Poll: What should we do with the Queen?
This poll is closed.
Keep Royal Family 64.29% 9 64.29%
Replace with politician 35.71% 5 35.71%
Total 14 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
Ya gotta keep the Duke of Earl.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
Who would care to go see Buckingham Palace if it wasn't the the official sovereign residence? Practically nobody in a decade if they stopped being Royal today. There's plenty better sights to actually see if you wanted to get marvelous building architecture or history sights across England.

Hell, most people visiting Washington DC don't visit the Thomas Jefferson memorial like they visit the others because it's slightly 10 minutes away from the range of where the other things are. Iconic places draw the people and their money to buy Mickey Mouse hats or whatever.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 10:53 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 05:54 AM)Caveman Wrote:  So I'd say: seize their property, give them a couple of tiny abandoned houses with farmland and forget about them.

Are you suggesting this be a moral, reciprocal law that applies to everyone (the government seize EVERYBODY's property)? Or you want the government to let you keep YOUR property and only seize SOMEONE ELSE's property?

As far as the public just picking people they don't like and confiscating their property, that's just mob rule. Lest you reply that the royal family's ancestors originally got that land through oppressing others, that's a valid point there. BUT, my guess is that most Brits have inherited property that at some point in history was obtained through oppression. So, again, if the law is going to be moral, fair and reciprocal, you'd need to confiscate EVERYBODY's property that was inherited and not earned.

I too despise the elitist class hierarchy. But, be pragmatic. You don't want to return to the medieval days where the laws you were subject to depended on what class you were born into. It's not fair that someone who was born into a family of servants, through no fault of his own, should have special restrictions applied. Yet, you're doing the same thing, only in reverse. You're saying that if you're born into a royal family, something you again had no control over, there should be special restrictions, such as preventing you from inheriting property.

I believe that all men are created equal, and thus should be equal under the eyes of the law, with no special state privileges for anyone. So I agree that unilaterally removing all titles and special inherited powers from everyone, including the royals, is good and fair, and that the relation between the Queen and State should purely be a financial one. If the State wants the revenue from her land, and in return agrees to pay her expenses, then this is a voluntary contract between consenting adults. If you don't like it, let her keep her land and do with it what she likes.

But going in and saying "I think you're an elitist snob so I'm going to take your home at gunpoint", that's just reactionary thuggery driven by jealousy, imo.

Jealousy? No. I don't want what they have.
I'm just disgusted with the fact that they pretend to be superior to us through noble blood and birthright.
Never needing to work a day in their life, while others go bankrupt over medical bills or an economic crisis.
So I'm taking the soviet plan and making it more humane.
Give them what they need to live a normal life. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hell, even if that did happen they'd probably get giant cashoffers for exclusive interviews and realityshows, so they'd end up living like Kardashians

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
I say, keep 'em until 2066... 1000 years is a good cut off point.

No one will ever convince me that an Englishman can be Prince of Wales... Owain Glyndwr was the last one.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 04:34 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  With Scotland trying to declare independance (with them completely forgetting the british RF are technically Scottish heritage more or less since the hanover dynasty stem from the Stuarts) I feel the importance of a head of state is a question to be raised.

I don't think so - the RF is German, not Scottish. The Hanovers succeeded the Stuarts, they don't stem from them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 05:03 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 03:34 PM)Caveman Wrote:  I'm just disgusted with the fact that they pretend to be superior to us through noble blood and birthright.
Never needing to work a day in their life, while others go bankrupt over medical bills or an economic crisis.
So I'm taking the soviet plan and making it more humane.
Give them what they need to live a normal life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Serious question... Are you proposing the soviet plan apply to everyone equally, where the government takes everything that everybody has, and gives back to the people what they need to live a normal life?

Or, are you proposing that this new plan ONLY apply to people with royal heritage, so they're treated differently under the law than ordinary people?

If you're proposing the latter, than you're no different than the they are, calling for 2 sets of laws with 2 standards for people depending on whether they're born royal or commoner. The only difference is you want the laws to favor commoners and they want them to favor royals, but either way, you're both in agreement that all men are not equal in the eyes of the law and the state should treat royals should different from non-royals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 03:34 PM)Caveman Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 10:53 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Are you suggesting this be a moral, reciprocal law that applies to everyone (the government seize EVERYBODY's property)? Or you want the government to let you keep YOUR property and only seize SOMEONE ELSE's property?

As far as the public just picking people they don't like and confiscating their property, that's just mob rule. Lest you reply that the royal family's ancestors originally got that land through oppressing others, that's a valid point there. BUT, my guess is that most Brits have inherited property that at some point in history was obtained through oppression. So, again, if the law is going to be moral, fair and reciprocal, you'd need to confiscate EVERYBODY's property that was inherited and not earned.

I too despise the elitist class hierarchy. But, be pragmatic. You don't want to return to the medieval days where the laws you were subject to depended on what class you were born into. It's not fair that someone who was born into a family of servants, through no fault of his own, should have special restrictions applied. Yet, you're doing the same thing, only in reverse. You're saying that if you're born into a royal family, something you again had no control over, there should be special restrictions, such as preventing you from inheriting property.

I believe that all men are created equal, and thus should be equal under the eyes of the law, with no special state privileges for anyone. So I agree that unilaterally removing all titles and special inherited powers from everyone, including the royals, is good and fair, and that the relation between the Queen and State should purely be a financial one. If the State wants the revenue from her land, and in return agrees to pay her expenses, then this is a voluntary contract between consenting adults. If you don't like it, let her keep her land and do with it what she likes.

But going in and saying "I think you're an elitist snob so I'm going to take your home at gunpoint", that's just reactionary thuggery driven by jealousy, imo.

Jealousy? No. I don't want what they have.
I'm just disgusted with the fact that they pretend to be superior to us through noble blood and birthright.
Never needing to work a day in their life, while others go bankrupt over medical bills or an economic crisis.
So I'm taking the soviet plan and making it more humane.
Give them what they need to live a normal life. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hell, even if that did happen they'd probably get giant cashoffers for exclusive interviews and realityshows, so they'd end up living like Kardashians


Being the Queen is a full time job. Meeting people, greeting people, doing official business, going to every event ever etc..
This might not seem like a job to some but it certainly is. You shake hands with people for 8 hours a day and see how you like it.

And I don't believe the Queen considers herself better than everyone. She seems like a very down to earth nice old lady who would gladly shake your hand.
She's dedicated her whole life to the Job... At least CEO's and Politicians can retire and play golf all day.
What if she wanted to be a dancer or something? Opps sorry, you gotta be the official figurehead for an entire empire (or fading one at that).


It's not these people's fault that they were born into the family they were, but don't just automatically assume they think they're better than us. You haven't met them.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
27-11-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 05:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 03:34 PM)Caveman Wrote:  I'm just disgusted with the fact that they pretend to be superior to us through noble blood and birthright.
Never needing to work a day in their life, while others go bankrupt over medical bills or an economic crisis.
So I'm taking the soviet plan and making it more humane.
Give them what they need to live a normal life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Serious question... Are you proposing the soviet plan apply to everyone equally, where the government takes everything that everybody has, and gives back to the people what they need to live a normal life?

Or, are you proposing that this new plan ONLY apply to people with royal heritage, so they're treated differently under the law than ordinary people?

If you're proposing the latter, than you're no different than the they are, calling for 2 sets of laws with 2 standards for people depending on whether they're born royal or commoner. The only difference is you want the laws to favor commoners and they want them to favor royals, but either way, you're both in agreement that all men are not equal in the eyes of the law and the state should treat royals should different from non-royals.

Are you suggesting we keep treating as superior to everyone else?
Yes, this 'class' of people should be removed from the face of the earth, I'm just giving a humane option.
The result will be that everyone can be treated equally.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 06:38 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 03:34 PM)Caveman Wrote:  Jealousy? No. I don't want what they have.
I'm just disgusted with the fact that they pretend to be superior to us through noble blood and birthright.
Never needing to work a day in their life, while others go bankrupt over medical bills or an economic crisis.
So I'm taking the soviet plan and making it more humane.
Give them what they need to live a normal life. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hell, even if that did happen they'd probably get giant cashoffers for exclusive interviews and realityshows, so they'd end up living like Kardashians


Being the Queen is a full time job. Meeting people, greeting people, doing official business, going to every event ever etc..
This might not seem like a job to some but it certainly is. You shake hands with people for 8 hours a day and see how you like it.

And I don't believe the Queen considers herself better than everyone. She seems like a very down to earth nice old lady who would gladly shake your hand.
She's dedicated her whole life to the Job... At least CEO's and Politicians can retire and play golf all day.
What if she wanted to be a dancer or something? Opps sorry, you gotta be the official figurehead for an entire empire (or fading one at that).


It's not these people's fault that they were born into the family they were, but don't just automatically assume they think they're better than us. You haven't met them.

You say fulltime job and proceed listing: meeting people, saying hi and going to parties.

She can retire whenever she wants, happened before, but wasn't too great for image, started people thinking, which is terrible in a monarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII...ion_crisis
Plus: she is known as an ice-hearted bitch, the entire reason Diana divorced Charles and died.

No, I haven't met them, I'm but a mere pauper. And they can't help it, sure they can: they can abdicate.

But power corrupts.
Compromis: do what Bill Gates did and pledge to give everything away when you die.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2013 07:53 PM by frankksj.)
RE: British Royal Family Keep or Replace?
(27-11-2013 03:34 PM)Caveman Wrote:  I'm just disgusted with the fact that they pretend to be superior to us through noble blood and birthright.

(27-11-2013 06:38 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's not these people's fault that they were born into the family they were, but don't just automatically assume they think they're better than us. You haven't met them.

Caveman, when did they ever pretend to be superior? Are you sure it's something THEY did and not your own insecurities or jealousies projecting that on them?

I never met any of the British royals. But back when I lived in Switzerland I was friends with a prince, Egon von Fürstenberg, and we used to stay at his family's place in Strobl for the Salzburg Music Festival, and there were lots of (not famous) royals that I'd never heard of staying there too. I knew some of the guests included the royal families of Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and a bunch of Hapsburgs. But the only “prep” my friend gave was “When you're hanging out, don't ask what people they do for work because many of them feel awkward talking about it and don't want to come off aristocratic.” So, to this day, I have no idea which of the guests were the royals. Everybody went by their first names, and I never heard anybody use a title, talk about their position, or anything. The only one I ever even knew was a princess was Nori, from Japan, and that's only because she was the only Asian there. She was an ornithologist (like a veterinarian for birds), just a nice sweet animal-lover, and she soon after gave up her title and royal allowance to start a family with a civil engineer. They were just normal people, hanging out and chatting about travel, news, normal stuff.

I'm a software engineer and occasionally meet Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, who I can safely say are 100x more pretentious and act a lot more elitist showing off and talking about their accomplishments. Egon's family owned Fiat, Ferrari, Agip, Pirelli, and accounts for 10% of Italy's gdp. He drove a shitty 10 year old Opel, and even though he had a fashion house, he shopped at H&M. He was a kind, generous, down to earth person, with the same feelings and emotions as anybody else. So it bugs me when people write that because of his bloodline, something he has absolutely no control over, he needs to be singled out for harsh treatment. If a billionaire prince can treat someone like me, born into a poor family in a trailer park, as his equal, who the fuck are we to treat them like second class citizens that don't deserve the same rights and legal protections as everybody else.

Even with the British royal family who are so much more high profile, they all drive, even the queen, and seem to travel fairly ordinarily. They don't shut down the roads when they drive through town, and seem to prefer not drawing attention to themselves. Now, compare that to America's “King” Obama. He travels with an entourage of several hundred, flies in a caravan of 747's, and wherever he goes, he shuts down the airports and roads, forcing all us “commoners” to sit in traffic and wait for his motorcade. And he costs us taxpayers an estimated $1.4 BILLION a year, making the British royal's family cost of £40 million seem like peanuts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: