[PopTart]

Re: The National Anthem : Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:01 pm  

It's my national anthem.
Jerusalem is a great song but isn't my national anthem.
I love the royal family especially the grandsons and their involvement in the military and emergency services is inspirational.
The fact that they are involved with other sports has no relevance to us.

I wonder when we last asked them to be involved in a Wembley? I should think other spots plan their involvement 10 years ahead.

[Bullseye]

Re: The National Anthem : Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:03 pm  

Theme tune to The Archers please.

Re: The National Anthem : Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:30 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Theme tune to The Archers please.

Ah yes, Billy Connolly at his finest

Re: The National Anthem : Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:00 pm  

silver2 wrote:

Dear God!!

Well.....you were being a tad trite.
He is (as was his gran) the Patron of our sport and has already attended RL events....he flew back from Australia to attend one such RL event when it would have been easier to hop over to NZ to catch a Lions test.......he obviously has other engagements and flying half way around the world to attend a poorly attended tournament isn't a priority....but you use his absence as an excuse to bash the royal family...as I said, you came across as very chippy!

Re: The National Anthem : Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:49 pm  

PopTart wrote:

It's my national anthem.
Jerusalem is a great song but isn't my national anthem.
I love the royal family especially the grandsons and their involvement in the military and emergency services is inspirational.
The fact that they are involved with other sports has no relevance to us.

I wonder when we last asked them to be involved in a Wembley? I should think other spots plan their involvement 10 years ahead.

I cannot stand the parasites and I do not care that they do what any number of other people do for a lot less adulation. So what if a prince is in the armed forces? Does that make them worth more than all our other forces personel? Try being shot at for a few years and knowing that when you leave you still have to make a living. As for being inspirational the monarchy are paid increasingly well, with full job security and the only qualification in their part is a dodgy set of unwritten rules on which we have no say. They have no divine right to rule. They are the relatives of the usurpers who nicked the throne from other usurpers. If we had a coup you could go misty eyed over the next set of sock puppets. Long live the revolution.

Re: The National Anthem : Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:16 am  

Call Me God wrote:

Well.....you were being a tad trite.
He is (as was his gran) the Patron of our sport and has already attended RL events....he flew back from Australia to attend one such RL event when it would have been easier to hop over to NZ to catch a Lions test.......he obviously has other engagements and flying half way around the world to attend a poorly attended tournament isn't a priority....but you use his absence as an excuse to bash the royal family...as I said, you came across as very chippy!

Ok, I accept your apology.

Re: The National Anthem : Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:12 am  

Levrier wrote:

They have no divine right to rule. They are the relatives of the usurpers who nicked the throne from other usurpers.

I couldn't agree more; the adulation of these people who are accidentally afforded elevated status simply by virtue of being born, is cringeworthy. They're an anachronism and should be consigned to the history books.

[PopTart]

Re: The National Anthem : Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:27 am  

By the same standard, if your parents worked all their lives and bought a nice house....then left it to you in their will......the revolution should take that off you.
That ok too?

I like them and their roles. They are a part of our history and should be celebrated. Not adored as people but celebrated in the role they play.

I would reduce the civil list to just the straight line on the family tree from the Queen though. No need to pay the others.

Re: The National Anthem : Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:34 am  

Levrier wrote:

I cannot stand the parasites and I do not care that they do what any number of other people do for a lot less adulation. So what if a prince is in the armed forces? Does that make them worth more than all our other forces personel? Try being shot at for a few years and knowing that when you leave you still have to make a living. As for being inspirational the monarchy are paid increasingly well, with full job security and the only qualification in their part is a dodgy set of unwritten rules on which we have no say. They have no divine right to rule. They are the relatives of the usurpers who nicked the throne from other usurpers. If we had a coup you could go misty eyed over the next set of sock puppets. Long live the revolution.

Spot on there.

Just to add the even greater irony that given his rather dubious paternity, Prince Harry's sole "qualification" for his role is questionable.

As for an anthem GSTQ is hardly inspirational as well as not being England specific (though the Welsh & Scots seem to think so when they boo it). We don't have the get out like the haka that the Kiwis can use to overcome a dull national anthem, so new tune please.

Re: The National Anthem : Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:56 pm  

PopTart wrote:

By the same standard, if your parents worked all their lives and bought a nice house....then left it to you in their will......the revolution should take that off you.
That ok too?

.

You miss the point. It would be more akin to your parents living on the dole for their whole lives and then being handed the proceeds of a robbery which they then passed on to you. You then claimed that it was the will of God and that it was set in stone.