UK: Do we even need a Royal family?

[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.

[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 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.

[tibilicus]

you seem a bit thin skinned.

I wouldn't give two shades of 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.

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

[tibilicus]

Dear oh deary me.

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

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

[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.