View Full Version : She doesn't seem to object to "the Queen of England"
David Banks
07-Jul-10, 10:38
and may I say, the very widespread use of this title.
What say you?
DeHaviLand
07-Jul-10, 10:46
Who doesnt object?
and may I say, the very widespread use of this title.
What say you?
It's a historic title that came with commonwealth. The only thing we can do to change history and tradition is start a new one :)
It's not incorrect, it just isn't complete:D
John Little
07-Jul-10, 11:12
She is Queen of England - but Ducati is right. That's only one of her titles. I think it's mostly used by furriners.
Over here most people in my experience just call her 'the Queen'.
She is Queen of England - but Ducati is right. That's only one of her titles. I think it's mostly used by furriners.
Over here most people in my experience just call her 'the Queen'.
True :)
and a few more words to make it up to 10 characters grrrr
Over here most people in my experience just call her 'the Queen'.
And some people call her (and extended family) parasites
And some people call her (and extended family) parasites
And some say bah humbug!
They have calculated that the revenue from tourism for the country is far more than what it costs to feed, house and clothe them. At least they bring something back to the country, unlike many of the scroungers who collect the dole and then work for cash in hand and don't pay taxes...
Plus they are one of the few things of our national heritage that we are actually allowed to celebrate without being called racists.
A little national pride is what puts the great in Great Britain. Lets not lose this in the cynicism :(
John Little
07-Jul-10, 12:45
And some people call her (and extended family) parasites
An easy thing to say.
What is her purpose?
It's not her in person that is important.
It's what she is.
Sovereignty rests in her - yet she has no power.
So no matter how great or influential a Prime Minister may be, he can never be sovereign and has to go once a week and report to her- and in extremis she could remove him and stop him/her in his/her tracks, precipitating a constitutional crisis. The ultimate safeguard against tyranny.
The person is not important.
The office is.
As for 'parasite'.
By hereditary right - which property is based on, the Queen owns huge areas of Britain.
Since George 1 the monarch has signed the revenues from those crown lands over to the government in exchange for an allowance from Parliament known as the Civil list allowance. The allowance comes from taxes.
George was forced to do it as a condition of becoming King.
I do not know how much profit the country currently makes from this, but it is considerable. If the allowance from tax were withdrawn then the contract between monarch and government would be void. She would be entitled to the revenues from all crown lands - and would be a lot better off.
They have calculated that the revenue from tourism for the country is far more than what it costs to feed, house and clothe them.
People do not come to this country to see the Windsor mob, they come to see the sights. You could put any person in Buckingham Palace and people will go to see it
At least they bring something back to the country, unlike many of the scroungers who collect the dole and then work for cash in hand and don't pay taxes.
That to me sounds like most of the Windsors
Happy Guy
07-Jul-10, 14:26
And some say bah humbug!
They have calculated that the revenue from tourism for the country is far more than what it costs to feed, house and clothe them. At least they bring something back to the country, unlike many of the scroungers who collect the dole and then work for cash in hand and don't pay taxes...
Plus they are one of the few things of our national heritage that we are actually allowed to celebrate without being called racists.
A little national pride is what puts the great in Great Britain. Lets not lose this in the cynicism :(
I couldnt agree more Leanne! Pride in Great Britian and pride in the wonderful heritage of Scotland too
sinclairbay
07-Jul-10, 14:33
Well said Anfield.An awful lot of money wasted on what essentially has become a tourist attraction.
The Angel Of Death
07-Jul-10, 14:37
And some people call her (and extended family) parasites
Here here the russians had the right idea
what to hunt down mostly women and children and murder them horribly?
to shoot and stab them repeatidly and destroy a whole family just because of thier birth?
why dont we do what the french did and drag out anyone of noble birth and cut off their heads ? i can pretty much say none of the people who are rumbling are starving or dying in the streets. to bad there are not more noble people around , and less common gobs who like to open their mouths and spout rubbish.
Long Live the Queen! *G*
Long Live the Queen! *G*
See proof in point to the OP - noone uses the "of England" bit ;)
There has not ben a Queen of England since 1707!
"Windsor mob" as Anfield calls them changedt there name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.
She has around 310 residences and the largest collection of jewels in the world, lets not go into old masters (paintings) land and other assets.
a book on the Briotish Rich said that the Quen tends to invest in "blue chip" stocks, which include the General Electric company of Britain, Royal Dutch and BP are some of the companies mentiond. Also reported that she is a major RTZ shareholder.
Castles Jewellery, Art, blue chip stocks and bonds.
Her investment portfolio is estimated to be worth £3 Billion!
Anfield has a valid point as tourists dont expect to see the Queen when they visit Buck House. All the national Trust properties have hundreds of thousands of visitors yearly. The tourists are not flocing to see the owners of these stately mansions are they? ;)
Anfield has a valid point as tourists dont expect to see the Queen when they visit Buck House. All the national Trust properties have hundreds of thousands of visitors yearly. The tourists are not flocing to see the owners of these stately mansions are they? ;)
Ah but BP gets more visitors than all the other NT properties put together - why? Because tourists visit and hope that they might get to see a member of the royal family...
Sara Jevo
07-Jul-10, 16:47
She was styled as Queen of Canada during her visit to Canada and I believe she introduced herself at the UN as Queen of Canada.
I think she is entitled to call herself queen of 15 different countries.
I don't know if one of them is the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I've never heard her referred to as Queen of Scotland.
She could style herself that if she wanted to, I suppose.
She could call herself whatever she liked.
I don't care really - I just think the concept of a supreme, unelected, unaccountable head of state who is above the law is, in this day and age, a nonsense.
There has not ben a Queen of England since 1707!
"Windsor mob" as Anfield calls them changedt there name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.
She has around 310 residences and the largest collection of jewels in the world, lets not go into old masters (paintings) land and other assets.
a book on the Briotish Rich said that the Quen tends to invest in "blue chip" stocks, which include the General Electric company of Britain, Royal Dutch and BP are some of the companies mentiond. Also reported that she is a major RTZ shareholder.
Castles Jewellery, Art, blue chip stocks and bonds.
Her investment portfolio is estimated to be worth £3 Billion!
Anfield has a valid point as tourists dont expect to see the Queen when they visit Buck House. All the national Trust properties have hundreds of thousands of visitors yearly. The tourists are not flocing to see the owners of these stately mansions are they? ;)
Bet she wished she'd got rid of the BP ones a few weeks ago.
Ah but BP gets more visitors than all the other NT properties put together -
Are you serious?
The reason that BP gets more visitors than the NT is that is slap bang in the middle of London and free to look at.
the real monarch of Scotland is from the Stuart line which still exists and of which Diana was decended
so does that make william next in line for the scottish throne?
John Little
07-Jul-10, 18:19
Yes - through a very distant link with the House of Stuart.
the real monarch of Scotland is from the Stuart line which still exists and of which Diana was decended
The present Queen is descended from the Stuart line.
George Brims
07-Jul-10, 20:47
I am constantly having to correct people over here in the US about this "Queen of England" nonsense. Thanks to Cate Blanchett's fine portrayals of Elizabeth I, I am able to explain more easily who was the last person to hold that title. I also take some pleasure in quoting the "Encyclopedia Britannica", which states that "Constitutionally, England does not exist".
Being a 'paid up' Canadian for 35 years, it is interesting to hear her being referred to as the Queen of England/ people ask me...And what about Scotland?
And after what I did know, and reading these posts I have no simple answer....I just say she is from the United Kingdom and speak with an English accent.
By the way, I take it you all know where the Queens/ Kings English is spoken....
For those of you who might remember Bamber Gascoine , the Moderator of University Challenge, I first heard it there...'And that was a couple of years ago'.
so does that make william next in line for the scottish throne?
no. the line is unbroken and thius a Stuart is the rightful king of scotland
Inversnecky?
You are correct.. The City/Town(?) of Inverness!
I am constantly having to correct people over here in the US about this "Queen of England" nonsense. Thanks to Cate Blanchett's fine portrayals of Elizabeth I, I am able to explain more easily who was the last person to hold that title. I also take some pleasure in quoting the "Encyclopedia Britannica", which states that "Constitutionally, England does not exist".
I'm constantly having to correct people over here in the US too, George. I'm not anti-English by any means, but if they would at least say "Queen of Britain", I wouldn't feel so peeved! I kindly remind them that it was James Vl of Scotland who inherited the English throne as James l, and from that point on, he was King of England, Ireland and Scotland.
A few months ago, my husband and I were on a guided tour of a historical house in Washington, D.C. I cringed when the guide referred to a photo of former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George as the "Prime Minister of England". Of course I knew what was coming next when she turned to the photo of King George V.....
The Queens title is
Elizabeth the second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Queen Elizabeth Ii is the United Kingdoms Head of State. She is also Queen to 16 former British colonies, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.
And for those who wish to know more, here is the official website of the British Monarchy:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/
As Ford said "History is bunk"
This is 2010 and there should be no place for non elected persons to enjoy the lavish lifestyle which this family, whatever they are called or what bloodline they are from, live in.
John Little
08-Jul-10, 20:59
As Ford said "History is bunk"
This is 2010 and there should be no place for non elected persons to enjoy the lavish lifestyle which this family, whatever they are called or what bloodline they are from, live in.
So where would you place sovereignty?
John Little
08-Jul-10, 21:12
And anti-semitic, Nazi-backing Henry Ford was wrong.
History is not bunk.
It is the study of the process by which we got where we are- and the various interpretations thereof.
To understand the purpose of monarchy you cannot avoid history.
Well said, John! I cannot agree more!
As Ford said "History is bunk"
This is 2010 and there should be no place for non elected persons to enjoy the lavish lifestyle .
See were back on the EU thread again.
Duncansby
08-Jul-10, 22:38
To understand the purpose of monarchy you cannot avoid history.
True, but if monarchs arose due to their power and ability to protect (and exploit) their subjects does this not make the role obsolete. OK so the UK government gets the revenue from 'crown' lands but didn't history make them crown land simply because someone was handy with a sword. The role of the royal family has changed, as it needed to in order to fit into modern society - whether we need them is debatable. But they most certainly need us, and our permission, to survive.
NB: I use the word survive in the sense that they remain in their current position; I'm not sugesting a form of revolution!
So where would you place sovereignty?
It depends on how you define soverignty.
The freedictionary.com defines it as:
(1). Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
(2). Royal rank, authority, or power.
(3). Complete independence and self-government.
(4). A territory existing as an independent state
So apart from (2) a sovereign state does not have to be presided over by a priviledged person.
And anti-semitic, Nazi-backing Henry Ford was wrong.
History is not bunk.
It is the study of the process by which we got where we are- and the various interpretations thereof.
To understand the purpose of monarchy you cannot avoid history.
I used Henry Ford as a reference merely for his quote about History.
If we had learned from history I would accept that you have a point, but, as has been proved time and time again we go on making the same mistakes.
The war in Afghanistan is an example, did America learn nothing from its activities in S/E Asia.
You also state that it (history) is the process "by which we got where we are"
Wake up and smell the coffee and see where we are.
We, and by we I mean the current inhabitants of the world, are the most destructive society that Planet Earth has ever produced.
Did our knowledge of history go any way to prevent that?
John Little
08-Jul-10, 22:47
True, but if monarchs arose due to their power and ability to protect (and exploit) their subjects does this not make the role obsolete. OK so the UK government gets the revenue from 'crown' lands but didn't history make them crown land simply because someone was handy with a sword. The role of the royal family has changed, as it needed to in order to fit into modern society - whether we need them is debatable. But they most certainly need us, and our permission, to survive.
NB: I use the word survive in the sense that they remain in their current position; I'm not sugesting a form of revolution!
Trouble is that if you go down that route you start to undermine property rights, and that is a minefield. If the royal family has no rights to land, however gained, then who has?
The role of the royal family was changed - you are right- but the process involved the civil war and the revolution of 1688. Vesting sovereignty in a flag, a president or a constitution did not seem to suit. It opened the way for tyrant - in the shape of a Cromwell or even a Lambert....
But if sovereignty was vested in a remote figure with no political power except the power to force a crisis, then tyranny would be difficult to uphold.
It's a peculiar solution to the problem caused by ending the divine right and chopping Charles !'s head off - but we have had no tyrants.....
John Little
08-Jul-10, 22:57
Anfield - I made no claims about the nature of history. Especially I make no claims that we can predict what will happen from studying the past.
We cannot.
I merely observe that History is a process whereby we attempt to understand.
Ford was an ultra right wing capitalist of the worst sort and he would say that wouldn't he?
I actually raised an eyebrow about 6 inches when I saw you - of all commentators here- quote him!
As to sovereignty - it has to be vested somewhere. In the US it is in the constitution.
In some countries it is in a president.
In some countries, heaven forfend, it is in an executive president.
In this country it is in a very small woman with no political power who the Prime minister has to bow down to and show respect to.
And she could dismiss him.
In theory.
Forget the person - she does not matter.
The principle is elegant - and it works
This is 2010 and there should be no place for non elected persons to enjoy the lavish lifestyle which this family, whatever they are called or what bloodline they are from, live in.
True, very true and well said.
We somehow manage to elect people to rip us off in spectacular style and then rub our faces in in it.
And then use our taxes to defend themselves when they end up in court.
:eek:
John Little
08-Jul-10, 23:16
Further to above.
I used to think as you do.
But then I had a good look at elected presidents, politicians etc and did not like what I saw. Why elect an ordinary, venal, corrupt, jargon spouting politico to hold sovereign power. The reason are manifest.
And vesting it in a constitution leaves decisions ultimately in the hands of a supreme court made up of.....
But a monarchy in place for hundreds of years, rooted in tradition, focussed on national sentiment, and denying ordinary politicians ultimate power has a lot going for it.
I do not really mind if it's the sort of monarch who rides a bike to work.
But personally, if we are to be a monarchy, then I want super-deluxe world class style monarchy that we can wave about and be proud of - none of your penny pinching. Why go half measures?
If they are the embodiment of our nation then let's do it properly.
You will not agree I know, but if we are a monarchy then it's the office that is important - not the person.
Duncansby
08-Jul-10, 23:17
So our constitutional monarchy works, in theory, and I imagine it will never be tested. But the question remains is this the most appropriate constitutional arrangement?
Equally if we can't predict the future from the past, which of course we can't - it can only inform us, it follows that we can not predict (with certainty) what effect a constitutional change will have. Society during the civil war was vastly different to modern society and what could be said to be unsuitable for that time would not neccesarily be unsuitable in a more democratic society.
