FA Cup Final or Royal Wedding?

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Naughty William mucking about on a training excercise in wokka wokka helicopters.....I reckon Willy also mucked about flying for fun in them there waste of space Air Ambulance choppers - and he was probably a financial waste of an Air Sea Rescue Sea King pilot as well......Wasting our tax payers money......Harumph!......

Does Willy''s Royal Chopper stay up longer?.....Now, that is a hard one....?......Kate will know........

I do hope the veins on your neck and forehead aren''t bulging KIO.....So much angst......[/quote]

William worked less than half the normal hours for his "service". I wonder whether my employer would let me do the same? Although I guess I don''t get several million per year for doing absolutely nothing at all to fall back on, so I''d probably better not on second thoughts. I didn''t know the forces had opportunities to join up, do less than 20 hours per week working, and spend most of that dossing around your girlfriend''s lawn showing off. I''m glad that we spent over £600,000 on his training rather than somebody who would actually commit to full time hours and not take the p***. Money well spent.

People can have an opinion without working themself up in to a frenzy Mello. Don''t let that get in the way of posting absolute garbage with no relevance to actual discussion though. 

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Nothing against the Monarchy. But I refuse to bow to them.

They came to a place I was working in the 90''s. All the staff were told to wear something smart and what to say if spoken to.

I wore my regular clothes and when some ancient old duffer in a feathered hat and a sword on his hip came up to me while I was printing and said, "That looks like jolly good fun" I politely ignored him.

The same with celebs and so called VIP''s. I know they exist but would rather they didn''t.

I used to admire Beckham but now he is everywhere like seagull shite.

The £30M the state spent would have been better spent on all the damn potholes around Windsor.

Worked in the garden for the Wedding and watched a very boring Cup Final which just amplified the disdain that particular trophy is held in. Lots of false celebrations at the end and the ManU fans couldn''t be bothered to wait for their team to get their medals. Which seemed strange as so many of them live in or near London.[/quote]

Good on you KG. Completely agree re: the "celebs" too - not quite sure when we developed this culture of being famous for absolutely nothing but it is a sad indictment on humanity''s progress. I can understand people being famous for extraordinary talents, but what on Earth have the Kardashians ever done to deserve an ounce of any fame? Their sole claim to fame was their sister made a sex tape with a semi-successful record producer. That''s it. How has that spawned 285 TV shows and millions of words of media coverage?

[king canary 7,604]

I find the concept of Royals to be fairly odd but they generally sit fairly low down my list of annoyances. However events like this bring my Republican out like nothing else.

I hate the idea that we''re supposed to fawn over these people and seeing the poor twats lining up for a glimpse of someone just because you''ve been told since birth that these are ''better'' people than you winds me up something rotten. I understand queueing up to see great musicians or actors on stage or to watch the best sportsmen or women on the planet but these people have no actual ability and just happen to have been born into great wealth.

[kick it off 1,948]

Warning - NSFW language

This is brilliant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GEpUphfykc

[Guest]

Does the Duchess of Sussex automatically become a British citizen?

After all, she is half black and we have been throwing black people, who have lived and worked here for 60 years, out of the country.

Goo job they got rid of Elmer Fudd as Home Secretary just before the wedding.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]

I hate the idea that we''re supposed to fawn over these people and seeing the poor twats lining up for a glimpse of someone just because you''ve been told since birth that these are ''better'' people than you winds me up something rotten. [/quote]

Who says they are better people?  They are privileged because of their birth and the wealth to which they are born, but that doesn''t make them "better".  If anything, what the media has shown us over the years is that they are fairly normal and fallible human beings who make mistakes and are far from being better than you or I.

As well as wealth, what they have is status and that is another thing that you are born to - kids are brought up in the status that their parents are in, be it working, non working, rich or poor.  You can''t change what you are brought into the world to when you are kids, but you can make best use of it as you get older.

I kind of follow the view that as long as they are seen to be doing something useful then that is fine - and in William and Harry they seem to have grown up in to people with a social conscience and an up to date view of things who are very active in helping people - Charles has been hugely busy over the years with social schemes and projects around the world - and the Duke of Edinburgh scheme has been fantastic over the years for young people. The queen has been a fantastic figurehead and worked tirelessly for the country.

It may be they get too much money - I can agree with that - but they are not better people, they are just people.  Yesterday was meaningful in terms of the history and traditions of our country and that is great, it was a wedding on a grand scale, befitting their status.....but that doesn''t make them better.

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

👍

[JF 694]

The media don’t help. The headline on bbc news this evening, how Megan Markle’s dress was made...

[king canary 7,604]

Well if people didn''t think they were somehow ''better'' why are they queueing up to get a glimpse of someone they don''t know on the way to their wedding?

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

Why do you go to a Carra rud to watch a bunch of blokes kick a ball about ? I don’t understand why people can’t just be pleased for them to be honest

[hogesar 9,658]

I don''t understand how some can get worked up about the Royal Family personally. I''ll be totally honest, I have little interest in them but others love them and get enjoyment from seeing them and I suppose an element of tradition is involved. If people want to spend a day in London with others of the same ilk then brilliant, it looks like they had a lovely day for it and good for them!

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]

[quote user="kick it off"]Because the choice is monarchy or trump? What an asinine comment. Of course no other countries have successful democracies without a monarchy do they?[/quote]

Monarchies suck. I miss the good old days of Stalin and Mao.

[/quote]

Yeah, good job the monarchy are so righteous. I can''t imagine why Russia got rid of theirs...  Good old Nicholas II was just sitting there minding his own business when the nasty commoners got feisty for no reason whatsoever... and in more modern times, what about the delightful monarchy in the Middle East - the House of Saud doing such a wonderful job of upholding human rights and decency.... Our own queen is on film as a child giving a nazi salute which shows how brilliant the judgement of the monarchs is (I''m not blaming her for it, but she was encouraged to participate by Edward VIII, a former king).

If you want to trade lunacy and banal points then that''s fine, the concept of monarchy has equal share of blood on it''s collective hands, but I''d prefer to stick to more sensible debate rather than making nonsense points about not having a monarchy meaning we are stuck with Trump or equivalents of Stalin and Mao. It''s pretty easy to trade tit for tat on it (as demonstrated above), but it steers the debate well away from any sensible dialogue. 

There are many countries which have democracy, no monarch, and no murderous regime in charge - let''s not pretend the queen is the thing that stops us from having a genocidal maniac at the helm of the country. If we''d put Stalin, or Mao or Hitler, or any other despot you care to name in charge of the country, then rather than them having to give up because of sheer terror of the monarchy, the most likely outcome is a high profile anti-royal propaganda campaign, followed by a one way trip to the caves for the "Windsors" (Saxe-Coburg-Gothas).

[/quote]

Stalin and Mao are collectivley responsible for the deaths of about 90,000,000 people. Even combining every English monarch over the last 1000 years and blaming them solely for all the wars we''ve fought as a nation, you don''t even come close to that figure. So to say that they have an "equal share of blood" on their hands is patently a nonsense.

This point is also wrong. Only 12% of world countries have what is called "Full democracy". This is defined by a "nation where civil liberties and basic political freedoms are not

only respected, but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to

the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system

of governmental checks and balances, independent judiciary whose

decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and media

that is diverse and independent."

Of that 12% (20 countries), 11 of those countries have a monarch as a head of state. So that leaves about 5.5% that have full democracy without a monarch, hardly many as you suggest.

In fact the opposite of what you say seems to be true. Of the 52 states that are classed as "Authoritarian" where democratic values are supressed only 8 have monarchies, 7 of which are Islamic and none with Queen Elizabeth as head of State.

Now I am neither particulaly a pro or anti-monarchist, but I am proud to be English. So if having a monarch means that our elections are some of the freest and fairest in the world, God save the Queen.

p.s. If you want to double check my facts and figures, my data is sourced from the "Democracy Index".

[king canary 7,604]

"Why do you go to a Carra rud to watch a bunch of blokes kick a ball about ? I don’t understand why people can’t just be pleased for them to be honest"

Because those players are good at football.

Are Harry and Meghan good at...weddings? Is there wedding such a big deal because this is the Premier League of weddings? Is she particualrly good at walking down the aisle or he just really good at repeating vows?

