• Royalty - Still needed? This is the 21st century.
    113 replies, posted
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35586527]Don't forget a lot of the charity and diplomatic work they do.[/QUOTE] We already have people doing work in charities, instead of being the patron head. We also have people doing diplomatic work, they are called diplomats.
Obviously Royalty are not needed and if you were setting up a new government you would choose a Republic, but what is the point in being a Jacobin and demanding that all current Monarchs step down? Figurehead is an understatement for how little power they have, the cost to taxpayers is miniscule when looking at the rest of the budget, and the Tourism, Patriotism and general image of the country generated by a Monarch are worth the small cost. You could set up a massive advertising campaign, or you could just wheel the Monarch out a few times and do the exact same job.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35586527]Don't forget a lot of the charity and diplomatic work they do.[/QUOTE] Having prince phillip as a diplomat was a terrible idea.
[QUOTE=Savyetski79;35586367]How is Receiving Grievous bodily harm on behalf of someone else not note worthy. I guess its pretty easy to take someone elses life for granted when you've never served and spend your life behind a keyboard.[/QUOTE] They are not doing it "on my behalf"; I never asked them to, and I don't think they should. They chose to do it off their own accord, and so to expect me to thank them is simply absurd. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;35586527]Don't forget a lot of the charity and diplomatic work they do.[/QUOTE] Once again, they don't actually [i]do[/i] the charity work, but simply promote it, so to give them the credit is a huge insult to those who are actually doing the work. As for the diplomatic work, don't be so naive. They're there to show off, and nothing more.
I find the idea of the monarchy detestable on multiple grounds. Not limited to but including: 1. Our monarchy (UK) represents a blur between Church and State. Even if the connection is just titular, the fact that we haven't chosen to remove it is an embarrassment. The monarch must still be a Protestant. 2. The monarchy has its roots in the concept of "the divine right of kings". I think that all people are born equal, and the preservation of our royal family is in direct contradiction of this. 3. The fact that they carry out "diplomatic" work is irrelevent; a president could do a better job, having been chosen based on their merits rather than accident of birth.
[QUOTE=Patriarch;35595749]They are not doing it "on my behalf"; I never asked them to, and I don't think they should. They chose to do it off their own accord, and so to expect me to thank them is simply absurd. Once again, they don't actually [i]do[/i] the charity work, but simply promote it, so to give them the credit is a huge insult to those who are actually doing the work. As for the diplomatic work, don't be so naive. They're there to show off, and nothing more.[/QUOTE] However they do still benefit the charities, so what's the problem?
[QUOTE=SataniX;35598113]However they do still benefit the charities, so what's the problem?[/QUOTE] That's hardly enough to justify their position.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;35585966]but i'm against the royal family..[/QUOTE] I know, I was quoting that post for the video, backing my argument.
