Posted on 06/01/2002 3:37:41 PM PDT by David Hunter
I simply use this as an example of how the British government slowly erodes the rights of its subjects. The laws on firearm ownership were tightened shortly after the Russian revolution because the ruling classes were scared of a communist insurrection. It is obvious that the British aristocracy have never been comfortable with their subjects owning firearms and so they have used every incident as an opportunity to further erode that right.
It should be obvious to you that massacres like those at Hungerford and Dunblane could be repeated, because the number of firearms held by criminals in Britain has actually increased by almost a third since all handguns were prohibited. I don't think that encouraging Britons to carry firearms for personal defence would be a solution to our crime problem. But I do believe that the government has immorally seized on events over the years to destroy an activity they weren't comfortable with.
Yes. After he abdicated Edward the VIII spent some time in Portugal where he was contacted by the Nazis. Apparently, Hitler wanted him to persuade Churchill to come to the negotiating table and sign a non-agression pact. Then Hitler could have concentrated on finishing off the Soviets and then turned all his military might on Britain. After beating us he planned to put Edward the VIII back on the throne to appease the British masses. Thank god Churchill would have nothing to do with Edward the VIII, the 'traitor king'.
Winston Churchill ordered certain WWII intelligence records sealed forever.
Probably because he knew that the damage the facts about Edward the VIII's treachery would have done to the monarchy might have proven fatal for it.
Unfortunately, even if we could find such people the current media generated hysteria among the British people about the wonderfulness of the Monarchy would make any change very difficult.
Just look at how the British media expended its entire energy publicising the death of Lady Diana, in such an intense way as to excite public hysteria. The media are currently going mad with the Jubilee celebrations. The effect of all this media propaganda must be to brainwash people who haven't formed opinions about the Monarchy, especially the young, into becoming ardent Monarchists.
Yes. The Labour government of the late seventies failed in many ways. But Hattersley does have some sensible things to say about the psychology of the Monarchy and its effects on British society.
Perhaps you would like to take them back to America, you're welcome to them.
...many Americans go to England to see over the great houses, catch glimpses of foxhunts, see the Changing of the Guard and the Beefeater and all the hackneyed things.
Funny thing, fox hunts are regarded as being extremely cruel by the majority of the British public, and so the elected House of Commons recently passed legislation banning them. However, the unelected House of Lords vetoed this legislation and sent it back to the Commons to be watered down. Of course your average lord likes a good fox hunt!
If he hadn't abdicated, you Brittish should have done the same thing that was done to Charles I.
[H]e was marking the passing of someone who could not possibly subscribe to the same tax code as the rest of us.Class warfare, envy, and resentment. "The people" continue to vote socialists into office who, as an article of their political religion, believe that the state is the rightful owner of all property, to confiscate ("tax") as it wishes. Then, since misery loves company, "the people" express resentment that someone has succeeded in escaping this horrendous tyranny. The Crown is the symbolic defender of private property and of our right to leave whatever we have amassed, either by prudent investment or hard work (or even sheer luck), to our desgnated heirs.The discovery that the Treasury is to be denied its proper share of the £50m fortune has ended the taboo that, for the past six weeks, has prevented a rational examination of the monarchy.
I doubt that the Royal family votes for Socialists. If the people continue to do so, they have no one to blame for extortionate taxation but themselves.
You're not a country boy, I see.
The fox population, lacking any predator save the automobile, multiplies at a log rate unless it is controlled. The damage that foxes do to a British agricultural system already driven nearly to its knees by foot-and-mouth disease is incalculable: foxes are such determined marauders that they will actually eat lambs that are in the process of being born. Something must be done so that the British farmer doesn't sustain enormous losses from foxes.
Unfortunately, a massive study conducted in the UK last year was unable to find any method of killing foxes that would be less cruel than the hunt. Shooting is usually unsuccessful, trapping and poisoning lead to agonizing deaths, and no method of birth control has been found effective.
Foxes are adorable and cuddly-looking, and it is easy for the urban and suburban British public, which no longer has much knowledge of country life, to sympathize with foxes. Perhaps the class resentments that have always been a part of British life play a role in their distaste for hunting, too; there's a mistaken perception that hunters are a lot of destable toffs. I had a pet fox when I was a child and of course have a great deal of sympathy for these clever, beautiful creatures. But when I saw the bones of lambs outside of fox dens and saw hard-working, tough farm women in tears over the loss of their animals, my sympathy vanished.
Actually, I mention this incident to demonstrate that an undemocratic system can override the democratic one when it wishes.
From what I hear 'lamping' is almost as effective as fox hunting and is a lot less cruel, since the fox gets shot, not torn apart by hounds.
So you don't believe in egalitarianism then?
Who said a Republic has to become Socialist. The USA isn't Socialist is it?
If you want to talk about the natural order of things, how about Darwinism. Do you think that it is natural for one family who are not physically stronger or cleverer than the rest of the population to hold a position of unrivalled power?
How would you like it if Bill Clinton had been your head of state for 50 years and counting, and there was nothing you could do about it?
If we get a lousy Monarch we're stuck with them until they die or abdicate (which has only happened once).
THAT is why American wasps worship the British monarchy.
BUMP
If you want to keep your money then your interest lay with the crown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.