Duchess of Cambridge expecting

[The Spanish]

I don't really care about the arguments as to how much money she brings in, the fact is that she doesn't need the taxpayer's help.

surely the revenue the royals bring in is fundamental or at least very important in any discussion of their value. why doesnt she need the taxpayers help like any other instrument of state. its just because it appears to go directly to an individual that it irks so many people so much.

dont think of them as people simster, just think of them as revenue generators for the state. it makes it easier. f***ing hell i would take a professional royal over some slimy lying prick like blair as my representative on the world stage any day of the week. we have an excellent system that most of the world is jealous of. far far more public funds get pissed away by idiotic dickheads on utter shit than the by royals. anyway monarchy far predates democracy in this country, and culturally is far more entrenched. i am quite happy with that.

 

[Simster]

surely the revenue the royals bring in is fundamental or at least very important in any discussion of their value. why doesnt she need the taxpayers help like any other instrument of state. its just because it appears to go directly to an individual that it irks so many people so much.

Why? It's irrelevent. The state is there to help people who need it, not those that don't. It really is that simple.

f***ing hell i would take a professional royal over some slimy lying prick like blair as my representative on the world stage any day of the week.

It doesn't really matter what you (or I) think, it should be the choice of the people in this day and age. It really is that simple.

we have an excellent system that most of the world is jealous of.

Most of the world is jealous of any country with clean running water. I'm not sure what your point is here?

far far more public funds get pissed away by idiotic dickheads on utter shit than the by royals. anyway monarchy far predates democracy in this country, and culturally is far more entrenched. i am quite happy with that.

Slavery was fairly firmly entrenched in America for the first 200 years of it's history? Royalty had a pedigree in France. Again, this is a nonsense argument. Change is usually a good thing.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Why? It's irrelevent. The state is there to help people who need it, not those that don't. It really is that simple.

It doesn't really matter what you (or I) think, it should be the choice of the people in this day and age. It really is that simple.

Most of the world is jealous of any country with clean running water. I'm not sure what your point is here?

Slavery was fairly firmly entrenched in America for the first 200 years of it's history? Royalty had a pedigree in France. Again, this is a nonsense argument. Change is usually a good thing.

Cheers saved me having to answer.

 

[Nibble]

According to some of the more out there posters on here they will probably sacrifice the first child to the Sun God Raa and replace it with a Lizard foetus anyway.

 

[desprateseagull]

she's got a poor stomach, wee lass.

But thats what you get when taking on too much ginger, i guess..

 

[The Spanish]

Cheers saved me having to answer.

i am grateful for that too.

 

[User removed 4]

i am grateful for that too.

 

[The Spanish]

Why? It's irrelevent. The state is there to help people who need it, not those that don't. It really is that simple.

It doesn't really matter what you (or I) think, it should be the choice of the people in this day and age. It really is that simple. erm we are the people. so it does matter what you and i think. that makes no sense. if the people were set against it it would go soon enough. they arent.

Most of the world is jealous of any country with clean running water. I'm not sure what your point is here? the point is i said they were jealous of our system - the implication compared to theirs. you can compare one attribute of a country to that of another without the argument being distorted like you have done with the running water bit. its meaningless and not insightful.

Slavery was fairly firmly entrenched in America for the first 200 years of it's history? Royalty had a pedigree in France. Again, this is a nonsense argument. Change is usually a good thing.

how is saying that one system is more entrenched than another be a nonsense argument? surely far greater exposure culturally to one system means it potentially has an advantage in terms of cohesion and buy in from the population. mentioning slavery is nonsense, not everyone owned a slave but everyone is the subject of a monarch. as for change generally being for the better, thats the meaningless soundbite you accuse others of. to what degree is change generally being for the better. for the most part change is just change. most people who think they have a great new system of govenment are generally arseholes and it usually ends in tears. the successes are far fewer.

you have doc lynam lining up behind you. thats not an endorsement.

 

[Simster]

How can you say royalty would go soon enough if people were set against it? There is no mechanism in place for it to be dismantled. Most people simply don't care one way or the other.

Yes, I agree - it matters what "the people" think. I was drawing the comparison between your personal opinion of Blair and that of the masses. The masses got to choose (unlike with royalty). So where is the periodic vote that enables us to determine our head of state?

Where is the evidence for this silly idea that other countries are jealous of our system? A system where the church gets to appoint law approvers (in the Lords), and the head of state is unelected, secretive and priveleged.

Mentioning slavery is hardly nonsense. It was in response to your assertion that royalty was more deeply entrenched than anything else, so that makes it all ok.

 

[8ace]

I'm disappointed no one has referred to her as K Middy in this thread.

 

[Questions]

I bet they got it on the civil list about the time it changed from zygote to embryo. I,ll tell you what the whole bunch of them give me morning sickness just thinking about them.

And this revenue making they help the country out with ? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Badger]

How can you say royalty would go soon enough if people were set against it? There is no mechanism in place for it to be dismantled. Most people simply don't care one way or the other.

Yes, I agree - it matters what "the people" think. I was drawing the comparison between your personal opinion of Blair and that of the masses. The masses got to choose (unlike with royalty). So where is the periodic vote that enables us to determine our head of state?

Where is the evidence for this silly idea that other countries are jealous of our system? A system where the church gets to appoint law approvers (in the Lords), and the head of state is unelected, secretive and priveleged.

Mentioning slavery is hardly nonsense. It was in response to your assertion that royalty was more deeply entrenched than anything else, so that makes it all ok.

That annoys me far more than the royal family who I don't have any particularly strong feelings about either way. The sooner they get rid of that antiquated system of choosing Lords the better IMHO.

 

[The Spanish]

How can you say royalty would go soon enough if people were set against it? There is no mechanism in place for it to be dismantled. Most people simply don't care one way or the other.

Yes, I agree - it matters what "the people" think. I was drawing the comparison between your personal opinion of Blair and that of the masses. The masses got to choose (unlike with royalty). So where is the periodic vote that enables us to determine our head of state?

Where is the evidence for this silly idea that other countries are jealous of our system? A system where the church gets to appoint law approvers (in the Lords), and the head of state is unelected, secretive and priveleged.

Mentioning slavery is hardly nonsense. It was in response to your assertion that royalty was more deeply entrenched than anything else, so that makes it all ok.

all worthy sentiments but why is voting for a head of state that much more sophisticated and fair than just having one. if they are both going to be arseholes surely not going to the trouble of a vote is the better system. its just another flawed way of doing things all this vote for every fker, and its fairness is massively over rated. people who put themselves up for positions of power are generally pricks, why not just let one come out of a posh womans fanny and see how it gets on. the current one is doing ok, and the next few look alright too. they certainly havent ordered the deaths of 10s of thousands of people or destroyed communities with their madcap obsessions with diversity.

 

[User removed 4]

Apparently Kate has unwittingly made it known she is a UKIP voter, social services are carrying out a risk assessment as we speak.

 

[theyellowdinosaur]

I think the fact that the queen was shaking hands with that twat McGuiness a few months ago shows just how little they care about the ordinary lads who had to put up with that shit.

 

[Simster]

all worthy sentiments but why is voting for a head of state that much more sophisticated and fair than just having one. if they are both going to be arseholes surely not going to the trouble of a vote is the better system. its just another flawed way of doing things all this vote for every fker, and its fairness is massively over rated. people who put themselves up for positions of power are generally pricks, why not just let one come out of a posh womans fanny and see how it gets on. the current one is doing ok, and the next few look alright too. they certainly havent ordered the deaths of 10s of thousands of people or destroyed communities with their madcap obsessions with diversity.

I agree that a vote is no guarantee of competence. But I can answer the question in bold above with one word - accountability. The current head of state is accountable to no-one.

That's why when Parliament makes laws, royalty is made exempt from some of those acts, and we can't do a thing about it - see the Freedom of Information Act as a classic case in point. This sort of thing makes my blood boil:

To what extent are the Queen and Prince Charles subject to the law? - a Freedom of Information request to Attorney General's Office - WhatDoTheyKnow

 

[Doc Lynam]

Arguments against monarchy
Most republicans assert that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist. They claim that in a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth.

Monarchy contradicts democracy
Monarchy denies the people a basic right - Republicans believe that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office.

Monarchy devalues a parliamentary system - Monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, and such processes are more desirable than not for any given nation-state.

The British monarchy is religiously discriminatory
Due to the history in Great Britain of religious conflict, it is law that Roman Catholics may not inherit the Crown. It is argued by Republicans that having an Anglican head of state is unrepresentative of a nation where 4% of adults are practising Anglicans.

Monarchy is ethnic-discrimination
By virtue of their narrow breeding mechanisms, most monarchs belong to a clearly identifiable ethnic group. Thus, members of other ethnic groups are forever denied a head of state they can directly relate to. This phenomenon produces divided societies where one ethnic group can, openly or discreetly, boast about their ethnic link to the royal family and derive from it a sense of superiority.

Monarchy is gender-discriminative
The British Royal Family uses male primogeniture, which means that the crown is inherited by the eldest son, and is only passed on to a daughter if the monarch has no sons. If absolute primogeniture were used instead of male primogeniture, the crown would be passed on to the eldest child irrespective of sex so that daughters had the same rights as sons. The current method of succession disinherits not only daughters but their descendants. However this is not an argument against Monarchy per se, only against particular monarchical systems.

A monarchy demands deference
It is argued by republicans that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family is part of an attempt to keep subjects 'in their place'.

It is the enemy of merit and aspiration
The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition"[citation needed]. Although monarchists argue that the position of Prime Minister, the title with real power, is something anyone can aspire to become, the executive and symbolically powerful position of Head of State is not.

It devalues intellect and achievement
Republicans argue that members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK include the Queen's many honorary military titles of colonel-in-chief, regardless of her military experience, with Charles currently being Admiral of the Fleet (Navy), Field Marshal (Army), and Marshal of the "Royal" Air Force. Vice Admiral of the Canadian Navy and Lieutenant General of Canadian Army and Air Force.

It harms the monarchs themselves
Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.

Monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability
Republicans argue that monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. Republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. As an example, republicans argue that Prince Charles has spoken and acted in ways that have widely been interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a state dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese head of state; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of certain memos which were leaked to the press regarding how people achieve their positions

 

[The Spanish]

first simsters answering for you and now a cut out and keep guide to republicanism does it as well. its handy there are so many smart people about.

 

[Simster]

first simsters answering for you and now a cut out and keep guide to republicanism does it as well. its handy there are so many smart people about.

I must admit, I don't like cut and pasting, however much I agree with the content. I think it's disrespectful and better to provide a link and let people read it if they choose, as opposed to clogging up the screen with stuff many people will have no interest in reading.

 

[The Spanish]

I agree that a vote is no guarantee of competence. But I can answer the question in bold above with one word - accountability. The current head of state is accountable to no-one.

That's why when Parliament makes laws, royalty is made exempt from some of those acts, and we can't do a thing about it - see the Freedom of Information Act as a classic case in point. This sort of thing makes my blood boil:

To what extent are the Queen and Prince Charles subject to the law? - a Freedom of Information request to Attorney General's Office - WhatDoTheyKnow

there is not one law for us and one law for them, there are loads of different laws for loads of different people. its british society and its values that hold the place together, we have some wonderful public institutions but they are flawed and there is inequality everywhere. we can argue all day about how unfair things are but remember its children who are obsessed with things being unfair. like for the smaller things in life, we can just carry on with a slightly mad constitutional set up and some silly old duffers in the lords. its not hurting anyone and it isnt taking food out of peoples mouths to the extent f***ing elected politicians do.