Wills and Kate

[Damocles]

I'm not religous, so I have no problem with those who choose to follow a human being deemed to be the chosen one. The Australian dude who claims he is the second coming of Jesus could well be telling the truth, but I honestly couldn't give a fuck.

As for the Queen, all I want is to have a choice like the Scots did last year.

The Dalai Lama has/had full political power of Tibet. So he's alright because there's a religious aspect attached?

Okey dokey.

The reigning monarch in the UK is also the head of the Church of England religion and holds the title Defender of the Faith. Hopefully this can now surpass any upset caused by lack of invitations for a quick brew.

Why is it that you think you're entitled to a referendum on the Queen? I'm not sure you really understand this whole monarchy idea.

 

[Len Rum]

The Royals own a significant amount of British lands legally. The money from which goes into the British purse, and they get a set amount every year.

The amount of the Sovereign Grant is 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate for the financial year that began two years previously

And this is without tourism.

So what, it's not about the money.

Then making abolishment a financial argument was a bit of a googly for him then wasn't it?

If it's not about the money what exactly IS it about then?

Historical,religious,tradition,spiritual,figureheads,family, moral example etc etc.
Not that I believe in any of this but if you put it down solely to the balance sheet then if a reasonable case could be put forward that they were a drain on the public purse then you would agree with abolition?

 

[Damocles]

So what, it's not about the money.

Then making abolishment a financial argument was a bit of a googly for him then wasn't it?

If it's not about the money what exactly IS it about then?

Historical,religious,tradition,spiritual,figureheads,family, moral example etc etc.
Not that I believe in any of this but if you put it down solely to the balance sheet then if a reasonable case could be put forward that they were a drain on the public purse then you would agree with abolition?

I don't put it down solely to the balance sheet. You've mistaken me showing the holes in somebody's argument for me having that argument exclusively.

Historical,religious,tradition,spiritual,figureheads,family, moral example etc etc.

That's just a collection of words rather than an answer.

 

[Len Rum]

Then making abolishment a financial argument was a bit of a googly for him then wasn't it?

If it's not about the money what exactly IS it about then?

Historical,religious,tradition,spiritual,figureheads,family, moral example etc etc.
Not that I believe in any of this but if you put it down solely to the balance sheet then if a reasonable case could be put forward that they were a drain on the public purse then you would agree with abolition?

I don't put it down solely to the balance sheet. You've mistaken me showing the holes in somebody's argument for me having that argument exclusively.

Historical,religious,tradition,spiritual,figureheads,family, moral example etc etc.

That's just a collection of words rather than an answer.

True, but I can't be arsed putting forward a justification for an institution I don't agree with.

 

[dobobobo]

I'm not religous, so I have no problem with those who choose to follow a human being deemed to be the chosen one. The Australian dude who claims he is the second coming of Jesus could well be telling the truth, but I honestly couldn't give a fuck.

As for the Queen, all I want is to have a choice like the Scots did last year.

1) The Dalai Lama has/had full political power of Tibet. So he's alright because there's a religious aspect attached?

Okey dokey.

2) The reigning monarch in the UK is also the head of the Church of England religion and holds the title Defender of the Faith. Hopefully this can now surpass any upset caused by lack of invitations for a quick brew.

3) Why is it that you think you're entitled to a referendum on the Queen? I'm not sure you really understand this whole monarchy idea.

1) Does he really though? A bit hard to rule a country owned by China and forced to live in exile.

2) You're telling me this why?

3) My choice. Give people a choice, if the majority vote to keep the the rule of Windsor like the Aussies and Scots did, fine by me because everyone made a choice and the majority opted to keep Liz in power.

 

[dobobobo]

Off for me tea.

Ta ta!

 

[kas_tippler]

if their a "fact of life" do you not think in this day&age we should have a say in whether we have them or not?

You best ask President Tony Blair if we're clever enough to make a choice in a referendum on the matter.

I believe he/she was asking you.

I have no problem with a referendum, but are we clever enough?

 

[dobobobo]

You best ask President Tony Blair if we're clever enough to make a choice in a referendum on the matter.

I believe he/she was asking you.

I have no problem with a referendum, but are we clever enough?

If plebs are allowed to put a mark on ballot paper next Thursday, they are capable of doing the same for a refereendum.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

I believe he/she was asking you.

I have no problem with a referendum, but are we clever enough?

If plebs are allowed to put a mark on ballot paper next Thursday, they are capable of doing the same for a refereendum.

Your tea's getting cold.

 

[dannybcity]

I'll just leave this link here, don't mind me.

<a class="postlink" href="https://republic.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://republic.org.uk/</a>