Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/17/08 12:46 PM, n64kid wrote: And no, I wouldn't have bothered with Buckingham Palace if there currently was no royal family.

Why? It would make absolutely no difference to your experience.

I answered you. Therefore I didn't neglect it.

No, you answered with another question. That's not answering.

Jesus christ, read the first page. I didn't answer with a fucking question. And anyway, I only answered with a question on the third page to prove a point; why change something that works?

£37 million is really not alot, considering that doesn't go to her personally and instead would pay for her diplomacy trips around the commonwealth and the upkeep of the palace (which by the way, is undeniably a tourist attraction).

For fuck sake I didn't say it wasn't a tourist attraction and I even mentioned that you haven't proven they're the main source of tourism.

Just clarifying. And anyway, I never claimed they were the main source of tourism, but what you fail to see is that they have a bigger part than you think. Considering we have a culture that's based on tradition, abolishing it for a false sense of democracy is like removing a major part of our culture for nothing.

No I cling to the belief that they're a waste of time, money and effort as well as democracy. Addionally I already mentioned whatever political actions they take they're born into rather than elected.

I don't see how they're a waste of time. Also, to run a head of government's office, £37 million is incredibly worth it. But yeah, name these political actions please, other than ceremonial work. The political actions you speak of are handled by parliament, which may I remind you, is elected. Show me please where they are effective in the law making progress. Changing the government will not only waste more time, but more money will have to be invested.

That's your opinion. But that still does not prove they're the main source of tourism which is one of the soul things people who support the monarchy desperatly hold to.

And you vigorously claim that they're useless and cling onto this. You claim to want democracy. Actually get some insight into the political system before you start whining about a perfectly ok system.

At 12/17/08 04:50 PM, Brick-top wrote: That's your opinion. But that still does not prove they're the main source of tourism which is one of the soul things people who support the monarchy desperatly hold to.

No-one's saying they're the main / primary source of tourism, just that they pay for themselves with tourism. It's likely people go to London for a myriad of different purposes but if the Royal Family manage to bring in more than 37 million to the state (not very unlikely) then the economic argument is lacking. Whether it's the main/first/primary reason is irrelevant if it would still cost the taxpayer to lose the Royal Family.

At 12/17/08 05:32 PM, Ledgey wrote: why change something that works?

Because having a royal family does not make sense.

Just clarifying. And anyway, I never claimed they were the main source of tourism, but what you fail to see is that they have a bigger part than you think. Considering we have a culture that's based on tradition, abolishing it for a false sense of democracy is like removing a major part of our culture for nothing.

Ahhh Good ol' british culture. Let's see, in our culture we have fish and chips. Kids can't eat those anymore!

We're....quite heavy drinkers. But guess what? They're trying to get rid of that too.

Want some tea aswell? Something the world knows us for. Not if you've got kids you can't!

I don't see how they're a waste of time.

Because what is stopping them from having people to take their political role? If you forget the ceremonies and the honours they've got very little to do.

And you vigorously claim that they're useless and cling onto this. You claim to want democracy.

The word democracy is ultimately derived from a term comprised of demos. meaning the people and kratos which means power. So basically democracy means the power is in the hands of the people. So how will we have power if the next head state is going to appointed that power?

Here are two simple questions, what's stopping us from appointing other people to take the poltical roles of the family and what's stopping us from using their property once it's gone and what's stopping people from going there? Their lands wont suddenly jump out of the ground and fallow the queen where ever she goes.

Look at american for example, in 250 years they've managed to become the most ecomonically and militarily powerful nation in the world. The world has been able to choose it's leaders since 500BC I would to at least choose my leaders to control everything poltical.

The monarchy is old fashioned and out of date.

Maybe the reason I'm defending the indefensible is because I've become more patriotic over the last few years. ENG-ERR-LAND.

If you don't like the Royals you should be locked up in Belmarsh for treason.

At 12/17/08 05:04 PM, Pons-Aelius wrote:

Why? It would make absolutely no difference to your experience.

