The Royals

[WhiteHorseRam]

1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

So since WWII - we have Korea, Mau Mau, Cyprus, Falklands, Lebanon, Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and probably loads more smaller troop deployments. In the name of our beloved Queen - tell me how any of that has protected our country and/or my personal freedom?

I think you have to separate in your mind what our Govt has asked our armed forces to do, and what they get out of bed in the morning to do/ the intentions of the men and women who form the armed forces.

The Queen is the head of state of the country, who they swear allegiance to, but they then follow the Govt's orders.

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, jono said:

Crikey Stive .. I think everyone recognises that the numerous interventions in the Middle East for whatever reason, range from  hasty, Ill thought out, or wrong depending on where you stand politically. Jaw Jaw is definitely preferable to War War

But the Falklands ? .. Surely an invasion by a foreign power  of a British Territory populated by people who to a man want to be British must classify as protecting your country. And before anyone says The Malvinas is Argentinian .. It is 400 miles from the continental shore. They have less claim to it than we might have to the Faroe islands.  

Former Yugoslavia ? .. That was a UN operation in an international effort to keep peace when genocide was on the agenda.

No one likes war but there are times when Must stand up. ( I accept that there are elements who want to play the big man and use their deadly toys ) but You can't think for one millisecond that once Argentina (ruled at that time by a very unpleasant military junta ) held the Falklands, that a gentlemanly chat would have sorted it all out and they'd have gone home ? They sailed on to our turf with guns and seized something by force, against the will of the people. We responded in the only way possible if we were to protect ourselves.

OK - I'll give you the Falklands as there were indeed British citizens involved, but I was thinking more of home soil.

And I wasn't suggesting that some of those operations weren't necessary from a humanitarian standpoint, I'm just trying to get my head round this strange notion of "doing it for the Queen" when in fact it's very rarely for the Queen's benefit (if the supposition is true that she commands the armed forces to protect our land)

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, jono said:

Your point about rigidity is well made. My view is that I am a monarchist as long as the Monarchy continues to perform and distinguish itself as it has done in recent times. I would have no compunction about changing sides if that was to change. I have never believed in blind loyalty.

i think the examples both past and present of the continued existence of an elite prove beyond any doubt that an elite will always exist in a human society. We differ politically speaking and this is one where we will probably never agree. PeverseIy I think I actually prefer the old boys club (which in any case is leaky and you can get in through the side door ) to a political elite driven by an ideology that appears benign, has high ideals but it has a pretty bad reputation when you look under the skin. Once the state is more important than the individual things go bad. 

Fair enough, but I think you are attributing much of Britain's stability and success (relative to other countries) to the monarchy.  I don't, I'd say it's managed it despite the monarchy, having first succeeded in wresting power from the royals over the centuries. Therein, lie the differing views of a monarchist and a republican I suppose.

Of course other systems of government can fail too, for numerous reasons.  On the other hand i don't view the Republics of Finland, Iceland and Costa Rica (doesn't even bother with an army) as hotbeds of despotism, elitism and violence. I have enough faith in the British people to think that theirs would work very nicely too. 

[WhiteHorseRam]

6 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

OK - I'll give you the Falklands as there were indeed British citizens involved, but I was thinking more of home soil.

And I wasn't suggesting that some of those operations weren't necessary from a humanitarian standpoint, I'm just trying to get my head round this strange notion of "doing it for the Queen" when in fact it's very rarely for the Queen's benefit (if the supposition is true that she commands the armed forces to protect our land)

I don't thing anyone here has suggested they are 'doing it for the Queen'. Not this side of 1901.

[jono]

9 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

OK - I'll give you the Falklands as there were indeed British citizens involved, but I was thinking more of home soil.

And I wasn't suggesting that some of those operations weren't necessary from a humanitarian standpoint, I'm just trying to get my head round this strange notion of "doing it for the Queen" when in fact it's very rarely for the Queen's benefit (if the supposition is true that she commands the armed forces to protect our land)

moving goal posts. 

