Royalty

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Postby macca » Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:54 pm

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by ben:
How naive it would be to assume we had covered it in this humble set of messages. </font>
<P>well it seems like it's heading towards the "i like the royals" "i don't like the royals" "i like the royals" "i don't like the royals" etc etc<P>but i'm certain ben will follow this up with a stunning new pro-royal arguement
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby A Muslim » Sat Jan 12, 2002 8:48 am

macca this is about the royals...where does the idealogy of communisium fit in?
aside from the topic heading, i will have to admit that communisium has irs advantages (in a pure form)...however i will say that human nature wouldn't allow it to prosper that long! so a mixture of communisium and capatialism would be a far better idealogy!
i'm not a pro capatialist, but i believe in the idea of food for the people, jobs for the people and equality!<P>
A Muslim
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Surrey

Postby macca » Sat Jan 12, 2002 3:03 pm

that socialism in a very simplified form, the state works for the people, and vice-versa, but the state doesn't run everything, it does run the NHS etc. socialism is the balance, i am more pro-socialism as i realised very quickly after thinking communism was wonderful that it is very impractical, that was about 5 years ago.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby Lena » Mon Jan 14, 2002 10:50 pm

Still think the Queen mum is dead.
Lena
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Ashford

Postby macca » Wed Jan 16, 2002 12:08 am

some of us KNOW she is dead
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby Charlie » Wed Jan 30, 2002 11:27 pm

dead but stuffed so the public will be fooled in to thinking shes still alive. note how her facial expression is always the same and she moves like someone has a malfunctioning joy stick to control her with
Charlie
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:00 am
Location: London UK

Postby Flamin'RedJJ » Wed Feb 06, 2002 12:06 am

Surely you're all missing the point?
If the royalty are politically powerless, then they should be removed and replaced with something better (and more democratic).
If the royalty had any political power, then equally they should be replaced.
If they're good for tourism, then leave them intact but you may as well delete their nominal political powers.
User avatar
Flamin'RedJJ
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Black Rock Falls, Wisconsin

Postby Charlie » Wed Feb 06, 2002 8:05 pm

<b>Surely you're all missing the point?
If the royalty are politically powerless, then they should be removed and replaced with something better (and more democratic).
If the royalty had any political power, then equally they should be replaced.
If they're good for tourism, then leave them intact but you may as well delete their nominal political powers. </b><P>i dont think were missing the point at all. we already have something better than the royal family.. the government believe it or not. so why should we get rid of the royal family and replace them with something equal to the government and create all sorts of hideous social and economic problems.
also.. the queen does have political power. all laws have to be passed by her before they can be put in to action. i dont know why but thats the way it is. im sure she has other uses than just being grey haired and smiling a lot at the lower classes and patronising them.
im not a fan of the royal family. but i kind of like them being around. were the envy of america cus we have culture. lets keep it that way. even if its just for fun.
Charlie
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:00 am
Location: London UK

Postby Flamin'RedJJ » Thu Feb 07, 2002 12:10 am

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by Charlie:
i dont think were missing the point at all. we already have something better than the royal family.. the government believe it or not. so why should we get rid of the royal family and replace them with something equal to the government and create all sorts of hideous social and economic problems.
also.. the queen does have political power. all laws have to be passed by her before they can be put in to action. i dont know why but thats the way it is. im sure she has other uses than just being grey haired and smiling a lot at the lower classes and patronising them.
im not a fan of the royal family. but i kind of like them being around. were the envy of america cus we have culture. lets keep it that way. even if its just for fun.
</font>
<P>Tradition does not equal 'good'!
Some fantastic traditions that have needed reforming have included slavery, not allowing various sectors of society the vote, cannibalism, capital punishment, torture...
The monarchy should play no role in government because they are not elected.
It's as simple as that.
Oh, and didn't Stalin and Hitler both have grey hair by the end of their lives?
What nice old men they were!
User avatar
Flamin'RedJJ
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Black Rock Falls, Wisconsin

Postby macca » Sat Feb 09, 2002 1:17 pm

a royal dies, she did very little charity work (even by their standards) yet when the commentators speak of her, they call her a "devoted servant of her country". i have probably done more chairity/demonstration work than her. i'm sorry but princess margret was not a devoted servant of the UK, she took tax payers money and spent most of her time on holiday, in my eyes she won't be missed.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby nicola » Sat Feb 09, 2002 8:02 pm

I'm going to sound like a bit of a Margaret fan here, which I'm not especially (can't say I knew her) but I think the royals do far more charity crap than people realise. I actually feel rather sorry for her because she lived a completely constrained life and never fit the traditional mould of a royal, so it was all a bit gutting. But she's dead now, her own fault for smoking too much, and I don't tend to get especially sad about old folks dying - they've had a life.
User avatar
nicola
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: london

Postby clara » Sun Feb 10, 2002 7:34 pm

Not many people have mentioned what a crap time most royals have - they can't marry who they like (e.g. Prince Charles and Princess Margret), they can't smoke dope without front page articles being written on you (e.g. our Harry), you can't even go to University without an increase of American girls applying to same university! They have no private life. I think 1 million pounds a year for a public real-life soap opera with lots of Charity work (because they do so much, whether you like it or not) and hoodwinking lots of tourists into thinking Britain is the place to bring your camera and piss off the locals and spending loads of money into the bargain, is definately worth it! <P>Personally, I think that if it is ever decided that the monarchy should be abolished (and I don't think it should be, for the record), it should be for the sake of the future royals' private lives rather than to take away the little power that they do have.<P>By the way, someone mentioned that they do have political power - what rubbish - if they refused to pass a bill they wouldn't last a week "in power" - they would be forced to abdicate. I can't remember the last time a royal blocked a bill or similar (I am thousands of years old), it did happen, but the royal in question I seem to remember had to change his or her mind. Sommat like that.
clara
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2002 1:00 am
Location: London, UK

