End of the Monarchy?

1966_and_all_that said:
The role of the monarch is to stop anyone else trying to usurp power as head of state. In that sense I'll go with them for now.
Click to expand...
Genuine question, how do the royal family stop someone usurping power when they are purely ceremonial. They couldn't or wouldn't stop Brexit, Blair's illegal war and his lies to parliament, thatchers acts of national vandalism and the literal war she started against miners and printers, the queen did nothing when Johnson perogued parliament and lied to her. If a PM wants to take complete power, there is nothing in the last 100 years of history that would indicate they would, could or even want to stop a power grab, unless of course that power grab included reduced circumstances of the monarchy.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
So am I
Pointing out the residences will still be well visited
Click to expand...

It's possible that more visitors would come if all of these palaces were open to the public.
Buckingham Palace would make a great hotel, can you imagine the buzz that it would create and the clientele. All the US and other dollars that would flow in, likewise Kensington Palace etc. It's a good idea.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I do get what your saying I just didn’t think the premier league was a great example to use thats all especially when most clubs are already foreign owned.
Click to expand...
A majority of everything in the UK is foreign owned. MPs are in many cases being dictated to by foreign financial backers. Water, energy, infrastructure, manufacturing, and . . . . and. Charles has taken foreign cash. In respect of the argument that the royal family are one of the biggest sources of tourism income for the nation, it falls on its face.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Genuine question, how do the royal family stop someone usurping power when they are purely ceremonial. They couldn't or wouldn't stop Brexit, Blair's illegal war and his lies to parliament, thatchers acts of national vandalism and the literal war she started against miners and printers, the queen did nothing when Johnson perogued parliament and lied to her. If a PM wants to take complete power, there is nothing in the last 100 years of history that would indicate they would, could or even want to stop a power grab, unless of course that power grab included reduced circumstances of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
In theory, the King could refuse to give Royal Assent to a Bill, but it would create a constitutional crisis.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
It's possible that more visitors would come if all of these palaces were open to the public.
Buckingham Palace would make a great hotel, can you imagine the buzz that it would create and the clientele. All the US and other dollars that would flow in, likewise Kensington Palace etc. It's a good idea.
Click to expand...
nah nonsense. No more changing of the guard, trooping of the colour etc etc. Said it before, overseas visitors come here because of our heritage, because of the Royal Family, because of the pomp and circumstance. Add in the fact that overseas dignitaries love an invite to Buck House. What's not to love apart. Just bitter bitter republicans.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Reading the various Andrew threads there’s a clear split between the “Enough of the bowing and scraping, just get rid of the whole lot” brigade (TAM that’ll be you), and the “Andrew is a bad apple but the rest are sound, GSTK” contingent (20s that’ll be you).

So which is right?

Is throwing Andrew to the wolves “just the right thing to do to preserve the dynasty”?

Or is it “They all knew what was going on and now are just trying to cover their arses”?

Discuss.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t sit right with me abolishing a staple part of British Culture, however, with that being said a full inquiry should take place around who knew about Andrew’s disgusting behaviour and all those should be ousted along with him.

Leave the Royal Family to flourish and reinstate dignity and tradition through William & Kate, George, Charlotte & Louis.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
A majority of everything in the UK is foreign owned. MPs are in many cases being dictated to by foreign financial backers. Water, energy, infrastructure, manufacturing, and . . . . and. Charles has taken foreign cash. In respect of the argument that the royal family are one of the biggest sources of tourism income for the nation, it falls on its face.
Click to expand...
You forgot the “In your opinion”
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Genuine question, how do the royal family stop someone usurping power when they are purely ceremonial. They couldn't or wouldn't stop Brexit, Blair's illegal war and his lies to parliament, thatchers acts of national vandalism and the literal war she started against miners and printers, the queen did nothing when Johnson perogued parliament and lied to her. If a PM wants to take complete power, there is nothing in the last 100 years of history that would indicate they would, could or even want to stop a power grab, unless of course that power grab included reduced circumstances of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
It can indeed seem redundant in that respect. My go-to event for questioning the Monarch's role is the Scottish Independence referendum. That is why, in exchange for downsizing "the Firm" I would want to see a more beefed up constitutional role for the Monarch, to ensure that any coup or power-grab, or even that a prorogueing of Parliament, cannot proceed with a constitutional debate and decision in both Houses of Parliament.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
It can indeed seem redundant in that respect. My go-to event for questioning the Monarch's role is the Scottish Independence referendum. That is why, in exchange for downsizing "the Firm" I would want to see a more beefed up constitutional role for the Monarch, to ensure that any coup or power-grab, or even that a prorogueing of Parliament, cannot proceed with a constitutional debate and decision in both Houses of Parliament.
Click to expand...
I think this where we would substantially differ, firstly I cannot see anyone within the monarchy being useful with actual constitutional power, I seriously doubt the current crop have the intellectual capability to understand any constitutional issue. If it's the advisers behind them pulling the monarchy's strings, that kind of system is the antithesis of democracy in that you are relying on hidden power and influence (which of course is how government currently works)

