• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Buckingham Palace emergency

scaramanga said:
You don't have to bow to royalty any more than you have to respond to someone asking "How do you do?" or thanking someone for a gift or card.

It's just rude not to.
Click to expand...

You're right, no one is going to get beheaded if they don't bow. But it is supposedly 'protocol' and therefore expected. I don't see why it would be rude to choose not to bow. It is possible to greet someone politely and respectfully without needing to bow or curtsey.
 
JerusalemMan said:
So without the monarchy...Boris would be President?
Click to expand...

He'd do less harm in an essentially ceremonial position, to be fair. But yeah, the essential problem with getting rid of the Windsors is that the electorate shouldn't for a moment be trusted with selecting a replacement.

I quite like the idea of selecting the monarch, alongside the upper house of parliament, by lot. Basically jury service, except you serve four years scrutinising legislation on attractive pay. And then perhaps you stay on, if your peers value your contribution, or might be randomly chosen from your cohort to spend a further couple of years signing off bills and pinning medals to worthy citizens.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
You're right, no one is going to get beheaded if they don't bow. But it is supposedly 'protocol' and therefore expected. I don't see why it would be rude to choose not to bow. It is possible to greet someone politely and respectfully without needing to bow or curtsey.
Click to expand...
Customs are part of politeness. It's customary in some countries to bow as a sign of respect, regardless of status.

Assuming you would bow to them, is there really much difference?
 
parklane1 said:
Bloodsuckers everyone of them.
Click to expand...

I literally can't stand them and see no point to them. Tourists would still visit like they do the palaces in Japan.

The Irish system of governance would be my preferred system, that outside the evil EU would finally see a democratic country.
 
So people sr
Danishfurniturelover said:
I non-figuratively can't stand them and see no point to them. Tourists would still visit like they do the palaces in Japan.

The Irish system of governance would be my preferred system, that outside the evil EU would finally see a democratic country.
Click to expand...
I'm on the tourism boat - I think there is a mystic that means tourists, esp American and Chinese, come here ahead of other places.

Annoyingly there is little way of testing that - I'd love to see the outcomes.

But everything they stand for and the principles behind behind it I find abhorrent.

So I put them in the necessary evil category (much like the EU!)
If we had a referendum (it's been a while!) - I'd abstain.

Fun question for you -
You have to choose leaving the EU or abolishing the Royal Family........:p:D:p:D
 
never understood the argument that the Royals bring in tourism. Are they having Tea and Scones with Lizzie in the Palace or something?

Sorry, where exactly are these tourists seeing the Royal Family? Nandos? Pizza Express Woking?

It's flimflam. It's an argument used to dismiss the notion of getting rid of them entirely with a strawman argument.

As @Danishfurniturelover said - people would still visit. Hell, imagine if you could stay the night in Buckingham Palace? would bring in far more in tourism and money as a paid for attraction.

It's flimflam.

I get for a lot of people it's like "i don't mind either way" - but really you should mind, because we have a system where some millionaires born into entitlement keeps on growing, costs us money, provides no servicable benefit and literally ensure laws are passed to maintain their wealth. All whilst people happy clap them for it.
 
Americans generally love the royal family, i was playing in the States when that self serving bitch Diana got married, i could not believe all the flags and banners the yanks put out on their property.
 
monkeybarry said:
So people sr

I'm on the tourism boat - I think there is a mystic that means tourists, esp American and Chinese, come here ahead of other places.

Annoyingly there is little way of testing that - I'd love to see the outcomes.

But everything they stand for and the principles behind behind it I find abhorrent.

So I put them in the necessary evil category (much like the EU!)
If we had a referendum (it's been a while!) - I'd abstain.

Fun question for you -
You have to choose leaving the EU or abolishing the Royal Family........:p:D:p:D
Click to expand...

Send the Royal family to live in Brussels, that would teach them. Both sides ha.
 
Diamond Lights said:
never understood the argument that the Royals bring in tourism. Are they having Tea and Scones with Lizzie in the Palace or something?

Sorry, where exactly are these tourists seeing the Royal Family? Nandos? Pizza Express Woking?

It's flimflam. It's an argument used to dismiss the notion of getting rid of them entirely with a strawman argument.

As @Danishfurniturelover said - people would still visit. Hell, imagine if you could stay the night in Buckingham Palace? would bring in far more in tourism and money as a paid for attraction.

It's flimflam.

I get for a lot of people it's like "i don't mind either way" - but really you should mind, because we have a system where some millionaires born into entitlement keeps on growing, costs us money, provides no servicable benefit and non-figuratively ensure laws are passed to maintain their wealth. All whilst people happy clap them for it.
Click to expand...

From things i have read, mainly in the standard on the way back from London in normal times when that papers is all over the seats. William wants to slim down the monarchy. It is the only just it has of surviving. Go like the Dutch model.

That tw*t over in America and his annoying wife moaning that he was cut off financially by his father. You decided to leave the family, your in your 30s and you got 10m from your mum tax free, what a cnut. Then the wife moaning that the kid did not get a title, well you left. I am not saying she is a gold digger but she aint with no, well you know how the song goes.

Yeah my wife watched it, she is Irish and loves the royal family. A bit of a strange one considering the history and all that.
 
Diamond Lights said:
never understood the argument that the Royals bring in tourism. Are they having Tea and Scones with Lizzie in the Palace or something?

Sorry, where exactly are these tourists seeing the Royal Family? Nandos? Pizza Express Woking?

It's flimflam. It's an argument used to dismiss the notion of getting rid of them entirely with a strawman argument.

As @Danishfurniturelover said - people would still visit. Hell, imagine if you could stay the night in Buckingham Palace? would bring in far more in tourism and money as a paid for attraction.

It's flimflam.

I get for a lot of people it's like "i don't mind either way" - but really you should mind, because we have a system where some millionaires born into entitlement keeps on growing, costs us money, provides no servicable benefit and non-figuratively ensure laws are passed to maintain their wealth. All whilst people happy clap them for it.
Click to expand...
I don't think the financial arguments stacks up particularly well but for the purposes of discussion, let's assume the £2 per annum tax numbers are true and that there's no intangible benefit to a functional class system (there is).

At £2 per person per annum, the royal family are a very long way down the list of brick to give a fudge about.
 
Diamond Lights said:
the fact there is this much outrage over Harry and Meghan but people were happy enough for Andrew to be a sexual predator speaks volumes of the British media and population's views on the royal family.
Click to expand...

It's shocking (shocking, I say) for you to make a fallacious and sensationalist sounding point to try and bolster your argument.
Of course, if you saw an opinion poll or know thousands upon thousands of folks (or a number big enough to justify you using the sweeping term 'people') who were both happy for Andrew to predate and were raging about the Markle, then you may be on to something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back