Queen Elizabeth II's health

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I do prefer my celebrity billionaire ruling family to have British accents.
 
You believe that people should bend over, literally, to the royal family, a minority of like 50 people in a country of millions
The Royal Family isn't a cultural/ethnic/religious minority. (Yes, I know they are mostly German by blood, but they don't come across as foreign the way Sadiq Khan does - the younger royals are mostly British by blood anyway)
The Queen was ~1/2 British, the current King is ~1/4 British, the future King William V is ~5/8 British, the future King George VII is ~13/16 British.
 
the younger royals are mostly British by blood anyway
How does someone transform from German by blood to British by blood?
Do they need to inject a certain amount of tea into their blood stream?
 
The Royal Family isn't a cultural/ethnic/religious minority. (Yes, I know they are mostly German by blood, but they don't come across as foreign the way Sadiq Khan does - the younger royals are mostly British by blood anyway)
The Queen was ~1/2 British, the current King is ~1/4 British, the future King William V is ~5/8 British, the future King George VII is ~13/16 British.

Of course they're a cultural minority. You just aren't talking about cultural minorities in the abstract, you mean that society should not respect people against whom you harbor prejudice, but are understandably reticent to just come out and say that.
 
How does someone transform from German by blood to British by blood?
Do they need to inject a certain amount of tea into their blood stream?
Ethnic heritage.
Of course they're a cultural minority. You just aren't talking about cultural minorities in the abstract, you mean that society should not respect people against whom you harbor prejudice, but are understandably reticent to just come out and say that.
I don't think it's fair for migrants to Europe and their offspring to expect to be treated as if they were actual Europeans, they're not. If they want to fit in and be regarded as part of the mainstream, they should return to their ancestral lands.
 
Ethnic heritage.
I'm Irish and German. How long would I have to live in the UK to become British by blood? Would my kids be british by blood? Grandkids?
I don't think it's fair for migrants to Europe and their offspring to expect to be treated as if they were actual Europeans, they're not. If they want to fit in and be regarded as part of the mainstream, they should return to their ancestral lands.
Yes, everyone in England should go back to their ancestral lands.
Spoiler size :

(Sorry about size, map of anglo-saxon migration to Britain.)
 
Last edited:
George VI was approximately half-German, and the Queen Mother was very much British, making the late Queen one-quarter German at most. Prince Philip was of Danish, German and Russian descent, which means that Charles is of rather mixed heritage, but mostly British.

Culturally, of course, the Royal Family have been exclusively British for over a century.
 
Culturally, of course, the Royal Family have been exclusively British for over a century.
Are they though? When was the last time Betty stood in a queue, went to a chippy, or watched Love Island? Beyond being born in a similar geographic area (though Phil was Greek), I'm not sure what similarity they have with the overwhelming majority of British people.
 
The same could be said about Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg or any of our other  untitled nobility.
 
European Royalty are effectively an ethnic group in their own right, given that they married almost exclusively amongst themselves for over four hundred years, and had a very strong preference for in-group marriage for centuries before that. My impression is that this is kind of how they privately think of themselves, but for obvious reasons they could never admit it publicly.
 
Ethnic heritage.

I don't think it's fair for migrants to Europe and their offspring to expect to be treated as if they were actual Europeans, they're not. If they want to fit in and be regarded as part of the mainstream, they should return to their ancestral lands.
You picked a great handle, Bitterender, due to its strong association with US Confederate who tried their best to hold for million black people in perpetual bondage. By the way, my ancestry is mostly French with smatterings of Irish, English, and German -- yet I live in the US. Guess I need to back my ancestral home as well, eh?

Hopefully you were just being sardonic. Otherwise, that is grotesquely bigoted.
 
European Royalty are effectively an ethnic group in their own right, given that they married almost exclusively amongst themselves for over four hundred years, and had a very strong preference for in-group marriage for centuries before that. My impression is that this is kind of how they privately think of themselves, but for obvious reasons they could never admit it publicly.
I think it's the European aristocracy which should be designated as such. In the 18th century, the concept of aristocracy refered as blood purity was pretty mainstream all accross Europe. It only started getting challenged with the French Revolution and the following Napoleonic wars.

Roots of this are very archaic. Origins of the concept is dating back to the 4th and 5th century AD, when the Roman military progressively got more and more lead by Germanic generals protecting the limes, the Roman Empire border. Over time, those generals eventually crowned themselves as kings in the 5th and 6th century AD, founding this way European nobility (replacing the former Roman Imperial rule).
 
Last edited:
Hopefully you were just being sardonic. Otherwise, that is grotesquely bigoted.

1664125860701.gif
 
Everyone has religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are "there is no god", that is still a religious belief, just like everyone has a marital status, even children and other people who are unmarried and never were. Atheism is to a religious belief as single is to a marital status.

No necessarily, you're mixing two different things into one.

Not believing in something is not necessarily a religious thing. This is especially true for atheists who don't believe in any god claims presented so far. Rejecting one god claim due to believing one or several other such claims might have religious basis but there're other reasons for doing so. Even if a claim is a religious one reason(s) rejecting it doesn't have to be. Not believing something supernatural doesn't even remotely have to be religious. Not believing tooth fairies, unicorns or Santa Claus is very rarely called a religious belief.
There's also a vast gap between between claims "there're no god(s)" and "I don't believe god xyz". The latter is the gist atheism while the first goes much further and furthermore, atheism is still not a religion.
 
There's also a vast gap between between claims "there're no god(s)" and "I don't believe god xyz". The latter is the gist atheism

Really? I thought atheism meant no God, gods, spirits, demons, angels, life forces, supernatural activity, etc. period.

Being discriminatory with one's atheism wouldn't make someone an atheist, you'd just be the same as any other theist. Because every theist believes their belief is the sole belief and all others are false.
 
I think it's the European aristocracy which should be designated as such. In the 18th century, the concept of aristocracy refered as blood purity was pretty mainstream all accross Europe. It only started getting challenged with the French Revolution and the following Napoleonic wars.
I'm not certain; the aristocracy had a preference for in-group marriage, but in practice they readily married into the gentry and, later, the bourgeoisie, and particular lineages could enter or leave the aristocracy over generations, so they never come to form a distinct population. In contrast, the royal preference for in-group marriage was so strict as to constitute a practical rule: before George VI, the last English monarch to take a non-royal consort was Henry VIII, and the last Scottish monarch was Mary I, both almost four centuries earlier. (There are more recent non-royal ancestors elsewhere on the family tree, but it serves to illustrate the point.) The result is a population of a few thousand people who are more closely related to each other than they are to anybody else. We could have dumped every European royal on a remote island in 1500 and it would have provided more or less the same outcome.
 
Last edited:
I'm not certain; the aristocracy had a preference for in-group marriage, but in practice they readily married into the gentry and, later, the bourgeoisie, and particular lineages could enter or leave the aristocracy over generations, so they never come to form a distinct population. In contrast, the royal preference for in-group marriage was so strict as to constitute a practical rule: before George VI, the last English monarch to take a non-royal consort was Henry VIII, and the last Scottish monarch was Mary I, both almost four centuries earlier. (There are more recent non-royal ancestors elsewhere on the family tree, but it serves to illustrate the point.) The result is a population of a few thousand people who are more closely related to each other than they are to anybody else. We could have dumped every European royal on a remote island in 1500 and it would have provided more or less the same outcome.
Possibly. I'm not even sure I understand what you say as I have a very low level of knowledge about British royal History, my teaching being more focused on the French case. Are you saying that royals are only marrying with other royals? I thought some were picking husbands and spouses among the aristocracy in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom