# Lizzie Windsor to visit the auld sod



## z104 (23 Jun 2010)

So will the Dublin Jackeens be out with their Union Jacks to waive Lizzie Windsor on when she visits Ireland (The bit divided from the UK)

For those of you who don't know who Lizzie Windsor is; she is that woman who lives in the fancy council house in the centre of London with the horses outside and the squad cars constantly whizzing by.

Is it the right time for her to visit or will she come with a gift (The north of Ireland would be most welcome)

What are your thoughts?

(2 bob to the first poster that mentions "maturity as a nation" in a sentence)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0623/politics.html


----------



## MandaC (23 Jun 2010)

Probably will be a big fuss made of her together with a huge expense on the taxpayer.  I would certainly not go to the end of the road to wave anything at her, most Dubs would not be bothered either I would think.

Her husband has made some real gaffes.    He is liable to say something really inappropriate.  At least you can get a laugh out of him.


----------



## mathepac (23 Jun 2010)

Ach Lizziebet, mein liebchen, ve haff vays of velkoming you to our Fatherland.

We will display our maturity as a nation by not slagging you and your family about your lack of guts and principles when changing your names when the cousins fell out in 1914. Shame on you.

Personally I'll welcome you with open arms if you bring the oul' Coutts & Co cheque-book with you to pay the bills you and your predecessors owe for 800 years of murder, slavery, exploitation and theft. I don't need an invite to the reception, just the cheque will be grand, thanks.

Bye the bye Lizzie, maybe park Phil the Greek  somewhere isolated and safe for the visit. If he's over here and he says the wrong thing, someone is liable to stick a loaf on him, righ'?


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

I don’t care if she comes or doesn’t. I suppose it will be a sign of our maturity as a nation  if she is welcomed and there is a big British population here to wave union jacks at her but I wouldn’t turn my head to see her. I have no real grips with the historical baggage (I don’t buy into the 800 years of oppression lark) but the actions of her family in recent times (the last 50 years) have often been offensive, jingoistic and racist. That said I have more time for her than her spoiled adulterous daughter in law who got herself killed in a car crash.

If Lizzie lands in on me for any reason I’ll boil the kettle and see if we have any biscuits, I like Germans, but if we don’t I won’t be sending the young fella to the shops for a packet of chocolate covered hobnobs.


----------



## Yorrick (24 Jun 2010)

I am afraid that those who think the Irish people won't turn out in their thousands to see the Queen of England are sadly mistaken. We live in a celebrity culture and there are many many people who are obsessed by the antics of the British Royal family. Put a picture of Princess Diana on any newspaper, magazine or show a TV programme concerning the British Royal family and both circualtion and viewing figures rise. ( And thats only in the Rep of Irleand)


----------



## Latrade (24 Jun 2010)

Absolutely right, she should apologise for the full 800 years.

Her apology should be for the first two hundred years when Dermot MacMurrough fled to Normandy and asked Henry to give him a hand getting his bit of land back. Henry being in Normandy because they ruled Britain. Henry (French and hardly setting foot in Britain), went over with his (Welsh) lords and kind of over stayed there welcome.

She should then apologise for Henry and his Lords helping themselves to all the land, but more so for setting up The Pale, where effectively for 200 years, Beyond the Pale went on as normal and the oppressive rule had absolutely no effect.

And she should apologise because then the Tudors (Welsh) stole the crown and Henry VIII did his reformation and made Ireland a Kindgom. She should apologise for all the fighting that then went on between different Irish families and clans for power.

Apologise again for Queen Mary (Scottish) bringing on the plantation. Then again when the Pope more or less declared war on all Protestants and sending loyal forces to Ireland to stir up more fighting against Elizabeth.

Of course she'll be really apologetic for the main bit of real oppression, murder and slavery that well known Monarch Oliver Cromwell. It's only right that the British Monarchy should apologise for losing the civil war and a seriously deranged puritan installing himself as Lord Protector.

She really needs to apologise for when the Monarchy was restored and Charles II introduced conciliation and compensation for Irish Catholics. Even when it was continued and added to by James II allowing Catholics into parliament and even when this led to another revolution in Britain where parliament disposed the king and installed William of Orange (Dutch), she should apologise for losing that one. 

Then she should apologise because really since the Magna Carta and more so since Cromwell pretty much everything that followed was because of the British Parliament. 

But 800 years is about right.

Sincere apologies are due, but then as far as I’ve always felt, the greatest tragedies and atrocities were visited upon the country by Parliament and remote politicians. Whether it be military action, famine inaction, religious oppression, the worst, the most memorable was always led by the Prime Minister. 

I don’t want the Queen here, not out of any reason of hatred, I’m just loathed to be spending millions on a ceremonial visit that serves no purpose, diplomatically or politically.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

+1 Latrade. Great post.


----------



## Bill Struth (24 Jun 2010)

Tom Dunne was wetting himself with excitement this morning at the prospect of Michael Fagan's old mount visiting. 

And _maturity_ got a mention of course.


----------



## Caveat (24 Jun 2010)

+1 Latrade & Purple.


----------



## csirl (24 Jun 2010)

> For those of you who don't know who Lizzie Windsor is; she is that woman who lives in the fancy council house in the centre of London with the horses outside and the squad cars constantly whizzing by.


 
Windsor is her stage name. Her real name is Mrs. Battenburg.



> Of course she'll be really apologetic for the main bit of real oppression, murder and slavery that well known Monarch Oliver Cromwell. It's only right that the British Monarchy should apologise for losing the civil war and a seriously deranged puritan installing himself as Lord Protector.


 
C'mon, this is going a little far........the monarchy were victims of Cromwell like us.


----------



## VOR (24 Jun 2010)

She's a head of state of our nearest and dearest neighbours. She should be able to drop in every now again. Afterall we have had Soviet and American presidents visit and they have the blood of this and the last generation all over their hands. 

As a true republican (and not the balaclava type) I have no time for royalty or title. But that does not mean we should not respect the British monarchy in the same way we respect the Dutch and Spanish royal families etc. etc. and so on.


----------



## Liamos (24 Jun 2010)

No objection in principle to the visit. But how much is it going to cost? I saw on the news the other night that the HSE are cutting funding to respite homes for the mentally handicapped. I think the cost of keeping these places open is around €3 - 4 million per annum.

Surely we should be getting our priorities right?


----------



## truthseeker (24 Jun 2010)

I dont think taxpayers money should be spent on this. If she wants to fund the visit herself then thats fine, otherwise, sorry Lizzie, theres a recession on, we cant afford a big hoopla for you for a social call.


----------



## Towger (24 Jun 2010)

We don't need a big hoopla, she will be more than happy with a day out at the races.


----------



## Firefly (24 Jun 2010)

Towger said:


> We don't need a big hoopla, she will be more than happy with a day out in the races.


 
There's a free tent in the Galway Races


----------



## Yorrick (24 Jun 2010)

" No objection in principle to the visit. But how much is it going to cost? I saw on the news the other night that the HSE are cutting funding to respite homes for the mentally handicapped. I think the cost of keeping these places open is around €3 - 4 million per annum.

Surely we should be getting our priorities right?  "



This is the old argument trotted out to cover objections to anything we want to do.

If we followed this argument there would be no Croke Park development, No Landsdowne Rd development, No Dublin Port Tunnel No Shannon tunnel etc etc.


The Egyptians had to listen to that as well when they were considering building the Pyrmaids " Give the money to the poor" blah blah blah

Liamos 
Frequent Poster
 Posts: 80 



No objection in principle to the visit. But how much is it going to cost? I saw on the news the other night that the HSE are cutting funding to respite homes for the mentally handicapped. I think the cost of keeping these places open is around €3 - 4 million per annum.

Surely we should be getting our priorities right?


----------



## JJ1982 (24 Jun 2010)

I wonder does she watch The Tudors?


----------



## Liamos (24 Jun 2010)

All of the developments you mentioned will have a long and lasting legacy, and will benefit us in to the future. So we got something for our money. 

What will the legacy be of the Queen's visit?


----------



## Teatime (24 Jun 2010)

I think nationalism (and religion) only cause grief and get us into trouble and should be abolished. I think we would have been better off if we had stayed in the British empire. For example, we might have less dodgy politicians, less paedo priests, no Irish language etc etc.


I want one world, one language and Galway to win the Liam McCarthy!!


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

I do abject to Irish people (people from the Republic of Ireland) referring to her as "the Queen". We don't have a Queen or King so she's the British Queen or the UK Queen or even the "Queen of England" but not "The Queen".


----------



## DB74 (24 Jun 2010)

Well that's just being silly and pedantic for the sake of it.


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Jun 2010)

As a republican (small r, no armalite) I think it would be good for British Irish relations if she visited. Mary Mc gets a welcome in the UK, a sad state of affairs if we cant return the same courtesy.

That said I wont be buying or waving any Union Jacks, but I wouldnt find it abhorrent if the celebrity hunters turn out to see her, she's a celeb.

I dont think the 800 years needs an airing, some note of regret re the famine probably wouldnt be out of order, but I dont think "apologies" per se have any great meaning in this context.

Would be good for tourism etc, imagine all the coverage it'll get on UK TV, theres about 65M people a short hop away, the more of them that come to spend money the better.

Britain has always been a source of employment for Irish, and in modern times (say last 40 to 50 years) the Irish have not been significantly ill-treated there (we wont get into the Maguires, Conlons etc).

Overall I dont think the Irish nation bears ill will to the average british resident, so to insult their Queen would be an ungracious overreaction, and in living memory (anyone under about 85) we have a lot to be thankful to Britain for (events of 1969 onwards involving the British army notwithstanding).

So lets not make tools of ourselves...........


----------



## mathepac (24 Jun 2010)

Dear Lizzie,

I never expected I'd write a letter like this, but in the face of overwhelming evidence and a groundswell of popular opinion I have no other options open to me.

You need to summon your PM, Dave the Rave Cameron, and Instruct him to withdraw his apology to the people of Derry, the victims of Bloody Sunday and the innocents shot to death and injured by those colourful young men in your 1st Parachute Regiment, you know the guys with memory-failure who pledged allegiance to the you, your heirs and successors.

It is crystal clear to me now that Dave's apology was unnecessary and inappropriate  for the following reasons :


 He was not PM when the atrocities happened
 He was only 6 years old when 1 Para went on their killing spree
 He did not commission the Saville Inquiry, that was the fault of Tony the Papist non-Tory (a truly distasteful man, Ma'am)
He never set foot in Derry until 2010
 What happened in Derry was a long time ago
The soldiers responsible for the atrocity were yours, not his
 Widgery had already established the facts to the satisfaction of successive British Governments
 Given his American-Scotch ancestry, what happened in Derry all those years ago was none of Dave the Rave's business, so he shouldn't have interfered
 The Paddies mistreated his cousin, Rose Dugdale, very badly by jailing her for her youthful exuberance and mis-adventures in the 60's and 70's so he should have received an apology, not given one.
  So all-in-all then, welcome back Lizzie. Insulated and exonerated by time, distance, changes in management, accidents of birth and ancestry, your conscience can be clear as the driven snow, and in acknowledgement of this we'll revert your former possessions to their occupation  names of Queesnstown, Marraborough, Queen's County, King's County, etc.

I remain then, Your delightedly new humble servant, in sole charge of historical revisionism and Chairman of the Ted Heath / Bertie Ahern Institute for honesty and accuracy in politics and history, A Poster.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

DB74 said:


> Well that's just being silly and pedantic for the sake of it.



Why, she's not our Queen.
I don't read the British red-tops so I don't hear her called "the Queen" that much so it still seems strange to hear people in a republic talk about her as if she was their head of state.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

mathepac said:


> Dear Lizzie,
> 
> I never expected I'd write a letter like this, but in the face of overwhelming evidence and a groundswell of popular opinion I have no other options open to me.
> 
> ...



Is that you Ruth Dudley Edwards?


----------



## VOR (24 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Is that you Ruth Dudley Edwards?



Careful Purple or you might unleash the beast that is Eoghan Harris.


----------



## csirl (24 Jun 2010)

The first question put to her during her visit should be:

"When is democracy going to be introduced to the UK? Having an unelected head of State who is superior to the citizens isnt really on nowdays........its something you'd expect from a third world despotic regime...".


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2010)

I think the least we can do is be nice to the old bat if she comes. She had to put up with Terry Wogan and Bob Geldof over there. We also inflicted Jedward on her little land so I think that makes up for the famine.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> The first question put to her during her visit should be:
> 
> "When is democracy going to be introduced to the UK? Having an unelected head of State who is superior to the citizens isnt really on nowdays........its something you'd expect from a third world despotic regime...".



Iran, the Vatican and the UK. All are Theocracies, two are democratic to a point


----------



## Firefly (24 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> The first question put to her during her visit should be:
> 
> "When is democracy going to be introduced to the UK? Having an unelected head of State who is superior to the citizens isnt really on nowdays........its something you'd expect from a third world despotic regime...".


 
She takes money from the people in her country. The people in her country by and large are happy to pay it and have a Queen. Don't see the problem and fair play to her - must be the biggest bluff ever!


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2010)

Firefly said:


> She takes money from the people in her country. The people in her country by and large are happy to pay it and have a Queen. Don't see the problem and fair play to her - must be the biggest bluff ever!


 
It is the biggest tourist trap in the world. She is a money maker for that Country


----------



## Graham_07 (24 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> Windsor is her stage name. Her real name is Mrs. Battenburg.



Let her come if she going to bring some of them yummy cakes. 
Although I do prefer the triangular ones with chocolate on, you know the ones. Put Prince Philip and George Bush in the Olympia with Tommy Tiernan, now there'd be a great night. 

On a serious note, how many heads of state do we welcome here annually? How often does our head of state visit other countries? QE2 is just another head of state. Let her come but give her no more nor no less than would be accorded to any other or as we would expect be accorded to our President.


----------



## mathepac (24 Jun 2010)

Graham_07 said:


> ...  yummy cakes. ...


 She's giving me "Zugriff verboten" trying to see the cake-picture.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2010)

After hearing Martin ferris on the radio talk about this, I would not only welcome the queen, I would give her a bed for the night. Words do not describe what I think of Martin ferris and his like.


----------



## BillK (24 Jun 2010)

Firefly said:


> She takes money from the people in her country.
> 
> The Queen, as has been the case for her ancestors for a very long time, receives  funds from the people (via the Government) in the form of the Civil List.
> This money is provided in exchange for the income from the Crown lands which goes to the government.
> The value of the CivilList is approximately £20 million ; the income from the Crown Lands is approximately £800 million.


----------



## z104 (24 Jun 2010)

Crown lands eh, How did they come by the land in the first place. 
Don't fool yourself. The land was taken in the first place.


----------



## Rois (24 Jun 2010)

Now we know the Royal Family like to play around a bit, but does anyone else think Breffny Morgan (he of The Apprentice fame) bears a very strong resemblance to Prince Charles?


----------



## Arabella (24 Jun 2010)

Just check the family silver after the retinue leave. Remember, they have fecked off with it before


----------



## mathepac (24 Jun 2010)

Niallers said:


> Crown lands eh ...


If you think that's bad they even have their own paint


----------



## Slash (25 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> ...but more so for setting up The Pale, where effectively for 200 years, Beyond the Pale went on as normal and the oppressive rule had absolutely no effect.



So little has changed. We have "that crowd up in Dublin with their laws and taxes", and then we have the plain people of Ireland who eat their dinner in the middle of the day.


----------



## VOR (25 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> After hearing Martin ferris on the radio talk about this, I would not only welcome the queen, I would give her a bed for the night. Words do not describe what I think of Martin ferris and his like.


 
+1 Sunny. I couldn't believe the guff he was coming out with.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> After hearing Martin ferris on the radio talk about this, I would not only welcome the queen, I would give her a bed for the night. Words do not describe what I think of Martin ferris and his like.


 
Presume it was knuckle dragging Celtic jersey & Dutch Gold stuff. Appealling to his electorate no doubt......


----------



## mathepac (27 Jun 2010)

Lizzie must be happy. Her team are currently leading England 4-1. 

Meawhile, in a drawing room, not a million miles from Buckingham Palace :-

Lizzie:- "Ja, dass ist sehr gut, die griechische phil, ist es nicht? Wir haben einige Weißbier jetzt bitte. Feck dass alte Tee, es nur für die englischen Untertanen's."

Ponsonby-Smythe, footman extraordinaire :- "Very good Ma'am. Might I be so bold as to offer congratulation on behalf of the palace staff. We are truly pleased."


----------



## Moral Ethos (28 Jun 2010)

I must talk to my friends who live in Queens county.


----------



## z104 (28 Jun 2010)

Yorky said:


> Which other Queen could they mean? Ireland has only relatively recently not been under the 'Queen or King' and this Republic of Ireland thing is an ideological farce; it is economically and militarily dependent on the 'Queen'.


 
I want to break free
I want to break free
I want to break free from your lies
Youre so self satisfied I don't need you
Ive got to break free
God knows God knows I want to break free​ 
Its strange but it's true
I can't get over the way you love me like you do
But I have to be sure
When I walk out that door
Oh how I want to be free baby
Oh how I want to be free
Oh how I want to break free​


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2010)

Yorky said:


> Which other Queen could they mean? Ireland has only relatively recently not been under the 'Queen or King' and this Republic of Ireland thing is an ideological farce; it is economically and militarily dependent on the 'Queen'.


Irish men and women bled and died to gain independence from the UK. I am thankful that they did as I want to live in a republic where I am equal under the law rather than be a subject/citizen of a theocratic monarchy where I am second-class under the law. 

“The Queen” could refer to any of the constitutional monarchs or their regents throughout Europe. I am not a fan of the sycophantic lick-spittle’s who submissively crave the second class status of a subject.

The UK is our biggest trading partner but that is common for lots of small countries. It doesn’t mean that they should lose their independence. We are militarily dependent on NATO and the USA is a paymaster for NATO. The UK wouldn’t have had any army worth talking about for the last 40 years if it was not for American technological and economic support.

Thankfully a country is more than its economy and colonisation through economic dependence or debt issues went out of fashion around 1900.


----------



## Pique318 (28 Jun 2010)

I wonder was Lizzie conflicted when Germany beat England 4-1 yesterday ?


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2010)

I said earlier in this thread that I don't buy into the 800 years of oppression BS. I just don't like the constitutional arrangements (or lack of them) in the UK. I don’t like a system where the subjects have no inherent rights, just those given to them by their monarch (or their monarch in parliament to be exact). I know it doesn’t really matter in practice but it is still anachronistic. Legally Liz could murder a few pensioners then sexually abuse a few kids and she couldn’t stand trial. Crazy.


----------



## Ancutza (28 Jun 2010)

Personally I DO buy into the 800 years of oppression.  Not even a generation has passed since the british crown was murdering irishmen on the island of 
Ireland.

I think she should be told to bog-off!  Her presence in Ireland  is unwarranted and unwanted.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2010)

Ancutza said:


> Personally I DO buy into the 800 years of oppression.  Not even a generation has passed since the british crown was murdering irishmen on the island of
> Ireland.
> 
> I think she should be told to bog-off!  Her presence in Ireland  is unwarranted and unwanted.



Latrade's excellent post on the first page of this thread outlined why the 800 years thing is rubbish.
I’d agree to a great extent if it was from the era of Henry IIIX or the Ascendency or the Act of Union but to say that the English/British have been oppressing Ireland for 800 years is just factually incorrect.


----------



## Liamos (29 Jun 2010)

And what about the Irishmen murdering englishmen on the island of england?


----------



## Caveat (29 Jun 2010)

Liamos said:


> And what about the Irishmen murdering englishmen on the *island of england*?


 
Not sure what the "island of England" is...

Anyway, what about them? I don't condone it whatsoever but I assume you understand at least the _concept _of armed resistance/guerrilla warfare against occupying forces and associated punitive actions?

Or are you suggesting that this would be happening anyway, that Irish people simply enjoy travelling around the world killing people?


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2010)

Caveat said:


> What about them? I don't condone it whatsoever but I assume you understand at least the concept of armed resistance/guerrilla warfare against occupying forces and associated punitive actions?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that this would be happening anyway, that Irish people simply enjoy travelling around the world killing people?


 
Tim Parry and Jonathon Bell to name but two were not part of an occupying force and I would not call their death an associated punitive action because of the British presence in Northern Ireland. It was cold blooded murder and was as disgusting as the shootings on Bloody Sunday. 

Neither side can take the moral highground when it comes to the past so using incidents from the past to oppose a visit from the Queen is ridiculous. We played God Save the Queen in Croke Park and the world didn't end. We can be polite to a little old lady for a few hours, show her a few schools, give her a bite to eat, feed her Corgi's and stick her on the plane home. It's not a betrayal of the Republican Movement.


----------



## Firefly (29 Jun 2010)

I'm really on the fence on this one, but if I thought she'd give us her royal wave (as if we are her subjects), that would bother me!


----------



## Caveat (29 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> Tim Parry and Jonathon Bell to name but two were not part of an occupying force


 
No, of course not.



> ...and I would not call their death an associated punitive action because of the British presence in Northern Ireland.


 
Well I would, in the sense that it would not have happened otherwise.



> It was cold blooded murder and was as disgusting as the shootings on Bloody Sunday.


 
I agree.



> Neither side can take the moral highground when it comes to the past so using incidents from the past to oppose a visit from the Queen is ridiculous. We played God Save the Queen in Croke Park and the world didn't end. We can be polite to a little old lady for a few hours, show her a few schools, give her a bite to eat, feed her Corgi's and stick her on the plane home. It's not a betrayal of the Republican Movement.


 
I agree also - although I would have zero interest in the whole thing and it would somewhat embarrass me to see an eager eyed grinning crowd gathered, but hey.

All I am taking issue with is Liamos post which is basically bizarre and naive as far as I can see. 

Whereever anyone stands on republicanism and it's various shades and whether it is republicanism with a small or capital R and whether or not you deplore murder in every form, it is quite obvious to anyone with the tiniest understanding of the history and politics of these islands that paramilitary action has *only* been carried out in England as a result of British military actions on this island. It would not have happened otherwise.

Again, I'm not condoning any paramilitary or militray violence in any way shape or form.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2010)

The West Brits and Castle Catholics who wave the Union flag will bother me. Maybe it shouldn’t and it’s a sign of my immaturity but it will.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> The West Brits and Castle Catholics who wave the Union flag will bother me. Maybe it shouldn’t and it’s a sign of my immaturity but it will.


 
Do you think anyone will? I would be amazed if any great amount of people turned out to see her. School children will be forced to smile at a couple of photo opportunities but I can't imagine the streets of Dublin will be lined with onlookers.


----------



## csirl (29 Jun 2010)

> Tim Parry and Jonathon Bell to name but two were not part of an occupying force and I would not call their death an associated punitive action because of the British presence in Northern Ireland. It was cold blooded murder and was as disgusting as the shootings on Bloody Sunday.


 
They were not murdered by the Irish State or even anyone from it. Werent the murderers from Northern Ireland? The UK claims NI, so officially speaking, they were murdered by their fellow British subjects as part of a domestic dispute.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> they were murdered by their fellow British subjects as part of a domestic dispute.



I agree. Their 30 year civil war spilled over into this country quite a bit (the Dublin and Monahan bombings being a case in point) but in the end it was their own domestic dispute. I hope the next time our nearest neighbour has a civil war we will help them sort it out again.


----------



## Caveat (29 Jun 2010)

Yorky said:


> This is a thinly-veiled apology for murder.


 
No it isn't. I'm not apologising or justifying in any way. It is an explanation of why "Irishmen murdered Englishmen on the island of England", that's all. An explanation that people like Liamos seem to need. Maybe you too. My post was pretty clear I thought, but if you have your own agenda, work away.



> What is this thing about history anyway?


 
I don't have "a thing" about history.



> ...if you object to the Queen visiting Ireland


 
I don't, particularly.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> They were not murdered by the Irish State or even anyone from it. Werent the murderers from Northern Ireland? The UK claims NI, so officially speaking, they were murdered by their fellow British subjects as part of a domestic dispute.