Secondly I'm of the opinion that the break up of the UK is inevitable and to be welcomed, but I'm also of the opinion that England as a nation would be better served by being broken up into six or seven regional authorities (based on some humanistic principles with regard to population size).

I'm pretty sure that other non monarchist systems can be built to counteract power grabs, or PMs that overreach their authority. It all requires debate, however we don't really live in a time where debate is valued, and I see no way of discussing as a series of sound bites or God forbid tweets (or X's).
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I think this where we would substantially differ, firstly I cannot see anyone within the monarchy being useful with actual constitutional power, I seriously doubt the current crop have the intellectual capability to understand any constitutional issue. If it's the advisers behind them pulling the monarchy's strings, that kind of system is the antithesis of democracy in that you are relying on hidden power and influence (which of course is how government currently works)

Secondly I'm of the opinion that the break up of the UK is inevitable and to be welcomed, but I'm also of the opinion that England as a nation would be better served by being broken up into six or seven regional authorities (based on some humanistic principles with regard to population size).

I'm pretty sure that other non monarchist systems can be built to counteract power grabs, or PMs that overreach their authority. It all requires debate, however we don't really live in a time where debate is valued, and I see no way of discussing as a series of sound bites or God forbid tweets (or X's).
Click to expand...
OK. Perhaps I should have said that my beefed-up constitutional role would still be 90% non-participatory by the incumbent. Rather that the post itself, if in danger, should be cause for Parliamentary debates, requiring a 2/3rds majority in both Houses.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
OK. Perhaps I should have said that my beefed-up constitutional role would still be 90% non-participatory by the incumbent. Rather that the post itself, if in danger, should be cause for Parliamentary debates, requiring a 2/3rds majority in both Houses.
Click to expand...
The two thirds majority for major issues should be adopted in general, should have been the vote majority needed for coming out of Europe. The non participatory point is the issue for me, if a head of state is in place they should be participatory, and to some extent protectionist of the public.
Wizaard said:
In theory, the King could refuse to give Royal Assent to a Bill, but it would create a constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...
but despite an awful lot of bad, venal and harmful legislation passed over the last 50-60 years the monarchy has passed everything. Not giving royal assent would create a constitutional crisis which is sort of my point, royal assent is another ceremonial affectation.
 
This debate has provoked a lot of interest, at least in me.
I live in Italy ATM and in my naive way am quite an admirer of 84 year old Sergio Materella the Italian president since 2015, he seems unpretentious, kind, inclusive and to give his office the dignity that it requires. In my uneducated outsider's opinion he appears to do a lot of good work (ribbon cutting, giving awards, visiting disaster sites etc). His daughter accompanies him on state occasions as his wife is dead which I feel is another nice touch. The constitution requires that the president is above all a force for national unity - given Italy's history and north / south divide that seems like a good idea. He doesn't get involved in the sometimes lively political debates that take place from what I can tell.
Provoked by this debate, I had a look at what happens here. It seems that elected representatives from all tiers of Italian government (Regions, Representatives, Senate) elect the President for a 7 year term - it is not a public election. Materella is now on his second term so has been popular, at least with politicians. The few Italians I have broached the subject with seem a bit less enthusiastic about him than me. His past was as a politician mainly with the centre-left Christian Democrats who governed Italy in the post war period before Belusconi came along and he held many senior positions. To some Italians I would guess that he probably looks like a career politician (from a notoriously corrupt party https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36481) who is maintaining his proximity to the trough.
It would be the equivalent of say John Major, David Steel or Michael Heseltine being president of the UK. Despite its shortcomings, I would definitely prefer this arrangement to the monarchy along with a written UK constitution. There is no forelock tugging, no bowing, no pageantry, no mention of god and no presumption that he is anything other than an ordinary person. He represents the state with a sort of quiet dignity.
 
