Ya I think that was about the British parliament.
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Her popularity also declines heavily for millenials and younger. No one should be surprised to see that the caf is largely made of millienials that also happens to be on the opposite side of the monarchy.
There have been other queens. In fact, that club is named after an area called Queen's Park, which would have been a nod to Queen Victoria.
Fair enough, but then it's probably misguided, no matter what is said to the contrary the royals have had minimal if not outright nonexistent political influence for some time now.
It'll still be the Queen's Park so I presume any Park Rangers keep their titles.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I realize that it's for a different thread but the royals having minimal political influence is largely by choice, them being apolitical isn't necessarily a good thing and many people will consider that against them.
Thought @Scarlett Dracarys was your queen?
The royal navy hunted down slavers at great cost to the treasury. All this while many other countries kept on with it, or at the VERY least some forms of serfdom well into the 20th century. Not (of course) justifying many of the other historical crimes but it's something that people should know.
https://www.history.co.uk/article/t...t between 1808,hands of violent slave traders.
I’m not sure this financial argument holds to be honest. Not getting involved with the love or hate back and forth, but I will point out here that financially, it wouldn’t surprise me if the monarchy had a net positive contribution financially because, for one, it drives a significant amount of tourism (surprisingly).
I take it Sinclair is an evening drinker.
Also, people are forgetting the amount of jerseys they sell. The queen alone probably sold loads of them with her name on the back and #1, that would more then make up for her costs.
Certainly she was liked by some. But I imagine there are many who have formed no opinions of her. Do you have an opinion on the Swedish monarchy?
What do you mean by wonder if theyll recover from their loss?
It feels like these questions are rhetorical in nature. If you have something to say then spit it out. Obviously you are trying to entice me into a reaction. So let's save the mental gymnastics and get to the point.
Lizz Truss flip flops on her opinions like nothing else. Remain? Brexit? Who cares, as-long as it helps her career.
I have an opinion on Princess Madeleine oh my days
The guy who literally lost a job in the past for racial abuse. Absolute weapon.
Doesn't mean she's a good one though
.Hopefully Charles takes a strong line with Andrew. "From here on in, we will absolutely not be funding your noncing."
I’m not sure why you mention the North of England - Thatcher might be hated there but it’s no more or less royalist than the rest of the country. As for the British Empire and English/British policy in Ireland, it’s not like Elizabeth II as a constitutional monarch had much of a say in any of that. Her main role in the Empire was ceremonial visits to attend independence ceremonies, and, as for Ireland, I think she handled the state visit there with a level of tact sorely missing in people like Boris Johnson. I’m not a royalist and would prefer to modernise the country but she played her role well.
I thought that was the World Economic Forum?
You're just jealous.
Other than that, it's sad for the family, and I hope Canada uses this occasion to reevaluate things.
I'm just stating the facts, holding colonial rule against them when they had minimal political impact for most of it is bizarre to me, if anything most of the empire building happened after their diminished role with overwhelming public support , hell some of the more egregiously acts happened under governments which by today's standards will be considered relatively liberal.
Anyway them being apolitical has probably led to them lasting so long, making enemies out of half your population without any effective executive powers is daft, still I think if any criticism was to be leveled against them it has to be about them benefiting from public funds and such.
Jesus, what an absolute thundercnut.
we also kept paying compensation to former slave owners and their descendants until 2015 which is also something people should know
Whether their influence is political in nature or not is irrelevant. What the royal family have overseen, had a hand in or even been directly responsible for is rephrensible to many, understandably often worse than anything any given politician has done.
Always. Ravenous green eye.
Last time we had a king...WW2 and the Korean war....so maybe we will be lucky and a mild scuffle on redcafe will be enough this time.
It's not that daft. Before people take things too seriously, it's a silly example but if I have the influence of preventing a mugging and you are mugged in my presence will you ignore the fact that I could have stopped it but chose to do nothing? Surely you will have grievances against me and also against your aggressor?
I’m not a royalist or someone who even believes that strongly in the idea of monarchy, but I can’t help feeling a little bit sad this evening.
Trevor ‘convicted of racial abuse’ Sinclair taking the moral high ground
There's actually zero evidence that this is true, let alone "significant" amounts. It's reported as fact by places like the Daily Mail but never with actual evidence. If you look at the statistics for the most visited places in London over the last three years the top three are the Botanical Gardens and two museums. People travel to see palaces in the same way they travel to see museums, nothing concrete to suggest it's because of the monarchy. The pomp and performance of the changing of the guards. They're not coming to see a member of the royal family wave at them.
I do however have numbers that the Royal family cost the UK taxpayer over £100 million last year. Couple that with the extensive and gross amount of money they earn from their ownership of swathes of the country's land and properties I struggle to take "they're a net contributor because of tourism" seriously. If I steal everyone's food and charge them money so I can sit on my arse all day I don't get to sell them back the food and say "I'm actually a net contributor because I'm giving you something to eat".
Edit: that sounded harsher than I meant. I'm going to go and lie in my nest for a bit.
You love stirring up trouble don't you?
Being bad is a lot more fun.Doesn't mean she's a good one though
Couldn't be announced until the NYSE was opened.
No I wasn't actually, I don't believe in monarchies either. Was genuinely asking if the British people will support the monarchy without her ruling.
yeah its bollocks
they have a solid PR team behind them I'll give them that, the cnuts