Entire Queen's household is called to 'highly unusual' emergency meeting at Buckingham Palace tod

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: stolencar18

their actions speak for themselves
and I can judge them on their actions as can anyone else

no one said I was superior , it's the royals who claim dominion and superiority over everyone else.
It's just you who thinks i'm claiming superiority because im judging them for being royalty, but tell me when its wrong to judge other humans for being inhumane and also exercising superiority over others, I judge them for their actions.

They effectively live in luxury when the nation they rule rots beneath them
so I can judge them any way I see fit I am only human after all and we all like to pass judgement on others , they are not fit to rule anyone.

You dont have to like it that in my opinion I think they are scum , no one is above anyone else , the bodies we are born into do not grant us divine rights over anyone else , we are all made from he same biological materials and are all equal.

No, we're not all made equal.
We're all individuals. Equality never has and never will exist, biologically, economically, spiritually, morally, legally or in any other way.

a reply to: UKTruth

So do you support an hereditary constitutional monarchy for the UK then?

If the unelected head of state can refuse acts of parliament, but lets the #ty ones through because there would be 'a constitutional crisis' then whats the point of the laws allowing them to do so.

I'm a parliamentarian, so if you are a royalist I'd be interested in reading how you can defend such an institution in democratic terms.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone can support a head of state being decided by accident of birth alone.

Given the way our last few presidential elections have gone, I'm honestly wondering if democracy will still exist in any meaning way a century from now.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: uncommitted

All the other points in Sapiens post were pretty much accurate and in agreement with how I feel about our hereditary constitutional monarchy as well.

I'm interested, do you agree with the overwhelming bulk of the post, or just the focus on his final paragraph?

I don't believe they were accurate, you do. That doesn't make either of us right, the majority was an opinion piece by someone with a chip on their shoulder.

Personally I think people who have kids that they know they cannot afford to bring up without handouts from the state are a much bigger drain on our society than an institution that brings in a net profit to the country, but hey, let's just all have our own little areas of feeling hard done to so we can feel we are in some way victimised.

a reply to: uncommitted

You deflect instead of defending your unelected monarch.
I also have passion for the issues which affect the majority, but this thread is not about that, I'm asking do you support a head of state anointed through accident of birth?
If so I'd be interested in your argument regarding democracy questions.

a reply to: dianajune


Did she finally join Thatcher in hell?
2nd

Royalism is outdated. They are nothing more than a highly subsidised family.

There were several rolls of toilet paper unaccounted for... the queen opened up an investigation and nobody returns home before the culprit has been found.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: uncommitted

You deflect instead of defending your unelected monarch.
I also have passion for the issues which affect the majority, but this thread is not about that, I'm asking do you support a head of state anointed through accident of birth?
If so I'd be interested in your argument regarding democracy questions.

A) you stated that the post I was responding to was 'pretty much accurate'. So does that mean there is medical evidence that the Queen is senile? Please, show it if you have it. When a post is so opinionated I treat it for what it is.

B) Unelected monarch? I personally don't have an issue with that, I would find an elected one slightly weird.

and C) You are I'm sure fully aware that the role is now more ceremonial and has been for more than a century. It adds to what we are - I am not sure being a republic would actually make any difference at all to anything meaningful except the loss of tourist revenue, the loss of a certain amount of global interest in our country and of course would mean that we might end up with a prime ministers head on every coin and note.

What's your real issue? How do you think your life is actually affected?

a reply to: uncommitted

Nope I'm a parliamentarian who wants to tie up the loose ends of democracy in our country.
I note you failed to argue any point as I asked regarding the obvious democracy questions.

More deflection questioning how I'm personally affected.
So again, and rephrased, do you agree an unelected head of state based on accident of birth is an example of democracy?
Simple yes or no if you like, deflections I'll just be a dog with a bone.

This debate is intellectual exercise and interesting to me, nothing more.
If you don't care either way then you are not a royalist.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I saw a story saying he retired.

www.msn.com...

He's not dead.

a reply to: rickymouse

He's not dead.
He retired.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

I saw a story saying he retired.

www.msn.com...

He's not dead.

Yup one of my earlier posts raised the retiring from public life angle.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Good god. Can you believe all these outrageous stories?

Of course I'm hours and hours past these posts and everyone knows no one is dead and Philip has announced his retirement.

a reply to: uncommitted

Believe it or not many kingdoms voted kings.

originally posted by: Plotus
The Queens life has been a laborious one with personal family drama and tragedy that no one should have to go through. I Have a Great deal of respect for Her Majesty. And.... I'm American
God save the Queen...

Ah but the important point, Is she a Good Person?

The last time "Parliamentarians" had their way, we ended up with what was the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. Christmas was banned, women had to dress head to foot in dark clothes and wear a headscarf at all times. We sat indoors on Sunday reading scritpture or were hanged. Gaiety was a crime and being Gay doubly do ....

The Monarchy is miles cheaper than a president. And does the job through a sense of responsibility rather than desire and greed.

But I understand why religious fundamentalists and money/power obsessed capitalists hate our monarchy ....

a reply to: AndyMayhew

And you deflect poorly.
I don't believe in any deities, I think democracy is more important than the costs of the alternative to a constitutional monarchy, I think the head of state is pointless and toothless signing every act of parliament so I support the sovereignty of parliament over a monarch or other figurehead.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
Ah but the important point, Is she a Good Person?

She did her duty without complaint

She neither sought largess nor took advantage of it.

Can the same be said of other heads of state around the world over the past 60 years? From Peron to Bush to Mugabe to Marcos and many, many more.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: AndyMayhew

And you deflect poorly.
I don't believe in any deities, I think democracy is more important than the costs of the alternative to a constitutional monarchy, I think the head of state is pointless and toothless signing every act of parliament so I support the sovereignty of parliament over a monarch or other figurehead.

Until people vote for a Parliament based on the person rather than the street gang they are a member of, I hope and pray we have a monarch.

But the point is, a constitutional monarchy is cheaper than the alternative: a rich power hungry lying cheating capitalist wanting control.

Would you really rather have Trump or Bliar or Putin or Mugabe than the Queen?!!!

a reply to: AndyMayhew

She signed off every #ty act of parliament in her reign.
What's the point of a head of state by accident of birth who can't refuse to sign without creating a constitutional crisis?