BF2S Forums The Monachy

FeloniousMonk wrote:

kilroy0097 wrote:

Random quote from a Yank (American).

I actually wish we had something that we could call Royals here. We don't have a beacon to look at or a monarch symbolic person to rally behind. Here in the US you have God and Country. I think it would be nice to have a third thing there.  America stopped having faith in their Presidents I think right after the Great Depression. Since the 1930's it's been down hill and getting worse.  Part of me could do with a Parlimentary system. Might be interesting. Course might be me Brit friends influencing me Yank principles.

So you would support an elite family that's looked up to and cared for by the public simply because of bloodline? It's country, not god and country.

I think that may be the viewpoint of those that have royal families in their history but here in America we go around putting people on pedistels all the time in search for just that. Jackie Onassis, JFK's wife, and JFK jr. were about as close as we got to a royal family that we could at least entertain following their lives as royalty.

Now all we have are fuck ups like Spears, Madonna and crap like Pitts/Jolie/Aniston love triangles. The UK at least had Princess Diana for a while and well Feurgie (sp?).

I love the monarchy as a British Citizen. Not because im a cretinous brainwashed mindless zombie of the british way of life &thinking, but because they are something to be proud of.

If we didnt have rules & a Monarchy where would we be? France!

British thinking is the finest thinking in the world, you know why? Because British thinking it is all about combining things & creating something better than those things, from those things, im sorry I cant be any more specific than that

Precisely

Nehil wrote:

-=|BW|=-Hollow_Moon wrote:

British thinking is the finest thinking in the world, you know why? Because British thinking it is all about combining things & creating something better than those things, from those things, im sorry I cant be any more specific than that

Like when you seperated India and Pakistan? Couple of thousands dead. That's what I call good thinking! And how about the slaughter in africa during the colonization? REFINED INDEED.

Or when the US decided to take on Iraq, with allies of course. No casualities there ... ahh the sound of mud slinging.

The British Monarchy have made many mistakes, and will probably continue to do so, but the British public have learned from their mistakes [Monarchy] and that is why the Monarchy is now just a 'figurehead' with nothing in the way of real power.

Love them or hate them (I do neither), they're good for this country (UK), not in the way of 'who rules the roost', but purley down to fact. A lot of people from around the World want to see them, ergo, tourism. So the 'tax dollars' we pay for their (Royals) upkeep, is usually offset by the many millions they generate, not just by tourists, but by overseas business.


FeloniousMonk says "I don't care that the UK looks up to a gaggle of inbred fools like Diana, Charles, Fergie, or whoever the hell else demands some form of respect simply because of bloodline. Plain and simple, no one every deserves special consideration based on the family they were born into."

We no longer look up to Diana, not that many of us ever did. As for the, "gaggle of inbred fools". Well, aren't we all... Look on your dollar, does it not say, 'In God we trust'. .

FeloniousMonk wrote:

. I don't see what our currency has to do with this, though I can't say I'm pleased with the whole god thing in the first place.

Again, I just hate the concept of royalty. Bloodlines should never garner any kind of authority or respect without merit.

Not pleased with God and not pleased with Royals, who are you pleased with (Joke btw, I mean no offence) . The God reference was in reference to your 'inbred' comment. If God and the teachings of the church are to be believed, we are all inbred.

I share your setiments about the Royals, but there's a clear distinction between then and now. The Royals hold little authority now, moreso they are a protected species, with little influence of today's proceedings, again, I refer you back to a my statement of 'figureheads'. All that you see or hear about the UK's Government and the influence of the Queen, is nothing more than ceremonial procedure.

I also believe that in order to have respect, one must earn respect, and some of our Royals have done nothing of the sort... far from it in fact.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I understand. Even the figurehead status bothers me because it acknowledges their past authority. I don't mean to offend the british people, I just really don't like royalty.

I hear you . I for one am not offended, even if I did like the Royals. Your argument is clear and concise and one that has reverberated and will no doubt reverberate for years to come.

You'll prbably find there's a larger portion of us Brits (than you first thought) ready to turn their backs on the Royals, they can after all, be the laughing stock of the World... Princess, conosrt, baroness Camilla or whatever she wants to be called these days.... oh and lets not forget Harry's stunt, doesn't matter that it was fancy dress, he should have known better... So you can see my argument for ... earn respect

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I simply hate the concept of royalty because it goes against one of the greatest freedoms in the US, the freedom of religion. The only basis for the British monarchy was the farce of "divine right of kings". That, in essense, creates a theocracy and I despise the notion of any government based on religious beliefs.

You say this, but it just isn't true, when you have debate's about school prayer, and on your money is the quote "In God we Trust"  I wonder what muslims would think of that, or Budists.


Also by the way all men of the monarcy have done military service, prince Andrew was flying helicopters protecting battleships from scud missies during the war in the 80's,  I can't remember the conflict, but it was with Argentina.  Harry at the moment is in Military College.

And they work bloody hard..

And also at least if they have Prince Charles it not their fault.. What is America's excuse for GW Bush?

IronGeek wrote:

Also by the way all men of the monarcy have done military service, prince Andrew was flying helicopters protecting battleships from scud missies during the war in the 80's,  I can't remember the conflict, but it was with Argentina.  Harry at the moment is in Military College.

And they work bloody hard..

Falklands war 1982. But steady there neddy . Prince Andrew although he did fly helicopters, I'm sure he was well away from harm... now on the other hand, my big bruvver was a grunt and he *did* earn his keep . Prince Edward did join the military and did in fact join* the Royal Marines, although he dropped out after it got too much, he now works theater. Prince Harry, he is indeed at Military college, he's in the middle of a 44 week stint, although I have to say.... I doubt he'll make it.

You are correct of course, it is a traditional aspect of Royal life, military service is almost second nature to them, but I've yet to see one of them come into harms way..... if you get my drift ... As I did happeen to mention to FeloniousMonk, they are a protected species

Last edited by thinner44 (2005-12-02 08:11:36)

sHe01 wrote:

Should Britain keep the Monachy?  to all Brits..what are your views?

Not Britain I know...only a handful of people in New Zealand seem to have any strong feelings on the subject, theres a royalist society which supports the monarchy and a small group (led by businessmen) who want to change our flag and have NZ go the way of a republic.  Queen Elizabeth II is our head of state, her head graces our $20 and is on the back of every coin in my pocket, but really the monarchy in New Zealand is just for show.  That said, I'm in favour of retaining it, it doesn't do us any harm

Prince Charles is a git, when the time comes he should just hand it over to Prince William, and get back to rogering Camilla