The Queen of England

[Ziggy Stardust]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...s-that-most-want-to-abolish-the-monarchy/amp/
This recent poll shows that a majority of UK residents believe the monarchy should not be abolished. Only 15% believe it should. These numbers are fucking insane. In 2018, a majority of people in a first world country believe the government should respect the power of some bitch who wears expensive jewelery, and who said in the past that the UK should live within its means and reduce welfare while wearing a crown with 249 precious gems. Fuck the queen, fuck her daughter’s pretentious wedding, and fuck everyone and buckingcunt palace. You only have what you do because you come from a long line of people who killed and oppressed to stay in power, and its about time that the UK stops paying for your fancy little diamonds. Why don’t more people agree with me?

 

[Hassknecht]

It's a stupid tradition, but a tradition nonetheless. Some people still like those, especially when they're increasingly often told that they shouldn't.

 

[TheGM]

a majority of people in a first world country believe the government should respect the power of some bitch who wears expensive jewelery

What power?

 

[Deleted member 116891]

The monarchy has theoretically huge power, but never exercises it and hopefully will never have to. It exists so that absolute power can never be exercised by politicians who may use it to end the democratic processes within this country. Thus, far from being an anti-democratic force, it instead works to effectively enhance the freedoms of the citizen.

This has been the conservative case for the Monarchy for the last 450 years, and I (and thankfully many of my fellow Englishmen and women, for now) would like it to continue as it is (though many have different reasons for it than I.)
Unfortunately, 300 years ago, some colonies disagreed. But as I've said before on this site, I would far rather our system than theirs.

God save the Queen

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What power?

The power to Veto and speak before Parliament

Also, to the point that the Queen is a guaranteer of democracy is ridiculous. Politicians also don’t have absolute power in most other western countries, despite the absence of a Queen. And then there’s the issue of her getting her shit tax funded. Is that necessary? Its hereditary power, its a tax-subsidized lifestyle, and it goes against all ideals of democracy. God evict the queen.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Also, to the point that the Queen is a guaranteer of democracy is ridiculous. Politicians also don’t have absolute power in most other western countries, despite the absence of a Queen.

In these other countries, they got rid of their monarchies mostly due to violent revolution or by losing wars. England has never had a revolution, and after our civil war, in which we killed our king, the experiment in republicanism was disastrous to the point that we brought back the Monarchy 11 years later, and it has wavered little in popularity since.

I don't wish to comment upon other countries systems unless you were to point out an example for me to examine, but England's (and Britain's by extension) has been built upon centuries of tradition and experience of it working, which we judge to be better than other countries systems.

We don't much care who sits on the throne, as long as they do not do something too outrageous. Our Monarchy surrendered its power before other countries did, and thus we avoided the revolutions of France and Russia, which arguably lead to less peaceable countries as a result.

And then there’s the issue of her getting her shit tax funded. Is that necessary? Its hereditary power, its a tax-subsidized lifestyle

It's argued that the Monarchy brings in more money than it takes it fund it, though evidence exists on both sides for that claim. Simply stating that the Monarchy only costs the taxpayer is too simplistic however. The power of celebrity is strong, and the royals are some of our biggest (take the royal wedding tv figures for evidence there. The royals also contribute much to charity, and special projects, the Prince of Wales even spearheading the building an entire small town (on land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall) with 3,000 houses at a time of a housing crisis with politicians not acting, as well as the princes trust, which helps about 57,000 people a year (according to its website admittedly) find employment at a time of little job security for young people. The Monarchy can help where politicians don't act. There's many more examples I can list.

it goes against all ideals of democracy

The UK does not exist upon 'ideals.' It has always existed upon what works. The Monarchy works, for the reasons I have stated(and many others historically and practically) and therefore we have kept it. Other countries that want 'ideals' of democracy have arguably turned out less well.

(No, I don't think it's a perfect system, but I don't see a better one.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The UK does not exist upon 'ideals.' It has always existed upon what works. The Monarchy works, for the reasons I have stated(and many others historically and practically) and therefore we have kept it. Other countries that want 'ideals' of democracy have arguably turned out less well.

(No, I don't think it's a perfect system, but I don't see a better one.)

Well, if the UK existed on ideals, Africa, India, and Ireland would all be way happier.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Well, if the UK existed on ideals, Africa, India, and Ireland would all be way happier

Do you have any evidence for that claim? As I say above, other countries that do exist on such ideals turn out less well.

