Log In
Register
4.12pm
Members
18 March 2013
Offline
Yeah he can still be King. There’d have to be a horrific accident involving the Cambridges (and they generally don’t travel together to avoid that) but yeah we could still have King Henry IX.
He hasn’t lost anything in moving to Canada. The only thing he’s changing is he’s not using the HRH title, he could still technically use it but he’s choosing not to. He’s only gaining really, gets all the niceties and status of having a royal title, still has the house in Windsor but doesn’t have to do the ‘opening a leisure centre’ bit. He can also return to royal life if he doesn’t like “working to become financially independent”.
All-in-all pretty sweet deal.
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
4.37pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
@meanmistermustard said
Can Harry be King, I thought him moving to wherever he went meant he had lost the lineage? Not that I paid much attention as I didn’t care. Listening to so many slate Meghan for being utterly evil and forcing Harry to make a decision that a) he wouldn’t have otherwise, b) she was a nasty foreigner so how dare she does anything against this proud upright upstanding country and c) was robbing the UK of a true hero and role model, bored me senseless at such shit being utter by supposedly clever people.
He’s only stepped back from being a working royal and hasn’t renounced his place as sixth in line. The last royal to lose his place in the succession was George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews (Prince Edward’s son), when he married a Roman Catholic in 1988. The 1701 Act of Settlement forbade Roman Catholics from being either King or Queen, and so he gave up his place in the line of succession to marry her.
He was restored to the line of succession in 2013 when the Succession to the Crown Act changed the rules to allow Roman Catholics into the line of succession among other things.
Interesting how much of your paragraph could have been written about John and Yoko… 
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.46pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Yeah. The similarities to the reaction to Yoko after marrying John never went unnoticed.
The rest I lost interest in reading. I’d be happy if all royals gave up and called an end to the notice. I’m not vehemently against them or get into a rage when they are mention, simply have no interest in their existence. Will be delighted if Scotland walks away from them when we get our independence in 2898.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.01pm
Members
18 March 2013
Offline 
Ledgebag Harry.
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
6.34pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
Dark Overlord said
What i’m trying to say is that those who want safety should get it, but those who want freewill should get it to. It would mean that the quarantine for those who choose safety might last a little longer but as Beatlebug said, those who would sacrifice freewill for safety deserve neither.
not what I said, I was quoting Ben Franklin and saying I don’t necessarily agree with it 100% under these specific circumstances. It also seems very unfair to punish those who choose safety because some other people want their freedom – that violates the libertarian principle, does it not?
I do agree about taking personal responsibility though. While i strongly oppose most government intervention, i also think we should take some basic precautions like washing our hands, staying home if you’re sick, and not creating large crowds.
If only people took personal responsibility. 
Good point but unless you’re intentionally trying to spread the disease, i don’t think it’s fair to apply the phrase here as there’s no intent to hurt anyone in the same way that you should have the right to do drugs, even if getting high could make you kill someone.
If you get high and kill someone, that’s no longer just your problem, and you get arrested for killing someone.
Spreading the disease can be done unintentionally but is still bad for others.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
QuarryMan([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
6.31am
26 January 2017
Offline Agree with Beatlebug and ASJ here. I think the truly libertarian take on this would be that continuing with your normal life violates the harm principle since all you’re doing is placing other people in danger, but that it is also very important to make sure that these temporary limitations on our liberty do not become permanent.
Trump’s idea that the US should be back to work by Easter (apparently a date he decided on because he thought it would be ‘beautiful’, because god forbid consulting any of the experts on this) is dangerous and could quite literally result millions of deaths.
Also, DO, an ‘anarchist state’ is an oxymoron, and I highly doubt that if the UK government does end up falling apart it will be the fault of Antifa, of all things. On the contrary, I think the UK’s response to the crisis has actually been pretty stable compared to certain other countries. Watching Boris the other night actually had me of all people feeling somewhat patriotic 
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Beatlebug, lovelyritametermaidI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
6.23pm
10 March 2017
Offline Beatlebug said
Dark Overlord said
What i’m trying to say is that those who want safety should get it, but those who want freewill should get it to. It would mean that the quarantine for those who choose safety might last a little longer but as Beatlebug said, those who would sacrifice freewill for safety deserve neither.
not what I said, I was quoting Ben Franklin and saying I don’t necessarily agree with it 100% under these specific circumstances. It also seems very unfair to punish those who choose safety because some other people want their freedom – that violates the libertarian principle, does it not?
Either way, our libertarian principles are being violated but if i have to choose between temporarily putting everyone on house arrest or letting the virus spread, i’d choose the latter although i think it’s ridiculous that we can’t find a middle ground. If we weren’t so obsessed with politicizing everything, i’m sure the Democrats and Republicans could come up with some sort of compromise where we can reduce the spread of the virus without locking people in their house for the next month or so.