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

“Because those players are good at football”

Are you sure about that ? 😀😉

[Bill 1,788]

I suppose it comes down to whether you see yourself as a citizen, or a subject.

[kick it off 1,948]

Oh I see, so foreign monarchs don''t count but foreign politicians do. Surprise surprise there have been more deaths caused by dictators in the entire rest of the world combined than at the hands of the British monarchy. Try comparing apples to apples rather than fixing the goalposts to suit your agenda.

And as aforementioned when did the queen become the sole obstacle between civilised democracy and maniacal genocide? It is a stupid argument. Having a monarch does not make our elections free and fair (if indeed you consider first past the post where most of the electorate have worthless votes to be ''fair''). How on earth do Germany manage elections with no monarch to stop them being corrupt? Another hollow argument.

Even if you want to argue in favour of the monarchy, which is absolutely fine, and you want to believe they are the sole protectors of democracy and they are the only thing preventing us from genocide, which is bizarre but absolutely fine, why does our monarchy cost so much? Norway pay 7million per year for theirs. Ours cost 7 times that amount PLUS the 350mill plus to restore Buckingham palace.

The measure you use to determine full democracy doesn''t count the United States for a start, nor France, Italy and various other countries that are widely regarded as strong democracies. It depends which measure you use, but I would argue there are substantially more democracies than your measure suggests. There is no full and flawed model as your source suggests in my opinion, there is a scale. America recognises 123 democracies globally for example. How many are ''full'' democracies depends on your objective viewpoint and therefore it''s silly to try and construct your argument around a flawed premise because you have selected a source that fits your agenda. There are various other sources which would support my point of view - the reality is that there is not really a single ''truth'' in this argument as it''s a subjective measure based on which criteria you apply and how you weight the criteria.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="kick it off"]Oh I see, so foreign monarchs don''t count but foreign politicians do. Surprise surprise there have been more deaths caused by dictators in the entire rest of the world combined than at the hands of the British monarchy. Try comparing apples to apples rather than fixing the goalposts to suit your agenda.

And as aforementioned when did the queen become the sole obstacle between civilised democracy and maniacal genocide? It is a stupid argument. Having a monarch does not make our elections free and fair (if indeed you consider first past the post where most of the electorate have worthless votes to be ''fair''). How on earth do Germany manage elections with no monarch to stop them being corrupt? Another hollow argument.

Even if you want to argue in favour of the monarchy, which is absolutely fine, and you want to believe they are the sole protectors of democracy and they are the only thing preventing us from genocide, which is bizarre but absolutely fine, why does our monarchy cost so much? Norway pay 7million per year for theirs. Ours cost 7 times that amount PLUS the 350mill plus to restore Buckingham palace.

The measure you use to determine full democracy doesn''t count the United States for a start, nor France, Italy and various other countries that are widely regarded as strong democracies. It depends which measure you use, but I would argue there are substantially more democracies than your measure suggests. There is no full and flawed model as your source suggests in my opinion, there is a scale. America recognises 123 democracies globally for example. How many are ''full'' democracies depends on your objective viewpoint and therefore it''s silly to try and construct your argument around a flawed premise because you have selected a source that fits your agenda. There are various other sources which would support my point of view - the reality is that there is not really a single ''truth'' in this argument as it''s a subjective measure based on which criteria you apply and how you weight the criteria.[/quote]

Just to be clear, I wasn''t comparing the British monarch to every dictator in the history of the world. I compared just 2 examples of dictators that were active participants in deposing their monarch with all 66 rulers/heads of state of England. As Mao and Stalin were both heads of state, it is quite fair and reasonable to compare them to another head of state (apples to apples). Another point that I would like to address is "when did the queen become the sole obstacle between civilised democracy and maniacal genocide?" With the British consituion making the Queen responsible for naming the Prime Minister, whilst not weilding any true political power (a British monarch has not forced through a new law since 1708), it ensures that we can''t have a Hitler or Mussolini type come along and just seize power. A good thing wouldn''t you say?

I also never said that a monarchy is the only way to preserve democracy, I just highlighted the fact that the majority of corrupt world governments do not have a monarch as a head of state. Further to that, as I mentioned, many of the corrupt and tyranical governments (according to the data I have referenced, something you''ve not done yourself) that do have a ruling monarch as head of state are Islamic, while none are "Christian". A fact that I find quite interesting.