The monarch should ultimately be there to serve us and we should expect value for money. Surely being born into an elevated position should have no place in a modern society.
So our constitutional monarchy works, in theory, and I imagine it will never be tested. But the question remains is this the most appropriate constitutional arrangement?
Equally if we can't predict the future from the past, which of course we can't - it can only inform us, it follows that we can not predict (with certainty) what effect a constitutional change will have. Society during the civil war was vastly different to modern society and what could be said to be unsuitable for that time would not neccesarily be unsuitable in a more democratic society.
The monarch should ultimately be there to serve us and we should expect value for money. Surely being born into an elevated position should have no place in a modern society.
we can predict the future from the past.
we can also learn from the past if we search out the truth from the lies and propaganda.
the queen of england has a great deal of power. it is not true that she is merelu a figurehead.
You will not agree I know, but if we are a monarchy then it's the office that is important - not the person.
Very good point.
It is not the person.
The principle is elegant - and it works
John, I have to disagree that the principle is elegant and works. You only have to look at some of the exploits of some of the freeloading Windsors to realise that they are just as corrupt as the politicians that you deride in your post below
But then I had a good look at elected presidents, politicians etc and did not like what I saw. Why elect an ordinary, venal, corrupt, jargon spouting politico to hold sovereign power.
You will not agree I know, but if we are a monarchy then it's the office that is important - not the person.
You know, as well as I, that the days of the monarchy are numbered, it is just a case of when
You only have to look at some of the exploits of some of the freeloading Windsors
What about the freeloading Scallies from Liverpool that cost us as much as the Royals do? I would rather have a Windsor than a Scouser on the throne
Duncansby
08-Jul-10, 23:45
we can predict the future from the past.
we can also learn from the past if we search out the truth from the lies and propaganda.
the queen of england has a great deal of power. it is not true that she is merelu a figurehead.
If we could predict the future from the past with certainty we could all make a killing on the stock market. Ok that's slightly flippant but my point is we can only be informed by the past and try and learn from our mistakes. History is very much of it's perticular time and depends upon the politics of those who are writing it. All historians are aware of their own prejudies and the prejudices and motives inherent in their sources.
I guess it depends how you define power. The Queen's political power is primarily honorary, she acts within the constraints of convention and precedent.
If we could predict the future from the past with certainty we could all make a killing on the stock market. Ok that's slightly flippant but my point is we can only be informed by the past and try and learn from our mistakes. History is very much of it's perticular time and depends upon the politics of those who are writing it. All historians are aware of their own prejudies and the prejudices and motives inherent in their sources.
I guess it depends how you define power. The Queen's political power is primarily honorary, she acts within the constraints of convention and precedent.
some people do make a killing on the stock marhet since they know whats going to happen. 911, BP and others
same is true in history. some things are orchestrated.
the queen of england is one of those who do the orchestrating. hence her hidden powers adrk forces speech several years ago
we are taught only what is deemed we are to be taught and what is written by the victors. when people ask questions of thesze claimed history lessons they are deemed troble makers.
the real power lies not in the elected politicians but in the hidden govenments. now only Iran stands out as proper govenment
sibce 1913 at least the wars and policies of the central banking families of which the queen is one have been directed at creating and maintaioning the illegal israel
What about the freeloading Scallies from Liverpool that cost us as much as the Royals do? I would rather have a Windsor than a Scouser on the throne
windsor is not the real name. the "windsors" and hitler are directly related. all hidden from t he general public
piratelassie
09-Jul-10, 00:52
And some say bah humbug!
They have calculated that the revenue from tourism for the country is far more than what it costs to feed, house and clothe them. At least they bring something back to the country, unlike many of the scroungers who collect the dole and then work for cash in hand and don't pay taxes...
Plus they are one of the few things of our national heritage that we are actually allowed to celebrate without being called racists.
A little national pride is what puts the great in Great Britain. Lets not lose this in the cynicism :(
Who are they?
Aaldtimer
09-Jul-10, 03:15
What about the freeloading Scallies from Liverpool that cost us as much as the Royals do? I would rather have a Windsor than a Scouser on the throne
Well, you can rest easy Golach...it's never likely to happen, is it?:confused
windsor is not the real name. the "windsors" and hitler are directly related. all hidden from t he general public
I know about the name change, that is history but I'm not saying you are wrong re hitler and the royals but it is a first for me to see this connection.:confused
Metalattakk
09-Jul-10, 03:40
I know about the name change, that is history but I'm not saying you are wrong re hitler and the royals but it is a first for me to see this connection.:confused
He's propagating an utter falsehood. More than likely, he's been reading daft websites like this one (http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm):
<snip>One of the biggest public relations hoaxes ever perpetrated by the British Crown, is that King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1938, due to his support for the Nazis </snip>Christ, everyone knows he abdicated because of the "Edward & Mrs Simpson" situation.
windsor is not the real name. the "windsors" and hitler are directly related. all hidden from t he general public
What a load of tosh, pegasus! Yes, the British Royal Family adopted the name of Windsor in 1917, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. King George V had the name officially changed when high anti-German sentiment throughout the British Empire reached a peak in 1917, during World War l. There had been persistent rumours that the British Royal Family must be pro-German, because of their dynastic origins and many German relatives. By Royal Proclamation on July 17th 1917, King George V abandoned all titles held under the German Crown, and British Royalty became known as the House and Family of Windsor.
John Little
09-Jul-10, 08:08
So our constitutional monarchy works, in theory, and I imagine it will never be tested. But the question remains is this the most appropriate constitutional arrangement?
Equally if we can't predict the future from the past, which of course we can't - it can only inform us, it follows that we can not predict (with certainty) what effect a constitutional change will have. Society during the civil war was vastly different to modern society and what could be said to be unsuitable for that time would not neccesarily be unsuitable in a more democratic society.
The monarch should ultimately be there to serve us and we should expect value for money. Surely being born into an elevated position should have no place in a modern society.
The old Kingdom of Poland had an elected monarchy - and I seem to recall that some of the ancient Greek Polis states did the same.
A monarch elected for life with no hereditary principle?
It has its points.
Anfield;
"John, I have to disagree that the principle is elegant and works. You only have to look at some of the exploits of some of the freeloading Windsors to realise that they are just as corrupt as the politicians that you deride in your post below'
Take a good look at GW Bush.
I reiterate- it ain't the person that is important. It's the office- the mere fact that exists that is the good thing. I do not expect them to be plaster saints or even anything close to perfect. I don't expect them to be clever or honest.
But they are there.
And because of what they are they hold the ultimate political power in this country to account.
And unless someone can think up something better, I prefer it that way.
Because while they are there there can never be a Caesar.
And Caesars follow every revolution.
Including that of the US where Caesar is the rich.
I reiterate- it ain't the person that is important. It's the office- the mere fact that exists that is the good thing. I do not expect them to be plaster saints or even anything close to perfect. I don't expect them to be clever or honest.
Like you I don't expect them to be clever or honest, I demand it!
It is because people have been brainwashed into accepting that dishonesty and untruthfulness is an acceptable trait for politicians and the "priviledged few" to have, that we find ourselves in the mire that we are now in.