 
How do you know who killed them? There were plenty of members of the IRA from the Republic. 
They were killed by members of the IRA who were proclaiming themselves as the true army of the Irish State. They received plenty of support from the South including arms and finance. Plenty of attacks were launched from this side of the border. We even elect members of the IRA to represent us in the Dail down here. I won't even go into Haughey and the Arms trial. 
You can try and call it a 'domestic dispute' but the death of innocent Children hundreds of miles away from any war or dispute is as much a stain on our History as Bloody Sunday is on the the UK's. We may not have approved of their actions but the IRA acted in the name of Ireland. Just like the British Army acted in the name of Britain despite the fact that most civilian people would have been horrified at some of their actions.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2010)

Yorky said:


> To reiterate, if you object to the Queen visiting Ireland


 I agree with your post (and Caveat's) but please be clear about which Queen you are talking about


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> You can try and call it a 'domestic dispute' but the death of innocent Children is as much a stain on our History as Bloody Sunday is on the the UK's.




I disagree; I think the IRA were far worse than the British security forces. Nothing the Para’s or the SAS or MI5 did was as bad as what the IRA did on a weekly basis. While I would condemn Bloody Sunday and the cover-up and collusion between some members of the British security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries I still would not draw any moral equivalences between them and the IRA.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> I disagree; I think the IRA were far worse than the British security forces. Nothing the Para’s or the SAS or MI5 did was as bad as what the IRA did on a weekly basis. While I would condemn Bloody Sunday and the cover-up and collusion between some members of the British security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries I still would not draw any moral equivalences between them and the IRA.


 
My point remains that the IRA is part of Irish History. We can't just say that they were in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland was in the UK and therefore it was a civil war. We don't get to wash our hands of IRA attrocities.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> My point remains that the IRA is part of Irish History. We can't just say that they were in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland was in the UK and therefore it was a civil war. We don't get to wash our hands of IRA attrocities.



True, I was being flippant.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> True, I was being flippant.


 
Sorry. This started out as nice light-hearted thread about Lizzie. We should get back to that! Hope she brings Philip. He is bound to say something that will set back Irish-UK relations for another 800 years!


----------



## Betsy Og (29 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> We may not have approved of their actions but the IRA acted in the name of Ireland.


 
I wouldnt agree with that, maybe they were in their own heads (or, alternatively, maybe they had become an organised crime outfit with sectarian motivations) but certainly they were in no sense acting on the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people or Irish politicians (no SF TD's at the time, maybe a few councillors here and there) and therefore were not acting in the name of Ireland.

The British Army (or any other army) acts in the name of its country, under the direction (initially at least) of the parliment.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2010)

Betsy Og said:


> I wouldnt agree with that, maybe they were in their own heads (or, alternatively, maybe they had become an organised crime outfit with sectarian motivations) but certainly they were in no sense acting on the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people or Irish politicians (no SF TD's at the time, maybe a few councillors here and there) and therefore were not acting in the name of Ireland.
> 
> The British Army (or any other army) acts in the name of its country, under the direction (initially at least) of the parliment.


 
Not saying they weren't acting against the wishes of the majority but lets not kid ourselves that they didn't get significant support from people living in the Republic. I know a few sympathisers who raised funds for them myself. The Provisional IRA were Irish terrorists.


----------



## csirl (29 Jun 2010)

betsy og said:


> i wouldnt agree with that, maybe they were in their own heads (or, alternatively, maybe they had become an organised crime outfit with sectarian motivations) but certainly they were in no sense acting on the wishes of the vast majority of the irish people or irish politicians (no sf td's at the time, maybe a few councillors here and there) and therefore were not acting in the name of ireland.
> 
> The british army (or any other army) acts in the name of its country, under the direction (initially at least) of the parliment.


 
+1


----------



## csirl (29 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> Not saying they weren't acting against the wishes of the majority but lets not kid ourselves that they didn't get significant support from people living in the Republic. I know a few sympathisers who raised funds for them myself. The Provisional IRA were Irish terrorists.


 
There are a lot of people from the UK raising funds for the taliban etc. and some even fighting for them. Doesnt mean that the UK people/government support the taliban. In fact the UK is fighting the taliban. 

In Ireland, PIRA is an illegal organisation and membership is punishable by prison. Therefore you cannot say that Ireland supports the PIRA.


----------



## Liamos (29 Jun 2010)

Ancutza was making the point that he / she is opposed to the Queen's visit because the British crown was murdering Irishmen less than a generatio ago. I was just making the point that the IRA were doing likewise in Britain. You cannot mention one without the other. I know the reasons why they were doing it, but this doesn't mean they were right.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> There are a lot of people from the UK raising funds for the taliban etc. and some even fighting for them. Doesnt mean that the UK people/government support the taliban. In fact the UK is fighting the taliban.
> 
> In Ireland, PIRA is an illegal organisation and membership is punishable by prison. Therefore you cannot say that Ireland supports the PIRA.


 
Once again, I didn't say Ireland supported the PIRA. I said they got significant support from people in the South. You made some facitious comment about it being a domestic dispute between UK citizens and the deaths of innocent children in England had nothing to do with the Republic Of Ireland. That's simply not true.


----------



## AlastairSC (29 Jun 2010)

Begorrah Mam and 'tis a fine little country we have here, an' all. Sure look at us - living proof that the Irish can manage their own affairs: efficient transport and health services; proper planning; a well-developed infrastructure; a pluralist, secular society....


----------



## Betsy Og (29 Jun 2010)

AlastairSC said:


> Begorrah Mam and 'tis a fine little country we have here, an' all. Sure look at us - living proof that the Irish can manage their own affairs: efficient transport and health services; proper planning; a well-developed infrastructure; a pluralist, secular society....


 
Lets just say if the Monthy Python sketch had been about irish guys talking "What have the British ever done for us?", I dont think it would go on for too long , particularly in relation to the island of Ireland, most of the good stuff we ever got from Britain was when we went there or sold them stuff.

Plus, Britain has its own troubles, I wouldnt beat ourselves up too much on the assumption that everywhere else is so much better.


----------



## MrMan (29 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> My point remains that the IRA is part of Irish History. We can't just say that they were in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland was in the UK and therefore it was a civil war. We don't get to wash our hands of IRA attrocities.




Why would we even want to wash our hands of our darker history? We can't change our past we can just learn from it. There is alot to be ashamed about on both sides of the fence, but it comes back to what Cavaet has correctly stated, without the aggressive occupation of our country by the british there would have been no para attacks on British soil.


----------



## Latrade (30 Jun 2010)

MrMan said:


> Why would we even want to wash our hands of our darker history? We can't change our past we can just learn from it. There is alot to be ashamed about on both sides of the fence, but it comes back to what Cavaet has correctly stated, without the aggressive occupation of our country by the british there would have been no para attacks on British soil.


 
Kind of comes back to the old cliche of one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. 

Is it fair to justify every action by the PIRA on the basis of the British Military presence? PIRA were responsible for more deaths than any other group over 1000 non-civilian and around 600 civilian. Does it justify funding from Libya? Does it justify that of the around 125 deaths from PIRA activities in England, 68 wer civilian? In order to execute those actions known terrorists/freedom fighters travelled by ferry (in some cases in hijacked cars) from Dublin to Liverpool, can we honestly say that not one person in the Gardai had information about this? Do we really want to start digging too deeply on these issues?

To me that's the whole point of this peace or attempts at peace that no one is clean, that no one wants to be casting too many stones. We shouldn't forget the past, that's not what is being suggested, but unless all sides are prepared to take full responsibility for their actions, inactions, knowledge and connivance, then perhaps it is better to let the attempts at reconcilliation progress as they are.


----------



## Caveat (30 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> Kind of comes back to the old cliche of one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
> 
> Is it fair to justify every action by the PIRA on the basis of the British Military presence? PIRA were responsible for more deaths than any other group over 1000 non-civilian and around 600 civilian. Does it justify funding from Libya? Does it justify that of the around 125 deaths from PIRA activities in England, 68 wer civilian? In order to execute those actions known terrorists/freedom fighters travelled by ferry (in some cases in hijacked cars) from Dublin to Liverpool, can we honestly say that not one person in the Gardai had information about this? Do we really want to start digging too deeply on these issues?
> 
> To me that's the whole point of this peace or attempts at peace that no one is clean, that no one wants to be casting too many stones. We shouldn't forget the past, that's not what is being suggested, but unless all sides are prepared to take full responsibility for their actions, inactions, knowledge and connivance, then perhaps it is better to let the attempts at reconcilliation progress as they are.


 
+1 Latrade, and again I state in case anyone isn't clear: I detest the IRA/Sinn Féin and all they stand for. Same goes for all paramilitaries. However I have very liitle respect for  British justice or military operations either.

The point I made to Liamos was more an academic one than anything else.


----------



## csirl (30 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> Once again, I didn't say Ireland supported the PIRA. I said they got significant support from people in the South. You made some facitious comment about it being a domestic dispute between UK citizens and the deaths of innocent children in England had nothing to do with the Republic Of Ireland. That's simply not true.


 
I disagree. Officially speaking, the dispute in NI is an internal UK dispute. 

What role did Ireland have in the deaths of innocent children in England - can you specify? My understanding is that the bombings were carried out by NI people on behalf of an NI terrorist group and therefore is an internal UK matter.


----------



## Purple (30 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> I disagree. Officially speaking, the dispute in NI is an internal UK dispute.
> 
> What role did Ireland have in the deaths of innocent children in England - can you specify? My understanding is that the bombings were carried out by NI people on behalf of an NI terrorist group and therefore is an internal UK matter.



Many members of the PIRA were based here and many attacks were launched from here. In some cases soldiers were shot by snipers from this side of the boarder. In the very early days of the PIRA there was unofficial support from the Irish state. I don’t think we ca wash our hands of this completely.


----------



## MrMan (30 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> Kind of comes back to the old cliche of one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
> 
> Is it fair to justify every action by the PIRA on the basis of the British Military presence? PIRA were responsible for more deaths than any other group over 1000 non-civilian and around 600 civilian. Does it justify funding from Libya? Does it justify that of the around 125 deaths from PIRA activities in England, 68 wer civilian? In order to execute those actions known terrorists/freedom fighters travelled by ferry (in some cases in hijacked cars) from Dublin to Liverpool, can we honestly say that not one person in the Gardai had information about this? Do we really want to start digging too deeply on these issues?
> 
> To me that's the whole point of this peace or attempts at peace that no one is clean, that no one wants to be casting too many stones. We shouldn't forget the past, that's not what is being suggested, but unless all sides are prepared to take full responsibility for their actions, inactions, knowledge and connivance, then perhaps it is better to let the attempts at reconcilliation progress as they are.



All very well put, but if you were to answer yes or no to 'would there have been any Irish attacks on Britain if there had been no brutal attempt to control our country by the British' I assume that you would answer 'no'.

What's been done can't be undone and we have moved forward.


----------



## Chocks away (30 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Many members of the PIRA were based here and many attacks were launched from here. In some cases soldiers were shot by snipers from this side of the boarder. In the very early days of the PIRA there was unofficial support from the Irish state. I don’t think we ca wash our hands of this completely.


But surely, if the foreign soldiers were not there they could not get shot.


----------



## Ancutza (30 Jun 2010)

> But surely, if the foreign soldiers were not there they could not get shot


. 

That's kind of the crux of the issue isn't it? They occupied us, not the other way around.

I take Purples point about 800 years of oppression. On consideration it was probably more like 600 years.

My own family history evokes mixed feelings in me. My paternal grandfather was born in the British Army barracks in Ballinasloe where my great grandparents were attending a dinner party being staunch members of the protestant anglo-irish ascendancy. My fathers extended family continue to this day to be entwined in governance and policing in Norn' Iron. In fact my family originally arrived in Ireland with Oliver Cromwell as french mercenaries paid to hand the irish their asses. So successful were they that they were awarded a whole townland in north Dublin one street of which still bears their name. Pity they didn't hold onto it or we'd all be billionaires! But I digress...

Compare that to my catholic maternal grandmothers experience. Born just after the turn of the century (also in Mayo by coincidence) she suffered the indignity of having a piece of wood hung around her neck on a piece of twine and having it notched by the teacher every time she was caught speaking 'as Gaeilge'. At the end of the week she was beaten in accordance with how many notches she had accumulated. Hence the british 'system' exterminated the irish language amongst her generation and irreperably, in my opinion, damaged the culture of our nation. If that's not oppression then what is? We don't even have to go back that far to find examples of british oppression in southern Ireland. Forget about the north which was a basket case from it's inception.

On balance I feel more for my grandmother than my grandfather (who was born with a regimental silver spoon wedged firmly in his butt). This is all just about in living memory so why would I wish to entertain the Queen of England in Dublin when her granny subjected my granny to such hardship.


----------



## Latrade (1 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> All very well put, but if you were to answer yes or no to 'would there have been any Irish attacks on Britain if there had been no brutal attempt to control our country by the British' I assume that you would answer 'no'.
> 
> What's been done can't be undone and we have moved forward.


 
Your assumption is naturally right, as Caveat says also. My issue is when this is used to justify any action. For every injustice there's been an equal injustice, some chose which ones to remember and which to filter out to support an agenda. I can't, one drop of innocent blood is one drop too much. We'll never know what, how, who or where we'd be without being under British Rule, we'll never know how the North would have developed if there had of been a complete handover and a complete Ireland. We could still be in a civil war now, we could be completely integrated. We could have 4 countries split along provinces, even worse we could be like Belgium. At least we're not like Belgium.

And your last point is, to me, the ultimate point. 

Ancutza, I'm sure we've all recent and long past family histories from this Island and all related to British rule, as MrMan says we can't undo that, no one can. But I don't see how you can just ignore your other heritage and only focus on one-side.

I suppose my view is very selfish on this but in someway relevant I guess. With family decimated by famine, split up by immigration, and all the usual woes, but if they hadn't have happened my great great grandfathers wouldn't have met my great great grandmothers, who wouldn't have given birth to my great grandparents, who wouldn't have met and given birth to  my grandparents, who wouldn't have met and given birth to my parents who wouldn't have met and given birth to me. 

It's part of my history, I'll make sure that history lives with furture generations if only so they can be thankful (I hope) that we live in peaceful times, but also that they're the decendents of survivors and fighters. I'm not going to pass on the history to harbour resentment for deeds done in much different times to our own. 

Like Purple I don't like Monarchies, any of them, even the ones that are just ceremonial. I also resent having to pay out to accomodate someone who fancies a visit just so politicians can pat themselves on the back and release a second book of memoires as to how great they were and we should forget all the bad corrupt stuff they did. I'll not bother going to see her, I won't watch any coverage on the television, not out of any resentment to her where she represents, but because all that stuff bores me anyway, irrespective of who they are.

I really doubt we'll see anyone (other than the odd ex-pat British) out waving union jacks, singing God Save the Queen or anything else. To be honest I detect more apathy to the whole thing than any other emotion and I actually think that's a good thing, in the modern vernacular "we're so over it". There you go: the apathy shows _how mature as a nation we are..._


----------



## Firefly (1 Jul 2010)

Ancutza said:


> .
> This is all just about in living memory so why would I wish to entertain the Queen of England in Dublin when her granny subjected my granny to such hardship.


 
I think David Cameron set a good example recently apologising for Bloody Sunday. Perhaps Lizzie could take note and use this trip to apologise for the x00 years of oppression.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Jul 2010)

Put it this way, being dis-courteous to the current Queen of England (hereinafter referred to as "the Queen" ) wont right any of the past wrongs. All of which happened before she was born. 

In reality this is about relations between 2 countries sitting side by side, trading with each other, sharing each others culture (probably us dipping into theirs more than vice versa) etc. etc. All that protesting against the Queen will achieve is a needless souring of those relations. Many British people have no time for the Queen either, but would probably take it as an affront if we couldnt be civil to her.

Brian Cowen is probably to most unpopular Taoiseach ever, but if a load of yobs turned out in the UK to insult him as a leprechaun/paddy you probably wouldnt be too happy (you'd say it was our job to insult him on our soil for the job he's doing).

Even France & Germany now seem to get on ok and there was generation decimating slaughter on both sides, twice, in the last 100 years. Time to move on people.....


----------



## Sunny (1 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> But surely, if the foreign soldiers were not there they could not get shot.


 
And what about the Army Band members blown to bits at their school of music in Kent? What did they have to do with NI? What did the innocent people who died through bombs being placed in busy civilian areas in NI and other parts of the UK have to do with the occupation of Northern Ireland? Do you want to go to the parents of Tim Parry and Jonathon Bell and say 'well if your army wasn't in NI, your son's would be alive'?  There are numerous other examples. 

I can understand why the PIRA was formed. I can understand the anger and misery of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland that was inflicted on them by the British State. I can understand why they felt they had no alternative but to take up an armed struggle.

Having said that, the PIRA and other Paramilitary organisations on both sides lost any moral authority they may have had when they started killing innocent people including children. I despise Israeli policy with regard to Gaza and the Palestinian people and they are even worse occupiers than the Bristish were in Norther Ireland (they won't even admit they are occupying it). But no matter what the Israeli army and Government do, there is no justification for suicide bombers to blow up innocent civilians on Israeli streets. Just like there is no justification for 9/11, the London Bombings or the Madrid Bombings.

I don't care if the Queen comes or not. I certainly won't be going out to the streets to welcome her just like I wasn't one of those idiots that piled into College Green to welcome the Clintons and waving American flags a few years ago. I have English friends and relatives. I worked in England for awhile. I like England and its people (especially because they can't take a slagging). Never once throughout the years have I had the IRA thrown in my face by English people (apart from a couple of BNP biggots) despite the misery caused. The least I can do is return the favour and move on. If that means letting the Queen drop in to see our President, then so be it.


----------



## Caveat (1 Jul 2010)

Paramilitarism, militarism and murder aside, just to throw another spanner in the works, we will be hosting a head of state (whose monarchy is fundamentally sectarian) in this, what is still,  essentially a catholic country. 

In the eyes of the British monarchy, catholics are basically *third *class citizens. I'm not a catholic and never have been but surely this will rankle with many here?


----------



## csirl (1 Jul 2010)

The whole NI situation is caused by the fact that a large proportion of the Queen of England's subjects feel that they are being treated unfairly and dont want to be subjects AND because the Queen does not take on board the wishes of most of her subjects (i.e. those in Britain) who, if given choice today, would get rid of NI asap.

As she is the Monarch, she IS the country. Legally speaking, she is the top level owner of everything. The Government is her personal government, the army is her personal army, the police are hers personal police force etc etc. They all exist to serve her. Therefore she is personally to blame for everything.


