EnglishEdward
Deity
Ah, and silly me had thought that the SF in your location might be San Francisco.
Time to get rid of the Monarchy?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Site Feedback / Forum Games / Never Ending Stories
Uncle Paul
Bittereinder
GOD. SAVE. THE. QUEEN.
GOD. SAVE. THE. KING.
I'm not even British, but the monarchy should stay, even though my people wound up on the wrong side of the British Empire a couple of times.
GOD. SAVE. THE. KING.
I'm not even British, but the monarchy should stay, even though my people wound up on the wrong side of the British Empire a couple of times.
Senethro
Overlord
Uh oh.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
Apparently it has been estimated that about half the world’s population will tune in for the Queen’s funeral on Monday.
That’s soft power for you!
And some strange people want to throw it all away.
Queen's funeral is expected to become the world's most watched broadcast of all time with 4.1BILLION viewers
Queen's televised funeral is expected to smash all prior broadcasting records
Industry experts suggest as many as 4.1billion could tune into momentous event
Prior records include 3.5bn watching 1996 Atlanta Olympics opening ceremony
www.dailymail.co.uk
That’s soft power for you!
And some strange people want to throw it all away.
Queen's funeral is expected to become the world's most watched broadcast of all time with 4.1BILLION viewers
Queen's televised funeral is expected to smash all prior broadcasting records
Industry experts suggest as many as 4.1billion could tune into momentous event
Prior records include 3.5bn watching 1996 Atlanta Olympics opening ceremony
Queen's funeral expected to be most watched TV event EVER
More than 4billion people across the world are expected to tune in on Monday to watch the final chapter of the Second Elizabethan Age draw to a poignant close.
Indigenous NRLW player Caitlin Moran banned for one game for comment about Queen’s death
The NRL has come down hard on Newcastle [Australia] NRLW player Caitlin Moran, banning her for a social media post following the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
Moran created headlines last Friday over the post, in which she referred to the deceased queen as a “dumb dog”.
The NRL announced on Tuesday they planned on banning Moran for one match, which equates to one-fifth of the NRLW season.
The former Jillaroos back becomes the first women’s player to be banned for an off-field matter in the NRLW’s history.
The Indigenous Knights star also received a suspended fine of 25% and will be forced to undergo education and training around the appropriate use of social media.
“The relationship between Indigenous people and the monarchy is a complicated one,” [Knights coach Ronald] Griffiths said.
“If Caitlin has done something then it will be investigated by the Integrity Unit and we’ll work our way through the process.
“We’re talking a little bit of negativity with Caitlin, but if we look at we’re she’s come from, in 2017 she wins us the World Cup and does her knee the year after and has probably been in the wilderness since then.”
However the NRL said the comments were unacceptable, no matter the circumstances.
“Rugby league is an inclusive game and has a proud and strong relationship with many communities,” the league said in a statement.
“Regardless of any personal views, all players and officials must adhere to the professional standards expected of them and on this occasion the public comments made by the player have caused damage to the game.”
The Queen’s death prompted many Indigenous Australians to express their frustration at colonial atrocities, while others expressed condolences for the monarch.
Prof Sandy O’Sullivan, from Macquarie University, attempted to explain the reaction and put it into a historical and social context.
“For those saying we should be magnanimous about the passing of the queen, a reminder that the queen inserted herself into the lives of Indigenous people here multiple times. She wasn’t a bystander to the effects of colonisation and colonialism, she was an architect of it,” O’Sullivan wrote.
If you support monarchy, you also support:
Allowing one of the richest families to dodge a tax that has to be paid by everyone else in the country (inheritance tax)
The head of the Duchy of Cornwall inheriting common peoples estates in Cornwall if they do not make a will
The principle that some people are born to rule. Not that people should be employed in jobs according to their ability
The idea that god chose them
That they are free to hunt across their land. But if you do it, its called poaching
That they and their extended family are the largest freeholder by group in the whole of the UK
Frankly all of the above is indefensible in modern Britain IMO. And the funny thing is, that if you approach many royalists with the same list as above, many of them also agree that its unjust and not right. Even on the daily mail, who have actually run stories about Charles not having to pay £150M in inheritance tax, the commenters tend to be of the view that if it’s a tax on one it should be a tax on all.
The frustrating thing I find is that you can sort a lot of the above out without actually removing the royal family. But too many people aren’t even willing to talk about it. Even though most would probably agree with the proposals. Although I would rather see the monarchy abolished, I would bite your arm off if you said “ok – you can have the above sorted out but we retain a royal family as head of state”. That would be a totally fine outcome for the vast majority of republicans.
Allowing one of the richest families to dodge a tax that has to be paid by everyone else in the country (inheritance tax)
The head of the Duchy of Cornwall inheriting common peoples estates in Cornwall if they do not make a will
The principle that some people are born to rule. Not that people should be employed in jobs according to their ability
The idea that god chose them
That they are free to hunt across their land. But if you do it, its called poaching
That they and their extended family are the largest freeholder by group in the whole of the UK
Frankly all of the above is indefensible in modern Britain IMO. And the funny thing is, that if you approach many royalists with the same list as above, many of them also agree that its unjust and not right. Even on the daily mail, who have actually run stories about Charles not having to pay £150M in inheritance tax, the commenters tend to be of the view that if it’s a tax on one it should be a tax on all.
The frustrating thing I find is that you can sort a lot of the above out without actually removing the royal family. But too many people aren’t even willing to talk about it. Even though most would probably agree with the proposals. Although I would rather see the monarchy abolished, I would bite your arm off if you said “ok – you can have the above sorted out but we retain a royal family as head of state”. That would be a totally fine outcome for the vast majority of republicans.
But the good news is MPs, some parliamentary staff, and journalists accredited to parliament, and their guests don't have to queue. Bet that makes queuing seem better.
If we're going to have a hopelessly unequal state, with the government actively complicit in running the country for the rich and the rich alone, having a head of state who rules by accident of birth is perfectly fitting. In fact, it's rather more honest than having a bunch of politicians pretending to be populists when they are anything but.
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
People would lose their **** if the Monarchy were to take back it's consent.
Besides via the Magna Carta the monarch can only go so far before having been deemed reneging on King John's promises to uphold the rights of the nobility. Previous monarchs have literally been killed over this issue.
Why not extend this to include abolishing parliament; they are populists and opportunists too, while the royals are there forever.
This type of argument is pretty much like saying "I know x killed someone, but other people kill too, the majority of them not royals, and royals have less practical reason to kill".
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
How is it illogical? It's common sense. Old, is old, it shows! The eyes do not lie!
And the second sentence disgusts you because???.... You're a royalist?
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
Ah yes, absolutionism justified through popular nihilism.
Magna Carta isn't law and a lot more people who weren't kings were killed over the issue.
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
More people will die over the issue in the future I garuntee it. Especially since the UK is in decline. Has been ever since they gave up on empire.
Only now after ditching the EU and bearing the brunt of high costs while being a measly island (populated by peoples who historically don't get along well with the English who rule the UK) will they realize that their failure is complete.
sophie
Break My Heart
Obviously, the Queen...err...King is not going to be able to turn the UK into an absolute monarchy. But if he were to deny consent, it would trigger a constitutional crisis which might become very uncomfortable for the PM. So a well-timed threat might be sufficient to steer something into the kings direction.
When did you receive your doctorate in geriatrics? Have you even had much interaction with the elderly? I was raised by my grandparents, and spent much of my life with them, and their age-peer friends and acquaintances. My grandmother's sister and her family were people who sometimes made the day-long journey from BC to visit us for a few days, and we'd spend the summer months in BC, some of that time staying with them and the rest of the time either at the cabin on Okanagan Lake or traveling around being tourists.
My great-aunt died when she and her husband and son were on holidays in the U.S. in 1979. The cause of death was not "old age." She had a heart attack.
My grandmother died 25 years ago at home. The cause of death was not "old age." She had an aneurysm (though the Alzheimers was killing her at the same time).
My grandfather died 36 years ago in the hospital. The cause of death was not "old age." He had COPD, though it was specifically pneumonia that killed him.
The only elderly individual in my life who could reasonably be considered to have died of old age is one of my cats, who was 17.5 years old.
Queen Elizabeth was in very good health for the vast majority of her life. For her to suddenly drop dead like this (relatively speaking, it was very sudden) means that something defined and specific was going on with her. And no, that was NOT "old age."
The second sentence disgusts me partly for the reason you suggested, but also because... FFS, re-read my previous posts. Jumping to unwarranted and derogatory conclusions about a death in the family, saying, "Oh, it must have been murder for the inheritance" is outrageous. Centuries ago? Sure, royalty killed each other fairly often over inheritances and power. They don't anymore. And Charles wasn't hurting for money, not with how wealthy the Duchy of Cornwall is.
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
Could have gotten a heart attack or blood clot in it's sleep. The precise mechanism of death can never be known. But it was old...soooo.
I mean he was hated for what he did to Diana. Queen probably kept him on a too tight leash after that.
But seriously why do you care about Charles' feelings? The whole family is a representation of elitism, imperialism, white supremacy, etc. And honestly knowing how rational you are I doubt you stand for any of these. So why do you respect them? Old loyalist tendencies?
Similar threads
- Poll
