Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why is disliking the British monarchy being "anti-british"? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Better as in a larger house, etc, sure, but you have absolutely no idea what her workload is, especially given that she is over eighty and cannot, like most people, have a break from her job at any point.

    If you think the work of meeting and greeting thousands of people, ranging from ordinary people to visiting diplomats and other Heads of State, without breaking a sweat or betraying your inner thoughts, all the while keeping abreast of all major public issues to quiz the government on privately (which she most certainly does) as light work, you certainly don't have the faintest idea.

    At the end of the day, though, most countries in the world have an office for just this purpose, and even if you were correct in your estimate of the Queen's luxury, it would be sensible to assume a hypothetical president would have it just as easy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If your going to direct a response at me then quote me please.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Better as in a larger house, etc, sure, but you have absolutely no idea what her workload is, especially given that she is over eighty and cannot, like most people, have a break from her job at any point.
    More than just a 'larger house' - the conditions of her life from the external view in its entirety, the provision of an incredibly priviledged enviroment from birth until now - be it education, personal development, caring for self, wealth etc. Why do you suppose that, i have a pretty good idea, it's hardly a secretive life, it's not hidden from the public - and by any sensible standards of comparison her life is one of extreme privilege.

    (Original post by gladders)
    If you think the work of meeting and greeting thousands of people, ranging from ordinary people to visiting diplomats and other Heads of State, without breaking a sweat or betraying your inner thoughts, all the while keeping abreast of all major public issues to quiz the government on privately (which she most certainly does) as light work, you certainly don't have the faintest idea.
    As doubtful as i am that you know her physical state of being, i'm nigh on absolute in saying that you don't know the contents of her 'inner thoughts'. Nor do any of those things sound particularly troubling or burdensome, you do realise some, indeed most peoples lifes, are genuinely riddled with actual problems?

    (Original post by gladders)
    At the end of the day, though, most countries in the world have an office for just this purpose, and even if you were correct in your estimate of the Queen's luxury, it would be sensible to assume a hypothetical president would have it just as easy.
    Well, (s)he wouldn't, as the priviliges such a position affords would only grant themselves upon ascension to office and wouldn't be initiated on birth and for the duration of their life. And the point is that of adherence to fairness, of equal opportunity, even meritocracy - which would prevail atleast to a greater extent if a democratic structure existed for appointing the head of state.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    If your going to direct a response at me then quote me please.



    More than just a 'larger house' - the conditions of her life from the external view in its entirety, the provision of an incredibly priviledged enviroment from birth until now - be it education, personal development, caring for self, wealth etc. Why do you suppose that, i have a pretty good idea, it's hardly a secretive life, it's not hidden from the public - and by any sensible standards of comparison her life is one of extreme privilege.


    As doubtful as i am that you know her physical state of being, i'm nigh on absolute in saying that you don't know the contents of her 'inner thoughts'. Nor do any of those things sound particularly troubling or burdensome, you do realise some, indeed most peoples lifes, are genuinely riddled with actual problems?
    My point is that you don't know, so don't make baseless assertions. Nonetheless we can guestimate - and you clearly don't have any idea how tough such a job is.

    Well, (s)he wouldn't, as the priviliges such a position affords would only grant themselves upon ascension to office and wouldn't be initiated on birth and for the duration of their life. And the point is that of adherence to fairness, of equal opportunity, even meritocracy - which would prevail atleast to a greater extent if a democratic structure existed for appointing the head of state.
    Well if you're going to take otherwise commendable principles to absurd extremes go ahead. However I'd much rather prevent yet another politician from seizing another public office. People prefer this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    My point is that you don't know, so don't make baseless assertions. Nonetheless we can guestimate - and you clearly don't have any idea how tough such a job is.
    It's very apparent, she doesn't live a life of secrecy, i don't see why you can't make a simple inductive judgement from an elementary exercise of comparison? You clearly don't realise some have genuinely 'tough' lifes.

    (Original post by gladders)
    My Well if you're going to take otherwise commendable principles to absurd extremes go ahead.
    How is it taking them to absurd extremes? It's just their simple application, it's not extreme in any sense, monarchy doesn't meet the necessary pre-requisites for any of those things and hence cannot be attributed with them. There's nothing extreme about that and the principles maintain their sensibility, meaning and commendability that they otherwise would. You can't pick and choose when they hold these things.

    (Original post by gladders)
    However I'd much rather prevent yet another politician from seizing another public office. People prefer this.
    Well that's your opinion, i have no objection to you maintaing such besides the substance that it's predicated on.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    It's very apparent, she doesn't live a life of secrecy, i don't see why you can't make a simple inductive judgement from an elementary exercise of comparison? You clearly don't realise some have genuinely 'tough' lifes.



    How is it taking them to absurd extremes? It's just their simple application, it's not extreme in any sense, monarchy doesn't meet the necessary pre-requisites for any of those things and hence cannot be attributed with them. There's nothing extreme about that and the principles maintain their sensibility, meaning and commendability that they otherwise would. You can't pick and choose when they hold these things.



    Well that's your opinion, i have no objection to you maintaing such besides the substance that it's predicated on.
    Putting that aside, what do you think, for example, the presidents of such countries as Italy or Germany do that the British monarch does not? Do you think they are doing easy jobs too?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Putting that aside, what do you think, for example, the presidents of such countries as Italy or Germany do that the British monarch does not? Do you think they are doing easy jobs too?
    For a start presidents have much greater responsibility than a ceromonial head-of-state position.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    For a start presidents have much greater responsibility than a ceromonial head-of-state position.
    Depends on the system. The president of the USA certainly does, but the president of somewhere like Italy, Germany, Ireland, etc. don't seem to have a particularly big role in the government.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    For a start presidents have much greater responsibility than a ceromonial head-of-state position.
    Please elaborate - ideally on something they do that the monarch doesn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Living in a palace is neither here nor there, nor do I think it a particularly terrific thing. If you want to sacrifice your life to be solely in the service of the nation, hand away every piece of privacy you have, be expected to work until you die, all the while socialising politely and with a smile on your face to every single one one of the hundreds of thousands of people you are likely to meet then you're very unusual indeed. It's a ****ing horrible job.
    Do you apply this notion to the royal family (i.e. monarchy) as a whole, as this is what should be done when considering the monarchy? I ask b/c I can certainly say the likes of Harry stropping out of exclusive London clubs every week or so doesn't exactly qualify with the description above :rolleyes:

    Oh and spare me the "He fought in Iraq" etc, as there are 000's of other soldiers who have, all of whom do not receive anywhere near the pampered treatment he does before or thereafter (or the protection he received whilst serving, as my brother serving in a neighboring town can testify, as to can many other soldiers).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    Do you apply this notion to the royal family (i.e. monarchy) as a whole, as this is what should be done when considering the monarchy? I ask b/c I can certainly say the likes of Harry stropping out of exclusive London clubs every week or so doesn't exactly qualify with the description above :rolleyes:
    Are you saying that a mid-twenties adult male is not allowed to go to a London club, like thousands of his fellows?

    Shall we assume that any sign of frivolous spending by anyone - be it an iPod, a Mars Bar, or a holiday in Spain, is a sign of people being lazy?

    Oh and spare me the "He fought in Iraq" etc, as there are 000's of other soldiers who have, all of whom do not receive anywhere near the pampered treatment he does before or thereafter (or the protection he received whilst serving, as my brother serving in a neighboring town can testify, as to can many other soldiers).
    To be fair though, I don't think he wanted the protection, but the Armed Forces quite naturally were terrified of what might happen if he were captured by the enemy. It's understandable.

    The poor sod can't get a break - either he stays behind and is derided for not facing the same dangers, or he goes there and is criticised as being a threat to his comrades. It wouldn't have been an issue if his location in the front line had remained a secret, but it was leaked.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Respecting the monarchy is part of being British, yes.

    Guy I know made a hand gesture at the queen as she went passed when I was in London once, had a good mind to hit him tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Are you saying that a mid-twenties adult male is not allowed to go to a London club, like thousands of his fellows?

    Shall we assume that any sign of frivolous spending by anyone - be it an iPod, a Mars Bar, or a holiday in Spain, is a sign of people being lazy?
    I'm sorry but you must be moronic to think he goes to a nightclub just like every other teenager. He lives a pure playboy lifestyle, all b/c he has the wealth/privilege of being from the royal family and a certain bloodline :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    I'm sorry but you must be moronic to think he goes to a nightclub just like every other teenager. He lives a pure playboy lifestyle, all b/c he has the wealth/privilege of being from the royal family and a certain bloodline :rolleyes:
    Why do you have to resort to insults, buddy?

    Prince Harry has done an awful lot for charity and for the Armed Forces. I don't think you know the first thing about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Why do you have to resort to insults, buddy?

    Prince Harry has done an awful lot for charity and for the Armed Forces. I don't think you know the first thing about it.
    With a brother who has done a lot (such as being part of the charity group which abolished landmines) and has served in the army for the last 15 years, including multiple tours in Afgan, Iraq etc, I think just about have an idea there "buddy" :rolleyes:

    My brother aside, there are countless other 000's in this country who serve in the military and contribute through charity services, but receive but an ounce of the wealth/privilege Harry does - someone who toured once, and engages in charity with the utmost of comfort (i.e. despite having to travel to poor African villages etc, I'm in no doubt he receives the best of accommodation etc), something most would consider at the very least, extremely fortunate.

    In your own words, "I don't think you know the first thing about it".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So your problem is that Harry gets to live in inherited luxury. Is this unique to the royals? Would it end under a republic?

    Harry's wealth is not from state funds by the way.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 26, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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

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