• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does the UK have royalty?

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Many people have alleged in the past that the Royal leeches are an extremely devious pack of wolves doing covert politically minded deals cloaked by their image of being non political.
People have alleged that the royals are part of a global New World Order or that they're shape-shifting lizards. Unsupported allegations are (or should be) irrelevant.

Why do you think that Fergie was able to sell an audience with Andrew if an audience with Andrew wasnt worth alot of money to someone looking to gain something under the table.
That wouldn't necessarily be about explicit political intervention though. I'm sure he has contacts as a consequence of his position and some people would put additional credence in something with a royal name attached (irrationally IMO) but that alone doesn't really support your accusation.

The fact that the British government is now seeking to make it ILLEGAL for the media to disclose anything about the top royals that they do not want to be disclosed (allegedly, in light of a recent attempt by the media to expose their dodgey dealings) shows just how valuable their dodgey dealings are to those very same 'double dealing lying politicians'.
I've never heard of anything like that. Do you have any details?
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
It is my understanding that the reasonings behind this new law is to prevent what happened to Diana from happening to Kate.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
The difference between the U.K's most famous benefit scroungers and the Bransons is that Richard earned his wealth for his family to inherit. What has the royal family done to deserve thiers? The people who think we need a royal family are just sentimental sheep claiming a belief in democracy so long as it doesnt interfere with their romantic image of the UK's history. If the royal family believe they are worth keeping then let them exist without tax payers money, then we will see just how patriotic they are.

No need to throw your Teddybear out of the pushchair,in case you missed something there is no longer a civil list,her money is her own.

Although our history isn't romantic and quite terrible in places i'm happy to have a Queen,the alternatives just don't appeal to me.

Message to the queen....GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK...(and I may even let you keep the Crown Jewels you stole from the Africans!)

I'm sure she will be very grateful your highness:rolleyes:
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Excuse me but the Queen and her family of leeches is STILL paid by our taxes aside of security expenses. Yes of course she has also invested some of our money (for her own gain) but dont be making out that she makes all of her own money. Thats just false and im sure you know it.

Whatever she gets,which is mostly security she pays back much more in tourism alone.

As for the double dealing politicians at least they are elected. Many people have alleged in the past that the Royal leeches are an extremely devious pack of wolves doing covert politically minded deals cloaked by their image of being non political. Why do you think that Fergie was able to sell an audience with Andrew if an audience with Andrew wasnt worth alot of money to someone looking to gain something under the table.

So someone wanting "by Royal Approval" on there product is political,Fergie was just stupid

The fact that the British government is now seeking to make it ILLEGAL for the media to disclose anything about the top royals that they do not want to be disclosed (allegedly, in light of a recent attempt by the media to expose their dodgey dealings) shows just how valuable their dodgey dealings are to those very same 'double dealing lying politicians'.

Theres a good reason for that,look what the media did to Diana
 

Blackheart

Active Member
Theres a good reason for that,look what the media did to Diana

So if were worried about the media chasing people to death then shouldnt we apply this law to everyone? Anyway you cant blame the media for that. She chose to be a royal, she chose to keep a title after the split so she chose the media attention that goes with it. Dont go to supermarket with no clothes on if you dont want people staring at you in the frozen food section.
 

Blackheart

Active Member
People have alleged that the royals are part of a global New World Order or that they're shape-shifting lizards. Unsupported allegations are (or should be) irrelevant.

That wouldn't necessarily be about explicit political intervention though. I'm sure he has contacts as a consequence of his position and some people would put additional credence in something with a royal name attached (irrationally IMO) but that alone doesn't really support your accusation.

I've never heard of anything like that. Do you have any details?
Royal Family granted new right of secrecy - Home News, UK - The Independent
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
So if were worried about the media chasing people to death then shouldnt we apply this law to everyone? Anyway you cant blame the media for that. She chose to be a royal, she chose to keep a title after the split so she chose the media attention that goes with it. Dont go to supermarket with no clothes on if you dont want people staring at you in the frozen food section.
Yes but are you really interested in the size of Prince Willy's willy?

A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
 

Blackheart

Active Member
Also she doesnt PAY BACK anything. If you think that the people who go to London to see the Palace is her efforts to pay something back then I would be more incnlined to agree if she was standing at the gates collecting the so called cash that she pays back. I mean how many of them come over thinking that they are going to see the Queen? Its only in recent years that she has agreed to stop avoiding paying taxes herself on the money we pay her in benefits.

Is she really more deserving than the person on the street that cant afford to pay his rent this month because he is having to pay for leeches like her?
 

Blackheart

Active Member
Yes but are you really interested in the size of Prince Willy's willy?