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre said:
This debate has provoked a lot of interest, at least in me.
I live in Italy ATM and in my naive way am quite an admirer of 84 year old Sergio Materella the Italian president since 2015, he seems unpretentious, kind, inclusive and to give his office the dignity that it requires. In my uneducated outsider's opinion he appears to do a lot of good work (ribbon cutting, giving awards, visiting disaster sites etc). His daughter accompanies him on state occasions as his wife is dead which I feel is another nice touch. The constitution requires that the president is above all a force for national unity - given Italy's history and north / south divide that seems like a good idea. He doesn't get involved in the sometimes lively political debates that take place from what I can tell.
Provoked by this debate, I had a look at what happens here. It seems that elected representatives from all tiers of Italian government (Regions, Representatives, Senate) elect the President for a 7 year term - it is not a public election. Materella is now on his second term so has been popular, at least with politicians. The few Italians I have broached the subject with seem a bit less enthusiastic about him than me. His past was as a politician mainly with the centre-left Christian Democrats who governed Italy in the post war period before Belusconi came along and he held many senior positions. To some Italians I would guess that he probably looks like a career politician (from a notoriously corrupt party https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36481) who is maintaining his proximity to the trough.
It would be the equivalent of say John Major, David Steel or Michael Heseltine being president of the UK. Despite its shortcomings, I would definitely prefer this arrangement to the monarchy along with a written UK constitution. There is no forelock tugging, no bowing, no pageantry, no mention of god and no presumption that he is anything other than an ordinary person. He represents the state with a sort of quiet dignity.
Click to expand...
One observation. I would say Italy is a much more religious country than the UK. Then within it you have the Vatican City where i reckon there's plenty of forelock tugging, pageantry and plenty of mentions of God.

In other words, i don't think your argument stands up.
 
20togo said:
One observation. I would say Italy is a much more religious country than the UK. Then within it you have the Vatican City where i reckon there's plenty of forelock tugging, pageantry and plenty of mentions of God.

In other words, i don't think your argument stands up.
Click to expand...
You are completely missing the point.
This debate is about the role of the head of the state with reference to our monarchy and its role. In Italy, as I am sure you know, the church and state are completely separate entities, so much so that the church has its own country (Vatican city). The church has no role in the Italian constitution and Italy is a secular state - it was deliberately set up as such. So debates about what happens within the Catholic church are completely irrelevant to the role of the head of state and the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
ElBurroSinNombre said:
You are completely missing the point.
This debate is about the role of the head of the state with reference to our monarchy and its role. In Italy, as I am sure you know, the church and state are completely separate entities, so much so that the church has its own country (Vatican city). The church has no role in the Italian constitution and Italy is a secular state - it was deliberately set up as such. So debates about what happens within the Catholic church are completely irrelevant to the role of the head of state and the constitution.
Click to expand...
you brought religion into it. You are a republican so it's pretty clear you will disagree with everything about a monarchy. And whether you like it or not, the Italians fawn over religion, the pope and the pageantry.

I'm a monarchist and see all the benefits etc to having a Royal Family. You don't want to open your eyes to that. It really is as simple as that.
 
20togo said:
you brought religion into it. You are a republican so it's pretty clear you will disagree with everything about a monarchy. And whether you like it or not, the Italians fawn over religion, the pope and the pageantry.

I'm a monarchist and see all the benefits etc to having a Royal Family. You don't want to open your eyes to that. It really is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Religion comes into it because our head of state is also the head of the C of E. And some believe that the king is appointed by god. The coronation is a religious ceremony. Unelected bishops sit in the House of Lords. That is why religion is relevant as regards the UKs 'unwritten' constitution and the monarchy. Essentially the fairy tail is that the monarch has a divine right to rule (be head of state).

You may see the benefits of the monarchy but you are seemingly unable to argue coherently on their behalf.
I am not going to reply to any more of your messages, it's completely pointless.

Anyway for the benefit of others, here is a written constitution from a secular state (Italy);

 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
I think William and Kate are far more in touch with the realities of the 21st Century world we live in. The whole case with Andrew is appalling, not just because of the obvious abuse that has gone on via these tawdry groups, but the quite staggering lack of self-awareness from those involved in terms of just how bad this is. And how bad it comes across.
 
