Why we (The United Kingdom), should continue to have a Royal Family.
428 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RBM11;29511781]I know they do all of those things but it doesn't change a damn thing. Everything you listed can also be done by elected heads of state but they actually have to work to get elected and aren't guaranteed state-supported privileges by simply [B]being born[/B].[/QUOTE]
Then where do you stop? Go to celebrities and other aristocracies around the WORLD. Remove their wealth because you don't like it.
You can't inherit your parent money because you where simply born into the family.
[QUOTE=amute;29511766]You have to be fucking retarded to think rich people having a fancy wedding is the same as segregating people. Stop posting, you're obviously braindead.[/QUOTE]
I was saying that because you said something being unfair isn't grounds to remove it. I don't literally believe they're on the same scale.
I would consider the country granting special privileges and wealth for life to a select group of people who were chosen by blood while others starve to be pretty fucking unfair but whatever.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=amute;29511810]Then where do you stop? Go to celebrities and other aristocracies around the WORLD. Remove their wealth because you don't like it.[/QUOTE]
Celebrities aren't guaranteed special legal status by simply being born. I didn't mention wealth in that post so try again.
[QUOTE=RBM11;29511851]I was saying that because you said something being unfair isn't grounds to remove it. I don't literally believe they're on the same scale.
I would consider the country granting special privileges and wealth for life to a select group of people who were chosen by blood while others starve to be pretty fucking unfair but whatever.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
Celebrities aren't guaranteed special legal status by simply being born. I didn't mention wealth in that post but try again.[/QUOTE]
Segregation isn't bad because it's unfair, it's bad because it infringes on human rights.
And stop bringing up that "while people starve" bullshit, there will always be poor people no matter what, getting rid of the monarchy will not solve that, in fact due to reduced tourism it would likely increase poverty
Its not just someone "lucky" who gets into power, their ancestors worked hard in order to pass their property down to their heirs, the same way you will if you have children, the same way your parents have given to you. It simply isnt fair to strip away all their land and power, you have to have in mind that someone a loooong time ago struggled to take control of the country, it was their perseverance which allowed their family tree to become what it is now. Royal.
it can be but in this case it isn't.
Then again, go after other aristocrats. There are plenty of people across the globe who had wealth, but they don't actually put it back into the economy. The Monarch saves the country money and generates social positivism.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29511715]Erm no, the royal family do a lot of diplomatic work and occasions such as the royal wedding do a lot fo good for Britain's foreign relations. The royal family also do a lot of charity work as well.
Also being a socialist does not mean you're a communist.[/QUOTE]
Social equality is one aspect of socialism so don't give me any of that.
[QUOTE=RBM11;29511906]Social equality is one aspect of socialism so don't give me any of that.[/QUOTE]
Socialism ensures the poor aren't poor. It doesn't ensure the rich are not rich. So actually learn your fucking terms.
[QUOTE=RBM11;29511906]Social equality is one aspect of socialism so don't give me any of that.[/QUOTE]
Communism tried to do that and guess what happened, rather than everyone being happy and equal, everyone just ended up being poor regardless.
BAWW THE QUEEN HAS POWER, AND LAND, AND MONEY BECAUSE SHE'S PART OF A BLOODLINE BAWW THATS SO DUMB BAWW.
Hurr, when your dad dies I'm having his car, fuck you, I want it it should be MINE!
[QUOTE=amute;29511893]it can be but in this case it isn't.
Then again, go after other aristocrats. There are plenty of people across the globe who had wealth, but they don't actually put it back into the economy. The Monarch saves the country money and generates social positivism.[/QUOTE]
It's not just about money what part of that do you get? When I said it's bullshit that someone gets state-sanctioned special privileges by virtue of genetics you'd think a rational person would connect that to all aristocracy that exists.
Just to be clear by aristocracy I mean belonging to a select group of people who are de jure bestowed special rights, privileges, money. De facto is bad as well but it isn't the same as it being legally sanctioned. By having it be a legal thing you send a huge message of unfairness to commoners. Wealthy "commoner" children are given special privileges throughout life but that's not legally sanctioned and is never guaranteed.
Let's bring up segregation again. While it's much worse relative to royalty it serves as a good comparison. I'm sure that you know that many parts of the United States were legally segregated until the Civil Rights movement of the mid-20th century. Once that was all banned it didn't go away. It stayed, but the government was no longer officially supporting it and many attempts have been made to remove it. Nowadays you will never hear about all white juries failing to convict whites murdering blacks, lynchers not being brought to trial, or people being denied the right to vote based on poll taxes or literacy tests unfairly focused on blacks.
My point? The situation looks and is in many ways much better if it isn't legally sanctioned like royalty is.
It also goes both ways. You are right, the situation isn't as bad as I'm saying it is and in practice the royals help out the country in many ways. It's just the fundamental principle of the matter that I don't agree with, that being that certain groups of people can be given a state-sanctioned higher status through birth.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=amute;29511925]Socialism ensures the poor aren't poor. It doesn't ensure the rich are not rich. So actually learn your fucking terms.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying they aren't allowed to be rich, I'm saying the state shouldn't literally hand them money and privileges just for simply being born which other people don't get. In any other country rich people aren't literally handed a life of luxury and wealth for belonging to a certain bloodline by the government de jure. In practice, they are, but that's for their money and not their bloodline and it certainly isn't legally sanctioned.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=W^X;29512148]BAWW THE QUEEN HAS POWER, AND LAND, AND MONEY BECAUSE SHE'S PART OF A BLOODLINE BAWW THATS SO DUMB BAWW.
Hurr, when your dad dies I'm having his car, fuck you, I want it it should be MINE![/QUOTE]
Way to completely miss the fucking point and put up a strawman for your first post. You're going to make a great addition to this site.
[QUOTE=RBM11;29512269]It's not just about money what part of that do you get? When I said it's bullshit that someone gets state-sanctioned special privileges by virtue of genetics you'd think a rational person would connect that to all aristocracy that exists.[/quote]
Their "Power" and "privileges" which you're GREATLY exaggerating are provided to them by the British government. They, through coronation, acquire their titles from the country itself. The country gives them these things willingly. The people support it. The Monarch is a social institution, and the majority of England agrees that the monarch should stay around. It is the countries decision to choose their social statuses.
[quote]Just to be clear by aristocracy I mean belonging to a select group of people who are de jure bestowed special rights, privileges, money. De facto is bad as well but it isn't the same as it being legally sanctioned. By having it be a legal thing you send a huge message of unfairness to commoners. Wealthy "commoner" children are given special privileges throughout life but that's not legally sanctioned and is never guaranteed.[/quote]
There's a big difference between a social class that does this and a head of state. This is one family. A family that has symbolic rule over the entire country, territories, commonwealths, etc.
and this is pending if the commoners DO view them as stepping over them. This is an institution, not a social class. There's a huge fucking difference.
[quote]Let's bring up segregation again. While it's much worse relative to royalty it serves as a good comparison.[/quote]
Uh, no it fucking isn't. Two different things. If you can't see the difference between a head of state and FUCKING SEGREGATION then I can't take you seriously.
[quote] I'm sure that you know that many parts of the United States were legally segregated until the Civil Rights movement of the mid-20th century. Once that was all banned it didn't go away. It stayed, but the government was no longer supporting it and many attempts have been made to remove it. Nowadays you will never hear about all white juries failing to convict whites murdering blacks, lynchers not being brought to trial, or people being denied the right to vote based on poll taxes or literacy tests unfairly focused on blacks.[/quote]
And your point is? Segregation is bad, good thing it's absolutely incomparable to a monarch.
[quote]My point? The situation looks and is in many ways much better if it isn't legally sanctioned like royalty is.[/quote]
How?
[quote]It also goes both ways. You are right, the situation isn't as bad as I'm saying it is and in practice the royals help out the country in many ways. It's just the fundamental principle of the matter that I don't agree with, that being that certain groups of people can be given a state-sanctioned higher status through birth.[/QUOTE]
They're a symbol, not a element of a social status. That's your problem. You don't live here, you don't know the opinions of the royalists and even Republicans and you obviously don't understand the public outlook of the monarch.