QuarryMan said
Trump’s idea that the US should be back to work by Easter (apparently a date he decided on because he thought it would be ‘beautiful’, because god forbid consulting any of the experts on this) is dangerous and could quite literally result millions of deaths.
But the longer we remain in lockdown, the worse the economical collapse will be. Local businesses are already starting to shut down permanently, leaving many without a job, and things will only get worse the longer we remain in lockdown. We can significantly reduce the impact with UBI so that once the lockdown is over, people who lost their job can still have a steady source of income, as well as making free healthcare a human right because the problems with our overpriced healthcare system will be amplified during this recession but Trump clearly doesn’t want to spend any more money on this lockdown so i doubt he’d do this so i think it’s best just to cheer him on in saving the economy.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
6.32pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Dark Overlord said
Beatlebug said
Dark Overlord said
What i’m trying to say is that those who want safety should get it, but those who want freewill should get it to. It would mean that the quarantine for those who choose safety might last a little longer but as Beatlebug said, those who would sacrifice freewill for safety deserve neither.
not what I said, I was quoting Ben Franklin and saying I don’t necessarily agree with it 100% under these specific circumstances. It also seems very unfair to punish those who choose safety because some other people want their freedom – that violates the libertarian principle, does it not?
Either way, our libertarian principles are being violated but if i have to choose between temporarily putting everyone on house arrest or letting the virus spread, i’d choose the latter although i think it’s ridiculous that we can’t find a middle ground. If we weren’t so obsessed with politicizing everything, i’m sure the Democrats and Republicans could come up with some sort of compromise where we can reduce the spread of the virus without locking people in their house for the next month or so.
Name a way to stop a virus from spreading through an entire population if you don’t want to isolate everyone in their own houses, if there isn’t a vaccine yet?
QuarryMan said
Trump’s idea that the US should be back to work by Easter (apparently a date he decided on because he thought it would be ‘beautiful’, because god forbid consulting any of the experts on this) is dangerous and could quite literally result millions of deaths.
But the longer we remain in lockdown, the worse the economical collapse will be. Local businesses are already starting to shut down permanently, leaving many without a job, and things will only get worse the longer we remain in lockdown. We can significantly reduce the impact with UBI so that once the lockdown is over, people who lost their job can still have a steady source of income, as well as making free healthcare a human right because the problems with our overpriced healthcare system will be amplified during this recession but Trump clearly doesn’t want to spend any more money on this lockdown so i doubt he’d do this so i think it’s best just to cheer him on in saving the economy.
It comes down to whether you value human lives more than the economy. If you don’t care about human lives and only care about the economy – go ahead, open the country up, but be it on your conscience the massive death toll that would ensue…
#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
7.51pm
10 March 2017
Offline There’s 2 ways i can think of to prevent the spread of the virus without a lockdown:
1. Give those who want safety a full lockdown (including drone sent food and supplies so they don’t have to leave their house) while those who aren’t afraid of dying get their freewill and we just wait it out until the virus has taken it’s course
2. Require everyone wear a hazmat suit if they want to leave their house
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
8.00pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline The Hole Got Fixed said
It comes down to whether you value human lives more than the economy. If you don’t care about human lives and only care about the economy – go ahead, open the country up, but be it on your conscience the massive death toll that would ensue…
Friendly reminder that, if the economy crashes, human lives will be severely affected and even lost. So either way we’re screwed. 
Dark Overlord said
2. Require everyone wear a hazmat suit if they want to leave their house
Sounds good. Coronapocalypse is here, let’s go! 
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
10.08pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Beatlebug said
The Hole Got Fixed said
It comes down to whether you value human lives more than the economy. If you don’t care about human lives and only care about the economy – go ahead, open the country up, but be it on your conscience the massive death toll that would ensue…
Friendly reminder that, if the economy crashes, human lives will be severely affected and even lost. So either way we’re screwed.
{snip}
Heard this on BBC Radio 4. https://www.express.co.uk/news…..est-update
Thoughts?
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
11.56pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Ahhh Girl said
Beatlebug said
The Hole Got Fixed said
It comes down to whether you value human lives more than the economy. If you don’t care about human lives and only care about the economy – go ahead, open the country up, but be it on your conscience the massive death toll that would ensue…
Friendly reminder that, if the economy crashes, human lives will be severely affected and even lost. So either way we’re screwed.
{snip}
Heard this on BBC Radio 4. https://www.express.co.uk/news…..est-update
Thoughts?
Attenborough has it correct.
The economy has to fail at some point, it’s impossible for it not to.
Perhaps society will actually find a way around it for it not to cause lives lost – who knows, this may cause the rejection of capitalism!
Anyway I’m very much rambling about something I don’t really know too much about…
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
QuarryMan#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
5.05am
Members
18 March 2013
Offline Jesus, for those who are practically saying that the economy is more important than people’s lives, ye are cracked. Ye’d want to get your heads examined.
