who cried at the queen mums funeral??

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Europe - United Kingdom & Ireland
-- who cried at the queen mums funeral??
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by Az on Apr-12-2002 11:14:

quote:
Originally posted by sykadelik
I think they are just a tourist attraction!

What they do for british exports, and the tourism industry (worth around a billion to the british economy).

Posted by flystyler on Apr-12-2002 15:22:

quote:
Originally posted by sykadelik
thats a new one on me, have you heard the one "People in glass houses don't throw stones"??

Heh, if you watch banzai you will know it is very stupid to put an ex english player in a greenhour and ask him to hit a cricket ball.

Bet now, bet bet bet

Posted by sykadelik on Apr-12-2002 15:32:

I will place money on em knocking over one of those tomato plants.

Posted by evil_bastard on Apr-13-2002 14:48:

I agree with DJ Cuba, I couldn't give a shit.

The typical argument in defence of the monarchy is questionable at best. Of course the Queen brings in loads of cash thorugh tourism, and loads of yanks spend their money visiting Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London.

But with the monarchy gone, the tourists wouldn't all leave. Firstly, it's historical value would be heightened, and the wealth of history behind such excellently crafted buildings would not be lost. We would however save a lot of money that goes wasted on such pretentious nonsense, which could be put into areas like the North East which get shafted.

Secondly, the pathetic excuse that with a Queen, a Hitler couldn't reach power. This isn't true, since Hitler's charisma took the NSDAP to be the biggest party in the Reichstag democratically. If the people like such looneys, there's nothing she can do.

I find the royalty insulting to my humanity.

Posted by dj_cuba on Apr-14-2002 08:59:

quote:
I agree with DJ Cuba, I couldn't give a shit.

The typical argument in defence of the monarchy is questionable at best. Of course the Queen brings in loads of cash thorugh tourism, and loads of yanks spend their money visiting Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London.

But with the monarchy gone, the tourists wouldn't all leave. Firstly, it's historical value would be heightened, and the wealth of history behind such excellently crafted buildings would not be lost. We would however save a lot of money that goes wasted on such pretentious nonsense, which could be put into areas like the North East which get shafted.

Secondly, the pathetic excuse that with a Queen, a Hitler couldn't reach power. This isn't true, since Hitler's charisma took the NSDAP to be the biggest party in the Reichstag democratically. If the people like such looneys, there's nothing she can do.

I find the royalty insulting to my humanity.

good 4 u mate! my feelings exactly! the royal family did once have a great importance when they ruled the country. But since parliament took over they just sit on their fat arses all day and occasionally wave to passers by, perhaps cut a few ribbons every now-and-again...if they feel like it. Who can honestly say what the actual role and importance of the royal family is these days, apart from waving and looking pretty? No-one, ask almost anyone and they just say "um...well s'traditional aint it?". Fact is they don't have a clue! Iam not an anti-royalist or whatever you want to call it. I am just confused as to why they are still here! be careful what you say on this board though people will probably accuse you of wanting to kidnap and murder the entire royal family if you just mention you don't agree with them!

Posted by evil_bastard on Apr-14-2002 10:52:

The only pertinant defence I can give for the royalty is that it's a potentially handy diplomatic tool.

Foreign ministers feel very privileged to meet the Queen, it's a bargaining chip, or so we're led to believe. I certainly agree it's a better thing to boast to your mates than meeting Tony Blair, but does it really influence world politics?

Unlikely. In some parts of the world it may also hinder British diplomacy and forieng relations, since not all corners of the globe appreciate our monarchy. It is, afterall, a sign of the treacherous empire we once had which ruled the world and the seven seas. Those days are not long gone; in 1900 25% of the world's land surface was still under British sovereignty, and I think the Royalty parading around the world on diplomatic missions could be provocative, not helpful.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]