Agree.
Royal Baby soon to put in an appearance
- Thread starter Minxy
- Start date
Agree.
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,501
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
No such thing as equality never will be stop being so angry about it and enjoy your lot.
I know that Julia Gillard had said that she would have held another referendum on Australia's participation in this ridiculous, anachronistic farce after this one drops dead, it's a shame that we'll be the last of the 16 to get rid.
I know we don't live in an equal world but we do live in one where the notion of equality is at least pushed for in almost all arenas, by at least a fair proportion of people, gay rights, civil rights, freedom of speech and religion etc.
I am in no way a fan of David Cameron, I'd actually quite to see how long it'd take me to get bored of punching him in the face, but he was elected to the position by a fair and democratic process, he wasn't born into it.
This kid will never do anything of merit yet be praised for everything. He will be better than your children, your children's children and so on.
His first report card from school will be marked as a better achievement than your daughter curing cancer or bringing peace in the Middle East.
And as I pointed out, they don't bring in that money, the estates, the crown jewels and everything else that goes along with the monarchy do.
There was a thing recently where Prince Philip got an award for the Duke of Edinburgh stuff. He said in the interview himself that he does nothing towards it and it just has his name on it. That's a decent charity that does good things with people working hard behind the scenes, yet he takes all the credit.
They cost us money, perpetuate an outdated notion of divine supremacy, contribute marginally and we are expected to cow to them.
Think of how many maternity wards' budgets have been strained by everything that has gone into this farce. Think of how many police officers were 'protecting' these 3 people, instead of doing anything towards police work, who have done nothing to deserve protection.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
How many working/middle class do you know who have been leader of the Conservative Party?
I would make an argument being born in to it is actually part of the reason he is where he is - note I said "part".
You do know that HRH has already made the uk £300 Million+
everything else you wrote after that was a load a BS in my opinion.
But it is one line, sure it's squigly - there are times when Monarchs have had no children so it's had to go backwards to some 3rd son of a King then start going down again but it's still a line and a direct blood relation.
But the line is not broken.
Nope, definitely James VI/I.
His grandfather was James V of Scotland and James V's mother was a daughter of Henry VII of England.
So sure maybe James V's father and his line comes from the Norman Invasion, so the link is instead through the mother.
But it's funny you should mention the Norman Invasion, because guess what? William the Conqueror was a descendant of Alfred the great too
Even if he wasn't the line of Harold, who William defeated, came back to the throne later on because his children survived and one of his great-great etc grandsons became King.
Like I said, it's a squigly line. Maybe what you think of as 'broken' is different to me.
Last edited:
Not everybody shares the kind of defeatist attitude required to run away to greener pastures the second society irks them.If you don't like it the airport is > way
Aah, pre judging children. Do you not like certain names as well?
Pretty sure I covered that mate, in the bit where I said that it wasn't them that made the money, it's the lands and palaces etc. that bring in the tourists.
Do you think the exiled kings and princes of France, wherever they might be are also responsible for the millions of tourists that visit the Palace of Versailles each year?
My point was that he wouldn't do anything of merit, my point was that he wouldn't have to yet we'd still act like he cured cancer with toothpaste and match sticks.
I judge people by their name, for I am Thor and everyone else is a puny human!
You do know that I don't post to have private conversations with you?.
You didn't post anything interesting or insightful enough me to bother gracing you with a reply to be totally honest.
But if I must..., I think it's even more pathetic to worship Royalty than say a god - because at least the people who believe in a deity think they are worshipping something greater or the creator of the universe.
Worshipping another human is significantly worse
Social progress tends to be slow.
Do you honestly think in 250 years from now we will still be so primitive to be following laughable ancient & dated concepts involving kings & queens?.
I seriously hope not.
Don't get me wrong, I don't expect it to change in my life-time - but support from the Monarchy is lower in the younger age groups (with support for a republic at closer to 30% in that group), the Royal Family isn't stupid - they know this, which is why we see the Royal's marketed like any good PR company would sell a product to the population.
Appeal to nationalism & patriotism to ensure public support for an institutionalised privilege & entitlement.
Last edited:
Not really sure if getting rid of the monarchy and stealing all their stuff is social progress. Pretty much any time the state has decided to take peoples stuff (for the People of course) it has tended to end badly.
You may have a point if the modern monarchy bore any resemblance to the monarchy of 250 years ago and if the monarchy of 250 years in the future will bear any resemblance to the monarchy of today. However as it is 250 years in to the future I will be long dead and really not care at all.
Their stuff?... (the hilarity of the suggestion).
At what stage does theft become ownership exactly (morally speaking)?.
Is theft from the people fine, but return that what was stolen wrong? - what a unique moral compass you must posses.
Personally I don't think I could deal with the cognitive dissonance required to pretend to support both equality & the monarchy - which is why I don't.
As society develops & matures it will drop such childish institutions, this I'm fairly confident of - but it will be long after I'm dead anyway - but I'd prefer to ensure the course for that result is maintained by promoting the idea of equality over one of lol... "Divine right to rule" ... ahahahahahahaha....
(sorry)
Last edited:
I am not really a huge fan of "sins of their fathers, fathers, fathers". Bit too biblical too me. Untangling how their ancestors came to own the land they own and which bits are legal, illegal, etc would be nigh on impossible. So as far as the legal framework of the UK goes, yes it is "Their stuff". Even if they stopped being the monarchy they would still be stupidly rich.
Not everyone agrees with you that it is a childish institution, to be honest so far most of the childishness is coming from the republicans...
Except of course (as I mentioned several hundred posts earlier or maybe in a different thread) the UK monarchy hasn't ruled by "Divine Right" for over 300 years. Surely you should be arguing against what the monarchy actually is rather than some easily debunked straw man?
I actually don't think any historical land grabs should be honoured personally (not just looking at the Royal Family, but they are a good example of one of the key players in historic land theft), but that's a different debate entirely & not one for this thread.
I'm not a capitalist & I don't agree with the standard capitalist concept of land ownership either, so it's hardly a position I'm going to agree with.
Serious question.
Do you honestly think that kings, queens, princesses & princes is an advanced developed & mature social concept?.
Thanks for pointing out the part where I said specifically that they rule now by divine right.
As I clearly stated that was the case & honestly thought that - thanks dude!
- (funny that you went for that straw-man after making the same accusation yourself) - nice try though.... On a more serious note, it's an institution who's power was historically entrenched in that concept & the role of head of state may as well be divine rule (as it's exclusively within the confines of a singular line of succession).
Last edited: