England`s Prince Charles Gets A (New) Job

Submitted by: Gerry1of1 4 years ago

His Royal Highness reads the weather forecast for Scotland. His first honest day"s work in his lifetime.
There are 73 comments:
Male 1,360
USA!USA!
Turdburglar: you are part of United States of As*holes my friend.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]As is often the case with bigots, you`re projecting your own faults onto your target group.[/quote]

Much like you!!You should try to pratice what you preach.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@turdburglar - lol irony right there.
0
Reply
Male 4,893
Who cares.. why is this european cr@p on here. The whole of Europe, Canada, and ESPECIALLY the Queen and royal famly can suck it. What a waist of a continent. USA! USA! USA!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I suppose you think they just magically got that massive fortune through hard work and caring about the commoners?[/quote]

You suppose all sorts of rubbish as part of your silly fantasies and inconsistent communism. Maybe you even believe some of it.

If you want to know what I actually think, you could try reading my posts in this thread. But why change the habit of a lifetime by letting reality get in the way?

[quote]You really sum up the Brit sterotype a know it all who knows far from everything.[/quote]

As is often the case with bigots, you`re projecting your own faults onto your target group.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Oh ya that`s why we fought a revolution to make a system almost exactly the same LOL!![/quote]

This is what I actually said:

[quote]The US system is based on the UK system because the founders of the USA looked at it and said "We like almost all of that, it`s a good system."[/quote]

Which is what happened. Meet the new boss, mostly the same basis as the old boss. Same basis for the legal system, same basis for elected government, same language, etc. Not exactly the same, but very close.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

MacGovern [quote]"@Gerry1of1, Did you know you don`t have to support royalty to be a princess?" [/quote] :-)
good one
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Getting rid of your royalty wouldn`t end the UK so that`s a stupid point.[/quote]

Yes, it is. So why are you making it? Ah, I know. It`s because you`re stupid. But we already knew that.

[quote]LOL ya right!! you should really check the history of the crown there.[/quote]

You are now arguing that the queen obtained her wealth by murdering people.

Seriously? You really meant that? There was me thinking that she inherited it. The cover-up of the British civil war of 1953 must have been amazing. Do you think aliens did it? Did you get your insider info when you were kidnapped by the aliens?
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 1,810
@mcgovern1981. I have no problem with your side of this issue, but, reading your posts on this thread, I can`t but be reminded of "The Holy Grail", when King Arthur asks directions of Michael Palins` character, a member of an "autonomous collective" !!!
0
Reply
Male 323
@McGovern1981 - They are unemployed and receive money from the state - as socialist as it gets ;-)
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Darwin would be proud a position of no use proclaimed your ruler not by the people but by god isn`t that the premise of royalty?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
It`s ironic a country that like to praise it`s socialist policies supports royalty. How`s that for socialism??
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Gerry1of1

Did you know you don`t have to support royalty to be a princess?
0
Reply
Male 37,888

@ McGovern1981 - After reading your posts and laughing, I will say this... Your knowledge of British Royalty is unmatched.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]I`m still waiting to see you stand by your own argument and call for the ending of the USA.
[/quote]

Getting rid of your royalty wouldn`t end the UK so that`s a stupid point.

[quote]Bill Gates didn`t seize his wealth through murder and force.


And neither did the queen. [/quote]

LOL ya right!! you should really check the history of the crown there.

[quote]The US system is based on the UK system because the founders of the USA looked at it and said "We like almost all of that, it`s a good system."[/quote]
Oh ya that`s why we fought a revolution to make a system almost exactly the same LOL!! Now where our king again?

I suppose you think they just magically got that massive fortune through hard work and caring about the commoners?

You really sum up the Brit sterotype a know it all who knows far from everything.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion, you`re right. Who cares about basing a government on equality when there`s money at stake.[/quote]

There is not and never has been a government based on equality. The USA certainly isn`t one, since you have a very strong class system and very limited mobility between classes.

In any case, the government of the UK is run by the prime minister, not the queen. So your argument wouldn`t be relevant even if it was true.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Bill Gates didn`t seize his wealth through murder and force.[/quote]

And neither did the queen.

However, the whole of the USA did seize its wealth through murder and force. By your argument, that means that the USA shouldn`t exist.