[QUOTE=SataniX;35598113]However they do still benefit the charities, so what's the problem?[/QUOTE] Not really. Sometimes they are hypocritical. Mrs Elizabeth is the patron head of the RSPCA, yet supports fox hunting. This is like having a child molester being the head an organisation to prevent cruelty to children. Furthermore, the royal family more or less claims it has the right to rule because the Norse god Woden let them. They are also apparently descended from him. I find this doubtful. Luckily the monarchy of Britain is composed mostly of thick people, who actually realise they are too thick to rule. This doesn't stop Mr Charles from expressing his worthless views, such as his support for bullshit alternative medicine like homeopathy. We have had a variety of useless tossers. Mr Edward 7th spent most of his time fornicating and using a frolitia chair. Meanwhile we had Comrade George 6th who was completely fucking useless at public speaking.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35605540]Not really. Sometimes they are hypocritical. Mrs Elizabeth is the patron head of the RSPCA, yet supports fox hunting. This is like having a child molester being the head an organisation to prevent cruelty to children.[/QUOTE] If foxes are a pest then surely even the RSPCA could respect that? RSPCA Australia doesn't get bothered by the killing of pests that much, as long as it is done humanely. Refer to [url]http://kb.rspca.org.au/75/[/url]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35605573]If foxes are a pest then surely even the RSPCA could respect that? RSPCA Australia doesn't get bothered by the killing of pests that much, as long as it is done humanely. Refer to [url]http://kb.rspca.org.au/75/[/url][/QUOTE] Well I can see why they would want to get rid of pests. I question why a collection of men on horseback set some dogs on the fox and follow it around till the thing gets exhausted and then torn to shreds by some dogs. That sounds quite humane.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35605598]Well I can see why they would want to get rid of pests. I question why a collection of men on horseback set some dogs on the fox and follow it around till the thing gets exhausted and then torn to shreds by some dogs. That sounds quite humane.[/QUOTE] What is this? I've never heard of fox hunting being done like this. Are you just grasping at straws or is this practice still as common as you make it out to be to this day?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35605616]What is this? I've never heard of fox hunting being done like this. Are you just grasping at straws or is this practice still as common as you make it out to be to this day?[/QUOTE] That is how the British upper class traditionally practice fox hunting if I am not mistaken.
wow great arguments. You either love democracy or you will. Anyone with different NORMAL views is trolling. Very well. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - Read the rules sticky." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35605648]That is how the British upper class traditionally practice fox hunting if I am not mistaken.[/QUOTE] Catch me if I'm wrong but... Didn't the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_Act_2004]Hunting Act of 2004[/url] block the usage of dogs in hunting?
The Monarchy has always existed in this country, just because some people are absurdly jealous of them doesn't mean they should be gotten rid of. And its not like they sit on their arses every day. In Britain our monarchy go out to visit other countries in the commonwealth to strengthen diplomatic relations often.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;35514273]fairies and goblins aren't a "thing of the past", they just dont exist period but anyway, the monarchy in Britain brings in HUGE amounts of money for the government, both directly and indirectly. there's no real reason to get rid of it just because "it feels old"[/QUOTE] Implying that goblins and fairies don't exist. It doesn't really matter if there are still monarchies. It is my understanding that most monarchies run at a reduced power level, parallel to elected governments. The real threats are dictatorships which are just modern day versions of barbaric god kings on Earth.
don't care, tbh, as long as idiots aren't running countries.
Only royalty I support: Belgium. The country would probably fall apart were it not for the monarchy, its the only thing keeping it together. Other than that, rich people buying expensive cars for themselves using taxpayer's money is quite definitely not needed. People should be able to choose their leaders, and nobody should inherit power. Reasoning that you can inherit the ability to be an effective ruler is about as dumb as believing you are born a musical god because your father was a rock-star.
Out of all the monarchies to whine about, you picked England? Really? Other than the royalty's social influence, they don't really have any official power other than things like knighting people. Does it really matter?
I don't really mind the monarchy of England, as long as they keep bringing cash and tourists in, I'm fine with it. But I do feel they don't do very much.
From a foreigner POV and reading both sides, I'm really not seeing any convincing argument from the anti-monarchy side other than semantics while ignoring the practical benefits. this is towards the UK monarchy only tho.
[QUOTE=Chaplin;35705893] Other than that, rich people buying expensive cars for themselves using taxpayer's money is quite definitely not needed. People should be able to choose their leaders, and nobody should inherit power. Reasoning that you can inherit the ability to be an effective ruler is about as dumb as believing you are born a musical god because your father was a rock-star.[/QUOTE] Dutch Monarchy in a nutshell. They recently bought a nice house in Africa, Greece and who knows where more with the money of the Taxpayer. And they won't even knight people anymore.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;35643376]Catch me if I'm wrong but... Didn't the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_Act_2004]Hunting Act of 2004[/url] block the usage of dogs in hunting?[/QUOTE] A lot of fox hunters thought the ban was silly and they probably just carry on as normal anyway. It's still stupid, foxes are not pests.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.