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.

(ABC)   It's stories like these that make you realize that the British Monarchy is really just a Cosplay LARP that people have taken way too seriously for way too long   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 174
    More: Silly, Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Edinburgh, Duchess of York, Prince Edward  
•       •       •

14922 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2012 at 11:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-26 09:46:48 AM
The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.
 
2012-06-26 09:57:30 AM

Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


Well, I am the "queen"...
 
2012-06-26 09:58:18 AM

Weaver95: we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


I'm will give a polite nod of the head to one or two.
 
2012-06-26 10:04:54 AM

Weaver95: we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


If it means I get to come into every thread and say "Oh hellooooooooooo" like Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm all for it.
 
2012-06-26 10:17:52 AM

xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...


I'm a joker, I'm a smoker.
 
2012-06-26 10:35:07 AM

xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...


Goddamnitsomuch.
 
2012-06-26 10:37:05 AM

DjangoStonereaver: xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...

I'm a joker, I'm a smoker.


Well my career speaking on the pompatus of love has somehow saddled me with the nickname "Maurice"
 
2012-06-26 10:50:18 AM

Magorn: DjangoStonereaver: xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...

I'm a joker, I'm a smoker.

Well my career speaking on the pompatus of love has somehow saddled me with the nickname "Maurice"


Oweeet WOW!
 
2012-06-26 11:04:32 AM

Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


Can I be "The Farker Formerly Known as Prince"?

/as in ♫ 'f I were King of the Fore-e-e-est, Not queen, not duke, not prince. ♫
 
2012-06-26 11:05:29 AM
FTA: As a former commoner, she must show reverence by curtseying to royal-borns in public and private when her husband, Prince William, is not present.

What exactly would the consequences be if she just laughed and refused to 'curtsey?' And so if she wasn't a former 'commoner,' would that mean she wouldn't have to curtsey?

Heh, I'd just tell these people to go fark themselves. Moot point I guess, since the chances of me ever hooking with a noble are an absolute zero.
 
2012-06-26 11:17:29 AM

Cythraul: What exactly would the consequences be if she just laughed and refused to 'curtsey?' And so if she wasn't a former 'commoner,' would that mean she wouldn't have to curtsey?


She'd offend her husband's weird family.

/and the weirdo Brits that are pro-Monarchy.

That's about it.
 
2012-06-26 11:22:28 AM
What happens when she becomes Queen? They all have to bow to her, right?
 
2012-06-26 11:25:00 AM

what_now: What happens when she becomes Queen? They all have to bow to her, right?


Given the Methuselah-aged current queen, she won't be queen until 2040's. So she has a while to wait for that delicious curtseying revenge.
 
2012-06-26 11:28:36 AM

Cythraul: Given the Methuselah-aged current queen, she won't be queen until 2040's. So she has a while to wait for that delicious curtseying revenge.


Well...no, because she'd be the NEXT queen. Didn't they make a fuss about how Camilla can't be crowned, she can just be the consort?
 
Biv
2012-06-26 11:53:16 AM
The PPA approves.

/obscure?
 
2012-06-26 11:55:14 AM
All these rules are just bureaucratic red tape getting in the way of the monarchy's vital roles as, um, people who open shopping malls and wave a lot.
 
2012-06-26 11:55:56 AM
Such a huge outrage over a harmless tradition that most Brits wouldn't even really think twice about until Rick Romero said something.

Kate knew what she was marrying in to. Apart from married in itself, she wouldn't do anything too stupid.
 
2012-06-26 11:57:10 AM

xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...


Knight jumps queen! Bishop jumps queen! Pawns jump queen! *Gangbang*!
 
2012-06-26 11:57:47 AM
I can't believe that those blokes over there still tolerate this reminder of their subjugation. Granted the royal family is more of a figure-head than anything these days, but they still get money from the state and they are still influential. Oh well, to each their own.

/watch the royal wedding of William and Kate? Yeah, right, fark you. I got better things to do, like watching my grass grow
 
2012-06-26 11:58:18 AM
At least they send around the rules. Some RPers (LA and virtual) seem to think you'll just "get it" and can't understand why everyone goes off their odd script.

As to why she will comply with the order? Yeah, she signed up for that shiat. Just remember, until she got married she had to curtsy to ALL of them. Now it's just a relatively small list, that will get smaller over time. Off hand, I'd say she's winning the game.
 
2012-06-26 11:58:36 AM

what_now: Cythraul: Given the Methuselah-aged current queen, she won't be queen until 2040's. So she has a while to wait for that delicious curtseying revenge.

Well...no, because she'd be the NEXT queen. Didn't they make a fuss about how Camilla can't be crowned, she can just be the consort?


I thought they could skip Charles and go right to the older kid whom I always forget the name of.
 
2012-06-26 11:58:42 AM

Seamer: Such a huge outrage over a harmless tradition that most Brits wouldn't even really think twice about until Rick Romero said something.

Kate knew what she was marrying in to. Apart from married in itself, she wouldn't do anything too stupid.


I'm sure this is a huge deal. I mean, who needs hundreds of millions of dollars, all the pomp and privilege of being a member of the royal family and the ability to literally do whateverthefarkshewants for the rest of her life if you have to curtsey to some people.

The horror.
 
2012-06-26 11:59:12 AM

Slaves2Darkness: xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...

Knight jumps queen! Bishop jumps queen! Pawns jump queen! *Gangbang*!


cdn-www.cracked.com
It's good to be the king.
 
2012-06-26 11:59:20 AM
All cosplay LARPs are taken way too seriously.
Except maybe the sexy ones.
 
2012-06-26 12:00:58 PM

Weaver95: we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


Ugh, I hate dealing with the Toreadors.
 
2012-06-26 12:01:09 PM
Ranking in the Fark royal hierarchy will be determined by a naked gin drinking contest...as is tradition.
 
2012-06-26 12:02:42 PM

Seamer: Such a huge outrage over a harmless tradition that most Brits wouldn't even really think twice about until Rick Romero said something.

Kate knew what she was marrying in to. Apart from married in itself, she wouldn't do anything too stupid.


You mean like showing up on a beach naked? Sonofabiatch!
 
2012-06-26 12:03:09 PM

xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...


Does that make Fb- the "father"?
 
2012-06-26 12:05:03 PM

Biv: The PPA approves.

/obscure?


Everybody knows about the Pippa Penising Association.

/Not just the president, I'm also a member.
 
2012-06-26 12:05:07 PM
She forgot to curtsey...DRINK!!!!!!
 
2012-06-26 12:05:10 PM

what_now: What happens when she becomes Queen? They all have to bow to her, right?


Bow down to her if you want.
content6.flixster.com
 
2012-06-26 12:07:43 PM
I mean, really? This is all so silly. When she's the queen can she make changes to the dumb rules? And if she doesn't do them correctly now, what can they possibly do to her?
 
2012-06-26 12:07:48 PM
"Royalty" is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished in an enlightened time. What amazes me is that we here in the USA are just as big on Royalty Worship as they are in England, and we are supposed to be a nation of people who believe that all are equal.

Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.
 
2012-06-26 12:08:45 PM

Biv: The PPA approves.

/obscure?


When you come against the Mackenzies, keep your visor down!

/no
 
2012-06-26 12:08:50 PM
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD PRINCESSES!!!
 
2012-06-26 12:09:00 PM

highendmighty: what_now: What happens when she becomes Queen? They all have to bow to her, right?

Bow down to her if you want.
[content6.flixster.com image 360x196]


img2.bdbphotos.com

Joffrey is king, my one true love.

Now stop asking.
 
2012-06-26 12:09:19 PM
Hello from the future. It's 2079 and the world is still around. There has been a monumental change in.... I can't tell you or it will affect your timeline. Will call in two years......message updating: borfin432
 
2012-06-26 12:09:39 PM
www.wall321.com
 
2012-06-26 12:10:05 PM
I've got something that Kate would enjoy curtseying to...I've got it right here
 
2012-06-26 12:10:36 PM

Ennuipoet: Weaver95: we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

I'm will give a polite nod of the head to one or two.


Perhaps 3 or 4.
Farkettes get my email (check profile)
My co-litters get nothing.
The rest of you TF'ers get the same thing I receive from the admins;
www.bikerrogue.com
 
2012-06-26 12:10:52 PM
I get to be Lord Sir Codworth Littlepants, knight of the Trousers, Earl of South Litersville.

I would be like, 9000th in the line of succession, and have to subject myself to UFIA from a whole lot of you.

/I doubt I'll be going to any FARK parties if this goes into effect.
 
2012-06-26 12:11:18 PM

highendmighty: what_now: What happens when she becomes Queen? They all have to bow to her, right?

Bow down to her if you want.
[content6.flixster.com image 360x196]


Well played!
 
2012-06-26 12:11:59 PM
Despite the fact Kate Middleton may one day become queen, she recently learned she must curtsey to "blood princesses" when she's not in Prince William's company.
They have tough lives, the royals do, that's for sure. I'm crying so hard now, feeling their pain, that I can barely type these words.
 
2012-06-26 12:12:05 PM

FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.


The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.
 
2012-06-26 12:13:54 PM
White people's problems.
 
2012-06-26 12:15:43 PM

Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


If you have trouble remembering, use the mnemonic "Please Remember My Dear Aunt Sally".
 
2012-06-26 12:16:07 PM

Cythraul: what_now: What happens when she becomes Queen? They all have to bow to her, right?

Given the Methuselah-aged current queen, she won't be queen until 2040's. So she has a while to wait for that delicious curtseying revenge.


Takes that long to level up? Does she at least get a flying mount out of it?
 
2012-06-26 12:16:47 PM

Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


Introducing, his Imperial "I regret posting while drunkedness," Nicoffeine the Ignore Listed.
 
2012-06-26 12:19:04 PM

FarkinHostile: "Royalty" is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished in an enlightened time. What amazes me is that we here in the USA are just as big on Royalty Worship as they are in England, and we are supposed to be a nation of people who believe that all are equal.

Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.


They're the 1%, stop being jealous of what they have and pick yourself up by the bootstraps ... er, wait, no, that can't possibly be right ... this whole country is doomed.
 
2012-06-26 12:20:47 PM
FarkinHostile: "Royalty" is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished in an enlightened time. What amazes me is that we here in the USA are just as big on Royalty Worship as they are in England, and we are supposed to be a nation of people who believe that all are equal.
Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.


You're right the concept is. The practice however has pretty much had all the bugs ironed out of it, so it's not a problem to keep it around. (Google Magna Carta, English Civil War, Glorious Revolution of 1688.)
 
2012-06-26 12:22:39 PM

FarkinHostile: "Royalty" is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished in an enlightened time. What amazes me is that we here in the USA are just as big on Royalty Worship as they are in England, and we are supposed to be a nation of people who believe that all are equal.

Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.


But, but, but, Tradition! And Disney-esque romantic tales of royal white weddings with fair maiden and prince charmings!
 
2012-06-26 12:22:58 PM
Well I didn't vote for them.
 
2012-06-26 12:24:48 PM
FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.


Do you have any qualms about the royals owning huge tracts of tax-free land and possessions? Or how about that the UK people pay to keep these folks in high style, with round-the-clock protection, without receiving any tangible benefit from them in return?

I'm with FarkinHostile on this one. The royals (benign or not, powerless or not) represent the opposite of everything I believe in as a free man.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:27 PM
The continued existence of royalty is an affront to human dignity, and the ridiculous excuses addlebrained Brits come up with to justify the maintenance of an absurd medieval office are, uh, ridiculous. First of all, no one goes to Britain to see the royal family, okay; some may attempt to see them while they're there, but catching a glimpse of the queen is not the actual reason tourists come to Britain, even the stupid ones who actually regard royalty as somehow better or more interesting than Shaniqua the welfare queen with 12 kids down the street. To be fair, at least when Brits defend their stupid antiquated traditions they're defending their traditions; when an American does it I just want to slap them.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:46 PM
Am I the only one asking WTF is cosplay LARP???


ALSO:
False monarchies are about as useful as tits ob a bull. They harken back to a time when people thought they were "Ordained by God" to rule. Why does this stupid shiat still exist? Are brits really that bored? They all look down on the US because of our stupid obsession with actors, isn't this the same thing? I enjoy entertainment, however I think we need to reevaluate our process of who we value in life.

\Sometimes I hate this planet.
 
2012-06-26 12:27:04 PM
www.ihatethemedia.com

"Bloody Princesses, hmm? Why I've got just the thing, what what?"
 
2012-06-26 12:27:22 PM

Loadmaster: FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.

Do you have any qualms about the royals owning huge tracts of tax-free land and possessions? Or how about that the UK people pay to keep these folks in high style, with round-the-clock protection, without receiving any tangible benefit from them in return?


The usual response to your argument from most in support of the royals that I hear is something along the lines of:

a) They provide a reason for tourists to visit, and while they're here, they spend money.
b) They bring awareness to good causes.

