Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Anti monarchy paranoia Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    A family who believes they're inherently superior to you because of their bloodline?]
    People pull stuff like this out of their ass all the time. What did the Royal Family do to make you think this? Maybe they don't do 'normal' stuff because we the people would harass them constantly.

    I would never, ever wish I was a royal. The thought of being jetted off to other countries to shake hands with old men and maintain international relations - can't think of anything worse. People like to create this image that they sit in palaces sipping tea and call us all scum, it's laughable. If you're going to oppose the monarchy at least do it for legitimate reasons and not this ad hominem nonsense.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    People who criticise them often haven't the first clue about what they do, have certainly never met any of them and have no idea about the sh*t they have to put with (that they get no choice over whatsoever).



    Nope. 1983. And 20,000 members when the country has 63 million+ members barely scrapes the levels of significance. By all means go, but you're going to be rather lonely.

    They get a choice, they can abdicate and dissolve the Monarchy, They cannot legally be held to be a part of it/continue with it on Human Rights grounds. They continue with it because it is in their best interests do, human nature, but if they saw the evils of the Monarchist system they would think twice if they had any conscience. Should'nt the 63+ million people in the UK get a choice in whether they want them to continue what they are doing after all we are having to pay for them.


    Well many parties don't have a high membership but have a lot of supporters or people that believe the same as they do. Monarchists love to try and marginalise the opposition as insignificant or do not exist as they know if they were allowed a voice the people would soon decide against the Monarchy. Notice how the Monarchy as a political issue never gets raised on tv or on the rare mention is quietly given short shrift. If anyone raises it , its always, "now lets move on from that", or "that's not what were disucussing here", or promptly another question. People on benefits can be talked about the need to cap their benefits while the need to cut back on the amount the money is paid is seen as off limits. In fact the monarchy was paid millions more increase in the same year as benefits were being capped, hmnn seems savings were not as needed as made out. All other political issues are talked about on TV lets not censure this one please.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stewie2011)
    They get a choice, they can abdicate and dissolve the Monarchy, They cannot legally be held to be a part of it/continue with it on Human Rights grounds. They continue with it because it is in their best interests do, human nature, but if they saw the evils of the Monarchist system they would think twice if they had any conscience. Should'nt the 63+ million people in the UK get a choice in whether they want them to continue what they are doing after all we are having to pay for them.
    Don't polls almost always show higher support for the monarchy than opposition? I think the amount of people out celebrating the Royal wedding outweighed the number of people holding up placards complaining about it.

    To clarify my above post, I don't care if people dislike the monarchy. What bothers me is when people oppose them 'because they think they're better than us'. If you believe the monarchy is a waste of money, pointless etc...knock yourself out.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stewie2011)
    They get a choice, they can abdicate and dissolve the Monarchy, They cannot legally be held to be a part of it/continue with it on Human Rights grounds. They continue with it because it is in their best interests do, human nature, but if they saw the evils of the Monarchist system they would think twice if they had any conscience. Should'nt the 63+ million people in the UK get a choice in whether they want them to continue what they are doing after all we are having to pay for them.


    Well many parties don't have a high membership but have a lot of supporters or people that believe the same as they do. Monarchists love to try and marginalise the opposition as insignificant or do not exist as they know if they were allowed a voice the people would soon decide against the Monarchy. Notice how the Monarchy as a political issue never gets raised on tv or on the rare mention is quietly given short shrift. If anyone raises it , its always, "now lets move on from that", or "that's not what were disucussing here", or promptly another question. People on benefits can be talked about the need to cap their benefits while the need to cut back on the amount the money is paid is seen as off limits. In fact the monarchy was paid millions more increase in the same year as benefits were being capped, hmnn seems savings were not as needed as made out. All other political issues are talked about on TV lets not censure this one please.
    They don't get a choice to be part of the family. Even if it were not the 'ruling' family, it would still be the focus of intense interests and speculation. Not something I'd wish to be part of.

    In almost every public opinion poll ever taken the Monarchy has overwhelming public support. Even when they made themselves look horrifically bad publicly during the aftermath of Diana's death they still retained the majority of the population's support.

    It gets marginalised because it is marginal. It is small.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    People pull stuff like this out of their ass all the time. What did the Royal Family do to make you think this? Maybe they don't do 'normal' stuff because we the people would harass them constantly.

    I would never, ever wish I was a royal. The thought of being jetted off to other countries to shake hands with old men and maintain international relations - can't think of anything worse. People like to create this image that they sit in palaces sipping tea and call us all scum, it's laughable. If you're going to oppose the monarchy at least do it for legitimate reasons and not this ad hominem nonsense.
    Go and read my post again. I did give legitimate reasons for why the monarchy should be abolished - no family should be given extravagant levels of wealth and privilege by the state simply because of a ridiculous and primitive notion that their bloodline is inherently superior to everyone else's. Any child born to the royal family is automatically destined to go to Oxbridge - how is that fair? What has the monarchy done to earn their place, apart from oppress and exploit the masses? And flying around the globe to shake hands in return for lifelong comfort is a very good deal, don't you think? Is that even comparable to the lifelong drudgery most people the world over will have to undertake to have a semblance of a decent life? Wow, think before you type.

    The purpose of my second paragraph was more to ridicule the public for praising the royals when they probably see us as inferior beings. Evidently you've fallen for the stupid lie from the media that Kate - a millionaire's daughter - is an 'average girl'. Stop lying to yourself - you're what is called a 'commoner'. Go and watch some YouTube videos or whatever of the queen in public, then see if she ever shakes a person's hand without a glove on.

    Next time, read the arguments I'm putting forward and then counter them sensibly instead of screaming "ad hominem" all over the place.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Any child born to the royal family is automatically destined to go to Oxbridge - how is that fair?
    Except for the entire current generation of Royals who've never set foot in the place.
    William went to St Andrews. Harry didn't go to uni at all. Beatrice went to Goldsmiths, Eugenie went to Newcastle. Zara Philips went to Exeter. Then you look at the age group up, Prince Andrew went straight into the Royal Navy, not university, Princess Anne similarly didn't go to university.

    You're basing that entire statement on Charles and Edward who both went to Cambridge and then it was only Edward's entry who caused controversy.

    So, of 9 people you're essentially complaining about 1. Hardly representative, is it?


    The purpose of my second paragraph was more to ridicule the public for praising the royals when they probably see us as inferior beings.
    Do you have even the remotest shred of evidence for that piece of lunacy?

    I could quite feasibly say "all republicans are probably peadophiles". Doesn't make it even the slightest bit true though, does it? If you want to have a rational debate then you have to play your part too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Except for the entire current generation of Royals who've never set foot in the place.
    William went to St Andrews. Harry didn't go to uni at all. Beatrice went to Goldsmiths, Eugenie went to Newcastle. Zara Philips went to Exeter. Then you look at the age group up, Prince Andrew went straight into the Royal Navy, not university, Princess Anne similarly didn't go to university.

    You're basing that entire statement on Charles and Edward who both went to Cambridge and then it was only Edward's entry who caused controversy.

    So, of 9 people you're essentially complaining about 1. Hardly representative, is it?




    Do you have even the remotest shred of evidence for that piece of lunacy?

    I could quite feasibly say "all republicans are probably peadophiles". Doesn't make it even the slightest bit true though, does it? If you want to have a rational debate then you have to play your part too.
    Well played with the Oxbridge point, but those cases were a matter of choice. As long as a college in Oxbridge will accept a royal for reasons other than merit, there is still that problem of undeserved privilege. You still have not countered my main argument: "No family should be given extravagant levels of wealth and privilege by the state simply because of a ridiculous and primitive notion that their bloodline is inherently superior to everyone else's." You evidently disagree with me, so go ahead, tell me why this is justified.

    As for what royals think of us, well perhaps my prejudices are unjustified. The royals do good charity work, e.g. Diana helped out kids in Africa. What mainly came to my mind was the fact that the queen will not shake the hand of a member of the public without a glove on. To me, thats elitism and arrogance. Its interesting that you never addressed that fact.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Well played with the Oxbridge point, but those cases were a matter of choice. As long as a college in Oxbridge will accept a royal for reasons other than merit, there is still that problem of undeserved privilege. You still have not countered my main argument: "No family should be given extravagant levels of wealth and privilege by the state simply because of a ridiculous and primitive notion that their bloodline is inherently superior to everyone else's." You evidently disagree with me, so go ahead, tell me why this is justified.

    As for what royals think of us, well perhaps my prejudices are unjustified. The royals do good charity work, e.g. Diana helped out kids in Africa. What mainly came to my mind was the fact that the queen will not shake the hand of a member of the public without a glove on. To me, thats elitism and arrogance. Its interesting that you never addressed that fact.
    They're private institutions, they can take on however they like for whatever reasons they like (and similarly can refuse anybody for any reason they like). I'm not in the business of telling businesses (because that's what universities are) who they can and can't provide services to. As for why they do it, the best people to ask are the colleges themselves. They'll have their reasons. Are they justified in doing so? They can run their college whichever way they want to. Just as they have for 400+years (well, some of them have been that long, others less so, but you get my drift).

