Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Prince William no longer needs his crown jewels to become monarch   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Prince William, Duchess of Cambridge, mr cameron, royal families, birth order  
•       •       •

12733 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Oct 2011 at 12:33 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-28 10:02:26 AM  
Heh heh. You still have a monarchy,
 
2011-10-28 10:07:40 AM  

Mugato: Heh heh. You still have a monarchy,


One day, they will discover you don't need a monarch to have a government, but baby steps.
 
2011-10-28 10:53:07 AM  
Mr Cameron said the historic rules were "at odds with the modern countries that we have become".

Kind of like having a King or Queen?

Don't get me wrong, I love those useless assholes, but come on.
 
2011-10-28 10:56:40 AM  

mitchcumstein1: Mr Cameron said the historic rules were "at odds with the modern countries that we have become".

Kind of like having a King or Queen?

Don't get me wrong, I love those useless assholes, but come on.


You love them? Which part, the absurd amount of money the government spends on them, or the completely worthless and baseless sense of entitlement they all have?

They're actually objectively bad people. They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human." No matter how much charity they do, they can't evade the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to give them all this money and attention, nor spend as much money on protecting them, etc.
 
2011-10-28 11:07:33 AM  

mattharvest: You love them? Which part, the absurd amount of money the government spends on them, or the completely worthless and baseless sense of entitlement they all have?


Yes.

They're actually objectively bad people. They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human."

So any person who inherits money should refuse it, and go live in a hovel?
 
2011-10-28 11:22:11 AM  

mitchcumstein1: mattharvest: You love them? Which part, the absurd amount of money the government spends on them, or the completely worthless and baseless sense of entitlement they all have?

Yes.

They're actually objectively bad people. They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human."

So any person who inherits money should refuse it, and go live in a hovel?

whatever they can afford based on their personal income, which shouldn't be half-bad considering their world-class education.

It's human nature to want the best for your children, so it will be a very long time before we're able to clear this hurdle as a species, but the passage of wealth between generations actively makes the world a worse place.
 
2011-10-28 11:36:10 AM  

Snarfangel: Mugato: Heh heh. You still have a monarchy,

One day, they will discover you don't need a monarch to have a government, but baby steps.


Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.
 
2011-10-28 11:54:38 AM  

Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.


What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.

And before anyone brings it up, we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.
 
2011-10-28 12:12:08 PM  

Mugato: Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.

What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.


I didn't pay attention to that at all. I thought it a bit silly that they still put together these huge productions, knowing full well the horrible track record of royal fidelity and general marriage stability.

And before anyone brings it up, we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.

I can see the comparison, given the amount of attention people give to celebrities in the entertainment industry in the western world. However, I think that's where the similarity ends. We're talking about people who have inherited titles. Save bringing awareness to charitable causes, they have no talent, and have done nothing else to earn their 'celebrity' status. Unless I'm missing something, and they're regular investors in the British economy.

I guess the tourist dollars they bring in can be seen as another positive.

All-in-all, I'm on the fence when it comes to the existence of British nobility. I just find it curious that Britain being a part of the modern, enlightened world, doesn't see that the nobility should just be gotten rid of as the uncomfortable reminder of a more oppressive time that I and I assume others see it as.

However, I am an American, and a few clicks left of center quasi-socialist, so I don't have much ground to stand on. Let them have their Kings and Queens, if they want 'em. It'll be fun to visit there some day and take a gander at 'em, like being in front of an institution you're only familiar with in history books and Brothers Grimm tales.
 
2011-10-28 12:36:58 PM  
The red headed one seems pretty cool, wasn't he deployed in the middle east incognito?

Kate is smoking hot.
 
2011-10-28 12:37:23 PM  
mitchcumstein1
So any person who inherits money should refuse it, and go live in a hovel?

It's not the money - it's the part where the country's constitution recognizes that these people are somehow special.
 
2011-10-28 12:39:18 PM  
so does this mean she doesn't have to make the royal sammiches either!?
 
2011-10-28 12:39:26 PM  
Did they take away the anti-Catholic rule too? Can I finally take the throne?
 
2011-10-28 12:39:43 PM  
I'd love to slather Kate in Marmite and...

/be right back
 
2011-10-28 12:41:02 PM  

kevin5lynn: mitchcumstein1
So any person who inherits money should refuse it, and go live in a hovel?

It's not the money - it's the part where the country's constitution recognizes that these people are somehow special.


Occupy Parliament??
 
2011-10-28 12:41:40 PM  

kevin5lynn: mitchcumstein1
So any person who inherits money should refuse it, and go live in a hovel?

