throne out

[macbeth]

http://www.throneout.com/about.asp

Despite what royalists claim, the Windsor family wields an enormous amount of political power. In ever more desperate attempts to hold on to their privileges, they abuse the UK court system to silence dissent and issue injunctions against those who would seek to publish their embarrassing secrets. Recently, we have seen UK newspapers gagged and foreign imports confiscated and pulped. Even people bringing newspapers featuring reports of the recent Prince Charles scandal have had them confiscated. The Windsors and the UK establishment that maintains them are adopting police state tactics to ensure the British public that bankrolls their debauched lifestyles never knows the truth

ps p.34-35 of daily mail might be of interest!

[Benji]

Don't think i'll make any comments on this topic

Don't want to be beheaded at the age of 18

[Ultra]

Food for thought...

I can't see the monarchy surviving for much longer than the Queen.

If you think our current government is sleazy (which it is... ), then take a look at the House of Windsor..

Does anyone still seriously believe that Diana wasn't murdered? If s, explain, why, nearly NINE years after her death, there has still been no inquest.

[macbeth]

quite right sleazy govs only get 5 years sleazy monarchies are much harder to shift

[Head Honcho]

http://www.throneout.com/about.asp

Despite what royalists claim, the Windsor family wields an enormous amount of political power. In ever more desperate attempts to hold on to their privileges, they abuse the UK court system to silence dissent and issue injunctions against those who would seek to publish their embarrassing secrets. Recently, we have seen UK newspapers gagged and foreign imports confiscated and pulped. Even people bringing newspapers featuring reports of the recent Prince Charles scandal have had them confiscated. The Windsors and the UK establishment that maintains them are adopting police state tactics to ensure the British public that bankrolls their debauched lifestyles never knows the truth

ps p.34-35 of daily mail might be of interest!

[crazy horse]

really interesting site ; not sure i want to sign up though for emails ;i don't know what the lengths the royal mafia will go to; to supress any campaign to oust them

i was particularly intrigued about the abdication and the implication that is was more about nazi sympathising royalty than wallis simpson

[Phube]

Food for thought...

I can't see the monarchy surviving for much longer than the Queen.

If you think our current government is sleazy (which it is... ), then take a look at the House of Windsor..

Does anyone still seriously believe that Diana wasn't murdered? If s, explain, why, nearly NINE years after her death, there has still been no inquest.

Somebody reads the Express!!!

How's this for a conspiracy, driver was going too fast , was drunk on alcohol and drugs, hit a stupid pillar in a badly designed Parisiene tunnel (this would never happen in UK as we can't hit pillars dead on!!). The stupid woman and man (Di & Dodi) didn't wear a seatbelt (also UK law) and died of wounds caused by a massive impact!! The only one to survive (the body guard) wore a seat belt and survived!!

So you're telling me the 'assasin' took the risk of setting up a car crash only for his victim to survive because she wore a seat belt!! I don't think so!!

[macbeth]

Somebody reads the Express!!!

How's this for a conspiracy, driver was going too fast , was drunk on alcohol and drugs, hit a stupid pillar in a badly designed Parisiene tunnel (this would never happen in UK as we can't hit pillars dead on!!). The stupid woman and man (Di & Dodi) didn't wear a seatbelt (also UK law) and died of wounds caused by a massive impact!! The only one to survive (the body guard) wore a seat belt and survived!!

So you're telling me the 'assasin' took the risk of setting up a car crash only for his victim to survive because she wore a seat belt!! I don't think so!!

i agree maybe people do go on about conspiracies too much / but why was dianas body embalmed two hours before it was flown back to britain at the request of british authorities ( french law forbids this if a post mortem is planned )

and just because something appears in whatever newspaper does not make it fictitious

indeed many people thought that the watergate conspiracy was only newspaper mischief originally;

there are many unanswered questions and if theres nowt to hide let them answer and we would no longer ask;

[Thracian]

It is interesting you now point to organised website idealogy. It would doubtless be interesting to delve into the background of that site. Are they representative of Republics elsewhere? No matter for now.

But first, if you read back I think I adherred to the idea that opportunity should be forfeit in the event of proven criminal behaviour. That goes for royals or politicians.

No-one has ever suggested there hasn't been bad monarchs or members of the Royal family any more than I have suggested there couldn't be good Presidents.

It is interesting to see the site that has so captured your imagination. No mention of unelected people in positions of power within the European Parliament.

