Royal Wedding Today! - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14916593
Rancid wrote:Is this something that is believed by a significant portion of UK citizens?


No. He looks like Prince Charles and the Duke of Edinburgh, as well as his mother's family.

People did try to push the belief he was the son of Hewitt when he was a little boy and his features were still undefined, but not any more. Not seriously, anyway.

I'm not a mad royalist but prefer to have a royal family, rather than another politician as head of state ( President BoJo, anyone?} and watched the wedding with my two daughters.

We hated her dress and all agreed her hair looked a mess.

We're still speculating on what Camilla said to Kate while the parson was speaking and still wondering why American men wear their formal trousers swinging round their ankles, instead of breaking nicely over the instep.

Honestly, Boycey, I dont get where you're coming from. It's been predicted that the new Prince Louis will bring £50m plus to the economy in the first year of his life. That's just him.

Will you not inherit anything from your parents? Mine bought their council house, so me and my brothers got money from that when it was sold.

I don't really see the difference. Sure, none of the royals will never need to worry how to pay for the next meal, but you could say the same for Trump's kids.

My own Tory MP retired last year after filling her pockets at the tax payers expense after god knows how many years.

I'm much more bothered about MP's second homes than I am about the royal residences that either belong to them outright, and so the upkeep is down to them, or are part of the crown estate.
User avatar
By Ter
#14916600
snapdragon wrote:No. He looks like Prince Charles and the Duke of Edinburgh, as well as his mother's family.

People did try to push the belief he was the son of Hewitt when he was a little boy and his features were still undefined, but not any more. Not seriously, anyway.


I admire your naivete.

Image

I am not British but my British friends first told me that Haryy's biological dad was not Charles.

Diana admitted having affairs so it is not a stretch of the imagination to know that one of her kids was "from the milkman".

To say it in a more vulgar way: Diana was a sausage machine. She was getting big Egyptian dick when she died in the "accident".
By daf
#14916602
Ter wrote:I admire your naivete.


I am not British but my British friends first told me that Haryy's biological dad was not Charles.

Diana admitted having affairs so it is not a stretch of the imagination to know that one of her kids was "from the milkman".


They say now, Diana met Hewitt not before 1986, so he can't be his father :hmm:

Prince Henry/Harry was born in 1984


The grandfather


Image

Ter wrote:
To say it in a more vulgar way: Diana was a sausage machine. She was getting big Egyptian dick when she died in the "accident".



Image
User avatar
By colliric
#14916603
I think it's a bit silly to suggest Harry wasn't of Charles... He has that stupid "Stupid Pommy Git" smile, gargantuan nose and the traditional Jet Wing sized ears.....

Image

The hair and eyes he got from Mum....
#14916612
Ter wrote:I admire your naivete.


How interesting

Image

I am not British but my British friends first told me that Haryy's biological dad was not Charles.


I know you aren't British. I'm not sure why you're interested, then?

Diana admitted having affairs so it is not a stretch of the imagination to know that one of her kids was "from the milkman".



She admitted that to your British friends, did she? lol.

To say it in a more vulgar way: Diana was a sausage machine. She was getting big Egyptian dick when she died in the "accident".



You're Australian. I knew it.
Last edited by snapdragon on 21 May 2018 12:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By colliric
#14916615
snapdragon wrote:They're still like that in Australia.


He's not Australian, he's a Zionist Jew. He doesn't live here, presumably he's Israeli. I can't remember where he lives but it's not Aus.

Me and Igor are the known "Aussies" here.

[KS edit: rule 2]
#14916619
colliric wrote:He's not Australian, he's a Zionist Jew. He doesn't live here, presumably he's Israeli. I can't remember where he lives but it's not Aus.


Bet he is.


Me and Igor are the known "Aussies" here.


Been to Sydney. Said it there.
By B0ycey
#14916633
snapdragon wrote:I'm not a mad royalist but prefer to have a royal family, rather than another politician as head of state ( President BoJo, anyone?} and watched the wedding with my two
Honestly, Boycey, I dont get where you're coming from. It's been predicted that the new Prince Louis will bring £50m plus to the economy in the first year of his life. That's just him.

Will you not inherit anything from your parents? Mine bought their council house, so me and my brothers got money from that when it was sold.

I don't really see the difference. Sure, none of the royals will never need to worry how to pay for the next meal, but you could say the same for Trump's kids.

My own Tory MP retired last year after filling her pockets at the tax payers expense after god knows how many years.

I'm much more bothered about MP's second homes than I am about the royal residences that either belong to them outright, and so the upkeep is down to them, or are part of the crown estate.


I'm not really a fan of inheritance, but I can't think of an alternative - except 'true Communism', where you are provided things such as homes of course. But Power and inheritance are different anyway. I have already stated that the Royals can keep their estate if they don't ask for more free money. Nonetheless, it is a fine line between the Windsors and Johnson, but I could never support him so you might have a point there. But that's democracy.

I also don't buy the unsustainable and unproven myth that the Royal generate anything. I have already stated that France has a bigger tourism sector than the UK. Anyone can distort facts to promote an agenda. Kensington house have perfected the art of propaganda. They are the masters of tricking the public into thinking the Royals are a global brand. They have to. It is the only way to keep public opinion on their side.

As for MP expenses, all abusers should be sent to jail.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14916635
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The free publicity and media coverage that the UK gets in this way is surely worth a fortune by itself.


Royalty propagates classism and privilege by birth. We might as well reinstall serfdom for free publicity and media coverage.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:However, I put forward the idea that those societies who chose or manage to maintain continuity and stability over radical chance and upheaval are also good societies to live in in the long term. Additionally, I think they tend to be high trust societies which produces good outcomes as well. Constitutional monarchies rely a lot on convention and people, at least those in favour, trust that those in power don't overstep the line.


All European countries had to ged rid of their monarchy one way or the other. I some countries gradual change was possible, in others heads had to roll.
#14916653
B0ycey wrote:I'm not really a fan of inheritance, but I can't think of an alternative - except 'true Communism', where you are provided things such as homes of course. But Power and inheritance are different anyway. I have already stated that the Royals can keep their estate if they don't ask for more free money. Nonetheless, it is a fine line between the Windsors and Johnson, but I could never support him so you might have a point there. But that's democracy.



It doesn't matter who you or I might support. It's how many palms get greased.
Besides, do you think President Boris would do it for nothing?
Do Presidents not get paid?



I also don't buy the unsustainable and unproven myth that the Royal generate anything. I have already stated that France has a bigger tourism sector than the UK. Anyone can distort facts to promote an agenda. Kensington house have perfected the art of propaganda. They are the masters of tricking the public into thinking the Royals are a global brand. They have to. It is the only way to keep public opinion on their side.


It's these people who estimated prince Louis adding £50 m to the economy in the first year of his life, though I can't find the info now. Things like sale of baby clothes and equipment.

http://brandfinance.com/

Plus there's this:

http://brandfinance.com/news/press-rele ... 1-billion/

As for MP expenses, all abusers should be sent to jail.


What she did was quite legally keep a three million quid luxury flat in London.

It may even be worth more than that now - and that is permissable and not considered an abuse.
By skinster
#14916779
colliric wrote:He's not Australian you dumbass, he's a Zionist Jew. He doesn't live here, presumably he's Israeli. I can't remember where he lives but it's not Aus.


Ter is a fake-zionist living somewhere in India. Real zionists move to Israel. :excited:
By Decky
#14916794
Rancid wrote:Is this something that is believed by a significant portion of UK citizens?


Lots of people know that Dianna slept with pretty much anything with a cock so why not believe it? Not that I blame her, being married to Charles I mean. This is a gem.

User avatar
By Rancid
#14916801
Decky wrote:
Lots of people know that Dianna slept with pretty much anything with a cock so why not believe it? Not that I blame her, being married to Charles I mean. This is a gem.



