British are rude

[postmortemIA]

Pic

Article

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Pic

Article

Screw em. We have a queen too, Barney Frank.

 

[dethman]

hehe

 

[Howard]

They must be proud of such a useless figurehead.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Howard
They must be proud of such a useless figurehead.

Hardly. I can't wait until we dispose of the morons, although I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime. I can't think of anyone that I know or have met that thinks they're worthwhile.

 

[Allanv]

i wish they would get jobs like the rest of us, but anyway i dont see from the 2 links provided where we were rude?

 

[gopunk]

well, bush did imply that the queen was around to see the founding of our nation...

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Howard
They must be proud of such a useless figurehead.

Hardly. I can't wait until we dispose of the morons, although I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime. I can't think of anyone that I know or have met that thinks they're worthwhile.

i know and shes dwelling it at the bottom of the rich list. £320m pah!

plus she has the power to dissolve parliament but has just sat there watching tony ham it up completely for the past 10 years. prince harry and prince william are also dunces, didnt harry get like 2 a-levels or something?

royal family are just a joke tbh, yeah not many countries have a monarch....and it does kinda keep up british values and traditions, but honestly all they are good for is tourism.

 

[IamBusby]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Howard
They must be proud of such a useless figurehead.

Hardly. I can't wait until we dispose of the morons, although I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime. I can't think of anyone that I know or have met that thinks they're worthwhile.

Fact is they bring in more money to the UK than they spend. If we got rid of them then the UK would lose money on tourism so where's the loss in keeping them?

 

[dug777]

I don't get the OP's point?

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: IamBusby
Fact is they bring in more money to the UK than they spend. If we got rid of them then the UK would lose money on tourism so where's the loss in keeping them?

I don't care, they're archaic and more trouble than they're worth. I'd also like to see how much of the money generated goes straight into their back pocket. We'd still get funk-loads of tourism from the buildings and stuff anyway, we don't need the muppets themselves.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: dug777
I don't get the OP's point?

No worries mate, I don't think anyone does.

 

[sandorski]

hehe. I wouldn't take one British rags headlines as the word of the British. British Newspapers have a reputation of being outlandish.

 

[johnjbruin]

Screw the royal family - why don't we just get rid of them. Or are they so 'special'



:roll:

:disgust:

 

[jjones]

That's gay






stolberg

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: sandorski
hehe. I wouldn't take one British rags headlines as the word of the British. British Newspapers have a reputation of being outlandish.

Especially when it's a bloody typo in an online article.

It's not like they put "Queen visits Captain Clusterfvck, confuses him with finger puzzle".

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: IamBusby
Fact is they bring in more money to the UK than they spend. If we got rid of them then the UK would lose money on tourism so where's the loss in keeping them?

Nah, I bet you'd still make plenty of money on the history of the monarchy. I don't know if you guys open up the throne chambers ever, but imagine how much money you could make if you charged to sit in the throne?

EDIT:
Haha! I read the article and all it did was remind me of an episode of That's My Bush! Awesome.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: IamBusby
Fact is they bring in more money to the UK than they spend. If we got rid of them then the UK would lose money on tourism so where's the loss in keeping them?

I don't care, they're archaic and more trouble than they're worth. I'd also like to see how much of the money generated goes straight into their back pocket. We'd still get funk-loads of tourism from the buildings and stuff anyway, we don't need the muppets themselves.

We should replace them with an animatronic royal family that scoots about the palace, lifting a cup of tea then a crumpet, one arm after another. And we wouldn't have to pay them any more, either. Or their public servant tax auditors! Terrifying for kids, ruthlessly efficient, cheap and maintaining tourist amusement. Problems solved.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
We should replace them with an animatronic royal family that scoots about the palace, lifting a cup of tea then a crumpet, one arm after another. And we wouldn't have to pay them any more, either. Or their public servant tax auditors! Terrifying for kids, ruthlessly efficient, cheap and maintaining tourist amusement. Problems solved.

:Q Awesome :thumbsup:

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: johnjbruin
Screw the royal family - why don't we just get rid of them. Or are they so 'special'



:roll:

:disgust:

It's not just up to us

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of sixteen sovereign states

Apart from the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Roguestar
We should replace them with an animatronic royal family that scoots about the palace, lifting a cup of tea then a crumpet, one arm after another. And we wouldn't have to pay them any more, either. Or their public servant tax auditors! Terrifying for kids, ruthlessly efficient, cheap and maintaining tourist amusement. Problems solved.

:Q Awesome :thumbsup:

I reckon we could get it submitted to vote in a parliament, too. And incase the Queen noticed and dissolved parliament before the vote was passed, we could distract her with something shiny or perhaps a big-eyed little girl who one day wants to be a princess blabbing her dreams to the old ma'am.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
...And in case the Queen noticed and dissolved parliament before the vote was passed, we could distract her with something shiny or perhaps a big-eyed little girl who one day wants to be a princess blabbing her dreams to the old ma'am.

Or a shotgun and some peasants...

 

[Roguestar]

Obligatory pitchfork-waving commence!

 

[Tipsy Turtle]

Because it's a bad idea when cousins marry! Bottom of the gene pool, you know. You're just scraping the barrel there, ?We've haven't got enough for any more of you royals there, sorry.? First rule of genetics: spread the genes apart! But the royals are just obsessed with, "Are you a royal family? Are you a royal member? Well, then you can marry me ?cause you're same gene pool, and our IQs will go down the toilet.? Fantastic! That's why there's no crazy royals, they're all kind of, "Hello! Hello, what do you do? You're a plumber! What on Earth is that?"

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Pic

Article

Screw em. We have a queen too, Barney Frank.

:laugh: