|
Post by Moose on May 20, 2018 20:16:21 GMT
Yeah but he had a lot of heads lopped off ... it was always going to coincide with one of them
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jul 26, 2018 1:19:33 GMT
It is an outdated model of government. It is a throwback to when hierarchies in social structures developed and were then justified by religion.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 16, 2018 7:31:59 GMT
The monarchy doesn't govern (in the UK, anyway). We are a constitutional monarchy, but the Queen has no governing power, only the elected parliament.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2018 16:30:06 GMT
The monarchy doesn't govern (in the UK, anyway). We are a constitutional monarchy, but the Queen has no governing power, only the elected parliament. Which begs the question of why it is even necessary. It seems vestigial, like the human appendix. If it gets enflamed, it can take down the entire organism, but it performs no known useful function and the body can live long and prosper without it. It is the same with royalty.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 16, 2018 17:52:18 GMT
In my opinion, which I agree is not very popular on this forum, it serves a very useful purpose in having a non-functional head of state. If we didn't have a monarch, we would have a president who interfered in politics. I couldn't bear the idea of having a President Trump as head of state.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Aug 16, 2018 18:41:54 GMT
Our royals bring in a lot of funds for our country. A lot of it from countries who don't have royalty but are fascinated by it. There has been some argument on whether they bring in more or cost more, but according to economists they bring in quite a lot more. Anti-royalists have some trouble believing that though, because it's hard to compare economic growth and business contracts which are intangible to the cold numbers of expenditures.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2018 18:43:40 GMT
In my opinion, which I agree is not very popular on this forum, it serves a very useful purpose in having a non-functional head of state. If we didn't have a monarch, we would have a president who interfered in politics. I couldn't bear the idea of having a President Trump as head of state. So instead, you get Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May....and Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mog have been bandied about as possibles. I think you need to climb down off that high horse of yours. Remember, you folks are marching in to the abyss of Brexit, thanks to your enlightened and forthright political leadership. [/sarcasm] Personally, I fail to see what you gain by having a 'non-functional head of state' (which I don't think really applies to British royalty, as they have vestigial powers), other than to spend a shipload of the national assets maintaining their uselessness. Please, enlighten me as to the difference, because what you have raised already is not persuasive.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 16, 2018 19:17:57 GMT
Whether you understand it or not, most Brits are still happy to have the royal family. I guess it's a connection with history, it brings in visitors, and it provides a bit of spectacle. I don't see the harm, to be honest.
And as tangent pointed out, it's bad enough having that shower in parliament - (that's clearly what he meant) - I don't think we'd want a president as well. We can see how badly that could work out...
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 16, 2018 19:40:35 GMT
I am not sure that most Brits ARE happy to have the Royal family - I would have said most don't care. The younger generation especially.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2018 21:39:28 GMT
Our royals bring in a lot of funds for our country. A lot of it from countries who don't have royalty but are fascinated by it. There has been some argument on whether they bring in more or cost more, but according to economists they bring in quite a lot more. Anti-royalists have some trouble believing that though, because it's hard to compare economic growth and business contracts which are intangible to the cold numbers of expenditures. I hate to burst your deluded economists' bubble, but NOBODY from the North American continent goes to the Nether regions because of their royalty. For crepes sake, a huge majority of them don't even know you HAVE royalty. Most North Americans could give two tiny turds for Dutch royalty. They are there for cannabis, trendiness, bulbs, and any number of other attractions other than the royal family that most of them don't even know exists. And, most of your neighbors have their own fucking useless royalty to keep them occupied, why would they want to come to the Nether regions and gawk at your royalty? Honestly? Please tell me who it is that is coming to the Nether regions because they are fascinated with your royal family....please. I frankly do NOT believe that it is a large enough segment of ANY population to have ANY significant impact upon national earnings.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 16, 2018 22:27:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2018 22:42:39 GMT
Is there, like, a zoo, where tourists can go and gawk at the royals?
Can I throw peanuts at the Duke of Edinburgh?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 16, 2018 23:22:31 GMT
Well, 30 million Americans watched the Royal Wedding so I guess it's not just a handful of Brits they're popular with
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 17, 2018 0:35:08 GMT
Um.... I watched portions of the last royal wedding....freak shows, y'know. When it's that or paid marketing adverts....well, y'know...a low bar for interest.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 17, 2018 1:41:56 GMT
I understand the appeal, which as far as I can tell is this natural tendency to venerate certain people. I don't know if it is practical or even something that actually 'works' in terms of a society and especially a government. But again I understand the appeal. Should nations get rid of even nominal monarchies? I don't know. I am American. And we Americans poke fun at monarchies, and yet we vote for people to run our affairs in a similar, albeit limited, way as a monarchy. Hell, we wanted to make George Washington the king of the US early in our nation's history. I guess there is just something in us that longs for a hero, even if the hero turns out to be our own worst enemy.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 17, 2018 14:18:45 GMT
"Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, But she doesn't have a lot to say."
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 17, 2018 18:58:52 GMT
I didn't know the Netherlands had a monarchy actually *blushes* . I know some European countries do and some don't but am unclear on which. Apart from France, which found a useful way to dispose of theirs over two centuries ago.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 17, 2018 22:04:39 GMT
Heh....I am not surprised.
I believe the old queen just stepped down and her middle-aged son took the throne as the new king. Evidently, Queen Beatrix was well-loved amongst her subjects.
But, like I said, why go 'cross the Channel and gawk at some Dutchie twit when you've got your own freak show going quite strong at home?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 17, 2018 22:15:03 GMT
Well, 30 million Americans watched the Royal Wedding so I guess it's not just a handful of Brits they're popular with Also...Keep in mind that at least one-third of the electorate thinks that our current president is doing a good job. Guess who was watching in envy at the royal wedding fooferah?
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Aug 19, 2018 13:03:20 GMT
Our royals bring in a lot of funds for our country. A lot of it from countries who don't have royalty but are fascinated by it. There has been some argument on whether they bring in more or cost more, but according to economists they bring in quite a lot more. Anti-royalists have some trouble believing that though, because it's hard to compare economic growth and business contracts which are intangible to the cold numbers of expenditures. I hate to burst your deluded economists' bubble, but NOBODY from the North American continent goes to the Nether regions because of their royalty. For crepes sake, a huge majority of them don't even know you HAVE royalty. Most North Americans could give two tiny turds for Dutch royalty. They are there for cannabis, trendiness, bulbs, and any number of other attractions other than the royal family that most of them don't even know exists. And, most of your neighbors have their own fucking useless royalty to keep them occupied, why would they want to come to the Nether regions and gawk at your royalty? Honestly? Please tell me who it is that is coming to the Nether regions because they are fascinated with your royal family....please. I frankly do NOT believe that it is a large enough segment of ANY population to have ANY significant impact upon national earnings. You're not bursting anything. I was talking about businesses, you're talking about individual tourists. It's not the same. But you may want to look up what happens when royals go abroad on state visits and who they bring along. It brings about a lot of business opportunities. And royals don't have to do the whole politics thing, so they can focus on other parts. Within the Netherlands they do similar tasks: a princess may open a new building and talk to the people. It's just not the same as some politician showing up who will always have an agenda, whereas for the royals it is their job. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 19, 2018 14:09:34 GMT
What do princesses have to do with new buildings?
And what makes you think that royalty doesn't have the agendas of professional politicians? They ARE politicians, doing their damnedest to continue justifying the very existence of their rapacious predatory family, the possessors of inordinate national assets which their forebears stole through bullying and intimidation.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Aug 19, 2018 14:38:04 GMT
What do princesses have to do with new buildings? Exactly! Princesses should be imprisoned in very old buildings.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 19, 2018 16:58:22 GMT
What do princesses have to do with new buildings? Exactly! Princesses should be imprisoned in very old buildings. I'm amenable to that, long hairs or no.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 26, 2018 16:32:40 GMT
Here's something royalty is really good for: Silly memes.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 26, 2018 17:30:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 26, 2018 23:40:34 GMT
But it's really ignoble if she's tobbled by a pleb.
Still, there's a metaphor using Prince Philip there too. He does not do much, does he?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 27, 2018 0:37:48 GMT
But it's really ignoble if she's tobbled by a pleb. Still, there's a metaphor using Prince Philip there too. He does not do much, does he? I'd heard that old Phil retired from the limelight.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Aug 28, 2018 23:23:43 GMT
I didn't know the Netherlands had a monarchy actually *blushes* . I know some European countries do and some don't but am unclear on which. Apart from France, which found a useful way to dispose of theirs over two centuries ago. These are the constitutional monarchies of Europe: UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Monaco, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein (well the lilliput monarchies are considered semi-constitutional). Most are rich and stable democracies with no bloody revolutions. Except for UK (with Cromwell and the beheading of King Charles I) and Spain (civil war and dictator Franco).our Maybe American tourist prefer the traditions. Like those black taxi cars which look like they are in a 1940 film. There is a republican union in Sweden. The socialdemocratic party in theory wants to abolish the monarchy. But the problem is that the majority of the people wants to keep the monarchy. The pros of the monarchy are: The head of state is not political (and hated by half of the people, like Trump) The king/queen has been trained since childhood for his/her office The king/queen is a continuous symbol of the country since he/she does not resign after 4 years People like old traditions and fairy tales with kings and queens, princes and princesses The main cons imo are: The king cannot be prosecuted whatever he does. He could (like a diplomat) get away with murder! The apanage. How many princes and princesses are supported by the taxpayers' money? In Denmark only the crown prince has a right to apanage, not his siblings and cousins.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 29, 2018 0:14:12 GMT
The main cons imo are: The king cannot be prosecuted whatever he does. He could (like a diplomat) get away with murder! The apanage. How many princes and princesses are supported by the taxpayers' money? In Denmark only the crown prince has a right to apanage, not his siblings and cousins. I'm not worried by the cost of the other members of the royal family. My main gripe is that they represent spongers who do nothing for us. That may not be true, they provide gossip for the tabloids especially when they do something naughty, but they still represent spongers.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Aug 30, 2018 16:49:14 GMT
Have you ever looked at the public planner of your royal house? If it's anything like ours, their workweeks are longer than the average 40 hours, you know.
|
|