyone with knowledge of history would know he is a descend of Queen Victoria.

Nicknames are allowed amongst friends and relatives, no-one else. I was taught early on that you - or one - don't call someone by a name unless they want it - even behind their back.

I repeat:-
How do we avoid the ill educated, ill mannered and ignorant I wonder?

[Anchorman]

Hod it, Robbie. Why should Phillip be known as "Duke of Edinburgh"? He's not Scottish, british, had no connection with the city - I don't even knw if he's eaten Edinburgh rock - and when he dies - and may that be a long time coming, his son Edward will inherit the title. Edward has even less connection with Edingurgh than Phillip has! Up here, Chairlie's "Duke of Rothsey" - the main town of the isle of Bute. I have it on the best authority, that his nibs has visited the island precisely twice - the last time while he and Diana were married. Up here we have a less formal attitude to the royals....we always have. Titles mean nothing, so why use them. William's latest child is called 'prince'. That's supposed to mean leader....leader of what? Doesn't that suggest the bairn was born with a silver spoon rammed into its' mouth (other parts of the anatomy are available)? The whole shower of flummery and rigmarole (good Scots word, that) should be given all the sarcasm, derision and disdain it deserves, whilst wishing no harm to the poor saps who bear the daft titles in the first place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hod it, Robbie. Why should Phillip be known as "Duke of Edinburgh"? He's not Scottish, british, had no connection with the city - I don't even knw if he's eaten Edinburgh rock - and when he dies - and may that be a long time coming, his son Edward will inherit the title. Edward has even less connection with Edingurgh than Phillip has! Up here, Chairlie's "Duke of Rothsey" - the main town of the isle of Bute. I have it on the best authority, that his nibs has visited the island precisely twice - the last time while he and Diana were married. Up here we have a less formal attitude to the royals....we always have. Titles mean nothing, so why use them. William's latest child is called 'prince'. That's supposed to mean leader....leader of what? Doesn't that suggest the bairn was born with a silver spoon rammed into its' mouth (other parts of the anatomy are available)? The whole shower of flummery and rigmarole (good Scots word, that) should be given all the sarcasm, derision and disdain it deserves, whilst wishing no harm to the poor saps who bear the daft titles in the first place.

What the hell are you on about?

[Anchorman]

I'm on about the daft titles these people inherit with their mum and dad having sex in the right bed, and why we should treat those said titles with disdain. Isn't that obvious?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm on about the daft titles these people inherit with their mum and dad having sex in the right bed, and why we should treat those said titles with disdain. Isn't that obvious?

It's the heavy Burnsian tonality of the piece that obscured it.
And let's face it bastards have had titles bestowed on them........................and the illegitimate offspring of the aristocracy as well.

[Anchorman]

What's "Burnsian" about pouring ridicule and disdain on the 'dukedoms' bestowed on Phillip and Chairlie? Or laugghing at William's title - up here, he's 'Earl of Strathearn', apparently. I find it laudable to pour scorn on such flummery. Or is "rigmarole" the word you're having issues with? That's a lot older than Burns....it stems from the "Ragman Role" Longshanks forced the then community of the realm of Scotland to sign after his genocide at Berwick. That document was treated with the same disdain as we should treat the Windsors' titulary.

[ippy]

 


OK.....just for you.
Burns nails it.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pGWkjwOBw

Thanks for the link, I opened the link but I think you must have given me the Hungarian version?

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Mmm...


http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/2018/05/14/faces-meghan-markle-prince-harry-printed-on-swimsuits-as-royal-wedding-craze-grows.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's "Burnsian" about pouring ridicule and disdain on the 'dukedoms' bestowed on Phillip and Chairlie? Or laugghing at William's title - up here, he's 'Earl of Strathearn', apparently. I find it laudable to pour scorn on such flummery. Or is "rigmarole" the word you're having issues with? That's a lot older than Burns....it stems from the "Ragman Role" Longshanks forced the then community of the realm of Scotland to sign after his genocide at Berwick. That document was treated with the same disdain as we should treat the Windsors' titulary.

The whole lot is going to go into meltdown at the succession where the millions who don't understand inherited monarchy let alone anything they aren't allowed to get angry with while being backed up by ''The Sun says it should be William'' and The mail suggests Rees Mogg as Lord Protector.

[Robbie]

It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.

I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.

On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.

[Nearly Sane]

It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.

I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.

On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.

this implies that you think Anchorman to be uneducated and uncultured?

[Anchorman]

It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.

I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.

On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.

 



Hold it. I've never resorted to personal insults. I think Elizebeth (not the second) is doing the job she thinks is important to the best of he abilities.
I wouldn't dream of insulting Phillip, Chairlie, or the rest personally.
But I take the greatest delight in pouring scorn and ridicule on these daft titles they bear which are pure fanciful nonsense.
I wish Henry and his betrothed well - in all sincerity.
I will continue to refrain from using the term 'prince', or whatever daft title his granny gives him on Saturday whilst I'm watching something else on the telly.

[Nearly Sane]

So while Israel murders Palestinian children, the lead story on the main BBC news is Meghan Markle's dad. Yep, keep eating the bread and watching the circuses!

[ippy]

It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.

I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.

On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.

Rob.

It's also possible that some are more gullible than others.

You don't seem to appreciate the difference between educated and intelligent.

Regards ippy

[SweetPea]

Robbie, #62..

You're on a roll today, Robbie, here now making-out Anchorman is ignorant and uneducated. He is a highly educated man and far from ignorant.

[Robbie]

I know that, wasn't talking about Anchor who has his prejudices but is educated.

[Nearly Sane]

I know that, wasn't talking about Anchor who has his prejudices but is educated.

He calls the royal family names, you think that is not educated. So how is anyone meant to know what you mean?