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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 24 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report