14 Jul 14
Originally posted by redbadgerIts actually pretty awesome to see Mrs Merkel take an interest in the soccer. I genuinely believe that she likes it and not just because it makes her popular. Now you contrast that with the head of state for the UK and you have a stuffy old bag that may condescend to throw a lawn party at Buckingham palace. I am always aggrieved that the Germans are citizens and we are subjects.
world cup today tomorrow we take berlin
14 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseCameron is the prime minister, the Queen is the head of state and the scenario was merely hypothetical.
What is Cameron going to celebrate?!
Unless he attends a World Snooker Championship, there's no respectable sporting event the UK can celebrate, least football.
14 Jul 14
Originally posted by SeitseThe crown owns the entire island, every millimetre of it. No one ever really owns his own property--the queen's subjects occupy HER land with her implicit consent. Of course, the monarch would not in practice dispossess anyone's home, but that's like saying that slavery were still legal though no one would actually have a slave anymore in practice.
I feel your pain. Monarchy has implicit the concept of superiors/inferiors. It sucks.
How much of your produce you have to give to the feudal lords over there?
14 Jul 14
Originally posted by moonbusI think someone should line the royal family up and pop a cap up their ass
The crown owns the entire island, every millimetre of it. No one ever really owns his own property--the queen's subjects occupy HER land with her implicit consent. Of course, the monarch would not in practice dispossess anyone's home, but that's like saying that slavery were still legal though no one would actually have a slave anymore in practice.
16 Jul 14
Originally posted by moonbusI think this is also a myth. Can you find any official confirmation of this?
The crown owns the entire island, every millimetre of it. No one ever really owns his own property--the queen's subjects occupy HER land with her implicit consent. Of course, the monarch would not in practice dispossess anyone's home, but that's like saying that slavery were still legal though no one would actually have a slave anymore in practice.