I’ve never been particularly fussed about the royal family. I wouldn’t call myself a royalist, but their existence doesn’t bother me either. I’ve always thought abolishing them would be more trouble than it’s worth. That said, the whole Andrew situation makes it much harder to justify their place at all. The monarchy clearly needs to be slimmed down and completely rebranded. Some of the pageantry is over the top, sure, but I think traditions and quirks like that are part of what gives a culture its character. The deference, though, can go.

The Scandinavian monarchies and the Dutch model strike a good balance, still symbolic but far leaner. A presidency would fill the same role, but I find presidents a bit stale. A modernised royal family feels like a more distinctive alternative with a bit of character imo. It's a nod to our past without it hanging over us.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
This debate has provoked a lot of interest, at least in me.
I live in Italy ATM and in my naive way am quite an admirer of 84 year old Sergio Materella the Italian president since 2015, he seems unpretentious, kind, inclusive and to give his office the dignity that it requires. In my uneducated outsider's opinion he appears to do a lot of good work (ribbon cutting, giving awards, visiting disaster sites etc). His daughter accompanies him on state occasions as his wife is dead which I feel is another nice touch. The constitution requires that the president is above all a force for national unity - given Italy's history and north / south divide that seems like a good idea. He doesn't get involved in the sometimes lively political debates that take place from what I can tell.
Provoked by this debate, I had a look at what happens here. It seems that elected representatives from all tiers of Italian government (Regions, Representatives, Senate) elect the President for a 7 year term - it is not a public election. Materella is now on his second term so has been popular, at least with politicians. The few Italians I have broached the subject with seem a bit less enthusiastic about him than me. His past was as a politician mainly with the centre-left Christian Democrats who governed Italy in the post war period before Belusconi came along and he held many senior positions. To some Italians I would guess that he probably looks like a career politician (from a notoriously corrupt party https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36481) who is maintaining his proximity to the trough.
It would be the equivalent of say John Major, David Steel or Michael Heseltine being president of the UK. Despite its shortcomings, I would definitely prefer this arrangement to the monarchy along with a written UK constitution. There is no forelock tugging, no bowing, no pageantry, no mention of god and no presumption that he is anything other than an ordinary person. He represents the state with a sort of quiet dignity.
Click to expand...
If the second house wasn't full of second rate political appointees who either don't attend or only attend to pick up their daily stipend, an actual royal assent shouldn't be needed because the second house should be the balancing or checking institution, and to some extent it already is and occasionally functions as such. there is dire need of electoral and governance reform. There are over 800 sitting lords at a cost of 150 million pounds and includes a Russian oligarch who is connected to Russian security services firstly through his father being a KGB officer and his own role according to British security services sources quoted in the media that Lebedev was an active associate of kremlin actors. The Queen was specifically asked to block the peerage but ultimately did nothing, as is always the case.

Saying that I can see the logic of a respected senior or retired politician or ex leader being a president who largely carries out a ceremonial role. Again its the non participatory role, I have the issue with. If the role is to provide a constitutional balance then being non participatory it is useless. If the role is as a figurehead what are they a figurehead of? If it is cultural identity which is largely removed from constitutional or legislative matters, then I'm of the opinion that a non politician and someone who is culturally significant to a large majority of the population. I could see a perverse situation where one of the younger royals might be that cultural leader in the future but they don't need their titles for that.

its an interesting conversation and one that is sorely needed.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
If the second house wasn't full of second rate political appointees who either don't attend or only attend to pick up their daily stipend, an actual royal assent shouldn't be needed because the second house should be the balancing or checking institution, and to some extent it already is and occasionally functions as such. there is dire need of electoral and governance reform. There are over 800 sitting lords at a cost of 150 million pounds and includes a Russian oligarch who is connected to Russian security services firstly through his father being a KGB officer and his own role according to British security services sources quoted in the media that Lebedev was an active associate of kremlin actors. The Queen was specifically asked to block the peerage but ultimately did nothing, as is always the case.

Saying that I can see the logic of a respected senior or retired politician or ex leader being a president who largely carries out a ceremonial role. Again its the non participatory role, I have the issue with. If the role is to provide a constitutional balance then being non participatory it is useless. If the role is as a figurehead what are they a figurehead of? If it is cultural identity which is largely removed from constitutional or legislative matters, then I'm of the opinion that a non politician and someone who is culturally significant to a large majority of the population. I could see a perverse situation where one of the younger royals might be that cultural leader in the future but they don't need their titles for that.

its an interesting conversation and one that is sorely needed.
Click to expand...
Looking at the constitution that I linked the president does have some executive powers
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Religion comes into it because our head of state is also the head of the C of E. And some believe that the king is appointed by god. The coronation is a religious ceremony. Unelected bishops sit in the House of Lords. That is why religion is relevant as regards the UKs 'unwritten' constitution and the monarchy. Essentially the fairy tail is that the monarch has a divine right to rule (be head of state).

