Why Hate the British Royals?

reply to post by ItsallCrazy


Pathetic rant. Seriously pathetic!

Apparently according to you the Queen is popular and that is one reason to keep her. So were Hitler and Stalin during their time. And I know so is the King of Saudi Arabia who was greeted by many American presidents and I think Bush even gave him a kiss! Beats your old woman's Ipod any day I'd say! As for royalty being a "tradition", so is colonialism and slavery for the British if my history is correct. Why dont you chain a poor brown man with a turban to a post at Trafalgar square for the nostalgia sake?

Lastly, what does our finances have anything to do with your embrace of arcane concepts like "Royalty"? Unfortunately for US, we didnt have millions of poor people across the world in colonies working in perpetual servitude for centuries to service our nation's treasury and our "royalty"! Our "empire" if such a thing exists at all; exists only in the hearts and minds of people. As for Americas being "greedy bastards", I would claim that our contribution in the last 400 years of existence is greater than your contribution to humanity in the last 4000 years and there are more free and democratic nations today including your very own Britain thanks to American involvement . Not to mention that America is the largest aid donor in the world since the last 50 years helping Billions of people world wide. As for your "princess" Diana's contributions, I would argue, that there are thousands of Americans and others who are doing and have done much much more. One example would be Bill Gates whos contribution to charitable endeavors both financially and physically is as of today much more significant if not as flamboyant as your "princess"; not to diminish her contributions!

So far your case for the continuation of your "royalty" is weak at best as you have presented it. Even tourism is a weak excuse because tourist interests could be maintained even without a functioning monarchy in place and very few if any tourists get to see the Queen in person. There is in reality very little if any use for your Britain to practice such an arcane practice such as Monarchy, especially at such a huge burden to your national treasury and as the vestige of a troubled and embarrassing history of oppression and exploitation of millions.

Originally posted by BAZ752
reply to post by IAF101

 

Educate yourself on the use of appropriate English language:

''Its hilarious as an American that the British still havent moved past such an arcane concept as "royalty"! In some ways the UK is as primitive as Saudi Arabia in that regard.''

Is that not inanely and obscenely generalising the British?

What a ridiculous statement....

Do you read or understand English ? It is generalizing but hardly inane to any discerning person who sees Britain for what it is - a democracy led by a Monarch!

Arent all British required to pledge allegiance to that Queen ?

Its ridiculous of you to claim otherwise!

reply to post by foxhoundone


That is the case if you employed with any government in the developed world. Whats the difference between your HM govt and the Federal government in any other developed country ?

reply to post by IAF101

Arent all British required to pledge allegiance to that Queen ?

I'm British and I've never been asked to pledge my allegiance to the queen!!!
So I guess the answer is a huge NO. . .

Originally posted by BAZ752

Appears to me that you've just been completely flammed and rightly so. Shame, you utterly destroyed the theme of this thread because I was hoping, like the OP, that more insightful and constuctive contributions may have been engaged, but clearly not in your case.

It funny, I was looking for a few intelligent responses but considering the topic I guess I was hoping for too much. Apparently, willing deference to an arcane practice like Royalty requires a component of mental apathy.

Originally posted by BAZ752
How irritating you foolish types can be!

You can be sure that most Americans and other people from proper functioning democracies echo this sentiment right back at you.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by IAF101

 

Arent all British required to pledge allegiance to that Queen ?

I'm British and I've never been asked to pledge my allegiance to the queen!!!
So I guess the answer is a huge NO. . .

Ever sung God Save the Queen ?? No ? How about:

British Armed Forces:
All persons enlisting in the British Army and the Royal Marines are required by the Army Act 1955 to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation:

"I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God."

British Citizenship Oath of Allegiance:

"I... swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law."

British Parliament:
Under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, members of both Houses of Parliament are required to take an Oath of Allegiance upon taking their seat in Parliament.[6][7]

The usual wording of the oath is:

"I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

Members who object to swearing the oath are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act, 1888:

"I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law."

Fortunately, a few sane souls have made their stand however futile:

Opposition to pledging allegiance to a Monarch in Britain:

Sinn Fein MP for Mid Ulster, Martin McGuinness, refused to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the British monarch as a result of his Irish republican views having been elected in 1997. He was consequently refused permission to actively take up his position in the House of Commons.

Subsequently McGuiness took the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. The application was deemed inadmissible on the basis that the requirement of an oath of allegiance to a reigning monarch is "reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support... the workings of representative democracy in the respondent State."[15] McGuiness and other elected Sinn Féin MPs do not participate in the House of Commons to this day, following a policy of Abstentionism.

So much for not being a "subject" of a Monarch!

reply to post by IAF101


Actually, No, I have never sung God Save The Queen. I'm not a royalist so why would I?

You're making that age old mistake of believing all Brits love the Windsors! You are very much mistaken.

Don't know if anyone is aware of this, if you rob/steal anything of HM postal staff whilst wearing their uniform it could lead to the death sentence
for the perpetrator, also if you fall fowl of the law and are cautioned by a law enforcement officer they have to have their hat on,
Why because of the royal coat of arms of HM the queen, HM is the real leader of the country in Judaical matters

Originally posted by IAF101
As for Americas being "greedy bastards", I would claim that our contribution in the last 400 years of existence is greater than your contribution to humanity in the last 4000 years and there are more free and democratic nations today including your very own Britain thanks to American involvement .

Shakespeare, Penicillin, The Internet, TV, The industrial revolution and the English language Vs. MTV, Cheeseburgers and Paris Hilton. Tough call.

So far your case for the continuation of your "royalty" is weak at best as you have presented it. Even tourism is a weak excuse because tourist interests could be maintained even without a functioning monarchy in place and very few if any tourists get to see the Queen in person.

Obviously you have never been to London. tens of thousands of people a day stand outside Buckingham Palace. Mostly American and Japanese. They take photos and buy Union Jack hats. They go to the Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels in droves. They know that they are unlikely to see the Queen but they still come. God knows why. Tourism is the ONLY reason for keeping the monarchy that i can see. To say that it is "weak at best" is a betrayal of your total lack of knowledge on this subject.

There is in reality very little if any use for your Britain to practice such an arcane practice such as Monarchy, especially at such a huge burden to your national treasury and as the vestige of a troubled and embarrassing history of oppression and exploitation of millions.

I am not a monarchist, infact, i would welcome a return to the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland that old Cromwell had going. BUT, the Queen cost the taxpayer 69 pence per person last year. That's $1.14 in your money. $1.14. I would hardly call that a huge burden to anything or any one.

and as for an "embarrassing history of oppression and exploitation of millions." that is a bit rich coming from a country where black people couldn't even sit at the front of a bus until 50 years ago! An irony that would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.

How predictable, and pathetic that this has turned into an anti-Brit thread and that we are responsible for all the world's ill's, we still own the US and the US is far better than the UK etc.
My only suprise is that I haven't heard the 'we saved your arses' and 'if it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German' bollocks.
Or even the Queen Liz is a lizard bs.

It is comple and utter nonsense.

I haven't the time, or the inclination at present to go through all this #e but i'm sure i'll return later when I'm suitably refreshed.

Te royal family are viewed as quaint anomolies, rather like the eccentric, sherry tippling aunty who turns up at family functions and is simply put in a corner and humoured.
They are an irrelevance.
The real power, both in the UK and US is much more insiduous and discreet.
The royal family will be history when the British people think it is proper and right.

As for the US, you are young and will learn.
The world is a better place for you.
But you need to rid yourself of the arrogance of youth.

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by BAZ752

Appears to me that you've just been completely flammed and rightly so. Shame, you utterly destroyed the theme of this thread because I was hoping, like the OP, that more insightful and constuctive contributions may have been engaged, but clearly not in your case.

It funny, I was looking for a few intelligent responses but considering the topic I guess I was hoping for too much. Apparently, willing deference to an arcane practice like Royalty requires a component of mental apathy.

Originally posted by BAZ752
How irritating you foolish types can be!

You can be sure that most Americans and other people from proper functioning democracies echo this sentiment right back at you.

Is that your attempt to take the moral high ground? # this thread I have better things to be wasting my time on.

Originally posted by CRB86
Shakespeare, Penicillin, The Internet, TV, The industrial revolution and the English language Vs. MTV, Cheeseburgers and Paris Hilton. Tough call.

You are utterly mistaken. The TV and the Internet were invented by Americans. The civilian internet was actually worked on at CERN by an American where he developed the TCP/IP protocols. The internet is definitely an American creation. So is the airplane, the personal computer, the microchip, the integrated circuit, the transistor and the light bulb and so on.
Also the TV was invented by Vladimir Kosma Zworykin a Russian born American working for Westinghouse and he held the first patent but another American Philo Taylor Farnsworth had a working picture! The man you allude to is Edwin Belin an Englishman who patented the sending of photographs through wire and radar etc. He could merely capture flashes of light and transmit them to be projected on a mirror at the receiving end.