It's not the money - it's the part where the country's constitution recognizes that these people are somehow special.


It may not be in the U.S. Constitution, but we recognize people every bit as special:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-10-28 12:43:41 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2011-10-28 12:44:14 PM  
mattharvest
They're actually objectively bad people. They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human." No matter how much charity they do, they can't evade the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to give them all this money and attention, nor spend as much money on protecting them, etc.


Their abdication wouldn't save anyone a dime (or rather, a schilling). If the Queen abdicated, Prince Charles would become King, and if he abdicated, William will take his place, and so on and so forth. Abdication won't abolish the monarchy. Someone would still be the beneficiary of the money and attention.

/American
//so I don't have a dog in this fight, just saying.
 
2011-10-28 12:45:00 PM  

mattharvest: mitchcumstein1: Mr Cameron said the historic rules were "at odds with the modern countries that we have become".

Kind of like having a King or Queen?

Don't get me wrong, I love those useless assholes, but come on.

You love them? Which part, the absurd amount of money the government spends on them, or the completely worthless and baseless sense of entitlement they all have?

They're actually objectively bad people. They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human." No matter how much charity they do, they can't evade the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to give them all this money and attention, nor spend as much money on protecting them, etc.


Tourism, my friend, tourism. Do you think there would be so many visitors to Buckingham if not to try to get a peek at the Queen or to watch the pageantry around her? As Cythraul said, the monarchy is so ingrained into British identity to most people. Remove it and you've got...Canada?

And I'll never understand why there's so much hostility towards the British monarchy and nary a word against King Juan Carlos, King Gustaf, or King Harald. Why does the British monarchy get all the hate?
 
2011-10-28 12:45:44 PM  
I only take Tradition for the region creep and the wonder building. Still, its meta is pretty nice for later victory attempts.
 
2011-10-28 12:46:13 PM  

cgraves67: Did they take away the anti-Catholic rule too? Can I finally take the throne?


As I understand it, you can be take the throne if you're married to a papist, but not if you are one.

Maybe next time.
 
2011-10-28 12:47:01 PM  

Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.


It's almost like an abusive spouse!
 
2011-10-28 12:48:28 PM  
brigid_fitch 2011-10-28 12:45:00 PM
Tourism, my friend, tourism. Do you think there would be so many visitors to Buckingham if not to try to get a peek at the Queen or to watch the pageantry around her?

Oh, absolutely. The lack of monarchy hasn't impeded the tourism industry of France, for example.


Remove it and you've got...Canada?
Canada is a monarchy - our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.
 
2011-10-28 12:48:36 PM  

Mugato: Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.

What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.

And before anyone brings it up, we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.


If all the hoopla wasn't around a stupid, outdated custom in a foreign country, it wouldn't be interesting.
 
2011-10-28 12:48:52 PM  

Snarfangel: Mugato: Heh heh. You still have a monarchy,

One day, they will discover you don't need a monarch to have a government, but baby steps.


While I agree that having a monarchy in 2011 is ridiculous, it's not like our system of government is clearly superior to theirs. We still have dynasties, a hereditary aristocracy, and so on in the U.S....it's just not enshrined explicitly into law. In some ways, that makes our system LESS honest than an outright monarchy would be. And I would also say that the democratic aspects of the British system work at least as well or better than some of our institutions (e.g., Parliament + prime minister vs. Congress + President). At least in their system, the executive part of the government functions because it's made up of the same people who hold a majority in the legislative body. I get the whole separation of powers things, but it's not clear that the specific way we've designed that in our system works better. Especially now that patriotism has gone out the window and one of our major parties is exploiting the flaws in the system in order to break the whole thing whenever the other side is in charge.

Royalty is silly, but the British royalty is pretty toothless and benign at this point. They're mostly just a part of their political tradition, not major threat to democracy. I don't think we Americans should be so smug, given that the flaws in our political system make the existence of the Royal Family look whimsical and fun in comparison.
 
2011-10-28 12:49:44 PM  
White people problems.
 
2011-10-28 12:52:59 PM  
brigid_fitch
And I'll never understand why there's so much hostility towards the British monarchy and nary a word against King Juan Carlos, King Gustaf, or King Harald. Why does the British monarchy get all the hate?


I'm guessing that's because those other monarchs (and their families) aren't in the news every week for some sort of embarrassing behavior. Whether this is because the other European royal families are better behaved or simply because the English speaking press focuses more on the Brits is anyone's guess.
 
2011-10-28 12:53:03 PM  

kevin5lynn: brigid_fitch 2011-10-28 12:45:00 PM
Tourism, my friend, tourism. Do you think there would be so many visitors to Buckingham if not to try to get a peek at the Queen or to watch the pageantry around her?

Oh, absolutely. The lack of monarchy hasn't impeded the tourism industry of France, for example.


Remove it and you've got...Canada?
Canada is a monarchy - our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.


Not my president queen
 
2011-10-28 12:53:38 PM  
Ugg, strike through! Not underline...

I'm off to scavenge more coffee...
 
2011-10-28 12:54:57 PM  

cgraves67: Did they take away the anti-Catholic rule too? Can I finally take the throne?


You can now marry the monarch, but you can't be the monarch. Sorry. The monarch is still the nominal head of the Church of England, so he/she has to be CofE.

Of course, like any other member of the CofE, actual belief in God is optional.
 
2011-10-28 12:56:19 PM  

Mugato: And before anyone brings it up, Mugato: What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.

we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.


I blame Disney, myself. All the hype leading up to it, all the women I knew were talking about the fantasy of being picked up out of obscurity by a handsome Prince and have the most perfect Fairytale wedding. It was especially a big deal to a lot of people, even internationally, that the most powerful monarchy was allowing the second in line to marry a commoner.
 
2011-10-28 12:56:37 PM  
Bad move; this will surely lead to bloody factional struggles over the throne when the current monarch dies. And what are they going to replace it with? Tanistry? Yeah; that worked REAL well for the Scots. Go ask Finlaech mac Ruaidri how well that system played out.
 
2011-10-28 12:57:07 PM  
Eh, they keep the monarchy around for the tourists (mostly, it seems, stupid Americans). So in that sense, they probably earn their keep (barely).
 
2011-10-28 12:57:08 PM  
If they would just stop the moistened bints from lobbing scimitars at them, they could end all this silliness.
 
2011-10-28 12:57:59 PM  

kevin5lynn: brigid_fitch 2011-10-28 12:45:00 PM
Tourism, my friend, tourism. Do you think there would be so many visitors to Buckingham if not to try to get a peek at the Queen or to watch the pageantry around her?

Oh, absolutely. The lack of monarchy hasn't impeded the tourism industry of France, for example.


Au contraire, mon frère. I refuse to visit France because there is no King Louis XLVII.
 
2011-10-28 12:59:13 PM  

Mugato: Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.

What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.

And before anyone brings it up, we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.


Were people really that fascinated with it, or was the media just fascinated with talking about how fascinated people were with it? I didn't really notice anyone in my part of the world being too fixated on the whole thing, so I just figured it was the typical US media hyperventilating over anything that lets them avoid covering actual news, like always.
 
2011-10-28 01:04:37 PM  
Great now what happens when the crown princess brings home a black guy

/ look who's coming to dinner
// once you go black...
 
2011-10-28 01:06:22 PM  

Mugato: What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.


Maybe I move in unusual circles, but it seemed to me that the media fascination far outstripped the average American's interest. NBC in particular seemed to be unable to utter the word "princess" without conjuring up images of some Disneyesque fairy tale fantasy confection of gowns and balls and carriages and palaces that every little girl is supposed to dream of, utterly disconnected from the reality of being a princess in the present day, which mainly consists of smiling and waving and tailored suits.

I also find it odd that the more Republican people are, the quicker they seem to be to bend the knee and tug their forelocks at the prospect of rubbing elbows with foreign aristocracy and monarchy at some expensive banquet.
 
2011-10-28 01:13:04 PM  

Heron: Mugato: Cythraul: Heh, their monarchy is so ingrained into their identity, to me, it'd be weird if Britain (especially England) got rid of their nobility.

What annoys me is how fascinated Americans were with that royal wedding a few months back. We fought a war to get away from that shiat.

And before anyone brings it up, we have celebrity royalty in this country too, in the form of actors and reality show stars and just people who are famous for being famous and that's annoying too but we don't pay them taxes and they don't call us subjects.

Were people really that fascinated with it, or was the media just fascinated with talking about how fascinated people were with it? I didn't really notice anyone in my part of the world being too fixated on the whole thing, so I just figured it was the typical US media hyperventilating over anything that lets them avoid covering actual news, like always.


It was worse than that. The only people I knew that were paying attention to it at all were simply fascinated by the fact that people were apparently fascinated by it, which means that they were fascinated by the media's fascination with the thought that people might be fascinated with talking about it.

It really is fascinating, if you think about it.
 
2011-10-28 01:13:54 PM  

Calm Down You Spaz: Great now what happens when the crown princess brings home a black guy

/ look who's coming to dinner
// once you go black...


The Queen in Doctor Who several thousand years from now was black. She was actually a very, very interesting character and I almost wished she would become a companion.
 
2011-10-28 01:14:26 PM  
Obama is royalty to liberals. Costs billions of taxpayer dollars to keep him there, take care of him, pay him, and pay for his pet failed projects.
 
2011-10-28 01:14:35 PM  

kevin5lynn: Canada is a monarchy - our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.


No, Canada's a Parliamentary Democracy.

Head of State /= Head of Government. The Queen is Head of State, but that position carries no actual legal power.

mattharvest: They're actually objectively bad people. They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human." No matter how much charity they do, they can't evade the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to give them all this money and attention, nor spend as much money on protecting them, etc.


There's a very specific reason for the aristocracy.

It keeps them out of government.

They're wealthy landowners, and they would continue to be wealthy landowners if they didn't have a title. They're wealthy landowners who've been politically active for hundreds of years. If they weren't "the monarchy", they wouldn't suddenly disappear, they'd suddenly be well-educated, fantastically wealthy people, with strong political foundations, who are now free to run for parliament.

Because they can't, right now. They're not legally able to. You can't be the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister. And if you abolish the Monarchy, I guarantee that's what would end up happening, both because of the general goodwill toward the Monarchy that the British people hold, and because they have the money and training to campaign for it and win. At which point, the still have all the money and wealth they had as the Monarchy, but now they also have real political control in a way they do not, currently.


Which is why the Monarchy exists. Because letting them wear a crown and have no power is better than taking the crown away and letting them have the power back.
 
2011-10-28 01:17:39 PM  

kevin5lynn: Oh, absolutely. The lack of monarchy hasn't impeded the tourism industry of France, for example.


France, despite the French, has more going for it as a tourist destination than Great Britain. The only advantage Britain would have is we nominally speak the same language.
 
2011-10-28 01:18:37 PM  

czetie: Maybe I move in unusual circles, but it seemed to me that the media fascination far outstripped the average American's interest. NBC in particular seemed to be unable to utter the word "princess" without conjuring up images of some Disneyesque fairy tale fantasy confection of gowns and balls and carriages and palaces that every little girl is supposed to dream of, utterly disconnected from the reality of being a princess in the present day, which mainly consists of smiling and waving and tailored suits.


You move in unusual circles. Way too many Americans got up way too early to watch that shiat.
 
2011-10-28 01:21:29 PM  

SharkTrager: kevin5lynn: Oh, absolutely. The lack of monarchy hasn't impeded the tourism industry of France, for example.

France, despite the French, has more going for it as a tourist destination than Great Britain. The only advantage Britain would have is we nominally speak the same language.


I'm not so sure about that. I think I'd visit Britain with or without a monarchy. But then, I am a strange duck.
 
2011-10-28 01:24:58 PM  

SharkTrager: czetie: Maybe I move in unusual circles, but it seemed to me that the media fascination far outstripped the average American's interest. NBC in particular seemed to be unable to utter the word "princess" without conjuring up images of some Disneyesque fairy tale fantasy confection of gowns and balls and carriages and palaces that every little girl is supposed to dream of, utterly disconnected from the reality of being a princess in the present day, which mainly consists of smiling and waving and tailored suits.

You move in unusual circles. Way too many Americans got up way too early to watch that shiat.


I missed it by a whole day. I thought it took place a day later. Didn't have a clue until I heard the coverage of the aftermath.

/employed :/
 
2011-10-28 01:25:31 PM  
Good idea. The British Monarchy is the source of a lot of tourism $, and female royals are a lot better draw than the males.
 
2011-10-28 01:36:04 PM  

HailRobonia: Good idea. The British Monarchy is the source of a lot of tourism $, and female royals are a lot better draw than the males.


They certainly last longer, at least. Between the current monarch and Victoria, not too many of the guys come close in staying power.
 
2011-10-28 01:37:51 PM  

mattharvest: They choose to live that life instead of saying "You know, I didn't earn one damn cent of this, nor did any of my ancestors in the last two hundred thousand years, so I'm going to abdicate and go live as a normal human." No matter how much charity they do, they can't evade the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to give them all this money and attention, nor spend as much money on protecting them, etc.



FTFY.
 
2011-10-28 01:44:46 PM  
I believe in a true monarchy if only because there is then only one person acting as the government to overthrow. (see Gaddafi (new window))
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report