He's bloody fantastic! He's one of the old gang; those "gaffes" are just normality, getting through life with a smile on his face. Some of these Liberal shit-for-brains might just buck up and shut up, miserable old sods. That ridiculous PO really did make too much of a fuss about it; Id personally be honoured to have the Duke make a joke about me!
@RingBearer1992 John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
@RingBearer1992 Because he is a member of the ruling elite who sees the masses as being useless eaters and the planet would be better off without them. He is a high level freemason along with the queen.
Sense of humour people its an ice breaker this shows he doesnt have a rod up his arse. If he had said it to me I would have smiled and said I can get you in if you want special rates. People, the media try to spin what he says out of context
The Duke of Edinburgh is brilliant. Knowing that at any royal event Prince Philip could say something hilariously inappropriate is one of the few justifications for the royal family.
I'm not racist or sexist, but I find Prince Philip bloody hilarious! In this politically correct day and age it's great to see someone stir things up a little. Especially someone as high profile as Prince Philip. He's not hurting anyone, just having a bit of a giggle. I don't see what the big deal is. Long may he continue!
never understood the sense of defending people unless you know them personally or unless you were there at the time. The media has a tendency to exaggerate and distort most news stories, especially those about celebrities and royalty.
I thinnk it's hysterical. Yes, it's very rude and sexist and I'd be offended if he did it to me, too. but can you imagine? man's spent 62 years of his life trotting behind the Queen, shaking hands with old ladies and watching his wife cut ribbons and unveil plaques. I mean -- would you just want to stir things up a bit now and then? He's an old guy -- cranky crusty, bored...let him have his fun!
Prince Philip is worth every penny. As a Canadian I'd gladly donate tax dollars to cryogenically freeze him in the hopes of future resuscitation and continued ability to enjoy his sense of humour. I wish more prominent figures had his sense of humour... bullocks to political correctness.
Prince Philip is worth every penny. As a Canadian I'd gladly donate tax dollars to cryogenically freeze him in the hopes of future resuscitation and continued ability to enjoy his sense of humour. I wish more prominent figures had his sense of humour... bullucks to political correctness.
@Grendo147 Imperial Germany had elections in: 1871, 1874, 1877, 1878, 1881, 1884, 1887, 1890, 1893, 1898, 1903, 1907, and 1912. Not all democratic systems are republics, and not all republics are democratic. The Soviets had republics, and the American system has essentially boiled down to two parties. Not very democratic in my opinion.
In the end the main problem was forcing people with 1000+ of monarchy to become a monarch-less republic.
@Grendo147 Sorry, nothing you can say or DO will ever convince me that a republican system of government is superior to that of a constitutional monarchy, or even a straight up monarchy for that matter. Republics are inherently flawed, which even Plato realized. Republics are fragile and lack certain elements that make them more prone to collapsing in face of certain pressures. Eg. had Germany not been force to become one, there never would have been a Third Reich. That is why I loathe them.
@Grendo147 If he was a Puritan, he no doubt would no doubt not have approved of your potty mouth. What really gets me is that "red blooded Americans" such as yourself simply can't get over themselves. Yeah, you "liberated" yourselves from the Monarchy, but you turn around and create your own Empire and bully everyone. You create a supposedly "free" society and a "land of opportunity", yet the homelessness and economic disparity in the US utterly shameful.
@Grendo147 So they lived in a society and benefited from British rule for 150 years and then suddenly decided to rebel against it. Yup, that's treason alright...
@Grendo147 Benefitted [sic]? How Orwellian. It's your kind of delusional false sense of greatness that is why most Canadians disdain America and Americans. I really don't think you know how extensive this sentiment is. Also, I'm assuming "of there" should be "up there". If so, then congrats for being among the 5% of Americans who actually know that Canada is indeed situated NORTH of the USA.
@Grendo147 I was born in the States, but have lived most of my life in Canada and am now a Canadian citizen. I live in a society that seems to fulfill all of the claims that you make, yet I see how in so many respects the USA fails to live up to those same ideals. I live in a society that is founded on the British principles of "Peace, Order, and Good Government". Because of this Canadian society and laws have managed to adapt better to the changing times and I am freer than in the USA.
@Grendo147 Revolutionaries tend to dish out the rhetoric in abundance. The Americans were no different. Yes, the war was started by the elites for their own benefit, but in order to make it stick, of course they had to couch their agenda in rhetoric that would ensure legitimacy among the lower-classes. Still, many Loyalists left for Canada; many non-Loyalist Americans followed soon after the Revolution ended looking for better land and more stable government.
@Grendo147 Well most were British-born or were first generation "Americans". If you'd care to read anything about the pre-Revolution period you'd know that there simply wasn't much of an "anti-British" sentiment up until maybe a few years before the insurgency started. That's because the British system of law and governance did essentially create stable social and political environments where citizens could prosper. It's your ideological drivel that flies in the face of the truth.
@Grendo147 The war simply was not a liberation movement by the "American" people. It was instigated by wealthy elites so that they could "free" themselves of certain restrictions. The rights and freedoms of the common citizen were of no importance to them, which is why many remained loyal to the Crown had had to flee to what later became Canada to escape violations of their civil rights at the hands of the so-called "patriots".
@Grendo147 George III was hardly a tyrant. I think if you'd care to look at English Law at the end of the 18th century you'd notice that it was the most developed legal systems in human history. The issue was not tyranny. Citizens of the 13 colonies possessed rights that few other humans had during this time. The issue really was taxation and certain restrictions on commerce and industry placed upon the wealthy elites.
@Grendo147 The US wasn't quite a promised land. For many it meant slavery or indentured servitude. You should take a closer look at your history, many of the people who came over were in fact outright criminals.
@Grendo147 "Treason is conditional". No, actually it's a legal concept that is not conditional on "victory". The fact that your ancestors fought against the legal and legitimate ruler of the land makes them traitors. But of course you're just engaging in the usual rhetoric which Americans employ to legitimize their history. There are, however, a fair number of Americans who are still attached to the Monarchy, and once the US collapses, some states may return to the Commonwealth. :D
@Grendo147 Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what's going to happen to me in my 'next life'? You presumptuous tool. The Soviet economic model led to the industrialisation of Russia and a massive improvement in living standards. Sure, they were butchers of human rights, but the degree to which the USSR economy grew had US policy makers worried until the late 70s But don't condemn yourself to ignorance, just read a book. The Romanovs had virtually the whole population mired in poverty
@Grendo147 and countless Russians - and especially Jews - were viciously persecuted. Secondly, ask youself what has been done in the name of royalty. Nevermind the evil Romanovs, look at what 'we' got up to in far flung parts of the world - just look at King Leopold too. Now, go away and read you religious nut.
I might be a communist, but not a savage like you lot who'd admire and love their monarchy... I spit on the face of queens and kings and their establishment and everything they stand for.
@00samarkand00...let me guess, your a student and has no real opinion of your own, just follows the rest of the sheep that think its cool to diss Royalty?
Either that or your on fucking hand outs. Whatever its is your still a retard
I spit on the savages who try to opress the entire population of a country. It was communists who ran the corrupt soiet union which killed thousands including the Romanov Family and almost pluged the world into a nuclear war. It is communists who run North Korea, and China, two of the most oppressive states in the world. The royal family bring a lot to this country, both the tradition and the income from tourism.
@Myles0Harcourt The Romanov family were every bit as bad as the Soviets - as were some of our own monarchs. The Royal Family is an anachronism in today's Britain, and I would welcome the removal of all of its privileges. We don't need to replace them with communists either; there are many republics which are economically successful - more so than our own country may I add.
Anyway, what is wrong with something old like our monarchy? We have ancient traditions, and we should stop trying to throw out everything we are respected for and leave it for future generations.
@Myles0Harcourt It is an anachronism in today's Britain, and all of the arguments supporting it are merely attempts to rationalise the irrational. The biggest cost of the monarchy is all that it symbolises: it compromises meritocracy. We can see that Britian is an exceptionally unequal society - the socio-economic status of your parents is disproportionately influential. Rational people can see the fallibility of the 'it's old and traditional so we should keep the monarchy' argument.
They are a figurehead only. They do not inherit any significant power. if your parents are successful, more so than other people, you may inherit a better life than the child of someone who lived all their life in a council flat.
The queen has inherited a title and some fame. She has not inherited the right to turf you out of your home or kill you. We all pay 62p a year, and in return we get international respect, some tourism revenue and a great ambassador for our country.
@Myles0Harcourt only when this gap is eroded to the extent that a private education is only marginally beneficial will anyone be in a position to argue that the UK represents a truly meritocratic society. It is also widely acknowledged that tourism revenue linked to the Queen is very difficult to quantify, and the redevelopment of her palatial properties in London would help massively to alleviate pressures on the exisitng housing stock - keep them in Windsor Castle and sequester the rest.
So what you are saying is that state and private education are directly linked to the Queen, right? The queen is able to afford it, but so are a huge number of other people, my own parents included. The queen being politically neutral, she does not affect the difference between state and private education.
For you to say the queen is supported only by the uneducated is rubbish. the highest proportion of supporters is in the upper classes- with their private education.
@Myles0Harcourt Secondly, you should learn to distinguish between the mere receipt of an education, and actually being educated. Education should lead to more objectivity and rationality, but we can see that this is not always the case. Many of the Royal Family's backers are Sun readers too, who buy into the concept for nationalistic reasons. As for the upper classes, they back the status quo for their self preservation. Different motives - the latter far more nefarious - but same result.
