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

Anti monarchy paranoia Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I know plenty and find your continued condescension intensely irritating and far beneath anybody seriously attempting debate. You're on here presenting a platform for discussion, bringing forth your opinions to influence the discussion and conversation and so far failing miserably. You are not showing what relevancy your views have, merely spouting discordant facts that affect nothing.

    Yet despite all that, I'm showing you considerably more respect than you are showing me. Why? Could just be that I've got more class than you. Could be because you're being overly petulant. But whatever the reason is, you're not doing yourself any favours.


    I also know that those incursions of which you speak were conceived, designed, instigated and overseen by politicians. What relevancy does the Crown have to that? If you are simply using the tenuous link that 'they were in charge' during the time then why couldn't I counter with the fact that they were also 'in charge' during the industrial revolution, something which proved of incredible benefit to the entire globe and that therefore they are a force for good?
    anthony eden, the British pm at the time, said the Queen was for the invasion of the Suez canal

    it really is getting boring now, I could care less if you're "classier" than me, you're incredibly stupid. don't quote me
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    anthony eden, the British pm at the time, said the Queen was for the invasion of the Suez canal
    And if you really think that that means anything then you're the one who's stupid. But I've known that for quite a while. For people like you the Monarchy is an emotive issue. Not one you use logic on. That has been evident throughout.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    People are easily distracted by every little thing the press throws at them, of course they'll remain rich celebrities. Abolishing the monarchy is about the principle. The state should have no financial or legal obligation to a family because of a barbaric notion that they're inherently superior - like it or not this is what the monarchy is about.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    People are easily distracted by every little thing the press throws at them, of course they'll remain rich celebrities. Its about the principle. The state should have no financial or legal obligation to a family because of a barbaric notion that they're inherently superior - like it or not this is what the monarchy is about.
    Does anyone actually believe that, though? Are they born with privilege? Yes. But aren't we all to one degree or another?

    And I'd disagree with that point, instead saying that the State has no obligation to them. If anything, what with the many reforms to the Civil List and Crown Estates over the years the Royal Family would say themselves that they have far more obligation to the country than the country has to them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Does anyone actually believe that, though? Are they born with privilege? Yes. But aren't we all to one degree or another?

    And I'd disagree with that point, instead saying that the State has no obligation to them. If anything, what with the many reforms to the Civil List and Crown Estates over the years the Royal Family would say themselves that they have far more obligation to the country than the country has to them.
    Well no, I doubt very many people think they're inferior to the royal family but that matters little if we're all behaving like we are. The rules put in place from centuries ago mean the monarchy exist, but those rules should be changed.

    I want to be careful about this privilege debate as it could easily spill into one about inheritance, then inequality, then capitalism etc. What I will say though, is that yes, we are all born into some degree of privilege. The problem is when the State provides you with an extravagant amount of privilege for what turns out to be a very outdated and empty reason.

    As the rules stand, yes, the State does have a legal obligation to prop up the monarchy. But I'm saying they shouldn't do. Whatever the royals do for us, at the end of the day, does not merit their very comfortable, State-granted lifestyle. Everything the royals do can be turned into a modest job vacancy. There's nothing special about them that merits their - overall - extremely high standard of life we all pay towards. If we're going to say the government should sponsor this family's wellbeing to the extent that they do, then why not you or I or anybody else's?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ahdbadman981)
    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.
    Considering Hitler was democratically elected, and the current Tory government is cutting the country to the bone (mostly at the expense of the more vulnerable), I'm hardly inclined to believe a democratic country with a powerless and basically ritual/customary monarchy is any less tolerable than other forms of government, like 'lets-have-two-career-politicians-on-top' presidential democracy.

    If you weren't 'free' you would not be posting that without disappearing not long after making it.
    Strangely enough it's not queen Lizzie the second or the princes harry and Will who tell the secret services, police and such to curtail our rights and abuse human rights in general. Ironically enough if they spoke out against the failings of our democratic governments they'd soon find themselves deposed and exiled.

    Only a sorry to say hipster would have an issue with a harmless institution which makes the country money and buys it diplomatic capital. Protip: You're not trendy or radical for anti-monarchism. Just wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    1) Considering Hitler was democratically elected, and the current Tory government is cutting the country to the bone (mostly at the expense of the more vulnerable), I'm hardly inclined to believe a democratic country with a powerless and basically ritual/customary monarchy is any less tolerable than other forms of government, like 'lets-have-two-career-politicians-on-top' presidential democracy.

    2) If you weren't 'free' you would not be posting that without disappearing not long after making it.
    Strangely enough it's not queen Lizzie the second or the princes harry and Will who tell the secret services, police and such to curtail our rights and abuse human rights in general. Ironically enough if they spoke out against the failings of our democratic governments they'd soon find themselves deposed and exiled.