Originally posted by CRB86
Obviously you have never been to London. tens of thousands of people a day stand outside Buckingham Palace. Mostly American and Japanese. They take photos and buy Union Jack hats. They go to the Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels in droves. They know that they are unlikely to see the Queen but they still come. God knows why. Tourism is the ONLY reason for keeping the monarchy that i can see. To say that it is "weak at best" is a betrayal of your total lack of knowledge on this subject.

I have been to Britain quite a few times and only once did I bother with the changing of the Guard and so on. The reason tourists flock to these sites is because apart from these well advertised sights there is little else to see in between the few short bursts of sunshine in London ! Quite recently another attraction has been the Eye. When tourists from around the world consider a giant Ferris Wheel as an attraction, it is definitely an indication to the paucity of adequate attractions. And I think at best there are a thousand people, not the "tens of thousands" that you claim. However, as I've already said, even tourism need not be affected as the changing of the Guard or a stroll through the Tower of London to see the spoils of English colonialism has nothing to do with having a Monarch in place. These activities could continue without a Queen.

Originally posted by CRB86
BUT, the Queen cost the taxpayer 69 pence per person last year. That's $1.14 in your money. $1.14. I would hardly call that a huge burden to anything or any one.

That is quite a LOT considering that they already pay immense amounts in tax for the functioning of your socialist health care system apart from suffer higher costs of living on average in the developed world.
The population of Britain is 61 million and with $1.14 per head, that is almost $69 million per year! A staggering amount for a person who holds all the titles of privilege yet virtually no responsibilities! By comparison, the president of the United States makes only $400,000 a year and has immense responsibilities.

Originally posted by CRB86
and as for an "embarrassing history of oppression and exploitation of millions." that is a bit rich coming from a country where black people couldn't even sit at the front of a bus until 50 years ago! An irony that would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.

I'm sure the oppression and exploitation of a few million African Americans pales in comparison to the centuries of servitude and exploitation of dozens of nations across the globe from India through Africa through the middle east and even to the Americas! The exploitation of hundreds of millions of people across the globe for centuries doesnt hold a candle to the internal social inequalities inside one nation.

Guys, seriously, he's a troll. Seen it before.

It would be nice if people bothered to discuss the actual points made in the OP, but I've given up hope of any intelligent response. Never mind.

reply to post by IAF101


Apologies to Rich23, I should know better but I can not just let IAF101 spout his lies and anti-UK nonsense without reply.

Have you never heard of the Industrial Revolution?
en.wikipedia.org...
The Industrial Revolution is generally regarded as one the most significant events in man's evolution.

You talk of slavery.
Slavery is a very old practice and has been practiced in amny sultures and societies through the centuries, particularly in Africa where it it was common place.
The slave trade to the US relied on Americans wanting to exploit black people by owning them and paying them nothing and just providing survival amounts of sustinence.
If Americans had not been so unscrupulous then maybe it would not have been such a common practice.
Your refusal to accept any responsibility for it yourselves is wuite pitiful.
In fact the UK took the lead in abolishing slavery and was considered quite liberal and forward thinking by the morals and standards of the day.
en.wikipedia.org...

Your own form of government and your legal system is based on English and French democracy and UK Law.
A good guide on The British Constitution and our electoral and government process is here;
www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
You will see that since 1201 the British monarchy lost more and more power until they became what they are today, a ceremonial decadence with no power and little influence.

As for pledging allegiance to our Queen.
Only upon joining The Armed Forces.
Those of us born here need never pledge allegiance to the monarchy if we choose; I personally have never done so and have never even been asked to.
Of course new citizens pledge allegiance to something, so why not our traditional figurehead, because that's all she is.
American's pledge allegiance to a flag, an inaminate object!
How bizarre is that in the 21st Century??

And to quote a terrorist as supporting evidence of people refusing to pledge allegiance????
They are MP's.
It is merely traditional and ceremonial.
The Queen has no power whatsover and so little influence it is laughable.

Television.
John Logie Baird, Scotsman, London, 1925.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Internet.
Tim Berners-Lee turned the WorldWideWeb into reality.
An Englishman...in America.

The airplane.
Definately American.

We could probably bandy inventions to each other all day long, the truth is that most technological advancements are a development from other inventions or new adaptions.
Britain has contributed massively to the technological development of mankind, so has the US, to suggest anything other is ridiculous and the arguement is slightly juvenile to be perfectly honest!

You express disgust at the achievements of The British Empire.
Yes, some horrific things occurred, but no worse than what other countries committed.
You judge yesterday's actions using today's morals, a terrible mistake.
The British advanced their Empire to such an extent because they exported structure and order.
Some colonies desire a return to such days instead of the inherent corruption and poltical repression they now have to endure.
And let's compare The British Empire with one of their biggest foe's of the day...The Spanish Empire.
Let's look at how they treat their subjects in Central and Southern America.
They decimated whole cultures and peoples.
The British tried to involve and utilise local peoples, they knew they could not administer an empire of that size without local involvement.

