comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Most people I’ve encountered that are in favour of abolition of the Monarchy went after capitalism years ago. The subject has just inevitably come up again with the death of the Queen. And it’s not just wealth alone that people are arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine and all but the reason capitalism is so ubiquitous is because it's the best system we have. You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
Plenty of people have debated different solutions. I’d also disagree that it’s ubiquitous because it’s the best system. You just seem to be making straw man arguments and moving the goal posts to any point raised around the issue of the Monarchy.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that removing symbols is not a proxy for effecting substantive change. If effect the political reforms the country requires, I'll be very happy, regardless of whether we have a monarchy. As I've expanded in my other posts, I'm not arguing that the symbols need to be removed, though I think it would be healthy to at least recontextualise them to take away some of the tensions with the egalitarian, post-colonial society most of us aspire to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. I'm at the point where we could keep them around as figureheads while reforming politics and putting some of their assets (primarily land) to better use. The best of both worlds, if you will.
Though I do take issue with your suggestion that there's a society most of us want. While I personally see value in moving on from the reverence around monarchy broadly speaking the royals still have approval. Not that there's going to be a vote, but they'd still be in power if there were one today. Though I suspect in the coming years that could change rapidly. Charles does not have the same charm his mother did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree that the support for the monarchy will likely decline over the coming years.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 48 seconds ago
Plenty of people have debated different solutions. I’d also disagree that it’s ubiquitous because it’s the best system. You just seem to be making straw man arguments and moving the goal posts to any point raised around the issue of the Monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It clearly is the best system.
Empires are ubiquitous throughout history, I don’t think that makes them the best systems. It’s a poor argument.
Marcus
I'm not making straw man arguments at all. I appreciate your opinion I just don't think you're addressing the complexities of the issues.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
Bãleš left boot
I don't think there's the slightest chance of us becoming a republic anytime soon, and actually (while I ideally wouldn't have a monarchy) there are lots of constitutional changes I would prioritise ahead of this. Certainly moving to a proportional electoral system, having a democratically elected revising chamber, and greater devolution of powers to nations / English regions are more urgently needed. I'd also welcome downscaling the royal family and reforming the honours system (getting rid of the political patronage and the embarrassing reference to Empire).
The reason I'm persisting with these arguments is not in order to actively agitate for a republic, but because I think it's healthy for our democracy if we critically engage in the question of the monarchy, its place in our system, and the impact its ceremonial role has on our political gravity. I believe that if we are more widely conscious of these things, that in itself can help shift our political culture in a more forward-thinking, egalitarian and less deferential direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You had me at proportional representation!
But seriously, I appreciate that you're engaging for the sake of socialising these ideas and I think you've probably noticed I'm doing similar from a 'pro monarchy' stance to provide some discussion points to make people think about what it actually is they dislike about the monarchy and if that's important.
I notice you've made mention several times of the negative connotations of feudal times that having a royal family brings along with it. And I certainly see that side of it having a negative impact on our politics. The House of Lords should probably be done away with. Though I think a lot of the pageantry should be considered carefully before we remove it. Outdated and weird sure, but that's a part of Britain that people around the world identify with, love or hate.
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some form of PR seems good enough for 40 of 43 European countries? Just saying.
We will go nowhere unless one of the RF has the vision to kick it off. It would be in their vested interests to retain control of that process whether it is 'just' slimming down or wider spread. they are not daft. Well, not all of them. they aint throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Would like to see a monarchy reform society much as we have a campaigning electoral reform society. Further concern that any formal monarchy commission would contain the very vested interests in maintaining the status quo hence why I think the lead needs to come from the very top and push the process into difficult places.
Vast slimming down
Patronage abolition
Loosening links with individual religions
Loosening links with parliament
Ditch or reform the honours system
Urge a serious look at political reform
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Empires are ubiquitous throughout history, I don’t think that makes them the best systems. It’s a poor argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends what your definition of best is. If the desired result is to be rich and powerful an empire certainly was the best way to go about it. Probably still is tbf it's just less about troops on the ground. See how China is going about building their empire behind the scenes.
You most definitely have been, Bales.
Ok. I certainly didn't mean to. Show me where I did that
I was exaggerating, yes. But he mentioned crimes of the empire with no mention of the positives that are also associated with the monarchy and/or empire. So an outsider would understandably think that this was a tyrannical empire which had no positive influences at all. Unless ‘pomp’ is supposed to be some form of compliment, of course.
There’s no balance there at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I've used my language quite precisely to describe what I see as the conservative cultural impact of the monarchy as an institution, rather than to blame it as the sole or direct driver of political malaise. There's nothing in what I've written to suggest I see it as a 'tyrannical empire'.