Actually it would. I would have no interest if I knew it wasn't occupied by a historical family.

At 12/17/08 04:50 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Wow, a trip to london. I'm soooo sure the only reason to go there is buckingham palace.

It basically is. I can just google image if I wanted to see a double decker bus. I mean, Broadway beats London and I'm not going there for a clock. The Monarchy adds that old world touch that I desired to see when I visited your country.

That's your opinion.

It's not my opinion, it's reality. I would not have scheduled that extra day, and may not have cared to go to London at all had it not been for the royal family.

But that still does not prove they're the main source of tourism which is one of the soul things people who support the monarchy desperatly hold to.

I am proof that the monarchy added atleast an extra day and at most the whole duration of my trip. Money for your country. =P

At 12/17/08 08:54 PM, Earfetish wrote: Maybe the reason I'm defending the indefensible is because I've become more patriotic over the last few years. ENG-ERR-LAND.

If you don't like the Royals you should be locked up in Belmarsh for treason.

I saw English nationalism firsthand when I went to London, and it was frightening. Me and some English friends were at a club in London, and I met a few French people there just doing what people at clubs do, dancing and drinking and such. In the bathroom we were pissing and such, and then this English guy says something, which the Frenchman didn't understand. So he said, "I am sorry, I didn't understand", and the English guy said, "Well, that's the problem init?" and got quite close to his face, looking like he was about to punch him in a drunken stupor. The Frenchman didn't understand still, or was confused at the sudden aggression, so I said "Leave it, it's not worth it" to him (my accent didn't sound too American, oddly enough; you'll be surprised how your accent changes when you are away from it for 6 weeks), and someone else said "he's a fuckin' wanker, forget him", and so on. So the guy stumbled out drunkenly and all was well.

Moral of the story: I haven't been convinced yet that England should do away with its kings.

Always wonder why they had a King & Queen they didn't even listen to.

At 12/18/08 12:45 AM, ThaIllest wrote: Always wonder why they had a King & Queen they didn't even listen to.

Learn a little British history, it's actually sort of interesting. Legally, the monarch is still the official and legal authority in all of Britain. If she decreed something fascist, she would very much have the power to. Of course, no one would listen to it, and very likely they would assume she is either crazy or needs to be gotten rid of. But she still holds the supreme authority, even if it is just for show. This is why she summons and dissolves Parliament, appoints the PM, and so on.

It is strange though for Americans, I agree. Just like it's strange that Japan has an emperor who both legally and technically has no power, or the German president who basically has no power except to give suggestions (except in the appointing of the chancellor and dissolving the Bundestag).

We have our Head of State and Chief Executive in the same person, the president; other countries split the roles. France and Russia are odd too because the difference in the power roles of the Head and Chief are sometimes hard to identify: both are somewhat powerful positions. Germany's Weimar Republic, too, had this problem.

At 12/17/08 11:49 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 12/17/08 04:50 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Wow, a trip to london. I'm soooo sure the only reason to go there is buckingham palace.

It basically is. I can just google image if I wanted to see a double decker bus. I mean, Broadway beats London and I'm not going there for a clock. The Monarchy adds that old world touch that I desired to see when I visited your country.

Once again, that's your subjective opinion and desire. It doesn't include anyone else. Unless you show me a study to show otherwise.

That's your opinion.

It's not my opinion, it's reality. I would not have scheduled that extra day, and may not have cared to go to London at all had it not been for the royal family.

Yes, it is your opinion and I doubt you go there just to see the people, you go there to see their property. And like I said, what's stopping you from doing that? What if you could stay there instead of getting a tour?

But that still does not prove they're the main source of tourism which is one of the soul things people who support the monarchy desperatly hold to.

I am proof that the monarchy added atleast an extra day and at most the whole duration of my trip. Money for your country. =P

Yes, one person for an extra day. Now ask the several other million people who visit the UK every year.

At 12/17/08 01:52 PM, CptBonbon wrote: Nor do we have a choice about socialized health care, road tax, rain, two day weekends or how sucky channel 5 is

Deal with it...