Common English folk are not all retarded like you suggest and just feel like shit because of the queen. This is just simply not the case.
Most people will go through their lives not giving an utter shit about the queen, and if they do, they like that she's there. What does she do SO badly besides take a few pence out of your pocket every year? You're acting like there's some sort of grand hatred and people look at the queen going SHE THINKS SHES BETTER THEN US? OH GOD I HATE LIFE.
Don't fucking admit you're exaggerating something while your argument is the only thing part of that exaggeration.
There's a part in The Hitchiker's Guide To Galaxy in which the narrator comments how some anti-time travel group said that if people traveled to the past they would spread their culture there, and then not only all the planets would look the same, but the past and the future also would.
The Royal family is part of a tradition, and since most people are losing theirs, in part it's good to have them.
The guy in the video also explained why tourism wouldn't be the same without them.
If we removed every part of our countries culture and traditions we'd have absolutely no national identity. It's nice to be able to differentiate one country from another by more than just name, and The Royal Family is one of those distinguishing features that The UK is lucky to have. I would hate to be part of a country that has no living history. They're the same as castles, old pubs, etc, in my eyes.
Millions of dollars towards schools? And millions of dollars for that old bitches childrens weddings.
All they're good for is tourism, and for some people "tradition".
[QUOTE=ElGrego;29512920]Millions of dollars towards schools? And millions of dollars for that old bitches childrens weddings.[/QUOTE]
And likely millions of POUNDS brought into the countries economy
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. N;29512977]All they're good for is tourism, and for some people "tradition".[/QUOTE]
If you think that you probably have no idea what you're talking about and shouldn't comment on it.
[QUOTE=amute;29512531]Their "Power" and "privileges" which you're GREATLY exaggerating are provided to them by the British government. They, through coronation, acquire their titles from the country itself. The country gives them these things willingly. The people support it. The Monarch is a social institution, and the majority of England agrees that the monarch should stay around. It is the countries decision to choose their social statuses.
There's a big difference between a social class that does this and a head of state. This is one family. A family that has symbolic rule over the entire country, territories, commonwealths, etc.
and this is pending if the commoners DO view them as stepping over them. This is an institution, not a social class. There's a huge fucking difference.
Uh, no it fucking isn't. Two different things. If you can't see the difference between a head of state and FUCKING SEGREGATION then I can't take you seriously.
And your point is? Segregation is bad, good thing it's absolutely incomparable to a monarch.
How?
They're a symbol, not a element of a social status. That's your problem. You don't live here, you don't know the opinions of the royalists and even Republicans and you obviously don't understand the public outlook of the monarch.
Common English folk are not all retarded like you suggest and just feel like shit because of the queen. This is just simply not the case.
Most people will go through their lives not giving an utter shit about the queen, and if they do, they like that she's there. What does she do SO badly besides take a few pence out of your pocket every year? You're acting like there's some sort of grand hatred and people look at the queen going SHE THINKS SHES BETTER THEN US? OH GOD I HATE LIFE.
Don't fucking admit you're exaggerating something while your argument is the only thing part of that exaggeration.[/QUOTE]
I'm basically just saying that I don't agree with the idea that a country can grant people a certain status and the resulting luxurious life because of their blood. Not once did I suggest that it is unprofitable, suggest that the people of the UK are unhappy with it, or that the royal family doesn't do any good. And elected heads of state have families too that also do shit. Ever heard of Eleanor Roosevelt, Ladybird Johnson, or Abigail Adams?
And they are symbols and not a social class but this symbol comes with a lot of power that other people don't have. They may mean different things to you but to me they symbolize privilege based on blood. This was basically supposed to be more of a philosophical, not literal, argument of merit vs. privilege because I literally have nothing better to do right now but I probably pushed it too far. Not once did I suggest you remove them from their position I'm just saying that it's fundamentally wrong for a country to award status based on blood. I said I was exaggerating because I was talking about the concept of royalty not the Windsors in particular.
