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.

(ABC News)   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
    More: Silly, Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Edinburgh, Duchess of York, Prince Edward  
•       •       •

14963 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2012 at 11:51 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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