    3) Only a sorry to say hipster would have an issue with a harmless institution which makes the country money and buys it diplomatic capital. Protip: You're not trendy or radical for anti-monarchism. Just wrong.
    1) Hitler was democratically elected, but he repealed the rule of law after he got into power. The Tory government are pursuing policies that are required given the mess the country is in. If you look at democratic societies and compare them to societies with monarchies, the people are much freer in democratic societies.

    2) This is a silly strawman, he never said he wasn't free, just that a free society shouldn't let people inheret their ranks (which is completely true).

    3) If being a hipster means being pro-freedom then yes, i'm a hipster. Harmless or not it, if it is so harmless it should be removed immediately and replaced with an elected head of state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Not so serious)
    1) Hitler was democratically elected, but he repealed the rule of law after he got into power. The Tory government are pursuing policies that are required given the mess the country is in. If you look at democratic societies and compare them to societies with monarchies, the people are much freer in democratic societies.

    2) This is a silly strawman, he never said he wasn't free, just that a free society shouldn't let people inheret their ranks (which is completely true).

    3) If being a hipster means being pro-freedom then yes, i'm a hipster. Harmless or not it, if it is so harmless it should be removed immediately and replaced with an elected head of state.
    1) It matters not that he 'repealed the rule of law' (read: altered it to make his word the final word on it), he was democratically elected which propelled him to a position to consolidate his rather less than democratic 'term'. The point being that first of all principles need to be a bit better held than simply (ug thing A good, thing B bad). It is a fine example of how democracy ultimately failed. There are many others.

    I like democracy, but it is hardly above failure and corruption.

    2) He sort of did I'm afraid, using the term 'strawman' does not immediately weaken my point nor strengthen yours. Learn your logical fallacies, champ!
    http://blogs.trhonline.com/getpost.p...2634378&user=2

    Also as an aside, society shouldn't let people inherit ranks that matter. Considering nepotism is alive and strong in say the jobs market you're also wasting a lot of energy on a benign institution and ignoring the fact you can be passed over after years of hard work and talent because the bosses kid fancies tipping his hand at that particular role or simply because they need something to do.
    In an ideal world merit should be the only thing. When you have got the solution to adapt human nature and overcome the real world (and also established what merit means, again we humans are a fractious bunch as this thread confirms) then come back and impress upon me, and the rest of us your epiphanies.

    3) Your parting point is utterly, well...pointless!
    You claim to be pro-freedom (fine and I share the sentiment) but then you make an arbitrary value judgement condemning an institution which is in reality absolutely no threat or bearing on your freedoms. You've also made absolutely no points as to why an elected head of state is innately superior, and merely thrown out that 'it's better'. Burden of proof my son!
    When you assert your liberal credentials then decide that an entity without any actual consequence upon your life or anyone's (beyond the benefits stated to the country as a whole) is impeding liberal freedoms it paints you in a very confused light.
    It suggest to me and perhaps others that you fundamentally misunderstand what freedom entails. It comes across more as poorly veiled sour grapes and envy of supposed privilege than anything.

    That is a weak character to convey to people if you wish to convince them you're right and the facts are wrong.

    Thanks for the response, the effort's appreciated and wish you a good day!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Well no, I doubt very many people think they're inferior to the royal family but that matters little if we're all behaving like we are. The rules put in place from centuries ago mean the monarchy exist, but those rules should be changed.

    I want to be careful about this privilege debate as it could easily spill into one about inheritance, then inequality, then capitalism etc. What I will say though, is that yes, we are all born into some degree of privilege. The problem is when the State provides you with an extravagant amount of privilege for what turns out to be a very outdated and empty reason.

    As the rules stand, yes, the State does have a legal obligation to prop up the monarchy. But I'm saying they shouldn't do. Whatever the royals do for us, at the end of the day, does not merit their very comfortable, State-granted lifestyle. Everything the royals do can be turned into a modest job vacancy. There's nothing special about them that merits their - overall - extremely high standard of life we all pay towards. If we're going to say the government should sponsor this family's wellbeing to the extent that they do, then why not you or I or anybody else's?
    I'm just going to jump in here. You talk about the "State" as if somehow it's a separate, unaccountable entity. It isn't. The State is the people. The State provides the monarchy with what ever it does, because the people want the State to do so. If the people wanted rid of the monarchy it would actually be very easy to do.

    Political parties are always jumping over one another to find the policy that will win the most votes. If or when republicanism becomes an issue that a majority of people actually care about, change will happen. As it stands people are overwhelmingly in support of giving lots of money to one family. The will of the people is absolute.

    Additionally, it is, in my opinion, really quite useful to have a properly politically neutral Head of State. It's unlikely a single President would ever have as much support as the Queen does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I always find it strange that there's only ever a romantic view of the monarchy in this country - she's an unelected leader, I say "boo" to that alone :lol:
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

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.