Rant- I need tranquilizers before I have an aneurysm
- Thread starter Askthepizzaguy
- Start date
We have a winner!
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Here's my proposal to Britain, so that it may keep their Monarch, but get rid of all the extended family - elective monarchy. Take a leaf from Poland-Lithuania, only grant the royal election franchise to everyone, not just nobles. Thus, the symbolical Monarch remains, but his offspring have no particular significance.
Britain's current dynasty of Saxe-Goburg-Gotha turned Windsor isn't that ancient or particular symbolic anyway, so losing it isn't much of a loss.
Britain's current dynasty of Saxe-Goburg-Gotha turned Windsor isn't that ancient or particular symbolic anyway, so losing it isn't much of a loss.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Dreadnought
Deity
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Joint effort, at least five countries involved.
[/QUOTE]moments [/QUOTE]
What's so great about imperialism?
[/QUOTE]often outshine the [/QUOTE]
Ditto
[/QUOTE]bad ones.[/QUOTE]
Both joint effort and imperialism.
Maybe if you had shown up truly great moments like the ending of the slave trade or the continuation of the fight in 1940, can't think of any else, I may have left you off. But imperialist wranglings in other people's business aren't exactly great matters. And Waterloo was a footnote in Napoleon's defeat.
Dreadnought
Deity
I'd give the honor of abolishing the slave trade to the Portuguese rather than the British, and the British monarchy didn't have a significant influence post-19th century, so I ruled out the Second World War.
And, well, to say the French and Indian War was imperialistic is laughable, especially considering the nature of 17th-18th century politics. It was inevitable that there would be conflict in North America. There is a difference between imperialism and colonialism.
Waterloo, on the other hand, directly resulted in the abdication of Napoleon for the second time. Am I saying that Napoleon would have been better off with a victory at Waterloo? Maybe, maybe not. But to say Waterloo didn't have any significance to the defeat of Napoleon, especially because he resigned a week after the defeat, is a bit silly. I'm not an expert in the Hundred Days, though, so take it as you will.
I see that Pombal ended slavery in Portugal in the late 1700s, but he didn't abolish the slave trade. The trade itself was still very active into the 1800s, and Brian has a point that England - specifically the Royal Navy - led the effort to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade altogether.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
So, do you think the newly weds are sharing their royal jelly with each other by now?
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
(ignoring the OP and judging by the title)
Yea, ketamine withdrawal sucks.
Yea, ketamine withdrawal sucks.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
I registered a formal complaint with a brit, then turned off the television. It seems to have worked.
Disgustipated
Deity
It's a good OP, but I disagree.
It's entertainment, who are we to say what is and isn't entertainment. They often look at us computer gamers as crazy. Why is it important to know how if some fictitious pixelated elf saves the world or not? How is this important to anyone besides the person playing the game? It's just a bunch of random images on an LCD screen (or CRT screen if you are the dark ages
). They look at our entertainment as even more silly than we look at theirs.
So tell me honestly. Which is more silly. Being entertained by the lives of real people, or entertained my imaginary elves and dwarves?
It's entertainment, who are we to say what is and isn't entertainment. They often look at us computer gamers as crazy. Why is it important to know how if some fictitious pixelated elf saves the world or not? How is this important to anyone besides the person playing the game? It's just a bunch of random images on an LCD screen (or CRT screen if you are the dark ages
). They look at our entertainment as even more silly than we look at theirs. So tell me honestly. Which is more silly. Being entertained by the lives of real people, or entertained my imaginary elves and dwarves?
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
At least the elves and dwarfs aren't costing the state millions every year, enforcing a pernicious system based on privilege (lit. private law) and obsequiousness, or putting people into high positions solely based on who their grandmother was.
Yeah royalty and privilege suck big time.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
And that's why you're not a psychologist, because you're way off-base.
I wouldn't want that kind of scrutiny. I just don't want to hear about it, either.
What you're saying is the equivalent of someone else going "Ugh, I hate that stupid song on the radio, I wish they'd stop playing it over and over" and you go "Jealous of their success much?"
That didn't take much thought on your part, and it's really obvious.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Let's not discount the role the Queen played in WWII, particularly during the Bombing of London.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
She could have single-handedly stopped the sinking of an aircraft carrier, and folks exactly like that in militaries across the world aren't given the kind of attention she gets. And I'd point out, the Queen isn't even the main target of my silly rant, but two other people who haven't done [bleep] to warrant batting an eye in their direction.
azzaman333
meh
Ignore it til it goes away. Problem solved.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
I'd go one step further, and say that the Brits are lucky to have the vestigial strictly-for-decoration monarchy. That way, the emotions that are heaped upon Kings and Queens don't get vested in someone with real power like a PM (Britain) or President (USA). The Brits treat their PM with proper disrespect. I admire that
Similar threads
