comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was democratic, I’d doubt we’d have a royal family
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think we would almost certainly have a monarchy if there was a referendum. Is this what you mean by bing democratic?
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 21 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has to be a wum
Democracy and the Royal family in the same breath.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why à wum. Given à poll would there be a royal family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go
https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was democratic, I’d doubt we’d have a royal family
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think we would almost certainly have a monarchy if there was a referendum. Is this what you mean by bing democratic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but give it a few more years when the octogenarians and nonagenarians have gone and I reckon you’d see a big swing the other way
I think it's more the fact that there's nothing democratic about the monarchy, and there never was. And not just our monarchy but all monarchies. Democracy and Monarchy are two separate concepts that go against each other.
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 21 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has to be a wum
Democracy and the Royal family in the same breath.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why à wum. Given à poll would there be a royal family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go
https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol Robbing
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was democratic, I’d doubt we’d have a royal family
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think we would almost certainly have a monarchy if there was a referendum. Is this what you mean by bing democratic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but give it a few more years when the octogenarians and nonagenarians have gone and I reckon you’d see a big swing
__________________
We will see then in 10 to 20 years time. Meanwhile we have to put this arguement to bed and just get on with it.
It will take longer. The young become old and inherit old people views and vote Tory. The young are refreshed by new young and so it goes.
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 41 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The egyptians abolished their monarchy thousands of years ago and people still go there by the millions
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
One is about entertainment and the other is about being born into an elitist cult that requires huge amounts of money to support and for some reason actually has an influence on our law.
It's a truly awful analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing the point Hoody. You called it preposterous, and may will agree it is. But so are many things.
And what harm do the Royals do? More harm than good. most would not agree with that.
Again, just people hung up on this privilege which actually has little or no impact on your lives. Its not like the King rocks up and demands he has first pick of your daughters and takes half your sheep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really have a point though
If the best you have is 'They don't do any harm' they truly are pointless.
Arguably the most popular entertainment sport in the history of the planet is a truly awful comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still missing the point Hoody. I am not disagreeing with you per se that being born into such a position preposterous, especially when you put it in such simple terms, it really does sound preposterous.
My point is that simply because something sounds preposterous when stripped back to basic terms, is not a reason for it to be done away with.
Whatever you say about the royals they are also hugely popular, and series such as the crown, the interest in weddings and funerals, real life princes and princesses...they have huge popularity globally.
Yes, they may seem preposterous in this day and age but actually they hold nothing over us and have almost zero negative impact on our lives and on balance a positive impact for this country as well as providing a link to this country's history.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
Yeah, that's not a very good point. In fact pointless writing it. Maybe try the nihilist page.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
Greece, France, Spain even England have all dabbled between republic and monarchy.
Maybe we could put it out to tender and reverse auction with televised BGT type vote?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
I'm not sure the fact The Crown has large viewing figures means the Royals are 'popular'. I've never seen it myself but I got the impression many/most do out of a facination about how much of a drama and messed up it all is. Most people despise the sweaty nonce but they wanna know all about him.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course everyone is aware there are many people undeservedly privileged, but that's no justification for having an icon of underserved privilege as HoS.
The thing is, is that they are kept apart from politics.
When Donald visited he came as a republican president. A couple of years later it's a different democratic one.
Our head of state and remains under which ever government.
Better I think.
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 5 hours, 37 minutes ago
In fact it is acknowledged what a pull she's been
——-
Acknowledged by who, her horses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha very good Earl
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - It's the fac... (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course everyone is aware there are many people undeservedly privileged, but that's no justification for having an icon of underserved privilege as HoS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"undeservedly privileged". you sound bitter.
They are a head of state rooted in the history of this country. That's what gives them status and significance, far more than any elected (by who) HoS. People in this country dont accept a 51% to 49% referendum result and barely two thrids vote in an election. You'll likley find more people would vote to keep the Monarchy than would vote for a democratic HoS.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 24 minutes ago
The thing is, is that they are kept apart from politics.
When Donald visited he came as a republican president. A couple of years later it's a different democratic one.
Our head of state and remains under which ever government.
Better I think.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not very democratic.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - It's the fac... (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course everyone is aware there are many people undeservedly privileged, but that's no justification for having an icon of underserved privilege as HoS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"undeservedly privileged". you sound bitter.
======
They are a head of state rooted in the history of this country. That's what gives them status and significance, far more than any elected (by who) HoS. People in this country dont accept a 51% to 49% referendum result and barely two thrids vote in an election. You'll likley find more people would vote to keep the Monarchy than would vote for a democratic HoS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of things are rooted in the history of this country. That's no reason to keep them.
