In the olden days, were some people clearly belong, they called it fascism
Queen Elizabeth has passed away.
- Thread starter Dovetail
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
Well if you want to break it down to numbers, vastly more people are not travelling to mourn her passing.
My point was that telling someone to find another site because they have a different viewpoint and the audacity to express it, is just plain wrong.
thetyreman
Established Member
right so it's not allowed that you can't be anti royal, yet you're allowed to be pro royal, sounds fair, and very democratic.
that proves what I've always thought, thanks for sharing.
What, she has not lived like many of us on here who have had to work to live and achieve anything because it was not all delivered on a plate. She has wanted for nothing because someone invented the title monarch and so she due to no other reason than being born from the right womb got a life of luxury at everyone elses expense, not elected or selected but just a so called birthright and we are supposed to be democratic.
Living to 96 and dying is not sad but expected at some point, the risk of death greatly increases once you reach seventy and then rapidly esculates so nothing to be sad about, people should have worked out she was on her last legs at least six months ago and prepared themselves for a very natural thing called end of life.
Some people de value respect, in my books it is earnt and not given out on hearsay. Did she ever realise that some of her so called subjects live on the streets, homeless and some of them even were part of her military. We also have a vast number of kids living in poverty, that sounds like days long gone by and not the present yet she lorded over them without any power to kick the governments aaarse.
I wonder if she realised that the average standard of living in the UK is about to fall below that of Poland and Lithuania ! Will Charlie boy care?
What a miserable lot you are. You see the worst in everyone. A four letter acronym.....GAFL.
I think she did. Unfortunately, you are too bigoted and shallow to appreciate that fact.
Unfortunately you are obviously brainwashed into believing the royal theme, just what they want in order to continue their pampered lives of luxury at our expense whilst we have families relying on food banks for day to day living and struggling to make ends meet, you obviously think this is acceptable in a so called non third world country and accept a privaliged few have a right bestowed upon them to hold by far the majority share of Uk wealth and look down on the rest.
This book has been recomended as a good honest read, Amazon.co.uk
This book has been recomended as a good honest read, Amazon.co.uk
I doubt Charles will have long enough to see much decline in the monarchy.
Being a 'superpower' since the 16th century takes its toll on a country. Britain wanted Ireland, the Scots and Welsh were ....problematical. The ambitions of those in power made sure Britain stayed in the big league and brought industrial change across the world.
I don't, or would never apologise for all that. What happened, happened. The world is as it is and no amount of hand-wringing is going to alter that.
I see that you moved away from imperialist issues to second homes. Second homes owned by successful people of all backgrounds which doesn't have any relevance to your original theme. Methinks, there's a touch of bitterness there, Jacob. Is your given name have anything to do with that?
sawtooth-9
Established Member
I am quite comfortable with someone disagreeing, our different views should all be respected.
It's a pity that this post has turned into a political issue - not the place and time, in my view.
For those who are so anti - monarchy, maybe they should give some thought to where they would be without their history - good and bad.
The historic achievements of England are truly amazing for such a small country - only possible because of the Monarchy.
The country seems to be divided between those who have and those who have not.
Those who have, have worked for it ( QE 2 worked damn hard at it ).
Those who have not, expect society to give it to them.
I know where my respect lies.
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Blame Jinnah and Nehru for that.
gregmcateer
Established Member
"... only possible because of the monarchy"
- Might be time to read a little wider in the history books, mate.
"Those who have, have worked for it..
Those who have not, expect society to give it to them."
I think we all know that whilst some do achieve financial gain purely through hard work, the vast majority of wealthy folk may well have worked incredibly hard, but they either started from some form of advantage, (family money, connections, etc) and/or hit a rich vein with assistance from peers, colleagues and employees.
Those who don't have it do NOT all just expect society to give it to them. That is just untrue.
J-G
Established Member
For a clear discourse of what went on you may find Lady Hamilton's first hand account, as detailed in "The Feringhees : Sir Robert & Sir William - Two Europeans in India" a useful tome.
(ISBN: 9780199457465)
I do mean a tome! It's a 2 Volume work written by someone who was there at the time.
Last edited:
AJB Temple
Finely figured
I've read the account referred to above and a few others. The partition story is almost invariably written from one of the three main biased perspectives. It's easy to blame Mountbatten and he was by most accounts a weak and vain man in many respects. But he was also given a near impossible job with little useful support from the civil service, and whatever he did one or other side would have been aggrieved. The two religious factions were have killed each other in great numbers anyway and it is much more logical, if one is truly dispassionate, to blame religious divides (ridiculous as they are) than the British who's time was clearly over and needed to be out of there and let the locals fight it out. I would say religious dogma (and those who promote the intolerance it brings) has far more to answer for than Mountbatten or the British establishment.
We have recently seen, in Leicester on our own doorstep, similar factions at work. All in the name of planted faith and doctrines. Humans are both clever and stupid simultaneously. We are supposedly rational beings but choose to believe unprovable and unevidenced things.
We have recently seen, in Leicester on our own doorstep, similar factions at work. All in the name of planted faith and doctrines. Humans are both clever and stupid simultaneously. We are supposedly rational beings but choose to believe unprovable and unevidenced things.
Adam W.
A Major Clanger
That's odd, so you're saying that the British had nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan and the partition of India and it was all Jinnah and Nehrus' fault.
The first sentence has some truth.
You don't really believe the rest, do you? Speaking of respect while describing the millions of people, who are working their socks off trying to feed their kids amid a financial crisis, in that way? I can see how such an account of the haves and have-nots saves thinking about the complex reasons for the extensive poverty in this country, but it's pretty offensive.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
What did she do - give them a special wave as she drove past!
I like to think more sceptical than bigoted.
- Status
