Elizabeth the Last

BlindBoyGrunt said:
Possibly, but he's not the child of the monarch and he is still having a bit of a job leaving, with pressure from the family and the media and open racism toward his wife. But look at the freedoms that normal people have compared to a child of the queen.

Can they go to the Buccaneer for a couple?
Dangle their legs over a canal and smoke a joint?
Go to Spain for a fortnight of debauchery with the lads?
Hitchhike to an away match?
Stand in the crowd at a Stones concert?
Work away?
Go shopping on a whim?
Cycle to the countryside alone?
Swim in the sea alone?
Decide to pop out for fish and chips?
Get 3/4 drunk in the Englischer Garten?
Go to the Westgarth or Ku to see an unknown band?
Walk the streets of a city just for the feel of it?

You can keep all the state ceremonies, the balcony wavings and the gala luncheons, give me personal autonomy anytime.
Right, I'm off to the gym.
Click to expand...
Very good points. That's the flip-side. The privilege comes at a price. It's arguably much the same for many very famous people like actors, musicians and sports stars who have riches beyond our comprehension, but who don't have a normal life and are subject to massive scrutiny. But the royals see it as a duty... the problem here is mainly the institution. Not black and white, is it?
 
Osboro said:
Let's not personalise it, I get the feeling Betty, Chaz and Will are all nice people, it's the institution that's Bad.
It promotes inherited superiority and so the Class system. Let it pass into history, but as someone earlier said, its a long way down the list of priorities.
Click to expand...

"Betty" was quite happy to pay 12 million quid to cover up her nonce son, so not sure how "nice" she really is.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
"Betty" was quite happy to pay 12 million quid to cover up her nonce son, so not sure how "nice" she really is.
Click to expand...
Accepted, but you won't move the discussion forward by personalising it. I couldn't give two hoots about retaining the monarchy but the great British people for some reason like the idea of being subjects rather than citizens.
 
Osboro said:
Accepted, but you won't move the discussion forward by personalising it. I couldn't give two hoots about retaining the monarchy but the great British people for some reason like the idea of being subjects rather than citizens.
Click to expand...
You put it far better than I did, that's my view.
 
Osboro said:
It promotes inherited superiority and so the Class system. Let it pass into history, but as someone earlier said, its a long way down the list of priorities.
Click to expand...

Does it though? Of the 10 countries with highest social mobility (i.e. movement in personal circumstances either “upwards” or “downwards” of an individual in relation to those of their parents), 6 of them are monarchies.

Given there are 43 monarchies out of 195 nations, that is quite an over-representation

Someone will point out that we're not one of those 6, so I'll do that here. In some ways I'd like us to more like the Scandinavian monarchies that top the list.
For the record France are 12th, UK 21st, USA 27th.

link
 
Last edited:
I
Frozen Horse said:
Does it though? Of the 10 countries with highest social mobility (i.e. movement in personal circumstances either “upwards” or “downwards” of an individual in relation to those of their parents), 6 of them are monarchies.

Given there are 43 monarchies out of 195 nations, that is quite an over-representation

link
Click to expand...
Come on, is that your best shot?
How many of the non monarchies were once under the yoke of one of these historical anachronisms and been cut loose with little or nothing in the last 40 _-50 years.
So you would support a 3rd world dictator declaring them selves King, ( for the betterment of social mobility) would you?
 
Osboro said:
I

Come on, is that your best shot?
How many of the non monarchies were once under the yoke of one of these historical anachronisms and been cut loose with little or nothing in the last 40 _-50 years.
So you would support a 3rd world dictator declaring them selves King, ( for the betterment of social mobility) would you?
Click to expand...
I think the leader of China has.
 
Osboro said:
I

Come on, is that your best shot?
How many of the non monarchies were once under the yoke of one of these historical anachronisms and been cut loose with little or nothing in the last 40 _-50 years.
So you would support a 3rd world dictator declaring them selves King, ( for the betterment of social mobility) would you?
Click to expand...

I haven't suggested any of that, and my support for our monarchy is tepid. If we were forming a state now, I wouldn't form a monarchy.
Nor have I suggest that monarchy improves social mobility; only questioned whether it actually harms it.

However, you asserted that "It promotes inherited superiority and so the Class system", therefore the burden of proof is on you. The evidence I'm seeing doesn't back that up; if you have evidence that it does, let's see it.
 
Last edited:
Same_as_before said:
A bloke in a black dress with a stick knocks on a door to open parliament. We are a nation of history.

Are you suggesting parliament would not open without him?
Click to expand...
There is history which is great for the tourism show, but the Queen having to sign every law should not be part of any democracy, especially as we don't even get to see that so it attracts no tourists.
 
Last edited:
Frozen Horse said:
I've never really bought the argument that monarchies are backwards or more primitive than republics though. However you measure it, standard of living, human development, social mobility, monarchies constitute 50% or more of the 10 highest ranked nations; meanwhile the lowest ranked nations are all republics.
Click to expand...

Probably a correlation vs causation issue. How many of the top 10 are former imperialist powers and how many of the lowest ranked nations are former colonies?
 
Nero said:
All the institutions of Britain are set-up to maintain the royal establishment. The government has prerogative powers associated with the Queen. The Queen also has personal prerogative powers and gets heads up of legislation before it becomes law. It's absolute madness that a person who is by chance born "a Queen" has that type of privilege.

Criminal Justice? Crown Prosecution Service. The Royal Courts and so.

Armed forces? All HM Armed Forces.

The Royal this, the Royal that. It's bonkers.
Click to expand...
You'd think that they personally paid for and built all the hospitals and bridges too, as they are all named after them. Even the bloody crossrail project will now be named after her, almost certainly never been on a tube in her life.
 
Taxpayers would still have to fund the redecorating of the palaces. Some Presidents have expensive taste. Or what else;
another new art gallery?
Flog them to billionaires?
Convert to flats (bolt holes for rich foreigners, usually unoccupied)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top