    I never personally addressed it because I don't see it as even remotely important. There are a great many celebrities who would follow suit, they are huge numbers who'll have hand creams and lotions available the second they drop out of sight to clean themselves. But quite aside from the hygiene issue it is simply a matter of traditional manners and etiquette, things which are generally no longer understood or appreciated by people these days because they're no longer taught or followed by most. But that doesn't make them wrong. Frankly it's something I'd do if I could get away with it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    They're private institutions, they can take on however they like for whatever reasons they like (and similarly can refuse anybody for any reason they like). I'm not in the business of telling businesses (because that's what universities are) who they can and can't provide services to. As for why they do it, the best people to ask are the colleges themselves. They'll have their reasons. Are they justified in doing so? They can run their college whichever way they want to. Just as they have for 400+years (well, some of them have been that long, others less so, but you get my drift).
    it.
    I see what you're saying, but its not Oxbridge I'm condemning. They're private institutions but the monarchy isn't. The monarchy's privilege and wealth are granted by the state. This should stop.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Go and read my post again. I did give legitimate reasons for why the monarchy should be abolished - no family should be given extravagant levels of wealth and privilege by the state simply because of a ridiculous and primitive notion that their bloodline is inherently superior to everyone else's. Any child born to the royal family is automatically destined to go to Oxbridge - how is that fair? What has the monarchy done to earn their place, apart from oppress and exploit the masses? And flying around the globe to shake hands in return for lifelong comfort is a very good deal, don't you think? Is that even comparable to the lifelong drudgery most people the world over will have to undertake to have a semblance of a decent life? Wow, think before you type.
    You think our monarchy is oppressive? They have basically no power lol. A quick wikipedia search and I'm pretty sure Prince William didn't even go to Oxbridge mate.

    As for lifelong drudgery, I think that statement can apply to royals for most of the time.Yes they live in huge comfort but I'd never take that if it involved zero privacy, appallingly boring obligations and having every single thing you do put under a microscope by the press.

    The purpose of my second paragraph was more to ridicule the public for praising the royals when they probably see us as inferior beings. Evidently you've fallen for the stupid lie from the media that Kate - a millionaire's daughter - is an 'average girl'. Stop lying to yourself - you're what is called a 'commoner'. Go and watch some YouTube videos or whatever of the queen in public, then see if she ever shakes a person's hand without a glove on.
    Any reason to believe this?

    Next time, read the arguments I'm putting forward and then counter them sensibly instead of screaming "ad hominem" all over the place.
    I feel I have done. This isn't at all personal by the way man; I have no problem with people opposing the monarchy and have considered doing the same myself. I just have a problem with people making out like they hate us all, consider us peasants and think they are superior. You have no reason to make that claim, at all.

    Apart from this glove argument - there's a woman at my corner shop who always wears gloves, it's not a big deal. The Queen probably gets told by the woman that picks her outfits to wear gloves or something.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    I see what you're saying, but its not Oxbridge I'm condemning. They're private institutions but the monarchy isn't. The monarchy's privilege and wealth are granted by the state. This should stop
    It wouldn't. It can't.

    The remnants of the French royal family are still celebrities (albeit minor ones) in France. The privilege would exist because people and companies would want to be associated to prestige, however fake or suggested it was and they would retain their wealth because anything else would just be common theft.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katierose111)
    I am an anti monarchy person i guess. Though i am not opposed to them representing britain as celebrities, however. I seem to think it is massively unfair, like the qualifications, also their deaths are taken more seriously and they have never really 'done' anything.
    I am very girly so i guess in this world it can pass you by, but sometimes i just take a look out at our country, and wonder what we are doing. It just seems so - well strange.
    The queen sends people out to war, her relatives go, get the badges and would never actually fight and be killed.
    I am not a total commnuist but it also seems strange that people use up the energy resources and ge to keep the money.
    I was wondering if anyone else in the uk had this point of view. In ways it seems like a loathing for the rich, the not free people.
    I saw someone from oxford on here a boy, and he seemed to have something 'right' to say.
    For the millionth time the queen has no executive powers to send men to war (which is the responsibility of the legislatures and the PM+cabinet), and the country makes more off the crown lands alone than what the state pays back in the 'royal allowance'.
    There's a lot of issues and inequalities in the world, but as things go the royal family is no-where the biggest concern.