And as for first past the post, I agree with you that it is not the fairest voting system. That said though, if we had used a system of proprtional representation, which is arguably slightly fairer, the results would have still been about the same, except we would have fewer Tory (although the would have still had the most), Labour and SNP MPs and more Lib Dem, Green and UKIP (at a guess something you wouldn''t bee keen on) MPs. This would have more than likely resulted in another coalition government formed between the Tories and Lib Dems, plus one other small party.

[kick it off 1,948]

I checked your data and very clearly explained why it was flawed, the data I used was from Freedom House - A US think tank - although the data I glanced through did contain some partly free countries mixed so in accuracy''s interest - they actually recognise 88 "free" democracies. Like I said, you can use whichever source you like to make polar opposite, fully referenced and evidenced points, because there is no single truth in that debate, it depends on the criteria you use.

You stated "So if having a monarch means that our elections are some of the freest and fairest in the world"... which is implicit that the free and fair elections are a result of a monarchy. I''m not sure how you meant it, but it''s hard to read it any other way. Having a republic would not have free and fair elections if transposed across our society? I don''t know where you''re going with that, but it''s not going anywhere credible.

You have also failed to add in to your analysis of monarchs vs despots (which still doesn''t make any sense unless you are saying we can''t get rid of the queen without putting a murderous regime at the helm of the nation) fails to take into account a wealth of other factors, such as exponential global population growth over the 1000 years you cite, in addition to just the size of the country''s populace.

You''re comparing countries with a combined population of over 1.5 billion (despite the 90million murders you cite, and 40 years of one child policy in China) against a solitary country that has a population of 65 million now but had less than 9 million in it just 200 years ago (China had about 900 million when Mao came to power). It''s just a ludicrous comparison The total population of England at the time of the Domesday book was somewhere around 1.5 million to 2million people (which is only 800 years ago, so for 20% of your 1000 year comparison England''s total population was about the same as modern-day Birmingham). For 80% of the time period you state, England had less than 9 million people living in it even at it''s peak. Apples to apples?

Pretty difficult to kill 90 million people if you have to massacre every soul in the nation, repopulate the entire nation and massacre them all again, repeating this cycle 60 times. There literally haven''t been as half as many people in England in 1000 years as there were in China when Mao took control, and that would assume that every single monarch in that time period had Mao''s bloodlust (so you''re looking for 64 successive psychos rather than just one - I''d say that heavily weights the odds in one specific direction). 

It''s just a silly debate to have on a number of levels, that being the tip of the iceberg. The monarchy has plenty of blood on it''s hands was the point, and indeed if you decide to include the victims of the empire, including around 29 million Indians who starved to death as a direct result of the empire, then I''d wager that the numbers are far closer than you think (of course if you choose to only include wars which was a limitation you did not apply to Mao and Stalin in your initial silly comparison then it skews the numbers in a certain direction) 

I''ve used very basic sources for the population figures because obviously population data from 1000 years ago is a little bit sketchy, but I''ve used the best estimates I could find, and seem to be reasonable (and as a geographer I do have some concept on what reasonable figures look like in the field of population distribution).

And lastly, as for stating the queen would stop a Hitler type. I don''t know how you draw that conclusion - Mao was elected when China had an emperor, who was handed over by the soviets to China where he was promptly imprisoned for 10 years. Nicholas II was taken to a cave and executed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Stalin was already a very prominent figure in the Bolshevik movement at that point, so in both your key examples, the monarchs have succumbed easily to the tyrants.

[Bill 1,788]

Of course there might be a second chamber and a judiciary that could uphold lawful democratic process.

Though curiously those on here who seem to be the most pro royalty and flag waving (made in China) are the very same folk who now want that second chamber removed and refer to the judiciary as ''enemies of the people''.

The same kind of views espoused and followed through by these very same dictators

How odd

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="kick it off"]I checked your data and very clearly explained why it was flawed, the data I used was from Freedom House - A US think tank - although the data I glanced through did contain some partly free countries mixed so in accuracy''s interest - they actually recognise 88 "free" democracies. Like I said, you can use whichever source you like to make polar opposite, fully referenced and evidenced points, because there is no single truth in that debate, it depends on the criteria you use.

