blackydog

Ignoring pillocks but happy to bail out alleged nonces. Do you actually have any good reasons for fawning over royalty?

Oh sorry, you're not human. Forgive me, easy mistake to make.

"I'm still trying to figure out the asymetric feelings of the common folk towards Royalty." You can have my feelings. I think I'm common but then where is the line drawn? I despise them as the head of the horrible perceived class system. I despise them for their greed and arrogance. I disagree with someone being born into a job / role, especially head of state. I don't like hypocrites ( prince Charles - climate ). I don't understand why people fawn over them and stand out in the rain waving a little flag. I despise being referred to as one of their subjects, I am not. If, in the very slim chance I came near to ANY of them, I would treat them exactly as I would treat anyone else. They are just human, like you and me. If they were born into a normal life, I suspect they would be very unremarkable. None of them are majestic. It is a stupid description. Covering someone in jewellery to make them look special is just laughable. I despise them because they are secretive and sly, and get exemptions from the rules we have to follow, to conceal their behaviour.

Two old ladies. Apparently one is majestic. Spot the difference...

👍

Why shouldn't she comment. Not everyone is taken in by this repugnant family. There's enough blind sycophantic support on here. If you need someone to adore, why not choose someone inspirational? Someone who has achieved more than just being born.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/01/duchies-of-lancaster-and-cornwall-snub-tree-campaigners?fbclid=IwAR0Uk8fmWrYhWdGiOf8EQmJA6CVO6ygbWg_RyPzJPrAoU7slLo14h-7oorw He or his representatives should be making a response to this. Grouse shooting should be the next to be banned. Not just from the birds welfare point of view (I appreciate the birds wouldn't have the same (short) privileged lifestyle) but from a environmental viewpoint. The "land management" that goes on, including the unlawful killing of protected species is obscene. Charles is not a fit person to be king.

Have you seen the number of supporters fawning all over then on social media? That's going to take some turning around. Having said that, there are many foreign sounding names so not that easy to judge. Charles will be fully aware (as will Horsey Camilla) that they need to tread carefully. Don't think for one minute the royal family aren't carefully stage managed. The ones that matter anyway. There will be huge resistance to change, because the status quo suits many powerful people. I can understand why they are sycophants. I can't understand why the serfs are. Most of the people she has met for any length of time, will have a vested interest not to say anything negative about her.

There's no need to stress @Anna B I don't think anything will change in Jug eared Charlie's lifetime, never mind his mother.

I'm not looking to be argumentative, but it was a genuine government response I provided that is still there for all to view. I agree that non animal alternatives are in use, but the response strongly suggests (in fact leaves little doubt) bearskin is still being freshly sourced, and used for Queen's Guard's Ceremonial Caps as there is no suitable alternative. Contacting a barracks would simply be their word against the government's, not that I'm likely to do that anyway.

Odd that one. I subscribe to TLACS and they sent me a mail reminder yesterday regarding this petition. The petition identified my signing as a duplicate. I see the government responded in February. I still believe you are incorrect though, but appreciate the use of "bearskin" may be a bit vague and generic. the smaller busby hats worn by the King's Troop are made from faux fur However reading the response in full - (this is an extract) Unfortunately, there is currently no non-animal alternative available that meet the essential criterion for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps. As the artificial fur sadly didn't meet the standards required for a ceremonial cap which is worn throughout the year and in all weathers, the MOD has no plans to take this fake fur fabric forward. Currently we have no plans to end the use of bearskins. Bear pelts that are used for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps are the by-products of these licenced culls

Not so unfortunately. Petition started by The League Against Cruel Sports https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/602285 Petition Replace the real bearskins used for the Queen’s Guard’s caps with faux fur There is no excuse for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to continue to effectively fund the slaughter of bears for ceremonial headgear since an indistinguishable alternative has been produced, which is waterproof, and mimics real bear fur in appearance and performance.

We do need an alternative to hereditary succession. How on earth can you quantify someone's ability to do a very important job, on the basis of who their parents are? I think Charles will be a disaster, and turn more people away from monarchy. It is no accident that the royal family is large. It is to maintain the royal bloodline for themselves, always having the next one to take on the reins. I honestly don't understand why people are supportive of this family. Their collective behaviour, I find repugnant.

Survey by YouGov https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/young-british-people-want-ditch-monarchy-poll-suggests-2021-05-20/ In short (this from Reuters) May 2021 According to the survey by YouGov, 41% of those aged 18 to 24 thought there should now be an elected head of state compared to 31% who wanted a king or queen. You could have easily found this yourself if you'd made the slightest effort, instead of trying and failing miserably to discredit my post.

The Republic movement has a healthy following. This will increase as the older supporters of the monarchy die off. Young people are les likely to care about the monarchy.

Same old argument, tourism. Can't be proven so use that. Even with estimated figures the tourism argument doesn't add up. I'll just point out that France generates more from tourism and it is a republic. Give us another good reason eh? Can you?

I said irrelevant to my thoughts on the existence of the monarchy. It is relevant to the post someone made, about royalty inspiring the nation during the war.

Some pretty dark stuff surrounding our "wonderful" royal family history. WW2 Germany and the royal family

Is it? The original nationality of the UK royal family is irrelevant to me. The concept of hereditary succession is more the issue. But for the record if anyone didn't know. "In 1917, the name of the British royal house was changed from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor because of anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I" All those Union Jacks bought for nowt eh?

I asked my MP to write a letter to the Justice and Home Secretaries about royal corruption, which he did, asking for an enquiry into Prince Charles and the cash for honours. It was rejected by Lord True. I can PM you the full reply if you like. There are many articles on the web relating to the "cash for honours" story. Take your pick, in the pastI have been accused of cherry picking (unjustly) when linking. I am not referring to his choice of wife. Without going back to my reply, I believe I was referring to the royal family inspiring the nation to fight the enemy. Research how Edward VIII inspired the nation to fight the enemy in WW2.

Leave her in peace? I have not made any verbal attacks on the queen herself, but seeing as you mention it, I don't think she has done such a great job bringing up her family. Certainly not what I would expect from a family that are expected to be inspirational. I would even be happy to join the "Jubilee" celebrations, if it coincided with the rightful changes to our ruling hierarchy.

Then I would not be officially fighting for my country. I would make myself available. If they do not accept because I won't pledge allegiance to the monarchy, then so be it. I don't know if it is necessary to have a separate head of state. I am saying if we are to have one, they should be democratically elected, not born into it. History tells us the lands were "taken" by various means. law exemptions. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/revealed-police-barred-from-searching-queens-estates-for-looted-artefacts in short - Police have been barred from searching the Queen’s private estates for stolen or looted artefacts after ministers granted her a personal exemption from a law that protects the world’s cultural property https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32066511 in short - the Freedom of Information Act has been changed to make material relating to Prince Charles absolutely exempt The queen is also able to keep her personal wealth and wills secret and is exempt from inheritance tax. I often wondered why they had a trophy hunter as their patron? What bull have I spoken? Facts, not your usual bluster.

I don't think he is dotty but neither do I think he is that intelligent. Do you think that someone who is exempt from the freedom of information act, and other laws that apply to everyone else, is the right person to be king? Why does he need these exemptions you might ask? Do you think he should be open about the cash for honours accusations? If you don't mind me asking when has he proved that he would be a good king?