stu914 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Great Vid....Just reinforces my feelings towards these people and their ilk.... I drove tourists around London for a long time and the Americans in particular seemed to be under the illusion they would definately see some royals, if not the queen herself...... Soon cleared that one up for them.....I saw her twice in over twenty years....what chance for them in a couple of weeks... Trouble is all the time there are forelock tugging flunkeys catering to their every whim, nothing will change.... Tell you what, even without them, I doubt much would change...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypher79 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 they aren't even the legit royal bloodline. some dude in australia is. the queen could actually be worth a shit if she refused to sign all these laws that allow us to be mugged off. but she hasn't done that has she. They royals we have are from German bloodlines. Their surname was originally 'Saxe-Coburg Gotha' but changed it to 'Windsor' in the early 1900's to deflect away from hatred towards Germans during that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfish Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 They royals we have are from German bloodlines. Their surname was originally 'Saxe-Coburg Gotha' but changed it to 'Windsor' in the early 1900's to deflect away from hatred towards Germans during that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha old goat legs does have a legit claim through the stewart line if my memory serves the issue lies when the georges i think one of them married twice the 1st marrage produced 2or3 children (memory) witch under the rules were the legit heirs . he married again and that was the offical line from what queen victoria comes .........i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weedshark Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) there's a good documentary about the bloodline by tony robinson but the title escapes me. yeah i knew that cypher but i thought it was sachs for some reason. we are just cattle to them. Edited November 16, 2014 by weedshark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam-i-am Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 They've got Kate churning the sprogs out to put a bit of distance between the crown and the ginger cuckoo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Sax-coburg-gotha.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
distracted Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 lets have it on the referendum 1: Do you want Britain to leave the European Union YES / NO 2: Do you want Britain to disband the monarchy and heriditary titles YES / NO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiphip Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Devil's Advocate. So you would all rather someone who WANTS the job as head of state President Blair President Thatcher President Johnson President Farage If one wishes to see the back of them, come up with a viable alternative for the position of "Head of State" Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambium Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Roit. I just watched that vid and as entertaining and somewhat enlightening as it was I have some questions. Something that really interests me is land ownership and how it relates to power, and empowerment. In that video it states that the queen ownes six thousand million ha or something like that, claiming that she owns the UK, Canada, Australia etc... Now does she? Does she claim some kind of rent on them or profit from their use? Is she in the traditional sense of the word (which is the only one that matters), a landowner? If she 'owns' the UK does her 'ownership' supersede the Duke of Buccleuch ownership of what I presume he believes are his 270,900 acres. Or the Vlissingen's of letterewe and their sprawling acreage? How does she 'own' this land, if they also do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam-i-am Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) Devil's Advocate. So you would all rather someone who WANTS the job as head of state President Blair President Thatcher President Johnson President Farage If one wishes to see the back of them, come up with a viable alternative for the position of "Head of State" Cheers Erm.......Prime Minister?That's if we actually need a head of state Edited November 16, 2014 by sam-i-am 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embryo Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 also if you had been trained to kill from a young age including rare animals . one does wonder how it would effect a childs growing brain to be subjected to all the killing via hunting . also how do you reckon they view us as people ? are we just animals to them ? I have a bit of issue with this...I've hunted since I was a boy (5yr old) and I don't think its made me a maladjust. In fact I'd go so far as to say that hunting teaches vital skills(imo) that todays youth are generally lacking and I think that we as a society are poorer for. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weedshark Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 you just said the words "todays youth" in a sentence. just a heads up. you're not wrong though mate. nothing inherently bad about hunting for food etc. but for sport it gets a bit dodgey so it's important to make the distinction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embryo Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I disagree, I don't think the distinction is important. It's the fundamental skills involved that are (imo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam-i-am Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I disagree, I don't think the distinction is important. It's the fundamental skills involved that are (imo) I'm going to disagree on this one. Killing for pleasure is just plain wrong. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embryo Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 In your opinion... Also sport shooting isn't just for pleasure as you put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now