UK: Do we even need a Royal family?

[Thermal]

I think the royal family are pointless really, all there good for is getting in the media through pestering paparazzi and occasionally attend events around the country, the Queen can be seen as an ambassador for the country i guess, generally speaking though i'd hate all the cameras, all they are is a group of posh people who to me make no difference or evoke any patriotism at all, any of the Brit's here think the royal family is necessary?

[LittleGrizzly]

Im unsure ion this issue tbh....

As a youngster i would have happily removed them in a heartbeat, but as i get older my view towards them mellows..

a few advantadges...

head of state who isn't a politician, Queen E may not be all that but at least she isn't Blair or Thatcher
tourism, im not sure how much the royal family attracts alone (it could be argued they come for the fancy royal buildings but im sure the royals help)
Queen E, i think she ain't half bad, almost any royal would be disliked by me because of thier position, but she does her duty and stays out of politics entirely, my view could (probably will) change after E goes....

and now the disadvantadges

Waste of money
unelected head of state, so you could end up with any old nutter
not a true democracy...

In the end i think i will support the abolishment of the monarchy after E goes but whilst she's there she's doing a good enough job to keep me relatively happy....

[tibilicus]

I don't think it makes a real difference in this day and age. perhaps an advantage can bee seen that the Queen is the head of the commonwealth and is still monarch over a couple of nations including Canada and Australia and this in some way does untie us and bring about a much better friendship with those country's.

On the other hand the royal family is that much of a joke these days that it probably wont be around to much longer anyway. Must be pretty depressing being a Windsor knowing less than 100 years ago your mother and father would of ruled over a quarter of the world whilst you are seen now simply as a paparazzi prize.

I still don't see why all those die hard people in favour of a British republic hate them so much though. It isn't like the queen has any legislative power. Yes I know she could technically disband parliament but that really is never going to happen is it.

[HoreTore]

Nobody needs a royal family.

Basically, we use ours as a marketing tool. King and Queen goes on a trip with powerpoint slides, while our merchants wait in the backroom ready to pounce on the dazzled foreigners.

But I really doubt our country would fall apart or even notice it if we turned republic.

[Fragony]

Nobody needs a royal family.



:yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Need? Of course not. Many countries function well without royals, even -- at least arguably -- the USA.

Do they generate more value (sense of traditions, identity, tourism, ceremonial executive function) then they cost? If so, not a bad deal.

[rory_20_uk]

Expensive? I doubt they cost more than most Presidents do. And as they're not there for a few years the need to act like grasping ***** isn't present.

Not a true democracy? Currently the PM is Brown. He wasn't elected for the job. We therefore don't have a "proper" democracy. Nor do we ever, as having the option to vote for under 10 persons for a arbitrary area of the UK isn't democratic.

I don't think that the monarch should be completely out of all politics. Doing so leaves the floor open to the current incumbents who are only interested in getting power in the next election, and then ensuring that their own "retirement" will be as full of as many cushy jobs as they can.

Personally I like the Royals. I've certainly not seen a system that functions better than they do, and many that are a lot worse.

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1) You are neither more or less free with or without a monarch alongside an elected body. In Germany, for example, we do not even vote for our President.
2) Cost is irrelevant. We spend a fortune on our President here, whereas I believe our royals are both wealthy and self-sufficient.
3) A monarch lends an important sense of tradition and dignity to a country.
4) A monarch is an important symbol of the nation.
5) A monarch is, at least in theory, non-partisan.
6) A monarch can be an important safeguard of a constitution or democracy.
7) A monarch is raised from birth for their job. A President has other training instead.
8) A monarch is a perfect diplomatic representative.

[Lemur]

Once nice thing about having royals, however useless they might be: It prevents the President/Prime Minister from attempting to embody the state. 'Cause the job is already taken by them royal peoples.

I'm trying to think of a quick, pithy way to explain what I mean by "embody the state," and I'm coming up blank. If you don't understand what I mean, just move on to the next post and pretend you saw nothing at all here.

[tibilicus]

I'm pretty sure the whole cost issue really isn't real.

I'm not 100% sure as I'm not Australian but isn't one of the reasons why Australians voted to keep the queen as head of state because of the cost of switching to a presidential system and after that the upkeep of a president would be even higher?

Might not be right though but that's what I gathered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow, that's really Mediaeval, Lemur. Kings and queens stopped truely being embodiments of the state at the end of the Renaissance.

Personally, I'm a monarchist and I don't like the idea of a Republic, it feels somehow hollow. I can't justify that at all.

[Lemur]

Phillipvs, is it so very medieval? I live in the U.S., where the spirit of America is embodied by Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse. And maybe Ronald McDonald. That's our royalty. Is it so very wrong to gaze wistfully on the fusty, musty House of Windsor and wish we could buy laminated tea sets instead of Entertainment Weekly? Is that so wrong?!?!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillipvs, is it so very medieval? I live in the U.S., where the spirit of America is embodied by Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse. And maybe Ronald McDonald. That's our royalty. Is it so very wrong to gaze wistfully on the fusty, musty House of Windsor and wish we could buy laminated tea sets instead of Entertainment Weekly? Is that so wrong?!?!

Yes, absolutely.

[CountArach]

No. No you do not. No modern liberal Democracy does.

[Furunculus]

a monarch isn't just someone who sits on the throne in britain, they are intimately tied into 800 years of constitutional structure, and if you tear that down without serious thought as to the alternative then you risk revolution a generation down the line, and even if you do give it serious thought have you actually made anything better?

i am a monarchist because i see no better alternative from a governance standpoint, and i recognise the benefit of the ties with history.

[Incongruous]

I have recently become a Royalist for two reasons, I do not like the Commons and see it as a threat to my liberty, the Monarch is a good check upon that. Secondly, a sense of, well I'm not sure tbh, but a sense of belonging? Identity? Which in modern Britain is being torn asunder as quick as possible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We don't need a royal family, although they're not any harm either. I just hope Charles doesn't get too noisy and want to start influencing decisions in the running of the country.

[Beefy187]

Tradition that our ancestors have shed their blood to protect the existence of the Royal family is good enough reason for me to respect and protect them although I am not British.

In my country, we've had the good old emperor from the same family for what? 2000 years? I know thats a rare case but, thats something worthy of respect. Not because the emperors kept on getting on the thrown but because, no body in the past has ever tried if not, succeeded in overthrowing our royal family. And I don't plan to make my generation be the first.

So from my point of view, I don't want the Brits stopping the whole Royal family thing and making us feel like a loner.

