Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Well? Does it?
Gonna need some pros, cons and to see all your workings.
And in any case, presumably like most other European nations we would still have the royal family, they'd just be a sort of minor tourist attraction of their own, with zero power and the mandate only to fill up copies of Hello and Grazia.
Otherwise we'd have to have Tony Blair's face on all the stamps and coins or something.
In fact that could be our flag too.
And to keep things fair, you could have my cock on the other side.
This is a brilliant fucking idea.
Just think, to make decisions in the future, instead of heads and tails, kids will say 'tennis arse or saps' cock'.
I too look forward to the day when the only reason for kids to say "saps' cock" is decision-making.
we ought to go for topless hunk holding baby on one side if we're having tennis woman on t'other.
A while back, I was making & selling badges. Had one with tennis woman on. The photographer got in touch with a cease and desist message. I conjured. I think he died from cancer not long after that. :-/
We're going with my cock.
Does New Zealand still need a monarchy?
And imma come over there like a modern day Thomas Paine once I've sorted Scotland out.
When NZ runs free, Austrialalia & Canadia will follow.
thousands of brain dead cretins turned out to welcome THE DUCHESS and Willza when they toured.
Part of our cow-eyed, trusting nature I guess.
and Britain hasn't had a revolution where the previous system has been removed and a new one installed. Even when Cromwell became de facto "king" there was a restoration after his death. I'm not particularly a fan of the monarchy nor a hugely proactively against it. I'm not in favour of removing things just for the sake of it, when it's not flavour of the month and where it doesn't really impact many people. We may as well leave it as it is.
colonialism very well.
and I didn't read any posts in this thread.
But we have one, so we are kind of stuck with it. It will probably fizzle out when ER dies, I really hope they ditch all the real hangers-on like Edward and his kids. I don't mind paying for the Queen to live in a castle, but not her grandkids.
That's pretty much the most positive thing I can say about them.
we could have that every 4 years but with less death, much like a world cup.
I'm a republican at my core but given the fact that the British public is by and large in thrall to, and also in love with, the Monarchy it's the most futile position I can possibly imagine holding. So I just soldier on.
Things will change with Prince Charles though. The man's a fucking disaster. As monarch's go Liz is decent, elegant and keeps her nose out. That prick is the opposite.
she tried her fair share of meddling back in the day but got her fingers burnt iirc. I do wonder if King Charles will get such an easy ride from the press because he's particularly obnoxious, but I'm guessing the answer is 'yes he will'.
(I've tried googling 'queen' and 'the 70s' but it's tricky to sift through the results. Definitely read about some mini-scandal about her attempts at political interference)
Fair enough. I don't concern myself enough with them to be honest.
Even if it's newsworthy (ie Prince Andrew being a cunt or Prince Charles being a cunt) always seems to descend quite quickly into 'palace gossip' and Witchell-style crap.
but I don't think there's too much beyond that.
The 'Firm' as a whole let it be known that they were concerned over the post-war independence movements, plus there's their part in the planned coups against the Wilson government.
but it probably does provide a USP for british tourism and foreign interest, despite what the link says in crude gross terms...the link does not describe the softer more subtle aspects of why foreigners (US might be interested in the UK)
Of course I can't quantify this, so it is just an overall feeling....I see no reason why we can't tone it down a bit though.
I mean, it does need to be taught that the royals are no more special or better than you or I or anyone else.
It would be nice if when the queen came on at christmas, she held up a picture of a little child scravanging on a rubbish tip in Kenya, and said, "I should be no more important than this little girl, but I was lucky, she is not...I am no better than her, and CEOs of multinationals are no better than her, she has just been born into different circumstances"
That would be a great thing to be able to do with the power of privilage....deconstruct it to bolster others....I suppose many will say that she does do this anyway.....but it needs to move on....to emphasise privilage more......the queen seems decent enough (although I know hardly anything of her character) judging from the decorum and discipline of HER public appearances....the rest of them seem to be somewhat less than professional about their roles of privilage
since sent to the scaffold.
Let's do the same.
(I don't know that)
But I do know that having photos taken with lifeguards and watching the changing of the guard, trooping the colour, etc is still a USP....I cannot calculate what these sorts of things are worth.
One could argue that the whole guards dress uniforms is pointless as are horses in the military...indeed what is the point of parade ground marching at all?
Its impossible to quantify somethings.
outweighs the cost.
Just execute the actual individual members of the monarchy.
Starting with Prince George.
we should just make the Hoff head of state.
Would cost a fraction of the price for a massive upgrade in quality.
and all the anti-royalists were really happy about it, but then the royal brand turned out to be stronger than expected and they became even richer than ever but without the constraints of public office, and they started interfering left right and centre and using their influence all over the place and stuff (are there constraints? Don't know)
Republicans - be careful what you wish for.
if you think the employees of a huge multinational company end up rich and influential. They're going to be owned by Walmart and if they're really lucky they might just make minimum wage and get clean uniforms.
when Duchy Originals gets taken over by Kraft.
Privatising them means that you'd just see a transfer of all their land and assets into off-shore companies and banks. As unaccountable as they are, at least the current arrangement allows some modicum of control.
but also it possibly doesnt need to get rid of it on balance
Put that in your spreadsheet.
on a scrap heap.....then there isnt so much of a problem.
there are a lot of things to be offended by.....like poor people having different entrances to rich people to the same buildings....stuff like that......toilet cleaners for corporations getting paid less than 'the living wage' all sorts of unfair inequalities....many new ones being intorduced.....like zero hours...best save your ire for such new things, before they become 'a tradition'
No one thinks the royals are better or anything, spend less on them if you like. or make them work harder for the money.
(I acknowledge that you can always find idiots that will say that they are better, but I still win, because these people are not 'thinking' they are just parroting some false, but warming to them, sentimentality....like believing in father christmas, or a cuddly god with a big beard)
Other than them featuring on all coins, stamps and notes? Living in palaces? Having hundreds of servents? Getting a national holiday for dying or marrying? All public events and comedy on TV being cancelled so we can all mourn their passing? Wall-to-wall media coverage of their every fart? Cracking tickets for Wimbledon? The chance to veto any legislation they don't like? Boats named after them? Being the head of their own religion? Their own shit TV show during primetime Christmas TV every year? Featuring quite heavily in the national anthem? Owning swans?
Yeah, tough one that creaky.
media creates and then covers celebrity, media is quite happy to create and celebrate celebrity that is not based upon quality of character.
Its privilage and certainly the rewards they get are unearned in the ammount, but that happens all over.
My point is, there is no extant logical argument or sentient thought that believes they are 'special' other than the accident of birth and the celebrity that results.
In the past there was argument that the monarchs were actually entitled, or should have power over others that they were not better than.....today the monarch does not have that power, parliament does, because the monarch remains monarch only because parliament has said that they can remain as long as they dont interfere with running of the state......that is the bargain that was struck....a compromise by parliament to allow the monarchy to not be abolished.
They can continue to be rich or whatever and I'm sure the Daily Mail will never, ever stop covering Will and Harry's lives (which I find kinda sad to be honest, I bet they'd rather be left alone and they seem pretty decent) but to have an actual monarchy in the 21st century just seems totally batshit insane to me.
other than he is married and has a child and gets photoed a lot.
I know the names of his mother and father, I know he went to a public school.
I don't know anything of his quality of character however.
they do not make any decisions (beyond decorating their palaces)
you could say why have any pomp, circumstance, pagentary, ceremony, symbolism of any kind...it is after all only artiface to some.
Why cant parliament just meet in a normal office? why do judges wear wigs?
Whats the point of honoury degrees?
or award ceremonys?
or shiny medals?
like I say they are no better than anyone else, and no sentient being thinks they are.
They have divorces, sham marriages, addictions, depressions, cruel familial desceptions, cheating adultary, lazy layabouts, self harm, scroungers, rude arrogant gits, inter familial cruelty and pressure, and it appears had a tradition of 'corporal correction' (probaby now ceased due to diana?).
They have the cushion of wealth and privilage to both stiffle the ability to be normal, but also protect them from disaster from the above list of 'probems' which can often destroy non privilaged families.
The Queen does seem to have a certain steadfastness which is unusual and I can understand people admiring this....I cant think of any other qualities that they display that are admirable.
I know some americans like the plumy voices in the pageantry setting, but really thats sort of as shallow as liking marilyn munroes tits in a nice dress
because that is good for their children, so they are, in that respect, being good parents.
I dont have anything against william or harry or andrew (although I dont know them) and Anne won an olympic gold medal (Ok she may have been privilaged...but she still had to be really really good at her sport to do that)
than some shit figurehead President
any change in 'Head of State' would just be completely semantic?
if we have to have a shit figurehead why not have it be someone electable, and therefore accountable, instead of whoever the last monarch squirts out of their sex organ?
We've been largely lucky with Elizabeth. It shouldn't be about luck though.
I'd shoot her last
Like many of the others, a monarchy in the 21st century is ridiculous. Every story – Phillip's gaffes, the children's dodgy companies, sex scandals, the great-grandchildren's mission to appear 'normal' – is a reminder how embarrassed we should feel that this anachronistic system exists in our modern democracy.
It says a lot about where we've come from, fine, but it says a lot about where we want to go.
Look how red my cheeks are.
Keep their nice houses for folks to look at if they want.
Keep them alive too, so needy nationalist weirdos can skype or whatever. I mean Willz is meant to be alright in an air ambulance, let him carry on but he doesnt get to own all the swans or Kent ffs.
property and land too. He'll be grateful.
See, I'm nothing if not magnanimous.
plenty of other people for gossip these days