To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment THREAD 2

[MyOhMySimon]

Carrying on from Thread 1.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4347032-To-think-the-royal-family-are-a-bloody-embarrassment?msgid=110733144#110733144

Haven't seen the OP around, thread 1 is about to run out and someone asked for a new thread.

We dont all think the same.

Well duh. the point is if you want to state that monarchies fare better than republics, you need to give some idea of what metrics you're measuring that with, or people might suspect you're talking bollocks.

Ach i know @derxa but it doesn't work like that does it. You'll just need to keep doffing your cap and posting how much you love the RF, whilst in reality they wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire.

I highly doubt they would have envisaged what she would have done - especially womens rights

Exactly. Talk about unintended consequences. Yes, she can be voted out. She can also inflict a lot of damage before that.

@ssd

Aye but you can get rid of Nicola Sturgeon *@derxa*

Pretty pathetic post really

Difficult now she has teamed up with Greens.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Ok *@derxa* but, since the last time I (as an English person) dared to mention Scotland in a post I got screamed at, maybe you could start a thread about NS in Scotsnet?

I'm afraid I don't know who you are. If I offended you then I apologise. But with respect you're not the thread police and I'll continue to post according to talk guidelines on any thread.

I highly doubt they would have envisaged what she would have done - especially womens rights.

Well I presume it was covered to some degree in the manifesto.

Regardless, they can turf her out as a result

That's fine then @derxa, and I'll continue to mention Scotland where I feel it's relevant to "U"K issues.

@ssd

Ach i know *@derxa* but it doesn't work like that does it. You'll just need to keep doffing your cap and posting how much you love the RF, whilst in reality they wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire.

People are obsessed with doffing caps on here. I haven't met a single member of the royal family in my puff, ssd

It was in her manifesto and people voted for her anyway.

Even teamed up with the greens they can still be kicked out because, you know, democracy.

The royals on the other hand? I can't believe we tolerate it in a modern world. It stuns me.

ChurchofLatterDayPaints

@Seventhascent ok then, take your pick fron a few synonyms of despotic: uncontrolled, undemocratic, unconstitutional and unaccountable.

I am on the republican side of the argument btw! And fine if you want to descend to pedantry. But when I think of "despot" I think of dictators such as Pol Pot and Idi Amin who gained political power through violence.

@KeflavikAirport

We dont all think the same.

Well duh. the point is if you want to state that monarchies fare better than republics, you need to give some idea of what metrics you're measuring that with, or people might suspect you're talking bollocks.

I dont need to do anything @KeflavikAirport. If you thinks it bollocks with out bothering to look for yourself and needing me to fill your MN ups with links just move on. Dont get so invested. Its not a sparing contest.

Why would I care if faceless random internet users dont agree with me?

I highly doubt they would have envisaged what she would have done - especially womens rights

Exactly. Talk about unintended consequences. Yes, she can be voted out. She can also inflict a lot of damage before that.

I don't understand. Are you saying it's better to have the ones who CAN inflict a lot of damage if they want to, yet CAN'T be voted out? Isn't that a case of both unintended and permanent consequences?

Fair enough Seventh I wasn't aiming to be pedantic. Just can't get enough adjectives to describe these people, that's all.

@forfucksakenett

It was in her manifesto and people voted for her anyway.

Even teamed up with the greens they can still be kicked out because, you know, democracy.

The royals on the other hand? I can't believe we tolerate it in a modern world. It stuns me.

What was in her manifesto? The obliteration of womens rights under the guise of equality?

@MyOhMySimon

I highly doubt they would have envisaged what she would have done - especially womens rights

Exactly. Talk about unintended consequences. Yes, she can be voted out. She can also inflict a lot of damage before that.

I don't understand. Are you saying it's better to have the ones who CAN inflict a lot of damage if they want to, yet CAN'T be voted out? Isn't that a case of both unintended and permanent consequences?

The monarch doesnt set Gov policies/laws - which you fully well know.

I think you do understand, your just acting daft to make some one else look wrong.

@Evesgarden you're also invested or wouldn't keep posting. This isn't a hate thread, it's bringing up some interesting things about the monarchy, mainly through links and articles.

The non-monarchists just have to keep fending off tired opinions; they have nothing to learn from those except how entrenched this royal fantasy is in the UK.

@Evesgarden if by that you mean self ID and GRC reform then yes it was in her manifesto.

"The monarch doesn't set UK laws as you fully well know".

No, instead she lobbies for them to make sure they are then set, see link to Guardian article on Thradead 1.

Well I see you're a mind reader and still on this hate thread you loathe so much but just for the sake of others who're reading...

I'm trying to connect the dots between the pp's post and her stand against abolishing the monarchy.
Perhaps, she's saying "exactly" to something completely different but to me, is she saying that since Nicola can inflict a lot of damage before she's voted out, it's better to keep the monarchy? If so, I think that it's simply because they haven't decided to inflict damage (yet). We're at their mercy if they do because they can't be voted out.

However, rather than jump to conclusions like some people, I decided to pose it as a question for clarification.

Is that okay by you? @Evesgarden

No apologies for me then Derxa? Were you following thread guidelines when you made an incorrect personal comment about me?

I would normally let it go as tit and tat arguments in the middle of a thread are incredibly tedious for other posters , but I was rather offended by your words, especially as I work in a rural community.

Surely the whole point when posting on here is that you don't know the people you are making comments about. Sorry but it's contrary in the extreme to use that as an excuse for causing offence!

ChurchofLatterDayPaints I do know what you mean about finding the right words. The monarchy's "soft power" for want of a better description is massively under-acknowledged and understated.

Perhaps, she's saying "exactly" to something completely different but to me, is she saying that since Nicola can inflict a lot of damage before she's voted out, it's better to keep the monarchy?

Your mental gymnastics are Olympian level. A stellar career awaits you in politics.

“She”, ie me, is saying that the ability to vote someone out is no guarantee that they won’t inflict untold damage before that happens. If you believe a democratically elected head of state is potentially less damaging than a monarch, it’s demonstrably untrue.

Please don’t respond with your usual ploys of pretending not to understand or putting words in my mouth.

Yawn.

Why should we keep the monarchy then?

There's no reason to keep them.

But for many there is, and they usually have the money to get what they want.

[quote ChurchofLatterDayPaints]@Evesgarden you're also invested or wouldn't keep posting. This isn't a hate thread, it's bringing up some interesting things about the monarchy, mainly through links and articles.

The non-monarchists just have to keep fending off tired opinions; they have nothing to learn from those except how entrenched this royal fantasy is in the UK.[/quote]
Im adding to a thread - not demanding people bring me links