You may see the benefits of the monarchy but you are seemingly unable to argue coherently on their behalf.
I am not going to reply to any more of your messages, it's completely pointless.

Anyway for the benefit of others, here is a written constitution from a secular state (Italy);

Click to expand...
It's completely pointless for me too but you somehow seem to think you are the only one with a balanced view. A typical trait of the left side of the debate. I'm not trying to change you from being a republican yet here you are with your non stop criticism of the monarchy. You want me to argue the points you want me to argue about but why should i do that. I think I've made my views known pretty coherently. I talk of tradition, pomp and pageantry that the Royal Family bring. Something that the whole world admires and hundreds of thousands of overseas visitors come to see.

Like i said you're just a bitter bitter republican.
 
straightatthewall said:
I think William and Kate are far more in touch with the realities of the 21st Century world we live in. The whole case with Andrew is appalling, not just because of the obvious abuse that has gone on via these tawdry groups, but the quite staggering lack of self-awareness from those involved in terms of just how bad this is. And how bad it comes across.
Click to expand...
William isn’t whiter than white
 
I lived in Windsor for many years and had pubs and restaurants there. The foreign tourists flocked there and not just to see the castle, they hoped they might catch a glimpse of a royal. The money they spent was huge, as it is in London for visiting Buckingham palace and the many ceremonial events.

They bring a huge amount of revenue to the country in that way, but even more through foreign investors keen to have a royal connection.

I haven’t worked out how much the country saved due to Trumps state visit, but as a result, our tariffs are 10%, whilst it’s 15% for the EU.

Andrew has been punished and rightly so, but I also think the monarchy needs pruning. Too many minor so called royals are living the high life at taxpayers expense. I expect when William is king, things will change significantly.

He actually visited one of my pubs on his way to Twickenham, he sat on his own in a window table with a bowl of chips and a coke, while his security, two of them stood at the bar drinking water, unfortunately I wasn’t there at the time, but my manager said he seemed quiet and respectful.
 
Matesrates said:
I lived in Windsor for many years and had pubs and restaurants there. The foreign tourists flocked there and not just to see the castle, they hoped they might catch a glimpse of a royal. The money they spent was huge, as it is in London for visiting Buckingham palace and the many ceremonial events.

They bring a huge amount of revenue to the country in that way, but even more through foreign investors keen to have a royal connection.

I haven’t worked out how much the country saved due to Trumps state visit, but as a result, our tariffs are 10%, whilst it’s 15% for the EU.

Andrew has been punished and rightly so, but I also think the monarchy needs pruning. Too many minor so called royals are living the high life at taxpayers expense. I expect when William is king, things will change significantly.

He actually visited one of my pubs on his way to Twickenham, he sat on his own in a window table with a bowl of chips and a coke, while his security, two of them stood at the bar drinking water, unfortunately I wasn’t there at the time, but my manager said he seemed quiet and respectful.
Click to expand...
Just for clarity, the country doesn't save anything through tariffs. It's American importers that pay it, not the exporters.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I think that William is a very caring chap and his wife is very lovely.
Click to expand...
i love the monarchy but at this point in time i'm more interested in what you have to say about the thread you started yesterday which disappeared in the blink of an eye after your second post. Not an edit, a removal of a thread. Anything you care to share.
 
20togo said:
i love the monarchy but at this point in time i'm more interested in what you have to say about the thread you started yesterday which disappeared in the blink of an eye after your second post. Not an edit, a removal of a thread. Anything you care to share.
Click to expand...
Only that I've put up a nice new thread featuring the nursery rhyme, Mary had a little lamb. I do hope you enjoy it.
 
BWseasider said:
I’ve never been particularly fussed about the royal family. I wouldn’t call myself a royalist, but their existence doesn’t bother me either. I’ve always thought abolishing them would be more trouble than it’s worth. That said, the whole Andrew situation makes it much harder to justify their place at all. The monarchy clearly needs to be slimmed down and completely rebranded. Some of the pageantry is over the top, sure, but I think traditions and quirks like that are part of what gives a culture its character. The deference, though, can go.

