PDA

View Full Version : What would it take to make the Royal Family acceptable to you?


Lazarus and the Gimp
11-01-2006, 15:27:10
Here we go.

I'll go for the following-

1- Subject them to the same tax burden as any other UK citizen. (ie- they start paying corporation tax, capital gains tax and death duties).

2- Abolish the male bias in primogeniture.

3- Abolish their ability to build on greenbelt land.

4- As part of a retrospective balancing of their past tax-free status, they get to keep just two palaces. The rest will become state-owned resources. Two palaces are enough.

5- Any gifts they receive on state visits will become state property, as with every other European constitutional monarchy.

6- Remove the special privilege to eat swans.

7- Open up the royal art collection to the fee-paying public.

8- Change their surname from Windsor to the correct one- Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.

9- Force the Queen to smile in public at least once a month.

10- Have the Queen's Christmas message delivered by Prince Phillip.

Rodgers
11-01-2006, 15:33:15
I'd be happy with that but the "problem" with the Royal Family is not the priveleges they enjoy but the hierarchy and arse-licking that they sit atop of. The petty snobbery that comes with having an aristocracy, an honours system, public schools, the old Regiments in the Army, the House of Lords etc etc.

The way I look at it the Royals are just a symbol and it's the old system that still persists beneath them that needs more attention.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-01-2006, 15:35:34
I'm happy to start at the top and work downwards.

Chris
11-01-2006, 15:56:26
They don't seem to bother me at all.

Gary
11-01-2006, 15:58:27
Transportation to Australia ?

Lurker the Second
11-01-2006, 16:00:02
Number 6 is a doozy.

Venom
11-01-2006, 16:00:51
Abolish them totally?

paiktis22
11-01-2006, 16:02:05
where would the symbiotic relationship between british punk and royalty go if they were abolished? no keep them

The Mad Monk
11-01-2006, 17:36:55
1- teach them to ENUNCIATE.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
11-01-2006, 18:17:44
This is not about your royal family, yankee.

Venom
11-01-2006, 18:26:48
Nor yours, Bavarian.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-01-2006, 19:35:11
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
1- teach them to ENUNCIATE.

The Royal accent is a remnant of Germany. George V had a German accent, and it's hung around.

That's why Prince Charles pronounces "about the house" as "abite the heiss".

Japher
11-01-2006, 19:39:50
make them be philanthropist and devote their lives to living in poverty

Chris
11-01-2006, 20:18:11
Make them give all their money and stuff to me.

Japher
11-01-2006, 20:27:37
yeah, that'll show 'em

Dyl Ulenspiegel
11-01-2006, 20:39:56
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The Royal accent is a remnant of Germany. George V had a German accent, and it's hung around.

That's why Prince Charles pronounces "about the house" as "abite the heiss".

How does he pronounce "über das Haus"?

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-01-2006, 20:45:18
"Achtung! Schnell, schell! For you, Tommy, se var ist over!".

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
11-01-2006, 21:06:21
Originally posted by Gary
Transportation to Australia ?

Fuck no. We don't want them either.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
11-01-2006, 21:09:29
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
"Achtung! Schnell, schell! For you, Tommy, se var ist over!".

Aja.

Rodgers
12-01-2006, 12:47:41
Originally posted by Princess Michael of Kent
"Achtung! Schnell, schell! For you, Tommy, se var ist over!".

King_Ghidra
12-01-2006, 13:02:04
Place their heads on spikes outside Tate Modern

Actually i'm with Rodgers on this one. The queen and immediate family's wealth and property are just the most obvious examples of the aristocratic monarchic system. The whole thing should be abolished and a proper constitution and separation of powers thrashed out.

Lazarus and the Gimp
12-01-2006, 18:57:54
No complaints here.

Koshko
13-01-2006, 07:10:53
Just do away with them altogether.

Spartak@CPH
13-01-2006, 09:14:55
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
Fuck no. We don't want them either. Apparantly you do sincve you failed to get rid of thenm when given a chance. :cute:

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
13-01-2006, 17:43:34
Dude, only because the Prime Minister gimped the question. What it boiled down to was "Do you want to keep Australian politics and governance the way it is now (which works and makes for good times, woot) or do you want to kick the Queen out and make us just like America?"

Given that this was during the Clinton sex-scandal era, it made for a tough decision, apparently.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
13-01-2006, 20:07:50
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
or do you want to kick the Queen out and make us just like America?"


Extreme polemic.

Walrus Feeder
13-01-2006, 20:58:39
With all this vitriol against the Royal Family it does beggar the question - would you want to swap places with any of them? Yes you are born into privilage etc. but would you fancy be in the spotlight your entire life and every moment of your life scrutinised by the media and not be able to live a 'normal' life where you can walk down the street anonymously and have to perform public duties you really might not care about?

Japher
13-01-2006, 21:09:24
no

their lives suck
that's we make fun of them
to ensure it stays that way

Gary
13-01-2006, 22:06:38
I don't think I'd mind, to be honest. And no one is in the spotlight all their life. For example, not seen the queen in the bath yet :)

But that's hardly the point. The point is that I believe it to be wrong anyway. Regardless as to whether it is beneficial to the individuals of the royal family or not.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
13-01-2006, 22:20:09
Originally posted by Walrus Feeder
With all this vitriol against the Royal Family it does beggar the question - would you want to swap places with any of them?

That's not so much the question. Other royal houses manage to perform those duties with a minimum of dignity. If they don't feel like it, they can just resign to normal civil life.

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-01-2006, 23:21:42
Originally posted by Walrus Feeder
With all this vitriol against the Royal Family it does beggar the question - would you want to swap places with any of them?

Of course I fucking wouldn't. They're all hideous. It's grim enough to catch your Dad staggering around bollock naked first thing in the morning at the best of times, but just imagine if he was Prince Phillip.

And the being thick and inbred part just doesn't appeal much either.

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-01-2006, 23:23:13
Did you know Prince Harry is the first entirely British member of the Royal family for over 450 years?

JM^3
13-01-2006, 23:34:55
not prince William?

JM

Koshko
14-01-2006, 05:32:44
Aren't they 1/256th English at this point?

Alexander's Horse
15-01-2006, 15:03:16
If you could put an Irish family on the throne I could probably tolerate it - catholics as well.

Debaser
15-01-2006, 16:27:20
I like the royal family. Princess Margaret was cool as fuck.

Laz, do you mean Prince Harry is the first entirely British member because his dad isn't Prince Charles?

Spartak@CPH
15-01-2006, 21:21:31
Own Goal?

Greg W
15-01-2006, 22:54:50
What would it take to make the Royal Family acceptable to you?A bullet to the head, each. Actually, just nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

notyoueither
16-01-2006, 05:20:33
After watching elections with real winniers like Bush, Kerry, Le Pen...

Do you really want to fuck with it?

Gary
16-01-2006, 08:40:34
Why not ? We already have Bliar anyway. Electing tossers is a seperate issue.

Scabrous Birdseed
16-01-2006, 10:04:35
Nice PHing there Debaser...

Debaser
16-01-2006, 15:06:48
Not really, had Laz confirmed that the James Hewitt thing was what he meant then I would have gone on to explain exactly why that can't be true. And it definitely isn't.

Scabrous Birdseed
16-01-2006, 15:16:03
Which is beyond the point as it is, clearly, a joke. Which you explained.

Debaser
16-01-2006, 15:24:08
He might not be entirely serious, but he's not entirely joking either.

Japher
16-01-2006, 15:29:26
royalty should get some hotter genes in their pool

this whole blue blood thing is getting some pretty ugly babies

Dyl Ulenspiegel
16-01-2006, 15:30:35
Blue blood is unhealthy.

Scabrous Birdseed
16-01-2006, 15:30:49
(You're welcome to issue that explanation now if you like. You're obviously itching to let it out.)

Dyl Ulenspiegel
16-01-2006, 15:44:05
Explanation of independence?

Japher
16-01-2006, 15:55:18
"in" meaning within or enter

"de" meaning to lower, or move down

"pen" meaning a writing utensil

"den" meaning a place where animals live

"ce" meaning cerium: a ductile grey metallic element of the lanthanide series; used in lighter flints; the most abundant of the rare-earth group


Thus, "independence" must mean "going down into a device used for writing in which animals may live with combustible elements."

Japher
16-01-2006, 16:03:25
http://www.geocities.com/marliesq/noo_haa_gue_swe1.jpg

mr_G
16-01-2006, 16:12:31
sweden

I fok'd her!!!

Japher
16-01-2006, 16:16:52
it's a start

Lazarus and the Gimp
16-01-2006, 17:54:02
Originally posted by Debaser
Not really, had Laz confirmed that the James Hewitt thing was what he meant then I would have gone on to explain exactly why that can't be true. And it definitely isn't.

Go on then. Who's the flaming redhead in Harry's family tree?

Debaser
16-01-2006, 18:07:27
Prince Harry was born in 1984. Though he inevitably mixed in the same social circles as Diana, James Hewitt didn't meet her until 1987, when he taught Prince William to ride horses, and their relationship lasted on and off until about 1992. Also loads of Spencer's had had red hair previously.

Damn, I should really stop reading the daily mail.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
16-01-2006, 18:10:30
Originally posted by Japher
Thus, "independence" must mean "going down into a device used for writing in which animals may live with combustible elements."

Ah, so that's what all the fuzz was about....

Lazarus and the Gimp
16-01-2006, 20:21:31
Originally posted by Debaser
Prince Harry was born in 1984. Though he inevitably mixed in the same social circles as Diana,

....and was at the same polo match as her in 1981, in Tidworth. Plus, of course, there's the thorny issue of the huge sums of money involved that Harry would stand to lose if it were revealed he was not Prince Charles' son, giving both Hewitt and Diana (both noted for being economical with the truth) a hefty incentive to tell a porky.

Diss
16-01-2006, 20:42:06
royal porn. 'nuff said.

Scabrous Birdseed
16-01-2006, 20:48:15
Er...

Charles and Camilla?
Phillip and Lilibet?
Edward and Sophie?
Princess Alexandra?

Are you sure you want to see these people naked?

The only one I can imagine would be somewhat appealing in porn is Prince Michael of Kent who has a slightly wolfish gleam about him.

JM^3
16-01-2006, 20:52:57
I thought people liked Prince William?

JM

Scabrous Birdseed
16-01-2006, 20:53:16
Actually, looking at the pictures of the extended royal family on Wikipedia I'm struck by how inbred-looking some of these people actually are...

I mean, the Duke of Gloucester:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/Duke-duchess-of-gloucester-1989.jpg/140px-Duke-duchess-of-gloucester-1989.jpg

notyoueither
17-01-2006, 08:40:33
Which one is the Duke?

Rodgers
17-01-2006, 08:43:45
Originally posted by Debaser
Prince Harry was born in 1984.



Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
....and was at the same polo match as her in 1981, in Tidworth.


Do Royals have a 3 year gestation period? :confused:

Gary
17-01-2006, 09:19:17
It's a side effect of Blue Blood syndrome.