So why the singling out of Britain?

And as for Americans.
Your treatment of Native Americans can hardly be described as benevolent and honourable.
Let he without sin and people in glasshouses springs to mind.

Social inequalities.
Oh yes we have quite a few.
But no more than the US where the extremes are probably worse.
The US is as class cultured as the UK, maybe even more so.

The British Royal family are an outdated phenomonon but they do no harm, have absolutely no power whatsoever and very little influence.
Why foreign nationals should get so wound up over them and their role is quite beyond me.
They are quaint reminders of days of yore and a perfect example of the dangers of inter-breeding.
There are much bigger fish to fry than these idiots.

The enemy we all face, and always, are sly and devious and would never be so public as a royal family in this day and age.
They have retreated into the shadows but the strings that they pull in their efforts to control each and everyone of us are long and tangled.
They are the people we should root out and vent our spleen at.
Trading 'we are better than you' insults over the internet simply detracts from them and their activities and is, well, quite frankly pretty pathetic!

I think our Royals are great. Eccentric, funny, sometimes a bit rash, sometimes foolish, but they're one of the last great traditions Britain has and I'd lay down my life for them. Well, maybe I'm not quite that loyal, but I'd certainly argue quite hard to keep them!

The American model scares the Bejeezus out of me. An elected president? Another Tony Blair? Or maybe Neil Kinnock? Dear lord. Please no. No no no.

As for the cost, it's a pittance compared to the amount we pour into the EU every year. I don't begrudge it one bit.

They also work very hard. I think Prince Charles has about 600 royal appointments every year, travelling the world and promoting British interests abroad, forging relationships with world leaders, that kind of thing. He also does a lot of work the his rainforest project and youth schemes. Top bloke. He'll make a very good King. I just hope he carries on speaking his mind.

Don't knock them, you johnny foreigners! Or I'll ... I'll... make you a strong cup of tea, and sit down for a chat about it!

With regards to Oliver Cromwell - he was a traitor and a nasty piece of work. If he were alive today I'd give him what-for, and no mistake!

God save the Queen!

And in response to the OP, sorry I got a bit sidetracked then.

Theoretically the armed forces are allied to the Crown, not to the executive. But in reality the vast, cumbersome bureaucracy known as the MOD pulls the strings.

If there were conflict between parliament and the Crown I presume that the armed forces would side with the Crown. Not very likely though.

Parliament is accountable to the Crown as well, and all the British government ministries have the prefix "H.M.", although I think nu-labour are trying to phase that prefix out. Luckily they'll be in opposition within a year

And the Queen has an advisory role to the PM, although how and how often this is used is questionable and largely unknown. All goes on behind closed doors. That's okay provided the Royals are largely benevolent, which I firmly believe they are, or at least I trust their benevolence a lot more than I do politicians', especially in the current age.

In terms of power overseas - they're definitely part of the "old boy" network, so probably carry some influence. Less so these days though.

I wouldn't worry about it too much - we're not going to reclaim America any time soon

I live in England and I dislike the royal family as it stands today.
The arrogance of a family to believe they were put there by the power of God where in reality they came from nothing but a bunch of thugs who went around killing people till they got they own way. Also the current royal family have no real right to the crown if you followed the route of succession unless someone can tell me how an English Queen had a 11 month pregnancy and in which the 1st 2 months the King was out of the country...
Also the fact in which we are the subjects to the queen also makes me want to throw the monarchy out altogether. I am noones subject I DONT OWE ANYTHING TO THE QUEEN.. jeez we left that behind when we got rid of the royals 1st time around and brought in democracy.

HOwever if the nature of the royal family changed so that they became the treasure holders of britain in which they are the servants of the people protecting the treasures so to speak i would be more inclined to think more favourably of them

Also instead of bringing Britain 30 years in to the future by showing people how we should live they live they lives 50 years in the past where it no longer matters...


[edit on 31-7-2009 by loner007]

Originally posted by loner007
HOwever if the nature of the royal family changed so that they became the treasure holders of britain in which they are the servants of the people protecting the treasures so to speak i would be more inclined to think more favourably of them

Do we have any treasures left to protect? I thought Gordon Brown flogged them all in a car boot sale

[edit on 31-7-2009 by slinkey10]

Funny how nobody's addressed the points I made in the OP.

It says a great deal about people's comprehension abilities and attention span.