Then we see Windsor Castle apparently burning in the background. In societies where such things have happened there has been great regret later that such historically important buildings/artefacts/books have been so shamelessly and wilfully destroyed. Important things are invariably lost or destroyed with Republics but I'll come back to that.

I have long argued that the death of the Princess of Wales is highly suspicious. Evidence of crime and malpractise has been put forward which needs answering and frankly, from everything I have read so far, which is a lot, the whole thing stinks and in every direction.

And let there be no mistake as to my view. I've no idea who if anyone did what or on who's orders but should the answers not be satisfactory then I am clear in my mind that if any Royal or Royals are involved they should be answerable.

That wouldn't destroy my belief inthe monarchy. Even if, as has been suggested in the national Press and elsewhere, the Princess of Wales' death was not what it seemed, whoever might have been responsible has a long way to go before they get near the deaths that have resulted from Blair's (some would claim illegal) policy in the Middle East, Stalin's mass murders in Russia, Mao's detestable purging of the Chinese etc.etc

Whatever the consequences of any enquiry there are acceptable Royals in waiting but the problem with a Republic is that so often precious things are lost - like peoples lives, people's property, the nations history, the works of great intellectuals, personal freedoms, political freedoms etc, because, unlike the Royal family which is theoretically neutral politically, a republic so often is not. Peoples Republics are too often only for certain sorts of people.

Why should anyone wish for that sort of divisiveness in this green and pleasant land?.

It is the politics of bitterness not the politics of joy and opportunity for all.

That website represents the sort of selected thinking which represents a dogmatic point of view to the exclusion of all considered argument or evidence which might realistically caution rather different thinking.

You should remember. Millions of people in this country have a lot to lose and there is no evidence that those who might gain will run things better, more justly or in a way that genuinely improves democracy and offers wider opportunities for everyone whatever their beliefs and background.

[Thracian]

Somebody reads the Express!!!

How's this for a conspiracy, driver was going too fast , was drunk on alcohol and drugs, hit a stupid pillar in a badly designed Parisiene tunnel (this would never happen in UK as we can't hit pillars dead on!!). The stupid woman and man (Di & Dodi) didn't wear a seatbelt (also UK law) and died of wounds caused by a massive impact!! The only one to survive (the body guard) wore a seat belt and survived!!

So you're telling me the 'assasin' took the risk of setting up a car crash only for his victim to survive because she wore a seat belt!! I don't think so!!

I think you should read a bit longer and a bit deeper.

[macbeth]

It is interesting you now point to organised website idealogy. It would doubtless be interesting to delve into the background of that site. Are they representative of Republics elsewhere? No matter for now.

But first, if you read back I think I adherred to the idea that opportunity should be forfeit in the event of proven criminal behaviour. That goes for royals or politicians.No-one has ever suggested there hasn't been bad monarchs or members of the Royal family any more than I have suggested there couldn't be good Presidents.

It is interesting to see the site that has so captured your imagination. No mention of unelected people in positions of power within the European Parliament.

Then we see Windsor Castle apparently burning in the background. In societies where such things have happened there has been great regret later that such historically important buildings/artefacts/books have been so shamelessly and wilfully destroyed. Important things are invariably lost or destroyed with Republics but I'll come back to that.

I have long argued that the death of the Princess of Wales is highly suspicious. Evidence of crime and malpractise has been put forward which needs answering and frankly, from everything I have read so far, which is a lot, the whole thing stinks and in every direction.

And let there be no mistake as to my view. I've no idea who if anyone did what or on who's orders but should the answers not be satisfactory then I am clear in my mind that if any Royal or Royals are involved they should be answerable.

That wouldn't destroy my belief inthe monarchy. Even if, as has been suggested in the national Press and elsewhere, the Princess of Wales' death was not what it seemed, whoever might have been responsible has a long way to go before they get near the deaths that have resulted from Blair's (some would claim illegal) policy in the Middle East, Stalin's mass murders in Russia, Mao's detestable purging of the Chinese etc.etc

Whatever the consequences of any enquiry there are acceptable Royals in waiting but the problem with a Republic is that so often precious things are lost - like peoples lives, people's property, the nations history, the works of great intellectuals, personal freedoms, political freedoms etc, because, unlike the Royal family which is theoretically neutral politically, a republic so often is not. Peoples Republics are too often only for certain sorts of people.

Why should anyone wish for that sort of divisiveness in this green and pleasant land?.

It is the politics of bitterness not the politics of joy and opportunity for all.

That website represents the sort of selected thinking which represents a dogmatic point of view to the exclusion of all considered argument or evidence which might realistically caution rather different thinking.

You should remember. Millions of people in this country have a lot to lose and there is no evidence that those who might gain will run things better, more justly or in a way that genuinely improves democracy and offers wider opportunities for everyone whatever their beliefs and background.

only red first 2 paragraphs and will have to take it section by section

how can criminal activity ever be used against royalty?

The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury[/size].[/size]

[Thracian]

http://www.throneout.com/about.asp

Despite what royalists claim, the Windsor family wields an enormous amount of political power. In ever more desperate attempts to hold on to their privileges, they abuse the UK court system to silence dissent and issue injunctions against those who would seek to publish their embarrassing secrets. Recently, we have seen UK newspapers gagged and foreign imports confiscated and pulped. Even people bringing newspapers featuring reports of the recent Prince Charles scandal have had them confiscated. The Windsors and the UK establishment that maintains them are adopting police state tactics to ensure the British public that bankrolls their debauched lifestyles never knows the truth

ps p.34-35 of daily mail might be of interest!

And the Government doesn't?. There are so many Labour cronies within the BBC from Andrew Marr onwards that, as far as I recall, they barely mentioned John Precott's recent demise until it was unavoidable. It is an affront to our democracy that the BBC so clearly shares a bed with New Labour.

[macbeth]

And the Government doesn't?. There are so many Labour cronies within the BBC from Andrew Marr onwards that, as far as I recall, they barely mentioned John Precott's recent demise until it was unavoidable. It is an affront to our democracy that the BBC so clearly shares a bed with New Labour.

then we must root them out also; you are using other peoples criminal and morally bankrupt actions to justify anything the monarchy does

[macbeth]

quote thracian

It is interesting to see the site that has so captured your imagination. No mention of unelected people in positions of power within the European Parliament.

i wish to see a stop to this also; but totally irrelevant to original discussion; i wish to see greater democracy not less

[macbeth]

quote thracian

Then we see Windsor Castle apparently burning in the background. In societies where such things have happened there has been great regret later that such historically important buildings/artefacts/books have been so shamelessly and wilfully destroyed. Important things are invariably lost or destroyed with Republics but I'll come back to that

that is ther for the sole purpose to illustrate how the repairs were paid for; originally the queen put up about 2 thirds but the opened buck pal and started charging entrance fees to look at things WE own

[Thracian]

quote thracian

Then we see Windsor Castle apparently burning in the background. In societies where such things have happened there has been great regret later that such historically important buildings/artefacts/books have been so shamelessly and wilfully destroyed. Important things are invariably lost or destroyed with Republics but I'll come back to that

that is ther for the sole purpose to illustrate how the repairs were paid for; originally the queen put up about 2 thirds but the opened buck pal and started charging entrance fees to look at things WE own

No matter re Windsor Castle - it reminded well enough of past revolutionary actions on the way to Republicanism.

Regarding Buckingham Palace I thought the Queen paid taxes on earnings now. If she earns it she's criticised if she doesn't she's criticised. She can't win with some and like I said earlier, royal tourism earns significant sums.

We can nit-pick all day but what worries me most is your comment somewhere that I won't change you mind on the issue.

That worries me immensely. It would seem to prevent you thinking anything through indepently. You are following a conviction (demonstrably flawed in some instances) rather than genuinely examining the flaws and searching for what is best.

Contrary to what you say I am entirely open to persuasion.

Because of that I wished you had extolled the merits of some republic somewhere which really did try to represent all its people fairly and govern for the greater good of all its citizens while fairly distributing income, protecting the wealth already fairly acquired by peoples families and protecting the peoples freedoms and right to be politically, spiritually and personally independent.

I have no doubt the Royal family has its skeletons. People, especially leaders, are like that - invariably corrupt, manipulative and self-serving at times - and it is one of the reasons I work for myself and am always irritated by all forms of enforced behaviour whether from politicians, policemen, or anyone else. I am only truly happy being answerable to myself and my own conscience.

Unfortunately, as they say, no man is an island and we will have government and authority and, on balance, I agree it is unavoidable. That being the case one can only hope it is the right kind and when it comes to the very top of the tree I prefer political neutrality to idealistic dogma.

Basically that is because of what you say about there being no chance of changing your view. King Herrod had a view about first born children once and that ilustrates how dangerous dogmatic views can be. Hitler too. And Robert Mugabe or certain religious fundamentalists in modern times.