Bugger that, you fight the bastards toe and foot. And if scotland gets proper independence in 2010 it will be easier for me to have a say on what a do and dont pay tax on! And the only one in your list we currently dont have a choice in is the healthcare as that gets included in tax, all the rest we can pick and choose. Unless health care gets privatised.

At 12/18/08 08:35 AM, Brick-top wrote:

Yes, it is your opinion

No, it's a decision.

"I decide not to plan for an extra day in London" is not an opinion.

and I doubt you go there just to see the people, you go there to see their property.

It's an intangible that I'd otherwise not be willing to pay for.

And like I said, what's stopping you from doing that? What if you could stay there instead of getting a tour?

Who cares, unless I'm staying in a place currently occupied by the royal family, I'd pay it. Otherwise, it's just a museum and I'm not paying for that shit.

Yes, one person for an extra day. Now ask the several other million people who visit the UK every year.

Let's play statistics with the data we've got.

Several million people visit the UK.
Costs: 36,700,000 pounds (Excuse me if I use commas)
Revenue from tourism: 14,200,000,000

If 1 out of 387 tourists decided to go because of the royal family, your expenses are covered.
This will be an even lower percentage of people if you want to include what I did as a possiblity when I extended my trip.

Now run along and find 386 other people not from the UK who would still travel to the UK despite there being no royal family.

At 12/18/08 06:45 PM, n64kid wrote: If 1 out of 387 tourists decided to go because of the royal family, your expenses are covered.
This will be an even lower percentage of people if you want to include what I did as a possiblity when I extended my trip.

Now run along and find 386 other people not from the UK who would still travel to the UK despite there being no royal family.

Oh dear it appears you're using maths.

I know how many people visit buckingham palace. It's 50000 people visit the palace each year. However nobody decided to actually check and just say it's grand and is wonderful to visit. I was sooo desperatly waiting for someone to actually say it.

Oh well.

Now to be fair I'm quoting you on the costs.
"easily £90 for a hotel and another £100 for food and tourist shit that I picked up."

Okay, 50000 people spending £90 each (possibily children and the elderly are cheaper but let's keep it simple) that's about £4.5 million. £100 multiplied by 50000 is £5 million.

that's £9.5 million (in total) now you can add car rental, presents for the family, theme park rides etc. But this little mathematical caluculation has shown that this is no where NEAR £37 million.

Ba dum tch.

At 12/18/08 07:20 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Oh dear it appears you're using maths.

Tum de dum.... so are you.

I know how many people visit buckingham palace. It's 50000 people visit the palace each year. However nobody decided to actually check and just say it's grand and is wonderful to visit. I was sooo desperatly waiting for someone to actually say it.

50,000 is a gross underestimation. Some people who go for the changing of the guard cannot be counted.

There are 50,000 invited guests, which might be the number you are using.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_
Palace#21st_century:_Royal_use_and_publi c_access

Now to be fair I'm quoting you on the costs.
"easily £90 for a hotel and another £100 for food and tourist shit that I picked up."

Thank you for using my cost values, but 50,000 visitors to the palace is way off.

that's £9.5 million (in total) now you can add car rental, presents for the family, theme park rides etc. But this little mathematical caluculation has shown that this is no where NEAR £37 million.

You didn't consider the fact that I stated I may have not even gone to the UK at all had there not been the royal family. Also, how would you value the fact that you have a classy queen who represents the UK is a very positive way.

I really don't wish to consider arguing any further unless there's more information on actual visitors and their motives behind their expenditures.

Until then, I don't think I can be convinced that the tangible and intangible value of the queen can't meet the costs.

At 12/18/08 07:33 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 12/18/08 07:20 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Oh dear it appears you're using maths.

Tum de dum.... so are you.

Yes I'm the only one here trying to keep to the numbers and not overexaggerate on words to make my argument seem more exciting

50,000 is a gross underestimation.

Prove it.

There are 50,000 invited guests, which might be the number you are using.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_
Palace#21st_century:_Royal_use_and_publi c_access

You fucked up the link.

