dannybcity
Well-Known Member
Cheesy said:
So you'd refuse to bow to them if you met them?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
William and Kate [Merged]
- Thread starter Pigeonho
- Start date
So you'd refuse to bow to them if you met them?
Lucky Toma
Well-Known Member
lloydie said:Regardless of cost, we could argue all day about that, I for one find it objectionable to be considered the "subject" of anyone no matter how nominal that status is. To continue with this anachronism, despite the obvious undeserved patronage and influence they exert, is a sign of how subservient and reactionary we are as nation. I always find it funny that the very people who moan about the "Nanny state" are usually the ones most in need of Mummy and Daddy figures as heads of state. This country will never grow up whilst we feel the need to worship a bunch freeloaders granted privilege for having ancestors who had the biggest gang on the block a couple of hundred years ago.
Tug away forelock tuggers, I wont ever consider King Chaz with his 5 O levels and pointless, irrational pronouncements as superior to me even if his views continue to influence public opinion and policy.
As always, superb.
TFC
Well-Known Member
I'm not arsed either way, used to have a lot of 'anti-royal' feelings, but I think they have subsided over time with me not being there.
She is a tidy enough piece though, if we are to have a new Queen, rather her than that fooking munter Charles married ;)
She is a tidy enough piece though, if we are to have a new Queen, rather her than that fooking munter Charles married ;)
Maintainin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 6,968
...or juss basic day-day City fans who every now n' then see bods on their own street get hitched n' dont lose sleep bout the amount of tin cans makin a racket down road back of motor that dint even get a mention in local chronicle.Seosa said:This is gonna sound stereotypical, but the way I see it the Anti-Royal Family posters are probably non-Protestants or members of certain working class origin who refuse to or feel they cannot make anything of their lives..
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
dannybcity said:Cheesy said:The important thing for me is that I don't consider myself 'below' them and neither do the important people in my life.
So you'd refuse to bow to them if you met them?
Probably not, just for the tradition of it. As far as I'm aware though, you do not have to bow to them.
Stillsy
Well-Known Member
couldnt care less
dannybcity
Well-Known Member
Cheesy said:Probably not, just for the tradition of it. As far as I'm aware though, you do not have to bow to them.
Fair enough mate but I reckon you'd be expected to if you met the queen. For what it's worth I'd only ever bow to someone if I felt they'd achieved something worth bowing to...Uwe Rosler for example ;).
I wouldn't bow to them, I don't bow to anyone else so why would I bow to them? They are no different to anyone else. I would shake their hands like normal human beings though.
I don't like them, not because I think they are better than me, but because they think they are better than me.
Money-wise, it does piss me off that we do pay for them, but is it really any different to paying for people who have been on the dole all of their life? Not really, but I suppose they aren't millionaires so will actually need some sort of financial input from the state. If we didn't pay anything towards the roayals for the next 10 years, they wouldn't go without anything they ever wanted so why continue to take it?
I don't like them, not because I think they are better than me, but because they think they are better than me.
Money-wise, it does piss me off that we do pay for them, but is it really any different to paying for people who have been on the dole all of their life? Not really, but I suppose they aren't millionaires so will actually need some sort of financial input from the state. If we didn't pay anything towards the roayals for the next 10 years, they wouldn't go without anything they ever wanted so why continue to take it?
Maintainin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 6,968
....jokes aside, good luck to pair of em (not that i really give two shites) aslong as they get the seal of approval from our very own 1st Earl Of Middleton, Sir Donald of Farrington, Bishop of Langly n' no doubt the new 50pence coinage thingie to be unvale'd in his name ;-)
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
dannybcity said:Cheesy said:Probably not, just for the tradition of it. As far as I'm aware though, you do not have to bow to them.
Fair enough mate but I reckon you'd be expected to if you met the queen. For what it's worth I'd only ever bow to someone if I felt they'd achieved something worth bowing to...Uwe Rosler for example ;).
:-)
I just don't get why it bothers some people so much. Overall, they bring in money to the country & that's a decent enough reason to keep them for me. A lot of this anti-royal feeling is from people who are just envious that they seem to have more than them (though as I say I wouldn't want to swap places with any of them). As I said before, folks should be happy with their lot or, if they're not, do something about it rather than wallow in that envy.