British duke arrives on trip to enhance bilateral ties

[billd766]

12 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

What precisely has his contribution to the world been?

 

As far as I can see, he had an expensive education (Eton, Cambridge University) and did virtually nothing with it.  All his positions have apparently been honorary or sinecures.

How about being an architect until his elder brother was killed in an air crash or doesn't that count with you?

[billd766]

8 hours ago, Esso49 said:

And he once owned an Austin 1300

Now that IS embarrassing.

[NonthaburiBear]

7 hours ago, pegman said:

555, absurd threater? So what would you call what's going on in your White House right now?

well US Taxpayers pay more to see Melania with her clown for sure..just like the Sunday Mirror on their headlines " The Ego Has Landed "..555

[Oxx]

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

How about being an architect until his elder brother was killed in an air crash or doesn't that count with you?

 

Only for 3 years, so no, it doesn't count.  Stupid waste of an expensive training.

[jayboy]

13 hours ago, Artisi said:

Not forgetting the millions generated by tourists visiting the UK because of the "Royals" 

This is true. However personally I don't think the British monarchy can be justified just by the economic benefits it generates. I think it stands on its own merits. If it had never existed it probably wouldn't make sense to invent it now.Nevertheless it seems to me it serves its purpose very well. Wouldn't the USA be a better place if Donald Trump had to trot along every week to bow his head and report to an Uncle Sam Head of State? The monarchy is a very useful reminder to politicians that they are not top of the pile.

 

Richard of Gloucester is a minor royal but a diligent decent man who doesn't deserve the unpleasant insults that appeared in this thread. He will be welcome in Thailand as his very high-level reception confirms and will do a useful job in promoting UK Thai relations

[Artisi]

23 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

Only for 3 years, so no, it doesn't count.  Stupid waste of an expensive training.

No training (education) is ever a waste, it is only seen as a waste to the uneducated. 

[HAKAPALITA]

2 minutes ago, Artisi said:

No training (education) is ever a waste, it is only seen as a waste to the uneducated. 

As with an Ox.

[Oxx]

4 hours ago, Artisi said:

No training (education) is ever a waste, it is only seen as a waste to the uneducated. 

 

So, rather than getting an expensive training as an architect he could have learned macramé or advanced colouring in if no training is ever a waste.

[Artisi]

3 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

So, rather than getting an expensive training as an architect he could have learned macramé or advanced colouring in if no training is ever a waste.

Or how to write TV forum posts, now that would be a waste......

 

 

[Rhys]

Prefer Lord Nectarine of Walham Green...

[CGW]

8 hours ago, jayboy said:

I don't think the British monarchy can be justified

I struggle with how they can be called "British"? yet they are ????

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

I struggle with how they can be called "British"? yet they are ????

Not clear why you struggle. In what sense are they not British?

 

 

[Artisi]

28 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Not clear why you struggle. In what sense are they not British?

 

 

Guess the question is, what is British - celts only is certainly a real stretch? 

[Basil B]

On 10/15/2018 at 4:22 AM, mfd101 said:

Perhaps you Brits could get him on Twitter & ask him to overrule not just the Ambassador but even the Vice-Consul!

The UK is a Democratic country where it is the elected who govern, The monarch and her family have very little power.

[CGW]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

Not clear why you struggle. In what sense are they not British?

As below, if you are serious and want to know ???? Easy to look further with search...........

"Changed name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor (from "Windsor Castle") in 1917 because of anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."

[Oxx]

30 minutes ago, Basil B said:

The UK is a Democratic country where it is the elected who govern, The monarch and her family have very little power.

 

So what, then, is their purpose?

 

Of course, the Queen is far from powerless.  She can prorogue and summon Parliament.  She can refuse asset to bills.  She can appoint and remove Ministers. She appoints the Prime Minister.  She can declare war on foreign countries.  She can create peers at whim.  She can similarly issue and withdraw passports.  She can requisition ships.  She owns all swans on The Thames, along with sturgeons, whales, and dolphins around the UK.  She is exempt from Freedom Of Information requests so is completely unaccountable to the British people.  She can fire the entire Australian government.  And however heinous her crimes, she is totally immune from prosecution.