What a load of tosh, pegasus! Yes, the British Royal Family adopted the name of Windsor in 1917, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. King George V had the name officially changed when high anti-German sentiment throughout the British Empire reached a peak in 1917, during World War l. There had been persistent rumours that the British Royal Family must be pro-German, because of their dynastic origins and many German relatives. By Royal Proclamation on July 17th 1917, King George V abandoned all titles held under the German Crown, and British Royalty became known as the House and Family of Windsor.
thats just the official story Sporran and as usual is probably a pack of lies. Elizabeth is in all probability Adolph Hitlers niece. they are certainly very strongly connected. philip to. plenty about this on the web.
forget histroy books, they are just lies and propaganda in the main. truth has been whitewashed iover to protect the priveged families of europe: ROthschild (Bauer) being one of them
do some research yourelf. you to rheghead (to much yellow in the filter?:D)
Metalattakk
09-Jul-10, 16:26
thats just the official story Sporran and as usual is probably a pack of lies. Elizabeth is in all probability Adolph Hitlers niece. they are certainly very strongly connected. philip to. plenty about this on the web.
forget histroy books, they are just lies and propaganda in the main. truth has been whitewashed iover to protect the priveged families of europe: ROthschild (Bauer) being one of them
do some research yourelf. you to rheghead (to much yellow in the filter?:D)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, the runaway train to Insanity has just departed the platform."
Where there is smoke there is FIRE!!
So sayeth me!
Tis food for thought Rheghead....'
Duncansby
09-Jul-10, 18:58
I reiterate- it ain't the person that is important. It's the office- the mere fact that exists that is the good thing. I do not expect them to be plaster saints or even anything close to perfect. I don't expect them to be clever or honest.
Anybody who holds a public office has a responsibility as they represent and serve the country. Whoever occupies that post should have the necessary qualities to do this and I would expect that to include honesty and intellegence. OK some of our politicians have been less than honest but we can get rid of them through the democratic process. The royal family hold a privileged position and we should be able to expect them to serve us well.
Christ, everyone knows he abdicated because of the "Edward & Mrs Simpson" situation.
More devious propaganda and lies. :roll:
Edward (Duke) hinted that he would abdicate rather than be king.
He nevr wanted to be a king, Truth beknown he was forced to abdicate the British Throne in 1938 becuse of his suppot for Hitler and Nazis.
The British Monarchy combined with London bankers helped fund monster Adolf Hitlr (Rothchild) and built up the evil Nazi war machine.
To hide there German ancestry they changed there name to Windsor. [disgust]
Would you change your name to conceal your heritage if you had nothing to hide? Speaks volumes!
The Duke & Duches were personal guests of Hitler in 1937. Google if you want to see potos of this meeting.
John Little
10-Jul-10, 08:05
Like you I don't expect them to be clever or honest, I demand it!
It is because people have been brainwashed into accepting that dishonesty and untruthfulness is an acceptable trait for politicians and the "priviledged few" to have, that we find ourselves in the mire that we are now in.
Then you look for and demand the virtually impossible. Even cursory glance at history shows that dishonesty and untruthfulness is not something we have been brainwashed into accepting - it is a fact of human nature. From Alcibiades in Athens to the triumvirate in the late Roman republic; from the Rump Parliament to Mayor LaGuardia, politics has been characterised by a willingness to get down and dirty. The principle should probably be according to Jeremy Bentham - recognise it and make it work for you by building in such rules as make it pay more to be honest.......
How you do that is another matter
Anybody who holds a public office has a responsibility as they represent and serve the country. Whoever occupies that post should have the necessary qualities to do this and I would expect that to include honesty and intellegence. OK some of our politicians have been less than honest but we can get rid of them through the democratic process. The royal family hold a privileged position and we should be able to expect them to serve us well.
Honesty and intelligence do not necessarily go hand in hand together. It could be argued that you need a high degree of intelligence to recognise that you are actually being dishonest. Our current royal family, foisted upon us by a Whig administration and against the will of many of the British people, has never been renowned for its stature or its intelligence. On the other hand, on the whole I have come to think that they do serve us well.
Consider where your opinion of them actually comes from.
The media. How else would you know?
In Japan and in other places they have a monarchy. I have no doubt at all that some of them are just as unintelligent and as venal as ours - yet their media recognise that they are the embodiment of the state and they do not pry into their private lives, recognising that to do so is to expose our country and its sovereign to ridicule and shame. It is thought unpatriotic to do so in other countries.
Here we do it the other way. We have a monarchy which is the embodiment of our national sovereignty - like it or not.
Instead of according it due respect and using it as an instrument to elevate our standing among nations we proceed to denigrate it and kick the hell out of it at every opportunity - largely in the interests of selling newspapers.
I cannot see the point of buying a Porsche and scratching it deliberately myself....
You both seem to expect extraordinary things of very ordinary people.
I repeat - it is not the person that counts here.
It is what they represent - rather like saluting a uniform not the person in it.
Duncansby
10-Jul-10, 10:55
I haven't actually disclosed my opinion of the individual members of the royal family and yes they are people just like every one else. But can you describe them as ordinary? They've been born into a priviledged position in our society and sure they didn't ask for that - but it persists. I can not agree that the person doesn't count, of course the person matters as they embody the post. We expect anyone who wears a uniform to have the qualities necessary to exercise those duties honarably and to abide by an agreed code of conduct. I don't think the royal family should be any different. If they are not 'earning their keep' then we should be able to hold them to account. What they do behind closed doors and in their private lives is entirely their business, as long as its within the law of course.
Metalattakk
10-Jul-10, 12:44
More devious propaganda and lies. :roll:
Edward (Duke) hinted that he would abdicate rather than be king.
He nevr wanted to be a king, Truth beknown he was forced to abdicate the British Throne in 1938 becuse of his suppot for Hitler and Nazis.
The British Monarchy combined with London bankers helped fund monster Adolf Hitlr (Rothchild) and built up the evil Nazi war machine.
To hide there German ancestry they changed there name to Windsor. [disgust]
Would you change your name to conceal your heritage if you had nothing to hide? Speaks volumes!
Conspiracy-theory clap-trap.
The very fact you had to embolden certain phrases and words to try to add gravitas to your statements tells me you're trying too hard - a classic trait of the amateur conspiracy theorist.
Do try stepping into the real world now and then.
Duncansby
10-Jul-10, 13:22
some people do make a killing on the stock marhet since they know whats going to happen. 911, BP and others
How do they know do they have a time machine and if so where can I get one? You can't know with certainty what is going to happen you can only make an informed guess.
we are taught only what is deemed we are to be taught and what is written by the victors. when people ask questions of thesze claimed history lessons they are deemed troble makers.
What kind of school did you go to? At Wick we were encouraged to think for our selves and ask questions.
What kind of school did you go to? At Wick we were encouraged to think for our selves and ask questions.[/QUOTE]
My guess is homeschooled. I know homeschooled kids that have had a wonderful, balanced education, taught theories from different sides and they have learned to challenge theories in an informed manner, but others, their parents seem to use it as a way of brainwashing conspiracy theories into their childrens' heads. And the poor children have no opposing side to compare these views to. I may of course be completely wrong (and I apologise if I am) but the tone of several posts screams 'homeschooled' or 'homeschooler' ;)
Conspiracy-theory clap-trap.
Mmm I dont think so ....
"The Windsors are among those (brotherhood cartel) which controls every aspect of the global economic network,
the banks, insurance companies, raw materials, transportation, factories, finished products, major retail groups (and by market rigging all the rest), the stock and material markets, governments, media, intelligence agencies and so on."
Have a look at the fantastic web of interloking directorships and youll understnd where I am coming from.
http://www.truthcontrol.com/node/club-isles
John, I have to disagree that the principle is elegant and works. You only have to look at some of the exploits of some of the freeloading Windsors to realise that they are just as corrupt as the politicians that you deride in your post below
You know, as well as I, that the days of the monarchy are numbered, it is just a case of when
Dude, you are always banging on about this but it is your imagination. There is absolutely no traction in any movement towards the abolition of the Monarchy.
My opinion for what its worth, if it isn’t broke......:D
Oh, can I remind that Adolf Hitler wasn't German so the Royal links to German families is a bit of a foot shot :lol:
Oh, can I remind that Adolf Hitler wasn't German so the Royal links to German families is a bit of a foot shot :lol:
Bazinga...!
How do they know do they have a time machine and if so where can I get one? You can't know with certainty what is going to happen you can only make an informed guess.
.
The markets are mani[pulated such that they do not read the future, they write it.
Wars to are orchestrated and result in cert\ain families, including the germanic "windsor" bunch who are related and associated to the nazis, becoming imensely rich
Conspiracy-theory clap-trap.
The very fact you had to embolden certain phrases and words to try to add gravitas to your statements tells me you're trying too hard - a classic trait of the amateur conspiracy theorist.
Do try stepping into the real world now and then.
you have added nothing to the debate as usual mercuryhead. all you consist of is spouting "conspiracy theorist" and personel insults.
you clearly know nothing
Where there is smoke there is FIRE!! .'
Unless your in Deep Purple.
Metalattakk
10-Jul-10, 16:48
you have added nothing to the debate as usual mercuryhead. all you consist of is spouting "conspiracy theorist" and personel insults.
you clearly know nothing
I actually said "amateur conspiracy theorist". You're obviously not very good at it.
Its nothing less than a reflection on how far removed we are from the people who fought for queen and country. We're too smart now to be hoodwinked by the wizardry of politics and the politician has to be more on his toes today, than ever before. That still doesnt stop them mesmerising the deluded.
The queen however is in a league of her own. She has carried out her duties as a representative of our country and it's associates for over 50 years now with an unblemished record for courtesy and respect. Politicians on the opther hand are lucky to be popular for half an hour.
I do hope the deluded are not hoodwinked by the mesmerised and consider theres a better way than our present system to present our country to the world.
Duncansby
10-Jul-10, 17:07
The markets are mani[pulated such that they do not read the future, they write it.
Wars to are orchestrated and result in cert\ain families, including the germanic "windsor" bunch who are related and associated to the nazis, becoming imensely rich
In which case there would be no such thing as a stock market crash, I'd presume?!
Are you suggesting the royal family became rich from the war? How? Did the now Queen make some extra money when she joined the Auxillary Territorial Services?
John Little
10-Jul-10, 17:25
I haven't actually disclosed my opinion of the individual members of the royal family and yes they are people just like every one else. But can you describe them as ordinary? They've been born into a priviledged position in our society and sure they didn't ask for that - but it persists. I can not agree that the person doesn't count, of course the person matters as they embody the post. We expect anyone who wears a uniform to have the qualities necessary to exercise those duties honarably and to abide by an agreed code of conduct. I don't think the royal family should be any different. If they are not 'earning their keep' then we should be able to hold them to account. What they do behind closed doors and in their private lives is entirely their business, as long as its within the law of course.
I do not disagree with that. Conduct should be as befits the job - in all matters to do with the job. If they are not doing it then they break the 'contract' that exists between them and us.
I think the present incumbent actually does rather a good job.
But in matters that are private they should be left alone.
The girlfriends, lovers, sexual preferences, pastimes - and yes even private investments are nowt to do with anyone else.
The hereditary principle.
Well it's as old as the race is it not?
I have no particular ruth for it. If it were me I would resign for I would not have that job for anything.
But again there is the great advantage that no Caesar figure can ever bid for the supreme sovereign position because they are disqualified by blood. I do see that as a constitutional safeguard and I am glad it is there.
Frankly, if there is a better system operating in the world I'd be glad if you'd point me at it.....
In which case there would be no such thing as a stock market crash, I'd presume?!
Are you suggesting the royal family became rich from the war? How? Did the now Queen make some extra money when she joined the Auxillary Territorial Services?
The answer to youre 1st question is that yes there are crashes but they are orchestrated crashes. there is no such thing as a credit crunch, that is a name dreamt up to misled the people. my sources tell me that money is created as a debt out of thin air by certain families rothschi9ld (bauer) being one. these families control the amount of these bits of paper entering into the economy. they can infalte or deflate at will. elizabeth and philip are of these families.
youre 2nd question is related to the first according to my sources. these families, elixzabeth saxe-coburg-gotha included, hide there real wealth. i am told for instance that the rich list of bill gates, mattel and so on are a smoke screen. the wealth of such people is peanits coimpared to the bank families of rothschiold and co. In answer to youre question then,m as I understand it, is that the finances of people like philip and elizabeth Saze-Coburg-gotha are well and truely hidden from us. Even the tax pauing was a scam to blind us as to what is going on.
The queen however is in a league of her own. She has carried out her duties as a representative of our country and it's associates for over 50 years now with an unblemished record for courtesy and respect.
I wish the same could be said for that Husband of hers, what a priviliged life he has had!!!
[disgust][disgust]
The answer to youre 1st question is that yes there are crashes but they are orchestrated crashes. there is no such thing as a credit crunch, that is a name dreamt up to misled the people. my sources tell me that money is created as a debt out of thin air by certain families rothschi9ld (bauer) being one. these families control the amount of these bits of paper entering into the economy. they can infalte or deflate at will. elizabeth and philip are of these families.
youre 2nd question is related to the first according to my sources. these families, elixzabeth saxe-coburg-gotha included, hide there real wealth. i am told for instance that the rich list of bill gates, mattel and so on are a smoke screen. the wealth of such people is peanits coimpared to the bank families of rothschiold and co. In answer to youre question then,m as I understand it, is that the finances of people like philip and elizabeth Saze-Coburg-gotha are well and truely hidden from us. Even the tax pauing was a scam to blind us as to what is going on.
in addition DUncansby i have been instructed that the bank of england, coutts, the federal reserve, the bundesbank and so on are ALL privately ownde by these families.
Look at how Robert Maxwell ~(an eastern europe jew) manipulated his financial affairs to such an extent that a whole army of accountanmts could not unravel it.
I wish the same could be said for that Husband of hers, what a privileged life he has had!!!
[disgust][disgust]
So serving in the Royal Navy in time of war is a privileged life is it? I don't think so.
