I don't have any bad feelings for them. Look's like they are doing a good job to me.
But what do I know, I don't live in the UK.
But what do I know, I don't live in the UK.
Poll: Do you like the (British) royal family?
- Thread starter Ilikemilkshake
- Start date
So how axactly can you say, with such apparent certainty, that they think they're better than everybody else? What have you got to back this up? Certainly they used to have that attitude maybe a couple of hundred years or so ago when they had a more active role in running the country, but I fail to see any displays of arrogance or the like from them these days, they just try and get on with their lives as anybody else would, albeit with more moneyPhiMed said:Their fame comes from the fact that they are directly descended from the people who did all of the things I named. Royalty is what it is. A group of people, related to each other, who believe they're better than the entire rest of the world because of the gametes from which they sprang, and act accordingly.Wadders said:Lol calm down pal, you're only a few centuries behind the times.PhiMed said:
The royals don't represent any of those things any more (well, maybe inherited wealth, I'll give you that)
Since when did you hear our current Royals exploiting the poor, killing anyone, or having anything to do with rape? They've kinda changed their image since all that went on. Yes they are famous just because they've been born into a family, but it's not exactly their fault is it?
And why would a democracy use public funds to subsidise them? Well, they dont cost a massive amount in the grand scheme of things (I think 62p a year per taxpayer) and they bring tourism to the country, they have roles as ambassadors or whatever, and they dont really do anyone any harm.
Youre hating something that exists in the past. Which is fair enough I guess if the royals were really like that I'd thate them too.
Piss on all of them.
However, as far as I can see, it cant exactly be easy being born into a Royal family (I'm not saying I feel sorry for them, just that they do have certain obligations and things that they HAVE to do, it's not exactly like they can just swan around the whole time and do whatever the fuck they like.)
As for arguing that they are directly descended from people who undoubtedly did some pretty awful stuff in the past and so one should hate them, well, you may as well argue that you should hate well off white people in the modern Southern US, because their forefathers owned slaves for their plantations, or that it would be a good idea to hate the children or grandchildren of say, German SS troops or death camp officers in WW2, based purely on what their ancestors did over half a century ago.
People should be judged on their actions, not the actions of their ancestors, forefathers, whatever you want to call it.
Once again that is your opinion and I have a different opinion, that doesn't mean you have to try and force your opinion on other people. Just deal with the fact that other people have different opinions to you.Jedihunter4 said:
I don't currently pay tax but will be starting in full time employment in the summer.
He's actualy descended from German aristocracy from When Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha married Queen Victoria, and from the German House of Hanover even further back, but yeah, I see your point, I'm just being pickyWolfThomas said:
If I was Australian, Canadian or from NZ or any of the other places the Queen "rules" then I'm sure I'd resent the fact that I'd had the royal family shoved on me as well. But I'm not, and I appreciate what they do for our country overall
I'm British. And could not answer the poll as there is not a sufficiently vitriolic answer there.
I hate the concept that I have a "ruler". I won't sing our national anthem. I don't give a crap about the wedding. And I would dearly love the whole lot to pack their bags and piss off.
I loathe the royal family.
I hate the concept that I have a "ruler". I won't sing our national anthem. I don't give a crap about the wedding. And I would dearly love the whole lot to pack their bags and piss off.
I loathe the royal family.
I like them though that may change when Queen Elizabeth II dies. Aside from the increased tourist revenue and ready made ambassadors, I think the idea of having someone involved in the political process who is aside from the party political system and is able to give advice/make judgements based on History is a good one. Also, I've always had the feeling Prince Philip is a damn sight smarter then people give him credit for as his supposed "Gaffs" feel too engineered to be mistakes and its like he's trolling the entire commenwealth.
I don't really care for them since I think the whole Royalty stuff is dead in the Uk. I mean what exactly do Royalty do these day other than tourism? I suppose the reason why it still going is because of tradation.
Granted I have nothing against to those who like the Royal family so I bear no ill toward them at all.