You stated "So if having a monarch means that our elections are some of the freest and fairest in the world"... which is implicit that the free and fair elections are a result of a monarchy. I''m not sure how you meant it, but it''s hard to read it any other way. Having a republic would not have free and fair elections if transposed across our society? I don''t know where you''re going with that, but it''s not going anywhere credible.

You have also failed to add in to your analysis of monarchs vs despots (which still doesn''t make any sense unless you are saying we can''t get rid of the queen without putting a murderous regime at the helm of the nation) fails to take into account a wealth of other factors, such as exponential global population growth over the 1000 years you cite, in addition to just the size of the country''s populace.

You''re comparing countries with a combined population of over 1.5 billion (despite the 90million murders you cite, and 40 years of one child policy in China) against a solitary country that has a population of 65 million now but had less than 9 million in it just 200 years ago (China had about 900 million when Mao came to power). It''s just a ludicrous comparison The total population of England at the time of the Domesday book was somewhere around 1.5 million to 2million people (which is only 800 years ago, so for 20% of your 1000 year comparison England''s total population was about the same as modern-day Birmingham). For 80% of the time period you state, England had less than 9 million people living in it even at it''s peak. Apples to apples?

Pretty difficult to kill 90 million people if you have to massacre every soul in the nation, repopulate the entire nation and massacre them all again, repeating this cycle 60 times. There literally haven''t been as half as many people in England in 1000 years as there were in China when Mao took control, and that would assume that every single monarch in that time period had Mao''s bloodlust (so you''re looking for 64 successive psychos rather than just one - I''d say that heavily weights the odds in one specific direction). 

It''s just a silly debate to have on a number of levels, that being the tip of the iceberg. The monarchy has plenty of blood on it''s hands was the point, and indeed if you decide to include the victims of the empire, including around 29 million Indians who starved to death as a direct result of the empire, then I''d wager that the numbers are far closer than you think (of course if you choose to only include wars which was a limitation you did not apply to Mao and Stalin in your initial silly comparison then it skews the numbers in a certain direction) 

I''ve used very basic sources for the population figures because obviously population data from 1000 years ago is a little bit sketchy, but I''ve used the best estimates I could find, and seem to be reasonable (and as a geographer I do have some concept on what reasonable figures look like in the field of population distribution).

And lastly, as for stating the queen would stop a Hitler type. I don''t know how you draw that conclusion - Mao was elected when China had an emperor, who was handed over by the soviets to China where he was promptly imprisoned for 10 years. Nicholas II was taken to a cave and executed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Stalin was already a very prominent figure in the Bolshevik movement at that point, so in both your key examples, the monarchs have succumbed easily to the tyrants.

[/quote]

I understand, to an extent, what you''re saying in regards to percentage of population. However, 90,000,000 people were murdered as a direct result of actions taken by two people. Now to compare that to the 29,000,000 Indians that starved to death under Britsh rule is, to use your own phraseology, most certainly comparing apples to oranges. I have been to India, and it does not rain a lot, in fact when I was there, Tamil Nadu, the state I stayed in was in the middle of a drought. Now British inaction during droughts exacerbated famine conditions during the rule of the Empire, but it was not a planned effort by the government to starve people to death. Indeed there was a concerted effort to avoid famine with action such as the formation of the Indian Famine Commission. This is as opposed to Mao and Stalin who actively sought the deaths of their people.

Secondly, taking the figures from your source, it still seems to prove my point about monarchies being beneficial for democracy, in fact they emphasise it. If you look at Freedom House''s table of country scores, 8 out of the top 10 countries currently have ruling monarchs (3 of which recognize Elizabeth II as head of State) and when you look at the bottom end 9 out of 10 of the lowest scoring countries do not have monarchs and (suprise) the 10th is Islamic.

Lastly, as I explained, the British Constitution requires the King or Queen to name their Prime Minister, so as such it negates the possibility of someone like Hitler coming to power. The Minister invited to form a Government does not have to come from the party with the largest amount of MPs. If she had so desired, instead of May, the Queen could have just as easily invited Corbyn to form a government. If a minority government is formed it makes passing new legislation problematic, so this is why the Prime Minister almost always comes from the largets party in the commons, but it is not a prerequisite.