As to 'no balance', in some of my posts in this thread, I've been setting out reasons why I believe the UK's brand of monarchy has this unhealthy cultural-political influence. It wouldn't make sense to set out in every post absolutely everything I think about the monarchy as an institution. If you read all of my posts, though, you would see that I also acknowledge the role of embodying national identity, and the fact that some find meaning, stability and solace in that. My overall view is that this could also be achieved with an elected ceremonial president, or a more modest and modern style of monarchy. I think that either course would be a way of preserving the benign functions of the monarchy while creating conditions conducive to democratic reform and renewal.
I'd say that's considerably more balanced and nuanced than you reading my posts and concluding I've labelled the royals a bunch of blood-sucking tyrants. (Also exaggerating.)
The funeral had smaller viewing figures in the UK than the Euro 2020 final. Surprised by that.
Your last three paragraphs, but this one in particular:
You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
The subject is the Monarchy, and you’re attributing arguments to me that I haven’t made. You just seem to want to divert attention away from the Monarchy, and then criticise my post for not having a solution to the inequality of capitalism.
On that stance, I’d still question that line of thinking anyway. People can have a moral objection to the methods of hereditary monarchy and capitalism without having all the answers as to how to unpick them from societies where they are deeply imbedded and in the positions of control.
Not everything has to be realpolitik. Especially when discussing something that cannot be addressed until the ideology in the country changes.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Your last three paragraphs, but this one in particular:
You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
The subject is the Monarchy, and you’re attributing arguments to me that I haven’t made. You just seem to want to divert attention away from the Monarchy, and then criticise my post for not having a solution to the inequality of capitalism.
On that stance, I’d still question that line of thinking anyway. People can have a moral objection to the methods of hereditary monarchy and capitalism without having all the answers as to how to unpick them from societies where they are deeply imbedded and in the positions of control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. I didn't mean to do that. My bad To be fair, though, I didn't mean you in that sense. I meant the general 'you' as you referred to people you know that 'went after capitalism'.
Yes I am deliberately deflecting from the monarchy to an extent because I'm concerned that people get tied up with all this fuss going on now and aren't addressing the real world issues. Context is important. Removing the royals creates a whole other load of issues and doesn't address wealth inequality at all really. I'm not trying to say you said things you didn't, rather to move the conversation on to more useful topics.
I don’t think people are forgetting the real world issues, to be fair. A lot of people have just become more piiiiiissed off by the real world issues as they see this huge display of privilege. But even these people don’t dislike the Royals as much as they dislike these Tory cuuuuunts that really have ruined our country.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
The funeral had smaller viewing figures in the UK than the Euro 2020 final. Surprised by that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf, the funeral wasn't hyped up enough, unlike sporting events. The build up to it was quite dour. And people knew the end result before they switched on.
They might have got more viewing figures if they'd jazzed things up a bit. More celebrities there instead of politicians.
Catherine Wheel fireworks on the Gun Carriage as it was going down the Mall. A couple of floats following the Gun Carriage with some scantily clad lovelies. Maybe even a transparent coffin to attract the die-hards.
All in all it was a bit of a missed opportunity.
We'll all be having to go through the same thing again in a couple of years and after that damp squib people probably don't have the appetite for it again.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 hour ago
Empires are ubiquitous throughout history, I don’t think that makes them the best systems. It’s a poor argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I meant capitalism
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Your last three paragraphs, but this one in particular:
You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
The subject is the Monarchy, and you’re attributing arguments to me that I haven’t made. You just seem to want to divert attention away from the Monarchy, and then criticise my post for not having a solution to the inequality of capitalism.
On that stance, I’d still question that line of thinking anyway. People can have a moral objection to the methods of hereditary monarchy and capitalism without having all the answers as to how to unpick them from societies where they are deeply imbedded and in the positions of control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. I didn't mean to do that. My bad To be fair, though, I didn't mean you in that sense. I meant the general 'you' as you referred to people you know that 'went after capitalism'.
Yes I am deliberately deflecting from the monarchy to an extent because I'm concerned that people get tied up with all this fuss going on now and aren't addressing the real world issues. Context is important. Removing the royals creates a whole other load of issues and doesn't address wealth inequality at all really. I'm not trying to say you said things you didn't, rather to move the conversation on to more useful topics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, abolition alone does not solve what many perceive to be 'the issues' - a good debate whether they are a symptom or a cause, just not the sole cause.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 34 minutes ago
I don’t think people are forgetting the real world issues, to be fair. A lot of people have just become more piiiiiissed off by the real world issues as they see this huge display of privilege. But even these people don’t dislike the Royals as much as they dislike these Tory cuuuuunts that really have ruined our country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point this. I certainly see my own personal, political and social enemies, who are directly affecting the prosperity and mental state of my own family and circles, sitting in the House of Commons and not in Buckingham Place or even in the House of Lords. In fact I see the House of Lords as the only part of the political establishment, albeit unelected, who I have any real hope of curtailing the reckless 'progress' of the Government to any extent, as they have done before.
Further to the viewing figures discussion, it's just been announced that an average of 29m in the UK watched the funeral at some point across all channels, or 43% of the population.
Let's face it; the monarchy isn't going anywhere soon, the Tories will probably continue in power and voting reform isn't imminent.
You lot are just going to have to learn to be more stoic. Do you think you can do that?
I'm just here for the intellectual debate. Like Red Russian said, it's useful to talk about this and what change would mean while we're all thinking about it. Though there really is a need to get rid of the Tories immediately. Being stoic while they're actively destroying pubic services and propagating divisive narratives in society doesn't do it for me.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
What previous monarchs did impacts us today. For example we have yet another non-Welsh Prince of Wales allocated to us.
Some people can't seem to distinguish between stating the Queen was probably a nice lady and a decent head of state with the ridiculous notion of monarchy itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No more than some people cant seem to isolate that the sexual behaviour of some naughty and not so nice current day, minor royals are not grounds to abolish the role of the Crown in a Parliamentary Monarchy.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 4 minutes ago
I'm just here for the intellectual debate. Like Red Russian said, it's useful to talk about this and what change would mean while we're all thinking about it. Though there really is a need to get rid of the Tories immediately. Being stoic while they're actively destroying pubic services and propagating divisive narratives in society doesn't do it for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Labour actually have a chance?
Sign in if you want to comment
The Queens funeral today
Page 13 of 20
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Most people I’ve encountered that are in favour of abolition of the Monarchy went after capitalism years ago. The subject has just inevitably come up again with the death of the Queen. And it’s not just wealth alone that people are arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine and all but the reason capitalism is so ubiquitous is because it's the best system we have. You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
posted on 20/9/22
Plenty of people have debated different solutions. I’d also disagree that it’s ubiquitous because it’s the best system. You just seem to be making straw man arguments and moving the goal posts to any point raised around the issue of the Monarchy.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agree that removing symbols is not a proxy for effecting substantive change. If effect the political reforms the country requires, I'll be very happy, regardless of whether we have a monarchy. As I've expanded in my other posts, I'm not arguing that the symbols need to be removed, though I think it would be healthy to at least recontextualise them to take away some of the tensions with the egalitarian, post-colonial society most of us aspire to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. I'm at the point where we could keep them around as figureheads while reforming politics and putting some of their assets (primarily land) to better use. The best of both worlds, if you will.
Though I do take issue with your suggestion that there's a society most of us want. While I personally see value in moving on from the reverence around monarchy broadly speaking the royals still have approval. Not that there's going to be a vote, but they'd still be in power if there were one today. Though I suspect in the coming years that could change rapidly. Charles does not have the same charm his mother did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree that the support for the monarchy will likely decline over the coming years.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 48 seconds ago
Plenty of people have debated different solutions. I’d also disagree that it’s ubiquitous because it’s the best system. You just seem to be making straw man arguments and moving the goal posts to any point raised around the issue of the Monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It clearly is the best system.
posted on 20/9/22
Empires are ubiquitous throughout history, I don’t think that makes them the best systems. It’s a poor argument.
posted on 20/9/22
Marcus
I'm not making straw man arguments at all. I appreciate your opinion I just don't think you're addressing the complexities of the issues.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
Bãleš left boot
I don't think there's the slightest chance of us becoming a republic anytime soon, and actually (while I ideally wouldn't have a monarchy) there are lots of constitutional changes I would prioritise ahead of this. Certainly moving to a proportional electoral system, having a democratically elected revising chamber, and greater devolution of powers to nations / English regions are more urgently needed. I'd also welcome downscaling the royal family and reforming the honours system (getting rid of the political patronage and the embarrassing reference to Empire).
The reason I'm persisting with these arguments is not in order to actively agitate for a republic, but because I think it's healthy for our democracy if we critically engage in the question of the monarchy, its place in our system, and the impact its ceremonial role has on our political gravity. I believe that if we are more widely conscious of these things, that in itself can help shift our political culture in a more forward-thinking, egalitarian and less deferential direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You had me at proportional representation!
But seriously, I appreciate that you're engaging for the sake of socialising these ideas and I think you've probably noticed I'm doing similar from a 'pro monarchy' stance to provide some discussion points to make people think about what it actually is they dislike about the monarchy and if that's important.
I notice you've made mention several times of the negative connotations of feudal times that having a royal family brings along with it. And I certainly see that side of it having a negative impact on our politics. The House of Lords should probably be done away with. Though I think a lot of the pageantry should be considered carefully before we remove it. Outdated and weird sure, but that's a part of Britain that people around the world identify with, love or hate.
Socially, I think the negatives can broadly be mentioned as the class system that keeps us divided. And sure it's less than ideal but the thing is, we're not removing the rich and poor. As informative as a discussion around removing the monarchy and reforming government is, we're not solving wealth inequality there. We're just removing a symbol of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some form of PR seems good enough for 40 of 43 European countries? Just saying.
We will go nowhere unless one of the RF has the vision to kick it off. It would be in their vested interests to retain control of that process whether it is 'just' slimming down or wider spread. they are not daft. Well, not all of them. they aint throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Would like to see a monarchy reform society much as we have a campaigning electoral reform society. Further concern that any formal monarchy commission would contain the very vested interests in maintaining the status quo hence why I think the lead needs to come from the very top and push the process into difficult places.
Vast slimming down
Patronage abolition
Loosening links with individual religions
Loosening links with parliament
Ditch or reform the honours system
Urge a serious look at political reform
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Empires are ubiquitous throughout history, I don’t think that makes them the best systems. It’s a poor argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends what your definition of best is. If the desired result is to be rich and powerful an empire certainly was the best way to go about it. Probably still is tbf it's just less about troops on the ground. See how China is going about building their empire behind the scenes.
posted on 20/9/22
You most definitely have been, Bales.
posted on 20/9/22
Ok. I certainly didn't mean to. Show me where I did that
posted on 20/9/22
I was exaggerating, yes. But he mentioned crimes of the empire with no mention of the positives that are also associated with the monarchy and/or empire. So an outsider would understandably think that this was a tyrannical empire which had no positive influences at all. Unless ‘pomp’ is supposed to be some form of compliment, of course.
There’s no balance there at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I've used my language quite precisely to describe what I see as the conservative cultural impact of the monarchy as an institution, rather than to blame it as the sole or direct driver of political malaise. There's nothing in what I've written to suggest I see it as a 'tyrannical empire'.
As to 'no balance', in some of my posts in this thread, I've been setting out reasons why I believe the UK's brand of monarchy has this unhealthy cultural-political influence. It wouldn't make sense to set out in every post absolutely everything I think about the monarchy as an institution. If you read all of my posts, though, you would see that I also acknowledge the role of embodying national identity, and the fact that some find meaning, stability and solace in that. My overall view is that this could also be achieved with an elected ceremonial president, or a more modest and modern style of monarchy. I think that either course would be a way of preserving the benign functions of the monarchy while creating conditions conducive to democratic reform and renewal.
I'd say that's considerably more balanced and nuanced than you reading my posts and concluding I've labelled the royals a bunch of blood-sucking tyrants. (Also exaggerating.)
posted on 20/9/22
The funeral had smaller viewing figures in the UK than the Euro 2020 final. Surprised by that.
posted on 20/9/22
Your last three paragraphs, but this one in particular:
You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
The subject is the Monarchy, and you’re attributing arguments to me that I haven’t made. You just seem to want to divert attention away from the Monarchy, and then criticise my post for not having a solution to the inequality of capitalism.
On that stance, I’d still question that line of thinking anyway. People can have a moral objection to the methods of hereditary monarchy and capitalism without having all the answers as to how to unpick them from societies where they are deeply imbedded and in the positions of control.
posted on 20/9/22
Not everything has to be realpolitik. Especially when discussing something that cannot be addressed until the ideology in the country changes.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Your last three paragraphs, but this one in particular:
You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
The subject is the Monarchy, and you’re attributing arguments to me that I haven’t made. You just seem to want to divert attention away from the Monarchy, and then criticise my post for not having a solution to the inequality of capitalism.
On that stance, I’d still question that line of thinking anyway. People can have a moral objection to the methods of hereditary monarchy and capitalism without having all the answers as to how to unpick them from societies where they are deeply imbedded and in the positions of control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. I didn't mean to do that. My bad To be fair, though, I didn't mean you in that sense. I meant the general 'you' as you referred to people you know that 'went after capitalism'.