Postby macca » Sun Feb 10, 2002 9:28 pm

it doesn't matter if they have little power it is still power and based upon undemocratic powers, this is inheiritantly wrong. if their life was so hard i'm sure they could quite easily stop taking tax payers money and move out of the country. untill then they are just rich people getting richer off the backing of the state and not giving a hoot as to what is happening in the real world. as for charity work, posing for the odd camera shot or cutting red ribbons - oh the horror the sheer horror. i'd like to see them do real charity work, spend 16 hours of actual work and find out what it is to use your hands for things other than rolling a bifta.<P>as for marget dying, bo-hoo what a big contributor she was. she was a work shy alocholic who couldn't even run a bath. and her burial will be paid for by the state out of memory for her hard work. it's about time that the royals spent their own money instead of living off the rest of us.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby nicola » Sun Feb 10, 2002 9:51 pm

The vast majority of it is their own money - they've just inherited it. I know you'll come out with some communism crap about how they should share out their inheritance, but I bet my bottom (I stress, MY) dollar that you won't be giving away every penny of your inheritance.<P>As for your whole "I'm sure they're not that important for the tourist industry" crap, grab the nearest Japanese tourist (just look for a camera) or American. THEY LOVE IT. I say, keep em around. <P>
User avatar
nicola
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: london

Postby clara » Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:25 pm

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by macca:
until then they are just rich people getting richer off the backing of the state.</font>
<P>Well are they getting richer? Most of them are bankrupt. Personally their power doesn't bother me in the slightest. I agree, I'm not bothered that Margret has popped off, because I didn't know her, and her life didn't make any difference to mine whatsoever, but that doesn't mean I was against her. Its not as if their lives are big slights on mine just because they more powers than I do. Lots of people get power which is not elected. And a lot of them are much worse people than the royals. To me they are just slightly odd people whos hereditary job it is to sit on thrones looking happy bringing in tourists and making uninteresting headlines occasionally. Personally neither of these offends me. Does that offend you?<P>
clara
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2002 1:00 am
Location: London, UK

Postby macca » Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:29 pm

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2[/IMG]Originally posted by nicola:
The vast majority of it is their own money - they've just inherited it. I know you'll come out with some communism crap about how they should share out their inheritance, but I bet my bottom (I stress, MY) dollar that you won't be giving away every penny of your inheritance.</font>
<P>firstly, oh whoops social slip i have no inheritance. and i never said they should give their money away, i said they should take it with them and piss off. as for tourism, sometimes you have to look beyound your simplistic captialist ways, i would rather put my morals before my bank balance.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Postby nicola » Sun Feb 10, 2002 11:11 pm

somtimes you have to think of other people's bank balances before your own, mr communist. what about all those people who would struggle to survive without their job, which is based on tourism?
User avatar
nicola
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: london

Postby macca » Sun Feb 10, 2002 11:24 pm

well Little Miss Capitalist needs to realise that money isn't everything, equality is more important.
User avatar
macca
Comrade
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:00 am
Location: middle of nowhere, the sticks

Re:

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri May 24, 2019 3:01 am

macca wrote:why do we have a royal family, is it a hang over from a dictatorship, or are they just harmless hole for tax payers money?

No it is the self-valuing of the whole country, the feeling of being something important as a country, it allows for fanaticisms beyond any normal efforts so you can build a superiority complex thats permanent and politically efficient to create world dominion of ones language and culture.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: parading through the inventory

Re: Royalty

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 24, 2019 7:24 am

Its much more then keeping up a superiority complex. The U.S. social equalent who pride themselves on keeping up with the Jones', are , according to some opinions, below standard, not because of the level of transpiring modeling which a repressive aesthetically and historically modulated system brought about, but because it is more prone at certain levels to sustain a cultural and historically contenious pattern of socially organization, within a matrix of culturally identified individual belonging.
That most non monarchical, so called Democratic systems , for the most part, are representative of less identifiable signification of regional senses of belonging , are without question, to anyone who has traveled in both countries. It's not merely the Royals who wield self re presentation symbolically, but the metaphor between Queen and subject shows a preferred social organization, that has achieved a time tested transcendance

If any comparison can be made between the Queen and Trump, in terms of monetary value , I do not think that bar can be raised to include value by using it as a definitive measuring rod. That thought is overly simplistic..

However the difference is a closing circe since the life stylus of the rich are beginning to mimic royalty, Nowedays, only thing missing in nuevo rishe is the tireless essence endowed by centuries of presumptive heredity. That is why large fortunes are almost even beyond that.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Royalty

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 24, 2019 3:37 pm

Beyond that? The symbolic martyrdom of entitlement was characterized by the inbred futility of the madness of the naivety hiding the absolute goodness of self preservation.
That idiot Prince Myshkin reappears as a patient in the 'Magic Mountain'
Nietzsche himself had pretensions to the royal. And this, even now sustains unashamedly the source of the romantic idiom in the general readership, extended and conformed to present day values.
They really need no apology, they have paid their due share in their own unique sense.
Acceptance, even of the self, is yet another matter.to feel very small about.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Royalty

Postby Gloominary » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:16 am

As a Canadian, the royal family should be abolished.
Whatever tax goes to them should go to education and healthcare to help enlighten minds and save lives.
The queen elects our governor general and the governor general elects our senate.
either the senate should be abolished or we the people should elect them, not an unelected dictator.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users