 

 

[mfd101]

39 minutes ago, Basil B said:

The UK is a Democratic country where it is the elected who govern, The monarch and her family have very little power.

Ever heard of irony?

[mfd101]

3 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

So what, then, is their purpose?

 

Of course, the Queen is far from powerless.  She can prorogue and summon Parliament.  She can refuse asset to bills.  She can appoint and remove Ministers. She appoints the Prime Minister.  She can declare war on foreign countries.  She can create peers at whim.  She can similarly issue and withdraw passports.  She can requisition ships.  She owns all swans on The Thames, along with sturgeons, whales, and dolphins around the UK.  She is exempt from Freedom Of Information requests so is completely unaccountable to the British people.  She can fire the entire Australian government.  And however heinous her crimes, she is totally immune from prosecution.

 

 

She can do all that ONLY on the advice of her PM. ie It's the PM that makes the decisions, not her.

[Basil B]

17 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

She can do all that ONLY on the advice of her PM. ie It's the PM that makes the decisions, not her.

Well I suppose she can appoint a new PM if the is not one in office.

 

I would like to think of the Queen as the keeper of the constitution, but we do not have one.

 

Anyone who thinks having an elected president should read any topic that has "Trump" in the title to realise the errors in there thinking. 

[Cadbury]

There should be some dirt on him somewhere. I will try and dig it up. These aristocratic inbreds are about as pure as the driven slush.

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

As below, if you are serious and want to know ???? Easy to look further with search...........

"Changed name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor (from "Windsor Castle") in 1917 because of anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I."

I think perhaps it is you that needs to do the research. I expected some genius would pipe up with the German connection. It needs to be understood however that since medieval times and even before there was constant inter dynastic marriage among the countries of Europe. Whether one considers the Hanoverians or Victoria's Albert, European admixture was well understood and accepted. What was important that "imports" gave total loyalty to their new country. It was not then possible for members of the royal family to marry other than with those of more or less the same rank.Diana Spencer an aristocrat of arguably a superior family to that of her royal husband was the last example of this. Since then even the daughter of a lower middle-class flight attendant can marry the heir to the throne.

 

Anyway back to the meaning of "British", this is essentially a social construct now. If you are a citizen you are British. The inhabitants of the British Isles have always been an incredible fruit salad of ethnicities.Anyone who bores on about the purity of the British race is not only a creep but also astonishingly ignorant.

[CGW]

55 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I think perhaps it is you that needs to do the research.

Thanks for the advice - Bye ???? 

[jayboy]

7 hours ago, CGW said:

Thanks for the advice - Bye ???? 

You're welcome.

[Oxx]

8 hours ago, jayboy said:

European admixture was well understood and accepted. What was important that "imports" gave total loyalty to their new country.

 

Accepted by whom? What opportunity did the British people have to express their opposition to being lorded over by a bunch of foreigners? Was there a referendum?

 

And as for "total loyalty to their new country", let's not forget that many royals were actually rather keen on the Nazis.

 

 

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, Oxx said:

 

Accepted by whom? What opportunity did the British people have to express their opposition to being lorded over by a bunch of foreigners? Was there a referendum?

 

And as for "total loyalty to their new country", let's not forget that many royals were actually rather keen on the Nazis.

 

 

 

 

You seem a little confused. There have been foreign rulers of England since Anglo-Saxon times. The people were never consulted about those who "lorded" over them whether of domestic or foreign origin.

 

I will ignore your absurd referendum point.