Not saying I agree with the argument, just putting it out there.
 
2012-06-26 12:27:43 PM
Great headline subby...made me laugh out loud.
 
2012-06-26 12:28:07 PM

PsyLord: can't believe that those blokes over there still tolerate this reminder of their subjugation. Granted the royal family is more of a figure-head than anything these days, but they still get money from the state and they are still influential. Oh well, to each their own.


Actually they generate an incredible amount of money for the country.
 
2012-06-26 12:29:10 PM
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
 
2012-06-26 12:29:10 PM
SIGH. Couldn't I just lop off a few heads and usurp the throne?
 
2012-06-26 12:30:08 PM

Loadmaster: FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.

Do you have any qualms about the royals owning huge tracts of tax-free land and possessions? Or how about that the UK people pay to keep these folks in high style, with round-the-clock protection, without receiving any tangible benefit from them in return?

I'm with FarkinHostile on this one. The royals (benign or not, powerless or not) represent the opposite of everything I believe in as a free man.


Except the Royals turn over the vast majority of the income from their huge tracts of land and possession, to the government, receiving in return millions of dollars much of which goes to maintaining buildings of historic significance.

Besides, they're a major tourism driver. Literal job creators, simply by existing. Like a living grand canyon
 
2012-06-26 12:30:08 PM

Krieghund: White people's problems.


Perhaps the most accurate use of that phrase ever employed.
 
2012-06-26 12:30:53 PM

Loadmaster: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.


no, but it has great potential for porn.
 
2012-06-26 12:31:24 PM

buzzgoat: Am I the only one asking WTF is cosplay LARP???


I'm quite sure the internet has sources, in particular Wikipedia, where you could find this information.
 
2012-06-26 12:31:26 PM

DjangoStonereaver: xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...

I'm a joker, I'm a smoker.


i'm a 1130am toker?
 
2012-06-26 12:31:27 PM
I was completely confused by the headline until I clicked the link. That was the most accurate statement I have ever seen. Good job.
 
2012-06-26 12:33:31 PM
Gotta hand it to the Brits, they sure do dress fancy...

2.bp.blogspot.com
janeaustensworld.files.wordpress.com
i.telegraph.co.uk
static6.businessinsider.com
www4.pictures.zimbio.com

On and on and on it goes. They got them fancy outfits for just about everything 'cept taking a crap. The whole country is a vast costume drama...

/full disclosure - I was seen by millions of Brits in my foxhunting clothes when I was interviewed by the BBC
 
2012-06-26 12:33:31 PM

amishkarl: Literal job creators, simply by existing. Like a living grand canyon


I think I dated her...
 
2012-06-26 12:34:01 PM

Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.



Please. If you don't think that the monarchy has very powerful influence and authority I have a bridge to sell you. Besides the "Right to Rule", The Queen has "royal prerogative" which is a "I can do what I want" card, even if it is rarely used (The last time was in 1982 to go to war in the Falklands without Parliament having a say.) Nevermind the MILLIONS it costs for "head of state expenditure"...The state also gives the queen about £30 million a year (through two 'gifts in aid') to pay for the maintenance of her palaces and to cover her travel expenses, just to make sure that she doesn't have to dip into her own pockets for such things.

Furthermore the state spends an estimated £100 million a year on policing and security for the Queen and the royal family.

On top of all these payments, the state also pays for the expenses of Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and other royals in their various official capacities. Prince Andrew also holds a separate position as a trade envoy for the UK. In 2011 he spent £620,000 of taxpayer's money in this capacity.

Princes William (28) and Harry (26) already have personal fortunes of £43 million each. They will in future inherit the incomes of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, etc.


Adding all of the above payments together, one reaches a sum of approximately £176 million per year (comprised of money both spent by the state, and of lost income that would otherwise belong to the state), dedicated to maintaining the Queen and her immediate family.


It's farking stupid.

How much money does the queen cost England?


Britain's monarchy
 
2012-06-26 12:34:20 PM
And if she refuses?...seriously...what happens if she refuses?

getasword.com
 
2012-06-26 12:35:03 PM
We can't say anything. We're commoners. We didn't come out of a royal vagina.
 
2012-06-26 12:35:22 PM

buzzgoat: Am I the only one asking WTF is cosplay LARP???
.


No you are not. Either you are involved in cosplay OR LARP . Never heard of cosplay LARP
 
2012-06-26 12:35:46 PM

Perducci: All these rules are just bureaucratic red tape getting in the way of the monarchy's vital roles as, um, people who open shopping malls and wave a lot.


"Just imagine what that would do to the monarchy!"
"What would that do to the monarchy?"
"Probably nothing. The royal family is pretty much just a tourist trap at this point."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-10-2003/prince-charle s- scandal

/One of the best Daily Show clips out there if you watch the show or Colbert Report
//That quote's not why
 
2012-06-26 12:35:52 PM

Cythraul:

a) They provide a reason for tourists to visit, and while they're here, they spend money.
b) They bring awareness to good causes.

Not saying I agree with the argument, just putting it out there.



I already addressed argument a, which is quite simply absurd; as for b, are you talking about "good causes" like shiatty alternative medicine that soesn't work? Link Because yeah, they have been known to support stuff like that.
 
2012-06-26 12:37:56 PM
The kicker is, if she is in the presence of William the two princesses have to curtsy to her....What do you bet she will always have him around if she is anywhere near those two.
 
2012-06-26 12:38:51 PM

Loadmaster: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.


www.ncsx.com
/anime was interesting
 
2012-06-26 12:38:55 PM
My thoughts on royalty can be summed up by:
i120.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-26 12:39:17 PM

buzzgoat: Am I the only one asking WTF is cosplay LARP???


ALSO:
False monarchies are about as useful as tits ob a bull. They harken back to a time when people thought they were "Ordained by God" to rule. Why does this stupid shiat still exist? Are brits really that bored? They all look down on the US because of our stupid obsession with actors, isn't this the same thing? I enjoy entertainment, however I think we need to reevaluate our process of who we value in life.

\Sometimes I hate this planet.


Cool down, friend. I love this planet, it is fine. It's the people on this planet that are the problem.
 
2012-06-26 12:39:57 PM

catmandu: buzzgoat: Am I the only one asking WTF is cosplay LARP???
.

No you are not. Either you are involved in cosplay OR LARP . Never heard of cosplay LARP


You could role play a comicon.
 
2012-06-26 12:40:04 PM
meh, I bet the government could save a ton of money on security and support by replacing them with animatronics.
Or just attractive people dressed all fancy like.
I figure most people are only there for the spiffy buildings and the men in feathers and stuff anyway, thrown in the fact that they could get a picture with the pretty girl dressed in ruffles, and I suspect that no revenue would be lost.
 
2012-06-26 12:41:11 PM

swahnhennessy: We can't say anything. We're commoners. We didn't come out of a royal vagina.


Can we say things if we manage to come in one?

inquiring minds want to know.
 
2012-06-26 12:42:43 PM
For a lot of people who either don't care or don't like the idea of royalty.....there sure is a lot of caring going on in this thread. I'm interested in the royals the same way I'm interested in reading celebrity gossip blogs. It's a life I'll never lead, and I like looking at the expensive gowns and jewels that I'll never in any way be able to own or wear.

BTW, you shouldn't feel bad for the Duchess of Cambridge. Feel bad for her husband's aunt, the Countess of Wessex. SHE has to curtsy to Kate, even though she's married to one of the Queen's sons. The Duchess outranks her through her marriage to the future King, even though they were both not of the manor born.
 
2012-06-26 12:43:09 PM
unrealitymag.com
 
2012-06-26 12:44:29 PM

malaktaus: Cythraul:

a) They provide a reason for tourists to visit, and while they're here, they spend money.
b) They bring awareness to good causes.

Not saying I agree with the argument, just putting it out there.


I already addressed argument a, which is quite simply absurd; as for b, are you talking about "good causes" like shiatty alternative medicine that soesn't work? Link Because yeah, they have been known to support stuff like that.


I'm not really sure how to continue this argument, since I'm not good at playing 'devil's advocate.'

I do know that Princess Diana supported awareness to remove land mines from war stricken countries.
 
2012-06-26 12:45:43 PM
beachboy
And if she refuses?...seriously...what happens if she refuses?


Someone might pout?
 
2012-06-26 12:46:04 PM
Id be more intrested by it all if it was more like games of thornes with head choppings and such
 
2012-06-26 12:47:01 PM

Cythraul: FTA: As a former commoner, she must show reverence by curtseying to royal-borns in public and private when her husband, Prince William, is not present.

What exactly would the consequences be if she just laughed and refused to 'curtsey?' And so if she wasn't a former 'commoner,' would that mean she wouldn't have to curtsey?

Heh, I'd just tell these people to go fark themselves. Moot point I guess, since the chances of me ever hooking with a noble are an absolute zero.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Curtsey. CURTSEY BEFORE ZOD!!
 
2012-06-26 12:47:19 PM

Perducci: All these rules are just bureaucratic red tape getting in the way of the monarchy's vital roles as, um, people who open shopping malls and wave a lot.


There is some argument for separating all those ceremonial duties, leaving the Prime Minister free to govern and such.
 
2012-06-26 12:47:46 PM

groppet: Id be more intrested by it all if it was more like games of thornes with head choppings and such


You sound like you'd prefer to live during Henry VIII's reign.
 
2012-06-26 12:48:48 PM

Biv: The PPA approves.

/obscure?


Nope. Nice reference!
 
2012-06-26 12:49:24 PM

Cythraul: groppet: Id be more intrested by it all if it was more like games of thornes with head choppings and such

You sound like you'd prefer to live during Henry VIII's reign.


Groppet seems more like a Willie or son of Sam.
 
2012-06-26 12:53:27 PM

Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


Can't. Too many Jesters.
 
2012-06-26 12:55:04 PM
This thread needs more pix of chix.

files.myopera.com

Larcosplaypy goodness
 
2012-06-26 12:55:38 PM
Cythraul: The usual response to your argument from most in support of the royals that I hear is something along the lines of:

a) They provide a reason for tourists to visit, and while they're here, they spend money.
b) They bring awareness to good causes.


You missed one, the most important one to my mind.

c) They keep us away from a presidency. If abolished there would, of course, be a constitutional need to have someone in the same position, i.e. a president.
The last thing the UK needs is another damned ex lawyer turned ex politico looking to justify their position and carve out a niche in history as a "statesman" and impose yet more ill thought out legislation on a country that's already drowning in it. In my opinion.

The great thing about the monarchy is they DON'T do anything. Never has the monarchy imposed crap laws on me inspired by the latest tabloid scare story, they are powerless a result of a hard won process going back many centuries. I like it that way.

It might have been a crappy constitutional machine to start with but so many parts have been replaced with better components over the years that it's now a custom built ride that works well even if it does still have that same old radiator grill. Why replace it with some untested POS?

Germany and the USA are fine countries but I'd rather be like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands thanks.
 
2012-06-26 12:57:49 PM

Cythraul: malaktaus: Cythraul:

a) They provide a reason for tourists to visit, and while they're here, they spend money.
b) They bring awareness to good causes.

Not saying I agree with the argument, just putting it out there.


I already addressed argument a, which is quite simply absurd; as for b, are you talking about "good causes" like shiatty alternative medicine that soesn't work? Link Because yeah, they have been known to support stuff like that.

I'm not really sure how to continue this argument, since I'm not good at playing 'devil's advocate.'

I do know that Princess Diana supported awareness to remove land mines from war stricken countries.


There's no reason to assume royals will only support good causes; given their family history of inbreeding, there is probably a greater than average chance that a member of the royal family will be a complete moron, and will support stupid and harmful causes out of pure idiocy. You don't need royals to have awareness campaigns anyway, and the fact that they are experts in nothing means that any such awareness campaigns are quite possibly based on ignorance and a belief in pseudoscience. There is no reason why a member of the royal family might not be an antivaccine person, for instance, and although the present queen is not Charles arguably is, in that a company he endorses sells homeopathic polio "vaccines" that do nothing.
 
2012-06-26 12:58:24 PM
FarkinHostile
"Royalty" is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished in an enlightened time. What amazes me is that we here in the USA are just as big on Royalty Worship as they are in England, and we are supposed to be a nation of people who believe that all are equal.

Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.


Obviously, but the UK's powerful tabloid newspaper lobby will never allow them to get rid of the royals!
 
2012-06-26 12:59:43 PM

ethics-gradient: Germany and the USA are fine countries but I'd rather be like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands thanks.


Don't forget France.
 
2012-06-26 01:01:07 PM

Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


Off with their heads!

Funny thing. One of my great aunts on the Anglo side of the family looked exactly like Sir John Tenniel's portrait of the Duchess in Alice in Wonderland. A little kinder and gentler, perhaps, but she even had the hair bun. Drawn from the life, perhaps.
 