    I know being anti-monarchist is sort of fashionable for the young and 'rebellious' or what have you, but it's not as if presidential politics seems to offer much in the way of superior governance. Just seems really trendy and lazy. But that's my opinion there, no offence intended.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Would you rather have David Cameron as the head of state?
    So we shouldn't vote for our head of state because they might be rubbish/unpopular etc etc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the monarchy today is simply a daily mail style news story - nobody cares, except for people who read magazines like "heat" and "okay!"
    it really has next to nothing to do with anything to do with the regular runnings of the state so it's bizarre why we still have/need a royal family
    and the BBC sycophancy really drives me nuts sometimes, especially seeing as the BBC are meant to be neutral
    in my opinion a relatively legitimate head of state that I can actually vote for, whether or not they're in the limelight of the media all the time, would be much preferred
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    For the millionth time the queen has no executive powers to send men to war (which is the responsibility of the legislatures and the PM+cabinet),
    strictly speaking the ability to declare war is a prerogative power.

    and the country makes more off the crown lands alone than what the state pays back in the 'royal allowance'.
    so what? if rupert murdoch could make us more does that mean he should be the beginner of the next royal dynasty? oh man. is plutocracy really what we should have?

    There's a lot of issues and inequalities in the world, but as things go the royal family is no-where the biggest concern.
    who said you had to focus on one thing at a time? I'm good at multitasking issues for one

    I know being anti-monarchist is sort of fashionable for the young and 'rebellious' or what have you, but it's not as if presidential politics seems to offer much in the way of superior governance. Just seems really trendy and lazy. But that's my opinion there, no offence intended.
    1) how is republicanism popular today? I don't know too many people who oppose monarchism
    2) "presidential politics"? what do you mean? a parliamentary republic would very likely be the form of government if we were to have an elected head of state, e.g. ireland, iceland, finland, etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    For the millionth time the queen has no executive powers to send men to war (which is the responsibility of the legislatures and the PM+cabinet), and the country makes more off the crown lands alone than what the state pays back in the 'royal allowance'.
    There's a lot of issues and inequalities in the world, but as things go the royal family is no-where the biggest concern.

    I know being anti-monarchist is sort of fashionable for the young and 'rebellious' or what have you, but it's not as if presidential politics seems to offer much in the way of superior governance. Just seems really trendy and lazy. But that's my opinion there, no offence intended.
    I'm a Tory (actually i'm a classical liberal with traditionalist views but they're the closest party...) and I support the abolition of the monarchy on principle, a free society should not tolerate an institution of this nature, even if it does make a profit.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    err I hate to break it to some of you guys but monarchy is and was a very bad thing: both in European history* and in some parts of the world today. its not something that we should embrace, maintain, or at the very least, celebrate. the diplomatic value is nothing, for the same reason that many civilized countries had to kill their kings to become free, and it is abhorrent to see us still aping the barbarism of our medieval past

    * there was a gentleman named Leopold II that managed to murder 20 million people during imperialist expansionism in Congo which is pretty impressive considering the total population was 30 million
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    err I hate to break it to some of you guys but monarchy is and was a very bad thing: both in European history* and in some parts of the world today. its not something that we should embrace, maintain, or at the very least, celebrate. the diplomatic value is nothing, for the same reason that many civilized countries had to kill their kings to become free, and it is abhorrent to see us still aping the barbarism of our medieval past

    * there was a gentleman named Leopold II that managed to murder 20 million people during imperialist expansionism in Congo which is pretty impressive considering the total population was 30 million
    That's nice. Lots of monarchs managed to remain in power without murdering 20 million people, it's hardly representative of the system as a whole.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    err I hate to break it to some of you guys but monarchy is and was a very bad thing: both in European history* and in some parts of the world today. its not something that we should embrace, maintain, or at the very least, celebrate. the diplomatic value is nothing, for the same reason that many civilized countries had to kill their kings to become free, and it is abhorrent to see us still aping the barbarism of our medieval past

    * there was a gentleman named Leopold II that managed to murder 20 million people during imperialist expansionism in Congo which is pretty impressive considering the total population was 30 million
    Every system of rule has been abused by some in the past and will continue to be abused in the future, you can't abolish every single one of them.

    We had our dabble with non-Monarch rule and it proved so successful that it only lasted 11 years.


    Your argument is a gross generalisation, one that I too could make; some doctors have killed patients, therefore we should get rid of all doctors.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ahdbadman981)
    That's nice. Lots of monarchs managed to remain in power without murdering 20 million people, it's hardly representative of the system as a whole.
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Every system of rule has been abused by some in the past and will continue to be abused in the future, you can't abolish every single one of them.

    We had our dabble with non-Monarch rule and it proved so successful that it only lasted 11 years.


    Your argument is a gross generalisation, one that I too could make; some doctors have killed patients, therefore we should get rid of all doctors.
    You both seem to be very uneducated on the atrocities caused by British imperialism.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.