I'm not sure that many of the countries that you mentioned have, or had expressed resentment over it. If these countries were so angry with Britain, then the Commonwealth would not exist and the next head of it (which is decided democratically by the heads of each state) would not be the Prince of Wales.

Ireland is a different matter admittedly, caused by a cocktail of historical and political events stretching far back. Ironically, the massacres of Drogheda and Wrexford, both often used as touchstones of English Oppression, both occurred during England's Republican phase.

Though I fail to see that you can prove that Ireland would be happier if we had not originally ruled it. It exists just off the coast of Wales. Of course we were going to see it ruled by us.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do you have any evidence for that claim? As I say above, other countries that do exist on such ideals turn out less well.

I'm not sure that many of the countries that you mentioned have, or had expressed resentment over it. If these countries were so angry with Britain, then the Commonwealth would not exist and the next head of it (which is decided democratically by the heads of each state) would not be the Prince of Wales.

Ireland is a different matter admittedly, caused by a cocktail of historical and political events stretching far back. Ironically, the massacres of Drogheda and Wrexford, both often used as touchstones of English Oppression, both occurred during England's Republican phase.

Though I fail to see that you can prove that Ireland would be happier if we had not originally ruled it. It exists just off the coast of Wales. Of course we were going to see it ruled by us.

Back when England had a ruling monarch, the Irish had their homelands ripped from them and became slaves to the British, who starved and abused them. It was when someone held the throne when the British colonized Africa and India, which many historians speculate is the reason for Africa’s poverty, and India... well you’ve been through World History 1.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Back when England had a ruling monarch, the Irish had their homelands ripped from them and became slaves to the British

I wouldn't exactly call that slavery. Before 1800 Ireland had its own parliament-fairly similar to Scotland and Wales today, as well as Northern Ireland, and after that parliament was abolished the Irish parliamentarians were incorporated into the united parliament, and therefore still had a say over their own laws, in a way arguably more so than before.

Is that slavery? I don't think so..... but if you would like to quote evidence telling me it is I would be interested to comment upon it.

In addition, we conquered Ireland in the 12th century, when we were ruled by Norman Kings.... who ripped our homelands from the Saxons, but does that count? Cause the Saxons were from Saxony, and they originally ripped the land off from the English, but the English wanted our lands to be still controlled by the Romans.... even though, by your logic, we were slaves to Rome, even though we had a form of citizenship in the Roman empire-worse than we gave to the Irish.

The point of all of that is to show that everyone has their lands ripped from them at some point in history, unless you are cut off from the rest of the World. In the end, just as Rome conquered England, England would go to conquer Ireland unless Ireland could resist them, which they could not.

Besides, if we had wanted to maintain control of Ireland, instead of giving it independence when we did, we arguably could have. But we chose not to, and instead we kept Northern Ireland that still wants to be a part of the UK. Would you want the Irish to rip the homelands from the Northern Irish now?

It was when someone held the throne when the British colonized Africa and India, which many historians speculate is the reason for Africa’s poverty, and India... well you’ve been through World History 1.

The decisions that lead to the colonisation of parts of Africa were taken by politicians, not by Monarchs. I should point out that many other European countries were doing the same thing, and the only reason we gained a larger empire was simply because we were a more powerful country against our European rivals, partially due to the fact that we were not engaging in violent revolutions.

Did we make Africa poorer? Possibly, but then again, so did the French and the Germans, the Spanish and the Italians later on. The fact that former British colonies tend to be wealthier than former French colonies for example (many of which were conquered when there was no King of France) suggests that we may have done it better than others? (not saying colonialism is good mind you, but I'm glad of that fact at least.)

What about India? I do know what they teach in schools. I also know that, despite us making many mistakes, it is not the full story. If you would like to elaborate I'll explain (this post is far too long as it is.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I wouldn't exactly call that slavery. Before 1800 Ireland had its own parliament-fairly similar to Scotland and Wales today, as well as Northern Ireland, and after that parliament was abolished the Irish parliamentarians were incorporated into the united parliament, and therefore still had a say over their own laws, in a way arguably more so than before.

Is that slavery? I don't think so..... but if you would like to quote evidence telling me it is I would be interested to comment upon it.

In addition, we conquered Ireland in the 12th century, when we were ruled by Norman Kings.... who ripped our homelands from the Saxons, but does that count? Cause the Saxons were from Saxony, and they originally ripped the land off from the English, but the English wanted our lands to be still controlled by the Romans.... even though, by your logic, we were slaves to Rome, even though we had a form of citizenship in the Roman empire-worse than we gave to the Irish.

The point of all of that is to show that everyone has their lands ripped from them at some point in history, unless you are cut off from the rest of the World. In the end, just as Rome conquered England, England would go to conquer Ireland unless Ireland could resist them, which they could not.

Besides, if we had wanted to maintain control of Ireland, instead of giving it independence when we did, we arguably could have. But we chose not to, and instead we kept Northern Ireland that still wants to be a part of the UK. Would you want the Irish to rip the homelands from the Northern Irish now?




The decisions that lead to the colonisation of parts of Africa were taken by politicians, not by Monarchs. I should point out that many other European countries were doing the same thing, and the only reason we gained a larger empire was simply because we were a more powerful country against our European rivals, partially due to the fact that we were not engaging in violent revolutions.

Did we make Africa poorer? Possibly, but then again, so did the French and the Germans, the Spanish and the Italians later on. The fact that former British colonies tend to be wealthier than former French colonies for example (many of which were conquered when there was no King of France) suggests that we may have done it better than others? (not saying colonialism is good mind you, but I'm glad of that fact at least.)

What about India? I do know what they teach in schools. I also know that, despite us making many mistakes, it is not the full story. If you would like to elaborate I'll explain (this post is far too long as it is.)

I’m not saying I like pre-revolution France, Napoleon’s France, or the Spanish Empire, as I am firmly against imperialism, but the problem is that the remnants of imperialism still exist. India was under British rule until Ghandi and Indian Independence, which deprived Indians of the right to express their culture, and held them as second class citizens. France was bad, but it doesn’t still have a Queen, and it sure worked out for them. The British need to let go of their expansionist, imperialist, monarchist history, and join the rest of the western world. Let go of Northern Ireland, and remove the queen.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

India was under British rule until Ghandi and Indian Independence, which deprived Indians of the right to express their culture, and held them as second class citizens.

Yep, that's true. What you're not saying is that India is supremely pissed off at us still about it, because really, they aren't any more.

France was bad, but it doesn’t still have a Queen, and it sure worked out for them.

It didn't work out any better for them, and arguably it turned out worse. There is a reason why their government is called the 'fifth Republic.' That means that they have had many changes in Governmental system since 1789, with violence in all of them. Is that better than us? Not really....

Considering that England as a country is far more respectful of its democratic influences as we have not had a revolution, that's surely a better thing as it takes away such a threat of violence in our society?

The British need to let go of their expansionist, imperialist, monarchist history, and join the rest of the western world.

This is an ideal, you're not telling me or anyone how we are gonna do that. Removing the Queen will not improve anything, which is why we have not done it!

The UK has let go of that past, ever since the Suez crisis in 1953. We don't colonise other countries, we don't seek to expand our borders..... Australians voted to keep the queen in a 1999 referendum!

In the 2014 referendum, the Scots wanted to leave the UK and keep the Queen also. They also recognised the value that the monarchy brings, for the reasons I stated above and for other reasons also. These people do not live in an Imperialist, Expansionist Britain, but still they see the value.

Let go of Northern Ireland

The Northern Irish want to be part of Britain. Would you deny them that? Do you want Ireland to 'rip the land' from them? To Colonise them?

 

[TorontoReign]

If the Irish want to be British so bad, then why do they blow things up?

 

[Deleted member 116891]

If the Irish want to be British so bad, then why do they blow things up?

The Northern Irish want to be a part of Britain. The Republic of Ireland (especially some of its political parties) wishes to bring Northern Ireland into political unity with the rest of it. Those parties had military wings which blew up things.

It was originally split on Religious lines. Southern Ireland-Catholic. Northern Ireland-Protestant (like England) thus Northern Ireland wished to remain with Britain, and still does, judging by the current political situation.

 

[GonZo_626]

The British need to let go of their expansionist, imperialist, monarchist history, and join the rest of the western world. Let go of Northern Ireland, and remove the queen.

See you have a poor understanding of the western world summed up in this sentence. I can name two other countries in the democratically elected western world still calling her our Queen as well (for good or bad). Canada and Australia both are still commonwealth countries under the monarchy. Hell technically us Canadians didn't even gain our full independence until 1984.