Now to be fair I'm quoting you on the costs.
"easily £90 for a hotel and another £100 for food and tourist shit that I picked up."

Thank you for using my cost values, but 50,000 visitors to the palace is way off.

More than 50,000 tourists visited Buckingham Palace in 2007

I doubt an invited guest is considered a 'tourist'. And before you say "Ah ha the link says MORE than 50000!" it would have to be nearly 4 times higher than 50000 to break even on the money the Royal family uses. Let alone make a profit.

that's £9.5 million (in total) now you can add car rental, presents for the family, theme park rides etc. But this little mathematical caluculation has shown that this is no where NEAR £37 million.

You didn't consider the fact that I stated I may have not even gone to the UK at all had there not been the royal family. Also, how would you value the fact that you have a classy queen who represents the UK is a very positive way.

That is because it was only you. What part of 'this scenario doesn't apply to everyone' aren't you getting? I even put in your financial estimates just to keep you happy but NOOOO we can't have that. Different intentions, different reasons, different scenario. Not everybody visits the same country for the same reasons.

I really don't wish to consider arguing any further unless there's more information on actual visitors and their motives behind their expenditures.

Until then, I don't think I can be convinced that the tangible and intangible value of the queen can't meet the costs.

Hey guess what? It's the people who PROMOTE the monarchy that claim it brings mass tourism. The burdon of proof is on YOU, not me. From what I've just studied it looks like the monarchy does not bring forign tourists into this nation and I wonder how many of those people who visit the palace are British. So until you or any British lunatic who loves paying for someone elses splender finds any evidence to suggest they promote a large amount of tourism (when I've just shown their popularity is on the decline) then you have no leg to stand on.

We dont profit off the royals, its the people selling Diana merchandise that make all the money. You know the kinda crap im talking about! Most of which dosn't finds its way back to the tax payer! Funnily enough.

http://www.princessdianabookboutique.com

At 12/18/08 09:23 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Yes I'm the only one here trying to keep to the numbers and not overexaggerate on words to make my argument seem more exciting

The only one? I used real percentages from real sources to come up with the 1 in 387 in a fun statistics formula. The assumption was that only 1 in 387 tourists who wouldn't go to London otherwise means the lost revenue exceeds the costs of no monarchy. You're fixed on the 50,000 and only the 50,000 "invited guests" number.

Prove it.

I did. Unless invited guest includes tourists.

You fucked up the link.

I didn't, newgrounds did because newgrounds fails at Web 2.0

More than 50,000 tourists visited Buckingham Palace in 2007

The thing to refute is 1 out of 387, if a lot of those 50,000 constitute the 1 in 387 who wouldn't go to Britain at all, my point still holds.

I doubt an invited guest is considered a 'tourist'. And before you say "Ah ha the link says MORE than 50000!" it would have to be nearly 4 times higher than 50000 to break even on the money the Royal family uses. Let alone make a profit.

Well if 50,000 are "invited guests" and are not considered tourists, the number is greater than 50,000. But I'm not concerned with 50,000, I'm concerned with how many people wouldn't go if there was no royalty.

You didn't consider the fact that I stated I may have not even gone to the UK at all had there not been the royal family. Also, how would you value the fact that you have a classy queen who represents the UK is a very positive way.

That is because it was only you. What part of 'this scenario doesn't apply to everyone' aren't you getting?

What part of "there are more people like me" don't you fucking understand? What part of only 1/387 people need to share my views don't you understand?

I even put in your financial estimates just to keep you happy but NOOOO we can't have that. Different intentions, different reasons, different scenario. Not everybody visits the same country for the same reasons.

Why would you ignore that if it's relevant in gathering financial information? X factors, son, not everything is black and white and clear cut.

Hey guess what? It's the people who PROMOTE the monarchy that claim it brings mass tourism. The burdon of proof is on YOU, not me.

I proved it with my experience and my 1/387 total tourists that have to share my views. You keep going to the amount of visitors when it in no way refutes what I said.

