Go Nick Clegg
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 11:57 AM)Sam Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 11:11 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  Why would you wanna get rid of the monarchy?

I defo agree with sorting out the House of Lords though.

Because they live a life of wealth and luxury at the taxpayer's expense, and don't exactly do anything beyond speeches and opening ceremonies.

We can't vote for someone else if we don't like the current head of state, and we as citizens are regarded as "subjects".

No ordinary person can become head of state, because they have to be of "royal blood". An idea that deems everyone else inferior. Therefore, how can they be representative of the nation?

Fuck that... Monarchies are a system several centuries out of date. Its at odds with a liberal democracy that values equality.

EDIT:

Not to mention being a relic of colonialism...

One could make a similar argument for America right now.
Not a Clinton or Bush or Kennedy or whatever else family? Opps, unlucky. Oh well, better luck next life.

The point is that life isn't equal. People are born rich or born poor, born into families with power or born as Indian untouchables.
The argument against the royals that "they were born into it, thus let's get rid of them" is ridiculous because that applies to all aspects of life.
You'd need to live in a true communism country to achieve everyone being equal which is fucking awful (communism is fucking awful is what I'm saying).

How is the royals being born into that family any different to you being born into your family with regard to some poor African? Why should you live in a cushy western country while the majority of the world lives in poverty? Are you giving up all your possessions and giving them to Africa? Nope. You're a hypocrite.

Also, the royal family brings in tourism (America loves them some royals) and the members of the family do service to the country. ie: Those ceremonies and shit that you mentioned, yeah they do it so the PM doesn't have to to so he can continue to the run the country. The Prince's also served in the military.

Also, Kate isn't of royal blood so fuck you.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
25-04-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(24-04-2014 07:10 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  The UK's deputy Prime Minister has said that he thinks that the Queen should be removed as the head of The Church of England. Apparently he thinks that Church and State should be separate.

Wow, I never thought I'd feel positive about Nick Clegg.

On a side note, I love how the Guardian's report on it says about how the monarch has been head of the CoE since the 1500s and hold the title "Defender of the Faith". That may all be true but they neglected to mention that Henry VIII was granted that title by the Pope when he was a staunch Catholic and got it for attacking Protestantism. It doesn't hold as much sway on promoting the links between the UK Government and the CoE when you add that the title is a Catholic one bestowed for attacking denominations that broke away from the Vatican, just like the CoE.

Can I ask, does the queen actually have that much support still? Or are people moving closer to abolishing the monarchy?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 05:34 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 05:12 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 11:57 AM)Sam Wrote:  Because they live a life of wealth and luxury at the taxpayer's expense, and don't exactly do anything beyond speeches and opening ceremonies.

We can't vote for someone else if we don't like the current head of state, and we as citizens are regarded as "subjects".

No ordinary person can become head of state, because they have to be of "royal blood". An idea that deems everyone else inferior. Therefore, how can they be representative of the nation?

Fuck that... Monarchies are a system several centuries out of date. Its at odds with a liberal democracy that values equality.

EDIT:

Not to mention being a relic of colonialism...

One could make a similar argument for America right now.
Not a Clinton or Bush or Kennedy or whatever else family? Opps, unlucky. Oh well, better luck next life.

The point is that life isn't equal. People are born rich or born poor, born into families with power or born as Indian untouchables.
The argument against the royals that "they were born into it, thus let's get rid of them" is ridiculous because that applies to all aspects of life.
You'd need to live in a true communism country to achieve everyone being equal which is fucking awful (communism is fucking awful is what I'm saying).

How is the royals being born into that family any different to you being born into your family with regard to some poor African? Why should you live in a cushy western country while the majority of the world lives in poverty? Are you giving up all your possessions and giving them to Africa? Nope. You're a hypocrite.

Also, the royal family brings in tourism (America loves them some royals) and the members of the family do service to the country. ie: Those ceremonies and shit that you mentioned, yeah they do it so the PM doesn't have to to so he can continue to the run the country. The Prince's also served in the military.

