The Queen Is Ridiculous

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:41 am

I don't understand how it's possible that the Royal Family is still acknowledged. Isn't it time to put an end to such foolishness?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:46 am

Go wash your mouth out, why dump such a famous brand name?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:53 am

Adding a poll.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:01 am

koan;1384344 wrote: Adding a poll.
Why no third option, such as "If they modernise" ?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:03 am

I don't think it should be a paid position.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:07 am

Koan, you're tilting against millennia of tradition.

People like their traditions. As a matter of fact it's so intrenched in English that I, an American who only speaks English much less lives under the umbrella of those traditions, just used a word from the Middle Ages in a sentence without meaning to.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:17 am

Saint_;1384349 wrote: Koan, you're tilting against millennia of tradition.

People like their traditions. As a matter of fact it's so intrenched in English that I, an American who only speaks English much less lives under the umbrella of those traditions, just used a word from the Middle Ages in a sentence without meaning to.

Apart from the tradition involved the Royals are an industry, who's cost is dwarfed by the rewards.

Americans only give English a nodding acquaintance anyway.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:26 am

Americans only give English a nodding acquaintance anyway.
I beg your pardon Bruv. I'm an English purist. The decline of language arts makes me as nuts as it does you!

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:34 am

I'm pretty sure it's a yes or no question.

If there is a need for royalty I'm sure the music and film industries will be happy to supply.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:42 am

AnneBoleyn;1384358 wrote: I beg your pardon Bruv. I'm an English purist. The decline of language arts makes me as nuts as it does you!

I am no purist, but American English drops U's and add Zee's all over the place.

Better keep on topic though..........the thought police are out tonight.

Bridget · Post by **Bridget** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:44 am

I don't know but I think it is all right for England to have Royalty. Just think how terribly boring it would be without them and all the press they get. How would the rest of the world know just what style of clothles to wear if Kate did not lead us. Just what would it be like if they bulldozed all those Queens castles to the ground and put in parking garages. They did that in America and all our old beautiful mansions are gone. Now we are stuck with ball parks as our only archtecture to leave for our children. Whoop-ee.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:48 am

koan;1384359 wrote: I'm pretty sure it's a yes or no question.

If there is a need for royalty I'm sure the music and film industries will be happy to supply.

I would disagree, I would have thrown them out long ago, when I was younger.

They have a uniting affect, they are a common point of focus, a link with history that the entertainment industry cannot replace. Apart from the emotional nostalgic ties, they are an income stream, an industry in themselves.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:53 am

I don't think the Queen is ridiculous. Prim, proud and proper...yes. Tradition has alot to do with why there is still royalty. The role of royalty has changed already over the years. Just compare Elizabeth I's reign to Elizabeth II's.

What to the British subjects as a whole think?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:04 pm

Bruv;1384360 wrote: I am no purist, but American English drops U's and add Zee's all over the place.

Better keep on topic though..........the thought police are out tonight.

How DARE yoz!

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:14 pm

along-for-the-ride;1384364 wrote: I don't think the Queen is ridiculous. Prim, proud and proper...yes. Tradition has alot to do with why there is still royalty. The role of royalty has changed already over the years. Just compare Elizabeth I's reign to Elizabeth II's.

What to the British subjects as a whole think?

I think it's archaic nonsense and that any country aspiring to equality among people should dispose of the title immediately.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:57 pm

There are Royal families in some of most equal countries. Sweden Denmark, and Norway for instance.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:14 am

The last time we got rid of a monarch we ended up with a military religious dictatorship.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:42 pm

along-for-the-ride;1384364 wrote: I don't think the Queen is ridiculous. Prim, proud and proper...yes. Tradition has alot to do with why there is still royalty. The role of royalty has changed already over the years. Just compare Elizabeth I's reign to Elizabeth II's.

What to the British subjects as a whole think?

That the Queen has a job no-one in their right mind would take on, the the Royal family gave up far more in directly owned property than they will ever be paid through the Civil List and that, even now, they earn far more for this country than they cost.

Figure heads? Certainly, totally without power and very little influence.