From what I've just studied it looks like the monarchy does not bring forign tourists into this nation and I wonder how many of those people who visit the palace are British. So until you or any British lunatic who loves paying for someone elses splender

What's pathetic is that it costs you 60p a year yet you're ready to abondon the only decent part of your nation's history.

finds any evidence to suggest they promote a large amount of tourism (when I've just shown their popularity is on the decline) then you have no leg to stand on.

I have plenty of leg with 1/387. So find 387 Newgrounders who have been to London, asking them if they would have gone if there was no royal family, so if I become 1 out of 388, then my stat is unll.

Until then, get a fucking life pommie.

At 12/18/08 10:22 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 12/18/08 09:23 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Yes I'm the only one here trying to keep to the numbers and not overexaggerate on words to make my argument seem more exciting

The only one? I used real percentages from real sources to come up with the 1 in 387 in a fun statistics formula. The assumption was that only 1 in 387 tourists who wouldn't go to London otherwise means the lost revenue exceeds the costs of no monarchy. You're fixed on the 50,000 and only the 50,000 "invited guests" number.

"More than 50,000 tourists visited Buckingham Palace in 2007"

Yes, visitors. I didn't know it was spelt exactly like tourist.

Prove it.

I did. Unless invited guest includes tourists.

"If 1 out of 387 tourists decided to go because of the royal family"

Yes 'IF'

I don't care how many people visit the UK or even how much that creates at all I only care about how many visit buckingham palace EVERYTHING else is irrelevent.

You fucked up the link.

I didn't, newgrounds did because newgrounds fails at Web 2.0

Then that's your problem.

More than 50,000 tourists visited Buckingham Palace in 2007

The thing to refute is 1 out of 387, if a lot of those 50,000 constitute the 1 in 387 who wouldn't go to Britain at all, my point still holds.

No it doesn't, because you've pulled it out of your fanny. You haven't shown me any studies conducted to show that MORE people visit. You've merely gave me a warped link and 1/387 which means fuck all to anyone. Then you tell me to disprove it.

I doubt an invited guest is considered a 'tourist'. And before you say "Ah ha the link says MORE than 50000!" it would have to be nearly 4 times higher than 50000 to break even on the money the Royal family uses. Let alone make a profit.

Well if 50,000 are "invited guests" and are not considered tourists, the number is greater than 50,000. But I'm not concerned with 50,000, I'm concerned with how many people wouldn't go if there was no royalty.

I don't care about that because for the simple reason is we wouldn't know.

Not unless we conducted a study asking everyone who visited BP last year. But we haven't, actually I've already given you a link it's best if you read it.

"VisitBritain researchers polled 26,000 people from 26 countries and their responses indicated a visit to the home of Queen Elizabeth II is nowhere near the top tourist destination in Britain"

You didn't consider the fact that I stated I may have not even gone to the UK at all had there not been the royal family. Also, how would you value the fact that you have a classy queen who represents the UK is a very positive way.

That is because it was only you. What part of 'this scenario doesn't apply to everyone' aren't you getting?

What part of "there are more people like me" don't you fucking understand? What part of only 1/387 people need to share my views don't you understand?

Okay, show me them. Prove your little hypothesis.

Yes, people NEED to share this basic view, it doesn't indicate that they ACTUALLY do share this basic view.

For the love of god stop trying to take what you did to other people otherwise I can easily do the same with canada, greece, florida etc.

I even put in your financial estimates just to keep you happy but NOOOO we can't have that. Different intentions, different reasons, different scenario. Not everybody visits the same country for the same reasons.

Why would you ignore that if it's relevant in gathering financial information? X factors, son, not everything is black and white and clear cut.

Because it's not every single person has a different reason for visiting a nation you can't put two people in the same boat UNLESS you conduct a study to show your right, which you haven't.

Hey guess what? It's the people who PROMOTE the monarchy that claim it brings mass tourism. The burdon of proof is on YOU, not me.

I proved it with my experience and my 1/387 total tourists that have to share my views. You keep going to the amount of visitors when it in no way refutes what I said.

Because it's an estimate and 'experience' means nothing.

From what I've just studied it looks like the monarchy does not bring forign tourists into this nation and I wonder how many of those people who visit the palace are British. So until you or any British lunatic who loves paying for someone elses splender

What's pathetic is that it costs you 60p a year yet you're ready to abondon the only decent part of your nation's history.

No, it'd cost me 60p if everyone in the UK was a tax payer. Which they aren't.

Decent part of my nations history? You know fuck all about my nation.

finds any evidence to suggest they promote a large amount of tourism (when I've just shown their popularity is on the decline) then you have no leg to stand on.

I have plenty of leg with 1/387. So find 387 Newgrounders who have been to London, asking them if they would have gone if there was no royal family, so if I become 1 out of 388, then my stat is unll.

1. I have shown the amount of tourists yet you claim they're visitors.

2. This is merely an estimate and holds no strength whatsoever

3. Your not even british, so why are you even commenting on it?

Until then, get a fucking life pommie.

At 12/19/08 08:58 AM, Brick-top wrote:

I don't care how many people visit the UK or even how much that creates at all I only care about how many visit buckingham palace EVERYTHING else is irrelevent.

Always the possibility of wanting to see UK because of the queen, but not going to Buttfuckingham palace.

No it doesn't, because you've pulled it out of your fanny. You haven't shown me any studies conducted to show that MORE people visit. You've merely gave me a warped link and 1/387 which means fuck all to anyone. Then you tell me to disprove it.

I came up with the statistic given the data in your link and the other one.

I don't care about that because for the simple reason is we wouldn't know.

Not unless we conducted a study asking everyone who visited BP last year. But we haven't, actually I've already given you a link it's best if you read it.

That's basically what I asked of you. =P

Because it's an estimate and 'experience' means nothing.

I'm in the sample that I'm trying to measure. I'm pretty sure it means a lot.

No, it'd cost me 60p if everyone in the UK was a tax payer. Which they aren't.

47% of your country pays taxes, the average is 1.28p per tax payer. Easily less for poorer tax payers and easily more for rich tax payers.

Decent part of my nations history? You know fuck all about my nation.

Yes, I do know fuck all about your nation.

1. I have shown the amount of tourists yet you claim they're visitors.

All I need was 1/387 out of all foreign visitors in London, not including visitors to the rest of the UK, to break even.

2. This is merely an estimate and holds no strength whatsoever

Statistics are powerful.

3. Your not even british, so why are you even commenting on it?

Because someone made the claim that the queen is a total waste and I disagree. But fine, you can say the queen detracts from the value of the UK and is a waste of resources that would otherwise go to better causes and I'll be ok with that. You can have your opinion, and I'll hold mine.

At 12/19/08 11:28 AM, n64kid wrote:

At 12/19/08 08:58 AM, Brick-top wrote:

I don't care how many people visit the UK or even how much that creates at all I only care about how many visit buckingham palace EVERYTHING else is irrelevent.

Always the possibility of wanting to see UK because of the queen, but not going to Buttfuckingham palace.

Yes, a possibility. Just like there's a possibity of aliens and ghosts.

And the queen lives at buckingham so there's a really good chance that's where people will go. You don't go to Antarctica to see George clooney.

No it doesn't, because you've pulled it out of your fanny. You haven't shown me any studies conducted to show that MORE people visit. You've merely gave me a warped link and 1/387 which means fuck all to anyone. Then you tell me to disprove it.

I came up with the statistic given the data in your link and the other one.

Yes, however in my link it shows how many tourists. I calculated the costing amounts you supplied and came up with a result.

End of story.

I don't care about that because for the simple reason is we wouldn't know.

Not unless we conducted a study asking everyone who visited BP last year. But we haven't, actually I've already given you a link it's best if you read it.

That's basically what I asked of you. =P

But you're claiming the intentions of other people and placing your intentions to theirs.

Because it's an estimate and 'experience' means nothing.

I'm in the sample that I'm trying to measure. I'm pretty sure it means a lot.

