The Royal Baby
- Jack
- Posts: 2629
- Joined: 11 Mar 2014, 21:49
- Your Bike:
- Has thanked: 1396 times
- Been thanked: 1636 times
- Contact:
Re: The Royal Baby
I never said people shouldn't visit these places merely that the royal family is not a factor in the decision to see theses places .
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
The Palace Of Versailles, with the French royal family no longer present = 10 million visitors per year.
Buckingham Palace, with Liz & Phil still "in office" = 30 million visitors per year.
They might be archaic, outdated, relics of a bygone age - or whatever, but the royal family has survived all sorts of scandals, they've endured. They haven't hung around through that because people didn't want them, but because they did, and because they continue to do so.
Buckingham Palace, with Liz & Phil still "in office" = 30 million visitors per year.
They might be archaic, outdated, relics of a bygone age - or whatever, but the royal family has survived all sorts of scandals, they've endured. They haven't hung around through that because people didn't want them, but because they did, and because they continue to do so.
- duke63
- Posts: 15501
- Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 07:34
- Your Bike: Ducati 748/853 & Triumph Street Triple 765RS
- Location: Staffordshire
- Has thanked: 4178 times
- Been thanked: 4132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
With all due respect, D41, they have endured because they are in control. let's not believe that these people are super humans, they are just like you and me except.....at some point back in time their family had the power, money and control to resist them being ousted from power.
I am not especially anti-Royalist but there is no doubt that their existence stops the spread of wealth and power through the United Kingdom. they are a relic from the past with probably a very limited lifespan. Inherited privilege needs to be eradicted for Britain to move forward.
Had Cromwell succeeded back in the day, i suspect England would be a much better place to live than it is now. The 'divine right of kings' is utter bullshit.
Vive Le Revolution!
I am not especially anti-Royalist but there is no doubt that their existence stops the spread of wealth and power through the United Kingdom. they are a relic from the past with probably a very limited lifespan. Inherited privilege needs to be eradicted for Britain to move forward.
Had Cromwell succeeded back in the day, i suspect England would be a much better place to live than it is now. The 'divine right of kings' is utter bullshit.
Vive Le Revolution!
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
What??
Cromwell was the poster-boy for "The divine right of kings" long before the the term itself was ever coined.
Which other non-royal has ever encouraged people to address them as "His Highness"??
He was fervently religious & a regicidal dictator - again, long before the term 'dictator' became widely known.
He's like an English version of Mussolini.
Cromwell was the poster-boy for "The divine right of kings" long before the the term itself was ever coined.
Which other non-royal has ever encouraged people to address them as "His Highness"??
He was fervently religious & a regicidal dictator - again, long before the term 'dictator' became widely known.
He's like an English version of Mussolini.
- duke63
- Posts: 15501
- Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 07:34
- Your Bike: Ducati 748/853 & Triumph Street Triple 765RS
- Location: Staffordshire
- Has thanked: 4178 times
- Been thanked: 4132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
The best thing this Country could do is abolish public schools.
Its the worst kind of privilege out there and just feeds the same to future generations.
Its the worst kind of privilege out there and just feeds the same to future generations.
- kiwikrasher
- Posts: 8876
- Joined: 17 Mar 2014, 04:32
- Your Bike: ‘16 Thruxton R. '10 Multistrada 1200 S.
- Location: Kurrajong Heights, NSW, Australia
- Has thanked: 4598 times
- Been thanked: 4674 times
Re: The Royal Baby
Surely you mean private schools?duke63 wrote:The best thing this Country could do is abolish public schools.
Its the worst kind of privilege out there and just feeds the same to future generations.
Happiness is not a destination. It is a way of life.
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
He does. Private schools in England are called public schools....they're open (in theory) to the smart kids who may be from any background (hence, "public"). It's based on academic ability rather than wealth, but the rich kids aren't excluded. Just like Hogwarts!!
The actual schools for the public are run by local school districts...usually at a county level, IIRC.
And then there's the Catholic schools, which are a bit more spread out than local schools. And not for those dreadful Protestant riff-raff.
The actual schools for the public are run by local school districts...usually at a county level, IIRC.
And then there's the Catholic schools, which are a bit more spread out than local schools. And not for those dreadful Protestant riff-raff.
- kiwikrasher
- Posts: 8876
- Joined: 17 Mar 2014, 04:32
- Your Bike: ‘16 Thruxton R. '10 Multistrada 1200 S.