[caravel]

Not a true democracy? Currently the PM is Brown. He wasn't elected for the job. We therefore don't have a "proper" democracy. Nor do we ever, as having the option to vote for under 10 persons for a arbitrary area of the UK isn't democratic.
Personally I'd prefer the Royals any day of the week to Brown and his corrupt little party. I'd rather be ruled by a real bunch of stinking rich toffs than a bunch of aspiring to be ones.

[Sarmatian]

Monarchies are a relict of feudal times, and I generally dislike monarchs. I don't believe it helps revenues from tourism. I don't think more people would rush to visit Versailles or Schönbrunn if France or Austria were monarchies. When I was in US I went to see the Capitol, when I was in UK I went to see the Buckingham Palace, when I was in France I went to see Versailles. All three are powerful symbols of their countries. US is a republic, France is a republic that used to be a monarchy and Britain is still a monarchy.

In British case, they've had a monarchy for a long time and unless the royal family **** up something royally, I understand why most don't want to change it. But, I just don't like when someone has right to a position by virtue of birth, no matter how trivial or ceremonial the position is. It just rubs the wrong way...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't think more people would rush to visit Versailles or Schönbrunn if France or Austria were monarchies.

I believe that they do, though revenue has little to do with why I support a monarchy. Certain ceremonies would simply not exist without a Royal Family, ceremonies which have people booking hotel rooms, flying British Airways, and sampling the local food and alcohol. It is an excellent stimulus for the economy.

[Sarmatian]

In this particular case, I don't think any Royal Family would get me to eat English food. I'll take good ol' republican French or Italian, even Russian, any day :laugh4:

[Meneldil]

I'm glad France's one was kicked out of any power position.

[HoreTore]

Tradition that our ancestors have shed their blood to protect the existence of the Royal family is good enough reason for me to respect and protect them although I am not British.

In my country, we've had the good old emperor from the same family for what? 2000 years? I know thats a rare case but, thats something worthy of respect. Not because the emperors kept on getting on the thrown but because, no body in the past has ever tried if not, succeeded in overthrowing our royal family. And I don't plan to make my generation be the first.

So from my point of view, I don't want the Brits stopping the whole Royal family thing and making us feel like a loner.

Hmmm...... *tries to figure out what country has been ruled by the same dynasty for 2000 years*

Care to give the answer? :sweatdrop:

[Dîn-Heru]

Hmmm...... *tries to figure out what country has been ruled by the same dynasty for 2000 years*

Care to give the answer? :sweatdrop:


Japan I would imagine..

[Furunculus]

i would have said the same.

[HoreTore]

Japan I would imagine..

What? Didn't that guy get his head chopped off at the end of WWII?

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't think he did.... Japan is my best guess as well, i can't think of anyone else...

[InsaneApache]

I think 'Len' Hirohito died about 1984.

Do we need a Monarch? I'm no big fan but when you look at the alternatives, as in 'Yo Blair!' I'm glad that Madge can at least eat with her mouth shut.

[Dîn-Heru]

What? Didn't that guy get his head chopped off at the end of WWII?


No, I belive he just lost his divine status. ie before and during the war the emperor was a living god (or decended from gods). After the war he became a "regular" person (or human).

[CountArach]

Japan I would imagine..
Wow, I didn't realise, but according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan) they go back to 660BC...

[Kralizec]

We don't need a royal family, although they're not any harm either. I just hope Charles doesn't get too noisy and want to start influencing decisions in the running of the country.

I feel the same way about our royal family. As soon as they start thinking they're more than just antiqued furniture, they're out.

[Lorenzo_H]

The Royal Family's power only rests as far as their status as celebrities allows their influence to be heard.

I say they are no harm. A bunch of fine ornamental fools who we uphold with our taxes in return for being able to boast to gullible American tourists about. Part of our culture really - and it attracts tourists, more importantly.

[Meneldil]

The Royal Family's power only rests as far as their status as celebrities allows their influence to be heard.

I say they are no harm. A bunch of fine ornamental fools who we uphold with our taxes in return for being able to boast to gullible American tourists about. Part of our culture really - and it attracts tourists, more importantly.


I wonder what kind of tourist would be interested in seeing the British Royal Family, but heh, people are weird I guess.

[Thermal]

Personally I'd prefer the Royals any day of the week to Brown and his corrupt little party. I'd rather be ruled by a real bunch of stinking rich toffs than a bunch of aspiring to be ones.

seconded :yes:

[Lorenzo_H]

I wonder what kind of tourist would be interested in seeing the British Royal Family, but heh, people are weird I guess.
Well indeed, but Buckingham palace is plagued by them.

[Sarmatian]

Well indeed, but Buckingham palace is plagued by them.

Hardly because of the current royal family. They think of the of the current royal family when they visit Buckingham palace about as much as tourists in France think of Sarkozy when they visit Versailles...

[Lorenzo_H]

Hardly because of the current royal family. They think of the of the current royal family when they visit Buckingham palace about as much as tourists in France think of Sarkozy when they visit Versailles...
I think Princes William and Harry garner significant attention. Also, if you will recall the massive attention the Queen got when she visited the USA a couple of years ago, I would say certain classes of people have a fascination with the whole package, including today's Royals. Incidentally, Zara Philips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Philips) is considered something of a heroine.

My opinion is that tourists do not visit Buckingham Palace for the History. I think they visit it because of the prestige surrounding the current Royal family.

[Furunculus]

Originally Posted by Caraveloto View Post
"Personally I'd prefer the Royals any day of the week to Brown and his corrupt little party. I'd rather be ruled by a real bunch of stinking rich toffs than a bunch of aspiring to be ones."


seconded :yes:

thirded. :yes:

[Incongruous]

thirded. :yes:

Ummm...

Fourthded?

Huzzah!!!

[rasoforos]

What is the point of feeding and pampering one single family in the most extravagant way?

We are facing a recession. People lose their jobs, their houses. People go hungry.

Instead of spending money to make the Queens royal behind fatter we could use the money to save several families.

We kicked our own monarchs out by the way. They weren't even Greek (Germans and they never bothered to marry a local 'native' :P ) anyway and in any case a king in the country that gave birth to democracy is an insult.






The only form of Royal Pampering I approve is the one where you provide a person or royal blood with food,drink and women beyond his wildest dreams for a year and you sacrifice him to your Gods at the end of the year. It brings good luck and ensures a good harvest :elephant::whip: :barrel:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Instead of spending money to make the Queens royal behind fatter we could use the money to save several families.