Dysfunctional? No more than most families and far less than most poor little rich kids in the public eye.

Replaceable from the film industry? Don't make me laugh - this weeks must have is next weeks has been and the "show" would be watching them self-distruct in front of your very eyes.

Do I like them? No, not the next lot.

Do I think they're good for the country? Yes, as Bruv said, a stabilising influence and a point of focus for the nation.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:53 pm

So the arguments on the side of 'keep the Queen' are:

Fear of social chaos

Wanting a powerless head of state

Yet, as stated the other social icons from film and music are powerless as they rise and fall based on public opinion. There are still riots in the streets. There are still wars entered into against majority public opinion. There is still corruption in the media and politics.

I'm missing where she is useful outside of the issue of generating revenue... which I won't ask for proof of since it's something pop stars do as well.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:05 pm

Now, let's see.

An archaic Monarchy or Neanderthal clubbing of Seals.... Gosh, that's a tough one

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:08 pm

Right. The only reason I haven't clubbed me a baby seal is because the Queen wouldn't approve.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:09 pm

koan;1384519 wrote: Right. The only reason I haven't clubbed me a baby seal is because the Queen wouldn't approve. No, she'd shoot It and Harry would try to **** It.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:16 am

Ain't that true.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:09 am

I find a hereditary constitutional monarchy quite a sensible notion. Electing a head of state gives that head of state political legitimacy. The whole point of not electing our head of state is to reserve the ultimate constitutional powers out of the hands of anyone capable of claiming an elected political mandate to use them. The British monarch provides a symbolic representation of the whole people as the sole source of authority in a way which no elected President could possibly do.

Why dismantle the system when no better option as head of state exists? Or would you like to put a preferable alternative forward?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:31 pm

spot;1384596 wrote:

Why dismantle the system when no better option as head of state exists?

Yeah...what he said. Besides, Royal pagentry like coronations are soooo cool!;D

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:37 pm

Frankly, I don't give a monkey's what anyone thinks of our Royal Family nor our Queen.

She's my Queen because I'm English and I am proud of her.

Admittedly one can't say the same of some of the extended family.

Prince Phillip Is the unsung hero. When you actually look beyond the pomp and ceremony,

his work load Is quite Incredible.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:01 pm

oscar;1384615 wrote: Prince Phillip Is the unsung hero. When you actually look beyond the pomp and ceremony,

his work load Is quite Incredible.

Four[1] official engagements this year?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandD ... vents.aspx

[1] - I apologize... three. One of which was attending his local parish church for Sunday worship.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:06 pm

spot;1384623 wrote: Four[1] official engagements this year?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandD ... vents.aspx

[1] - I apologize... three. One of which was attending his local parish church for Sunday worship.

Selective quoting again Spot?

The man Is 90 years old... try going back a few years...

Prince Philip to scale back charity work as he turns 90 - The Daily Record

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:32 pm

oscar;1384624 wrote: Selective quoting again Spot?

The man Is 90 years old... try going back a few years...

Prince Philip to scale back charity work as he turns 90 - The Daily Record

I questioned what you wrote, that's all. "his work load Is quite Incredible". Present tense. If you mean "his work load used to be quite Incredible" then write it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:35 pm

spot;1384631 wrote: I questioned what you wrote, that's all. "his work load Is quite Incredible". Present tense. If you mean "his work load used to be quite Incredible" then write it.

And you think that In present climes, every time he accompanies her Maj on official business, that counts for nothing ?

Nit pick my words all you want.

The man Is an unsung hero.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:40 pm

"In present climes"? You mean the weather? You cannot be serious.

He has accompanied "her Maj on official business" once this year, and that was the church service at Sandringham. Check the site, it lists every official engagement - it's the Court Circular.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:02 pm

spot;1384633 wrote: "In present climes"? You mean the weather? You cannot be serious.

He has accompanied "her Maj on official business" once this year, and that was the church service at Sandringham. Check the site, it lists every official engagement - it's the Court Circular.

I repeat.... The man Is 90 years old... try going back a few years. In fact, try collating the Info for the past 60 years.