Segregation was a strong example but it was the best thing I could think of to compare de facto, de jure, and how something changes and doesn't change when something stops being legally sanctioned. And the whole segregation thing began as a dumb joke because you said unfairness isn't a reason to get rid of something but I felt it became a good example for what I was trying to say since I already brought it up.
And you might wanna update your profile because you obviously don't live in Dublin if you use terms like "we" and "here"
I like the monarchy, lots of history, fair amount of power and fancy buildings. (I can forgive them for them having their wedding making me turn off the TV in anger)
+1 :smile: per military unit stationed in the city.
[QUOTE=amute;29512531]Their "Power" and "privileges" which you're GREATLY exaggerating are provided to them by the British government. They, through coronation, acquire their titles from the country itself. The country gives them these things willingly. The people support it. The Monarch is a social institution, and the majority of England agrees that the monarch should stay around. It is the countries decision to choose their social statuses.
There's a big difference between a social class that does this and a head of state. This is one family. A family that has symbolic rule over the entire country, territories, commonwealths, etc.
and this is pending if the commoners DO view them as stepping over them. This is an institution, not a social class. There's a huge fucking difference.
Uh, no it fucking isn't. Two different things. If you can't see the difference between a head of state and FUCKING SEGREGATION then I can't take you seriously.
And your point is? Segregation is bad, good thing it's absolutely incomparable to a monarch.
How?
They're a symbol, not a element of a social status. That's your problem. You don't live here, you don't know the opinions of the royalists and even Republicans and you obviously don't understand the public outlook of the monarch.
Common English folk are not all retarded like you suggest and just feel like shit because of the queen. This is just simply not the case.
Most people will go through their lives not giving an utter shit about the queen, and if they do, they like that she's there. What does she do SO badly besides take a few pence out of your pocket every year? You're acting like there's some sort of grand hatred and people look at the queen going SHE THINKS SHES BETTER THEN US? OH GOD I HATE LIFE.
Don't fucking admit you're exaggerating something while your argument is the only thing part of that exaggeration.[/QUOTE]
They're a symbol of the oppression and subjugation that your ancestors were held under.
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29513707]They're a symbol of the oppression and subjugation that your ancestors were held under.[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about Ireland, that would be Stanely Baldwin and his government.
If we didn't have a monarch, we would probably end up treating our flag and our country as one, since Prime Ministers don't tend to last as long as a monarch would- this is what a fair amount of the South of America does. Would you really want rednecks in the UK? They'd be like chavs, but fighting anyone who has anything negative to say about the country.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;29513914]If we didn't have a monarch, we would probably end up treating our flag and our country as one, since Prime Ministers don't tend to last as long as a monarch would- this is what a fair amount of the South of America does. Would you really want rednecks in the UK? They'd be like chavs, but fighting anyone who has anything negative to say about the country.[/QUOTE]
Since when could we be arsed to fight people?
[QUOTE=amute;29513823]If you're talking about Ireland, that would be Stanely Baldwin and his government.[/QUOTE]
The monarchy oppressed the English almost as much as it oppressed the Irish.
[QUOTE=Coffee;29494692]That goes against the ideas of democracy.[/QUOTE]
So does the BNP.
No, it's ok. Take my automerge. I didn't need it.
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29514012]The monarchy oppressed the English almost as much as it oppressed the Irish.[/QUOTE]
Many, many years ago.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
a holy shit long time ago.
[QUOTE=amute;29514050]Many, many years ago.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
a holy shit long time ago.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying you guys should murder the royal family, maybe hang them from that big clock of yours.
I'd be cool with having a Royal Family if it means I save $4 (2GBP) a year.
I'm a cheap person.
The Queen could turn your whole island into a one big jail system
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fi/thumb/8/87/405px-Johnny_English_movie.jpg/255px-405px-Johnny_English_movie.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29495881]Because the monarchy are given gross political power (in theory) purely through a bloodline. Political power should derive from a representative, general will (or something in that same vein), not some arbitrary who-fucked-who family politics bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah right. We need more rich multinational bosses to lead countries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.