I mention them only as a warning against allowing yourself to become a slave to dogma - especially someone else's. A set mind eventually ignores all reasoning.

[macbeth]

Basically that is because of what you say about there being no chance of changing your view. King Herrod had a view about first born children once and that ilustrates how dangerous dogmatic views can be. Hitler too. And Robert Mugabe or certain religious fundamentalists in modern times.

I mention them only as a warning against allowing yourself to become a slave to dogma - especially someone else's. A set mind eventually ignores all reasoning.

this could equally apply to you but i would be too polite to suggest it; whereas monarchists always use brow beating methods when confronted and retreat into wholly irrelevant discourse

[macbeth]

quote thracian

We can nit-pick all day but what worries me most is your comment somewhere that I won't change you mind on the issue.

That worries me immensely. It would seem to prevent you thinking anything through indepently. You are following a conviction (demonstrably flawed in some instances) rather than genuinely examining the flaws and searching for what is best.

if you go back to when i said that it was in response to you ; who had already said that YOU would not be convinced by ANYTHING THAT I SAID POST 27 in the WORLD CUP THREAD regarding national anthems

[crazy horse]

thracian;

you can't keep using wholly irrelevant discourse to justify the royal family's continuance; not once have you answered a single critisism of them without reference to china /russia /communism or anyone elses failure to have read the books of your choosing; please stay on the relevance of inherited priviledge in today's democratic britain without your (very thinly ) veiled insults

methinks you do protest too much;

[Ultra]

And the Government doesn't?. There are so many Labour cronies within the BBC from Andrew Marr onwards that, as far as I recall, they barely mentioned John Precott's recent demise until it was unavoidable. It is an affront to our democracy that the BBC so clearly shares a bed with New Labour.

I think the beeb's relationship with the monarchy is far closer.

The extemely sycophantic coverage of the Trooping The Colour ceremony yesterday was an example of that...

[Thracian]

I think the beeb's relationship with the monarchy is far closer.

The extemely sycophantic coverage of the Trooping The Colour ceremony yesterday was an example of that...

I honestly haven't noticed one way or the other but if it's so I wouldn't agree with that either. If there are questions concerning the Royal family - and there are volumes in respect of the Princess of Wales - then they should be asked.

[macbeth]

I honestly haven't noticed one way or the other but if it's so I wouldn't agree with that either. If there are questions concerning the Royal family - and there are volumes in respect of the Princess of Wales - then they should be asked.

the questions are being asked but more importantlly

they should be answered; not a concept royalists seem to grasp

[Thracian]

the questions are being asked but more importantlly

they should be answered; not a concept royalists seem to grasp

Or anyone else who ends up facing uncomfortable questions (it really isn't something specific to royalty) but those questions should be answered and quickly in my view. It is scandalous how long the whole inquiry into the Princess of Wales' death has taken. I doubt any other such incident wouild have taken a fraction of the time and that in itself makes me additionally and deeply suspicious before even considering the serious questions raised and which I very much doubt can all be answered satisfactorily.

[Thracian]

only red first 2 paragraphs and will have to take it section by section

how can criminal activity ever be used against royalty?

The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury[/size].[/size]

I am not a lawyer and could not begin to argue the legalities or otherwise of the Paul Burrell case.

But I firmly believe the Royals, just like politicians and policeman, should be properly answerable to all aspects of the law.

My defending of the (publicly) politically neutral monarchy as a prefence to a dramatically political president does not mean the monarchy should not be subject to change, moderation and greater expectation. They should.

Part of the payback for being royal is that they should be expected to set a right and proper example at all times. The Queen, the Princes and so on by degrees are, after all, the senior representatives of our nation and should act as such along with senior politicians and other important representatives of our nation.

[Head Honcho]

And the Government doesn't?. There are so many Labour cronies within the BBC from Andrew Marr onwards that, as far as I recall, they barely mentioned John Precott's recent demise until it was unavoidable. It is an affront to our democracy that the BBC so clearly shares a bed with New Labour.

How can you accuse the BBC of being biased toward labour?

Nick Robinson the new BBC Chief Political Editor is Tory through and through.

He was chairman of the Oxford University Conservative Association ffs.

The BBC still hold a grudge against Labour for putting pressure on Gavyn Davies to resign because of the David Kelly saga and what better way to get their own back then to make a Tory their Chief Politcal Editor.