Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Justifications for the abolition of the Monarchy in the UK

To which the obvious answer is 'Yes, yes I would because I believe there would be less objections to his execution'
but against that must be weighed that the television audience and potential for advertising would be lower for the publick execution of president blair than it would be for the several weeks to which the executions of the detestable windsor clan and their loathsome courtiers could be extended.
 
but against that must be weighed that the television audience and potential for advertising would be lower for the publick execution of president blair than it would be for the several weeks to which the executions of the detestable windsor clan and their loathsome courtiers could be extended.
Shit, I hadn't considered the advertising possibilities but maybe a Big Brother style TV show from South Georgia showing the residents in their huts fighting over the days bowl of thin gruel would be good too? Watch the Queen knife Phil for insect protein poor gruel.
 
Sass must have been delighted during the restoration, it was probably he who dug cromwell up to be executed.
at the overthrow of the monarchy in the 1640s the equestrian statue of charles i, which now adorns trafalgar square, was ordered by parliament to be sold and broken up. the purchaser produced a range of souvenirs which were bought by parliamentarians eager to have a reminder of their triumph and by royalists who desired a momento of their fallen sainted monarch. a great deal of money was accumulated by these means. come the restoration, the canny man produced the statue whole for which he received a reward from the grateful charles ii.
 
Shit, I hadn't considered the advertising possibilities but maybe a Big Brother style TV show from South Georgia showing the residents in their huts fighting over the days bowl of thin gruel would be good too? Watch the Queen knife Phil for insect protein poor gruel.
there will be no such television broadcast featuring the former people working on the s.a.c.n and the grytviken - buenos aires friendship bridge. there will be no thin gruel served to the former people, who will subsist wholly on their own efforts as they expiate the crimes they have committed. sir comrade david attenborough will report on their attempts to emulate the intrepid penguins who dive into rough seas to catch fish for their young.
 
Plenty of fish in the sea, as they say.
yeh, it remains to be seen how many of the former people will be able to regain dry land without being dashed against cliffs or dragged beneath the waves by the fickle currents or local fauna.
 
Last edited:
E15w3cpWYAQzcDj
 
I've got an idea. Let's get rid of the royal family and not have any head of state at all. Why don't they ever give that option in their opinion polls?

It’s bizarre, isn’t it?
Just always taken as read without question that we have to have a President or something as opposed to say, delegates.
 
An occasional series

In an effort to counter " them tourists is money" tropes that allow the craven lickspittles to wave flags, clutch their pearls and defend the monarchy, here is an opportunity to provide some reasons to abolish the Monarchy.

Newcastle lecturer claims Princess Eugenie was rejected | Daily Mail Online

No need to click on the DM link & I have corrupted the .html suffix above, but here is the C&P extract

Princess Eugenie was initially rejected by Newcastle University and then given a place because of who she was, it was claimed.
Her application was allegedly dismissed as ‘not good enough’ by an admissions officer who hadn’t realised the applicant was a member of the royal family.
When the ‘horrified’ university authorities realised what had happened they offered the Duke and Duchess of York’s daughter a place on an alternative degree course.
The allegations were made by Dr Martin Farr, a senior history lecturer at Newcastle University, in a speech to the anti-monarchist campaign group Republic’s annual convention in the city.
Eugenie ended up doing a combined BA honours degree in English literature, history of art and politics at Newcastle and graduated at the end of her three-year course in 2012 with a 2:1. The comments by Dr Farr imply that she was given special treatment to get her into the university for PR purposes.
Speaking to an audience in favour of abolishing the monarchy, Dr Farr said his information had come from a colleague who he didn’t name.
He said the royal VIP was rejected for a degree in English literature before being found a place on the apparently less competitive combined degree when her identity came to light.
Dr Farr said: ‘We had at Newcastle University one of the Queen’s granddaughters, Princess Eugenie.
‘And a friend of mine who is Italian was the admissions officer for BA English literature and received one application for the undergraduate degree that was not good enough and so discarded it.’


Dr Martin Farr, a senior history lecturer at Newcastle University, said her application was dismissed as ‘not good enough’ by an admissions officer who hadn’t realised the applicant was a member of the royal family
When the ‘horrified’ university authorities realised what had happened they offered the Duke and Duchess of York’s daughter a place on an alternative degree course (pictured is Newcastle University)
Dr Farr said ‘being Italian’ the admissions officer ‘had not noticed that Princess Eugenie of York from Sandringham may have had more significance for the institution than another applicant’.
He added: ‘Apparently the university was horrified that she had been rejected before she was offered a place with us for another degree.’


According to the university’s website the entry requirements for next year’s intake studying English literature are likely to be AAA-AAB, and for those doing a combined honours course of the type Eugenie studied they are put as AAB.


Eugenie, now 27, went to university on the back of three good A-levels at Marlborough College. She attained an A in each of English and art and a B in history of art"

Martin Farr didn't name his colleague, but very effectively managed to divulge their identity. I don't like the Monarchy but I don't like people who grass up workmates, either.
 
I've got an idea. Let's get rid of the royal family and not have any head of state at all. Why don't they ever give that option in their opinion polls?
Because the laws aren't written that way. You'd spend decades re-writing everything so's there's no head of state needed, and that's assuming you could actually get Parliament to agree on every single new law they're passing.

Or to put it another way, it is eminently possible to transition from the current system to a system with an elected or designated by some means other than birth head of state in short order. Eliminating the head of state really only makes sense if you're tearing the entire system down and are okay with a bit of anarchy in the middle. This being Urban, I'm sure some of you are fine with that but you're never going to convince the general populace to go for it.
 
This being Urban, I'm sure some of you are fine with that but you're never going to convince the general populace to go for it.
A lot of people seem to support the Royals on the notion that at least cant actually do anything as heads of state, so i expect people would go for it.

ive no idea what a president really is (in relation to a PM), having never lived under one.
they sound shit
 
Because the laws aren't written that way. You'd spend decades re-writing everything so's there's no head of state needed, and that's assuming you could actually get Parliament to agree on every single new law they're passing.

Or to put it another way, it is eminently possible to transition from the current system to a system with an elected or designated by some means other than birth head of state in short order. Eliminating the head of state really only makes sense if you're tearing the entire system down and are okay with a bit of anarchy in the middle. This being Urban, I'm sure some of you are fine with that but you're never going to convince the general populace to go for it.
Doesn't really make sense to me. The Prime Minister and cabinet have executive power in this country. We're constantly told that the Queen doesn't actually have any political power (though the truth is she wields it in private). It would just mean getting rid of a couple of ceremonies. The other countries where she's head of state but doesn't turn up on a regular basis manage fine without having her about.

And scrapping the Queen's speech and a couple of other silly traditions would not result in 'anarchy'.
 
Because the laws aren't written that way. You'd spend decades re-writing everything so's there's no head of state needed, and that's assuming you could actually get Parliament to agree on every single new law they're passing.

Or to put it another way, it is eminently possible to transition from the current system to a system with an elected or designated by some means other than birth head of state in short order. Eliminating the head of state really only makes sense if you're tearing the entire system down and are okay with a bit of anarchy in the middle. This being Urban, I'm sure some of you are fine with that but you're never going to convince the general populace to go for it.
Or, since we supposedly have a head of state with no real political power, let's replace her maj with, e.g. a head of cauliflower. The ceremonial parts of the current job can be performed by a new flunky, to be named 'Guardian of the Royal Floret', on a modest retainer. He or she can sign any documents and stuff like that. The cauliflower can just sit around doing nothing much in particular. So not very different to now, really.
 
Back
Top Bottom