[quote]You keep trying to throw the communist label at people.[/quote]

Only people who advocate that private held assets are seized by the state so that the state can control the means of production. Because, you know, that`s what communism is. People who advocate communism are communists. It`s what the word means.

[quote]The US system has its flaws but we thank god we are citizens and not subjects.[/quote]

Do you really think that the UK is ruled by the queen, who oppresses the serfs, blah blah blah? Seriously? You`re that ignorant?

The US system is based on the UK system because the founders of the USA looked at it and said "We like almost all of that, it`s a good system."
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Here`s the difference we admit to it now. Your royalty still keeps it for their own personal gain[/quote]

"You" still keep it for your own personal gain, and lie about it, and complain about anyone else who you think is doing the same thing, i.e. adding hypocrisy as well.

The royal family isn`t keeping it for their personal gain. You haven`t been bothering to read any of this thread, have you?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The money they "give" you was yours to begin with.[/quote]

No, it wasn`t. Your silly fantasies are not reality.

[quote]Once again call me a fool but I`m not the one paying taxes to a name and nothing more.[/quote]

Neither am I. Your sillt fantasies have nothing to do with reality.

I`m still waiting to see you stand by your own argument and call for the ending of the USA.

Actually, I`m not. I know you`re a hypocrite. You`re not even a proper communist. You`re just pretending in your little fantasy world.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Exactly so why keep them they serve no purpose.[/quote]

1) Head of state, a required functionality for a country.

2) Cultural heritage.

3) Political safety net in extreme circumstances.

4) A lot of money.

There`s 4 major purposes off the top of my head. It makes no sense to spend a billion a year on replacing them with an alternative which would only fulfill 1 of those purposes.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Angilion

The money they "give" you was yours to begin with. Once again call me a fool but I`m not the one paying taxes to a name and nothing more.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Angilion

Here`s the difference we admit to it now. Your royalty still keeps it for their own personal gain and continues to act like their s**t dosen`t stink while actually serving you no purpose.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote] Keep your head in the sand pleb the crown loves the money they earn on your backs[/quote]

You are trolling or both laughably ignorant and monumentally stupid.

The monarchy *gives* money to the country. We get money from them, not the other way around.

My head isn`t in the sand and there`s no monarchy on my back. The government is far more controlling and has far more de facto power than the monarchy, as do big businesses...but I guess you`d get rid of them too, since you`re a communist. But then your version of the politburo would be on my back instead.

Your ridiculous view of the UK is entirely a fantasy of your own devising. It was never as you describe, not even in early medieval times. You`re babbling rubbish and making a fool of yourself.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]As for the land they took they never earned it.[/quote]

So...for fun, I`ll apply your "reasoning" to your own country.

You advocate removing the monarchy and stealing all their land and assets because they inherited them rather than owning them and because their far-off ancestors got the land through conquest. So you`re going back at least as far as 1688 (a coup), probably at least as far as 1066 (the last outright conquest) and possibly far back into prehistory (the beginning of monarchy).

The present USA consists entirely of land it inherited from the past USA, which the past USA got by conquest. Using your "reasoning", the entire USA should be ended and all its lands and assets seized, presumably in the south by Mexico and in the north by descendents of the people who lived there before the USA.

Are you going to stand behind your "reasoning" and call for the end of the USA?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
known*

@Reganom

Exactly so why keep them they serve no purpose.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Gerry1of1

Edward came from a German family and saluted Hitler he was know to support the nazis but was still given a leadership position during WW2 beacuse he was royalty see the flaw yet?

[quote]McGovern1981 is so butthurt when it comes to royalty, his arguments are usually base and nonsensical at the best of times, but when royalty comes into it he goes full on retard.[/quote]

As you can see Buiadh goes for personal attacks when he has no good rebuttals for supporting a system he pays money to that embodies what`s wrong with the world. I guess I should take being called a retard by someone who thinks Lenin was a great leader a much beter one than Lincoln a compliment cause that speaks volumes of where your heads tucked firmly into.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

MacGovern, you should quit while you`re behind.

So Edward favored a political concept that got the germans out of the depression....before the holocaust or any of that was known... so let`s get rid of the monarchy.

With that logic, David Duke was a KKK simpathiser so all politicians should be fired.

hmmm, actaully, that`s a good idea.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
McGovern1981 is so butthurt when it comes to royalty, his arguments are usually base and nonsensical at the best of times, but when royalty comes into it he goes full on retard.
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]you think the people not the landmarks bring in tourist income doesn`t make it right.[/quote]

If I`m remembering right the tower of london brought in more tourism than any of the royal residences/attractions, and that legoland windsor was more popular.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote">And democracy, which dates back to the ancient Greeks is in your view a "modern" kind of government?[/quote">

By then they recorded time meaning it took more thought.


What can go wrong with royaltythis (Edward VIII a nazi sympathizer which could`ve ended alot worse than it did)
0
Reply
Male 878
While its probably not worth spending the effort to change the institution, I`d support democracy over a constitutional monarchy any day. Knighthoods and other spurious awards of social rank that place people above others all have the monarchy as the head, which means Britain is not an egalitarian society. Though the monarchy serves a minor function, I can`t understand the fawning deference some parts of British society affords these privileged twits.
0
Reply
Male 40
Well first of all, a commoner can technically become a member of the Royal Family by being married into it. It`s rare, it has caused the abdication of a King, but it has happened.
For those who are interested, the Monarch is the Head of State and the Head of the Church which technically makes Britain a theocracy. Fun fact of the day eh?

Now, why don`t the British rise up and throw off the shackles of oppression that this family imposes on us? Well, first of all, they don`t perform any action these days due to several series of legislation that cedes power to HM Government, allowing them to run it for Her Majesty. Queen Elizabeth could revoke this power and we would probably end up in another civil war, which went really well last time. It should also be mentioned that the British Armed Forces all swear allegiance to Her Majesty, not to Her Majesty`s Government.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

McGovern, [quote]"Pulled it from my ass it`s a general statement to state how dated your concept is which you confirmed by saying it predates recorded time" [/quote]
And democracy, which dates back to the ancient Greeks is in your view a "modern" kind of government?
0
Reply
Male 37,888

[quote]"Who elected these people?" [/quote] Appointed by God. But is spending BILLIONS of dollars supposedly `electing` an differant idiot every 4 years a better system? I`ve wondered.

[quote]"monarchy have made the antics of the Sapranos look like school kids" [/quote] Yes but have you seen how the poor behave? A trip to Walmart or the Zoo, it`s a toss up which is more entertaining.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Are they any worse than the people that get elected into government in the U.S. or Canada ???[/quote]


Yes they are they did nothing to get what they have politicains do something although very little.

[quote]Where did you pull "12th century" from? I`m genuinely curious, since the concept of royalty very obviously predates recorded history and there`s nothing particular relevant about the 12th century for monarchy in the UK.[/quote]


Pulled it from my ass it`s a general statement to state how dated your concept is which you confirmed by saying it predates recorded time. As for the land they took they never earned it. Keep your head in the sand pleb the crown loves the money they earn on your backs just because you think the people not the landmarks bring in tourist income doesn`t make it right. Hey you could get China hooked on opium again and make a killing too!
0
Reply
Male 52
And Bill Gates is an example of the capitalist goal. Anyone who is lucky/skilled enough could theoretically have a similar rise. Tell me, how does the average English child dream about becoming the Monarch some day?

Don`t compare the two.
0
Reply
Male 52
And Bill Gates is an example of the capitalist goal. Anyone who is lucky/skilled enough could theoretically have a similar rise. Tell me, how does the average English child dream about becoming the Monarch some day?

Don`t compare the two.
0
Reply
Male 52
Angilion, you`re right. Who cares about basing a government on equality when there`s money at stake.

To be fair, it`s probably too late now. The Brits should have just beheaded the aristocracy and converted their property into government property back in the 1700`s like some of the better countries (like the American colonies and France). Instead, they waited for the aristocracy to give up power. While nominally more peaceful it was far less effective b/c they had to take the current compromise.

Though, the British populace have always bought into the whole "men being born unequal" thing, which is why they loved their king/queen and how they justified enslaving everyone else. So that explains why they`re fine with still having a monarchy.

Just because something has been forced upon the general populace for centuries does not mean it`s culturally important and should be kept.

I swear I`m not usually such a troll, but it`s true despite bei
0
Reply
Male 878
Also by your logic the whole US is communist since we threw out the Crown, refused to pay taxes collected in George III name and took over government buildings.

I don`t believe the British monarchy is worse than other systems in function, that doesn`t mean I could agree with the concept of not all men or born equal.
0
Reply
Male 1,810
Are they any worse than the people that get elected into government in the U.S. or Canada ??? Think about that for a few minutes before you answer, ok ?
0
Reply
Male 878
Bill Gates didn`t seize his wealth through murder and force. You keep trying to throw the communist label at people. Labels are the refuge of the lame. By your logic it would be fine for Germans to sell and profit from the loot stolen from Jews. You can live your life under the delusion that it`s fine that the boss`s son always gets the top job. I prefer to live in a society that chooses its leaders. The US system has its flaws but we thank god we are citizens and not subjects.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Royalty LOL!! Keep telling yourself how smart a country you are while funding a 12th cetury concept.[/quote]

Where did you pull "12th century" from? I`m genuinely curious, since the concept of royalty very obviously predates recorded history and there`s nothing particular relevant about the 12th century for monarchy in the UK.

You may think it`s smart to throw away a billion a year(*) in order to piss away a country`s cultural heritage by pointlessly rebranding the head of state, but I think that`s very obviously very far from smart.


* In addition to the £200M+ profit the country makes from the crown estate, there`s the huge moneymaker that is royalty-related tourism. People don`t travel thousands of miles to see Buckingham Palace because it`s pretty. They do so because a bona fide queen lives there. Can`t fake that.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Where do you think these unelected heads of the British class system got their drating land that they literally lord over?[/quote]

They inherited it, obviously.

Are you saying that people should be forbidden to inherit wealth?

Or just forbidden to inherit land?

Just how communist are you?

Seriously, I`d like to know the answer. You`re advocating that the state seize the means of production from private ownership, which is very clearly communism, but how far do you want to go?

A real-world example for you:

Bill Gates is richer than the queen. Do you think the USA government should seize all of his wealth? If not, why not? Do you think that it should be seized when he dies, so that nobody can inherit it? If not, why not? After all, you`re saying that the royal family should have their wealth seized because they inherited it from ancestors who were very successful in the biggest business area of their time.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Ewwww look at all the shiny medals mumsy gave me!!

0
Reply
Male 14,330



Royalty LOL!! Keep telling yourself how smart a country you are while funding a 12th cetury concept.
0
Reply
Male 5,874
Insert joke about `reign` here
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Yes they`re antiquated. Most definately inbred. And have a priviliged lifestyle.

But they`re an amazing success story for the UK, you Yanks spend millions every year coming to see Buckingham Palace et al.
0
Reply
Male 878
Where do you think these unelected heads of the British class system got their drating land that they literally lord over? How do you think they got to be so rich? Through the ages monarchy have made the antics of the Sapranos look like school kids and the current lot are just benefiting from the blood lust of their ancestors. If the Beitish were truly free they`d rid themselves of them.
0
Reply
Male 514
Who elected these people? No one, so stop honoring them by watching their every move
0
Reply
Male 714
The reason why the royal family generates so much money is because george IV did a deal with the government (because he was short on cash) so they took control of the crown assets in return for an annual allowence. As Angilion has said, this is very profitable for the government. If we want to stop giving the royal family money we have to give them their assets back. A ridiculous notion that would leave the country out of pocket, or simply steal all of their assets because some are jealous of them and dont like inherited privilidge (for other people)
0
Reply
Male 37,888

I was only counting the Parklands HMH give back to the people, not all the funds they bring in.

It`d be difficult to seize all of Her Maj`s wealth. She`s one of the largest land owners in the world and much of it`s in South Africa and canada. Plus she owns all the swans... how do you put a price on tha?t and how could they seize it?

But this nonsense of the royals being `down to earth` is just dumb. William doesn`t even have house staff and does his laundry. That`s all well and good to go bohemian in college, but it`s time to take on the station he was born to.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
The usual counter-argument (apart from silence or mindless repetition of untrue statements) is that all of the assets of the royal family should be seized by the state because...something.

That`s all very well...if it`s said by a communist. Seizing the assets of the bourgeousie so the state can run them for the benefit of the proletariat...if that`s not communism, then what is it? Of course, you`d be seizing the assets of all wealthy people, right? Otherwise you`d just be a lying, hypocritical pretend-communist instead of a real communist.

So...anyone fancy making that counter-argument now?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
cut off as usual...the last sentence should have read "And braindead morons still think she`s freeloading."

Or, more accurately, they don`t think. They just make noises and have less understanding than a parrot mimicking speech.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Ah, it`s up again this year:

[quote">For the year ending 31 March 2011 we delivered to the Treasury £230.9 million.[/quote">

Crown Estate

So to summarise for the ignorant and hard of thinking amongst us:

The queen *voluntarily* gave £230.9M to the treasury last year. That`s in addition to the tax she pays on her own income.

In exchange, she received...absolutely bugger all. She doesn`t get a bent farthing from the treasury - the treasury only pays for head of state costs and buildings maintainance costs and it doesn`t even really cover all of those costs.

So...the queen generates massive profits for the country from tourism, works for free, gives most of her income to the state and even subsidises head of state costs out of what`s left of her own income.

And braindead
0
Reply
Male 1,569
Love the part where he says "who the hell wrote this script"
0
Reply
Male 12,365
It`s even more than that, Gerry1of1.

The last figure I saw for the Crown Estate was £210M, so there`s another £40M profit.

The costs you refer to are almost all for the head of state (security, travel, hosting foreign dignatories, etc). We`d need all that anyway, so the "savings" wouldn`t be £38M. They`d be £7M, the cost of the civil list...apart from the fact that almost all of the civil list goes on maintaining buildings that we`d still need to maintain and paying the wages of quite a few people. Maybe we`d "save" perhaps as much as £2M, at most.

So...spend £210M to "save" maybe £2M, while pissing away a large part of our culural heritage.

Nobody can think that`s a good idea, even if they ignore the cultural importance and political usefulness of the monarchy. It`s a massive asset in a number of different ways.

Also, tourism. That makes the £200M+ profit we make off
0
Reply
Female 2,549
I like him, as much as I suppot any royal taking up an employment, frivolous, unnecessary. I do judge a little
Yeah still bored
0
Reply
Male 37,888

burbclaver, [quote]"go live in England so you can support these useless inbred tossers" [/quote]
The royal familiy cost 38 mil pounds a year. They give back their income from the landholdings, 170 million pounds. It`s pretty simple math, the Queen generates 133 million pounds each year for the british economy. She doesn`t have to give that money, it`s her private land, she just does.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Gerry: You forgot "Protector of the squirrels."
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]If anybody could do their job what do we need them for?[/quote]
It`s not like any of them are mental giants. with a bit of training and rehearsals, damned near any half-way intelligent and educated person could do their job.

Let`s face it, the Royal Family is nothing more than a bunch of costume characters in a tourist attraction.
0
Reply
Male 878
If you`re a royalist, go live in England so you can support these useless inbred tossers. I think they should have been hung from lamp posts years ago.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

His titles vary but he is a prince of Englad because he was born to an English queen. He`s Prince of Wales because he`s heir to the throne. His full title is-

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester.

But in Scotland his gets a few more tacked on to the stationary-

His Royal Highness The Prince of Scotland, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.



0
Reply
Female 10
Well technically he`s Wales` Prince Charles and not England`s, but whatever.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

@ Buiadh, happens to me all the time. I saw that this was submitted by 4 people, don`t know why they picked mine.

0
Reply
Male 37,888

Personally, I don`t think the royals should do these "cutsie" stunts. I know it`s supposed to make them more down-to-earth and relatable to the average man, but I don`t want them "relatable". I want them `above all this`. If anybody could do their job what do we need them for?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
He did very well, methinks.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Also "dumb clueless people`s" not "britain`s".

bad Buiadh!
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Also also, is this vid poor quality for anyone else or just me?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I wonder if the mod who made the change regards all people who serve in the navy as not doing an honest day`s work.

Sure, his official rank *after* he left is an honorary one, but he served for 5 years and earned a real one as a naval pilot.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Man! I subbed this but it was deleted from the submisisons pile. ;(
0
Reply
Male 37,888

That was not my original caption. I don`t mind the mod changing it, but I`m a royalist and would never say that "1st honest days work" bit.
0
Reply
Male 37,888
Link: England`s Prince Charles Gets A (New) Job [Rate Link] - His Royal Highness reads the weather forecast for Scotland. His first honest day`s work in his lifetime.
0
Reply