Many of the Royal family's backers are nationalistic, and like to actually have the tradition, and all the pomp and ceremony that goes with it. In times of rapid change, it's nice to have something constant and stable. Those who like to take part, take part. Those who don't, don't.
People in the "upper classes" can get an unfair advantage (Uni tuition fees). But it is the government that implements the unfairness, not the upper classes. The government should be brought to task.
@Myles0Harcourt No, you are completely missing the point - which incidentally underpins my own. The Royal Family symbolises the rigid class system that exists in the UK today: the titles; the privilege; and the education - all secured by birthright alone. This is at odds with the illusion people in Britain have been duped into accepting. We need to move to a full meritocracy, where the socio-economic status of your parents is no longer as much of a determinant as it is currently.
Some people will be born with priviledge. If you want an unpriviledged world, I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen, Queen or no Queen. Nowadays,it's easier to move in the social ladder. Some people can get to the top of the social ladder by doing well for themselves, others because their ancestors have done so. To my mind, either is perfectly fine. Instead of moaning at people with a higher social status than them, maybe they should work to improve their own.
Some people will be born with priviledge. If you want an unpriviledged world, I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen, Queen or no Queen. Nowadays,it's easier to move in the social ladder. Some people can get to the top of the social ladder by doing well for themselves like Lord Sugar, others because their ancestors have done so. To my mind, either is perfectly fine. Instead of moaning at people with a higher social status than them, maybe they should work to improve their own.
@Myles0Harcourt Easier to move up the social ladder? You must be joking. The gap between rich and poor is greater than it has been since the end of the war, and the gap in attainment between private and state schools is growing ever-wider. The only way for the poor to make their way is through stardom or business. Alan Sugar is always held up as an example of what the poor can do, but was he poor beyond materially poor?
@Myles0Harcourt Alan Sugar of course, is also an exception, not the rule. That's why it's irrational to hold him up as an example and delude yourself into believing that everythings okay because the odd ordinary lad succeeds.
@Myles0Harcourt Now of course, the playing field can never be completely levelled, but it can be reconstituted in such a way that people aren't forced to run up cliff. The educational apartheid that genuinely exists in the UK must simply be obliterated in order to get much nearer to meritocracy and provide at least some semblance of equality of opportunity. When you equalise access to opportunity, inequality of outcomes are much more tolerable.
@Myles0Harcourt It is an irrefutable fact that the socio-economic status of your parents is disproportionately influential in the UK, which is why the privately educated completely dominate elite occupations like medicine and law. What percentage of investment banking analysts are educated in state schools? I think you are deluding yourself if you think there is much social mobility in the UK, and your 'work to improve yourself' attitude is entirely typical; intellectually however, it's vacuous.
Although a lot of people who are born wealthy are not titled, and if they ever are, it will be a life peer.
If you think becoming a republic suddenly improve the quality of state school education and make everyone suddenly well off, I'm sorry but you are deluded. Getting rid of a non-powerful body (loved or not by a large number of people) will not suddenly create an equal communist utopia, nor will it close the gap between rich and poor.
@Myles0Harcourt A communist utopia? Are you being obtuse or are you really that stupid? Narrowing the gap between state and private education does not require a communist form of government, and neither have I advocated recourse to such an arrangement. The monarchy is the antithesis of a meritocracy, a concept you appear to struggle with. It symbolises the nepoitism that characterises British society as a whole, and you either acknowledge it - or care about it - or you don't.
So do you think that getting rid of a symbol will neutralise the gap between rich and poor? Look at other nations, like the USA, a country founded on republicanism. The gap between rich and poor there is far greater than here. Many people there don't even get proper medical care, as they cannot afford it.
@Myles0Harcourt Of course not; the removal of the symbol precedes genuine attempts at reform elsewhere. The commitment of resources and imagination to the challenge of narrowing the gap between private and state education as well as the development of a more versatile economy is also necessary. With respect to the US, income inequality is not much greater than here either, although its class system is arguably less rigid.
It is not worth getting rid of all the traditons, respect and stability simply to remove a figurehead of one problem. You will get far better progress with social equality reform by tackling social inequality's root causes, rather than one of a number of its figurehead. We should try tackling corrput bankers and elected politicians. The monarchy has too much to offer to simply cast it aside.
@Myles0Harcourt Sure corrupt bankers and inept politicians are a huge concern - on that we are in complete agreement. However, the crux of this argument is about the extent to which you believe in a meritocracy. It's clear that you are not as committed to this concept. In my opinion the Windsors should be fully exposed to the forces of capitalism. Anything less is just simply irrational.