Will we all just round the old and vulnerable people up into one large green area and if they get it, they get it and most of the group will be wiped out* and the rest of the ‘viable’ people can keep the economy working? Is that the best solution?
*Do remember that even if by some miracle, you don’t know any elderly or people with autoimmune diseases or going through cancer treatment or who have issues with their lungs, personally, that people on this forum fall into those categories.
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
QuarryMan, The Hole Got Fixed
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
5.50am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline The idea we put finance before people is utterly insane. All very good in some kind of warped theory but if that happened and you were reading stories of mass deaths but the pound holding up and not thinking how badly wrong we’d got it then god help you.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
QuarryMan, The Hole Got Fixed"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
7.08am
26 January 2017
Offline Dark Overlord said
Beatlebug said
Dark Overlord said
What i’m trying to say is that those who want safety should get it, but those who want freewill should get it to. It would mean that the quarantine for those who choose safety might last a little longer but as Beatlebug said, those who would sacrifice freewill for safety deserve neither.
not what I said, I was quoting Ben Franklin and saying I don’t necessarily agree with it 100% under these specific circumstances. It also seems very unfair to punish those who choose safety because some other people want their freedom – that violates the libertarian principle, does it not?
Either way, our libertarian principles are being violated but if i have to choose between temporarily putting everyone on house arrest or letting the virus spread, i’d choose the latter although i think it’s ridiculous that we can’t find a middle ground. If we weren’t so obsessed with politicizing everything, i’m sure the Democrats and Republicans could come up with some sort of compromise where we can reduce the spread of the virus without locking people in their house for the next month or so.
Ugh. The virus spreads through HUMAN CONTACT. If everyone goes outside and starts interacting with each other again, it will spread. That’s not because the situation has been ‘politicised’, it’s because That’s. How. Viruses. Work.
QuarryMan said
Trump’s idea that the US should be back to work by Easter (apparently a date he decided on because he thought it would be ‘beautiful’, because god forbid consulting any of the experts on this) is dangerous and could quite literally result millions of deaths.
But the longer we remain in lockdown, the worse the economical collapse will be. Local businesses are already starting to shut down permanently, leaving many without a job, and things will only get worse the longer we remain in lockdown. We can significantly reduce the impact with UBI so that once the lockdown is over, people who lost their job can still have a steady source of income, as well as making free healthcare a human right because the problems with our overpriced healthcare system will be amplified during this recession but Trump clearly doesn’t want to spend any more money on this lockdown so i doubt he’d do this so i think it’s best just to cheer him on in saving the economy.
And if we all go back to work, then tens of millions of people will catch the disease, meaning they’re unable to work, and millions of those people will die. The economy is going to crash either way. It’s just a choice between letting it crash from the safety of our homes, or sacrificing millions of lives in the process.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Ahhh Girl, The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
9.10am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline We could put everyone in those balls that you push around so they can go out and not breath on everyone, and to cut down on cost (because it’s all about the money) they are restricted to one per household. Plenty of exercise and fun for all the family.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Beatlebug, lovelyritametermaid, The Hole Got Fixed"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.17am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline The Hole Got Fixed said
Attenborough has it correct.
The economy has to fail at some point, it’s impossible for it not to.
Perhaps society will actually find a way around it for it not to cause lives lost – who knows, this may cause the rejection of capitalism!
Anyway I’m very much rambling about something I don’t really know too much about…
Yes, that’s patently obvious… just as it is any time most people talk about socialism/communism… 
AppleScruffJunior said
Jesus, for those who are practically saying that the economy is more important than people’s lives, ye are cracked. Ye’d want to get your heads examined.
Ever heard of a false dichotomy? I fail to see anyone here saying, practically or otherwise, that the economy is more important than people’s lives. People who are concerned about the economy are concerned about the effect on human life that a crumbling economy will have. There’s a concern that, if you sacrifice the economy so people don’t die of the disease as much, you get long-term effects that may kill more people in the end. It’s not black and white. I’m not saying I know anything about the topic either, I’m just bringing it up.
Will we all just round the old and vulnerable people up into one large green area and if they get it, they get it and most of the group will be wiped out* and the rest of the ‘viable’ people can keep the economy working? Is that the best solution?
*Do remember that even if by some miracle, you don’t know any elderly or people with autoimmune diseases or going through cancer treatment or who have issues with their lungs, personally, that people on this forum fall into those categories.
Well, obviously not, that’s why I’m not a Nazi or a communist 
And for the record, I do have grandparents, etc. and 2 of my best friends are diabetic (type 1), so of course I’m worried about them.
meanmistermustard said
We could put everyone in those balls that you push around so they can go out and not breath on everyone, and to cut down on cost (because it’s all about the money) they are restricted to one per household. Plenty of exercise and fun for all the family.
Yes, it’s almost as if resources aren’t infinite… nah, that couldn’t be the case, surely? We can just print more money…
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
9.23am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.24am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline ^I’m confused by that gif
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
