The Royals

secretsam

Just bin the lot, FFS. It's 2021.

elbowloh

On the other hand, the last 4 years in the USA has presented a very good argument for not having an elected head of state, although this is an extreme example.

If there was to be an elected "President" head of state, it would be a good idea for them not to actually be involved in governing.

Jezyboy

elbowloh said:

On the other hand, the last 4 years in the USA has presented a very good argument for not having an elected head of state, although this is an extreme example.

If there was to be an elected "President" head of state, it would be a good idea for them not to actually be involved in governing.

This always struck me as odd reasoning. Yes I'd find a president BoJo extremely embarrassing. But if I really think about it, it seems less embarrassing than having an unelected posho as head of state.

If we went down the unelected and uninvolved in govt route I'd open it up as a 5 yearly lottery open to any citizen, that would at least be, a laugh.

MattFalle

early first crop, Jersey butter and mint wuilst quaffing nice cold ice cold Muscadet.

yummy yummy i've got Royals in my tummy.

elbowloh

Jezyboy said:

elbowloh said:

On the other hand, the last 4 years in the USA has presented a very good argument for not having an elected head of state, although this is an extreme example.

If there was to be an elected "President" head of state, it would be a good idea for them not to actually be involved in governing.

This always struck me as odd reasoning. Yes I'd find a president BoJo extremely embarrassing. But if I really think about it, it seems less embarrassing than having an unelected posho as head of state.

If we went down the unelected and uninvolved in govt route I'd open it up as a 5 yearly lottery open to any citizen, that would at least be, a laugh.

But at least the unelected posho has very limited actual power.

I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to the Royals tbh. I can see both sides of the argument.

I am wary however of politicians in general and undoubtedly if they were involved in setting up a new system of government, they'd find a way of f#cking it up, lining their own pockets and building in inherent bias into the system for their own ideology/party.

seanoconn

secretsam said:

Just bin the lot, FFS. It's 2021.

Stripping them of their land, titles and redistributing their wealth to the people. Keeping Buckingham palace as a museum for tourists 😃👍

veronese68

Elbow does have a point, could they phuck things up more than politicians do?
Maybe we should have a revolution and put Lord Buckethead in as king and leader.

DeVlaeminck

Was hoping this was going to be a discussion about Championship football.

Can't see any justification for having a hereditary head of state that trumps the basic inequity of it. Any arguments for it seem to rest on a basic mistrust of the people being fit to govern themselves.

rick_chasey

Always felt Prince Andrew being a nonce and complicit in sex trafficking but not having his collar felt would be terminal for the royals. Not least after that car crash interview.

But rather like the Catholic Church, they seem impervious to normal moral standards because they say very little so that people project their own fantasies on them, to make themselves feel better.

Presumably that’s what we’re seeing with Meghan. Their fantasy is being ruined by some foreign woman and they don’t like it.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Always felt Prince Andrew being a nonce and complicit in sex trafficking but not having his collar felt would be terminal for the royals. Not least after that car crash interview.

But rather like the Catholic Church, they seem impervious to normal moral standards because they say very little so that people project their own fantasies on them, to make themselves feel better.

Presumably that’s what we’re seeing with Meghan. Their fantasy is being ruined by some foreign woman and they don’t like it.

As a historian, you really should know that criminal behaviour of various kinds was far from exceptional for the various royal families and nobility of Europe.

For me, the only meaningful question is whether they should continue to be head of state. Pot luck of heredity versus some form of popularity contest or establishment appointment.

All the rest is no different from any other wealthy family that has managed its estate well. An elected head of state would still be involved in all the ceremonial stuff and have a selection of official residences for entertaining other heads of state. So the arguments about cost are just a question of degree. The main residences are already effectively publicly owned and open to the public to some extent. Those advocating state appropriation of the Windsor's private assets are presumably happy for that to happen to others less wealthy?

ddraver

Have you all seen this?

https://youtu.be/T_j35t3GCsk

Pross

Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.

Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.

kingstongraham

Why would we have a USA style president not an Ireland style president?

rick_chasey

Pross said:

Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.

Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.

I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bit

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.

Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.

I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bit

But he's had to leave the family to get that. I'm surprised you'd be happy having constant intrusion into your life and public criticism of your choice of wife.

pangolin

ddraver said:

Have you all seen this?

https://youtu.be/T_j35t3GCsk

That is quite good

slowmart

Prince Andrew,

Remove his citizenship and ask the Germans to take him back . That is, if the US Justice Department don’t want home first -

the post covid debt burden the UK will be carrying should mean the argument for paying for these parasites becomes less tenable

PMark

The press in the UK has definitely had it in for her (and it seems a few powerful people too), I saw this article the other day of different front pages of Megan and Kate:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=digg
There is only so much of that any human can take. So now we have got to the point where there are a lot of hurt people on both sides.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.

Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.

I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bit

But he's had to leave the family to get that. I'm surprised you'd be happy having constant intrusion into your life and public criticism of your choice of wife.

Nobody forces him to jump on and off private jets whilst lecturing us proles to travel less. He could just get on with a quietly loaded life with his equally loaded mates.

DeVlaeminck

Yes I'd take being King if offered. I mean how much vetting of their friends goes on - Jimmy Savile, Jeffrey Epstein, prominent Nazis in the 1930s - I'm not saying my circle of friends are perfect but...

david37

Jezyboy said:

elbowloh said:

On the other hand, the last 4 years in the USA has presented a very good argument for not having an elected head of state, although this is an extreme example.

If there was to be an elected "President" head of state, it would be a good idea for them not to actually be involved in governing.

This always struck me as odd reasoning. Yes I'd find a president BoJo extremely embarrassing. But if I really think about it, it seems less embarrassing than having an unelected posho as head of state.

If we went down the unelected and uninvolved in govt route I'd open it up as a 5 yearly lottery open to any citizen, that would at least be, a laugh.

idiot

david37

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.

Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.

I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bit

id take harry gig WITH the dead mother bit.

This woman he married has been on the scene just a few years most of which has been out of the country and out of the royals and yet demands to be treated like she's special.

Jezyboy

david37 said:

Jezyboy said:

elbowloh said:

On the other hand, the last 4 years in the USA has presented a very good argument for not having an elected head of state, although this is an extreme example.

If there was to be an elected "President" head of state, it would be a good idea for them not to actually be involved in governing.

This always struck me as odd reasoning. Yes I'd find a president BoJo extremely embarrassing. But if I really think about it, it seems less embarrassing than having an unelected posho as head of state.

If we went down the unelected and uninvolved in govt route I'd open it up as a 5 yearly lottery open to any citizen, that would at least be, a laugh.

idiot

Fantastic point, well made.

david37

Jezyboy said:

david37 said:

Jezyboy said:

elbowloh said:

On the other hand, the last 4 years in the USA has presented a very good argument for not having an elected head of state, although this is an extreme example.

If there was to be an elected "President" head of state, it would be a good idea for them not to actually be involved in governing.

This always struck me as odd reasoning. Yes I'd find a president BoJo extremely embarrassing. But if I really think about it, it seems less embarrassing than having an unelected posho as head of state.

If we went down the unelected and uninvolved in govt route I'd open it up as a 5 yearly lottery open to any citizen, that would at least be, a laugh.

idiot

Fantastic point, well made.

I could add moron, but two words might have confused you.

ddraver

I'm mixing up my trolls. Is david, Coopster?

Jezyboy

david37 said:

Jezyboy said:

david37 said:

Jezyboy said:

elbowloh said:

On the other hand, the last 4 years in the USA has presented a very good argument for not having an elected head of state, although this is an extreme example.

If there was to be an elected "President" head of state, it would be a good idea for them not to actually be involved in governing.

This always struck me as odd reasoning. Yes I'd find a president BoJo extremely embarrassing. But if I really think about it, it seems less embarrassing than having an unelected posho as head of state.

If we went down the unelected and uninvolved in govt route I'd open it up as a 5 yearly lottery open to any citizen, that would at least be, a laugh.

idiot

Fantastic point, well made.

I could add moron, but two words might have confused you.

😘

rjsterry

ddraver said:

I'm mixing up my trolls. Is david, Coopster?

No, one of the others.

elbowloh

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.

Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.

I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bit

id take harry gig WITH the dead mother bit.

This woman he married has been on the scene just a few years most of which has been out of the country and out of the royals and yet demands to be treated like she's special.

In what way has she demanded to be treated like she's special?

orraloon

'Snot like the 'royals' get treated in any special ways is it?

david37

ah sense this is the leftie hangout complete with taught and ingrained views.

secretsam

david37 said:

ah sense this is the leftie hangout complete with taught and ingrained views.

What an amazingly simplistic little world you live in.
Everyone who dislikes the institution is a "leftie"? You tragic ignoramus.
Don't forget to avert your eyes when you prostrate yourself before the inbreds.