Prince Charles: Those Bloody people

[Zebo]

Why they still keeping these inbreds on the tax payers dime living the life of luxury and fabulous wealth I have no idea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1449893,00.html

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why they still keeping these inbreds on the tax payers dime living the life of luxury and fabulous wealth I have no idea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1449893,00.html

i say good for him--theyre paparazzi. I think he has a small reason to hate them--car crash ring a bell????

Although I fell the monarchy is just for tourism and eventally will be removed--this is not that big of a deal. In fact the only thing that i found bad is that he didnt say it to their faces.

 

[Zebo]

Ya I guess he's just still pissed about them catching Harry dressed up as a NAZI.

 

[randym431]

Gives you a clue as to why we bailed ship. "Boston Tea Party", anyone?

 

[Minchenden]

Tom Delay, George Bush, Prick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Kindasleaza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum, Jeffrey E. Habay and all the right wing inbred brainless redneck fundies.

Gives you a clue as to why we are happy you did bail ship.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's a human rights tragedy that this buffoon is more qualified to become the head of state just because of his bloodline than anyone else. This is criminal and should be charged under the ICC to fix this, but of course they won't. Can't colonize the colonizers, right?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Minchenden
Tom Delay, George Bush, Prick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Kindasleaza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum, Jeffrey E. Habay and all the right wing inbred brainless redneck fundies.

Gives you a clue as to why we are happy you did bail ship.

BNP

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

A carbuncle on the backside of Britain.

i say good for him--theyre paparazzi. I think he has a small reason to hate them--car crash ring a bell????

Wasn't that actually a favor, at least in retrospect? He has always had a thing for Camilla & never gone without her, just married Diana to please mummy and carry on the line.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's a human rights tragedy that this buffoon is more qualified to become the head of state just because of his bloodline than anyone else. This is criminal and should be charged under the ICC to fix this, but of course they won't. Can't colonize the colonizers, right?

What makes him a criminal? I know his uncle consprired with Hitler his mother installed about 50 thugs around the world (MI6) and blockaded ports for resources but Charles?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's a human rights tragedy that this buffoon is more qualified to become the head of state just because of his bloodline than anyone else. This is criminal and should be charged under the ICC to fix this, but of course they won't. Can't colonize the colonizers, right?

What makes him a criminal? I know his uncle consprired with Hitler his mother installed about 50 thugs around the world (MI6) and blockaded ports for resources but Charles?

I'm refering to the institution, not the man.

 

[imported_alp]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Minchenden
Tom Delay, George Bush, Prick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Kindasleaza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum, Jeffrey E. Habay and all the right wing inbred brainless redneck fundies.

Gives you a clue as to why we are happy you did bail ship.

BNP

umm... the bnp generally poll about 0.5% in the seats they contest...
not a huge worry

i don't like the royals much either, but nobody in britain takes them seriously, don't worry

 

[smc13]

I don't like the institution. I don't like the idea of their being kings, queens, and princes. But good for him. Next time he shouldn't say something under his breath, he should just shout at the worthless paparazzi.

 

[Red Dawn]

And this should matter to us Americans why?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's a human rights tragedy that this buffoon is more qualified to become the head of state just because of his bloodline than anyone else. This is criminal and should be charged under the ICC to fix this, but of course they won't. Can't colonize the colonizers, right?

That's sick, man. You minimize real human rights tradgedys when you use language like that.

Try convincing a refugee from Darfur that the two situations are comparable.

And for the record, the royals are not paid a salary, they get expenses for official events paid, and they get a maintanence stipend for Buckingham, just like the President doesn't have to pay for the upkeep of the White House.

Now, I agree that the institution is backward, and the ascension is discriminatory, but to compare it to real tradgedies is inhuman.

Your rhetoric is disgusting.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why they still keeping these inbreds on the tax payers dime living the life of luxury and fabulous wealth I have no idea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1449893,00.html

i say good for him--theyre paparazzi. I think he has a small reason to hate them--car crash ring a bell????