Also, Kate isn't of royal blood so fuck you.

Oh muffs, you're rabid defence of the royals is hilarious, especial since it's you.

The problem with the birth rights aspect that its pure, archaic, religiously fuelled blood rights bringing people into perceived power. It's a bit of a difference between me being born here and not in Africa, especially since I am not born into a position which, by definition, asserts superiority over others. I lead a better life than most in the world, but that doesn't mean by virtue of my birth I am bound to be such a way for ever nor does it mean that by virtue of my lucky happen-stance birth do I presume or place myself myself above them; I could just as easily be out of my arse with no more than a cardboard box and be essentially their equivalent if I'm unfortunate, but last I checked the likelihood of a homeless, moneyless royal is nil.

Also; does the royal family really bring in tourism? Or is the all the reliquaries we call palaces which brings the tourists? My bet is on the latter.

I know it'll come up so: I will concede that there existence does allow the PM's of their various vicarious domains to do their jobs without having to deal with ceremony but I have asked it before and will continue to do so: Why can't we just prop up a random homeless person to do the ceremonial crap so the real leaders can get on with their work? What can the Royals or their GG reps do that a random person off the street can't exactly?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
25-04-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
I gotta say I think muffs is right.

People saying that it's unfair that they are born into a life of wealth make me laugh, it's completely irrelevant. As muffs has pointed out people aren't born equal, period. Like it or not we all have cushier lives than many others because of who we were born to. Also, people who claim this kinda sound bitter. It comes across as them saying "it's not fair that they have what I don't".

Muffs is also right about tourism. I suspect the Royals generate far more through tourism than it costs to keep them.

Finally, they are about the only thing left that gives the UK any significance on the world stage. Most people beyond the UK probably don't even know who the Prime Minister is, they certainly never generate anything like the respect the Queen does.

I'm a fan of the royals and think we should keep them.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
25-04-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 05:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Can I ask, does the queen actually have that much support still? Or are people moving closer to abolishing the monarchy?

I'd be surprised if we ever abolished the monarchy. I've never heard anyone with any clout advocate it.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 05:59 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 05:50 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Muffs is also right about tourism. I suspect the Royals generate far more through tourism than it costs to keep them.

Finally, they are about the only thing left that gives the UK any significance on the world stage. Most people beyond the UK probably don't even know who the Prime Minister is, they certainly never generate anything like the respect the Queen does.

I'm a fan of the royals and think we should keep them.

I maintain my question: is it the royals generating the tourism or the palaces and shit doing it?

I also question your thinking Re. the royals being all that is giving the UK significance on the world stage: How exactly is a powerless relic-family keeping the UK recognised as a Great power?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 05:51 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 05:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Can I ask, does the queen actually have that much support still? Or are people moving closer to abolishing the monarchy?

I'd be surprised if we ever abolished the monarchy. I've never heard anyone with any clout advocate it.

Didn't they cut off financial support to some of the "royal" extended family? I've got a few British friends, all seem to like the queen, other members of her family, not quite as much. I'll admit it's a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine...staying up to all hours to watch the wedding or more sadly funeral.

One thing I do agree the tourism factor must be huge.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 06:18 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 05:59 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 05:50 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Muffs is also right about tourism. I suspect the Royals generate far more through tourism than it costs to keep them.

Finally, they are about the only thing left that gives the UK any significance on the world stage. Most people beyond the UK probably don't even know who the Prime Minister is, they certainly never generate anything like the respect the Queen does.

I'm a fan of the royals and think we should keep them.

I maintain my question: is it the royals generating the tourism or the palaces and shit doing it?

That is a fair point, when I was in London, I didn't go to see the queen, but I did see Buckinham palace.

If I ever get to Vatican city, it won't be to see the pope, but I would love to see the Sistine chapel.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 05:59 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 05:50 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Muffs is also right about tourism. I suspect the Royals generate far more through tourism than it costs to keep them.

Finally, they are about the only thing left that gives the UK any significance on the world stage. Most people beyond the UK probably don't even know who the Prime Minister is, they certainly never generate anything like the respect the Queen does.

I'm a fan of the royals and think we should keep them.

I maintain my question: is it the royals generating the tourism or the palaces and shit doing it?

I also question your thinking Re. the royals being all that is giving the UK significance on the world stage: How exactly is a powerless relic-family keeping the UK recognised as a Great power?

It's the combination of palaces and the fact that real life Queens, Kings, Prince's and Princesses live in them.

It's not just the palaces either. People show up if the Queen or William or whoever is gonna be there. There's royal family merchandise etc...
It's a shit load more than taking a photo with the guards outside Buckingham Palace.

Quote:The problem with the birth rights aspect that its pure, archaic, religiously fuelled blood rights bringing people into perceived power. It's a bit of a difference between me being born here and not in Africa, especially since I am not born into a position which, by definition, asserts superiority over others. I lead a better life than most in the world, but that doesn't mean by virtue of my birth I am bound to be such a way for ever nor does it mean that by virtue of my lucky happen-stance birth do I presume or place myself myself above them; I could just as easily be out of my arse with no more than a cardboard box and be essentially their equivalent if I'm unfortunate, but last I checked the likelihood of a homeless, moneyless royal is nil.

No it's not, it's exactly the same.
You're being a hypocrite and you're trying to justify it.

Also, you say that you don't perceive yourself as above them. You assume, most likely wrongfully, that the Royals perceive themselves as above the regular Joe. Which is "royalism" (for lack of better word to describe it).

The simple truth is that it's jealousy and ignorance.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 08:16 PM
RE: Go Nick Clegg
(25-04-2014 07:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 05:59 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  I maintain my question: is it the royals generating the tourism or the palaces and shit doing it?

I also question your thinking Re. the royals being all that is giving the UK significance on the world stage: How exactly is a powerless relic-family keeping the UK recognised as a Great power?

It's the combination of palaces and the fact that real life Queens, Kings, Prince's and Princesses live in them.

It's not just the palaces either. People show up if the Queen or William or whoever is gonna be there. There's royal family merchandise etc...
It's a shit load more than taking a photo with the guards outside Buckingham Palace.

Quote:The problem with the birth rights aspect that its pure, archaic, religiously fuelled blood rights bringing people into perceived power. It's a bit of a difference between me being born here and not in Africa, especially since I am not born into a position which, by definition, asserts superiority over others. I lead a better life than most in the world, but that doesn't mean by virtue of my birth I am bound to be such a way for ever nor does it mean that by virtue of my lucky happen-stance birth do I presume or place myself myself above them; I could just as easily be out of my arse with no more than a cardboard box and be essentially their equivalent if I'm unfortunate, but last I checked the likelihood of a homeless, moneyless royal is nil.

No it's not, it's exactly the same.
You're being a hypocrite and you're trying to justify it.

Also, you say that you don't perceive yourself as above them. You assume, most likely wrongfully, that the Royals perceive themselves as above the regular Joe. Which is "royalism" (for lack of better word to describe it).

The simple truth is that it's jealousy and ignorance.

So, because I think that royals, which are only 'significant' due to blood-right based perceived superiority (yes, that is the basis of royalty at least in the inherited form) and disagree that they are special, I am automatically jealous of them?
Sorry, but I'm not jealous of practically powerless relics. Annoyed at their being lauded over despite doing very little worth pandering them about; I admit yes, it annoys me that they are constantly being pandered to as if they are still important, same goes for celebrities and their ilk. It annoys because I do not understand the phenomenon.
But jealous of them for such; not on your life. Jealousy would imply that I want what they have, which couldn't be further from the truth; I would hate to be perpetually in the spot light, especially if my fame isn't my own doing.

What gets me isn't envy of them at all, rather confusion as to how they are treated; why exactly are they treated with reverence? Emphasis on 'why' and 'are', as opposed to 'they', the individuals are pretty much irrelevant. Simply being born into it doesn't cut it as an answer for me.

Perhaps you or Hughsie can explain why, exactly they are so treated?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: