Jump to content

Monarchy debate/discussion


Richey Edwards

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Thane of Cawdor said:

 

The most astonishing aspect of that article is that it was actually published. It makes the magazine itself, the writer of the article and the subject appear ridiculous (as, in reality, they all are), but that couldn't have been the intention.  Petronella knows, presumably because she is Lady Hussey's Jiminy Cricket, that the woman does not have a prejudiced bone in her body.  And, to emphasise this point, she comes up with this conclusive proof. Not only was Lady Hussey prepared to marry some fucker called Marmaduke, she married him despite his having only one leg,*

And now we come to the crux of this tragedy. Susan Hussey has no prejudices at all. She spent much of her life married to a man called Marmaduke, who had one leg.

* Full beatification if she had deigned to marry Douglas Bader . . . or Arthur Askey. 

 

I heard, what I assume is the same Petronella, on Radio 4 the other day actually going with "but she's even got a few black friends."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

All this “she’s a very old woman” chat can get right in the bin!

If she’s too old to recognise racist undertones, she’s too old to be included in this type of function. Get her to f**k. 

It wasn't even undertones - she decided to go out of her way to tell a black woman that she wasn't properly British and never would be, based on her ancestry.

But she's not a racist. To be a racist, you have to lynch a black person with a burning cross in the background, while wearing Klan robes and yelling "I am a massive racist". I hope nobody's calling her a racist, because to do so will just make good honest British people with legitimate concerns regarding immigration feel victimised, and they might be forced to become racists because of their unjust treatment (having their opinions accurately described as racist).

It's all the fault of virtue-signalling lefty liberal woke radical people that I don't like, when you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BFTD said:

It wasn't even undertones - she decided to go out of her way to tell a black woman that she wasn't properly British and never would be, based on her ancestry.

But she's not a racist. To be a racist, you have to lynch a black person with a burning cross in the background, while wearing Klan robes and yelling "I am a massive racist". I hope nobody's calling her a racist, because to do so will just make good honest British people with legitimate concerns regarding immigration feel victimised, and they might be forced to become racists because of their unjust treatment (having their opinions accurately described as racist).

It's all the fault of virtue-signalling lefty liberal woke radical people that I don't like, when you think about it.

Forgot to lash out at the Tofu-eaters, David.

Sloppy posting, to be sure........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

Forgot to lash out at the Tofu-eaters, David.

Sloppy posting, to be sure........................

They have so little testosterone that it's just cruel to hurt their feelings even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Antlion said:

Then what do they believe qualifies them as “hereditary royalty” and “hereditary nobility”?

The hereditary system that's in place.

Do you seriously think they reckon they've got superior, purer blood to the rest of the population?  Apologies if you were joking and I've picked you up wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

The hereditary system that's in place.

Do you seriously think they reckon they've got superior, purer blood to the rest of the population?  Apologies if you were joking and I've picked you up wrong.

A hereditary system is one based on blood and bloodlines. A hereditary system which prizes certain bloodlines as literally nobler than others implies an innate belief that those possessed of those bloodlines - and the upper class positions and hierarchy of titles which come with them - are superior to those of us still referred to in the media as “commoners”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Antlion said:

A hereditary system is one based on blood and bloodlines. A hereditary system which prizes certain bloodlines as literally nobler than others implies an innate belief that those possessed of those bloodlines - and the upper class positions and hierarchy of titles which come with them - are superior to those of us still referred to in the media as “commoners”.

If you can find proof that the royal family consider their bloodlines to be superior and purer then I'll happily eat humble pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

If you can find proof that the royal family consider their bloodlines to be superior and purer then I'll happily eat humble pie.

I base my thoughts on what they believe on the hereditary bloodline system of nobility they subscribe to and embody, which you’ve just ignored. You seem to base the claim “They don't believe that though..” on nothing, on the other hand.

ETA: Unless, that is, you’ve been having cosy tête-à-têtes with the highest tier of the aristocracy which have led you to believe they don’t really believe that hereditary aristocratic bloodlines should perpetuate an upper class.

Edited by Antlion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know what all the fuss is about. 

Clearly, a fine way to put people into a revising chamber of a modern democratic government is to include folk who are senior office-holders in one organisation whose purpose is to maintain and promote belief in the supernatural and the distant descendants of folk who supported a monarch by sending his estate's serfs to fight in wars, or provided the monarch with "personal services" or covered up extra-marital affairs. Or similar. 

And of course, don't forget some of the other means of securing a seat in the Lords... bunging a few million quid to political parties, losing elections, being the pals of defeated or disposed-of former leaders, etc. All of course ideal qualifications for those to be given political power - and with no upper age limit an appointee can exercise that political power for decades... with no democratic means of removal. 

Much better than that boring, new fangled "democracy" nonsense. 

What a country.  If only a UK political party with an intention to abolish the House of Lords had ever managed to gain a majority at Westminster over the last say, 112 years... oh, no, wait a minute... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Chicken Fillets for Michelle Mone.

The blood of tens of thousands of avoidable deaths for Matt Hancock.

A fridge full of Tesco Extra wine for Boris. 

A very dilute lemon squash for Keir. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

Pegs for Wills, surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...