@Myles0Harcourt It's also worth pointing out that the marginally higher level of income inequality that exists in the US is largely a legacy of state-sponsored racism against blacks and a faux capitalist economic system that extends enormous tax payer privileges to the wealthy few whilst demonsing social spending. It's an apple and oranges analogy largely.
@Myles0Harcourt Additionally, the dismantling of the monarchy cannot happen over night. The older generation must die first - and with them their attitude. Queen Elizabeth is admittedly respected to such an extent that reform at the present time is not pragmatic. With her passing the role of the monarchy is likely to be re-examined, especially considering her likely successor.
@Myles0Harcourt No, I don't think you understand. The monarchy as an institution is only truly respected by the irrational and uneducated, or those with a vested interest in maintaining it and what it represents. If your parents were successful, then there is nothing wrong with inheriting their monetary wealth, but the education apartheid that exists in the UK is hugely lamentable, and the gap between private and state education should be significantly reduced.
@Myles0Harcourt most of the people who defend the status quo are frankly either irrational or uneducated. Even the stuff about tourism revenue is highly suspect, because London rivals New York with or without the monarchy - not that the stuff about tourist revenue is a good argument anyway. We should remove the Windsors from Clarence House and St James Palace, amongst others, and either open them completely to tourists or turn them into luxury apartments - or a combination of both.
@Myles0Harcourt and this symbol of our greatly unequal society, where the social-economic status of your parents almost always determines your lot in life, should be dismantled. It is not a tradition any educated or rational person on the UK could be proud of. One day, the pathetic stoicism of Britain's poor may give way to a rational reassessment of what the monarchy and royal titles symbolise.
@00samarkand00 we can massively slash their budget too - just enough to sustain the parasites in Buckingham Palace while all the tax revenue generated from tourism can get ploughed into poorer communities. We can auction off most of their treasures and stately homes and keep them in the one residence. It's a commitment to the privatisation of their property portfolio. This would be a massive gift to the state coffers.
@00samarkand00 every rational man should spit in the face of such a system, and all it represents. Keep the spongers in Buckingham Palace and convert every single one of their other London residences into flats. For the sake of tourism revenue, we can keep thick tools in Buckingham Palace and wheel them out when necessary.
@00samarkand00 ..Prince Philip was in the Royal Navy and saw active service during W.W.II in the Battle of Crete etc...When HE was 28, your age, he was tall, fit and could have knocked your fucking block off for calling him a "cunt." Fuck off you miserable little scum-bastard!
@LecceDiPane You seem abit up set ???? I don't think you can get aids from fucking sheep ? Does your mum know you are on her computer ?? The silly old fart should stick to his organic gardening and leave the royal scene (retire ) on a grossly large pension , with the other free loading royals and pay some TAX . Cheers from Australia.
He's bloody fantastic! He's one of the old gang; those "gaffes" are just normality, getting through life with a smile on his face. Some of these Liberal shit-for-brains might just buck up and shut up, miserable old sods. That ridiculous PO really did make too much of a fuss about it; Id personally be honoured to have the Duke make a joke about me!
IRememberTheOldDays 1 month ago
god save our gracious duke of edinburgh and queen of course
hellom12345 1 month ago
lol Reminds of Mock the Week =]
Yacub93 1 month ago
He can't help it. He is a Greek, which also is why he never worked a day in his life, like his ridiculous sons and grandsons.
JoachimderZweite 2 months ago
All of you shut up >:) It's just a bit of comedy, don't spit your dummies out. Long live UK !!
BizzyKiel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RingBearer1992 John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
takioc 6 months ago
@RingBearer1992 Because he is a member of the ruling elite who sees the masses as being useless eaters and the planet would be better off without them. He is a high level freemason along with the queen.
takioc 6 months ago
why o why o why can't he be king? XD
sk8rocgirl 7 months ago 4
I like him ,think he's cool. like to have some beers with him.
residentmich1 7 months ago 2
Sense of humour people its an ice breaker this shows he doesnt have a rod up his arse. If he had said it to me I would have smiled and said I can get you in if you want special rates. People, the media try to spin what he says out of context
seonidh 9 months ago
The Duke of Edinburgh is brilliant. Knowing that at any royal event Prince Philip could say something hilariously inappropriate is one of the few justifications for the royal family.
weejockpoopongmcplop 9 months ago 3
I'm not racist or sexist, but I find Prince Philip bloody hilarious! In this politically correct day and age it's great to see someone stir things up a little. Especially someone as high profile as Prince Philip. He's not hurting anyone, just having a bit of a giggle. I don't see what the big deal is. Long may he continue!
Keith10284 9 months ago 34
to be honest i thought it was hillarious
steviehill14 10 months ago
never understood the sense of defending people unless you know them personally or unless you were there at the time. The media has a tendency to exaggerate and distort most news stories, especially those about celebrities and royalty.
