Royalty

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12297
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Royalty

Post by Moliere »

Queen becomes the UK’s longest-serving monarch

WTF do we still have people running around pretending like they were born special? She should abdicate and shut down the whole "royalty" system.

Doug Stanhope On Royalty
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Royalty

Post by Drazzil »

Moliere wrote:Queen becomes the UK’s longest-serving monarch

WTF do we still have people running around pretending like they were born special? She should abdicate and shut down the whole "royalty" system.

Doug Stanhope On Royalty
Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19324
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Royalty

Post by Jaymann »

It gives the Brits something to cling to after their empire has crumbled.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Royalty

Post by hepcat »

Drazzil wrote: Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
I'd hardly call the British royalty a tyrannical rule.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19324
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Royalty

Post by Jaymann »

hepcat wrote:
Drazzil wrote: Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
I'd hardly call the British royalty a tyrannical rule.
I dunno, where do they stand on gay marriage?
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Royalty

Post by hepcat »

Covfefe!
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12297
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Royalty

Post by Moliere »

Jaymann wrote:I dunno, where do they stand on gay marriage?
We know Charles is loony about astrology and homeopathic medicine.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Royalty

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Drazzil wrote:
Moliere wrote:Queen becomes the UK’s longest-serving monarch

WTF do we still have people running around pretending like they were born special? She should abdicate and shut down the whole "royalty" system.

Doug Stanhope On Royalty
Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
So it's not right that someone should be born into a position of affluence but it's OK that they're born to be murdered?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Royalty

Post by Isgrimnur »

hepcat wrote:
Drazzil wrote: Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
I'd hardly call the British royalty a tyrannical rule.
Some of their former colonies would beg to disagree. Just ask the Mau Mau from Kenya.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Royalty

Post by hepcat »

"Current" should have been included in my post. They're ceremonial nowadays. A national treasure more than anything else.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12297
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Royalty

Post by Moliere »

hepcat wrote:A national treasure more than anything else.
More like a national embarrassment.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Royalty

Post by Isgrimnur »

Being royalty gives you the right to opt out of FOIA requests, limiting the risk of exposing you as an alternative medicine supporter, one with access to the Prime Minister.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Royalty

Post by hepcat »

Moliere wrote:
hepcat wrote:A national treasure more than anything else.
More like a national embarrassment.
The British seem to think otherwise.
Covfefe!
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Royalty

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Isgrimnur wrote:Being royalty gives you the right to opt out of FOIA requests, limiting the risk of exposing you as an alternative medicine supporter, one with access to the Prime Minister.
Image.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Vorret
Posts: 9613
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Drummondville, QC

Re: Royalty

Post by Vorret »

I have to admit, the queen is kinda cool.
Isgrimnur wrote:
His name makes me think of a small, burrowing rodent anyway.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Royalty

Post by GreenGoo »

I sort of revel in the hatred expressed for the monarchy. It's funny.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Royalty

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Vorret wrote:I have to admit, the queen is kinda cool.
That's what her loyal subjects are supposed to say about their sovereign. :lol:
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Royalty

Post by GreenGoo »

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Vorret wrote:I have to admit, the queen is kinda cool.
That's what her loyal subjects are supposed to say about their sovereign. :lol:
I'm not sure that article says that we are required to have a specific opinion about the queen, but have at it.

This isn't the first time you've pointed out that we are technically the Queen's subjects. I'm always confused as to your motives though. Are we supposed to be surprised? Embarrassed? Thrilled? Are you educating us (either Canadians or the forum in general)?

While it appears on paper that we are beholden to the Monarchy, the Queen doesn't even exert any power in her own government, let alone ours.

In any case, yes she is our Queen. I think she should have stepped down years ago, but she's freakin' stubborn.

Mostly I think the English keep the Royal family around because it's fun. Sure it costs a ton of money, but what the hell. Money's no good if you don't spend it. The truth of the matter is that the Monarchy exists due to the will of the people. The Queen is beholden to her subjects, not the other way around. She's basically a figurehead.

I think the current royal progeny understand that, and resent it, but not how you might think. They don't resent not being all powerful, they resent that their entire lives are planned out for them. They have almost zero freedom to do what they want, unless they want to be manikins propped up for public display, in which case they got lucky.