- Location: Kurrajong Heights, NSW, Australia
- Has thanked: 4598 times
- Been thanked: 4674 times
Re: The Royal Baby
Cheers D, that cleared that up except for the Hogwarts reference.... never seen or read any Harry Potter.D41 wrote:He does. Private schools in England are called public schools....they're open (in theory) to the smart kids who may be from any background (hence, "public"). It's based on academic ability rather than wealth, but the rich kids aren't excluded. Just like Hogwarts!!
The actual schools for the public are run by local school districts...usually at a county level, IIRC.
And then there's the Catholic schools, which are a bit more spread out than local schools. And not for those dreadful Protestant riff-raff.
Happiness is not a destination. It is a way of life.
- duke63
- Posts: 15501
- Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 07:34
- Your Bike: Ducati 748/853 & Triumph Street Triple 765RS
- Location: Staffordshire
- Has thanked: 4178 times
- Been thanked: 4132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
Not really, D41.
Public/private schools first and foremost consideration is...can you afford the fees to send your child here.
Then they will decide whether they let you in.
Public/private schools first and foremost consideration is...can you afford the fees to send your child here.
Then they will decide whether they let you in.
- Monty
- Posts: 6714
- Joined: 12 Mar 2014, 07:59
- Your Bike: KTM 690 SMC R
- Location: Peak District
- Has thanked: 2120 times
- Been thanked: 2448 times
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
So in essence, having wealth buys you not only a better life for yourself, but also for your family??duke63 wrote:Not really, D41.
Public/private schools first and foremost consideration is...can you afford the fees to send your child here.
Then they will decide whether they let you in.
That's free market economics, nothing wrong with that, Shirley??
- duke63
- Posts: 15501
- Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 07:34
- Your Bike: Ducati 748/853 & Triumph Street Triple 765RS
- Location: Staffordshire
- Has thanked: 4178 times
- Been thanked: 4132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
Every child should have the benefit of that education. It would benefit the Nation big time, what it wouldn't benefit is those in power as they would have to get off their arses and do some work.D41 wrote:So in essence, having wealth buys you not only a better life for yourself, but also for your family??duke63 wrote:Not really, D41.
Public/private schools first and foremost consideration is...can you afford the fees to send your child here.
Then they will decide whether they let you in.
That's free market economics, nothing wrong with that, Shirley??
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
- StMarks
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: 17 Mar 2014, 21:55
- Your Bike: Daytona 675 graphite
- Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
- Has thanked: 923 times
- Been thanked: 1321 times
Re: The Royal Baby
I have a suggestion.D41 wrote:Every child??
That's great....but who's going to pay for it??
Some may consider it "a little" radicle, however how about this.
We adopt China's One child policy. That way there will be enough school places, enough capacity in the NHS, enough space on the roads (eventually)
We should cull all but the first born in every family, that will make the effect more immediate (and give a big boost to the Death Care Industry).
I reckon that, adopted worldwide, this could stop the Global Ruination within 10 years ( almost soon enough to be of benefit to me ).
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
Re: The Royal Baby
China no longer has a one child policy.
But I like your idea about culling. As long as they make it retroactive.
But I like your idea about culling. As long as they make it retroactive.
- StMarks
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: 17 Mar 2014, 21:55
- Your Bike: Daytona 675 graphite
- Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
- Has thanked: 923 times
- Been thanked: 1321 times
Re: The Royal Baby
D41 wrote:....But I like your idea about culling. As long as they make it retrospective.
StMarks wrote:.....We should cull all but the first born in every family....
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
- StMarks
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: 17 Mar 2014, 21:55
- Your Bike: Daytona 675 graphite
- Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
- Has thanked: 923 times
- Been thanked: 1321 times
Re: The Royal Baby
Aside from the fact that I may not have been deadly serious........
Or that one or less of my offspring are within my family unit, and any others are within one child family units.??
Or that I consider the future of the planet's ecology more important than individuals.???
Etc etc....
Not really. - It could equally indicate that that I only have one.?D41 wrote:Well....that just indicates that you don't have children yourself.
Or that one or less of my offspring are within my family unit, and any others are within one child family units.??
Or that I consider the future of the planet's ecology more important than individuals.???
Etc etc....
- Jack
- Posts: 2629
- Joined: 11 Mar 2014, 21:49
- Your Bike:
- Has thanked: 1396 times
- Been thanked: 1636 times
- Contact:
- D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times