----------



## Chocks away (1 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> I like England and its people (especially because they can't take a slagging). Never once throughout the years have I had the IRA thrown in my face by English people (apart from a couple of BNP biggots) despite the misery caused. The least I can do is return the favour and move on. If that means letting the Queen drop in to see our President, then so be it.


Rarely do appeasers or bleeding hearts get a hard time from conquerors.


----------



## Sunny (1 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> Rarely do appeasers or bleeding hearts get a hard time from conquerors.


 
Good one.


----------



## Firefly (1 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> the Queen does not take on board the wishes of most of her subjects (i.e. those in Britain) who, if given choice today, would get rid of NI asap.


 
I've always struggled with this. If the majority of people in England wanted to rid themselves on NI and we in the Republic can't afford / not bothered either, then why don't both sides in NI come together and say "screw it, lets form our own independent country and operate as a tax-free state like Jersey?"


----------



## z104 (1 Jul 2010)

Because half the people up North see themselves as Irish and most of the people in south of Ireland want reunification. 
Any anyway, It's just down right wrong that the country is still partitioned.

The 6 counties were stolen, We know who the thief is and where the goods are stashed . All we need now is to get what is rightfully ours back.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Jul 2010)

LOL, is it not obvious that our 4th green field is an economic burden. Theres good reason why Britain wouldnt mind losing it.


----------



## Caveat (1 Jul 2010)

Niallers said:


> The 6 counties were stolen, We know who the thief is and where the goods are stashed . All we need now is to get what is rightfully ours back.


 
Problem is, at the time, the majority of decision makers in Ireland and in Britain agreed to it. I'm not saying that's the beginning and end of the story but it makes everything a bit more complicated than what you call "theft".


----------



## z104 (1 Jul 2010)

Caveat said:


> Problem is, at the time, the majority of decision makers in Ireland and in Britain agreed to it. I'm not saying that's the beginning and end of the story but it makes everything a bit more complicated than what you call "theft".


 
A bit like the decision makers that gave away our gas?


----------



## Caveat (2 Jul 2010)

Niallers said:


> A bit like the decision makers that gave away our gas?


 
Eh?


----------



## Shawady (2 Jul 2010)

Could make her guest of honour at the Aviva Stadium on 17th November.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soc...ber-17-date-15-years-after-riots-2243312.html


----------



## Latrade (2 Jul 2010)

Betsy Og said:


> LOL, is it not obvious that our 4th green field is an economic burden. Theres good reason why Britain wouldnt mind losing it.


 
Aye, with it needing a £5,000 Million a year top up and public service employment at 31%, not sure we could afford it either.


----------



## csirl (2 Jul 2010)

I think she'd prefer to go to a Germany game


----------



## z104 (2 Jul 2010)

Caveat said:


> Eh?


 
Politicians


----------



## Caveat (2 Jul 2010)

...that we voted in.

SF for example, in our democracy, both north and south, who go on about mandates all the time, represent a very small amount of the electorate. Even historically they have never represented the majority view or anywhere close to it. 

To propose that the north was stolen and that we need to get it back may be your view and views of some others but it is not a view widely held.

Reminds me of Gay Byrne interviewing Gerry Adams years ago. He asked him to explain simply and in his own words the aims/agenda of SF in terms of NI etc etc and after a well rehearsed pseudo revolutionary speech from Adams, Byrne simply replied "I see...and who asked you to do this?"


----------



## Latrade (2 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> I think she'd prefer to go to a Germany game


 
Again, I just don't get this obsession with the ancestory of the British Monarchy. Why do we hate the English so much when most of the "bad" Monarchs aren't even English, if their country of birth or ancestor's place of birth is such a big deal let's hate the Germans, French, Welsh, Scottish and Dutch as much.

It just defies logic as I can see to resent a specific country and people because of their Monarchy. So these folks who had no choice largely but be overrun and ruled by an oppressive system of rape, theft, murder, slaughter and systems akin to slavery are disliked because some very rich Europeans by birth decree that they're more important and want more land than anyone else.  

Fine, let's judge them all based on the ills imposed by a few. But then why do we take great delight in reminding the said subjects that their Monarchs aren't even "native". I dunno, it just doesn't make sense to me. 

Besides, my British Royal genealogy may not be up to much, but the Germanic side of the current British Royals is about 4 generations removed. Betty's mum and dad were born in England, her grand parents were born in England, her great grandparents were too. So fine her great, great, great grandfather was German. Even Jack Charlton wouldn't have given someone with that far removed a passport a place on the Irish team.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2010)

Very good points Latrade


----------



## csirl (2 Jul 2010)

> Why do we hate the English so much when most of the "bad" Monarchs aren't even English, if their country of birth or ancestor's place of birth is such a big deal let's hate the Germans, French, Welsh, Scottish and Dutch as much.


 
Just because you dont like Monarchs, it doesnt mean you dont like the people of the country. I think the German thing is relevent because it shows that, with monarchies, it possible that someone who as little or no connection with a country, maybe never visited it and doesnt speak the language can be put in charge for life! Absurd - has happened several times in England and with other Monarchies. If the truth be told, in Europe, one close knit family has managed to obtain most of the Monarchies in Europe. One small family suppressing millions of European people.


----------



## Latrade (2 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> Just because you dont like Monarchs, it doesnt mean you dont like the people of the country. I think the German thing is relevent because it shows that, with monarchies, it possible that someone who as little or no connection with a country, maybe never visited it and doesnt speak the language can be put in charge for life! Absurd - has happened several times in England and with other Monarchies. If the truth be told, in Europe, one close knit family has managed to obtain most of the Monarchies in Europe. One small family suppressing millions of European people.


 
Exactly my point though, it's the European Monarchies where you basically had cousins and second cousins fighting each other to grab as much land and wealth as they could in order to support their elite status and lifestyles. And despite this pan european element, it's the "brits" we've the problem with. 

Would the same thread to the same extent be here if it were the Spanish or Danish monarchies? There'd be grumbles, but I doubt there'd be such a thread. But it was their cousins who inflicted the hurt here, just because they married into or inherited a different seat and land means it wasn't them directly ruling Ireland. Don't they have the blood on their hands too?


----------