While there is a lot of privilege and wealth that goes with the Royal family, there is a lot of obligation, duty and structure too.

My kids have more freedom than the royal family does.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff V
Posts: 36414
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Royalty

Post by Jeff V »

hepcat wrote:"Current" should have been included in my post. They're ceremonial nowadays. A national treasure more than anything else.
If by treasure you mean a massive financial suck on the economy.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Royalty

Post by Isgrimnur »

Costs
According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year.

However, the awesomely titled Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, noted that figure is actually down by 24 percent from 2008-2009, for what it's worth.

But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.

The group Republic broke it down to include things like 3.9 million pounds for travel, half a million pounds for Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and some 400,000 pounds for public relations.

The royal couple's bundle of joy will drive up that cost, of course, as babies tend to do. The price of delivery at the duchess's birthing suite in St. Mary's hospital reportedly costs 10,000 pounds, or about $15,300. "Of course, that doesn't include the reported pre-delivery yoga classes at Kensington Palace or visits to private birthing coaches," the Christian Science Monitor noted.

But there's an upside to shelling out for a tradition that some think should have gone the way of the penny-farthing or the Puffing Billy.

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .

Tourism is the third-biggest industry in the U.K., the tourism board claims, and supports about 2.6 million jobs -- or about one in 12.

Baby Cambridge is set to boost consumer spending even more, according to Britain's Center for Retail Research, to the tune of $383 million. (Commemorative tea cups or iPhone covers, anyone?) The chief U.K. economist at the consulting firm IHS Global Insight also predicts that the birth would have an "overwhelmingly positive" economic impact.

What's more, a British firm called Brand Finance, which evaluates "intangible assets," said the royal wedding alone boosted London's economy by 107 million pounds ($165 million) through "accommodation, travel, and nightlife," even while factoring in the economic drag of time off work.

Judging solely from those statistics (which obviously vary in their methodology), it does seem like the monarchy pays for itself, at least in the years that feature familial mega-events.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Royalty

Post by GreenGoo »

Jeff V wrote:
hepcat wrote:"Current" should have been included in my post. They're ceremonial nowadays. A national treasure more than anything else.
If by treasure you mean a massive financial suck on the economy.
I think their £1.832 trillion economy can handle it.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Royalty

Post by Grifman »

Drazzil wrote:Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Drazzil just wants their chair (throne).
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Royalty

Post by LawBeefaroni »

GreenGoo wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Vorret wrote:I have to admit, the queen is kinda cool.
That's what her loyal subjects are supposed to say about their sovereign. :lol:
I'm not sure that article says that we are required to have a specific opinion about the queen, but have at it.

This isn't the first time you've pointed out that we are technically the Queen's subjects. I'm always confused as to your motives though. Are we supposed to be surprised? Embarrassed? Thrilled? Are you educating us (either Canadians or the forum in general)?

While it appears on paper that we are beholden to the Monarchy, the Queen doesn't even exert any power in her own government, let alone ours.

In any case, yes she is our Queen. I think she should have stepped down years ago, but she's freakin' stubborn.
It was a joke. Take it easy.

You Canadians are so tetchy. (<----This is another joke.)
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Royalty

Post by Grifman »

Isgrimnur wrote:Some of their former colonies would beg to disagree. Just ask the Mau Mau from Kenya.
Did the British royalty actively set policy for Kenya? Somehow, methinks not.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Royalty

Post by Isgrimnur »

Given their lack of transparency on issues such as this, the world may never know. Also, Elizabeth was in Kenya when she succeeded to the throne.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Royalty

Post by Grifman »

Isgrimnur wrote:Given their lack of transparency on issues such as this, the world may never know. Also, Elizabeth was in Kenya when she succeeded to the throne.
So what you are saying is that you have no evidence for your assertion. Thanks for confirming that for me :)

I'll also add that for many years now the role of English royalty has been largely ceremonial. They are advised by the govt of various actions but they don't really make policy. They are supposed to be above politics, not tied any program or party. It's been that way for a long time.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Royalty

Post by GreenGoo »

LawBeefaroni wrote:It was a joke. Take it easy.

You Canadians are so tetchy. (<----This is another joke.)

No worries, although I don't understand the second joke. I assume it revolves around tetchy, but I don't get it. I'm not being intentionally obtuse just to ruin it either. It went over my head.
User avatar
TiLT
Posts: 4435
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:01 am
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Contact:

Re: Royalty

Post by TiLT »

Drazzil wrote:
Moliere wrote:Queen becomes the UK’s longest-serving monarch

WTF do we still have people running around pretending like they were born special? She should abdicate and shut down the whole "royalty" system.

Doug Stanhope On Royalty
Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Wishing death upon innocent people in a very specific manner. Nice.

Do you ever consider thinking before you post? I'm not sure it would make a difference in your case, but it wouldn't hurt to give it a try.
Insert witty comment here.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Royalty

Post by Kraken »

If their royal family substitutes for reality tv celebrities, that's a good tradeoff. Do the Brits and Canucks have anything akin to Kardassians?
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Royalty

Post by Holman »

Drazzil wrote: Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Because that worked out so well?

... I think the British royals are an embarrassing anachronism, but that's about it. Why in the world do you believe as you do? Do you think figurehead royalty is responsible for anything at this point? If you think they deserve cruel punishment, what for?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Royalty

Post by Rip »

Kraken wrote:If their royal family substitutes for reality tv celebrities, that's a good tradeoff. Do the Brits and Canucks have anything akin to Kardassians?
Now that you mention it Prince Charles does remind me a little of Bruce Jenner...... :think:
User avatar
tgb
Posts: 30690
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Royalty

Post by tgb »

TiLT wrote:
Drazzil wrote:
Moliere wrote:Queen becomes the UK’s longest-serving monarch

WTF do we still have people running around pretending like they were born special? She should abdicate and shut down the whole "royalty" system.

Doug Stanhope On Royalty
Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Wishing death upon innocent people in a very specific manner. Nice.

Do you ever consider thinking before you post? I'm not sure it would make a difference in your case, but it wouldn't hurt to give it a try.
Forget it, Jake. It's Drazzil.
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Royalty

Post by em2nought »

Grifman wrote:
Drazzil wrote:Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Drazzil just wants their chair (throne).
It is a nice chair! :mrgreen:

I think the monarchy helps to make the UK, the UK. The one last little place that nationalism is sort of ok with liberal elitists. We all know it's definitely not permitted in the USA. :wink:
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Royalty

Post by Holman »

em2nought wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Drazzil wrote:Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Drazzil just wants their chair (throne).
It is a nice chair! :mrgreen:

I think the monarchy helps to make the UK, the UK. The one last little place that nationalism is sort of ok with liberal elitists. We all know it's definitely not permitted in the USA. :wink:
You make literally no sense.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Royalty

Post by Drazzil »

hepcat wrote:
Drazzil wrote: Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
I'd hardly call the British royalty a tyrannical rule.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about royalty in general. Actually the Brit royalty has been pretty good about things.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Royalty

Post by GreenGoo »

Kraken wrote:If their royal family substitutes for reality tv celebrities, that's a good tradeoff. Do the Brits and Canucks have anything akin to Kardassians?
Canadians don't, I'm not sure about Brits.

Both countries love their reality tv though, just like Americans. So no, it's not a substitution.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Royalty

Post by Drazzil »

hepcat wrote:
Drazzil wrote: Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
I'd hardly call the British royalty a tyrannical rule.
And I thought we were talking about Royalty in general, not the British monarchy specifically.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Royalty

Post by Drazzil »

em2nought wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Drazzil wrote:Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
Drazzil just wants their chair (throne).
It is a nice chair! :mrgreen:

I think the monarchy helps to make the UK, the UK. The one last little place that nationalism is sort of ok with liberal elitists. We all know it's definitely not permitted in the USA. :wink:
:D
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Royalty

Post by Holman »

Drazzil wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Drazzil wrote: Sometimes, very rarely they can serve in leadership/national mascot roles. I am by and large in favor of handling royalty the way the Russians handled their royalty. Round them all up and machine gun them to death in their basements.
I'd hardly call the British royalty a tyrannical rule.
And I thought we were talking about Royalty in general, not the British monarchy specifically.
So... who? You think we should machine gun Leopold II? Richard III? King Friday?

Is there somewhere in the world today where royalty deserves slaughter?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19324
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Royalty

Post by Jaymann »

Lord British? [/ducks]
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
Post Reply