[jono]

13 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Fair enough, but I think you are attributing much of Britain's stability and success (relative to other countries) to the monarchy.  I don't, I'd say it's managed it despite the monarchy, having first succeeded in wresting power from the royals over the centuries. Therein, lie the differing views of a monarchist and a republican I suppose.

Of course other systems of government can fail too, for numerous reasons.  On the other hand i don't view the Republics of Finland, Iceland and Costa Rica (doesn't even bother with an army) as hotbeds of despotism, elitism and violence. I have enough faith in the British people to think that theirs would work very nicely too. 

Honestly I am not. I don't think we are much better or much worse than other stable democracies in the west. I simply think the British monarchy, as it is now, works as well as republican models in other states of similar pedigree but it gives us an unusual and occasionally valuable edge because of its quirky, slightly removed from mass politics nature. I don't see any practical gain from changing it at the moment. I completely accept your position that in finite terms a republic is the only way but human nature isn't an excercise in trigonometry.

think we've more or less run the course on this one ?

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, jono said:

think we've more or less run the course on this one ?

Agreed.....coincidentally I've a got some trigonometry to be getting on with. 

[jono]

15 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Agreed.....coincidentally I've a got some trigonometry to be getting on with. 

[Stive Pesley]

On ‎24‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 17:54, WhiteHorseRam said:

I don't thing anyone here has suggested they are 'doing it for the Queen'. Not this side of 1901.

Not true

Private Derby said exactly this

Quote

It's something to be proud of, men and women in the armed forces and emergency services are proud to serve the queen

What really sausages me off is when you walk up St Peters St and you are accosted by Chuggers begging for you to donatge to "help for heroes" type charities.

If these guys are "serving the queen" then why the sausage is she not looking after those who are maimed and disabled in the process? Why is it down tp the rest of us mugs to donate to the cause?

 

[uttoxram75]

3 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Not true

Private Derby said exactly this

What really sausages me off is when you walk up St Peters St and you are accosted by Chuggers begging for you to donatge to "help for heroes" type charities.

If these guys are "serving the queen" then why the sausage is she not looking after those who are maimed and disabled in the process? Why is it down tp the rest of us mugs to donate to the cause?

 

Totally agree with the charity stuff SP.

I pay my taxes so the government can look after people who need looking after. If the government decide that injured soldiers are not important enough to be helped then they should be held to account by bodies like the British legion and retired Generals and politicians who do care.

If the government of the day choose to wage war against some 3rd world Arab country (lets be honest, we're not going to be waging war against other countries anytime soon) then they should be prepared to look after the casualties and their families.

Governments, like corporations and individuals, should take full responsibility for their actions.

[WhiteHorseRam]

On 26/11/2016 at 00:32, uttoxram75 said:

Totally agree with the charity stuff SP.

I pay my taxes so the government can look after people who need looking after. If the government decide that injured soldiers are not important enough to be helped then they should be held to account by bodies like the British legion and retired Generals and politicians who do care.

If the government of the day choose to wage war against some 3rd world Arab country (lets be honest, we're not going to be waging war against other countries anytime soon) then they should be prepared to look after the casualties and their families.

Governments, like corporations and individuals, should take full responsibility for their actions.

To be honest, this is where Help for Heroes started. Wounded soldiers were being dumped on the NHS (almost literally) when they were flown back into the UK, and something needed doing to help them recover, beyond medical care, both mentally and to help them integrate into civilian life.

I agree that any Govt considering military action should think very hard indeed. Violence is essentially chaos and at what ever level you don't know where it will lead. You punch some bloke who is rude to your wife and suddenly his head hits the curb and you are looking at prison .....  you carry out a 'surgical strike' and you plunge a whole country into anarchy with the consequences.

 

[WhiteHorseRam]

On 26/11/2016 at 00:13, StivePesley said:

Not true

Private Derby said exactly this

What really sausages me off is when you walk up St Peters St and you are accosted by Chuggers begging for you to donatge to "help for heroes" type charities.

If these guys are "serving the queen" then why the sausage is she not looking after those who are maimed and disabled in the process? Why is it down tp the rest of us mugs to donate to the cause?

 

I agree about the chuggers. 

To be fair. to the royal family does quite a lot to help these guys - Princes William  and Harry seem to be ever doing something to support Help for Heroes. I think we can give the Queen a day off on charity abseiling as she is 90.

She is head of state and doesn't control the purse strings, that's up to the sitting Govt.

Donating to Help for Heroes does not make you a mug.

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Donating to Help for Heroes does not make you a mug.

True - not mugs for donating, but mugs for not questioning why we should even have to be donating in the first place.

 

[WhiteHorseRam]

3 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

True - not mugs for donating, but mugs for not questioning why we should even have to be donating in the first place.

 

Then that's politics, foreign policy, defence spending etc etc.

We should question every major action a Govt makes, and every really big decision should get a debate in parliament.

 

[DerbyMark]

I've seen England and Englishness rapidly disappearing before my eyes in the last..oh twenty years or more, and getting worse every bloody year..

Do away with the royal family and what you got left? 

God help us!

[Mafiabob]

2 hours ago, DerbyMark said:

I've seen England and Englishness rapidly disappearing before my eyes in the last..oh twenty years or more, and getting worse every bloody year..

Do away with the royal family and what you got left? 

God help us!

No one whose refered to as a subject.

Status...... what epitomises the haves and the have nots.

People tell me in only cost every "subject" £1 per year to keep them in jewels and large houses/palaces.

I would rather spend that £1 instead of getting every homeless person off the street, have a roof over there head, fed, trained and back onto there feet to have a job.

Thats what being "English" should be about. Not some upper class twonks who visit places which smell of fresh paint.

Fook the royals...... hope in my lifetime elitism, establishment and royalty leave our way of life. Everything that's wrong with this country.

Being English is helping people picking them up while they are down. Not the other way around.

 

[True Ram]

2 hours ago, Mafiabob said:

No one whose refered to as a subject.

Status...... what epitomises the haves and the have nots.

People tell me in only cost every "subject" £1 per year to keep them in jewels and large houses/palaces.

I would rather spend that £1 instead of getting every homeless person off the street, have a roof over there head, fed, trained and back onto there feet to have a job.

Thats what being "English" should be about. Not some upper class twonks who visit places which smell of fresh paint.

Fook the royals...... hope in my lifetime elitism, establishment and royalty leave our way of life. Everything that's wrong with this country.

Being English is helping people picking them up while they are down. Not the other way around.

 

A lot of the homeless choose that way of life

stop giving money to so called third world countries EG INDIA to fund there space program

GOD Save the Queen ?

[Mafiabob]

3 hours ago, True Ram said:

A lot of the homeless choose that way of life

stop giving money to so called third world countries EG INDIA to fund there space program

GOD Save the Queen ?

No they don't, absolute poppycock that they do..... quite a lot served "queen and country" 

YEAH GOD SAVE THE QUEEN ??

 

[DerbyMark]

11 hours ago, Mafiabob said:

No one whose refered to as a subject.

Status...... what epitomises the haves and the have nots.

People tell me in only cost every "subject" £1 per year to keep them in jewels and large houses/palaces.

I would rather spend that £1 instead of getting every homeless person off the street, have a roof over there head, fed, trained and back onto there feet to have a job.

Thats what being "English" should be about. Not some upper class twonks who visit places which smell of fresh paint.

Fook the royals...... hope in my lifetime elitism, establishment and royalty leave our way of life. Everything that's wrong with this country.

Being English is helping people picking them up while they are down. Not the other way around.

 

Well that's your opinion mate, it's not mine but you've every right to express it in a democracy.

You see what worries me is that without a royal family democracy would be even further eroded..as it is we have to be very careful what we say these days.

Can't imagine there would be much freedom in a socialist republic, for example.

[Posh Ram]

23 minutes ago, DerbyMark said:

Well that's your opinion mate, it's not mine but you've every right to express it in a democracy.

You see what worries me is that without a royal family democracy would be even further eroded..as it is we have to be very careful what we say these days.

Can't imagine there would be much freedom in a socialist republic, for example.

Wow.