Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 241
Thanks Tree209Thanks

Thread: British royals.

  1. #21
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,527
    Thanks
    48787

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNHarley View Post
    I find the last part interesting. But the monarchy? They dont even have any real power anymore. They just get paid to live in luxury.
    Hek, they dont even own the countries "assets" anymore.
    Actually, the queen works pretty damn hard and has quite a few duties.

    https://bmsf.org.uk/about-the-monarc...h-m-the-queen/

    The immediate family has tried to be contributing members and useful to society. All but Princess Anne have served in the military. But Anne is said to be the hardest working member of the family taking on the most duties and engagements on behalf of her mother.
    Thanks from Wonderer, BDBoop and allegoricalfact

  2. #22
    Member tnbskts's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,459
    Thanks
    4524

    From
    British expat in USA
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Um, why do you need monarchs, at ALL?!??
    I just said why. It's hard to find another system where the head of state is simultaneously remotely relevant (I mean, where educated people around the world know his/her name) and separate from party politics. George Bush milked the whole Iraq War thing as a matter of patriotism for supporting it, and by extension the whole Republican response to it and to other things - conveniently managing to blur the line between his position as head of state and his position as the leader of the Republican Party and leading to a situation that was quite dangerous. When Tony Blair tried to do likewise people just laughed at him. We understand that the Prime Minister represents his party, he doesn't always represent his country. That's what the Queen is for.
    Last edited by tnbskts; 15th May 2018 at 11:08 AM.
    Thanks from Babba and Friday13

  3. #23
    Member tnbskts's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,459
    Thanks
    4524

    From
    British expat in USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Actually, the queen works pretty damn hard and has quite a few duties.

    https://bmsf.org.uk/about-the-monarc...h-m-the-queen/

    The immediate family has tried to be contributing members and useful to society. All but Princess Anne have served in the military. But Anne is said to be the hardest working member of the family taking on the most duties and engagements on behalf of her mother.
    People hold the royal family to different standards apparently. When the announcement came that Prince Philip was retiring from royal duties, I saw quite a few comments along the lines of "parasite" and "layabout" on social media, leaving me wondering how old a member of the royal family has to be in order to retire with dignity, since apparently 95 is too young.

  4. #24
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,527
    Thanks
    48787

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I guess I get the concept of having curiosity for things removed from one's experience but, for me that would be something like immersing myself in the world of wreck-divers or LARPers or some other intricate sub-culture. The British royal family is far removed from my experience, but just seems stuffy and dull.

    In what sense do you think Elizabeth Windsor has done an amazing job? In my view, hers seems like a pretty trivial and self-serving job of trying to prop up the prestige of the decaying institution of the monarchy. And she doesn't seem to have done a very good job of that. You'd be hard-pressed to find a period of time when the royal family lost as much dignity as during her rule.

    As for a slightly famous American marrying into the family: meh. It just seems like a tackier rehash of Edward marrying American celebrity Wallis Simpson, only without the drama of it actually impacting the succession. The bi-racial aspect seems to have some people excited, but I'm not clear on why that matters, either.
    You really need to do some more research on what the queen's functions are and what she does and has done. And that family is far from stuffy and dull. You ought to check out "The Crown" on Netflix. It takes a few liberties with reality, but it's pretty damn close.
    Last edited by Babba; 15th May 2018 at 11:16 AM.
    Thanks from Sassy

  5. #25
    New Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    999

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Um, why do you need monarchs, at ALL?!??
    The only argument I can see for a monarchy is that it occupies the minds of the dumber citizens, taking some of the wind out of the sails of celebrity politicians who might rely on them to gain power. Would Trump have gotten elected if the marching morons of maga had a government figurehead to obsess over, leaving the democracy to more serious people? Tough to say.
    Last edited by Arkady; 15th May 2018 at 11:17 AM.
    Thanks from Friday13

  6. #26
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,527
    Thanks
    48787

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    The only argument I can see for a monarchy is that it occupies the minds of the dumber citizens, taking some of the wind out of the sales of celebrity politicians who might rely on them to gain power. Would Trump have gotten elected if the marching morons of maga had a government figurehead to obsess over, leaving the democracy to more serious people? Tough to say.
    Wow. You just insulted the majority of Brits.
    Thanks from BDBoop and allegoricalfact

  7. #27
    New Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    999

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    You really need to do some more research on what the queen's functions is and what she does and has done. And that family is far from stuffy and dull. You ought to check out "The Crown" on Netflix. It takes a few liberties with reality, but it's pretty damn close.
    I'm familiar with what her functions are. I just see most of them being a total waste of time... not just her own useless time, but the time of useful people. For example, consider the absurd ceremony of her meeting with the elected Prime Minister to "command" him to form a government. It's bad enough she has to play pretend that way, but pulling actual serious people into the charade is pathetic.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #28
    New Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    999

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Wow. You just insulted the majority of Brits.
    How so?

  9. #29
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,527
    Thanks
    48787

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    How so?
    It seemed like you were saying that anyone who supports the monarchy are the dumber citizens and I was just pointing out that the majority of Brits support it.
    Thanks from allegoricalfact

  10. #30
    DEEP STATE CEO Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    9,000
    Thanks
    6467

    From
    SPECTRE HQ
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I never feel more out-of-step with the American people than when subject turns to the British royal family -- an endless source of fascination for millions of Americans, for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom. On the front page of CNN.com, a quarter of the stories in the "Top Stories" section, at the moment, deal with a royal family wedding.

    If you're unfamiliar with the story (hard to imagine, since it's been covered by screaming headlines in every major news outlet), here's a quick summary: a guy who is sixth in line to inherit a meaningless figurehead position for a once-important country is engaged to marry an obscure character actor. That's it. For some reason, this is a major story requiring hundreds of articles over the course of months, even from hard-news outlets.

    Now, to be fair, I don't understand celebrity culture in general. Although I enjoy movies and TV shows, I'm only mildly interested in talents behind the camera, and not interested at all in those in front of it. In fact, I prefer to know as little as possible about such people, since knowing a lot about an actor colors how you see a character (try watching the Cosby Show these days). But as un-engaging as I find regular celebrity gossip, gossip about British royals is ten times worse. At least most celebrities are famous because of something interesting about them -- incredible beauty, great talent, etc. I find it a lot harder to understand why someone would care about a homely aristocrat whose only interesting feature is inbreeding.

    I find celebrity culture repellent and although I live in the Commonwealth, I still find the fixation with the royal family absurd as they (and Britain itself) have nothing to do with the administration of my country.

    It's a weird phenomenon which I attribute to the rise of the tabloid.
    Thanks from Arkady and Friday13

Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 10th April 2018, 02:12 PM
  2. Russian TV mocks Brit Royals
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 15th March 2018, 03:43 AM
  3. KC Royals clubhouse hit by chickenpox
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd September 2015, 07:21 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed