Purely political, Roundhead or Cavalier? ...royal bs wedding.

We can't get rid of the monarchy just yet. My plan to marry Princess Eugenie and then do away with the rest of them must happen for me to become king first.
Then you lot will find out how kingy I will be.

originally posted by: sapien82
OK so there isnt any record of tyrannical oppression by the British Monarchs and no Oppression from the house of lords

Aye and Im yer maw

PMSL at that, I love the Scottish dialect/expressions
Where's soloprotocol these days? I miss reading his banter.

On anarchy though, I agree, but we wouldn't have that that if a vote ever happened and we became a republic. The nation would not suddenly fail. All talk like that is as ridiculous as the member who reckons we'd be a 3rd world country because tourism would suddenly stop. Absolutely ridiculous.

a reply to: testingtesting

LMAO you knob!
...she ain't all that though, def got the horsey face of the royals

a reply to: schuyler

Lol, might want to look at the Royal Prerogative powers and UK constitutional Monarchy. The Monarch and Royal Family play far more than a ceremonial role. The Monarch can overule any act of Parliament, refuse to recognise a government causing a new election or election to be declared void, refuse to go to war, and the PM has to answer to them once every two weeks for a several hour chat about foreign policy, intel, defence and national security.

The Monarch is a Head of State independent of Politics which can be a priceless asset - The Queen has worked closely on Zimbabwe relations for 47 years, elected officials never gain that kind of experience and expertise. They also act as an ambassadorial role and an official role. If the power is respected and used wisely its a really good thing to have, if abused it can be terrible.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I know I'm going for the worse one because it will be easier for me to lob her head off when I'm crowned.
Then marry that funny posh girl with the lisp who does all the history BBC documentarys.
You know the one with the blonde Bob.
Dr Lucy Worsley that's it.

a reply to: testingtesting

She's a fox!
I prefer Professor Kate Williams though, she does a load of royal history programmes, I'd marry her and love her forever...

originally posted by: bastion
The Monarch is a Head of State independent of Politics which can be a priceless asset - The Queen has worked closely on Zimbabwe relations for 47 years, elected officials never gain that kind of experience and expertise. They also act as an ambassadorial role and an official role. If the power is respected and used wisely its a really good thing to have, if abused it can be terrible.

Massive amount of truth in that, even if the words are like acid in my mouth.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

She is the clone of my 3 ex wives.
Redhead? Never again I tell thee!.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

clealry you forget the abuse at the hands of the church in England , Scotland, Ireland and Wales!

not only were they #ing our children, they were making us pay taxes to the church !

and had been a staple in britain for hundreds of years!

Church and Crown only spells oppression and abuse to me!

You also forget the abuse our own government have taken out on the people of the UK

just curious as to what you consider oppression of the masses or abuse ?, if not child abuse cover ups , taxation , forcing people into poverty through draconian laws which only serve to line the pockets of the elite ruling classes!

How far back do ye want to go here ? British history is full of Abuse and Oppression , by church , crown and state !

Only just saw this and it didn't deserve to be lost at the bottom of the last page.
I agree completely

Why anyone sane person would want to marry a royal , if you are the slightest bit concerned about your childs genetic heritage and hereditary diseases!
then Id marry but not have children!

Think how many genetic defects they carry from inter marrying all those hundreds of years!
surely they must have terrible genes all those cousins and brothers and sisters and what not !

keep the bloodlines pure and full of genetic mutation!

Also wanted to add about more forms of abuse under the hands of the monarchs !

when scotland joined the union , children who came to school and spoke gaelic were beaten by their teachers because they were to speak the queens english!

scots gaelic

In 1872, the British government introduced compulsory schooling for children in Scotland. This should have been a good thing – and in many ways it was. Unfortunately, children who attended school were actively discouraged from speaking Gaelic.

In fact, children caught speaking Gaelic were often belted by their teachers, and interrogated about who they’d been talking to. They could face further physical punishment if they didn’t give up the names of other Gaelic speakers.

if that is not oppression by a government or monarch then I dont know what is ,

I know I am using well known forms of British oppression of the scots ! but there are plenty in England, Northern Ireland, an Wales , Im sure I dont need to point out anymore

a reply to: sapien82

They did the same to the Welsh.
Our national history is quite shameful in many ways, kings and queens have much blood on their hands...but still the serfs and peasants fawn over their rulers.

a reply to: sapien82

you're confusing political, philosophical, scientific & mercantile, legislative participation, etc, with overthrow of the established order. It doesn't work like that these days. Incremental changes are all that can be hoped for in any social grouping, whether it's Whitehall or the local school PTA. It's utterly laughable to think that, in light of some of the best living standards in the world, that you think we need anarchy or revolution. Anarchy is nonsense. People left to themselves, especially when young, almost invariably go off the rails into hedonism & various sorts of wild living. Rules, discipline, collective agreements on standards of behaviour & action - that's normal, healthy, and productive. Anarchy & revolution is NOT useful in a society which has some of the best living standards in the world.

Engagement, not Overthrow!

Just to add also, it's telling that the responses in this thread all hark into some glorious delusion of roundhead revolution. The fact is, you're all chomping at the bit for a revolution that would do nothing but destroy the lives of all the people in the British Isles. The system may not be perfect, but violent overthrow & abandonment of the rulebook (Magna Carta anyone?) in favour of the illogical BS that anarchic society will somehow organise itself & be productive in any remotely similar measure of success &/or heightening of living standards, is immature, juvenile, delusional, and would solve nothing. Destruction of the nation? You guys seem up for it. Go form a little club, get yourselves a treehouse & a secret handshake, & see how many members join up to the inglorious revolutionary cause. You're all being ridiculous.. Sorry, but you need to swallow the bitter pill of truth.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I would be on the royalist side tbh.
I used to hate them but the younger lot have grown on me.
Does anyone have Princess Eugenies number btw?.
I didn't watch it though I can't be doing with any weddings any more.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

best living standards in the world, with 1/5 children in Glasgow living in direct poverty!

Aye and how many more in food banks and on benefits or unemployed

"ENGERLANNNNNDS DREAMMMMMMMINNNNNNNG"

god save the queen !

I am all for laws , anarchy doesnt need to be lawless states! its just needs to be less overreaching government intruding into every aspect of our lives , controlling and guiding us to line their pockets!

but we need to be rid of age old establishments and family names who have accumulated wealth and power through deceit and unlawful action!
and also "divine right"

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
The system may not be perfect, but violent overthrow & abandonment of the rulebook (Magna Carta anyone?)

And you're just being an overly emotional drama queen.
I haven't read anyone calling seriously for violent overthrow, and my OP merely asks which side you'd pick if there was a civil war.
Get a grip man, and take a chill pill