Granted I have nothing against to those who like the Royal family so I bear no ill toward them at all.
My Opinions: (possibly with some facts thrown in to back them up)
Neutral Head of state who is unelected and therefore beholden to serve the entire country. Not just to please their supporters, a lack of bias is always a good thing.
Unparalleled influence as Heads of State in dealing with foreign countries. Partly because of the non politicised role.
National Figure head status. When there are disasters, Such as Diana, People instinctively look to the Royal Family to guide them. (Whether you think this subservient attitude is appropriate or not, you cannot deny that for some people this helps them to deal with problems.)
As Someone else pointed out, they only cost 60p per person per year. For comparison, the BBC license fee in all of its forms costs 40p a day.
The males serve in the armed forces, William I believe served as a flight control director in Afghanistan. The only reason Harry wasn't allowed to serve on the frontline, despite his requests to, was his value to the enemy if he was captured or killed. Right now William serves on a Search and rescue helicopter team in north wales.
Almost all members of the family serve charities in some way, and their presence alone means that charities like the RNLI or RSPCA can gain more support, simply because of the added R. Similarly, businesses that are given the royal mark of honour (the name escapes me at the moment)
will do better as they are known for their quality.
They unite the commonwealth. Clegg and Cameron recently announced that they will be consulting all members of the commonwealth Governments in order to investigate changing the succession laws to allow any theoretical daughters of William and Kate to take the throne. This shared bond brings trade and tourism benefits to the other countries in the commonwealth.
They bring tourists into the country, these people want to be see the part of the living history of the UK, and we are happy to take their money while they do it.
Also a few rebuttals:
To the person who said that the royals all want you to sit down on the extra holiday we get this year and watch their wedding. Where did they say this? I have not seen, at any point, any representative of the Family itself, not the Government or the Media, tell people that they are to watch the wedding. These people live in the public spotlight from the moment they are born till the moment they die, and in some cases (helped by the daily express) they are still scrutinised long after their deaths. They do not choose this role. But they have to live with it.
To the person who said that they are "a living representative of everything that is wrong in the world." At one point, every family has had someone in their past who has done something wrong. This does not mean that their descendants are the same people. Elizabeth the second is not the same as Elizabeth the first, using marriage as a tool and weapon to preserve her country. George VI was not the same man as Henry the VIII. By judging these people by their ancestors, not considering the differences between them, you expose yourself as symptomatic of the selfsame problems as those you decry. You simply believe that they are worse than anyone else in the population because of who they are descended from, rather than better.
This was brought to you by a Catholic Nationalist from Northern Ireland.
Neutral Head of state who is unelected and therefore beholden to serve the entire country. Not just to please their supporters, a lack of bias is always a good thing.
Unparalleled influence as Heads of State in dealing with foreign countries. Partly because of the non politicised role.
National Figure head status. When there are disasters, Such as Diana, People instinctively look to the Royal Family to guide them. (Whether you think this subservient attitude is appropriate or not, you cannot deny that for some people this helps them to deal with problems.)
As Someone else pointed out, they only cost 60p per person per year. For comparison, the BBC license fee in all of its forms costs 40p a day.
The males serve in the armed forces, William I believe served as a flight control director in Afghanistan. The only reason Harry wasn't allowed to serve on the frontline, despite his requests to, was his value to the enemy if he was captured or killed. Right now William serves on a Search and rescue helicopter team in north wales.
Almost all members of the family serve charities in some way, and their presence alone means that charities like the RNLI or RSPCA can gain more support, simply because of the added R. Similarly, businesses that are given the royal mark of honour (the name escapes me at the moment)
will do better as they are known for their quality.
They unite the commonwealth. Clegg and Cameron recently announced that they will be consulting all members of the commonwealth Governments in order to investigate changing the succession laws to allow any theoretical daughters of William and Kate to take the throne. This shared bond brings trade and tourism benefits to the other countries in the commonwealth.
They bring tourists into the country, these people want to be see the part of the living history of the UK, and we are happy to take their money while they do it.
Also a few rebuttals:
To the person who said that the royals all want you to sit down on the extra holiday we get this year and watch their wedding. Where did they say this? I have not seen, at any point, any representative of the Family itself, not the Government or the Media, tell people that they are to watch the wedding. These people live in the public spotlight from the moment they are born till the moment they die, and in some cases (helped by the daily express) they are still scrutinised long after their deaths. They do not choose this role. But they have to live with it.
To the person who said that they are "a living representative of everything that is wrong in the world." At one point, every family has had someone in their past who has done something wrong. This does not mean that their descendants are the same people. Elizabeth the second is not the same as Elizabeth the first, using marriage as a tool and weapon to preserve her country. George VI was not the same man as Henry the VIII. By judging these people by their ancestors, not considering the differences between them, you expose yourself as symptomatic of the selfsame problems as those you decry. You simply believe that they are worse than anyone else in the population because of who they are descended from, rather than better.
This was brought to you by a Catholic Nationalist from Northern Ireland.
Speaking as a Scotsman...
I dont really care about them. Now dont get me wrong I dont hate them but they're just another bunch of rich folk who's ancestors had bigger clubs than everyone else and therefore became rulers due to it nothing like that will make me respect a person.
The charity and work they do for the country on the other hand I'll respect them for. Titles do not entitle anyone to respect unless their actions to obtain that title are worthy of respect.
My two pence anyway.
I dont really care about them. Now dont get me wrong I dont hate them but they're just another bunch of rich folk who's ancestors had bigger clubs than everyone else and therefore became rulers due to it nothing like that will make me respect a person.
The charity and work they do for the country on the other hand I'll respect them for. Titles do not entitle anyone to respect unless their actions to obtain that title are worthy of respect.
My two pence anyway.
Ok, my first post ever here so take it easy on me.
ok, i am all or the royals gaining some power, the final say and when we go to war. Cause so far, the British government have done some piss poor things.
Do i think that ruling because of your birth is good? No
Do i think being elected and doing a shit job of it is better? No
Do i think that being Brought up learning how to rule instead of being elected and winging it is better? yes.
Right now, i really think the only person who actually cares about the uk and the commonwealth is the queen. I mean can anyone in a commonwealth country truly say they care what's happening in another commonwealth country if it doesn't effect them?
To everyone outside of the UK, if you don't like hearing about the wedding, make something interesting happen in your own country's.
Anyone in the UK, grow up. most of us get a day off and in one of the best days of the year to just relax, and for the bartender. im sorry you don't get the day off. You got into bar tending, maybe not by choice but that's your job, think of the tips.
ok, i am all or the royals gaining some power, the final say and when we go to war. Cause so far, the British government have done some piss poor things.
Do i think that ruling because of your birth is good? No
Do i think being elected and doing a shit job of it is better? No
Do i think that being Brought up learning how to rule instead of being elected and winging it is better? yes.
Right now, i really think the only person who actually cares about the uk and the commonwealth is the queen. I mean can anyone in a commonwealth country truly say they care what's happening in another commonwealth country if it doesn't effect them?
To everyone outside of the UK, if you don't like hearing about the wedding, make something interesting happen in your own country's.
Anyone in the UK, grow up. most of us get a day off and in one of the best days of the year to just relax, and for the bartender. im sorry you don't get the day off. You got into bar tending, maybe not by choice but that's your job, think of the tips.