Ask yourself two questions:

1) How much money does having a Royal Family bring in tourist and media revenue?
2) How much of the money that the Queen uses (and that her family uses, for that matter) is her own money?

[rasoforos]

Ask yourself two questions:

1) How much money does having a Royal Family bring in tourist and media revenue?
2) How much of the money that the Queen uses (and that her family uses, for that matter) is her own money?

1. In my country? 0.00 euros

(In the case of the UK the Royals can still create touristic revenue without spending money on them. They ll just need to cut down on having 10 butlers each and will have to eat less cucumber sandwiches)

2. Her own money? Money originating from public property that remained under her control for no good reason you mean?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is the point of feeding and pampering one single family in the most extravagant way?

We are facing a recession. People lose their jobs, their houses. People go hungry.

Instead of spending money to make the Queens royal behind fatter we could use the money to save several families.

We kicked our own monarchs out by the way. They weren't even Greek (Germans and they never bothered to marry a local 'native' :P ) anyway and in any case a king in the country that gave birth to democracy is an insult.

The only form of Royal Pampering I approve is the one where you provide a person or royal blood with food,drink and women beyond his wildest dreams for a year and you sacrifice him to your Gods at the end of the year. It brings good luck and ensures a good harvest :elephant::whip: :barrel:

Your Royal Family was Danish.


1. In my country? 0.00 euros

(In the case of the UK the Royals can still create touristic revenue without spending money on them. They ll just need to cut down on having 10 butlers each and will have to eat less cucumber sandwiches)

The Royals are actually quite cheep all in all, they have a smaller staff than many presidents and their landed holding mean that they are very rich, which makes them largely self supporting


2. Her own money? Money originating from public property that remained under her control for no good reason you mean?

No, the money and property which she inherrited from her father, unless of course you believe that the state should take everything from you when you die.

[rasoforos]

Your Royal Family was Danish.



Glucksburg is in Germany although indeed they have Danish ancestry


Who cares though...


As His Political Incorectness Prince Phillip would say 'they come from some place somewhere up north where they were still eating each other when Pericles was giving speeches in Pnyka'

(No offence to German or Danish people or northerners in general)

That sums it up really well.

:elephant::whip:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Glucksburg is in Germany although indeed they have Danish ancestry

The House has German and Danish, but their descent is marked largely from Christian III, King of Denmark, to my knowledge.


As His Political Incorectness Prince Phillip would say 'they come from some place somewhere up north where they were still eating each other when Pericles was giving speeches in Pnyka'

You do know that Prince Phillip was the fifth child of Prince Andrew, who was a member of the House of Glücksburg, right?

[Sarmatian]

I think Princes William and Harry garner significant attention. Also, if you will recall the massive attention the Queen got when she visited the USA a couple of years ago, I would say certain classes of people have a fascination with the whole package, including today's Royals. Incidentally, Zara Philips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Philips) is considered something of a heroine.

My opinion is that tourists do not visit Buckingham Palace for the History. I think they visit it because of the prestige surrounding the current Royal family.

I do not know who Zara Philips is, sorry.

So the queen got the attention when she visited USA once. US president gets the attention anywhere he goes and he is not a monarch, but ok, I agree somewhat with you that royal families get some extra media attention. Problem is, that media attention could also bring potential scandals and hurt the image of the country...

As I've said already, I don't think that being a monarchy brings so much more revenues from tourism, and tourism is my trade, btw... When I visited all those places, I thought of queen Elizabeth, queen Victoria, Henry V, Henry VIII etc... and not about present British monarch. I'm not even sure what her name is. Elizabeth, maybe?

The point of being a monarchy is in symbolism and I'm not sure how good of a symbol that is. Someone holds a high position in a country because he/she was born into it and not because it was earned.

Also, having a head of state that isn't allowed to practice politics, means that those parts have to be done by someone else, which again gives more power to that corrupt government you've been talking about...

Of course, in British case, there are other, more practical benefits, like queen of UK is also a head of state of 16 other countries and head of the commonwealth. In British case, it may be best to keep it until some drastic changes, but doesn't change my general dislike of monarchies and what they symbolize...

[lars573]

Zara Philips is Princess Anne's daughter. The Princess Royal is bottom of the rung of HM the Queen's children. So she, and her kids, get shafted on spiffy titles.


But on the subject of royals here is a pic that always makes my head spin. :laugh4:

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. Please host it yourself. BG

George V of Great Britain and Czar Nicholas II of Russia. And they look more alike than my borther and I do.

[Furunculus]

I do not know who Zara Philips is, sorry.

So the queen got the attention when she visited USA once. US president gets the attention anywhere he goes and he is not a monarch, but ok, I agree somewhat with you that royal families get some extra media attention. Problem is, that media attention could also bring potential scandals and hurt the image of the country...

As I've said already, I don't think that being a monarchy brings so much more revenues from tourism, and tourism is my trade, btw... When I visited all those places, I thought of queen Elizabeth, queen Victoria, Henry V, Henry VIII etc... and not about present British monarch. I'm not even sure what her name is. Elizabeth, maybe?

The point of being a monarchy is in symbolism and I'm not sure how good of a symbol that is. Someone holds a high position in a country because he/she was born into it and not because it was earned.

Also, having a head of state that isn't allowed to practice politics, means that those parts have to be done by someone else, which again gives more power to that corrupt government you've been talking about...

Of course, in British case, there are other, more practical benefits, like queen of UK is also a head of state of 16 other countries and head of the commonwealth. In British case, it may be best to keep it until some drastic changes, but doesn't change my general dislike of monarchies and what they symbolize...

the monarchy is also intimately tied in to 600+ years of constitutional arrangements, you cannot just remove her without giving serious thought to how a future form of governance should function, and even then i doubt you will come up with anything better than what already exists. it as after all the product of 600+ years of refinement.

[Mooks]

Yes, disband the Royal Family. Then the UK will be one step closer to being the 52nd state of the United States of America.

Think im joking? Only a matter of time before you start calling the "boot" of the car by its proper name (trunk). Or drive in the right seat.

[Furunculus]

been happening for 50 years at least, an RAF airbase is properly called an airstation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We haven't started calling our Garrisons "Forts" yet though. Anyway, I thought RAFs were general reffered to as "Airfields". In point of fact they're usually just reffered to as RAF-, same for the Navy, HMS-, though the Marines have RMB-.

[Furunculus]

in may indeed be airfield, but i believe they were originally called air-stations, something that has faded with the prevalence of amercan culture.