A single sample. One, out of many.

No, it'd cost me 60p if everyone in the UK was a tax payer. Which they aren't.

47% of your country pays taxes, the average is 1.28p per tax payer. Easily less for poorer tax payers and easily more for rich tax payers.

The queen is worth 320M

It doesn't matter how much you slice that amount, 320 million would set ANYBODY up for life.

Decent part of my nations history? You know fuck all about my nation.

Yes, I do know fuck all about your nation.

As much as a weeks vacation and google can offer.

1. I have shown the amount of tourists yet you claim they're visitors.

All I need was 1/387 out of all foreign visitors in London, not including visitors to the rest of the UK, to break even.

Visitors...in London itself? And I thought we were talking about visiting the palace.

Darn.

2. This is merely an estimate and holds no strength whatsoever

Statistics are powerful.

Especially when those figures don't match what you're saying.

3. Your not even british, so why are you even commenting on it?

Because someone made the claim that the queen is a total waste and I disagree. But fine, you can say the queen detracts from the value of the UK and is a waste of resources that would otherwise go to better causes and I'll be ok with that. You can have your opinion, and I'll hold mine.

So you agree denything these funds away from (charities, benifits, those in need etc) is not as good as having a monarchy?

I'd rather build schools for the uneducated than pay for a woman who evidently doesn't need the funding.

At 12/17/08 08:54 PM, Earfetish wrote: If you don't like the Royals you should be locked up in Belmarsh for treason.

I hope you don't mean that.

God bless the queen. What would the commonwealth be without monarchy. The monarchy is like the ultimate control system - leaders of commonwealth nations just can't stuff up; otherwise the governor general (representative of the queen of england) will kick them out of office.

At 12/19/08 09:46 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 12/17/08 08:54 PM, Earfetish wrote: If you don't like the Royals you should be locked up in Belmarsh for treason.

I hope you don't mean that.

yeah man I totally believe it; if you don't like the Royals then you don't like England and are a threat to our national security.

No man is superior to any other man and just like the Royals aren't superior to me, neither is David Cameron, but he's still more powerful and his kids are going to be more powerful and that's the way of the world. Ideologically it's not brilliant but it works fine in practice and there are a lot of worse things.

also maybe this is a more exciting line to argue from

At 12/20/08 11:38 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: Can anyone defending the Royal Family please tell me why you feel they're superior to you?

I can only presume it's for Religious reasons.

Can anyone defending the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church please tell me why you feel they're superior to you?

I can only presume it's for Religious reasons

At 12/20/08 03:07 PM, 2wiceBorn wrote: Can anyone defending the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church please tell me why you feel they're superior to you?

I can only presume it's for Religious reasons

Because he could probably recite the Vulgate backwards and is very knowledgable about all things Biblical.

Unlike the Royal family, who consist of fossils and brats who get to feel that they're superior to everyone they meet.

The above post was written by someone who despises the Roman Catholic 'Church'.

At 12/21/08 11:05 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

:Now kindly explain allegiance to the Queen. Do you believe God has chosen her to lead you, son?

Whoever came up with the idea of God choosing someone to lead a nation must've suffered from schizophrenia.

The only people God chose to lead were prophets, and they were spiritual teachers, not secular rulers.

The only thing that the monarchy is used for now is tourism, and the country gains quite a bit through it. They dont have any REAL power, but its a system that most are comfortable with.

At 12/6/08 01:37 AM, mikailus wrote: So what's the point of keeping them?

Tradition, plain and simple, they don't serve much of a purpose, but they are a simple of a country, the United Kingdom in particular.

At 12/20/08 11:38 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: Can anyone defending the Royal Family please tell me why you feel they're superior to you?

I can only presume it's for Religious reasons.

Two very good reasons:
1.) They have more houses than me, and they're a lot bigger than mine.
2.) Because I don't have an annual speech to the nation vetted by the Prime Minister for the last decade, just in case I call for a coup d'etat or generally make the person running the country into the ground look worse. If I did, the number of blogs on my Myspace would nosedive.