I'm sorry but....

bianchimoon

+1 15peter20
British soldiers are fighting for democracy in Afghanistan and Libya, and they fought for it in Iraq. But at home, they defend the absurdly undemocratic idea that nobody but a Windsor can be head of state.

Jez mon

minardi wrote:

FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC

A certain guy in Germany came to power in what seemed like a very very democratic system...

There that's Godwin's Law done and dusted...let's get on with enjoying our free day off!!

Furthermore, what is the cost of the Royals compared to that of the wars in Iraq...?

minardi

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

I think its a great day. Really looking forward to it unfolding!

What i think is really funny though is listening to the anti arguments, I'm still waiting to hear one that has fact and logic instead of being full of emotion and jealousy!

What about....it's a waste of public money esp. at a time when vital services are under threat? The very idea of a monarch and monarchy was outdated in the 18th Century...

I could go on. And on. And on.

Finally, what i think is really funny though is listening to the pro arguments, I'm still waiting to hear one that has fact and logic instead of being full of emotion, moronic nationalism and ideological fantasy!

Cos without them we'd be like America :shock: :shock: :shock: .....oh dear !

I don't know what you mean? Please explain?

Are the royals some sort of bulwark against "being like America"?

So you'd like England to be a country with no heritage then ?! :shock:

1. 'America', by which you mean the United States of America has/had a rich history and heritage. It has been peopled for centuries. Sadly, in an act of attempted genocide by white Europeans it was almost destroyed.

2. 'England' which you are confusing for the UK (I assume) does not need the animation of a relic to have 'heritage'. By your logic the Rep. of Ireland has no heritage. France has no heritage. Scotland has no heritage. This is nonsense. Should we keep slavery going as, like it or not, it is a central pillar of British political economy and social history? No. Because it is a barbaric practice which has no place in the modern world. The monarchy has no place in the modern world (for different reasons). You'll still have heritage - The royals will be consigned to history like all the good and bad moments of the History of the British Isles.

bianchimoon

Jez mon wrote:

15peter20 wrote:

minardi wrote:

FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC

A certain guy in Germany came to power in what seemed like a very very democratic system...

There that's Godwin's Law done and dusted...let's get on with enjoying our free day off!!

Furthermore, what is the cost of the Royals compared to that of the wars in Iraq...?[/

In a democracy along the lines of the United States or Great Britain, Hitler could have never risen to power, it's a very complex use of so called democracy that got hitler into power. As regards the second point both are just because something is cheaper than something else doesn't make it right

turnerjohn

minardi wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

I think its a great day. Really looking forward to it unfolding!

What i think is really funny though is listening to the anti arguments, I'm still waiting to hear one that has fact and logic instead of being full of emotion and jealousy!

What about....it's a waste of public money esp. at a time when vital services are under threat? The very idea of a monarch and monarchy was outdated in the 18th Century...

I could go on. And on. And on.

Finally, what i think is really funny though is listening to the pro arguments, I'm still waiting to hear one that has fact and logic instead of being full of emotion, moronic nationalism and ideological fantasy!

Cos without them we'd be like America :shock: :shock: :shock: .....oh dear !

I don't know what you mean? Please explain?

Are the royals some sort of bulwark against "being like America"?

So you'd like England to be a country with no heritage then ?! :shock:

1. 'America', by which you mean the United States of America has/had a rich history and heritage. It has been peopled for centuries. Sadly, in an act of attempted genocide by white Europeans it was almost destroyed.

2. 'England' which you are confusing for the UK (I assume) does not need the animation of a relic to have 'heritage'. By your logic the Rep. of Ireland has no heritage. France has no heritage. Scotland has no heritage. This is nonsense. Should we keep slavery going as, like it or not, it is a central pillar of British political economy and social history? No. Because it is a barbaric practice which has no place in the modern world. The monarchy has no place in the modern world (for different reasons). You'll still have heritage - The royals will be consigned to history like all the good and bad moments of the History of the British Isles.

since when did I ever mention slavery ?...you going totally off chapter !
The only way the royals will ever be consigned to history is when people like you have their own way with the world.
The royal family is PART of England and the Unitied Kingdom; without it we would not be who we are....just another carbon copy of other countries, we should be proud of the monarchy (hence why other countries are so enthusiastic of it; they want part of it which they sadly do not have) its what makes England and the UK what it is!

meanredspider

minardi wrote:

FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC

Umm - I don't remember voting them out either. Not even Australia has voted them out and they've had plenty of discussion on it and get very little of the benefit that clearly comes from the tourist effect. I don't think you can argue that they are undemocratic - and they have no REAL power - we have a bunch of self-serving politicians to do that for us.

I'm not a royalist per-se but we'd lose a huge amount from losing them as a tourist attraction. Events like this generate a huge amount of interest in the UK and it's not just the immediate income but a renewal of interest in London & the UK in general.

Come back with your "undemocratic" argument when the majority of the UK want to get rid of them (some long time after Aus have got rid of them)

MattC59

My Mrs has been watching it all since 7:30am, and she's still glued to the TV !

I've been boiling my head. I'm not anti-anything, I'm just not interested.

Actually, I've not been boiling my head, I can't go out on my bike as I have work to do, so I've shut myself away in my study.

minardi

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

Are the royals some sort of bulwark against "being like America"?

So you'd like England to be a country with no heritage then ?! :shock:

1. 'America', by which you mean the United States of America has/had a rich history and heritage. It has been peopled for centuries. Sadly, in an act of attempted genocide by white Europeans it was almost destroyed.

2. 'England' which you are confusing for the UK (I assume) does not need the animation of a relic to have 'heritage'. By your logic the Rep. of Ireland has no heritage. France has no heritage. Scotland has no heritage. This is nonsense. Should we keep slavery going as, like it or not, it is a central pillar of British political economy and social history? No. Because it is a barbaric practice which has no place in the modern world. The monarchy has no place in the modern world (for different reasons). You'll still have heritage - The royals will be consigned to history like all the good and bad moments of the History of the British Isles.

since when did I ever mention slavery ?...you going totally off chapter !
The only way the royals will ever be consigned to history is when people like you have their own way with the world.
The royal family is PART of England and the Unitied Kingdom; without it we would not be who we are....just another carbon copy of other countries, we should be proud of the monarchy (hence why other countries are so enthusiastic of it; they want part of it which they sadly do not have) its what makes England and the UK what it is!

1. "since when did I ever mention slavery ?" You didn't. I did as an example of an out of date institution and practice. They are not the same thing. What they have in common is that they are out of date - like the monarchy!

2. "when people like you have their own way with the world" Don't worry, I won't hump the world! Seriously - I hope republicans like me will see the back of these parasites.

3. "The royal family is PART of England and the Unitied Kingdom; without it we would not be who we are....just another carbon copy of other countries,"
Come on! Is that really all England and the UK has to offer. That all that makes the place different. You are right, the royal family is 'part' of England and the UK's history- for better or for worse. But the time for monarchy has long past. Its time to let go of the nationalist comfort blanket that is the monarchy. There is so much more to England and the UK than this pantomime.

MattC59

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

minardi

MattC59 wrote:

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

They can get married. But as "commoners" - with no inherited status, titles, cushy lives for free etc. etc. Like the rest of us!

meanredspider

minardi wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

They can get married. But as "commoners" - with no inherited status, titles, cushy lives for free etc. etc. Like the rest of us!

I'd rather have my life than his. William does actually have a job too. I wonder where all this bitterness comes from?

MattC59

minardi wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

They can get married. But as "commoners" - with no inherited status, titles, cushy lives for free etc. etc. Like the rest of us!

They did get married as commoners, but either way, William is still son of the Prince of Wales, security is an unavoidable necessity at his wedding.

minardi

meanredspider wrote:

minardi wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

They can get married. But as "commoners" - with no inherited status, titles, cushy lives for free etc. etc. Like the rest of us!

I'd rather have my life than his. William does actually have a job too. I wonder where all this bitterness comes from?

I'd rather have mine that his too. But that's not the point. And yes, he does have a job. But not in the sense that most people have a job. If a 'normal' person loses their job it is often problematic for the individual in a number of ways. Not so for William.

"wonder where all this bitterness comes"
Are you suggesting that I and/or republicans are bitter? I can only talk for myself but for me it's a political objection - not bitterness.

minardi

MattC59 wrote:

minardi wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

They can get married. But as "commoners" - with no inherited status, titles, cushy lives for free etc. etc. Like the rest of us!

They did get married as commoners, but either way, William is still son of the Prince of Wales, security is an unavoidable necessity at his wedding.

Yes, currently it is unavoidable. But, him being the son of the "Prince of Wales" is avoidable if the monarchy was abolished. Which I think is what should happen.

meanredspider

The ironic thing about the security argument is that 30M will have been spent ON the police and the like rather than other things (yet another failed computer system for instance). Plod is probably enjoying overtime.

300,000 in Hyde Park - even if each of them only generates a tenner in tax revenue, it's 1/10th of the security bill paid from that lot alone. It's a show.

meanredspider

minardi wrote:

Are you suggesting that I and/or republicans are bitter? I can only talk for myself but for me it's a political objection - not bitterness.

Nope - I'm suggesting you are bitter. Sounds like the politics of envy.

In what way is it political? You didn't respond to the "undemocratic" response I made. (The public support the monarchy. Even Aus haven't voted them out etc). It IS democratic. The republican viewpoint is in the minority (see the rest of my post)

MattC59

minardi wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

minardi wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

They can get married. But as "commoners" - with no inherited status, titles, cushy lives for free etc. etc. Like the rest of us!

They did get married as commoners, but either way, William is still son of the Prince of Wales, security is an unavoidable necessity at his wedding.

Yes, currently it is unavoidable. But, him being the son of the "Prince of Wales" is avoidable if the monarchy was abolished. Which I think is what should happen.

Amazing hind sight.............. FFS :roll:

minardi

meanredspider wrote:

minardi wrote:

Are you suggesting that I and/or republicans are bitter? I can only talk for myself but for me it's a political objection - not bitterness.

Nope - I'm suggesting you are bitter. Sounds like the politics of envy.

- Ah! And there we have it! The final desperate attempt in argument. The ad hominem attack. Where logic fails and empirics don't add up you can always make a presumptions attack on the character of the opposition.

In what way is it political? You didn't respond to the "undemocratic" response I made. (The public support the monarchy. Even Aus haven't voted them out etc). It IS democratic. The republican viewpoint is in the minority (see the rest of my post)

The Australians didn't vote them out because the alternative was a head of state elected by the parliament.

It is not democratic because;
a) The royal family have positions based on hereditary privilege. The people have no say in this at all. It's not based on merit, ability, public vote. etc. etc.
b) following from (a) the people cannot self determine their political rule. It is not democratic.
c) Just because the public have noted voted them out means nothing. There has never been a referendum or election.
d) The perception of latent public support means nothing. Democracy is an active concept and practice which occurs through due process and deliberation. e.g. If a dictator seizes power with the 'will of the public' and rules in an authoritarian manner with the 'will of the people' that's not democracy! One can say that's a good model of government if they wish. But its not democracy. Like the royal family is not democratic.

If there was an election for a new Head of State and the current Royals stood and defeated other candidates fair and square then fine. That would be democratic. They could have 5 years, then the process begins again. If they win, the fair enough.

redvee

Went out for a coffee to avoid as much as possible but when Cathy walked into the church we all made our way over to the TV to have a look at the dress etc, four blokes 40+ :shock: No riding for a while for me.

meanredspider

Nope - not an attack on you - you just sounded bitter.

There's never been a referendum on lots of things. That's because it's not a point of debate. If it were, our political parties would have taken the opportunity to make it a political point but they haven't. That's where most of the decisions are made. If it were a point that was close, one lot or another would have suggested the idea.

As for the Aus debate, you'd prefer the monarchy to a head of state (president?) elected by parliament? If it was such a big deal, the Aussies would have voted them out. It isn't. It's far less of an issue here.

The royal family have no real power. They influence in my life in no way whatsoever. The church (unfortunately) has more power in this country. We didn't vote for them either.

It's a non-issue and there are far more important things to worry about.

orbeaorca

MattC59 wrote:

orbeaorca wrote:

I beleive the security bill is in excess of £30 million , police forces are facing huge cuts in their spending but we waste that in one day !!!!!

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have got married then ? Security is a necessity.

I couldnt give a toss if they get married or not what I am saying is this country which is in a financial mess can find 30 million for security but is cutting services everywhere.
If they want security then pay for it, its that simple.

Sleeping_menace

Net cost to the UK economy for 1 day shutdown.. 8B quid...
approx population of UK: 61.8M people..

Hope they all enjoyed paying £130 each to watch a cpl hours of TV.. personally I can think of much better things to do with the money.

StillGoing

Spain maybe has the perfect answer to the royal dilema. He works he gets paid. He doesn't work he funds himself.

bianchimoon

meanredspider wrote:

Nope - not an attack on you - you just sounded bitter.

I don't think he sounded bitter , just sounded like he'd thought about rationally and come to a perfectly valid conclusion

RichN95.

orbeaorca wrote:

I couldnt give a toss if they get married or not what I am saying is this country which is in a financial mess can find 30 million for security but is cutting services everywhere.
If they want security then pay for it, its that simple.

Today this country has been shown in a positive light, all day, on TVs all around the world (400 million viewers on YouTube alone, they claim).

That's advertising for this country that is priceless. If you tried to calculate it, it would be in the billions.

If it cost £30m, then that's an absolute bargain.

shouldbeinbed

Jez mon wrote:

minardi wrote:

FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC

A certain guy in Germany came to power in what seemed like a very very democratic system...

Oh dear, you've not read a lot on the Weimar Republic then? 30's Germany was running as free and fair a political system & elections as anything Gafddafi & co could muster up today.

political intimidation & murder were pretty much daily occurrences and political gatherings inevitably ended up in fatal riots. Hitler got to power by promising a humiliated, bankrupted, angry population the sort of regeneration and national rehabilitation that could only possibly have been paid for by doing what he did. Any party deciding on mss invasions, the sequestration of assets and physical annihilation from the face of the earth of a sizeable and wealthy element of society could have made the same promises as the Nazis but unsurprisingly the rest chose to try and fight the election based in reality and some vestige of humanity. Oddly enough though Hitler left the full extent of his plans for the annexation of Western Europe & Holocaust off the pre election literature.

On a different note today is also the wedding anniversary of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun - must be a day of special siginificance for German families, the Hitlesr, Brauns, Saxe-Coburgs.

I've spent a nice family day at the Peoples History Museum in Manchester, a museum showing primarily how the general population of the country have spent the last 250+ years trying to get out from under the aegis of unelected Privilege and Wealth.

I'm staunchly republican but am not getting worked up by this spectacle, I'm simply not engaging with it (rest day for me today not bank hol), the thing that has got on my nerves is the 'Commoner' Kate Middleton nonsense, at least however the excessive family wealth and privilege she enjoys is self made. Shame none of it has gone on paying for this lot.

shouldbeinbed

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

minardi wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

I think its a great day. Really looking forward to it unfolding!

What i think is really funny though is listening to the anti arguments, I'm still waiting to hear one that has fact and logic instead of being full of emotion and jealousy!

What about....it's a waste of public money esp. at a time when vital services are under threat? The very idea of a monarch and monarchy was outdated in the 18th Century...

I could go on. And on. And on.

Finally, what i think is really funny though is listening to the pro arguments, I'm still waiting to hear one that has fact and logic instead of being full of emotion, moronic nationalism and ideological fantasy!

Cos without them we'd be like America :shock: :shock: :shock: .....oh dear !

I don't know what you mean? Please explain?

Are the royals some sort of bulwark against "being like America"?

So you'd like England to be a country with no heritage then ?! :shock:

Eh??????? that comment makes no sense unless you're advocating rewriting history to remove all of the heritage we've accumulated so far.

No Royalty doesn't mean the end of history or some sort of Orwellian rewriting of it, We'd end up with a few more National Trust places to look round that would no doubt be fantastically popular with the tourists because of their heritage.