Yes I am deliberately deflecting from the monarchy to an extent because I'm concerned that people get tied up with all this fuss going on now and aren't addressing the real world issues. Context is important. Removing the royals creates a whole other load of issues and doesn't address wealth inequality at all really. I'm not trying to say you said things you didn't, rather to move the conversation on to more useful topics.
posted on 20/9/22
I don’t think people are forgetting the real world issues, to be fair. A lot of people have just become more piiiiiissed off by the real world issues as they see this huge display of privilege. But even these people don’t dislike the Royals as much as they dislike these Tory cuuuuunts that really have ruined our country.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
The funeral had smaller viewing figures in the UK than the Euro 2020 final. Surprised by that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf, the funeral wasn't hyped up enough, unlike sporting events. The build up to it was quite dour. And people knew the end result before they switched on.
They might have got more viewing figures if they'd jazzed things up a bit. More celebrities there instead of politicians.
Catherine Wheel fireworks on the Gun Carriage as it was going down the Mall. A couple of floats following the Gun Carriage with some scantily clad lovelies. Maybe even a transparent coffin to attract the die-hards.
All in all it was a bit of a missed opportunity.
We'll all be having to go through the same thing again in a couple of years and after that damp squib people probably don't have the appetite for it again.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 hour ago
Empires are ubiquitous throughout history, I don’t think that makes them the best systems. It’s a poor argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I meant capitalism
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Your last three paragraphs, but this one in particular:
You're just shouting at the sky protesting it right now because (unlike nations that have dissolved their monarchies) there's no good alternative examples to follow. I know it's not an isolated issue but it's a decent metaphor for the whole debate. Come up with something better or at least constructive debate about the desired end state instead of just bemoaning the status quo.
The subject is the Monarchy, and you’re attributing arguments to me that I haven’t made. You just seem to want to divert attention away from the Monarchy, and then criticise my post for not having a solution to the inequality of capitalism.
On that stance, I’d still question that line of thinking anyway. People can have a moral objection to the methods of hereditary monarchy and capitalism without having all the answers as to how to unpick them from societies where they are deeply imbedded and in the positions of control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. I didn't mean to do that. My bad To be fair, though, I didn't mean you in that sense. I meant the general 'you' as you referred to people you know that 'went after capitalism'.
Yes I am deliberately deflecting from the monarchy to an extent because I'm concerned that people get tied up with all this fuss going on now and aren't addressing the real world issues. Context is important. Removing the royals creates a whole other load of issues and doesn't address wealth inequality at all really. I'm not trying to say you said things you didn't, rather to move the conversation on to more useful topics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, abolition alone does not solve what many perceive to be 'the issues' - a good debate whether they are a symptom or a cause, just not the sole cause.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 34 minutes ago
I don’t think people are forgetting the real world issues, to be fair. A lot of people have just become more piiiiiissed off by the real world issues as they see this huge display of privilege. But even these people don’t dislike the Royals as much as they dislike these Tory cuuuuunts that really have ruined our country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point this. I certainly see my own personal, political and social enemies, who are directly affecting the prosperity and mental state of my own family and circles, sitting in the House of Commons and not in Buckingham Place or even in the House of Lords. In fact I see the House of Lords as the only part of the political establishment, albeit unelected, who I have any real hope of curtailing the reckless 'progress' of the Government to any extent, as they have done before.
posted on 20/9/22
Further to the viewing figures discussion, it's just been announced that an average of 29m in the UK watched the funeral at some point across all channels, or 43% of the population.
posted on 20/9/22
Let's face it; the monarchy isn't going anywhere soon, the Tories will probably continue in power and voting reform isn't imminent.
You lot are just going to have to learn to be more stoic. Do you think you can do that?
posted on 20/9/22
I'm just here for the intellectual debate. Like Red Russian said, it's useful to talk about this and what change would mean while we're all thinking about it. Though there really is a need to get rid of the Tories immediately. Being stoic while they're actively destroying pubic services and propagating divisive narratives in society doesn't do it for me.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
What previous monarchs did impacts us today. For example we have yet another non-Welsh Prince of Wales allocated to us.
Some people can't seem to distinguish between stating the Queen was probably a nice lady and a decent head of state with the ridiculous notion of monarchy itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No more than some people cant seem to isolate that the sexual behaviour of some naughty and not so nice current day, minor royals are not grounds to abolish the role of the Crown in a Parliamentary Monarchy.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 4 minutes ago
I'm just here for the intellectual debate. Like Red Russian said, it's useful to talk about this and what change would mean while we're all thinking about it. Though there really is a need to get rid of the Tories immediately. Being stoic while they're actively destroying pubic services and propagating divisive narratives in society doesn't do it for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Labour actually have a chance?
Page 13 of 20
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18