[rasoforos]

The House has German and Danish, but their descent is marked largely from Christian III, King of Denmark, to my knowledge.



You do know that Prince Phillip was the fifth child of Prince Andrew, who was a member of the House of Glücksburg, right?

Yep. Sad isnt it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yep. Sad isnt it?

What? That he married the Queen and sacrificed a glittering naval career?

[InsaneApache]

in may indeed be airfield, but i believe they were originally called air-stations, something that has faded with the prevalence of amercan culture.

The word you are struggling for is aerodrome.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is an Ekatarinburg solution required?

[InsaneApache]

By jingo man, we don't shoot down our royals, it's just not cricket old bean. No, we rather they lost their head. Much more fun. :book:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yep. Sad isnt it?

No, not at all.

[Productivity]

I'm not 100% sure as I'm not Australian but isn't one of the reasons why Australians voted to keep the queen as head of state because of the cost of switching to a presidential system and after that the upkeep of a president would be even higher?

Might not be right though but that's what I gathered.

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Rather than doing the sensible thing of running a series of plebiscites, first asking do you want a republic (for which there is over 50% support), then sorting out the implications that would have on the constitution/government forms, the monarchist movement managed to get just a single question, asking do you want a republic with form x. This split the republican vote allowing the monarchists to win the referendum.

Cost is not a serious impost - everything costs money, contextually the cost of having a president vs. having a monarchy is souch small change that it may as well be a non-event.

[CountArach]

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.
Gah! Beaten to it again!

Rather than doing the sensible thing of running a series of plebiscites, first asking do you want a republic (for which there is over 50% support)
55% support was the latest poll IIRC.

[rasoforos]

What? That he married the Queen and sacrificed a glittering naval career?

No, I m sure the queen was a fine piece of :daisy: when she was young :elephant::whip:

Its just that the man is a walking joke.

I hate it when the media say he is 'Greek'. Not a drop of Greek blood in him whatsoever. German/Danish inbred dude with a whole lot of Altzheimers. Plain and simple.

[Productivity]

Gah! Beaten to it again!

55% support was the latest poll IIRC.

I was amazed you hadn't posted about that yet TBH.

If you (and anyone else interested in Australian constitutional politics) haven't seen it allready you may be interested in this (http://umrresearch.com.au/doc/Australianrepublicnov2008.pdf).

[InsaneApache]

I hate it when the media say he is 'Greek'. Not a drop of Greek blood in him whatsoever. German/Danish inbred dude with a whole lot of Altzheimers. Plain and simple.

He was born at Mon Repos on Kerkyra. That makes him a Greek. I know that the mainland Greeks look upon Corfiats as a bit simple* but last time I looked it was still in Greece.

*As is Phil. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

No, I m sure the queen was a fine piece of :daisy: when she was young :elephant::whip:

Its just that the man is a walking joke.

I hate it when the media say he is 'Greek'. Not a drop of Greek blood in him whatsoever. German/Danish inbred dude with a whole lot of Altzheimers. Plain and simple.

Phil is awesome, i have a great deal of respect for him.

[rasoforos]

He was born at Mon Repos on Kerkyra. That makes him a Greek.



Never! They play cricket over there u know!

[InsaneApache]

Actually I do know. Still Greek though. :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He was born at Mon Repos on Kerkyra. That makes him a Greek. I know that the mainland Greeks look upon Corfiats as a bit simple* but last time I looked it was still in Greece.

*As is Phil. :laugh4:

I honestly think it's an act. He's worked out he can insult people with impunity and he constantly tries to outdo himself, he's not simple.

[rasoforos]

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/prince_philip_quotes.shtml


I couldn't resist posting this :elephant::whip:

[Banquo's Ghost]

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/prince_philip_quotes.shtml


I couldn't resist posting this :elephant::whip:

Marvellous stuff. :laugh4:

You know, if Devastatin' Dave wasn't so blisteringly American, on reading those quotes I'd begin to wonder at the possibilities...

[Sarmatian]

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/prince_philip_quotes.shtml


I couldn't resist posting this :elephant::whip:

Truly hilarious :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

I now love Prince Philip

[lars573]

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/prince_philip_quotes.shtml


I couldn't resist posting this :elephant::whip:
Prince Philip of Greece, rich enough to say what he wants. :smash::laugh4:

[CountArach]

Brilliant! :laugh4:

[tibilicus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm

Maybe he was high again? :laugh4:

[Incongruous]

Ugh, the sensibilities of the amoral British press, how pathetic.

I love how the press are so often the first to bash the Royal family for unseemly behaviour while keeping us in the dark about their chums in the City.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm

Maybe he was high again? :laugh4:

Interesting how that is on the front page, but on the sidebar there are much more important stories. For example:

-British climbers die in the Alps
-Saudi tanker crew 'safe and well'
-Biden and Karzai in Kabul meeting
-Obama plan 'could create 4m jobs'
-Games will 'eclipse' other media

[rasoforos]

Recent events have made me to believe that there is a genetic cause. There seems to be a hereditary effect...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822574.stm

I would like to encourage the scientific community to try to locate this so-called 'Prince Philip gene' in an effort to assist the poor victims of this Royal ailment so they can live a normal life.

:elephant::whip:

[Incongruous]

Recent events have made me to believe that there is a genetic cause. There seems to be a hereditary effect...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822574.stm

I would like to encourage the scientific community to try to locate this so-called 'Prince Philip gene' in an effort to assist the poor victims of this Royal ailment so they can live a normal life.

:elephant::whip:

Isn't that the same article?

And so what? How is it anyone's business? Have you never said anything silly?

[Furunculus]

Recent events have made me to believe that there is a genetic cause. There seems to be a hereditary effect...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822574.stm

I would like to encourage the scientific community to try to locate this so-called 'Prince Philip gene' in an effort to assist the poor victims of this Royal ailment so they can live a normal life.

:elephant::whip:

i would like to see the Phil gene spliced into every human being, it would increase the sum total of human backbone by a considerable amount!

[tibilicus]

Isn't that the same article?

And so what? How is it anyone's business? Have you never said anything silly?

Well to be honest it is peoples business. if anyone else made comments like this then fair enough, it is there personnel opinion but the fact is he's a member of the royal family.

I'm pretty sure all members of the royal family, or at least the queen does, has to swear that they will give their lives in serving their country. That is their only job and they are expected to do it. Now that's where people are seeing the problem at. If this guy did become King I don't think it would be all that great if our head of state for the rest of the world though that people with darker skin were "pakis" or "rag heads" would it?

Anyway I just posted to article for amusement. I to hate political correctness gone mad. The issue doesn't particularly bother me personally just found it hilarious that this guy can get in trouble with the press yet again.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well to be honest it is peoples business. if anyone else made comments like this then fair enough, it is there personnel opinion but the fact is he's a member of the royal family.

I'm pretty sure all members of the royal family, or at least the queen does, has to swear that they will give their lives in serving their country. That is their only job and they are expected to do it. Now that's where people are seeing the problem at. If this guy did become King I don't think it would be all that great if our head of state for the rest of the world though that people with darker skin were "pakis" or "rag heads" would it?

Anyway I just posted to article for amusement. I to hate political correctness gone mad. The issue doesn't particularly bother me personally just found it hilarious that this guy can get in trouble with the press yet again.

Both those terms are very current in our armed forces right now because of the enemy they are fighting. That doesn't make it right, but it's across the board and Harry has integrated into that culture.

[tibilicus]

Both those terms are very current in our armed forces right now because of the enemy they are fighting. That doesn't make it right, but it's across the board and Harry has integrated into that culture.


Yer, it's probably more an issue with the attitude in the armed forces than his. I remember watching a documentary on BBC3 a while back following a soldier in Afghanistan and the word "rag head" was used quite commonly. Even more senior staff were using it.

[Che Roriniho]

Certainly not needed, but it's nice to have them. It's good to think that whilst having all these idiots like Blair, Brown and Thatcher in government, we still have Queen Lizzy to tell themall to calm down. Plus, they have no real power and cost the taxpayer basically nothing (Less than 1p from every £10) So I can't see any reason to get rid of them and destroy a 1,500 year old tradition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yer, it's probably more an issue with the attitude in the armed forces than his. I remember watching a documentary on BBC3 a while back following a soldier in Afghanistan and the word "rag head" was used quite commonly. Even more senior staff were using it.

There is no issue with their attitude. They demonise their enemy in order to fight him, would you rather they were all psychopaths capable of killing ordinary decent human beings?

[tibilicus]

There is no issue with their attitude. They demonise their enemy in order to fight him, would you rather they were all psychopaths capable of killing ordinary decent human beings?


So by calling his own comrade a "paki and "rag head" what was harry hopping to do, demonise him?:dizzy2:

[Kralizec]

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Just curious, what were the options?

[Papewaio]

You vote in Parliament and then the MPs choose the president... no direct election allowed. Just a President who replaces the GG... essentially the MPs choose their umpire, and the people get zero choice in the matter. No real change, so no one wanted it because it didn't change enough... why shuffle papers when bigger issues are at foot and you want bigger change.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So by calling his own comrade a "paki and "rag head" what was harry hopping to do, demonise him?:dizzy2:

No, he was joking around. Honestly, one of the greatest English expressions I have ever heard is "suck it up," and it applies perfectly in this case.

Great quote from the Paradox Forum:

"Honestly, Harry was joking around with a guy he was training with. I don't see it as that big of a deal. It shouldn't be the word itself that is offensive, but rather if it was said with malice, which it clearly was not.

Using a word in a joke doesn't make you "Racist". Hating other races makes you a racist."

[Strike For The South]

Now this may surprise some of you but every so often I like to make an off color joke with some off color words. If every time I did that, someone told on me to a British newspaper. Well frankly there isnt enough paper.

[Furunculus]

No, he was joking around. Honestly, one of the greatest English expressions I have ever heard is "suck it up," and it applies perfectly in this case.

Great quote from the Paradox Forum:

"Honestly, Harry was joking around with a guy he was training with. I don't see it as that big of a deal. It shouldn't be the word itself that is offensive, but rather if it was said with malice, which it clearly was not.

Using a word in a joke doesn't make you "Racist". Hating other races makes you a racist."

the most useful insight i have seen emerge from the whole boring storm in a teacup.

[tibilicus]

Now this may surprise some of you but every so often I like to make an off color joke with some off color words. If every time I did that, someone told on me to a British newspaper. Well frankly there isnt enough paper.

I think the whole out cry is over the fact is the royal family are meant to be head of states, they live in dozens of nice palace homes, there job is serving the country and that includes presenting a PC image weather they want to or not. It's in their job description.

Please read my post bellow to see my real personnel opinion on the matter before I get more posts suggesting I'm a member of the though police..

[tibilicus]

No, he was joking around. Honestly, one of the greatest English expressions I have ever heard is "suck it up," and it applies perfectly in this case.

Great quote from the Paradox Forum:

"Honestly, Harry was joking around with a guy he was training with. I don't see it as that big of a deal. It shouldn't be the word itself that is offensive, but rather if it was said with malice, which it clearly was not.

Using a word in a joke doesn't make you "Racist". Hating other races makes you a racist."

The whole reason I posted it was for a joke you did realise? Just for my own comical amusement which I thought I would share with others. I personally couldn't give two monkeys about the whole matter.

Geeeze some people here need to stop interpreting things so seriously. If I wanted to make a post saying I thought harry was a racist by now I would of..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are suggesting there is something wrong with the attitude of the forces, as someone who comes from a military family and who has surving friends I felt it necessary to point out that negative sterotyping is a safety valve, "rag head" in particular comes from a long tradition of identiying the enemy by his dress, rather than his hummanity.

Now, should HRH have used that term? No. Is it understandable? Yes. For someone who posted a "joke" I think you are the one who comes across as not taking it seriously.

Oh, and it is, "would have", not, "would of". There is no excuse for bad grammar.

[tibilicus]

You are suggesting there is something wrong with the attitude of the forces, as someone who comes from a military family and who has surving friends I felt it necessary to point out that negative sterotyping is a safety valve, "rag head" in particular comes from a long tradition of identiying the enemy by his dress, rather than his hummanity.

Now, should HRH have used that term? No. Is it understandable? Yes. For someone who posted a "joke" I think you are the one who comes across as not taking it seriously.

Oh, and it is, "would have", not, "would of". There is no excuse for bad grammar.


Wow you really need to lighten up a little. Have you tried class C drugs? They might do wonders for some one like you..

You also need to understand that my opinion is that a lot of terms like this are used in the armed forces, that's my opinion, you don't have to like it. Yet again you also waaaaay over reacted to something I said again. A bit like the last thread where I had the great displeasure of you quoting me.

And this is the second thread you have come in trying to correct me on my grammar, I couldn't care less quite frankly as no one else here has a problem understanding the structure of my sentences and it just makes you rub of as arrogant. Do you do this in real life? Find the need to correct people on their grammar? seriously your killing me here, your the biggest buzz killer.