Also as for the whole not democratic. The US is a constitutional republic, France is a republic, Germany is a constitutional republic, Canada, the UK, and Australia are constitutional monarchies with parliamentary systems. Switzerland is a direct democracy. If you cant see what I am pointing out here is there are many definitions of what makes a democracy. Don't get too stuck on one.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

Maybe if this was before Diana, there might be more traction for it, but the Royal family provides more money than it consumes, stays out of politics, and just acts all nice and cheerful. I'm honestly surprised it's as high as 15%; which means if King Charles III or King William IV fuck up too badly, it can go back to that pre-Diana tipping point of animosity.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Spewing vague assertions - especially against the Queen who saw the British Empire *die* and wither and the Suez Crisis fiasco - isn't going to stick, no matter how much you throw it at them.

The Queen is more than a Queen. She's a celebrity. The whole Royal Family is, and you can thank Diana for that. And the people love their celebrities.

 

[stjohn]

this really, just hurts to read.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe if this was before Diana, there might be more traction for it, but the Royal family provides more money than it consumes, stays out of politics, and just acts all nice and cheerful. I'm honestly surprised it's as high as 15%; which means if King Charles III or King William IV fuck up too badly, it can go back to that pre-Diana tipping point of animosity.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Spewing vague assertions - especially against the Queen who saw the British Empire *die* and wither and the Suez Crisis fiasco - isn't going to stick, no matter how much you throw it at them.

The Queen is more than a Queen. She's a celebrity. The whole Royal Family is, and you can thank Diana for that. And the people love their celebrities.

The assertion that the monarchy makes more money for the country than she consumes is purely fictional, as this video so eloquently explains. Also, those other two countries share the same queen, so that doesn’t count. Also also, I don’t care about Diana anymore. Its been a few years past my expiration date on giving a shit. She died 30 years ago, at the age of 36. Three years younger than the life expectancy for a homeless person in Canada. But I don’t suppose you gave a passing thought about them, because they weren’t born into some big fancy pretentious family with ohh big diamonds, which seems to make brits jizz in their pants.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

I don’t care about Diana anymore.

There's at least one headline about her in the British press every week, so presumably, many still do. I don't like the hero-worship of her or any other member of the monarchy, but you telling us you don't care is not an argument.

Some like celebrities, and celebrities can use their power to help people. That is a good thing.

big fancy pretentious family with ohh big diamonds, which seems to make brits jizz in their pants.

I mean, if you want to call the English stupid, then fine, go do that. If you live here, and you think we don't live in a modern country or a shitty one, then emigrate! That simple. If you don't live here, and are commenting on a foreign system, then I'll accept, the British system does not work if examined according to pure logic, but we never wanted it to.

People in the USA tell me their system is wonderful and far better than ours. Great, they're entitled to it. I don't agree however. Same with European systems.

Besides, according to me, the Monarchs do not make me sexually excited. I don't much care who holds the throne, I do care about it's purpose.

Sadly, the lack of actual argument from you makes it hard to respond to unless I regurgitate the same points. Essentially, the Monarchy works in our system and people still like it. If it fulfilled none of those criterion, it would not exist. It does, so it exists. If you don't like that.... fill in the gaps.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Spewing vague assertions - especially against the Queen who saw the British Empire *die* and wither and the Suez Crisis fiasco - isn't going to stick, no matter how much you throw it at them.

This is brilliant. Thanks for backing me up (intentionally or not intentionally.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There's at least one headline about her in the British press every week, so presumably, many still do. I don't like the hero-worship of her or any other member of the monarchy, but you telling us you don't care is not an argument.

Some like celebrities, and celebrities can use their power to help people. That is a good thing.


I mean, if you want to call the English stupid, then fine, go do that. If you live here, and you think we don't live in a modern country or a shitty one, then emigrate! That simple. If you don't live here, and are commenting on a foreign system, then I'll accept, the British system does not work if examined according to pure logic, but we never wanted it to.

People in the USA tell me their system is wonderful and far better than ours. Great, they're entitled to it. I don't agree however. Same with European systems.

Besides, according to me, the Monarchs do not make me sexually excited. I don't much care who holds the throne, I do care about it's purpose.

Sadly, the lack of actual argument from you makes it hard to respond to unless I regurgitate the same points. Essentially, the Monarchy works in our system and people still like it. If it fulfilled none of those criterion, it would not exist. It does, so it exists. If you don't like that.... fill in the gaps.


This is brilliant. Thanks for backing me up (intentionally or not intentionally.)

My argument does exist. It is on moral grounds, which you have clearly stated is not an area you find important to an economic system.