I believe it to be a privilege to serve in the Royal Navy, but in WW2 I think not
Duncansby
10-Jul-10, 17:37
The answer to youre 1st question is that yes there are crashes but they are orchestrated crashes. there is no such thing as a credit crunch, that is a name dreamt up to misled the people. my sources tell me that money is created as a debt out of thin air by certain families rothschi9ld (bauer) being one. these families control the amount of these bits of paper entering into the economy. they can infalte or deflate at will. elizabeth and philip are of these families.
youre 2nd question is related to the first according to my sources. these families, elixzabeth saxe-coburg-gotha included, hide there real wealth. i am told for instance that the rich list of bill gates, mattel and so on are a smoke screen. the wealth of such people is peanits coimpared to the bank families of rothschiold and co. In answer to youre question then,m as I understand it, is that the finances of people like philip and elizabeth Saze-Coburg-gotha are well and truely hidden from us. Even the tax pauing was a scam to blind us as to what is going on.
Who are these mystery sources you speak off, can only you hear them?
I wish the same could be said for that Husband of hers, what a priviliged life he has had!!!
[disgust][disgust]
how true.
philip is connected to the nazi party and once said, "in the event that im reincarnated, i would like to return as a deadly virus in order to contribute something to solve over population."
he could have reduced the population by one, but notice that he hasnt:lol:
how true.
philip is connected to the nazi party and once said, "in the event that im reincarnated, i would like to return as a deadly virus in order to contribute something to solve over population."
he could have reduced the population by one, but notice that he hasnt:lol:
I would suggest you read the Org rules
"Trolling"
This describes various practices including, starting a thread with a view to raising the tempers of others, bringing back to the top old threads that have died out naturally with a pointless quip, needling other members into a pointless argument. Accusations of trolling will be based on our own view of posts and the initial reaction by our members.
The Infraction points will vary from 1 point for minor trolling to 5 points for repeated trolling, duration of the points will vary but will generally 3 months.
Who are these mystery sources you speak off, can only you hear them?
they are researchers in this feild and i "hear" them cos i comunicate with them.
This is what i am encouarging you to do - research for yourself and draw youre own conclusions.
im not giving references this time cos the non-contributors like mercureybrain will only attack the reference and me, without spoutinbg anything usefull. so i dont bother with that lark any more
So serving in the Royal Navy in time of war is a privileged life is it? I don't think so.
I believe it to be a privilege to serve in the Royal Navy, but in WW2 I think not
My Father was "privileged" to fight in WW2 but was not lucky enough to marry the future Queen of England, he would have loved that job instead of being in the building trade. Riding round on horse carriages, free trips abroad, not having to clock on and off...Yes, Phil the Greek was privileged indeed!!
[disgust][disgust]
I would suggest you read the Org rules
"Trolling"
This describes various practices including, starting a thread with a view to raising the tempers of others, bringing back to the top old threads that have died out naturally with a pointless quip, needling other members into a pointless argument. Accusations of trolling will be based on our own view of posts and the initial reaction by our members.
The Infraction points will vary from 1 point for minor trolling to 5 points for repeated trolling, duration of the points will vary but will generally 3 months.
i am not the OP
Duncansby
10-Jul-10, 17:52
they are researchers in this feild and i "hear" them cos i comunicate with them.
This is what i am encouarging you to do - research for yourself and draw youre own conclusions.
im not giving references this time cos the non-contributors like mercureybrain will only attack the reference and me, without spoutinbg anything usefull. so i dont bother with that lark any more
Do you need a special tin foil helmet to 'hear' them?
Riding round on horse carriages, free trips abroad, not having to clock on and off...Yes, Phil the Greek was privileged indeed!!
[disgust][disgust]
So priviledged the co-founder Phil the Greek of WWF took the time to shoot a beautiful tiger. I can supply the link of him standing over the tiger should anyone want to see this!
"Lets get one thing straight here. The World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) was not created to save endangered species. Its record on that front is quite appalling as a suppressed report by the Oxford professor John Phillipson revealed in 1989.42 A few months before Philip launched the WWF, he was with the Queen on a royal tour of India. This included a tiger shoot in which a tiger was lured into range by tethered goats to be shot dead by Philip the ‘conservationist’43
This later caused worldwide outrage when the story and a photograph of Philip standing over the tiger found its way into the newspapers. On the same tour, this time in Kathmandu, Philip was in a shooting party with Alec Douglas Hume (Lord Home), the Conservative Prime Minister, Bilderberg Group chairman and bloodline of the Scottish Brotherhood families.
Ian MacPhail, the WWF’s first international appeals director, told a British television crew how a mother elephant and her calf came into range. Philip shot the mother and her calf ran off in terror. MacPhail said he helped to cover up the incident because the WWF was about to be launched and he believed the Fund would benefit wildlife conservation. He later thought differently:
“...with a heavy heart I have to report that I was wrong. The rhino, the elephant and the panda missed the boat, and the new Noah’s Ark sailed on without them.”44
It has always mystified the public to see the contradiction between Philip, the founder and driving force behind the WWF, and Philip the killer of animals and birds for the sheer enjoyment of it. The same with WWF ‘conservationist’ Prince Charles
riding with the hounds to tear a fox to pieces. But there is no contradiction, that’s the point. Philip, like Bernard, doesn’t give a stuff about animal welfare. The WWF was created for very different reasons. It is a vehicle for controlling wildlife parks in Africa and elsewhere in which terrorist groups and mercenaries can gather, train, and cross borders to bring genocide to places like Rwanda and Burundi.
The WWF coordinates and funds the systematic slaughter of people and animals and has made a fortune from the illegal trade in ivory it was supposed to be trying to stop. Much of this is being paid for by donations from the public who think they are supporting wildlife and collected by fund-raisers in the towns and cities who believe the same. The best contribution you can make to the protection of wildlife is to stop funding the WWF in my view." [disgust]
Metalattakk
10-Jul-10, 19:08
No wonder you didn't post a direct link to your warblings - it was lifted directly from David Icke's "The Biggest Secret". :roll:
Which of course explains much.
Do you need a special tin foil helmet to 'hear' them?
no, just an open mind and a bit of humility.
no, just an open mind and a bit of humility.
And a sense of irony ;)
So priviledged the co-founder Phil the Greek of WWF took the time to shoot a beautiful tiger. I can supply the link of him standing over the tiger should anyone want to see this!
"Lets get one thing straight here. The World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) was not created to save endangered species. Its record on that front is quite appalling as a suppressed report by the Oxford professor John Phillipson revealed in 1989.42 A few months before Philip launched the WWF, he was with the Queen on a royal tour of India. This included a tiger shoot in which a tiger was lured into range by tethered goats to be shot dead by Philip the ‘conservationist’43
This later caused worldwide outrage when the story and a photograph of Philip standing over the tiger found its way into the newspapers. On the same tour, this time in Kathmandu, Philip was in a shooting party with Alec Douglas Hume (Lord Home), the Conservative Prime Minister, Bilderberg Group chairman and bloodline of the Scottish Brotherhood families.
Ian MacPhail, the WWF’s first international appeals director, told a British television crew how a mother elephant and her calf came into range. Philip shot the mother and her calf ran off in terror. MacPhail said he helped to cover up the incident because the WWF was about to be launched and he believed the Fund would benefit wildlife conservation. He later thought differently:
“...with a heavy heart I have to report that I was wrong. The rhino, the elephant and the panda missed the boat, and the new Noah’s Ark sailed on without them.”44
It has always mystified the public to see the contradiction between Philip, the founder and driving force behind the WWF, and Philip the killer of animals and birds for the sheer enjoyment of it. The same with WWF ‘conservationist’ Prince Charles
riding with the hounds to tear a fox to pieces. But there is no contradiction, that’s the point. Philip, like Bernard, doesn’t give a stuff about animal welfare. The WWF was created for very different reasons. It is a vehicle for controlling wildlife parks in Africa and elsewhere in which terrorist groups and mercenaries can gather, train, and cross borders to bring genocide to places like Rwanda and Burundi.
The WWF coordinates and funds the systematic slaughter of people and animals and has made a fortune from the illegal trade in ivory it was supposed to be trying to stop. Much of this is being paid for by donations from the public who think they are supporting wildlife and collected by fund-raisers in the towns and cities who believe the same. The best contribution you can make to the protection of wildlife is to stop funding the WWF in my view." [disgust]
Hoist on your own petard pegasus Eh!!!, as you said earlier, you cannot believe history books, they are all lies d amn lies [lol]
David Banks
10-Jul-10, 21:19
and may I say, the very widespread use of this title.
What say you?
Getting back to the original topic - I would imagine that someone who has sufficient influence to obtain an audience at the UN, could also discreetly let it be known that she would prefer to be referred to as the Queen of (say) Britain or the United Kingdom.
The effect on monarchists from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland who now live abroad would be noticable in my opinion.
Apparently, she is quite happy that everything "over there" is being referred to as "England" - it being the most populous, powerful and important part.
Getting back to the original topic - I would imagine that someone who has sufficient influence to obtain an audience at the UN, could also discreetly let it be known that she would prefer to be referred to as the Queen of (say) Britain or the United Kingdom.
The effect on monarchists from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland who now live abroad would be noticable in my opinion.
Apparently, she is quite happy that everything "over there" is being referred to as "England" - it being the most populous, powerful and important part.
Just who the hell do you think you are? If you think you can bring relevance to this thread just because you started it, you have a lot to learn about the org.
One simple mention of the Queen and we've had secret world banking families, Adolf Hitler, WWF and David (the prime looney) Icke [lol]
I'm loving this, I'm there. I want a part of it.
Which family own the federal reserve?
And who are the Brotherhood families of Scotland?
Being a prospective member of the illuminate should allow me to marry into one of these families? ...right?
I'm loving this, I'm there. I want a part of it.
Which family own the federal reserve?
And who are the Brotherhood families of Scotland?
Being a prospective member of the illuminate should allow me to marry into one of these families? ...right?
the federal reserve act was pushed thro in the US on 23rd dec 1913 by Paul Warburg.
the federal reserve is a private bank (banks) and is owned by about 13 Jewish families inclufong the rothschilds (bauers) and Warburgs
David Banks
11-Jul-10, 15:55
Just who the hell do you think you are? If you think you can bring relevance to this thread just because you started it, you have a lot to learn about the org.
One simple mention of the Queen and we've had secret world banking families, Adolf Hitler, WWF and David (the prime looney) Icke [lol]
Is this how you "speak softly" Ducati ? - I would not like to hear a proper rant from you.
I have found the meanderings and tangents most interesting and informing, so I am not trying to stop the ORGanic growth of the string.
I was merely wondering if I was the only person overseas who finds it grating every time I hear the "Queen of England" mentioned.
Maybe it is just a put-down for overseas Scots, and a reminder that the Union was in fact a takeover, not a merger.
I was merely wondering if I was the only person overseas who finds it grating every time I hear the "Queen of England" mentioned.
Maybe it is just a put-down for overseas Scots, and a reminder that the Union was in fact a takeover, not a merger.
It doesnt bother me David. If it did I would want to know why it did.
I was merely wondering if I was the only person overseas who finds it grating every time I hear the "Queen of England" mentioned.
Maybe it is just a put-down for overseas Scots, and a reminder that the Union was in fact a takeover, not a merger.
Sorry but I just can't see where you are coming from there. You are seeing a putdown when probably none was intended.
Same as the Nelson signal 'England expects...', anyone looking at the HMS Victory manifest will see a very large Scottish contingent in the crew. Was he putting down his own crew or didn't want to encourage them? No of course not.
John Little
11-Jul-10, 16:32
Is this how you "speak softly" Ducati ? - I would not like to hear a proper rant from you.
I have found the meanderings and tangents most interesting and informing, so I am not trying to stop the ORGanic growth of the string.
I was merely wondering if I was the only person overseas who finds it grating every time I hear the "Queen of England" mentioned.
Maybe it is just a put-down for overseas Scots, and a reminder that the Union was in fact a takeover, not a merger.
It was not a takeover except in a financial sense.
What happened was that the last Stuart monarch wanted to consolidate her hold on her other kingdom. Anne was a Stuart, whatever else.
What was going on was a monarchical consolidation.
A federal union would have been a better solution but that is not what she was about.
Duncansby
11-Jul-10, 17:03
I was merely wondering if I was the only person overseas who finds it grating every time I hear the "Queen of England" mentioned.
Maybe it is just a put-down for overseas Scots, and a reminder that the Union was in fact a takeover, not a merger.
I don't think it's meant as a put down - probably just stems from ignorance. I spent a summer working in the states and was amazed at the amount of people who, after having introduced myself as a Scot, commented on my good english. It got to the point where I'd just say thank you and inform them that I started learning when I arrived 3 weeks previously. And not once did anyone click that I was taking the Michael.
I
I was merely wondering if I was the only person overseas who finds it grating every time I hear the "Queen of England" mentioned.
Maybe it is just a put-down for overseas Scots, and a reminder that the Union was in fact a takeover, not a merger.
I can really see "Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt Britannica Regina, Fidei Defensor" going down better, I must agree.
It's not a put down, just a dumbing down for the thicko's. Grating it may be but I don't think it is an anti Scottish statement.
Crackeday
11-Jul-10, 20:27
in addition DUncansby i have been instructed that the bank of england, coutts, the federal reserve, the bundesbank and so on are ALL privately ownde by these families.
Look at how Robert Maxwell ~(an eastern europe jew) manipulated his financial affairs to such an extent that a whole army of accountanmts could not unravel it.
You really do have a thing about the jewish race(bordering on racism)? It wasnt so long ago yourself and fred blamed them for ALL the trouble in the Middle east, thats not a very tolerant or open minded stance.
Back to the original point, I think its more to do with other countries being blinkered and not knowing one end of an Atlas from another. Many countries abroad always say "England" when in fact they mean great Britain or The UK.
You really do have a thing about the jewish race(bordering on racism)? It wasnt so long ago yourself and fred blamed them for ALL the trouble in the Middle east, thats not a very tolerant or open minded stance.
Back to the original point, I think its more to do with other countries being blinkered and not knowing one end of an Atlas from another. Many countries abroad always say "England" when in fact they mean great Britain or The UK.
Perhaps you should consider your words more carefully. Don't start that.....stuff......about Racism again and please leave Fred out of it. This is not the first time for both! No need for it on here!
Queen of England hmmm - i think just a dumbing down but i would rather have a woman who beleives it is her solemn duty to give her life to the the service of the country as a head of state - than President tony Blair or President Boris JOhnson - OMG - imagine :eek:
Crackeday
12-Jul-10, 08:19
Perhaps you should consider your words more carefully. Don't start that.....stuff......about Racism again and please leave Fred out of it. This is not the first time for both! No need for it on here!
Theres also no need for people to "pick" on a race and blame them for all the worlds problems.................
Perhaps you should consider your words more carefully. Don't start that.....stuff......about Racism again and please leave Fred out of it. This is not the first time for both! No need for it on here!
Are you now policing the Org sandy? Why should Crackeday consider his words more carefully? Pegasus has brought the anti jewish feelings into this thread earlier. And also why leave fred out of the equation? He is well known here for his racist views.
No G., but here we go again...Blame racism and start on the Fred thing again, because someone said what could be attributed to the Scots, English....etc., etc. In my opinion to castigate someone/ something is hardly Racism....It seems it is the present 'Buzzzzzzzzzzzz' word.
Look at previous posts.....same thing. Crackday throws that word around and then brings up Fred!..Fred is gone, give him a break. If you think that this is the way the thread should go, best of luck....slag Fred who cannot defend himself.....
And the history books may be full of lies, but that is what we have!
These discussions are good as we all learn from them, and we all end up with an opinion.....and Pegs is not a dummy...
Methinks we use this Racist card when all else fails, and haven't got any goods to back up a specific point of view.
And again G...I read this stuff but if I disagree I say so, as you do...And may the guy upstairs bless you. Am afraid to use 'God' as someone may have a gripe with that!
"Without prejudice'.
Tubthumper
12-Jul-10, 10:02
they are researchers in this feild and i "hear" them cos i comunicate with them. This is what i am encouarging you to do - research for yourself and draw youre own conclusions. im not giving references this time cos the non-contributors like mercureybrain will only attack the reference and me, without spoutinbg anything usefull. so i dont bother with that lark any more
Pegasus, your spelling and punctuation have gone all to pot again. Have you been at the drams?
Now we KNOW you can do it properly, you do it in other threads, but I wonder if there is a problem with you slavering into your keyboard when you get onto a 'pet' subject.
Which brings me neatly onto the introduction of terms like Saxe-Coburg, Rothschild/ Bauer, Maxwell, Nazi, Conspiracy, Jewish, and so on into this discussion.
This all seems very familiar, even if the spelling & punctuation are ropey. I wondered how long it would take.
Be careful now, you know what happens to Illuminate conspiracy geeks.
id certain words keep coming up itr is probably cos the web is bringing out info which many people myself included did not know.
Fred cannot currently defend himself but i notice in my short time here hat when Fred is allowed to contibute he is more than capable of defending himself agianst those of you who shout conspiracy theiorist and racism when you have lost the argumenty. When fred has served his suspension time i expect he will answer for himslef. picking on him just shows how inadequate several of you are.
i am learning all the time. i was uable to see why the banks needed loads of taxpayers money so i dug around aboit. it did not take to much effort to find some answerrs that made sense. forget 'credit crubnch' nonsensde.
i think i mentioned something about money on this topic. so have a read of this:
Banks warn of 'blow to recovery'
http://estb.msn.com/i/16/A67591FCAF5528EB53CFEC6CE0CCC2.jpg
British Bankers' Association is due to meet George Osborne to express fears over mounting funding pressure on the industry
UK banks will warn a fragile recovery faces a £1 trillion blow from new regulations and the withdrawal of emergency support to the sector, it has been reported.
The country's biggest banks and the British Bankers' Association (BBA) are due to meet Chancellor George Osborne to express fears over mounting funding pressure on the industry, the Observer newspaper reported.
Banks are concerned about the removal of around £400 billion in support from Bank of England schemes which have helped banks steer through the financial crisis.
Looming international reforms from Basle regulators demanding banks bolster capital reserves could also mean they are forced to hold an extra £600 billion on their balance sheets.
The banks have based their estimates on research prepared by financial services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is said to show that two percentage points could be sliced off UK growth as a result of reforms - tipping the UK back into recession.
Banks have also lobbied Business Secretary Vince Cable - who is trying to push lenders into giving more support for small businesses - with their concerns, the newspaper said.
A BBA spokeswoman said: "There is clearly a lot to be considered in the forthcoming months about the shape and size of reform."
The worries over money being drained out of the system come as the coalition Government also prepares to bring in a levy on the bank balance sheets which is expected to raise £2 billion a year from next January.
The Bank of England's latest Financial Stability Review has meanwhile highlighted that banks will have to refinance or replace up to £800 billion in funding by the end of 2012. This risk - along with demands for higher capital limits - could push up costs for businesses if banks hike interest rates in response.
The sector will be in the spotlight on Tuesday when the industry gathers for the BBA's annual conference in London. Speakers include Stephen Hester, chief executive of part-nationalised Royal Bank of Scotland.
it is from msn.com
if you want to start seeing the real picture then you got to start thinking for youreselves and opening youre eyes.
seems like to many on this forum like to make no contributiopn to serious issues.
i may no be the best writer in the world but i try to get my point across in a positivbe way.
one of the queens subjectys is kate middletons uncle - Gary Goldsmith (note the surname). he lives in spain and is welel into drug dealing and vice. i did a serch on him but i cant put up most of the links cos of his bad language. he is the brother of kates mother carole
i wonder if wills and kate will have uncle Gary at the wedding?
a "royal" bunch better than elected bunch? i dont know but find it amusing thats all. theyre all just people like you and me
George Brims
13-Jul-10, 20:48
one of the queens subjectys is kate middletons uncle - Gary Goldsmith (note the surname).
Why should we note the surname? Perfectly respectable ENGLISH name (for apparently quite a disreputable bloke). Are you perhaps under the mistaken impression that name is exclusive to those of Hebrew descent, whom you seem to dislike so. You should come over here and hold Mel Gibson's hand while he greets about how hard done to he is. He is on record as blaming the Jews for all the ills of the world.
George Brims
13-Jul-10, 20:53
Interesting thing I noted during the WC final on Sunday. We had two English blokes* doing the commentary here in the US, and one of them noted how they had to be careful to talk about "The Netherlands" rather than "Holland". I understand that is a similar mistake to saying "England" instead of "Britain".
*One of them was Ekoku who played for Nigeria, but he was born in Manchester.
I had a wonderful afternoon today drinking tea with the Queen of Canada here in the capital city of Scotland. She entertained about 5000 of her loyal subjects in the garden of Holyrood Palace. It was absolutely lovely.
Why should we note the surname? Perfectly respectable ENGLISH name (for apparently quite a disreputable bloke). Are you perhaps under the mistaken impression that name is exclusive to those of Hebrew descent, whom you seem to dislike so. You should come over here and hold Mel Gibson's hand while he greets about how hard done to he is. He is on record as blaming the Jews for all the ills of the world.
The name Goldsmith crops up quite a bit with this royal bun ch and if i need to hold anyones hand it must be youres for someoneo has blind as youreself is in danger of being injured.
do you understand the financial system and who runs it? econoamics is realy vcery simple but you do need to open youre eye mr brims
Tubthumper
13-Jul-10, 23:58
Oh dear...
The name Goldsmith crops up quite a bit with this royal bun ch and if i need to hold anyones hand it must be youres for someoneo has blind as youreself is in danger of being injured.
do you understand the financial system and who runs it? econoamics is realy vcery simple but you do need to open youre eye mr brims
Well well Sir/Madame Pegs...The (suttelty) is surely astounding...as Tubs sayeth Oh Dear!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.