Evidence of their arrogance? Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that they've set up an entire set of special rules and protocols for meeting them that they still expect people of ACTUAL accomplishment to observe? That's pretty arrogant. And besides, the entire NOTION of royalty is that their BLOOD makes them special. What other evidence do you need? The fact that a democracy of any kind can continue to support such a notion is baffling to me.Wadders said:So how axactly can you say, with such apparent certainty, that they think they're better than everybody else? What have you got to back this up? Certainly they used to have that attitude maybe a couple of hundred years or so ago when they had a more active role in running the country, but I fail to see any displays of arrogance or the like from them these days, they just try and get on with their lives as anybody else would, albeit with more moneyPhiMed said:Their fame comes from the fact that they are directly descended from the people who did all of the things I named. Royalty is what it is. A group of people, related to each other, who believe they're better than the entire rest of the world because of the gametes from which they sprang, and act accordingly.Wadders said:Lol calm down pal, you're only a few centuries behind the times.PhiMed said:
The royals don't represent any of those things any more (well, maybe inherited wealth, I'll give you that
Since when did you hear our current Royals exploiting the poor, killing anyone, or having anything to do with rape? They've kinda changed their image since all that went on. Yes they are famous just because they've been born into a family, but it's not exactly their fault is it?
And why would a democracy use public funds to subsidise them? Well, they dont cost a massive amount in the grand scheme of things (I think 62p a year per taxpayer) and they bring tourism to the country, they have roles as ambassadors or whatever, and they dont really do anyone any harm.
Youre hating something that exists in the past. Which is fair enough I guess if the royals were really like that I'd thate them too.
Piss on all of them.
However, as far as I can see, it cant exactly be easy being born into a Royal family (I'm not saying I feel sorry for them, just that they do have certain obligations and things that they HAVE to do, it's not exactly like they can just swan around the whole time and do whatever the fuck they like.)
As for arguing that they are directly descended from people who undoubtedly did some pretty awful stuff in the past and so one should hate them, well, you may as well argue that you should hate well off white people in the modern Southern US, because their forefathers owned slaves for their plantations, or that it would be a good idea to hate the children or grandchildren of say, German SS troops or death camp officers in WW2, based purely on what their ancestors did over half a century ago.
People should be judged on their actions, not the actions of their ancestors, forefathers, whatever you want to call it.
And you're completely mis-stating my position. If I actually held the position that you claim I do, you'd be correct to refute me.
My position is this: Their position in society, their job, their role that dictates 90% of their behavior is based entirely on the actions of their genocidal ancestors. Suggesting that all wealthy white people in the Southern US are descended from slave owners is not only untrue (the population in the US is much more mobile, both in terms of geography and demographics than you're suggesting), but a poor comparison even if it were true. There isn't an entire publicly-funded institution dedicated to celebrating how awesome slavery was, so... NOT THE SAME THING. The descendants of slave owners don't inhabit areas where they still have slaves so that people can come and ooh and ahh, so... NOT THE SAME THING. The descendants of slave owners don't insist that all black people address them as "master", so... NOT THE SAME THING.
People can and have renounced their royal positions, so any difficulty royals experience as a result of their position (boo hoo hoo) once they reach the age of accountability is COMPLETELY self-inflicted because of a wish to retain their status and wealth.
I don't "hate them because of the actions of their ancestors". I hate the institution of which they are a part. Because they have chosen not to renounce it, I judge them for participating in it. I don't hate them at all, and certainly not for their ancestors' actions. I judge them for their own.
This. I'm not from the UK So I can't see the point in them. Parliament is the one that's pretty much runs the place, so why the fuck are they still around?AccursedTheory said:
Also, the Queen's visit to Ireland? That's a big fuckin' no-no. First off, we barely have the money to pump into defence and secondly, even if we raised that money from thin air, our defence force is really outdated and incompetent. Also, the fact that she will be visiting Glasnevin Cemetery is just pissing on our boots. Glasnevin is where the heroes from Ireland's War of Independence are buried so the fact that the British Monarchy is visiting there is just sickening for a lot of Irish people, myself included as you can probably tell.
Its weird, I dislike the whole concept of the monarchy and think of them as little more then drains on resources, but yet as an Englishman there seems to be something bred into our bones about feeling a deep sense of patriotic pride and affection for them.
I guess you could say Im conflicted.
I guess you could say Im conflicted.