Naughty Naught Diana!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :excited: :excited: :excited:
#14916990
She does seem to have a ‘Lady Chatterly’ vibe to her.
#14917179
B0ycey wrote:
I seriously doubt 2 billion people have access to a television, let alone all watch the same show. Not to mention the time difference. I live in the UK and went out my way to not even switch on the tele. I went out and did my normal routine. And what I noticed was that it wasn't exactly quiet. There were still queues at the supermarket and cars on the road. You can never say that when England are playing football at the World Cup.

As for cost, for me It is more about privilege anyway. You can keep on harping about constitutional monarchies as much as you like. But ultimately every single law needs to pass through the Lord's, another relic from the stone age - and another house of unelected nobles that have yet to get their hands dirty in the real world. They turn up once a year to collect their prostitution money and vote down laws that effect their pockets. If you are elected, you are also accountable. The UK is the most undemocratic democracy in Europe. I don't even agree with first past the post as it makes some votes more valued than others.

The constitutional monarchies we have today happen to be part of affluent nations. Most nations that suffered history hardship seems to have had revolutions to get rid of their noble overlords. So you cannot credit the Windsors for the Industrial revolution that is the true reason for our wealth and stability today. The UK were just fortunate to be sitting on piles of coal.

Economics is very important in creating stable regions. It is not a coincidence that wealthy nations have stable regions whilst poor nations have uprisings. Constitutional monarchies have no factor on this what so ever. And liberty is a democratic value. What liberty is there when only one person creates the rules for everyone?

Nonetheless climate is important in creating economic sustainable conditions. Europe has plenty of fertile land and water to Feed their population so they focus on industrialization - real wealth. In poor nations the focus is solely down to putting food on the table. Hence why we have migration as people want the Western lifestyle.

Depends what you mean by better outcomes. Economics creates the best outcomes for society. During good times there is no reason to revolt as you have much to lose. During hard times, this isn't true. History shows us that the first people to be targetted during an economic downturn is nobility. This makes sense as they are unaccountable. You just vote out the PM or MP if they are shit. And that is why republics are better. There is no born privilege and everyone is accountable.

Could you please stop making up straw men? Where did I credit the Windsors with the industrial revolution? In which constitutional monarchy does one person create the rules for everyone and where can't you vote out a PM or MP? :lol:

Here's the challenge, B0ycey: You make the case for a republic without resorting to platitudes, straw men and irrelevancies, keeping in mind real world outcomes of constitutional monarchies and republics in Europe. If you keep diverging into non-issues like climate and responding to imaginary arguments, I'm going to take this as a concession that you just don't have a case and that, as I posited at the outset of our discussion, republicans always come to this debate with lots of very strong convictions but ultimately empty-handed.

B0ycey wrote:But they did join. And it made them wealthy and kept things throughout Europe in order. Trying to leave is creating uncertainty and instability. So under your own logic we should remain in the EU. That was my point.

The EU is the risky experiment, although this is hardly ever acknowledged, and as such constitutes the polar opposite of stability and continuity.

B0ycey wrote:But it goes against the values of democracy.
Likewise. I can't take your claim that Constitutional monarchies are the foundations of democratic success, when Europe, the most democratic area on the planet, is a mixture of both republics and monarchies. The region has a perfect climate for habitation. And that is a much bigger factor in its success I can assure you.

More platitudes, straw men and irrelevancies. This post must be a kind of record even for you.

Rugoz wrote:Royalty propagates classism and privilege by birth. We might as well reinstall serfdom for free publicity and media coverage.

Hyperbolic claptrap.

Rugoz wrote:All European countries had to ged rid of their monarchy one way or the other. I some countries gradual change was possible, in others heads had to roll.

Sure, Rugoz, sometimes you need a little red terror to make an omelet. :lol:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

No, it does not. It is governed by the rather vagu[…]

Go tell this to all states that have establishe[…]

Trump is selling Trump Bibles for $59.99. The guy[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]