The pride-thing is such a weak argument for me. Without them, British people won't have the same sense of pride anymore or...?
Dithering rich prat in a 4x4 causes car crash and almost kills a baby
- Thread starter Mr Pigeon
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Paracites on society based on birth. It is a immoral anacronysm.
Pride? Feck me. I find it embarrasing that the Queen is still head of state. A vote to get rid would make me proud.
This needs to be his year.
Agreed. Inherited wealth and prestige does tend to bring out the green eyed monster in many. If wealth is your God the Royals won't sit well because they are minted and they were born into it. If you don't seek it yourself there's little to get worked up about.
It's odd this idea that gets floated, as has been here, that somehow in the UK we're all kowtowing to them and desperately need to throw them off our backs in order to finally be free or something. It's quite the opposite really, I can't recall them having some sort of negative impact on my life, and I doubt I've ever felt subservient to them in any way. In fact I pity them a little for being born into a life that looks detestable. Some people enjoy them.
I keep hearing the tourism angle from royalists but I don’t understand why. The palace of Versailles still gets heaps of tourists despite the fact the French binned their monarchy centuries ago. And how many tourists travel to the UK expecting to catch a glance of a Royal.
Granted the tabloids and gossip magazines will have less superficial material to work with but who really gives a feck.
The whole ‘sense of pride’ nonsense is laughable too. If a nation has to rely on feudalistic power structures to garner pride then they’ve got bigger problems.
And lastly don’t get me started on this condescending ‘Young uns wouldn’t get it’ nonsense. Why would they when they’re living under unprecedented levels of austerity, and have been shafted by the selfish decisions of the older generations. You’re genuinely expecting them to buy into the archaic notion of respecting an institution that enjoys lavish levels of wealth and status through the lottery of birth while being unaccountable to the same laws we’re all obliged to. Yeah no thanks.
Granted the tabloids and gossip magazines will have less superficial material to work with but who really gives a feck.
The whole ‘sense of pride’ nonsense is laughable too. If a nation has to rely on feudalistic power structures to garner pride then they’ve got bigger problems.
And lastly don’t get me started on this condescending ‘Young uns wouldn’t get it’ nonsense. Why would they when they’re living under unprecedented levels of austerity, and have been shafted by the selfish decisions of the older generations. You’re genuinely expecting them to buy into the archaic notion of respecting an institution that enjoys lavish levels of wealth and status through the lottery of birth while being unaccountable to the same laws we’re all obliged to. Yeah no thanks.
Thats pretty ridiculous and sounds like socialist China
Nonsense. Everyone will love giving everything they've ever worked for to the state upon dying.
Aaah the natural call of the submissive Brit!
Yes I am aware you are being jovial but many would actually say/think that
The pro royal family argument is much like the gun argument. It's not a rational one. good for you if you like them, but it's a load of bollocks, especially in a modern democratic society.
That being said, I like our royal family, it gives me a day off once a year and lots Dutch comics do impressions of our king. Mainly on how bummed he must be that his kids look like him instead of their mother.
Fun fact: princess Amalia will get a state sponsored allowance of 4000 euro's net per day (yes day) starting on her 18th birthday. This is ten times what our prime minister makes. Aside from the tiny fact that half of his money will go to paying tax which she is exempt from. It will eventually go down, but still. It's crazy.
Try explaining that to poor people
Edit: I'm spreading fake news, it's only 100k net per year. However, she turns 18 in december and because of that, receives the first 100k over a period of 3 weeks, which is 4000 per day. After that she gets a very respectable amount of about 8200 euro's net per month. Which is, quite frankly, peanuts.
That being said, I like our royal family, it gives me a day off once a year and lots Dutch comics do impressions of our king. Mainly on how bummed he must be that his kids look like him instead of their mother.
Fun fact: princess Amalia will get a state sponsored allowance of 4000 euro's net per day (yes day) starting on her 18th birthday. This is ten times what our prime minister makes. Aside from the tiny fact that half of his money will go to paying tax which she is exempt from. It will eventually go down, but still. It's crazy.
Try explaining that to poor people
Edit: I'm spreading fake news, it's only 100k net per year. However, she turns 18 in december and because of that, receives the first 100k over a period of 3 weeks, which is 4000 per day. After that she gets a very respectable amount of about 8200 euro's net per month. Which is, quite frankly, peanuts.
Last edited:
Someones gonna reply to you and say they havent worked for it but thats irrelevant. Its the same idea as lets all put workd resources in one bucket and divide them equally because fair is fair
I'm talking to someone who seems to believe in divine sovereigns, no idea why i expected to get anywhere.
What a quantum leap to conclusions. How do you find that equivalent, I'd be very interested in your reasoning process.
What?
I don't see how that is true. I've known dozens (maybe even hundreds) who have visited the UK from North and South America and Asia. I have heard many reasons for doing so and living royalty has never even been mentioned. I can't imagine having a Queen has any effect on tourism. France gets the most tourists per year and not having a King doesn't stop millions flocking to visit the Louvre, Palace at Versailles, etc. I think its a myth that having an active Queen/King makes a single difference to tourism.
I can't fault the hobby aspect. I certainly have a number of hobbies all of which someone, somewhere probably considers a waste of my time including watching footy matches from 30 years ago
As mentioned, while it hasn't happened in a long time the monarch still has power to throw out the prime minister and has a few other powers that I personally would prefer were completely removed. I would like the technicalities to match the general assumption that the monarch is powerless.
The two bolded points I just don't relate to. The idea that anyone should have to show more than common courtesy and basic human decency and humble themselves simply because another person was born into a royal family goes against just about every principle I believe in. I don't believe that is a good foundation for a just and fair society.
The first bolded, I don't quite understand. You think billionaires are less entitled or less powerful in England because of the royal family? I'm not sure that is true and if it is, is that even a good thing. It leads to a watchmen question: Who gets to humble the royals?
Also this leads to the old Aristotle formulation. Even if you find the Queen of England relatively harmless and not bad that isn't the case for other royalty like the Saudi regime and what we have seen this past year when monarchs decide to eliminate rivals and critics.
Last edited:
Incorrect. All they see is these people who have more than them and haven't done a thing to earn it.
The British psyche does seem to lend itself to envy but i don't believe that's the reason behind the dislike of the Royal Family.
Its not just that though. Its the indirect effects that having the precedent of royalty sets. Like the House of Lords is unelected and selected from the aristocracy still no?
From https://bmsf.org.uk/about-the-monarchy/the-queen/duties-rights-and-powers-of-h-m-the-queen/
Does that sound like a figurehead to you?
Does that sound like a figurehead to you?
It's a bit of a misnomer. She has all those powers because Parliament allows her to, through tradition and having no need to revoke them. If she ever attempted to exercise any of them against the government's will Parliament would just take them away.
How can the parliement take them away, when she can veto the bill?
I don't actually remember the mechanism but one of the few things i remember from legal lectures was that Parliament could remove her as head of state if they really wanted to. Her powers are pretty much just ceremonial now.
.
Are you going to provide an actual argument?Oh give over
Are you serious?
Enlighten the thread with the subtleties of checks and balance regulating the interaction between monarch and parliament.
It is about living in a fair an equitable society where things like ability and work ethic count more than inherited wealth, priveledge and position. It has zero to do with envy.
If the Queen went rouge maybe but as it stands she holds immense power and influence.
Why don't we make the prize of Britain's Got Talent that you get crowned as King or Queen, and allow foreigners to enter (but they have to enter in person). That would be even better for tourism, it would also bring pride to the country if the Queen is a dog that can dance better than a human.
When 26 individuals are worth as much as the 3.5 billion poorest people in the world you know we have a problem.
The problem with inheritence tax is that it leaves the top end alone, as they can afford to avoid the tax and you end up taxing mainly those who should be passing what little they have accumulated to their kids.
The problem with inheritence tax is that it leaves the top end alone, as they can afford to avoid the tax and you end up taxing mainly those who should be passing what little they have accumulated to their kids.
Absolutely spot on
Completely agree
No she doesn't no matter how often you repeat this falsehood. And what's her makeup got to do with it?
Bitterness then? "Brits like being ordered about by posh people" You post like you have a chip on your shoulder.
I'm a Marxist by the way. The monarchy are small fry pal.
Yes she does. If she didn't she would have no function. Which she does. No matter how many times you try to deny it.
And you joke about a typo is hilarious.
I have no chip. I just object to a society run with such inbuilt inequality.
A Marxist defending the existence of a royal family? Now that is plain weird.
Say whaaat?? It must be Groucho Marx you are a fan of, since Karl was not that particularly keen on monarchy.
Be careful what you wish for though. In my country the president role is the dumping site for governments to get rid off some politician whose loved by the people and not by the party. Our current president is some idiot with the grace of a mule whose team botched a charity event were people got grievously hurt. Turned out taxpayers money was used to cover her arse.
The queen has been groomed for the job since birth. She won't do such a rookie mistake
Id say the monarchy should remain but only the reigning sovereign and its two immediate heirs should benefit from the perks. Also procedures should taken so that none of them ends up marrying, lets say, a racist, brother of some nazi sympathiser, who spent his life talking shit and abuse from his power
Wow you're really up on your Marx. Thanks for the heads up.
The rise of the socialist Labour Party in post war Britain took part under this particular monarchy. Even Stalin was impressed. The real foe today is not the gelded inhabitants of Buck House who are simply a benign remnant of the past that, in many respects, bring joy to a lot of people. She's a symbol and removing her would be a symbolic gesture but as a foundation to meeting the needs of everyone it would be an irrelevant sideshow. Taxing the wealthy? Now you're talking. Workers on boards? That'll do nicely. As a Marxist you see the real fight is with the those who continue to foster the inequalities of the late stages of capitalism on our society. That's where we are at today.