The Scandinavian monarchies and the Dutch model strike a good balance, still symbolic but far leaner. A presidency would fill the same role, but I find presidents a bit stale. A modernised royal family feels like a more distinctive alternative with a bit of character imo. It's a nod to our past without it hanging over us.
Click to expand...
I'm no monarchist and I think the deference and sycophants who fawn over them are more iirksome than the individuals involved barring the ex Duke of Pork,of course .

I do agree with much of this post ,a more modern and benign monarchy, like the Dutch and Swedes would get the broadest support.A lot of people are comforted by the stability and tradition they bring .

I for one will be thinking of what could have been on Wednesday evening
 
Bisphamtang said:
I'm no monarchist and I think the deference and sycophants who fawn over them are more iirksome than the individuals involved barring the ex Duke of Pork,of course .

I do agree with much of this post ,a more modern and benign monarchy, like the Dutch and Swedes would get the broadest support.A lot of people are comforted by the stability and tradition they bring .

I for one will be thinking of what could have been on Wednesday evening
Click to expand...
do you not think this reference to deference is some-what overstated? Let's face it, they have pretty much zero affect on anyone on here day to day life apart from the obsession that some have in wanting to get rid of them. And that goes i expect for 99.99% of the rest of the country too.
 
20togo said:
do you not think this reference to deference is some-what overstated? Let's face it, they have pretty much zero affect on anyone on here day to day life apart from the obsession that some have in wanting to get rid of them.
Click to expand...
You were the one that said you loved them a couple of posts ago.

Bit strange to love someone you've likely never met, unlikely to ever meet and (by your own admission) have pretty much zero impact on your day to day life.

Why would you love someone or something when considering the above? With that in mind I agree that deference to the monarchy is bizarre to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps they should all engage in a version of Celebrity Traitors? Would be a good way to trim the numbers down.
 
Clockwork Tangerine said:
You were the one that said you loved them a couple of posts ago.

Bit strange to love someone you've likely never met, unlikely to ever meet and (by your own admission) have pretty much zero impact on your day to day life.

Why would you love someone or something when considering the above? With that in mind I agree that deference to the monarchy is irksome to say the least.
Click to expand...
I love the monarchy because of what they bring to this country. Some on here seem to love Keir Starmer and i doubr they've ever met him. And he only brings lies and misery to the people of the country. And it's really is so amusing that you quote me, yet want to deflect on all the lies you were posting on your caps lock posts.

Unlike you I'm not a liar. Now get yourself off to Andys Man Club.
 
20togo said:
I love the monarchy because of what they bring to this country. Some on here seem to love Keir Starmer and i doubr they've ever met him. And he only brings lies and misery to the people of the country.

Unlike you I'm not a liar. Now get yourself off to Andys Man Club.
Click to expand...
Who seems to love Keir Starmer? Why have you brought him up in a conversation about the monarchy?

Why are you also going on about my "lies"? I thought we'd been through this and agreed you just totally missed the point of satirical comments. As I've asked before, did you shout at the cinema screen when watching Star Wars because it was all "lies"?

Lastly what's the reference to Andy's Man club? Are you making light of those who suffer from mental health and find support in such groups? Bit low that.

You're clearly a very angry man who can't properly process their emotions when confront with an opposing point of view. Starting to pity you now to be honest.
 
Clockwork Tangerine said:
Who seems to love Keir Starmer? Why have you brought him up in a conversation about the monarchy?

Why are you also going on about my "lies"? I thought we'd been through this and agreed you just totally missed the point of satirical comments. As I've asked before, did you shout at the cinema screen when watching Star Wars because it was all "lies"?

Lastly what's the reference to Andy's Man club? Are you making light of those who suffer from mental health and find support in such groups? Bit low that.

You're clearly a very angry man who can't properly process their emotions when confront with an opposing point of view. Starting to pity you now to be honest.
Click to expand...
if you are starting to pity me then i know i'm getting it right. Now keep coming up with excuses for your lies.

Oh and just to put you right again. Never seen any Star Wars film. Some people love 'em but they have never been of interest to me. And how van i be angry when just taking the piss out of you and calling out your lies.
 
I’ve always said I wouldn’t bow to anyone, however (posh word for but) I have a close relative (season ticket holder) who said the same, until he was presented with the MBE by the queen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top