A HoS elected by the people would have more status and significance, having been actually democratically chosen by the people to be their HoS, instead of having accident of birth determine that.
More people would vote for free lunch, doesn't mean lunch should be free.
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 day ago
The show was actually surprisingly interesting, I thought.
For example, Harry openly talks about how the Royal Family designate specific journalists as 'royal correspondents' and then the media can write favourable stories with the added feel of legitimacy that that title gives the reader.
People that think Meghan is some manipulative, evil witch that got her claws into our poor, vulnerable Prince Harry are idiots IMO. He was rebellious and clearly uncomfortable with the press and their role in Diana's life/death long before Meghan. Imagine falling in love with someone who is then subjected to the same thing your late mother was a victim of - I'd be out of there too!
The 'if they don't want attention, don't do a Netflix show' argument is stupid too. They don't want scuumbag paps snapping them and their kids, that's fair enough - they're entitled to share their lives willingly and on their own terms though.
People just can't handle that a prominent member of the Royal Family has voluntarily gone 'this is mental, I'm out' (and rightfully so IMO)- it is triggering people big time and that is hilarious to me. They just can't handle the idea that society might be moving on from bizarre bestowed-by-God power
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've also watched all six episodes and they both come across very well.
The documentary certainly shines a light on the insidious relationship that exists between the media and the institution of the monarchy.
You can tell from the responses exactly who hasn't watched it, and is just parroting the bile they've seen on social media, and/or is easily influenced by the gutter press.
Media in the UK are great at whipping up the morons ... easy money, they don't care about the consequences.
Sign in if you want to comment
So.. The Sussex's
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was democratic, I’d doubt we’d have a royal family
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think we would almost certainly have a monarchy if there was a referendum. Is this what you mean by bing democratic?
posted on 16/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 21 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has to be a wum
Democracy and the Royal family in the same breath.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why à wum. Given à poll would there be a royal family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go
https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
posted on 16/12/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was democratic, I’d doubt we’d have a royal family
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think we would almost certainly have a monarchy if there was a referendum. Is this what you mean by bing democratic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but give it a few more years when the octogenarians and nonagenarians have gone and I reckon you’d see a big swing the other way
posted on 16/12/22
I think it's more the fact that there's nothing democratic about the monarchy, and there never was. And not just our monarchy but all monarchies. Democracy and Monarchy are two separate concepts that go against each other.
posted on 16/12/22
*nonceagenarians
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 21 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has to be a wum
Democracy and the Royal family in the same breath.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why à wum. Given à poll would there be a royal family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go
https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol Robbing
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
My final comment. The Royal family are popular.
It's not a good idea to get rid of an institution people want to keep. It's not democratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was democratic, I’d doubt we’d have a royal family
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think we would almost certainly have a monarchy if there was a referendum. Is this what you mean by bing democratic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but give it a few more years when the octogenarians and nonagenarians have gone and I reckon you’d see a big swing
__________________
We will see then in 10 to 20 years time. Meanwhile we have to put this arguement to bed and just get on with it.
posted on 16/12/22
It will take longer. The young become old and inherit old people views and vote Tory. The young are refreshed by new young and so it goes.
posted on 16/12/22
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 41 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The egyptians abolished their monarchy thousands of years ago and people still go there by the millions
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
One is about entertainment and the other is about being born into an elitist cult that requires huge amounts of money to support and for some reason actually has an influence on our law.
It's a truly awful analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing the point Hoody. You called it preposterous, and may will agree it is. But so are many things.
And what harm do the Royals do? More harm than good. most would not agree with that.
Again, just people hung up on this privilege which actually has little or no impact on your lives. Its not like the King rocks up and demands he has first pick of your daughters and takes half your sheep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really have a point though
If the best you have is 'They don't do any harm' they truly are pointless.
Arguably the most popular entertainment sport in the history of the planet is a truly awful comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still missing the point Hoody. I am not disagreeing with you per se that being born into such a position preposterous, especially when you put it in such simple terms, it really does sound preposterous.
My point is that simply because something sounds preposterous when stripped back to basic terms, is not a reason for it to be done away with.
Whatever you say about the royals they are also hugely popular, and series such as the crown, the interest in weddings and funerals, real life princes and princesses...they have huge popularity globally.
Yes, they may seem preposterous in this day and age but actually they hold nothing over us and have almost zero negative impact on our lives and on balance a positive impact for this country as well as providing a link to this country's history.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
posted on 16/12/22
Yeah, that's not a very good point. In fact pointless writing it. Maybe try the nihilist page.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
posted on 16/12/22
Greece, France, Spain even England have all dabbled between republic and monarchy.
Maybe we could put it out to tender and reverse auction with televised BGT type vote?
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
posted on 16/12/22
I'm not sure the fact The Crown has large viewing figures means the Royals are 'popular'. I've never seen it myself but I got the impression many/most do out of a facination about how much of a drama and messed up it all is. Most people despise the sweaty nonce but they wanna know all about him.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course everyone is aware there are many people undeservedly privileged, but that's no justification for having an icon of underserved privilege as HoS.
posted on 16/12/22
The thing is, is that they are kept apart from politics.
When Donald visited he came as a republican president. A couple of years later it's a different democratic one.
Our head of state and remains under which ever government.
Better I think.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 5 hours, 37 minutes ago
In fact it is acknowledged what a pull she's been
——-
Acknowledged by who, her horses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha very good Earl
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - It's the fac... (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course everyone is aware there are many people undeservedly privileged, but that's no justification for having an icon of underserved privilege as HoS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"undeservedly privileged". you sound bitter.
They are a head of state rooted in the history of this country. That's what gives them status and significance, far more than any elected (by who) HoS. People in this country dont accept a 51% to 49% referendum result and barely two thrids vote in an election. You'll likley find more people would vote to keep the Monarchy than would vote for a democratic HoS.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 24 minutes ago
The thing is, is that they are kept apart from politics.
When Donald visited he came as a republican president. A couple of years later it's a different democratic one.
Our head of state and remains under which ever government.
Better I think.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not very democratic.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - It's the fac... (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I don't think the Monarchy could afford to have a referendum on keeping them or not. Even though I think people would vote to keep them for the next generation or two once you have monarchy and democracy so close it wouldn't be a leap for people to then think "How the hell is this democratic if it's just family members that get to be head of state".
Even if the monarchy were removed people would still visit the UK. They don't come here to have tea with the King. They come for the history. That will still be there (same as in France, Egypt, Mexico etc).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why get rid of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See your post above. "Real life princes and princesses". Jeez. OK If you're seven I suppose.
I'd remove them because they stand for getting into privileged positions without merit. At least in the US, in theory, anyone can become HofS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions who are in privileged positions without merit....the luck of birth. But for all their privilege the royals have no power and as Harrys actions have shown, its not a wonderful life, its a life given to largely dull service, invasion of privacy and retirement upon death! The limits they have put on their life were too much for the likes of Meghan to stomach for what, a year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course everyone is aware there are many people undeservedly privileged, but that's no justification for having an icon of underserved privilege as HoS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"undeservedly privileged". you sound bitter.
======
posted on 16/12/22
They are a head of state rooted in the history of this country. That's what gives them status and significance, far more than any elected (by who) HoS. People in this country dont accept a 51% to 49% referendum result and barely two thrids vote in an election. You'll likley find more people would vote to keep the Monarchy than would vote for a democratic HoS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of things are rooted in the history of this country. That's no reason to keep them.
A HoS elected by the people would have more status and significance, having been actually democratically chosen by the people to be their HoS, instead of having accident of birth determine that.
More people would vote for free lunch, doesn't mean lunch should be free.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 day ago
The show was actually surprisingly interesting, I thought.
For example, Harry openly talks about how the Royal Family designate specific journalists as 'royal correspondents' and then the media can write favourable stories with the added feel of legitimacy that that title gives the reader.
People that think Meghan is some manipulative, evil witch that got her claws into our poor, vulnerable Prince Harry are idiots IMO. He was rebellious and clearly uncomfortable with the press and their role in Diana's life/death long before Meghan. Imagine falling in love with someone who is then subjected to the same thing your late mother was a victim of - I'd be out of there too!
The 'if they don't want attention, don't do a Netflix show' argument is stupid too. They don't want scuumbag paps snapping them and their kids, that's fair enough - they're entitled to share their lives willingly and on their own terms though.
People just can't handle that a prominent member of the Royal Family has voluntarily gone 'this is mental, I'm out' (and rightfully so IMO)- it is triggering people big time and that is hilarious to me. They just can't handle the idea that society might be moving on from bizarre bestowed-by-God power
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've also watched all six episodes and they both come across very well.
The documentary certainly shines a light on the insidious relationship that exists between the media and the institution of the monarchy.
You can tell from the responses exactly who hasn't watched it, and is just parroting the bile they've seen on social media, and/or is easily influenced by the gutter press.
Media in the UK are great at whipping up the morons ... easy money, they don't care about the consequences.
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8