Oh and by the way you spelled surviving wrong it isn't surving. You also spelt identifying wrong as you missed out an f as well as stereotyping and humanity. Wow annoying isn't it? sorry but it just seems like your trying your hardest to flame bait her and congratulations, your really starting to try my patience.









Anyway annoying people aside and right back on topic does anyone think the royal family should be removed all together? Any die hard republicans here?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow you really need to lighten up a little. Have you tried class C drugs? They might do wonders for some one like you..

No.


You also need to understand that my opinion is that a lot of terms like this are used in the armed forces, that's my opinion, you don't have to like it. Yet again you also waaaaay over reacted to something I said again. A bit like the last thread where I had the great displeasure of you quoting me.

What you wrote was that this was an "issue" with our armed forces, I quite agree as far as the use of racist slang, it is endemic and unpleasent but that isn't the issue. That has nothing to do with the point I made.

That point was that holding serving members of any armed forces to civilian standards of behaviour at all times and in all things is not practicable, even if it might be desirable.


And this is the second thread you have come in trying to correct me on my grammar, I couldn't care less quite frankly as no one else here has a problem understanding the structure of my sentences and it just makes you rub of as arrogant. I would love for you to take a visit to my neck of the woods and go around correcting people on their grammar. seriously you killing me here, your the biggest buzz killer.

So you don't want me to point out the errors here?


Oh and by the way you spelled surviving wrong it isn't surving. You also spelt identifying wrong as you missed out an f as well as stereotyping and humanity. Wow annoying isn't it? sorry but it just seems like your trying your hardest to flame bait her and congratulations, you really starting to try my patience.

I'll grant you all except, serving, which was correct, as in "serving overseas". None were errors of grammar or punctuation, merely typing errors. Is it annoying? Well, no not really, in fact it served to point up a more serious error when I re-read my post.


For someone who posted a "joke" I think you are the one who comes across as not taking it seriously.

Should have read:

For someone who posted a "joke" I think you are the one who comes across as taking it
too seriously.

Doubtless this mistake caused confusion, because it changes the nature of my post profoundly.

Regardless, you did not come accross as "joking" initially and others have agreed with me here. You haven't argued the point as though it was a joke, you have argued that Prince Harry should present a "PC" front at all times.

Now, you have caused me offence because every time I hear about a death in Iraq or Afganistan I wonder if it's someone I know, and I don't like offhand comments about army culture and how replorable it is.

I admit, pointing out your grammatical mistakes is petty but they annoy me and you have annoyed me generally here. Regardless, I should have taken issue with your point, not your writing, so for that I apolagise.

[tibilicus]

No.



What you wrote was that this was an "issue" with our armed forces, I quite agree as far as the use of racist slang, it is endemic and unpleasent but that isn't the issue. That has nothing to do with the point I made.

That point was that holding serving members of any armed forces to civilian standards of behaviour at all times and in all things is not practicable, even if it might be desirable.



So you don't want me to point out the errors here?



I'll grant you all except, serving, which was correct, as in "serving overseas". None were errors of grammar or punctuation, merely typing errors. Is it annoying? Well, no not really, in fact it served to point up a more serious error when I re-read my post.



Should have read:

For someone who posted a "joke" I think you are the one who comes across as taking it
too seriously.

Doubtless this mistake caused confusion, because it changes the nature of my post profoundly.

Regardless, you did not come across as "joking" initially and others have agreed with me here. You haven't argued the point as though it was a joke, you have argued that Prince Harry should present a "PC" front at all times.

Now, you have caused me offence because every time I hear about a death in Iraq or Afganistan I wonder if it's someone I know, and I don't like offhand comments about army culture and how replorable it is.

I admit, pointing out your grammatical mistakes is petty but they annoy me and you have annoyed me generally here. Regardless, I should have taken issue with your point, not your writing, so for that I apolagise.

I posted the video for humorous purposes because;

a) This isn't the first time or even second time Harry has been in trouble with the press. I find his antics rather amusing, or at least his profound ability to get himself in trouble amusing and though that maybe some people here might share that humour. Obviously I'm preaching to the wrong crowd..

b) If we can't laugh at the political storm our royals cause what else can we do? We can't surely take any of them seriously, minus Queen Lizzy.




That point was that holding serving members of any armed forces to civilian standards of behaviour at all times and in all things is not practicable, even if it might be desirable.

yet again your blowing something way out of proportion. Your making a mountain out a mole hill. As far as I'm aware non of my previous posts suggested I wanted to engage in a discussion about the armed forces and it's standards. if I did I would of posted a thread on it..



Regardless, you did not come accross as "joking" initially and others have agreed with me here. You haven't argued the point as though it was a joke, you have argued that Prince Harry should present a "PC" front at all times.

The initial post had a nice laughing face or something at the end to show my humour. And yes I did say that as a member of the royal family Harry should present a PC front. Not at all times, but when he is in the eyes of the public he should, or a potential situation that could become available to the public. I'm not saying I agree with that but it's what people expect from the royal family. People always expect me to lift the toilet seat up when I go which is against my best wishes but hey, I still do it.



Now, you have caused me offence because every time I hear about a death in Iraq or Afganistan I wonder if it's someone I know, and I don't like offhand comments about army culture and how replorable it is.



I don't know how I've managed that. I made a very generalized statement about the armed forces which was directed at no one in particular. If you don't like criticism about the armed forces then there isn't a lot I can do afraid. A lot of people have different opinions and you just have to learn to deal with them. You don't have to accept them you just shouldn't take things so close to heart and personally.

even then I still fail to see how my post caused offence. It was incredibly watered down and trivial.



I admit, pointing out your grammatical mistakes is petty but they annoy me and you have annoyed me generally here. Regardless, I should have taken issue with your point, not your writing, so for that I apolagise.



I don't see how my posts could have annoyed you seeming I haven't even directed a post at you in this thread. So you're finally admitting that your behaviour is petty and childish and serves no purpose other than trying to wind me up? If grammatical mistake seriously annoy you that much then to put it bluntly you need to get a life. Period.

I wouldn't have a problem if you directed your posts at a problem with my opinion but that fact is your not. there's a lot of people I don't agree with here in terms of opinion in the backroom but regardless of that I try and keep some front of respect. At the end of the day political opinion isn't all of a persons personality.

