By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Some on here trying to be trendy by slating the royal wedding. Have a word. We follow eleven blokes we don’t even know up and down the country as they kick a ball about. That’s absurd to some. The wedding costs loads. It raises loads. These people are born into great wealth and privilege but have absolutely zero freedom. Their lives are almost exclusively mapped out for them. No chance at all I’d want to be one of them for all the money in the world. Like the preacher said spread the love. Not my bag but the wife loved it but why worry about something that makes so many people in this country happy for a day. What price that? Love.
It's called having an opinion last time I checked and seeing as the general 'trend' is to jizz ones pants in excitement about it all, I hardly think slating it would be the trendy thing to do.
2
Each to their own on 14:15 - May 19 with 2814 views
Sounds like a good case to do away with monarchy that way they can all have their freedom and no one will have to map their future out for them.
Fair do’s to question the institution of moanarchy but I wouldn’t dismiss the general positiveness of today’s events, that seemed quite inclusive for a royal event.
2
Each to their own on 14:24 - May 19 with 2803 views
Very well said & summarized - I feel exactly the same re wouldn't want their goldfish-bowl lives with zero freedom, for "all the tea in China".
I think you both have a very different idea to me of what 'zero freedom' is.
Sure they are in the public eye a lot but they also get to live a life of constant luxury and privilege, plenty of leisure time, relaxation etc. alongside their 'duties', and they will certainly never have to worry about making the next rent or mortgage payment.
There is a reason why the average Royal lives to about the age of 120!
3
Each to their own on 14:27 - May 19 with 2779 views
Each to their own on 14:24 - May 19 by Harry_Palmer
I think you both have a very different idea to me of what 'zero freedom' is.
Sure they are in the public eye a lot but they also get to live a life of constant luxury and privilege, plenty of leisure time, relaxation etc. alongside their 'duties', and they will certainly never have to worry about making the next rent or mortgage payment.
There is a reason why the average Royal lives to about the age of 120!
I must have posted at least a dozen of times on here before saying that I'd rather clean toilets or dig ditches for 8 hours a day (health permitting) than live your "life of constant luxury and privilege, plenty of leisure time, relaxation etc. alongside their 'duties'".
The latter, and being constantly "on show", having to have a fixed smile and having to bite your lip at some people, not be allowed to have an opinion or express yourself freely, not to be able to choose what you do except an incredibly limited list of "suitable" occupations - etc etc - would be complete torture for me.
I must have posted at least a dozen of times on here before saying that I'd rather clean toilets or dig ditches for 8 hours a day (health permitting) than live your "life of constant luxury and privilege, plenty of leisure time, relaxation etc. alongside their 'duties'".
The latter, and being constantly "on show", having to have a fixed smile and having to bite your lip at some people, not be allowed to have an opinion or express yourself freely, not to be able to choose what you do except an incredibly limited list of "suitable" occupations - etc etc - would be complete torture for me.
I can understand that point of view, it certainly wouldn't be for everyone but I just don't think it comes anywhere near to the description of 'zero freedom'( imho ).
I guess it comes down to our individual perceptions of what freedom actually equates to.
1
Each to their own on 14:40 - May 19 with 2708 views
Each to their own on 14:36 - May 19 by Harry_Palmer
I can understand that point of view, it certainly wouldn't be for everyone but I just don't think it comes anywhere near to the description of 'zero freedom'( imho ).
I guess it comes down to our individual perceptions of what freedom actually equates to.
"I guess it comes down to our individual perceptions of what freedom actually equates to."
I must have posted at least a dozen of times on here before saying that I'd rather clean toilets or dig ditches for 8 hours a day (health permitting) than live your "life of constant luxury and privilege, plenty of leisure time, relaxation etc. alongside their 'duties'".
The latter, and being constantly "on show", having to have a fixed smile and having to bite your lip at some people, not be allowed to have an opinion or express yourself freely, not to be able to choose what you do except an incredibly limited list of "suitable" occupations - etc etc - would be complete torture for me.
Charles has always had his own opinion on things. Philip has never held back either!
I have to say, out of your two options I'll choose "life of constant luxury and privilege, plenty of leisure time, relaxation etc. alongside their 'duties'" thanks. Where do i sign?
All of us have to put on fake smiles, bite our lips and are limited in what occupations we can have. None of them are exclusive to royals.
And how much freer is working to keep your head above water, pay the bills, rent/mortgage, feed your family etc?
Each to their own on 14:58 - May 19 by BrixtonBlue
Charles has always had his own opinion on things. Philip has never held back either!
I have to say, out of your two options I'll choose "life of constant luxury and privilege, plenty of leisure time, relaxation etc. alongside their 'duties'" thanks. Where do i sign?
All of us have to put on fake smiles, bite our lips and are limited in what occupations we can have. None of them are exclusive to royals.
And how much freer is working to keep your head above water, pay the bills, rent/mortgage, feed your family etc?
Look, you obviously just don't get it. I seriously wouldn't want your life either, advertising junk.
Suggest we just agree to disagree, alright? Dread to think how many hours we've both wasted on this & all the other monarchy threads, saying exactly the same thing over & over - it's pointless, groundhog day.
Look, you obviously just don't get it. I seriously wouldn't want your life either, advertising junk.
Suggest we just agree to disagree, alright? Dread to think how many hours we've both wasted on this & all the other monarchy threads, saying exactly the same thing over & over - it's pointless, groundhog day.
Sounds suspiciously like you can't answer my very reasonable points.
Also was the dig at my career necessary? I don't just advertise "junk". I've also done a number of charity campaigns. This, below, is also one of mine that I happen to be quite proud of (but you may well consider junk)...
Each to their own on 15:08 - May 19 by BrixtonBlue
Sounds suspiciously like you can't answer my very reasonable points.
Also was the dig at my career necessary? I don't just advertise "junk". I've also done a number of charity campaigns. This, below, is also one of mine that I happen to be quite proud of (but you may well consider junk)...
I hav actually answered all your points, despite many of them not being "reasonable" at all, you simply disagree with me & therefore keep going on.
I didn't have a dig at your career, I simply stated the obvious with you advertising Haribos etc. Another job I'd never choose to do, but fortunately, I had the choice. Good luck to you but I won't be responding further to your posts - as I said, pointless waste of time going round in circles.
I hav actually answered all your points, despite many of them not being "reasonable" at all, you simply disagree with me & therefore keep going on.
I didn't have a dig at your career, I simply stated the obvious with you advertising Haribos etc. Another job I'd never choose to do, but fortunately, I had the choice. Good luck to you but I won't be responding further to your posts - as I said, pointless waste of time going round in circles.
You haven't answered all of my points. You've actually completely swerved most of them. Just saying you've answered them and then refusing to speak anymore is the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalala".
Reasonable Point Number 1 Charles has always had his own opinion on things. Philip has never held back either! So royalty CAN have an opinion then? You said they can't.
Reasonable Point Number 2 All of us have to put on fake smiles, bite our lips and are limited in what occupations we can have. None of them are exclusive to royals. Another point you've simply avoided.
Reasonable Point Number 3 How much freer is working to keep your head above water, pay the bills, rent/mortgage, feed your family etc?
No-one's going round in circles. You're just refusing to answer these points because you know I'm right.
Each to their own on 16:01 - May 19 by BrixtonBlue
You haven't answered all of my points. You've actually completely swerved most of them. Just saying you've answered them and then refusing to speak anymore is the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalala".
Reasonable Point Number 1 Charles has always had his own opinion on things. Philip has never held back either! So royalty CAN have an opinion then? You said they can't.
Reasonable Point Number 2 All of us have to put on fake smiles, bite our lips and are limited in what occupations we can have. None of them are exclusive to royals. Another point you've simply avoided.
Reasonable Point Number 3 How much freer is working to keep your head above water, pay the bills, rent/mortgage, feed your family etc?
No-one's going round in circles. You're just refusing to answer these points because you know I'm right.
And onto ignore you go.
Read the convo between Harry Palmer & myself on this thread - he also disagreed with me, but we were able to sort it, as he's capable of actually reading what others say, & understanding their' pov's.
Read the convo between Harry Palmer & myself on this thread - he also disagreed with me, but we were able to sort it, as he's capable of actually reading what others say, & understanding their' pov's.
haha.
Can't answer, puts on ignore.
I've been perfectly respectful in my questioning of your position. but you don't like the questions, because you can't answer them, so you fein uppityness.
Each to their own on 16:19 - May 19 by BrixtonBlue
haha.
Can't answer, puts on ignore.
I've been perfectly respectful in my questioning of your position. but you don't like the questions, because you can't answer them, so you fein uppityness.
Don't worry, I'm done too.
Not got round to ignore function yet as engaged in other posts, but will after this one.
Of *course* I could answer - but had told you way before all that, that it was fruitless going round in circles, I had given numerous answers not just in this thread but in dozens of other monarchy threads over the years, yet *still* you didn't understand ...
Didn't say this at the time, but it's because as Lowhouse has just said, you simply don't get or won't accept that other people are individuals, with povs that are different to your own.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