2010dispencer 10 months ago
the joe biden of england
sdesai3211 10 months ago
@sdesai3211 Joe who? Fook off
usernamealredytaken 9 months ago
I thinnk it's hysterical. Yes, it's very rude and sexist and I'd be offended if he did it to me, too. but can you imagine? man's spent 62 years of his life trotting behind the Queen, shaking hands with old ladies and watching his wife cut ribbons and unveil plaques. I mean -- would you just want to stir things up a bit now and then? He's an old guy -- cranky crusty, bored...let him have his fun!
SLFinSF 10 months ago 3
Prince Philip is the best for comedy.
kanenkitten 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Prince Philip is worth every penny. As a Canadian I'd gladly donate tax dollars to cryogenically freeze him in the hopes of future resuscitation and continued ability to enjoy his sense of humour. I wish more prominent figures had his sense of humour... bullocks to political correctness.
senssuck76 1 year ago
Prince Philip is worth every penny. As a Canadian I'd gladly donate tax dollars to cryogenically freeze him in the hopes of future resuscitation and continued ability to enjoy his sense of humour. I wish more prominent figures had his sense of humour... bullucks to political correctness.
senssuck76 1 year ago
LOL this is my sister!!
20Alexa08 1 year ago
sounds like the guy is hilarious and the world just needs to grow some thicker skin.
Ratama 1 year ago
sorry but it sounds like he's hilarious and people can't deal.
Ratama 1 year ago
@Grendo147 Imperial Germany had elections in: 1871, 1874, 1877, 1878, 1881, 1884, 1887, 1890, 1893, 1898, 1903, 1907, and 1912. Not all democratic systems are republics, and not all republics are democratic. The Soviets had republics, and the American system has essentially boiled down to two parties. Not very democratic in my opinion.
In the end the main problem was forcing people with 1000+ of monarchy to become a monarch-less republic.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 Sorry, nothing you can say or DO will ever convince me that a republican system of government is superior to that of a constitutional monarchy, or even a straight up monarchy for that matter. Republics are inherently flawed, which even Plato realized. Republics are fragile and lack certain elements that make them more prone to collapsing in face of certain pressures. Eg. had Germany not been force to become one, there never would have been a Third Reich. That is why I loathe them.
KenGS333 1 year ago 10
@KenGS333 Godwin's Law
donal1000 9 months ago
@KenGS333 Yay for anarchism then.
MinimoviesInc 2 months ago
@Grendo147 If he was a Puritan, he no doubt would no doubt not have approved of your potty mouth. What really gets me is that "red blooded Americans" such as yourself simply can't get over themselves. Yeah, you "liberated" yourselves from the Monarchy, but you turn around and create your own Empire and bully everyone. You create a supposedly "free" society and a "land of opportunity", yet the homelessness and economic disparity in the US utterly shameful.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 So they lived in a society and benefited from British rule for 150 years and then suddenly decided to rebel against it. Yup, that's treason alright...
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 Benefitted [sic]? How Orwellian. It's your kind of delusional false sense of greatness that is why most Canadians disdain America and Americans. I really don't think you know how extensive this sentiment is. Also, I'm assuming "of there" should be "up there". If so, then congrats for being among the 5% of Americans who actually know that Canada is indeed situated NORTH of the USA.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 I was born in the States, but have lived most of my life in Canada and am now a Canadian citizen. I live in a society that seems to fulfill all of the claims that you make, yet I see how in so many respects the USA fails to live up to those same ideals. I live in a society that is founded on the British principles of "Peace, Order, and Good Government". Because of this Canadian society and laws have managed to adapt better to the changing times and I am freer than in the USA.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 Revolutionaries tend to dish out the rhetoric in abundance. The Americans were no different. Yes, the war was started by the elites for their own benefit, but in order to make it stick, of course they had to couch their agenda in rhetoric that would ensure legitimacy among the lower-classes. Still, many Loyalists left for Canada; many non-Loyalist Americans followed soon after the Revolution ended looking for better land and more stable government.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 Well most were British-born or were first generation "Americans". If you'd care to read anything about the pre-Revolution period you'd know that there simply wasn't much of an "anti-British" sentiment up until maybe a few years before the insurgency started. That's because the British system of law and governance did essentially create stable social and political environments where citizens could prosper. It's your ideological drivel that flies in the face of the truth.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 The war simply was not a liberation movement by the "American" people. It was instigated by wealthy elites so that they could "free" themselves of certain restrictions. The rights and freedoms of the common citizen were of no importance to them, which is why many remained loyal to the Crown had had to flee to what later became Canada to escape violations of their civil rights at the hands of the so-called "patriots".
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 George III was hardly a tyrant. I think if you'd care to look at English Law at the end of the 18th century you'd notice that it was the most developed legal systems in human history. The issue was not tyranny. Citizens of the 13 colonies possessed rights that few other humans had during this time. The issue really was taxation and certain restrictions on commerce and industry placed upon the wealthy elites.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 The US wasn't quite a promised land. For many it meant slavery or indentured servitude. You should take a closer look at your history, many of the people who came over were in fact outright criminals.
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 "Treason is conditional". No, actually it's a legal concept that is not conditional on "victory". The fact that your ancestors fought against the legal and legitimate ruler of the land makes them traitors. But of course you're just engaging in the usual rhetoric which Americans employ to legitimize their history. There are, however, a fair number of Americans who are still attached to the Monarchy, and once the US collapses, some states may return to the Commonwealth. :D
KenGS333 1 year ago
@Grendo147 In other words, you have at least 40 ancestors who fought against the legal ruler of the 13 colonies. Isn't that treason? I believe it is.
KenGS333 1 year ago
It of course doesn't mention the fact that the young woman stated she wasn't offended by the comment.
KenGS333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grendo147 Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what's going to happen to me in my 'next life'? You presumptuous tool. The Soviet economic model led to the industrialisation of Russia and a massive improvement in living standards. Sure, they were butchers of human rights, but the degree to which the USSR economy grew had US policy makers worried until the late 70s But don't condemn yourself to ignorance, just read a book. The Romanovs had virtually the whole population mired in poverty
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Grendo147 and countless Russians - and especially Jews - were viciously persecuted. Secondly, ask youself what has been done in the name of royalty. Nevermind the evil Romanovs, look at what 'we' got up to in far flung parts of the world - just look at King Leopold too. Now, go away and read you religious nut.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
he was being funny. what's wrong with that? people need to lighten up!!
lemonteaorme 1 year ago 22
hes deffo the best royal funny as fook
damafia29 2 years ago
God knows where the Duke would've ended up if he'd had to work for a living !
Braithwaite1922 2 years ago
"dick" of edingburgh should get a proper job.
porridgeeveryday 2 years ago
what u expect they changed where they came from and there are as evil as they come
eredy 2 years ago
opps
TheVMFA333 2 years ago
Long live the DOE.
tteu123 2 years ago
go duke!!
tarun139 2 years ago
what a retard sense of humour that cunt has!
00samarkand00 2 years ago
@00samarkand00 Why don't you fuck off you little communist cunt.
priapus56 2 years ago 3
I might be a communist, but not a savage like you lot who'd admire and love their monarchy... I spit on the face of queens and kings and their establishment and everything they stand for.
00samarkand00 2 years ago
@00samarkand00...let me guess, your a student and has no real opinion of your own, just follows the rest of the sheep that think its cool to diss Royalty?
Either that or your on fucking hand outs. Whatever its is your still a retard
Sicstick 1 year ago
@00samarkand00
I spit on the savages who try to opress the entire population of a country. It was communists who ran the corrupt soiet union which killed thousands including the Romanov Family and almost pluged the world into a nuclear war. It is communists who run North Korea, and China, two of the most oppressive states in the world. The royal family bring a lot to this country, both the tradition and the income from tourism.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt The Romanov family were every bit as bad as the Soviets - as were some of our own monarchs. The Royal Family is an anachronism in today's Britain, and I would welcome the removal of all of its privileges. We don't need to replace them with communists either; there are many republics which are economically successful - more so than our own country may I add.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
So the communists were better than the Romanovs?
Anyway, what is wrong with something old like our monarchy? We have ancient traditions, and we should stop trying to throw out everything we are respected for and leave it for future generations.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt It is an anachronism in today's Britain, and all of the arguments supporting it are merely attempts to rationalise the irrational. The biggest cost of the monarchy is all that it symbolises: it compromises meritocracy. We can see that Britian is an exceptionally unequal society - the socio-economic status of your parents is disproportionately influential. Rational people can see the fallibility of the 'it's old and traditional so we should keep the monarchy' argument.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
They are a figurehead only. They do not inherit any significant power. if your parents are successful, more so than other people, you may inherit a better life than the child of someone who lived all their life in a council flat.
The queen has inherited a title and some fame. She has not inherited the right to turf you out of your home or kill you. We all pay 62p a year, and in return we get international respect, some tourism revenue and a great ambassador for our country.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt only when this gap is eroded to the extent that a private education is only marginally beneficial will anyone be in a position to argue that the UK represents a truly meritocratic society. It is also widely acknowledged that tourism revenue linked to the Queen is very difficult to quantify, and the redevelopment of her palatial properties in London would help massively to alleviate pressures on the exisitng housing stock - keep them in Windsor Castle and sequester the rest.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
So what you are saying is that state and private education are directly linked to the Queen, right? The queen is able to afford it, but so are a huge number of other people, my own parents included. The queen being politically neutral, she does not affect the difference between state and private education.
