BRITISH ROYALS?
- Started
- Last post
- 45 Responses
- duhsign
Why do the Brits still have them?
Over here we make our royals work by starring in movies and touring the nation singing. At least put those lazy a$$'s to work!
- mikotondria30
We fucked up our revolution by having it too early and not really knowing the rules.
- set0
Right then.
- Continuity0
Huh?
- boobs0
They still have them because nobody ever bothered to get rid of them. Over the years they had given up so much power, it was really worth the troublem
And they were so freaky, they turned into a tourist attraction. And Bob's your uncle!
- set0
They still have power. The Queen is head freemason and the only female.
- she's not "Western Star" ??vaxorcist
- No she's not -no such thing as a women freemason mate. The princes are though.WeLoveNoise
- incorrect, apparently...set
- Jaline0
Who cares?
Canada still has a Queen, but it's a nice part of the culture. Really doesn't have a huge impact on the important aspects of life.
- wow are you naive. Who do you think appoints the prime minister of canada? Who appoints the royals?VikingKingEleven
- And who cares? *FacepalmVikingKingEleven
- Yes, I'm the naive one:
http://en.wikipedia.…Jaline - There are a huge amount of people who complain too much about the Queen. They'll watch the wedding, I'm sure.Jaline
- I don't think the monarchy has any role to play anymore, and wish it would be got rid of. And no, I won't watch the wedding, I couldn't give a toss.Continuity
- I should clarify I was speaking more about Canada's relationship to the Queen. I'll let the Brits speak about theirJaline
- ... couldn't give a toss.Continuity
- own experience regarding the closer relationship they have to the royal family.Jaline
- Continuity0
@Viking:
The queen of England doesn't appoint Canada's PM. He or she is always the leader of the winning party in national elections.
The Queen is represented in Commonwealth countries by the Governer-General (or however else they may be called locally), and have no powers, they're simply figureheads.
- Continuity0
@Viking:
The queen of England doesn't appoint Canada's PM. He or she is always the leader of the winning party in national elections.
The Queen is represented in Commonwealth countries by the Governer-General (or however else they may be called locally), and have no powers, they're simply figureheads.
- CALLES0
GOOD! glad you started this thread cuz i wanted to start one. i know that brits love the "dumb american" thing... but royals??? really?!?!?! com'on dudes thats beyond anything
btw i ain't yankee
- aanderton0
I was under the intention that having the royal family and everything associated around it brings in more money through tourism than it costs anyway??
I might be wrong though.
- tgqt0
the king of thailand still possesses absolute power and is revered by the people.
- Continuity0
If Canada insists on spending money each year on maintaining ties to the British monarchy, then Canadians ought to be granted to live and work in the UK.
- *granted the rightContinuity
- we can live and work there for 1 year without a visa
Julesvm - Only if you're under a certain age.Continuity
- Best of luck finding a job.Eighty
- zenmasterfoo0
I wonder if arguments to remove monarchies in general come from the ideology that removing those in higher income status, including royals would "equalize" the class structures of many nations, bringing people closer to each other and lessening hardship on the masses.
It never really works out that way, does it? I can see the argument for ruling classes having power because of money or influence (usually one and the same). But the more you discuss bringing those in power into account by eliminating them, you end up closer and closer to socialism/communism/marxism and all other isms of that ilk.
The end result for that saga is powerful elites controlling large swaths of the population and convincing them for short periods that the only realistic way to govern is by everyone being "equal". Reality/history shows that not to be the case.
I'm not making an argument for maintaining status quo. Just wondering out loud. Plenty of monarchies have been ruthless and lost dominance over their lands as a result of that detachment from the original ideologies. That seems like a natural selection rule for me. The strong became weak by empowering the weak with strong alternatives.
Although one of the richest women in the world, the British Queen has been a steadfast anchor for her peoples through many hard times. Good can be said of many royal families. Good can be said of Bill Gates and his wife Melinda, who through their foundation dole out countless millions in foreign aid where governments fail to act. If you act upon one, you have to - as a matter of hypocrisy - act upon all, correct?
Just wondering out loud.
- oooh really,
where you there? or are you reashing what the BBC told you?GeorgesII - not at all. just talking out loud man.zenmasterfoo
- oooh really,
- akrok0
i take a royal with cheese. :-D
- abettertomorrow0
It really has nothing to do with communism/socialism or other isms.
Do you really believe certain people should be given special status not because of business success or personal achievement, but just because they happen to be born into a certain family? Sure, the Brits will probably keep them around for cultural reasons, but I don't think anyone would set it up that way if we got a chance to redo things:)
- duhsign0
Not being British or acquainted with their culture I can't really pass judgement just think it gets a lot silly at times. Seems to me like they use the royals to placate the people, fascinate them with pomp and circumstance...like a weird disney attraction where the charachters get to live ridiculously pampered lifestyles for nothing more than being born into a family. As figureheads of their nation the British Royals have at times looked very silly which reflects on citizens. The queen being there in tough times seems much more psychological than material. I mean what do any of them really do? I'm sure they have their charitys and all that but do they shape politics, laws and society at large? Or are they an anchor point for traditional english society and culture that Brits want to have around for matters of pride and nostalgia?
ZENMASTER makes a good comparison between the royals and Bill Gates. I think the us has a pretty large "royal" class made up of stars and business tycoons not to meniton the massive control Corporations themselves have over our country and its laws, cultural and social standards. Corporations are legally recognized as individuals so maybe they are americas royalty...
- Bill Gates, whatever you think of him, worked his ass off... wasn't born a royal....vaxorcist
- good point.duhsign
- no...but he's there. look past the birthright.zenmasterfoo
- Actually Bill Gates didn't do shit...didn't you watch Pirates of Silicon Valley?:)abettertomorrow
- yes... but he did work his ass off at the PR game....vaxorcist
- abettertomorrow0
I find it worrying this idea that we shouldn't strive for equality. Even if absolute communism turned out to be a bad idea, I don't see what relevance that has. It doesn't mean we should go in the other direction and celebrate elitism.
I think it would be a great thing if Britain abolished the royal family. Yeah its not like it would save a huge amount of money but symbolically, it would be a step forward for democracy and equality. And especially appropriate when the government is cutting school budgets and health care.
- but to what end? democracy exists there. the vacuum would be filled again.zenmasterfoo