God save our fascist Queen...?

Question

I hate the Queen.

1: She gobbles our taxes just because of who she's born to

2: She has more rights and importance than us, just because of who she's born to

3: You can't be a member of her family and not be a protestant.

Anyone agree?

Essentially, she claims to be more special than us for no particular reason other than who she's born to, which is hardly justice. She hasn't worked for her position, nor is it so important that abolishing it would make a significant difference.

If you look at point three, it's distinctly saying that the Queen can only tolerate a certain group of people in her family, causing for a lack of love between them. So not only is the wholesome 'Royal Family' aspect ruined, it's discriminating against others.

Here's a paradox:

The Queen's riches comes from our marvelling at her riches...

Answer 1

Have you always been this ignorant, the Queen was born a Princess, was that her fault,no. If you don't like living in the UK, move.

Answer 2

My lovely Laura Dawn missed her chance to go to Sandhurst with Prince Harry: she has the exact same shade of hair, a similar shape of face & is just as crazy

Can ya just see HM Queen Laura Dawn take one look at her "daft ol' dad" & say - as only one born-again into the Supreme Royal Family of the Universe can do - as a child of the King of kings & Lord of lords,

"Good & faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord!"

As my cheeky free advert title truthfully says, @

http://www.millionairematch.com/search_r...

"Richer than Croesus as a son of the Almighty Creator/Savior!"

Why envy dysfunctional Windsors?

Answer 3

Now you know why the US of A , back in 1776 made our own country and said "good by, George" (the king of England then).  But, you can't do this, if you are living almost within sight of the palace.  Good luck.

Answer 4

Is everyone in your family ignorant or are you the only one?

Jed Clampet at the top,how many children (apart from you) did your father sire out of his sister?

Edit........and hubble below,ahh dear hubble,you really shouldn't judge all women by your own mothers five o'clock shadow.

Answer 5

im american and i like the royal family. most americans do the one thing we should have kept from england

Answer 6

By statement 1: I say you live in the UK.

By statement 3: I say I was wrong or perhaps you immigrated to the UK (and probably didn't attend primary / secondary school there).

Many commoners married members of the royal family and are still in the line of succession.

When a member of the royal family marries  a roman catholic, he/she is excluded from the line of succession BUT NOT FROM THE FAMILY. Sometimes not even her/his titles are removed.

For instance, the Duchess of Kent, wife of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (first cousin of Queen Elizabeth II), became a roman catholic after they married and the Duke is still #24 in the line of succession. Their eldest son George, the Earl of St. Andrews, married a catholic woman and thus excluded from the line of succession by the  Act of Settlement 1701, but he'll still be the next Duke of Kent and he has certainly not been excluded from the family.

I disagree with your statement/question but I   respect other peoples' opinions.

However, it wouldn't be unwise if you choose to do a bit of research and gather few basic facts about these matters.

Answer 7

From a colonial lol--your question sounds a bit like disguised communism--faulting someone for their birth.  By the same token should the sons and daughters of very wealthy familys be allowed to keep their money and position etc?  It's not who we are born as--but what we do with our lives.  It was your royal family that came out with the people during the london blitz and helped cement along with sir winston a solidarity and spirit among a people that n**i germany couldn't break.  Elizabeth the Second has been a wise soverighn who truly loves her people--don't give the old gal such a hard time.  If you act as your soverign does in daily deed--you'll become someone in this world.  If you just complain you'll be cryin in your beer in your local pub.

Answer 8

God shave our gracious Queen,

Give her a jellybean.

Answer 9

1. 60p per person is hardly gobbling our taxes - she brings in far more in tourism (e.g. walking round a working palace) than she gets from the state not to mention the billions she gives to the treasury when she signed over the Crown Estates.

2. You can't choose your parents, I prefer and apolitical head-of-state whose first concern in the people and the nation rather than another politician whose first concern is his party.

3. You can't be a monarch and a Catholic and you forfeit your right to the throne if you marry a Catholic but there are members of the Royal Family who are Catholic- HRH Princess Michael of Kent is Catholic, HRH the Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism as did three of her grandchildren. They are all still members of the Royal Family.

Answer 10

I'm going to go with the whole 'p**s off you communist' angle here.

1. She costs the average taxpayer 60p a year. Hardly gobbling up taxes. On top of that, she pays more back to the treasury in excess income from her vast land holdings etc. So, in reality, she doesn't cost us very much at all.

2. She's the head of state, of course she has more importance. But, then pretty much anyone who's famous seems to think this of themselves, for whatever reason. Look at Paris Hilton.

3. Yes, but as the Queen is head of the Church of England (he established church in this country, may I add) it would be very strange if the monarch were a catholic, say. At this point it is worth mentioning that they aren't turfed out of the family if they marry/become another religion, they just lose their place in the line of succession, which given the whole head of the Church thing, seems sensible.

Plenty of people in the country live easy lives because of money they've inherited from their parents', or grandparents' (or even further back) work. Admittedly, the case is different for the Queen, as as well as the money she's inherited, she has ceremonial power. The key word here, however, is ceremonial. In practise she can't really do anything, so her office is little more than a title with a few ceremonial functions. I (and the vast majority of the British public, as I would take this moment to mention the current Queen is more popular than any politician in British history) am more than willing to let her have that.

And I think it would make a significant difference were we to abolish the monarchy, not least to our national pride, our system of government and our tourism industry. Yet, if you think it makes no difference, I don't see why you should care, unless your ideological view is that people being born into money is profoundly wrong, in which case we're back at the communism point really, aren't we.

(Also, that's not a paradox, it makes perfect sense. Look up what the word means.)

Answer 11

The Queen inerited her role, and has performed it very well in my opinion.  She is still working and active at 82.  Will the same be said for you at that age, I wonder? If we did not have an hereditary head of state we would have to have an elected one, i.e. a president, which would mean more tedious elections.  No country that I am aware of is without a head of state.

A president wouldnot be any cheaper than a monarch, in fact I understand that they are more expensive.  The royal family cost every taxpayer 66p a year, whereas the Italian President costs £1.24, almost twice as much.

Last year the Queen's income was £40 million.  The income from t he Crown Estates, which is given back to the people of Britain, was £200 million.  so we made a profit of £160 million out of the royal family.  That sounds pretty good to me.  would a president bring us in that much?  I doubt it.

If you think the Queen doesn't work, then you should try doing what she does some time and see if you can cope with it.  The endless round of official engagements would try the patience of most people.  True, she gets handsomely paid for what she does, but there are many people who earn more money for doing a lot less.

Answer 12

3. To answer your statement that "You can't be a member of her family and not be a protestant"

- this is incorrect.

Princess Marie-Christine (i.e. Princess Michael) of Kent is a Roman Catholic and is also happily a member of the Royal Family.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that in order to be married to a Roman Catholic, Prince Michael had to renounce his claim to the throne and his place in the line of succession? Well despite this Prince Michael and his wife are still part of the family!

He couldnt very well be in line to the throne where the sovereign is the leader of the Church of England and be married to a Roman Catholic could he? What would the point of that be? It would be extreme hypocrisy to do so and would be insulting both the Anglican and Roman Catholic denominations.

Peter Phillips recently married Autumn Kelly who was brought up a Roman Catholic but she denounced her denomination and therefore Peter keeps his place in line to the throne. She did this evidently because she is not very attached to her faith as some people are. That's all. It was a personal choice.

The Queen is an Anglican and is head of the Church of England. She is not being fascist to be part of a tradition where the sovereign becomes leader of the Church of England.