 

As for sympathies with the Nazis, you are incorrect to suggest "many royals" were of this opinion. It's true that Edward, Duke of York later Edward 8 was friendly towards Nazi Germany and sadly there were many in all classes pre-war whose anti-communism led them to fascist tendencies. The photograph you show of the royal children making the fascist salute doesn't indicate anything except children messing around. The British Olympic team at the 1936 Berlin Olympics however shamefully saluted Hitler.

 

If you really want to understand foreign rulers throughout England's long history I recommend you read Robert Tombs" "the English and their History".

 

But of course you won't.

[Artisi]

12 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

So what, then, is their purpose?

 

Of course, the Queen is far from powerless.  She can prorogue and summon Parliament.  She can refuse asset to bills.  She can appoint and remove Ministers. She appoints the Prime Minister.  She can declare war on foreign countries.  She can create peers at whim.  She can similarly issue and withdraw passports.  She can requisition ships.  She owns all swans on The Thames, along with sturgeons, whales, and dolphins around the UK.  She is exempt from Freedom Of Information requests so is completely unaccountable to the British people.  She can fire the entire Australian government.  And however heinous her crimes, she is totally immune from prosecution.

 

 

And so she should be.... 

 

Rule Brittania 

????

[jayboy]

13 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

So what, then, is their purpose?

 

Of course, the Queen is far from powerless.  She can prorogue and summon Parliament.  She can refuse asset to bills.  She can appoint and remove Ministers. She appoints the Prime Minister.  She can declare war on foreign countries.  She can create peers at whim.  She can similarly issue and withdraw passports.  She can requisition ships.  She owns all swans on The Thames, along with sturgeons, whales, and dolphins around the UK.  She is exempt from Freedom Of Information requests so is completely unaccountable to the British people.  She can fire the entire Australian government.  And however heinous her crimes, she is totally immune from prosecution.

 

 

Laughably wrong because of all the theoretical powers you mention. none can in practice be exercised.

 

The dismissal of the Australian Government, since it refers to an actual event, deserves a note. The end of the Whitlam Government was instigated by the Australian Governor-General, not the Queen. But I can certainly understand why Australians want to repatriate the process. In any event, this is the de facto position now. 

[taninthai]

I don’t claim to be any form of expert on this,but from below I believe the House of Lords who are not elected/voted in can over rule House of Commons.

so I see it as the rich aristocrats are pulling all the strings,the House of Commons are just there puppets,and then us just mere members of public,sheep,wage slaves what ever you like t calll our selfs are there puppets/pawns in there little games.

 

The House of Commons, Parliament's lower house, is made up of about 650 elected Members of Parliament (MPs). ... The House of Lords, Parliament's upper house, consists of over 700 Lords. Some are bishops and others are hereditary peers or peers appointed by the monarch.

[Chopperboy]

Just now, taninthai said:

I don’t claim to be any form of expert on this,but from below I believe the House of Lords who are not elected/voted in can over rule House of Commons.

so I see it as the rich aristocrats are pulling all the strings,the House of Commons are just there puppets,and then us just mere members of public,sheep,wage slaves what ever you like t calll our selfs are there puppets/pawns in there little games.

 

The House of Commons, Parliament's lower house, is made up of about 650 elected Members of Parliament (MPs). ... The House of Lords, Parliament's upper house, consists of over 700 Lords. Some are bishops and others are hereditary peers or peers appointed by the monarch.

They are just puppets (often pedos) of the Shadow Government .

[pegman]

20 minutes ago, taninthai said:

I don’t claim to be any form of expert on this,but from below I believe the House of Lords who are not elected/voted in can over rule House of Commons.

so I see it as the rich aristocrats are pulling all the strings,the House of Commons are just there puppets,and then us just mere members of public,sheep,wage slaves what ever you like t calll our selfs are there puppets/pawns in there little games.

 

The House of Commons, Parliament's lower house, is made up of about 650 elected Members of Parliament (MPs). ... The House of Lords, Parliament's upper house, consists of over 700 Lords. Some are bishops and others are hereditary peers or peers appointed by the monarch.

Some are ex-convicts.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black