2012-06-26 01:04:14 PM

LeroyBourne: When she's the queen can she make changes to the dumb rules?


I doubt it. She'll never be The Queen, the way The Queen is The Queen. Her husband will be The King and will be the one who makes the rules. Pippa will only be the Queen Consort.
 
2012-06-26 01:05:01 PM
Cythraul : Don't forget France.

I deliberately didn't mention France.
Watching the shenanigans going on over The Channel as the French abolished their monarchy convinced many Brits that it was better to continue to reform incrementally. All too often revolution means huge amounts of bloodshed.
 
2012-06-26 01:05:17 PM
Does she at least get business cards?
 
2012-06-26 01:05:36 PM
www.opednews.com
The new order of precedence will be updated shortly.
 
2012-06-26 01:06:51 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Ranking in the Fark royal hierarchy will be determined by a naked gin drinking contest...as is tradition.


Reminds me of a great B-movie I bought and watched recently: The 27th Day.

Two alien abductees on the run from the world because they and a couple of other abductees hold the power of life and death over humanity:

He: How'd you make such a great martini?
She: It was easy. You forgot the Vermouth.
 
2012-06-26 01:07:17 PM

Cythraul: FTA: As a former commoner, she must show reverence by curtseying to royal-borns in public and private when her husband, Prince William, is not present.

What exactly would the consequences be if she just laughed and refused to 'curtsey?' And so if she wasn't a former 'commoner,' would that mean she wouldn't have to curtsey?

Heh, I'd just tell these people to go fark themselves. Moot point I guess, since the chances of me ever hooking with a noble are an absolute zero.


"All the Queen Elizabeth requires is this: a simple offering of earth and water. A token of Kate's submission to the will of Windsor."
 
2012-06-26 01:08:50 PM
All this damn pomp(ass) and circumstance.
 
2012-06-26 01:09:19 PM

xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...


i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-26 01:09:54 PM

Ennuipoet: Weaver95: we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

I'm will give a polite nod of the head to one or two.


THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.
 
2012-06-26 01:12:59 PM

Loadmaster: FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.

Do you have any qualms about the royals politicians who once held office owning huge tracts of tax-free land and possessions? Or how about that the UK US people pay to keep these folks in high style, with round-the-clock protection, without receiving any tangible benefit from them in return?

The royals politicians (benign or not, powerless or not) represent the opposite of everything I believe in as a free man.


FTFY
We do the same thing here (lifetime pay and benefits for former senators, presidents...lifetime secret service protection for former presidents and their families)...yet you aren't complaining about that.
 
2012-06-26 01:13:14 PM

Weaver95: we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.


Also based on the RH negative blood types. The term blue blooded royalty comes from a blood condition many RH negative babies have at birth.

As luck would have it, i happen to be RH-, so i shall be your king, if i must. Unless there's another farker with an earlier join date who is RH-.
 
2012-06-26 01:14:02 PM
That's just ridiculous. Like somehow their birth makes them a superior person. They are lucky the British people still allow them to maintain the facade of importance.
 
2012-06-26 01:18:02 PM
There is only one princess that I respect:
www.blogcdn.com

Okay, one other Princess
plus4chan.org
 
2012-06-26 01:21:18 PM

DjangoStonereaver: xanadian: Weaver95: The Queen recently circulated around the royal household an updated copy of the Order of Precedence, which is an official paper listing, in descending order, the rankings of the different members in the Royal family.

we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Well, I am the "queen"...

I'm a joker, I'm a smoker.


The queens we use will not excite you.
 
2012-06-26 01:22:22 PM
Cosplay LARP
www.rcdai.org.uk

Meets lemon party.
 
2012-06-26 01:22:23 PM

CreepingLurker: We do the same thing here (lifetime pay and benefits for former senators, presidents...lifetime secret service protection for former presidents and their families)...yet you aren't complaining about that.



Senators and Presidents are not born into their office, just to start.
 
2012-06-26 01:23:05 PM

Cythraul: FTA: As a former commoner, she must show reverence by curtseying to royal-borns in public and private when her husband, Prince William, is not present.

What exactly would the consequences be if she just laughed and refused to 'curtsey?' And so if she wasn't a former 'commoner,' would that mean she wouldn't have to curtsey?

Heh, I'd just tell these people to go fark themselves. Moot point I guess, since the chances of me ever hooking with a noble are an absolute zero.


I piss off my royal infatuated wife quite a bit with "If any inbred welfare case ever called my daughter a commoner, I'd restart the revolution."

fark those people. The Monarchy is an anachronism and needs to be rendered to the museum, where it belongs.
 
2012-06-26 01:25:08 PM
gratefultothedead.files.wordpress.com
"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
 
2012-06-26 01:26:26 PM

FarkinHostile: CreepingLurker: We do the same thing here (lifetime pay and benefits for former senators, presidents...lifetime secret service protection for former presidents and their families)...yet you aren't complaining about that.


SOME Ssenators and Presidents are not born into their office, just to start.


FTFY
 
2012-06-26 01:27:07 PM
It occurs to me that some people here might think that curtseying is something she has to do in private rather than just ceremonially...
 
2012-06-26 01:27:40 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Perducci: All these rules are just bureaucratic red tape getting in the way of the monarchy's vital roles as, um, people who open shopping malls and wave a lot.

There is some argument for separating all those ceremonial duties, leaving the Prime Minister free to govern and such.


Exactly, how much time does someone like Obama waste giving out arts awards and pardoning turkeys on thanksgiving that he could be using to figure out how to govern the United States and solve actual problems? Plus I personally like the idea of a head of state that is completely loyal to her country rather than an kind of loyalty to a specific political party.

Plus as far as the royal family doing nothing to me it seems like the exact opposite. Look at it this way, the US president gets to choose if he wants to be president, and if he wins he has to devote 8 years of his life to the service of his country and in exchange he gets to live in a mansion and is basically set up to live very comfortably for the rest of his life. The queen on the other hand, pretty much has no choice if she wants to be queen or not, and has so far had to devote 60 years to service of her country and never gets to retire. In exchange she gets to live in her palace. On top of that her offspring also pretty much have to devote their lives to their country. I mean Obama's daughters can do whatever they want with their lives, where as many of the queens children or grandchildren have been expected to do some kind of government service, with most of the men serving in the military.
 
2012-06-26 01:27:41 PM

Inquisitive Inquisitor: FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.


The Queen has the authority to dissolve the government, and the government can not form without her permission.

Think on that for a bit.
 
2012-06-26 01:27:55 PM

ethics-gradient: It occurs to me that some people here might think that curtseying is something she has to do in private rather than just ceremonially...


If you RTFA, you would know that it is a royal decree that she has to.
 
2012-06-26 01:29:30 PM

Cythraul: groppet: Id be more intrested by it all if it was more like games of thornes with head choppings and such

You sound like you'd prefer to live during Henry VIII's reign.

 
2012-06-26 01:30:59 PM

Hand Banana: PsyLord: can't believe that those blokes over there still tolerate this reminder of their subjugation. Granted the royal family is more of a figure-head than anything these days, but they still get money from the state and they are still influential. Oh well, to each their own.

Actually they generate an incredible amount of money for the country.


They could still generate incredible amounts of money for the country by turning Westminster and the Tower into national landmarks and museums... Oh, wait.

They can dump the freeloaders and reclaim their land, and still reap the benefits of their history.
 
2012-06-26 01:35:17 PM
Grr... cosplay and LARP are two different things! You almost always wear a costume for a LARP, but you don't call it "cosplay LARP." Cosplay is usually just dressing up as a character for a public event.

/nerd rant over.
 
2012-06-26 01:35:56 PM

Santa's Knee: FarkinHostile: CreepingLurker: We do the same thing here (lifetime pay and benefits for former senators, presidents...lifetime secret service protection for former presidents and their families)...yet you aren't complaining about that.


SOME Ssenators and Presidents are not born into their office, just to start.

FTFY



Actually....good point.
 
2012-06-26 01:39:57 PM
Jesus UK, what is wrong with you?

farking Nepal got rid of its royalty, and here you are mucking abotu with rules on who bows to who.
 
2012-06-26 01:41:06 PM

stevetherobot: LeroyBourne: When she's the queen can she make changes to the dumb rules?

I doubt it. She'll never be The Queen, the way The Queen is The Queen. Her husband will be The King and will be the one who makes the rules. Pippa will only be the Queen Consort.


wtf???
 
2012-06-26 01:50:15 PM
Technically, if recall serves, the Queen can issue pardons. I think the separation of the head of state from the head of government is not such a bad thing. We have a veep and a first lady to do much of the ceremonial work, however.

Diogenes decides to tweak Alexander, so plays around with a pile of human bones in the marketplace waiting for him. 'Whatcha doin?' asks the king. 'Lookin' for the bones of Phillip, but for the life of me I can figure no way to distinguish them from the bones of a slave!'
 
2012-06-26 01:56:03 PM

mongbiohazard: My thoughts on royalty can be summed up by:


Yeah, and that worked out really well.

Santa's Knee: [gratefultothedead.files.wordpress.com image 450x277]
"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."


Love that scene. I consistently warn my 12 year old that he's about to see the violence inherent in the system.
 
2012-06-26 02:08:50 PM

Krieghund: WhiteKnight people's problems.

 
2012-06-26 02:10:21 PM

Biv: PPA


Portland Protective Association?

/I read too much
 
2012-06-26 02:12:00 PM

fawlty: mongbiohazard: My thoughts on royalty can be summed up by:

Yeah, and that worked out really well.



It's fiction. In real life mankind does just fine without royalty. Better, in fact. Fark people who claim the right to special privileges just because of what vagina they were spat forth from, or claim a divine right from some imaginary deity. The whole concept is an anathema to what it means to be American.
 
2012-06-26 02:12:27 PM

ConcreteHole: stevetherobot: LeroyBourne: When she's the queen can she make changes to the dumb rules?

I doubt it. She'll never be The Queen, the way The Queen is The Queen. Her husband will be The King and will be the one who makes the rules. Pippa will only be the Queen Consort.

wtf???


If Kate refuses to curtsey to the Queen, it means that Sarah Palin is automatically President and Pippa becomes Queen Consort. The rules are complicated, but it's all there in the Magna Carta - somewhere in the back, I think.
 
2012-06-26 02:15:59 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Weaver95: we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

Also based on the RH negative blood types. The term blue blooded royalty comes from a blood condition many RH negative babies have at birth.

As luck would have it, i happen to be RH-, so i shall be your king, if i must. Unless there's another farker with an earlier join date who is RH-.


Here. But I don't want to be king. Unless there's money and hot chicks involved.

/on your knees!
//open up and say mphphpbppggghhhh
 
2012-06-26 02:16:34 PM

FarkinHostile: "Royalty" is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished in an enlightened time. What amazes me is that we here in the USA are just as big on Royalty Worship as they are in England, and we are supposed to be a nation of people who believe that all are equal.

Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.


When taken seriously, yes. But the way the British do it appeals to me. Their monarch doesn't get to actually do anything beyond carrying the weight of tradition and continuity on her shoulders. But Britain has a lot more of those things than we Americans do. So I don't see any problem with preserving the royals as a sort of national heritage thing.

//Just an armchair analysis by an outsider. No offense was intended.
 
2012-06-26 02:22:56 PM

Cythraul:

The usual response to your argument from most in support of the royals that I hear is something along the lines of:

a) They provide a reason for tourists to visit, and while they're here, they spend money.
b) They bring awareness to good causes.

Not saying I agree with the argument, just putting it out there.


Perhaps they should replace 'em with a couple of these. They're cheaper, wear silly outfits just as readily, and perform for pennies on the dollar. Haul the critters out of Buckingham Palace every hour for photo ops, and there you go.

thebsreport.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-26 02:28:44 PM
Worst. LARP. Ever.
 
2012-06-26 02:35:11 PM

Cythraul: FTA: As a former commoner, she must show reverence by curtseying to royal-borns in public and private when her husband, Prince William, is not present.

What exactly would the consequences be if she just laughed and refused to 'curtsey?' And so if she wasn't a former 'commoner,' would that mean she wouldn't have to curtsey?

Heh, I'd just tell these people to go fark themselves. Moot point I guess, since the chances of me ever hooking with a noble are an absolute zero.


Incredibly rich and influential people would stop hanging out with her, most likely. Plus, they get paid by the Queen, so there's a chance that would stop. In the absolute worst case, her husband doesn't get to inherit the incredible wealth that the Queen personally owns.
 
2012-06-26 02:39:29 PM

mongbiohazard: fawlty: mongbiohazard: My thoughts on royalty can be summed up by:

Yeah, and that worked out really well.


It's fiction. In real life mankind does just fine without royalty. Better, in fact. Fark people who claim the right to special privileges just because of what vagina they were spat forth from, or claim a divine right from some imaginary deity. The whole concept is an anathema to what it means to be American.


Good thing they're British.
 
2012-06-26 02:41:32 PM

wildcardjack: Cosplay LARP
[old.men.with.silly.hats.co.uk image 450x278]

Meets lemon party.


Did the two blokes in the middle run some brown with their whites in the laundry?
 
2012-06-26 02:41:57 PM

themadtupper: ConcreteHole: stevetherobot: LeroyBourne: When she's the queen can she make changes to the dumb rules?

I doubt it. She'll never be The Queen, the way The Queen is The Queen. Her husband will be The King and will be the one who makes the rules. Pippa will only be the Queen Consort.

wtf???

If Kate refuses to curtsey to the Queen, it means that Sarah Palin is automatically President and Pippa becomes Queen Consort. The rules are complicated, but it's all there in the Magna Carta - somewhere in the back, I think.


Does Trig become the new Prince of Wales? If so, I think the public deserves a heads up otherwise no one might notice.

www.koffee.com.auwww.televisioninternet.com

www.edmontonjournal.com1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-26 02:43:21 PM

Inquisitive Inquisitor: FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.


Well, I do know that she can unilaterally disband the Canadian Parliament. It's right there in their Constitution.
 
2012-06-26 02:44:23 PM
Monarchy. *spit* Ha!

Anyone that thinks by blood right they are better than me, is welcome to come over to the United States and tell me to my face.
 
2012-06-26 02:45:45 PM

Loadmaster: FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.

Do you have any qualms about the royals owning huge tracts of tax-free land and possessions? Or how about that the UK people pay to keep these folks in high style, with round-the-clock protection, without receiving any tangible benefit from them in return?

I'm with FarkinHostile on this one. The royals (benign or not, powerless or not) represent the opposite of everything I believe in as a free man.


In exchange for the salary given to the Royals, they allow the UK government the tax revenue for all the lands owned by the Royals. The deal works out well in the taxpayer's favor.
 
2012-06-26 02:50:46 PM

FarkinHostile: CreepingLurker: We do the same thing here (lifetime pay and benefits for former senators, presidents...lifetime secret service protection for former presidents and their families)...yet you aren't complaining about that.


Senators and Presidents are not born into their office, just to start.


Well, some of them are...

Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, heck, go all the way back to the Adams... Adamses... whatever.
 
2012-06-26 02:52:35 PM

mongbiohazard: fawlty: mongbiohazard: My thoughts on royalty can be summed up by:

Yeah, and that worked out really well.


It's fiction. In real life mankind does just fine without royalty. Better, in fact. Fark people who claim the right to special privileges just because of what vagina they were spat forth from, or claim a divine right from some imaginary deity. The whole concept is an anathema to what it means to be American.


SPOILER ALERT:

The US does not have royalty.
 
2012-06-26 02:55:27 PM

meanmutton: In exchange for the salary given to the Royals, they allow the UK government the tax revenue for all the lands owned by the Royals. The deal works out well in the taxpayer's favor.



Oh, isn't that just so generous of them. To allow land they own because they are Royals (and it is lots and lots of prime real estate) earns tax revenue the government collects that funds the Royals.

Yeah, that's totally in the comm....I mean taxpayers favor. (rolls eyes)
 
2012-06-26 03:05:32 PM

meanmutton: Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, heck, go all the way back to the Adams... Adamses... whatever.



Clinton? Gore? Born into office(s)? Please. The Bush family, yes. The Kennedys, sure. Clinton? His dad was a traveling salesman. His mother a nurse. If you are talking about Hillary it can be argued she earned her political standing on her own merits. As for Gore, just because his father was a U.S. Senator doesn't mean he is any kind of "American Royalty", born into a dynasty.

And frankly, the Bushes and Kennedy dynasties also need to go.
 
2012-06-26 03:20:12 PM

FarkinHostile: Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.


Please. If you don't think that the monarchy has very powerful influence and authority I have a bridge to sell you. Besides the "Right to Rule", The Queen has "royal prerogative" which is a "I can do what I want" card, even if it is rarely used (The last time was in 1982 to go to war in the Falklands without Parliament having a say.) Nevermind the MILLIONS it costs for "head of state expenditure"...The state also gives the queen about £30 million a year (through two 'gifts in aid') to pay for the maintenance of her palaces and to cover her travel expenses, just to make sure that she doesn't have to dip into her own pockets for such things.

Furthermore the state spends an estimated £100 million a year on policing and security for the Queen and the royal family.

On top of all these payments, the state also pays for the expenses of Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and other royals in their various official capacities. Prince Andrew also holds a separate position as a trade envoy for the UK. In 2011 he spent £620,000 of taxpayer's money in this capacity.

Princes William (28) and Harry (26) already have personal fortunes of £43 million each. They will in future inherit the incomes of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, etc.


Adding all of the above payments together, one reaches a sum of approximately £176 million per year (comprised of money both spent by the state, and of lost income that would otherwise belong to the state), dedicated to maintaining the Queen and her immediate family.


It's farking stupid.

How much money does the queen cost England?


Britain's monarchy


So they still aren't making Oprah money? Poor sods.
 
2012-06-26 03:37:57 PM
I'd primae noctis it.
 
2012-06-26 03:55:55 PM
I am currently not caring as hard as I possibly can.
 
2012-06-26 04:05:23 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: I am currently not caring as hard as I possibly can.


Well, you clicked, typed, and posted. I'd say you could care less.
 
2012-06-26 04:13:25 PM
Blood Princesses... a new series coming to HBO this fall!
 
2012-06-26 04:27:12 PM

nicoffeine: Serious Post on Serious Thread: I am currently not caring as hard as I possibly can.

Well, you clicked, typed, and posted. I'd say you could care less.


Oh Snap! Total BURN.
 
2012-06-26 04:48:28 PM
How has this not become a Cosplay thread already?

I am disappoint.
 
2012-06-26 05:16:56 PM
Cythraul
a) They provide a reason for tourists to visit, and while they're here, they spend money.

There is only one logical course of action:
Privatize the royal family.
 
2012-06-26 06:41:15 PM
Huge tracts of land! HUGE!
 
2012-06-26 06:50:29 PM

meanmutton: SPOILER ALERT:

The US does not have royalty.



SPOILER ALERT:

Gee, ya think? Yes, I know that. We kind of fought a war over it. The country was sort of founded in large part in response to a society with royalty. That's kind of my point and all...

Fark royalty. The very concept is disgusting.


FarkinHostile: meanmutton: Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, heck, go all the way back to the Adams... Adamses... whatever.


Clinton? Gore? Born into office(s)? Please. The Bush family, yes. The Kennedys, sure. Clinton? His dad was a traveling salesman. His mother a nurse. If you are talking about Hillary it can be argued she earned her political standing on her own merits. As for Gore, just because his father was a U.S. Senator doesn't mean he is any kind of "American Royalty", born into a dynasty.

And frankly, the Bushes and Kennedy dynasties also need to go.



Totally agreed.

I have always said, even at my most Republicanist, I don't give a shiat how much more capable Jeb Bush would probably be than W..... I'll never vote for the guy EVER for anything.
 
2012-06-26 07:19:50 PM
I will fully admit to clicking on ANY article on the web about the Duchess of Cambridge.

Cause her clothes are To. Die. For.

/haters gonna hate!
 
2012-06-26 07:43:20 PM

ItsJustJake: How has this not become a Cosplay thread already?

I am disappoint.


farm7.static.flickr.com
 
2012-06-27 06:29:13 AM

Loadmaster: FarkinHostile: Just the concept of royalty should be insulting to anyone who has any amount of critical thinking and self esteem.

Inquisitive Inquisitor: The monarchy has no true power or authority. I have no qualms with a society who maintains these traditions as a link to their history. The American fascination with the Royal family is no different than our penchant for celebrity gossip.

Do you have any qualms about the royals owning huge tracts of tax-free land and possessions? Or how about that the UK people pay to keep these folks in high style, with round-the-clock protection, without receiving any tangible benefit from them in return?

I'm with FarkinHostile on this one. The royals (benign or not, powerless or not) represent the opposite of everything I believe in as a free man.


This shows you know very little about it. Try reading up on it before spouting gibberish.
Don't like the idea of nobles or royals either, but I know enough that the make money for the UK. They cost nothing
they pay their own way.
 
2012-06-27 07:18:10 AM
ethics-gradient: It occurs to me that some people here might think that curtseying is something she has to do in private rather than just ceremonially...

Santa's Knee: If you RTFA, you would know that it is a royal decree that she has to.

Has to actually curtsey in private? You don't believe that she'd actually do that in anything but a ceremonial situation do you? To believe that would be just nuts. Or incredibly gullible.

And ABC news is not necessarily an expert on the royals, i take the BBC with a pinch of salt come to that.

I think we'd have heard if the royals were that off the wall, in fact in a lot of pictures of ceremonies it looks like the younger generation are having difficulty keeping a straight face.
 
2012-06-27 09:23:42 AM
What is really curious is the number of folks who are NOT members of the UK actually complaining about their having a queen. It's cute in a way but, really? That's pathetic... "They're doing something I don't like! Waaah!!!"
 
2012-06-27 12:45:32 PM
we should have our own 'Order of Precedence' for various farkers.

I hearby declare myself First Cabbage, Baron of Binghamton!



/and also official Fark minister of defense, Fark chief of police, Fark attorney general, Fark chief justice of the Fark supreme court, Fark chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and Fark World Headquarters chief of staff for Drew
//just on a "temporary basis"
///to help Drew out
////because he's such a busy man!
 
2012-06-28 12:53:45 PM

TenJed_77: Don't like the idea of nobles or royals either, but I know enough that the make money for the UK. They cost nothing
they pay their own way.




Bahahahahahaha! That is priceless.
 
2012-06-29 07:20:43 AM

FarkinHostile: TenJed_77: Don't like the idea of nobles or royals either, but I know enough that the make money for the UK. They cost nothing
they pay their own way.



Bahahahahahaha! That is priceless.


You should look up how much the "Crown Estate" brings in compared to the cost of the monarchy.
 
2012-06-29 08:20:21 AM

TenJed_77: FarkinHostile: TenJed_77: Don't like the idea of nobles or royals either, but I know enough that the make money for the UK. They cost nothing
they pay their own way.



Bahahahahahaha! That is priceless.

You should look up how much the "Crown Estate" brings in compared to the cost of the monarchy.



Yeah... except the "Crown Estate" is not private property of the Queen. It's commissioned by act of Parliament, which could, if it so decided, change the terms of the estate's administration.
 
2012-06-29 01:58:03 PM

Isildur: TenJed_77: FarkinHostile: TenJed_77: Don't like the idea of nobles or royals either, but I know enough that the make money for the UK. They cost nothing
they pay their own way.



Bahahahahahaha! That is priceless.

You should look up how much the "Crown Estate" brings in compared to the cost of the monarchy.


Yeah... except the "Crown Estate" is not private property of the Queen. It's commissioned by act of Parliament, which could, if it so decided, change the terms of the estate's administration.


It is not private property it belongs to the crown, although they may not dispose of it as they wish. King George the III, made an agreement with parliament and every monarch since then has renewed this setup. It works both ways.
 
2012-06-29 02:50:08 PM
 
2012-06-29 02:51:14 PM

TenJed_77: Isildur: TenJed_77: FarkinHostile: TenJed_77: Don't like the idea of nobles or royals either, but I know enough that the make money for the UK. They cost nothing
they pay their own way.



Bahahahahahaha! That is priceless.

You should look up how much the "Crown Estate" brings in compared to the cost of the monarchy.


Yeah... except the "Crown Estate" is not private property of the Queen. It's commissioned by act of Parliament, which could, if it so decided, change the terms of the estate's administration.

It is not private property it belongs to the crown, although they may not dispose of it as they wish. King George the III, made an agreement with parliament and every monarch since then has renewed this setup. It works both ways.


If, at some point, they no longer occupied the office of the Crown, it stands to reason it would remain behind with the government.
 
2012-06-29 05:59:41 PM
The problem is that it comes down to the constitution, you would have rewrite all of it. And in doing so hereditary ownership would be abolished, which would mean your parents couldn't leave you the family home.
 
2012-06-29 06:55:24 PM

TenJed_77: The problem is that it comes down to the constitution, you would have rewrite all of it. And in doing so hereditary ownership would be abolished, which would mean your parents couldn't leave you the family home.


Normal hereditary ownership needn't be abolished in such a case. That falls under private property law, a separate matter.
 
2012-06-29 07:04:39 PM

TenJed_77: The problem is that it comes down to the constitution, you would have rewrite all of it. And in doing so hereditary ownership would be abolished, which would mean your parents couldn't leave you the family home.


Also, the U.K. has no constitution in the usual sense, just collections of laws, precedents and treaties that in total compose a comprehensive legal framework, so I don't think it exactly makes sense to say you'd have to rewrite all of the constitution.
 
Displayed 174 of 174 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report