That . . . seems like it would be threatening to a country's stability.Generic Gamer said:They're fantastic ambassadors for our country and a massive tourist draw. They're also a theoretical limit on our Government because at any time the queen can dissolve parliament. In addition they're just a little sentimental something that our country does.AccursedTheory said:I'm still unclear what their continued existence offers.
What exactly do they do?
They're also classy as fuck and at times hilarious so yeah, I love 'em!
I was aware that that Crown and Parliament have been wearing each other down for a while, but when I read what I quoted first I thought that the Royal Family had more power than I had assumed. It's reassuring that there's little chance of the country going batshit insane.Generic Gamer said:http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6329207.eceDrago-Morph said:That . . . seems like it would be threatening to a country's stability.
It's very limited as a power goes and I don't think a member of the royal family would actually do it. It's kind of a one-shot thing, the Queen will never have real political power in the UK but she can in theory dissolve parliament...but to do so would effectively destroy the Royal Family.
Basically as far as coups go the two groups have spent ages (centuries) working each other into a stalemate, I don't know if you're American but I've noticed a lot of people unfamiliar with our Royal Family are assuming that all of their 'powers' are something they can use whenever they feel like it. The fact of it is that they're not in charge any more and they're not independently wealthy, almost all of their power and influence is the country's and can be withdrawn by parliament at any time. they're mostly of use as a diplomatic corps now, they have no chance of taking charge and they wouldn't try.
Oh, another nice feature is that all of our armed forces answer to the Queen so she can countermand anything she feels is wrong. She could only realistically do it once but it's a nice safeguard against fascism.
Drink a shot every time the cameras show the Queen?dogstile said:However I am actually interested in the royal wedding. A day off? Fuck yeah! Royal wedding drinking game anyone?
Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.Quaxar said:I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Their are a few other rules, theirs a facebook group for it if you have an account.Quaxar said:I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Drink a shot every time the cameras show the Queen?dogstile said:However I am actually interested in the royal wedding. A day off? Fuck yeah! Royal wedding drinking game anyone?
I agree the Dutch Royalties get payed millions of euro,s a year (and don,t have too pay taxes).Jim Grim said:I don't like the fact that there IS a royal family, it's so pointless and expensive, and I think they are far too revered by somewhat unhinged/patriotic people. The family themselves? Don't know them.
Well yeah, that's for granted.Drago-Morph said:Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.Quaxar said:I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
You're right, dropping infants off cliffs at random does seem reasonable.Quaxar said:Well yeah, that's for granted.Drago-Morph said:Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.Quaxar said:I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Someone should bring the idea of a double-monarchy like Sparta back up. Actually, I think someone should try the whole Spartan concept again (minus the slave-hunting and the religious animal sacrifices), that seemed like a reasonable system.
Uhm, forgot that. So minus that too. Just apply reason to what you take.Drago-Morph said:You're right, dropping infants off cliffs at random does seem reasonable.Quaxar said:Well yeah, that's for granted.Drago-Morph said:Actually, I think most people will agree with that. The best dictator is better than the best democracy. The trouble comes from the fact that a bad dictator is infinitely worse than a bad democracy.Quaxar said:I'm a monarchist for some reason. An idealist monarchist, I might add. I just think a good monarch could do better than a lot of democratic shit that's going on.
And I know I might get a few critical quotes for that.
Someone should bring the idea of a double-monarchy like Sparta back up. Actually, I think someone should try the whole Spartan concept again (minus the slave-hunting and the religious animal sacrifices), that seemed like a reasonable system.
Then again, I hate children, so what do I know.
The very first line in that article I linked: "Meeting royalty is not like meeting other dignitaries."Cpt Corallis said:Those "Special rules" seem pretty much like table manners to me. Formal Table manners I will grant you, but i would say that they would be rather similar regardless of which head of state you are having dinner with. Bar possibly Silvio Berlusconi. They are traditions within that office, the same way that you thank people when they leave a party or you shake hands with someone that you have just met.PhiMed said: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.
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.
As for those who have renounced their royal positions: Do you think they can just suddenly flip a switch and be not a royal? They have been raised their entire lives in those surroundings. That has a severe effect on who they are and how they act. In addition, from their position as royalty, they can do more to bring about change than someone else. If William Windsor from london speaks out against human rights outrages, it has less of an effect than His Royal Highness Prince William speaking out. I agree that this is wrong. But that does not mean that their current actions do not have benefits. The Royal family today is not the same as it was 300 years ago.
My argument is that while considering that the institutions which give them power are unfair, it is perfectly possible to see that any royal is capable of performing actions which are to the best interests of others.