For you to say the queen is supported only by the uneducated is rubbish. the highest proportion of supporters is in the upper classes- with their private education.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt Secondly, you should learn to distinguish between the mere receipt of an education, and actually being educated. Education should lead to more objectivity and rationality, but we can see that this is not always the case. Many of the Royal Family's backers are Sun readers too, who buy into the concept for nationalistic reasons. As for the upper classes, they back the status quo for their self preservation. Different motives - the latter far more nefarious - but same result.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
Many of the Royal family's backers are nationalistic, and like to actually have the tradition, and all the pomp and ceremony that goes with it. In times of rapid change, it's nice to have something constant and stable. Those who like to take part, take part. Those who don't, don't.
People in the "upper classes" can get an unfair advantage (Uni tuition fees). But it is the government that implements the unfairness, not the upper classes. The government should be brought to task.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt No, you are completely missing the point - which incidentally underpins my own. The Royal Family symbolises the rigid class system that exists in the UK today: the titles; the privilege; and the education - all secured by birthright alone. This is at odds with the illusion people in Britain have been duped into accepting. We need to move to a full meritocracy, where the socio-economic status of your parents is no longer as much of a determinant as it is currently.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
Some people will be born with priviledge. If you want an unpriviledged world, I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen, Queen or no Queen. Nowadays,it's easier to move in the social ladder. Some people can get to the top of the social ladder by doing well for themselves, others because their ancestors have done so. To my mind, either is perfectly fine. Instead of moaning at people with a higher social status than them, maybe they should work to improve their own.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
Some people will be born with priviledge. If you want an unpriviledged world, I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen, Queen or no Queen. Nowadays,it's easier to move in the social ladder. Some people can get to the top of the social ladder by doing well for themselves like Lord Sugar, others because their ancestors have done so. To my mind, either is perfectly fine. Instead of moaning at people with a higher social status than them, maybe they should work to improve their own.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt Easier to move up the social ladder? You must be joking. The gap between rich and poor is greater than it has been since the end of the war, and the gap in attainment between private and state schools is growing ever-wider. The only way for the poor to make their way is through stardom or business. Alan Sugar is always held up as an example of what the poor can do, but was he poor beyond materially poor?
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt Alan Sugar of course, is also an exception, not the rule. That's why it's irrational to hold him up as an example and delude yourself into believing that everythings okay because the odd ordinary lad succeeds.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt Now of course, the playing field can never be completely levelled, but it can be reconstituted in such a way that people aren't forced to run up cliff. The educational apartheid that genuinely exists in the UK must simply be obliterated in order to get much nearer to meritocracy and provide at least some semblance of equality of opportunity. When you equalise access to opportunity, inequality of outcomes are much more tolerable.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt It is an irrefutable fact that the socio-economic status of your parents is disproportionately influential in the UK, which is why the privately educated completely dominate elite occupations like medicine and law. What percentage of investment banking analysts are educated in state schools? I think you are deluding yourself if you think there is much social mobility in the UK, and your 'work to improve yourself' attitude is entirely typical; intellectually however, it's vacuous.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
Sorry, are we discussing social mobility or the Monarchy?
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt we are discussing what it symbolises.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
Although a lot of people who are born wealthy are not titled, and if they ever are, it will be a life peer.
If you think becoming a republic suddenly improve the quality of state school education and make everyone suddenly well off, I'm sorry but you are deluded. Getting rid of a non-powerful body (loved or not by a large number of people) will not suddenly create an equal communist utopia, nor will it close the gap between rich and poor.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt A communist utopia? Are you being obtuse or are you really that stupid? Narrowing the gap between state and private education does not require a communist form of government, and neither have I advocated recourse to such an arrangement. The monarchy is the antithesis of a meritocracy, a concept you appear to struggle with. It symbolises the nepoitism that characterises British society as a whole, and you either acknowledge it - or care about it - or you don't.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
So do you think that getting rid of a symbol will neutralise the gap between rich and poor? Look at other nations, like the USA, a country founded on republicanism. The gap between rich and poor there is far greater than here. Many people there don't even get proper medical care, as they cannot afford it.