I also have reason to believe that your a singling me out in trying to aggravate me. I have only encountered you in two threads and in both your posts have been attacks on me personally and have served nothing more than to try and agitate me. To be quite honest your coming across as a rather annoying and petty individual who clearly is trying to score some personnel grudge with me which so far has only achieved the threads being brought way of topic and ruined. If I thought you were genuinely trying to serve any purpose other than to provoke me I wouldn't care but that fact is in both instances you haven't proved any other intention.


Congratulations, you have successfully wound me up. :2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I posted the video for humorous purposes because;

a) This isn't the first time or even second time Harry has been in trouble with the press. I find his antics rather amusing, or at least his profound ability to get himself in trouble amusing and though that maybe some people here might share that humour. Obviously I'm preaching to the wrong crowd..

b) If we can't laugh at the political storm our royals cause what else can we do? We can't surely take any of them seriously, minus Queen Lizzy.

Posts, 81 and 83, try re-reading them. Then maybe you'll see why I'm irked.


yet again your blowing something way out of proportion. Your making a mountain out a mole hill. As far as I'm aware non of my previous posts suggested I wanted to engage in a discussion about the armed forces and it's standards. if I did I would of posted a thread on it.

You made the point that their behavior was objectionable, I responded. If you want to talk about who's blowing things out of proportion take a look at who's writing the long posts.


The initial post had a nice laughing face or something at the end to show my humour. And yes I did say that as a member of the royal family Harry should present a PC front. Not at all times, but when he is in the eyes of the public he should, or a potential situation that could become available to the public. I'm not saying I agree with that but it's what people expect from the royal family. People always expect me to lift the toilet seat up when I go which is against my best wishes but hey, I still do it.

Nothing wrong with the initial post, it was what came after.


I don't know how I've managed that. I made a very generalized statement about the armed forces which was directed at no one in particular. If you don't like criticism about the armed forces then there isn't a lot I can do afraid. A lot of people have different opinions and you just have to learn to deal with them. You don't have to accept them you just shouldn't take things so close to heart and personally.

even then I still fail to see how my post caused offence. It was incredibly watered down and trivial.

You're right, I'm sensetive about the Forces, because I have friends out there laying their lives on the line. You can say whatever you want, but if you make a point people have the right to dissagree, this is the Backroom, afterall.


I don't see how my posts could have annoyed you seeming I haven't even directed a post at you in this thread. So you're finally admitting that your behaviour is petty and childish and serves no purpose other than trying to wind me up? If grammatical mistake seriously annoy you that much then to put it bluntly you need to get a life. Period.

Again, I have the right to dissagree with anything you say. You quote me suggesting that I was saying that Harry was demonising his classamte. So, you have directed posts at me. I make one comment which was an afterthought, and that was a petty dig. That does not hold true for the rest of my posts.


I wouldn't have a problem if you directed your posts at a problem with my opinion but that fact is your not. there's a lot of people I don't agree with here in terms of opinion in the backroom but regardless of that I try and keep some front of respect. At the end of the day political opinion isn't all of a persons personality.

I have directed points at your opinion, you chose to ignore them in favour of my one remark about your careless grammar.


I also have reason to believe that your a singling me out in trying to aggravate me. I have only encountered you in two threads and in both your posts have been attacks on me personally and have served nothing more than to try and agitate me. To be quite honest your coming across as a rather annoying and petty individual who clearly is trying to score some personnel grudge with me which so far has only achieved the threads being brought way of topic and ruined. If I thought you were genuinely trying to serve any purpose other than to provoke me I wouldn't care but that fact is in both instances you haven't proved any other intention.

You made the mistake of claiming Dyslexia as an excuse for a careless writing style and not properly proof reading. I pointed out that Dyslexia has absolutely nothing to do with style or grammar. I am Dyslexic, I make spelling mistakes of the type you pointed out above, but I am careful of my grammar and I proof read twice so as to pick up as many errors as possible. I do this because it is good practice and because good grammar can illuminate bad spelling. Most of the other Dyslexics I know are also excessively careful, you instead claim wheel out a medical condition as an excuse for bad practice.

It is a condition I have and therefore I find that personally offensive, because you used that excuse I continue to find your careless grammar offensive. Maybe it's not your fault, and your teachers didn't help you because they were ignorant and thought you couldn't do any better.

In any case, when I pointed out that a lack of writing skill was a result of a poor education, not a learning disadvantage you accused me of calling you stupid. Had you said you were simply careless and it didn't matter to you what your grammar looked like on an internet forum I would not have got upset.

[Shaka_Khan]

Wow, I didn't realise, but according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan) they go back to 660BC...

During the Japanese civil wars, the shogun didn't mess with the emperor. The fight was only between the shoguns.

[tibilicus]

Posts, 81 and 83, try re-reading them. Then maybe you'll see why I'm irked.


You made the mistake of claiming Dyslexia as an excuse for a careless writing style and not properly proof reading. I pointed out that Dyslexia has absolutely nothing to do with style or grammar. I am Dyslexic, I make spelling mistakes of the type you pointed out above, but I am careful of my grammar and I proof read twice so as to pick up as many errors as possible. I do this because it is good practice and because good grammar can illuminate bad spelling. Most of the other Dyslexics I know are also excessively careful, you instead claim wheel out a medical condition as an excuse for bad practice.

It is a condition I have and therefore I find that personally offensive, because you used that excuse I continue to find your careless grammar offensive. Maybe it's not your fault, and your teachers didn't help you because they were ignorant and thought you couldn't do any better.

In any case, when I pointed out that a lack of writing skill was a result of a poor education, not a learning disadvantage you accused me of calling you stupid. Had you said you were simply careless and it didn't matter to you what your grammar looked like on an internet forum I would not have got upset.

So yet again your admitting your behaviour is petty and childish?

To be quite honest your attitude stinks. When ever some one upsets you you respond personally with digs at peoples education. For some one that went to the average comprehensive school and if their lucky will go on to higher education I'm not going to take my lectures on the standard of my education from some know it all over the internet. I guess you went to a private school which mummy and daddy bank rolled for you? Guess what, some of us live in the real world.

No one here seems to have a problem making out my posts. Fair enough English was never my strong point and as I said I do have minor learning difficulties be it only very minor and marginalised mainly to my hand writing and my ability to read long passages of text. Even then I still achieved the highest marks possible for many of my other subjects whilst in school so again if you want to argue over school grades like a 15 year old kid then go suck out.

yet again I don't see why it's such a big personnel issue for you, do I wish you'd stop trying to point out grammar mistakes to agitate me? yes. Do I wish you would kindly drop of the face of the earth? Yes. It's a shame that neither of those things are going to happen though is it as long as you keep on stalking me in threads like some rabid lunatic.

