Sow where in, for instance, my posts is there any 'lovey-dovey drooling'? It is practical, clearly thought-out common sense.
And, yes, I have visited Versailles. Apart from the fact that the French monarchy did not survive, and particularly not in the way the British monarchy has, and there are no equivalent palaces in this country.
I have also visited the Hermitage in St Petersburg, where the Communist leaders and government enjoyed having their offices. They did not destroy it - even they knew one way or another it needed preserving.
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.
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
