Jump to content

The Royal Family


BlufPurdi
 Share

Should we abolish the Monarchy?  

471 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we abolish the Monarchy?

    • Yes
      70
    • No
      50


Recommended Posts

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be a staunch royalist becuse of the heritage and Tourist attraction.  Then I read something by Robbie Coltrane about standing in line to meet one of them and he suddenly thought that their DNA was no better than his.  From that time I stopped being an apologist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

 

Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.

 

And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

 

I also found this out a couple of year back, never knew it took place.

 

 

 

That was an interesting read, never knew about that.

 

Yeah, it surprised me when I found out.  It never ever gets mentioned for such a big intervention from major foreign powers.

 

Very odd it gets ignored.

 

love finding out things like that on wikipedia.

 

on a related note, check out how identical Tsar Nicholas and King George looked:

 

http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/beard_main.jpg

 

http://www.victoriana.com/Faberge/images/Tsar_Nicholas.JPG

 

Apparently when Nicholas abdicated Britain was prepared to offer him and his family asylum...only for George, his close cousin, to overturn the decision based on a fear it might spark a communist revolution here.

 

 

http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r537/sarauk2sf/anigif_not-sure-if-serious-gif-to-be-used-on-forums-22779-1307655858-12.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

 

Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.

 

And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.

 

Uh not really, we could do what we like. It's an absurd argument. The Queen owns that land now but is not allowed to personally benefit from it. Oh noes, her human rights have been infringed, but that's impossible!!

 

Similar situation - the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, the queen is their commander in chief, they are sub-ordinate to her  - oh shit, a private citizen is going to have a private army of 200,000 people. Um no, we'd just inherit the armed forces as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

 

Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.

 

And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.

 

Uh not really, we could do what we like. It's an absurd argument. The Queen owns that land now but is not allowed to personally benefit from it. Oh noes, her human rights have been infringed, but that's impossible!!

 

Similar situation - the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, the queen is their commander in chief, they are sub-ordinate to her  - oh shit, a private citizen is going to have a private army of 200,000 people. Um no, we'd just inherit the armed forces as well.

 

Hardly an absurd argument to suggest that confiscating private land without just cause is against human rights laws. We can't just "do what we like".

 

The army thing is quite different given that there are no laws for the right to an army. I'd be interested to read about precedents, examples of monarchies that have gone and what happened to those armies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

 

Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.

 

And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.

 

Uh not really, we could do what we like. It's an absurd argument. The Queen owns that land now but is not allowed to personally benefit from it. Oh noes, her human rights have been infringed, but that's impossible!!

 

Similar situation - the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, the queen is their commander in chief, they are sub-ordinate to her  - oh shit, a private citizen is going to have a private army of 200,000 people. Um no, we'd just inherit the armed forces as well.

 

Hardly an absurd argument to suggest that confiscating private land without just cause is against human rights laws. We can't just "do what we like".

 

Pension them off; pension to cease after second generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What could be the downside of an elected President?

 

Well. why would we need to change to begin with?  Whats wrong with what we have no...its worked for a very long time.

 

They are an anachronism in this day and age.  We shouldn't have a an anointed head of government (even if only titular).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

 

Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.

 

And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.

 

Uh not really, we could do what we like. It's an absurd argument. The Queen owns that land now but is not allowed to personally benefit from it. Oh noes, her human rights have been infringed, but that's impossible!!

 

Similar situation - the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, the queen is their commander in chief, they are sub-ordinate to her  - oh shit, a private citizen is going to have a private army of 200,000 people. Um no, we'd just inherit the armed forces as well.

 

Hardly an absurd argument to suggest that confiscating private land without just cause is against human rights laws. We can't just "do what we like".

 

Pension them off; pension to cease after second generation.

 

Would surely have to be agreed to though? It'd be forcing money on someone who doesn't want to sell. Generous stealing if you like. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

 

Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.

 

And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.

 

Uh not really, we could do what we like. It's an absurd argument. The Queen owns that land now but is not allowed to personally benefit from it. Oh noes, her human rights have been infringed, but that's impossible!!

 

Similar situation - the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, the queen is their commander in chief, they are sub-ordinate to her  - oh shit, a private citizen is going to have a private army of 200,000 people. Um no, we'd just inherit the armed forces as well.

 

Hardly an absurd argument to suggest that confiscating private land without just cause is against human rights laws. We can't just "do what we like".

 

are you for real? The Queen and all her trappings only come with the consent of parliament and the people. throughout history there have been numerous examples of stripping back regal rights and privileges, even removing them altogether and confiscating their land. As it is the queen at this very moment is not allowed to benefit from the Crown Estate - but, but, how is that possible!? It's an infringement upon someone's use of their own land, surely? No, it's an agreement that's been made. In the unlikely event of a republic, the queen would really be no in position to bargain, unless you of course also believe she'd be keeping the armed forces as well (which surely you do?).

 

Anyway, from wikipedia - "Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally".

 

It's pretty clear that this is not an ordinary 'private property' situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about it, but isn't part of the benefits of them that they own a fuck-tonne of land which is basically given to the public to use? Removing them as the Royal Family would cost the public loads of land. No idea where I heard/read this, but I remember it from somewhere. :lol:

 

Quite possibly made it up.

 

They only have that land because they are the monarchy. It should rightfully be returned to the people. As if we'd hand it all over to what would, in the event, be a private family of work shy toffs.

 

Not really how human-rights work though, just confiscating land from what would be, in the event, British citizens.

 

And fwiw, I assume the reason they have the land in the first place is because their ancestors conquered it, same as just about any owned land ever. Same reason the American government owns most of North America etc. In an ideal world that land should really be returned to the Native Americans who originated there, but it won't be. Extreme example but the same concept.

 

Uh not really, we could do what we like. It's an absurd argument. The Queen owns that land now but is not allowed to personally benefit from it. Oh noes, her human rights have been infringed, but that's impossible!!

 

Similar situation - the armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, the queen is their commander in chief, they are sub-ordinate to her  - oh shit, a private citizen is going to have a private army of 200,000 people. Um no, we'd just inherit the armed forces as well.

 

Hardly an absurd argument to suggest that confiscating private land without just cause is against human rights laws. We can't just "do what we like".

 

are you for real? The Queen and all her trappings only come with the consent of parliament and the people. throughout history there have been numerous examples of stripping back regal rights and privileges, even removing them altogether and confiscating their land. As it is the queen at this very moment is not allowed to benefit from the Crown Estate - but, but, how is that possible!? It's an infringement upon someone's use of their own land, surely? No, it's an agreement that's been made. In the unlikely event of a republic, the queen would really be no in position to bargain, unless you of course also believe she'd be keeping the armed forces as well (which surely you do?).

 

Anyway, from wikipedia - "Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally".

 

It's pretty clear that this is not an ordinary 'private property' situation.

 

Yes, I am for real, and trying to have a polite discussion.

 

I'd like to see some evidence for what you say, i.e. that the land they have is only their's through consent of the people. According to the video I posted earlier they do own the crown-lands and choose not to benefit from them, by voluntarily giving up the revenue. In other words, it's something that in the case of deposition could be reneged on.

 

Were we to remove the monarchy, they would revert to being private British citizens, so I'm not sure the part you quoted from wikipedia would still be relevant.

 

And no, of course I don't think they'd keep the army. For one thing, the army pledge allegiance to the Queen, the institution, rather than Elizabeth the person. Once the monarchy was gone I assume the allegiance pledged would be invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...