All your doing is successfully throwing topics of course. You ruined the last thread you tried this game in and your no doubt going to ruin this one. Seriously can you please just get a life instead of stalking me in threads? I can draw up a list of hobbies for you if you like. It will be well worth my time if it keeps you of my back. To put it quite simply your posts serve no purpose other than to provoke me. The last time I got a warning due to the fact you wound me up so much I simply couldn't contain my annoyance any more. I'm pretty sure your well aware of the game your playing which is poke the dog till it snaps and bites someone's head of. Yet again I wouldn't say this if you didn't launch these personnel attacks on me every thread. And yes it has been every thread.

And your whole argument above as well about being allowed to disagree with my opinion yes you are. The fact is instead of doing that you try and draw out personnel vendettas instead of addressing the topics at hand. the reason why I said I couldn't be bothered getting in to the whole armed forces discussion as it is hardly relevant to the thread. At least my posts had the link to the topic of the royal family in some way, yours served as nothing more than crude little digs at a very personnel level.

To be quite honest if I was you I would walk away and go and find something to do to fill your time other than go around attacking people personally before I feel the need to make a post severing any shred of self dignity you may have.


So basically why do you feel the need for these personnel attacks? If you have a problem with some if the issues I raised you could of sent me a PM saying you found them offensive and we could of had a discussion there as to why you found them offensive. The fact is though you seem to prefer trying to draw me into a public spectacle and try and lampoon me to make it look like I was educated by a group of homeless beggars.

[Furunculus]

you seem a bit thin skinned. :balloon2:

[tibilicus]

you seem a bit thin skinned. :balloon2:


I wouldn't give two shades of :clown: if he didn't persist on stalking me every thread and trying to launch the same personnel attacks every time. The thing is he is though.

I'm not sure if you've ever had the displeasure of experiencing that but trust me its incredibly annoying.
It has nothing to do with being "thin skinned".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you are thin skinned, if you want to try to destroy me that's your decision. I simply expalined why I was offended in the previous thread, because I thought you were making excuses for carless writing.

Your last thread was closed because Tuff said be thought of himself as better than other people because he was a Roman Catholic as much as anything. You seemed to imply that that was my opinion, which I denied.

I have not attacked you in any thread except for those two instances when I pointed out your grammatical errors, the first time being because I genuinely had to work to understand what you were saying, and the second time I admit was a personal remark, for which I have apolagised.

Your remarks above were also very personal, however. For the record I went to state schools and 6th forms, I wish my parents had been wealthy enough to have me privately educated. Regardless, my teachers drummed good grammar into me along with an appreciation of good practice. I am not trying to lampoon you are antagonise you, the fact is your grammar on these boards could be improved, I don't know you in real life and I don't know your educational background, but grammar is taught because it is a system with rules. Either you were taught it or you weren't, regardless it has nothing to do with Dyslexia and if you were told it did you were fed a sop.

I am sorry if that upsets you but it's true.

[tibilicus]

I think you are thin skinned, if you want to try to destroy me that's your decision. I simply expalined why I was offended in the previous thread, because I thought you were making excuses for carless writing.



I have not attacked you in any thread except for those two instances when I pointed out your grammatical errors, the first time being because I genuinely had to work to understand what you were saying, and the second time I admit was a personal remark, for which I have apolagised.

Your remarks above were also very personal, however. For the record I went to state schools and 6th forms, I wish my parents had been wealthy enough to have me privately educated. Regardless, my teachers drummed good grammar into me along with an appreciation of good practice. I am not trying to lampoon you are antagonise you, the fact is your grammar on these boards could be improved, I don't know you in real life and I don't know your educational background, but grammar is taught because it is a system with rules. Either you were taught it or you weren't, regardless it has nothing to do with Dyslexia and if you were told it did you were fed a sop.

I am sorry if that upsets you but it's true.

Actually that's a lie. You implied in one of your posts that my education was "poor". I don't care for your history of good grammar, you quite frankly bore me and I'm now at the stage of perceiving you as no more than a dulled.

And as for me trying to destroy you, how is that even possible when your trying to make me out as not only telling a lie but as some sort of dense imbecile who apparently wasn't educated to the high standards of Philip vallidervs Calicvla. As for you thinking I'm thin skinned well that's ok because I think your an arrogant toff who seems to trawl through threads looking to correct peoples grammar. I'll ask it again have you got no life?

You know how much of hypocrite you come across as when you criticize people on their grammar yet your sentences or loitered with various spelling mistakes? So from now on please don't even address me in threads, especially if it's to remind me im "thick" and my education was "poor".

And as for your comments upsetting me, no they don't. I just wish that you would get a life that's all instead of being so obsessed with this issue seeming you have now felt the need to bring it up in two threads. Have you ever heard of PM?. Maybe you should go out and meet some people, try not to correct them on their grammar though, I know how much it annoys you but just try.

[InsaneApache]

Dear oh deary me. :embarassed:

Now settle down chaps, if you don't the thread will be locked by Macbeths erstwhile mate. You should continue this by PM.

:bow:

[tibilicus]

Dear oh deary me. :embarassed:

Now settle down chaps, if you don't the thread will be locked by Macbeths erstwhile mate. You should continue this by PM.

:bow:

Amen I suggested that but it fell on deaf ears.

Trying to salvage this thread can some one please explain what powers if any the queen holds in the other commonwealth nations? Are they the same as her power in the UK or less?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let's return to topic gentlemen.

Thank you kindly

:bow:

[Kralizec]

You vote in Parliament and then the MPs choose the president... no direct election allowed. Just a President who replaces the GG... essentially the MPs choose their umpire, and the people get zero choice in the matter. No real change, so no one wanted it because it didn't change enough... why shuffle papers when bigger issues are at foot and you want bigger change.

Okay, so it just was a two-way question. Productivity's assertion that the republican vote was split led me to believe that there were three answers, with two of them being republics of some sort.

Many other states have a system like the one you just described, including Germany and Ireland, and it's not a flawed system in itself. The transition would also be a lot easier than changing into a "presidential" system immediately. You can implement direct election and give the office actual decision power afterwards, anyway.

[Wishazu]

Yer, it's probably more an issue with the attitude in the armed forces than his. I remember watching a documentary on BBC3 a while back following a soldier in Afghanistan and the word "rag head" was used quite commonly. Even more senior staff were using it.

I grew up an army brat, they talk like that about anyone. There is no room for sensitive types in the forces.