[kick it off 1,948]

Sorry IBT, that''s not true. Stalin did not murder 20 million, and there is no historical source in the world that says he did. The 20 million figure includes the victims of famine, gulags and various other indirect causes of death rather than actual murders. Same with the Mao figures - they include the 30+ million deaths in the 3 year famine. Again you''re trying to apply limitations to one side but not the other and then saying it''s apples to apples.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]

Lastly, as I explained, the British Constitution requires the King or Queen to name their Prime Minister, so as such it negates the possibility of someone like Hitler coming to power. The Minister invited to form a Government does not have to come from the party with the largest amount of MPs. If she had so desired, instead of May, the Queen could have just as easily invited Corbyn to form a government. If a minority government is formed it makes passing new legislation problematic, so this is why the Prime Minister almost always comes from the largets party in the commons, but it is not a prerequisite.

[/quote]

And again, it''s a silly point. The Stalins, Hitlers, Maos and Pol Pots of this world don''t wait for a little ceremony with the queen. It absolutely does not negate anything, it just means you clearly think people who you believe murdered close to 100 million people in ruthless fashion would wait for the queen''s permission to seize control. Stalin who was complicit in taking the Tsar to the cave and shooting him, and Hitler who legitimately rose to power by pretending not to be a psycho until he had the country in a vice grip.... just totally unrealistic to say the queen''s ceremonial power would have prevented this. In addition to which, we don''t even have a formal constitution so it''s hardly a difficult argument for a bloodlusting despot to make that the queen''s permission is not really necessary.

[kick it off 1,948]

and Britain actively tried to avoid the Indian famine? What, by exporting MILLIONS of tonnes of wheat to Britain whilst India starved. Come on, surely you must know you''re making silly arguments now.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]

Lastly, as I explained, the British Constitution requires the King or Queen to name their Prime Minister, so as such it negates the possibility of someone like Hitler coming to power. The Minister invited to form a Government does not have to come from the party with the largest amount of MPs. If she had so desired, instead of May, the Queen could have just as easily invited Corbyn to form a government. If a minority government is formed it makes passing new legislation problematic, so this is why the Prime Minister almost always comes from the largets party in the commons, but it is not a prerequisite.

[/quote]

And again, it''s a silly point. The Stalins, Hitlers, Maos and Pol Pots of this world don''t wait for a little ceremony with the queen. It absolutely does not negate anything, it just means you clearly think people who you believe murdered close to 100 million people in ruthless fashion would wait for the queen''s permission to seize control. Stalin who was complicit in taking the Tsar to the cave and shooting him, and Hitler who legitimately rose to power by pretending not to be a psycho until he had the country in a vice grip.... just totally unrealistic to say the queen''s ceremonial power would have prevented this. In addition to which, we don''t even have a formal constitution so it''s hardly a difficult argument for a bloodlusting despot to make that the queen''s permission is not really necessary.

[/quote]

I posted something similar, but it got zapped by the system. Hitler rose to power democratically (from memory as the leader of the largest single party, albeit without an overall majority) and there is no reason to suppose he would not have so been endorsed by a UK monarch, then or now.And that is without remembering that although the current queen seems very sensible, if it had not been for an accident of fate the king in 1940, when the British establishment had to decide whether to do agree a "compromise" surrender to Germany, was someone with distinct pro-Hitler sentimemts.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

To be honest KIO, I''ve gone as far as I am prepared to with this debate. We just seem to be going round in circles. In a nutshell I hold the belief that democracy is good and autocracy is bad and that all of the evidence I have seen (even that which you have lead me to) points to the fact that there is a far greater chance of an autocracy forming where heads of state are not monarchs. Now like I have previously said I am neither pro nor anti-monarchy, but I am an enthusiast of freedom. I do not share the opinion that scrapping the monarchy in the United Kingdom will improve the quality of life for the common man in Britain, especially when all of the information seems to point to the contrary.