Although I fell the monarchy is just for tourism and eventally will be removed--this is not that big of a deal. In fact the only thing that i found bad is that he didnt say it to their faces.

That car crash was caused by excessive speed (and likely possibly intoxication), and an unreasonable desire for privacy by a person who made her living and her fortune on the backs of a public with an unhealthy obsession with royalty and celebrity. She might have been a 'good person' but Diana would never have lived the life she did if it weren't for the same public that pays the papparazzi to publish stories about celebrities.

Not that the photographers were 'innocent', but no one was 'in the right' in that situation.

 

[Zebo]

You're fool of it kibbo. Look it up she gets a staff of over 1000 to manage all her personal estates, 15 million pound stipend, and much much more dispite the fact she's the wealthiest woman in the world all by hook or crook. Besides she still rules england, every law out of commons she has to sign before it becomes law, you don't expect her to work for free?

 

[Kibbo]

According to the latest report, issued in June 2003, The Queen's total expenditure as Head of State in 2002/03 was £36.2 million, of which £16.6 million was spent on the upkeep of the royal palaces, £4.2 million on royal travel, and £526,000 on communications and information services.

That's 36 million pounds to cover the costs of Britain's head of state.Linkage

Note that those royal palaces are the governments property, and as such would still be paid for by the public purse even without a monarch. So, they get a head of state for about 20 million pounds. How much does yours cost?

 

[arsbanned]

I don't get it. You approve of paparazzi? Those people are scum of the Earth. A fiery death is too good for the likes of them. As for Britains royal family, what's it got to do with the Paparazzi?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I don't get it. You approve of paparazzi? Those people are scum of the Earth. A fiery death is too good for the likes of them. As for Britains royal family, what's it got to do with the Paparazzi?

To me?

I think the papparazzi are a natural outcome of obsession with celebrity. They are neither good nor bad, except when they break rules, in which case there is legal recourse.

The royal family has plenty to do with papparazzi, as 'interesting' pictures of the family fetch fine prices; therefore the incentive is there to take those pictures.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're fool of it kibbo. Look it up she gets a staff of over 1000 to manage all her personal estates, 15 million pound stipend, and much much more dispite the fact she's the wealthiest woman in the world all by hook or crook. Besides she still rules england, every law out of commons she has to sign before it becomes law, you don't expect her to work for free?

So, what happens if she refuses to sign a law?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's a human rights tragedy that this buffoon is more qualified to become the head of state just because of his bloodline than anyone else. This is criminal and should be charged under the ICC to fix this, but of course they won't. Can't colonize the colonizers, right?

That's sick, man. You minimize real human rights tradgedys when you use language like that.

Try convincing a refugee from Darfur that the two situations are comparable.

And for the record, the royals are not paid a salary, they get expenses for official events paid, and they get a maintanence stipend for Buckingham, just like the President doesn't have to pay for the upkeep of the White House.

Now, I agree that the institution is backward, and the ascension is discriminatory, but to compare it to real tradgedies is inhuman.

Your rhetoric is disgusting.

Of course they're not comparable. However, it should be charged under the ICC. Just like shoplifting should be considered a crime while there are other worse crimes out there like murder and rape. But of course they won't be because they are a 'superior' nation.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're fool of it kibbo. Look it up she gets a staff of over 1000 to manage all her personal estates, 15 million pound stipend, and much much more dispite the fact she's the wealthiest woman in the world all by hook or crook. Besides she still rules england, every law out of commons she has to sign before it becomes law, you don't expect her to work for free?

That's not even the majority of it! They live in lavish palaces owned by the country, they hold national owned treasures in their palaces, they selectively choose when to pay taxes, etc.

I think that if they get rid of the concept of superior bloodlines, tourism dollars would increase because all the palaces can be opened up, art collections and treasures open for viewing, etc. France has no officially recognized royalty yet they have much tourism in their palaces and such.

People that compare her position to a president are ridiculous. A president is at least voted in, a monarch is brought in because it is believed that they are divine or have superior bloodlines or some other nonsense.

I still can't believe such a primitive idea (monarchy, royalty, etc.) exists in developed societies today.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're fool of it kibbo. Look it up she gets a staff of over 1000 to manage all her personal estates, 15 million pound stipend, and much much more dispite the fact she's the wealthiest woman in the world all by hook or crook. Besides she still rules england, every law out of commons she has to sign before it becomes law, you don't expect her to work for free?

That's not even the majority of it! They live in lavish palaces owned by the country, they hold national owned treasures in their palaces, they selectively choose when to pay taxes, etc.

I think that if they get rid of the concept of superior bloodlines, tourism dollars would increase because all the palaces can be opened up, art collections and treasures open for viewing, etc. France has no officially recognized royalty yet they have much tourism in their palaces and such.

People that compare her position to a president are ridiculous. A president is at least voted in, a monarch is brought in because it is believed that they are divine or have superior bloodlines or some other nonsense.

I still can't believe such a primitive idea (monarchy, royalty, etc.) exists in developed societies today.

Don't forget that she can't be held trial in certain courts, grants honors of the UK, among other nice perks. This is also more than just a problem with the Queen - there are other positions based on royal or religious status. I guess they certainly don't believe in a separation of Church and State.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I don't get it. You approve of paparazzi? Those people are scum of the Earth. A fiery death is too good for the likes of them. As for Britains royal family, what's it got to do with the Paparazzi?

To me?

I think the papparazzi are a natural outcome of obsession with celebrity. They are neither good nor bad, except when they break rules, in which case there is legal recourse.

The royal family has plenty to do with papparazzi, as 'interesting' pictures of the family fetch fine prices; therefore the incentive is there to take those pictures.

I agree with the first part of statement 1, but absolutely disagree with the second part. They're horrible maggots. Legal recourse....riiiight. Any method their victims use to exterminate them is fine by me.
The second part of your response states the obvious. The vermin known as Paparazzi do what they do for profit.
I still don't see what this has to do with

Why they still keeping these inbreds on the tax payers dime living the life of luxury and fabulous wealth I have no idea.

Prince Charles expresses his disgust (rightful) toward the Paparazzi and that is why the British should end the monarchy? Wha?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I don't get it. You approve of paparazzi? Those people are scum of the Earth. A fiery death is too good for the likes of them. As for Britains royal family, what's it got to do with the Paparazzi?

To me?

I think the papparazzi are a natural outcome of obsession with celebrity. They are neither good nor bad, except when they break rules, in which case there is legal recourse.

The royal family has plenty to do with papparazzi, as 'interesting' pictures of the family fetch fine prices; therefore the incentive is there to take those pictures.

I agree with the first part of statement 1, but absolutely disagree with the second part. They're horrible maggots. Legal recourse....riiiight. Any method their victims use to exterminate them is fine by me.
The second part of your response states the obvious. The vermin known as Paparazzi do what they do for profit.
I still don't see what this has to do with

Why they still keeping these inbreds on the tax payers dime living the life of luxury and fabulous wealth I have no idea.

Prince Charles expresses his disgust (rightful) toward the Paparazzi and that is why the British should end the monarchy? Wha?

Prince Charles thinks he is entitled to the life he has, which is supported only by the interest of the public in having a Royal Family. Well, maybe he realizes how ridiculous such an entitlement is, or maybe he doesn't.

The papparazzi are a perfectly normal outcome of his situation. When they break laws, they should be held accountable. I'm not planning to become papparazzi, but they are doing nothing more than chase the dollars, just like many other people.

The monarchy should be abolished because it is expensive and useless (unless tourist dollars outweigh maintenance costs?), not because Prince Charles is a douche-bag