The Queen Can Get Stuffed

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course I would. Why wouldn’t I? It’s the proper form of address.

It’s what mature people do.

Boru

Proper?


The only difference between Royals and Mafios is the head of the Mafia doesn't dress like Liberache. The Don doesn' t hide behind "divine right" - he muscled his way in all on his own..


The Royals are lies built upon lies that gullible people bought into.

Yes, proper. 

Some female members of the Royal Family have worn outfits that would have made Liberace green with envy.

Actually, the royals are built on conquest, power, familicide (real and metaphorical), and more that a bit of good old fashioned backstabbing. The lies are just lagniappe.

As for addressing the Pope, it’s really no different than using anyone else’s title when speaking to them - doctor, constable, captain, and so on.

Boru

[paulpablo]

It's like us glamorizing pirates in some parts of the U.S. We know they were very bad people but it's hard for some of us to not to get caught up in the romanticism of sailing the Caribbean on the lam, drinking rum and bedding wenches.

I've never been able to get into the royal thing, myself. The stuffiness, inbreeding and enforced formality was never my thing. I just cringe at how it was the worst form of government ever conceived and am very grateful we have largely evolved out of it.

The capitalist in me can appreciate the fact that the silly royals in GB apparently have managed to bring in more tourist money than has been expended on them. They have turned a profit. I don't begrudge the Brits that. Good for them. Just don't pretend any of the royals are any more special than Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.

I'm always really skeptical about the maths on how people work out they have made more money than is spent on them.

Some of the ways people calculate it are ridiculous.  I viewed one website which said the royals generated 150 million for places that sell food during the royal wedding.  They calculated this because 40 percent of a poll said they were interested in the royal wedding and if 40 percent of the population of Britain was inspired to spend 10 pounds this must mean they spent 150 million.  

I think Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are more trust worthy in the sense you can't argue people definitely get what they pay for when buying their products.  With the royals they're already paid for and some statistics show they might be worth it.  

When it comes to spending sums of money to restore and maintain palaces, top of the range education for everyone, all year around security, I find it hard to believe it can all be payed for by royal fanatics.

[Anomalocaris]

I think study indicated the royal family caused foreign tourists to spend more money to visit britain (rather than somewhere else) by an amount greater than the family’s upkeep.

In other words the royal family is to britain what Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck is to Florida.

[Woah0]

It seems that a whole lot of people have not thought this through.

Why would anyone in their right minds idolize "The Royals"?

These are a bunch of inbreds whose claim to fame is being related to a bunch of evil pricks who claimed "right to rule" by virtue of "God said we are in charge".

Anyone who makes such claims deserves ridicule at least - involuntary commitment to a mental institution at best.


Atheists should be ashamed of going along with this crap..

Americans do a disservice to the Colonists who risked everything throwing the King out of our lives.

I call no one "Your Highness" and I'm not kissing the fucking Pope' s ring either..



Divine Right can kiss my ass..

What if the royals breed with people from around the world? Would it be ok then? Sorta like a queen bee thing

[Woah0]

I don't think the British Monarchy is in any way comparable to religious fundamentalism in 'Murican  politics.

It all comes down to the exact same thing.

"God said we can".

But dont you think people praise Dawkins as a form of God of atheism when you think of it :
(Joke aside. The belief in authority figures is what i mean)
The only difference is you dont get knighted for it.
But Britain is mainly secular i think. I think lack of work culture is reason a culture stagnates, or despair irrational way of going forth with it.

[Belacqua]

I remember when John McCain died. There was a thread about him on The [S]inking Atheist web site. I pointed out that he was a blood-stained war-monger and the world was better off without him.

Boy, that triggered people. You must never speak ill of the recently dead!

Except it looks as if you can, actually.

[Woah0]

I remember when John McCain died.  There was a thread about him on The [S]inking Atheist web site. I pointed out that he was a blood-stained war-monger and the world was better off without him.

Boy, that triggered people. You must never speak ill of the recently dead!

Except it looks as if you can, actually.

Yeah but Queen Elizabeth 2 isnt exactly a warmonger. Since UK isnt a absolute monarchy, its a symbolic thing is all. If it was a British politican who was that, then ok all shots fired.

[Belacqua]

I remember when John McCain died.  There was a thread about him on The [S]inking Atheist web site. I pointed out that he was a blood-stained war-monger and the world was better off without him.

Boy, that triggered people. You must never speak ill of the recently dead!

Except it looks as if you can, actually.

Yeah but Queen Elizabeth 2 isnt exactly a warmonger. Since UK isnt a absolute monarchy, its a symbolic thing is all. If it was a British politican who was that, then ok all shots fired.

Yeah, people can debate about the evil of the regime she represented, but I don't think she was personally responsible. As you say, it's symbolic.

But if that's true then it's bad to speak ill of her when she's recently dead. Unlike John McCain. But that rule seems to be pretty flexible.

[Woah0]

Yeah but Queen Elizabeth 2 isnt exactly a warmonger. Since UK isnt a absolute monarchy, its a symbolic thing is all. If it was a British politican who was that, then ok all shots fired.

Yeah, people can debate about the evil of the regime she represented, but I don't think she was personally responsible. As you say, it's symbolic.

But if that's true then it's bad to speak ill of her when she's recently dead. Unlike John McCain. But that rule seems to be pretty flexible.

Basically. If it was lets say "Winston Churchill" then alright, he is kinda debatable. Like the coup d etat on Iran for example.
But yeah. I think Sam Seder is the only mainstream leftist that seemed to be mainly mature on this. Because all the others like TYT and such are just feeling like the opposite version of MAGA dignity level on this.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah but Queen Elizabeth 2 isnt exactly a warmonger. Since UK isnt a absolute monarchy, its a symbolic thing is all. If it was a British politican who was that, then ok all shots fired.

Yeah, people can debate about the evil of the regime she represented, but I don't think she was personally responsible. As you say, it's symbolic.

But if that's true then it's bad to speak ill of her when she's recently dead. Unlike John McCain. But that rule seems to be pretty flexible.

I speak ill of recently dead people all the time.

I am SO looking forward to Henry Kissinger snuffing it.

Boru