A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

His willy is magical. It has the ability of creating babies born with gold spoons in every oraffice. Of course I would look. I want to know the secret!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yes but are you really interested in the size of Prince Willy's willy?

A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
I am as interested in Prince Willy's willy as much as I am in Richard Branson's willy... i.e. not at all.

But why are these two willies on different sides of the line?
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
I don't even know who Richard Branson is, neither do I care what his willy looks like.
My point, I guess is, if a person doesn't want their willy to be photographed without their permission, I think the press should be willing to abide by that decision.
 

Blackheart

Active Member
I don't even know who Richard Branson is, neither do I care what his willy looks like.
My point, I guess is, if a person doesn't want their willy to be photographed without their permission, I think the press should be willing to abide by that decision.

My point is that the law should apply to everyone equally. If the Queen has a right to secrecy then why cant all famous people have the same right? Why cant I or you have the same right?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't even know who Richard Branson is, neither do I care what his willy looks like.
He's the "billionaire adventurer" head of the Virgin Group. I just picked a prominint non-royal Brit to compare to Prince William.

My point, I guess is, if a person doesn't want their willy to be photographed without their permission, I think the press should be willing to abide by that decision.
And I definitely see merit in that. The thing I don't understand is why royal celebrities should be entitled to a different degree of protection from non-royal celebrities.
 

kai

ragamuffin
The difference between the U.K's most famous benefit scroungers and the Bransons is that Richard earned his wealth for his family to inherit. What has the royal family done to deserve thiers? The people who think we need a royal family are just sentimental sheep claiming a belief in democracy so long as it doesnt interfere with their romantic image of the UK's history. If the royal family believe they are worth keeping then let them exist without tax payers money, then we will see just how patriotic they are.

Message to the queen....GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK...(and I may even let you keep the Crown Jewels you stole from the Africans!)

the royal family inherited it, just like everyone else in the land inherits wealth, who decides way back it wasn't earned? you?

I am sure they could survive without taxpayers money i mean they are not going to starve are they, they just wouldn't carry out state duties.


and those jewels ? you think they stole them ? the royal family i mean? and you think the crown jewels belong to the Queen?
 
Last edited:

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
I think the Queen should ditch the title of head of the Church of England,the Anglican Church is full of closet Catholics anyway so any links to the Pope no matter how tenuous needs to be severed
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Well, here's an American's take:

First of all, for some really weird reason, I am interested in the shenanigans of British royalty. I stayed up most of the night to watch Charles and Diana get married, and I'll stay up to watch Wills and Kate get married. I was frankly fascinated with the whole glamourous tragedy of Princess Di and I think Wills is simply dishy.

As a history buff, I realize that the UK plays a huge part in my historical heritage, both as a US citizen and personally (my ancestry includes several prominent British families which are traced back to the 1500s and earlier). So I make that excuse for myself as I add yearly to my collection of British comedies and books about the royal family.

Currently I'm eyeing the complete Vicar of Dibley collection as a birthday present to myself...

BUT - part of my fascination is along the lines of the fascination a person feels watching vehicles slowly slide into each other on an icy road.

Frankly, I think the whole concept of a monarchy is pretty ridiculous. But at the same time, I also realize that these peeps ARE born into it...and, well, I don't think I'd feel quite dismantling 1500+ years of history and tradition by getting rid of the institution if I were them.

My family owns 100+ acres of timber and mineral rights, along with a big, beautiful, sprawling house that's over 100 years old. The land has been in our family since the 1850s and at one time my ancestors who lived there owned slaves, whose sweat in the fields added to the family's wealth. Now - of course there's been no slave labor in my family since the 1860s (though generations of teenagers may disagree with that statement), and yet the wealth produced on that land has increased over the decades, and been handed down to generation after generation. Those people, including my father, have managed things well. My brother and I will inherit this land and continue to manage those assets.

I don't think anyone else deserves that land any more than my brother and me -though I'm sure at some point Caddo Indians and slaves and exploited sharecroppers and underpaid labor worked and sweated on that land. But there's nothing that can be done about that now. All we can do is manage what we own responsibly - we can't go back in time and undo wrongs from 150 years ago.

Of course we're not royalty but I can't help but see the same principle on a smaller scale.

You got a Queen? Whatcha gonna do with her - put her out on the street? I think not. But there's nothing wrong with expecting them to work hard for the good of their country, pay their taxes, and stay out of political arenas which are not appropriate for them to be involved in.
 

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
scale.
You got a Queen? Whatcha gonna do with her - put her out on the street?

She can get a state pension like everyone else her age.
I am sure a reasonable house can be allocated to the ex Queen as an expression of goodwill...and life long armed security.
I see no reason why she should be fundamentally treated any differently to anyone else.
 
Top