I would like to offer one last piece of advice and that''s if you find the monarchy of Great Britain so greatly offensive, you always have the option to emigrate to a country without one. I hear Pjongjang is nice this time of year, in fact if Kim Jong Un is to be believed it''s nice at any time of the year. The negative would be that you may find the opportunity to regularly post on here slightly restricted, but that is surely a small price to pay for not having a Queen?

[Mello Yello 2,289]

I reiterate......I do wish good fortune, to those who live and dream of a glorious Utopia......

Me? Politics, religion, inner fire, ire, anger and angst - can just take a back seat.....Just had a bowl of muesli for brekkie this morning and 2 cups of Earl Grey......Now off to change the World!.....Or maybe I''ll just once again carry on contributing my bit to society.....?

As the resident to this debate who''s akin to Citizen ''Jakie Wolfie Smiff'' rants....."POWER TO THE PEOPLE!".....(I''m sure it works for him).....

[Len 74]

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is a politically correct marriage, designed so that the British Establishment can claim that the country is no longer racist. It''s good PR.

Harry had the pick of all the African and Caribbean girls in London. He would have been married years ago if he eg took a taxi to Ladbroke Grove or a tube to Brixton. This didn''t happen because the establishment needed to pick the ''right kind'' of black girl for him, one who ''fitted in'' with their designs.

Harry ended up with a hoity-toity actress who is dripping with political correctness, instead of one of those nice black girls who you see working in London''s many hair salons and nail bars.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]

To be honest KIO, I''ve gone as far as I am prepared to with this debate. We just seem to be going round in circles. In a nutshell I hold the belief that democracy is good and autocracy is bad and that all of the evidence I have seen (even that which you have lead me to) points to the fact that there is a far greater chance of an autocracy forming where heads of state are not monarchs. Now like I have previously said I am neither pro nor anti-monarchy, but I am an enthusiast of freedom. I do not share the opinion that scrapping the monarchy in the United Kingdom will improve the quality of life for the common man in Britain, especially when all of the information seems to point to the contrary.

I would like to offer one last piece of advice and that''s if you find the monarchy of Great Britain so greatly offensive, you always have the option to emigrate to a country without one. I hear Pjongjang is nice this time of year, in fact if Kim Jong Un is to be believed it''s nice at any time of the year. The negative would be that you may find the opportunity to regularly post on here slightly restricted, but that is surely a small price to pay for not having a Queen?

[/quote]

Or South Korea. Or France. Or Italy. Or Germany. Or Bosnia-Herzegovina. Or the Spanish enclave of Llivia in the French Pyrenees. Or the US. Or the Federated States of Micronesia...

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]

[quote user="kick it off"]Because the choice is monarchy or trump? What an asinine comment. Of course no other countries have successful democracies without a monarchy do they?[/quote]

Monarchies suck. I miss the good old days of Stalin and Mao.

[/quote]

President Blair would be so much better !! 

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]

To be honest KIO, I''ve gone as far as I am prepared to with this debate. We just seem to be going round in circles. In a nutshell I hold the belief that democracy is good and autocracy is bad and that all of the evidence I have seen (even that which you have lead me to) points to the fact that there is a far greater chance of an autocracy forming where heads of state are not monarchs. Now like I have previously said I am neither pro nor anti-monarchy, but I am an enthusiast of freedom. I do not share the opinion that scrapping the monarchy in the United Kingdom will improve the quality of life for the common man in Britain, especially when all of the information seems to point to the contrary.

I would like to offer one last piece of advice and that''s if you find the monarchy of Great Britain so greatly offensive, you always have the option to emigrate to a country without one. I hear Pjongjang is nice this time of year, in fact if Kim Jong Un is to be believed it''s nice at any time of the year. The negative would be that you may find the opportunity to regularly post on here slightly restricted, but that is surely a small price to pay for not having a Queen?

[/quote]

Or South Korea. Or France. Or Italy. Or Germany. Or Bosnia-Herzegovina. Or the Spanish enclave of Llivia in the French Pyrenees. Or the US. Or the Federated States of Micronesia...

[/quote]

So many countries envy our history and monarchy, and this was so apparent in Long Walk, Windsor on Saturday where I heard so many foreign voices among the masses celebrating this wonderful occasion with us.  I would not swap my country for any other in the world.