We should be wary of change.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt Of course not; the removal of the symbol precedes genuine attempts at reform elsewhere. The commitment of resources and imagination to the challenge of narrowing the gap between private and state education as well as the development of a more versatile economy is also necessary. With respect to the US, income inequality is not much greater than here either, although its class system is arguably less rigid.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
It is not worth getting rid of all the traditons, respect and stability simply to remove a figurehead of one problem. You will get far better progress with social equality reform by tackling social inequality's root causes, rather than one of a number of its figurehead. We should try tackling corrput bankers and elected politicians. The monarchy has too much to offer to simply cast it aside.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt Sure corrupt bankers and inept politicians are a huge concern - on that we are in complete agreement. However, the crux of this argument is about the extent to which you believe in a meritocracy. It's clear that you are not as committed to this concept. In my opinion the Windsors should be fully exposed to the forces of capitalism. Anything less is just simply irrational.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt It's also worth pointing out that the marginally higher level of income inequality that exists in the US is largely a legacy of state-sponsored racism against blacks and a faux capitalist economic system that extends enormous tax payer privileges to the wealthy few whilst demonsing social spending. It's an apple and oranges analogy largely.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1
Also, is it worth risking a great political, governmental and constitutional upheaval, just because of a gap in standards of education?
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt Additionally, the dismantling of the monarchy cannot happen over night. The older generation must die first - and with them their attitude. Queen Elizabeth is admittedly respected to such an extent that reform at the present time is not pragmatic. With her passing the role of the monarchy is likely to be re-examined, especially considering her likely successor.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Myles0Harcourt No, I don't think you understand. The monarchy as an institution is only truly respected by the irrational and uneducated, or those with a vested interest in maintaining it and what it represents. If your parents were successful, then there is nothing wrong with inheriting their monetary wealth, but the education apartheid that exists in the UK is hugely lamentable, and the gap between private and state education should be significantly reduced.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt most of the people who defend the status quo are frankly either irrational or uneducated. Even the stuff about tourism revenue is highly suspect, because London rivals New York with or without the monarchy - not that the stuff about tourist revenue is a good argument anyway. We should remove the Windsors from Clarence House and St James Palace, amongst others, and either open them completely to tourists or turn them into luxury apartments - or a combination of both.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Myles0Harcourt and this symbol of our greatly unequal society, where the social-economic status of your parents almost always determines your lot in life, should be dismantled. It is not a tradition any educated or rational person on the UK could be proud of. One day, the pathetic stoicism of Britain's poor may give way to a rational reassessment of what the monarchy and royal titles symbolise.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@00samarkand00
So how ae you opting out of life.
You do not like anything that the Royal family stand for.
I have served many years in the Royal Air Force and am curious as to how we ould identify you so as not to provide protection if the moment comes.
I risk my life so that people like you can benefit and yet you want to sit in my face!!!
You are a disgrace!!!
orgo1968 1 year ago
@00samarkand00
Before you tell me about my spelling, it is the server running slow nd missig out some letters.
Do not even think of being disrepectful to me!!!!
orgo1968 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@00samarkand00 we can massively slash their budget too - just enough to sustain the parasites in Buckingham Palace while all the tax revenue generated from tourism can get ploughed into poorer communities. We can auction off most of their treasures and stately homes and keep them in the one residence. It's a commitment to the privatisation of their property portfolio. This would be a massive gift to the state coffers.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@00samarkand00 every rational man should spit in the face of such a system, and all it represents. Keep the spongers in Buckingham Palace and convert every single one of their other London residences into flats. For the sake of tourism revenue, we can keep thick tools in Buckingham Palace and wheel them out when necessary.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@00samarkand00
No one likes communists here. it's a free country. Go to China.
Myles0Harcourt 1 year ago
@00samarkand00 ..Prince Philip was in the Royal Navy and saw active service during W.W.II in the Battle of Crete etc...When HE was 28, your age, he was tall, fit and could have knocked your fucking block off for calling him a "cunt." Fuck off you miserable little scum-bastard!
priapus56 2 years ago 19
@priapus56 he is a kUnt,i hear he just to fool around on the side ? KKUNT
neilzep 1 year ago
@priapus56 No he couldn't!
LecceDiPane 1 year ago
@LecceDiPane Shut-up you silly little twat.
priapus56 1 year ago
@priapus56 Fuck you, you fucking sheep shagging prick! I hope you die of aids and your mother is raped by a terrorist. You fucking pig cunt!
LecceDiPane 1 year ago
@LecceDiPane ...Would you like to meet somewhere..we could have a little chat...
priapus56 1 year ago
@priapus56 haha lol get a grip of yourself!
LecceDiPane 1 year ago
@LecceDiPane You seem abit up set ???? I don't think you can get aids from fucking sheep ? Does your mum know you are on her computer ?? The silly old fart should stick to his organic gardening and leave the royal scene (retire ) on a grossly large pension , with the other free loading royals and pay some TAX . Cheers from Australia.
MyBarry2009 10 months ago
@MyBarry2009 What?
LecceDiPane 10 months ago
@priapus56 YOU ARE A FUCKING CHILD MOLESTING GOAT!
LecceDiPane 1 year ago
@priapus56 That's as may be, the cunt has still got a retarded sense of humour though...and he's a racist.
comanchio1976 11 months ago
LOL. What a legend
pgmdetector 2 years ago 3