Regardless, you are mistaking me for someone else who may value your opinion.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:07 pm

oscar;1384635 wrote: I repeat.... The man Is 90 years old... try going back a few years. In fact, try collating the Info for the past 60 years.
If you mean "his work load used to be quite Incredible" then write it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:10 pm

spot;1384636 wrote: If you mean "his work load used to be quite Incredible" then write it.

Perhaps I 'Misspoke'

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:50 pm

I was actually thinking about this question less than an hour ago, how odd.

I was thinking how, in fact, heredity doesn't guarantee similar moral standards and principles but yet it does give a distinct advantage in passing along those principles more effectively than otherwise. My conclusion would be that the question is one that doesn't have an answer in retrospect to the past yet is statistically more ideal in regards to the future, in my opinion.

The answer is undoubtedly yes. Of course giving faith upon the people and their ability to revolt is the ultimate determining factor and if this ever becomes an impossibility then any society is doomed whether with a King, Queen, Dictator, or Donald Trump driving the mother ship

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:15 pm

K.Snyder;1384643 wrote:

My conclusion would be that the question is one that doesn't have an answer in retrospect to the past yet is statistically more ideal in regards to the future, in my opinion.

I'm sorry Kevin I have to say it..........................What ?????

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:18 pm

Bruv;1384650 wrote: I'm sorry Kevin I have to say it..........................What ?????

He means ... Is there a future In the British Monarchy?

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:23 pm

When the world's citizens finally combine under a single World Government I suggest they adopt the Constitution of the United Kingdom, accede to its legal system, declare themselves subjects of Her Majesty and realize the benefits of becoming, to all intents and purposes, British, thereby refuting koan's opening calumnies which are (I'm delighted to recognize) shared by few of her fellow countrymen.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:24 pm

oscar;1384653 wrote: He means ... Is there a future In the British Monarchy?

You sure ?

How did 'statistically' get in there ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:25 pm

We have a Constitution ?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:27 pm

I think he said that, to his reasoning, each succeeding leader is more likely to retain the same values if they are raised by the previous leader than if they are completely unconnected leaders elected every four years.

So, if you like the status quo, you're more likely to keep it with a royal family.

Still. The prime ministers govern the country and the queen does nothing to interfere with their actions so... she may have morals but we don't rightly know.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:28 pm

I think the arguments are winning you around eh Koan ?

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:29 pm

Bruv;1384657 wrote: We have a Constitution ?

I have an entire book by Harold Wilson which grinds the reader into acknowledging that very fact at the expense of nursing a headache for days after.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_constitution concurs.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:30 pm

Bruv;1384662 wrote: I think the arguments are winning you around eh Koan ?

She only posted the OP to have a fight with me. Every now and then she gets these aggressive moments.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:32 pm

spot;1384664 wrote: She only posted the OP to have a fight with me. Every now and then she gets these aggressive moments. Once a month It seems

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:40 pm

oscar;1384665 wrote: Once a month It seems

Not that I've noticed. It's more like hankering after a really top-notch steak.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:04 pm

spot;1384664 wrote: She only posted the OP to have a fight with me. Every now and then she gets these aggressive moments.
Actually, no.

There have been a wide range of Jubilee products waved in my face lately then I came across this article on Al Jazeera:

What does the monarchy say about Britain? - Features - Al Jazeera English

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:17 pm

A lot of people especially In this country watch Al Jazeera. My husband and I prefer It to the BBC... There's nothing big about watching It... It's just an alternative news channel.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:28 pm

There's nothing big about watching it?

What an odd thing to say.

Anyway, the Royal Family is given its authority by "God" wherein lies another problem with having them as head of state in a modern country.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:07 pm

Because our Head of State has no power. Yours too. No matter how ambitious some politician is they can never get supreme power. They are not royal.

I know it makes no sense. I know there is nothing special about being royal other than being it. But the same is true of a lottery winner and these poor buggers are trained for the job. We both get the benefit of it.

I do not want my Head of State being a job any bugger can go for. We've got them where we want them and they do a lot of good. Ditch it if you want - it is your right - but be sure what you're replacing them with is better.