The Queen Who Stares at Boats

[Shell B]

It certainly doesn't help that the fortune the Royal Family has was made of the backs of the English for centuries. It's not even their money.

[Minimalist]

Besides, they were Krauts.

[Ace Otana]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Roy...ly#Funding

Still looking into the history and the current power they have. It may take me from a few hours to several days to research.

[Brian37]

And to anyone thinking I am picking on just England, no. I was married to a Japanese women, and that country too has a "Royal" family which also has been relegated to mere figurehead status. It is merely our species self projection of our own desires to have resources. Any democracy that still has a Royal family is merely stuck in a sense of childish nostalgia.

But when you take into account evolution stripped of labels, every individual born or who has lived, has the capability of the full range of human actions, both good and bad.

Being Royal doesn't make the Saudi Family value pluralism. And being Japanese or English Royalty wont make evolution stop.

[Anomalocaris]

It certainly doesn't help that the fortune the Royal Family has was made of the backs of the English for centuries. It's not even their money.

How many fortunes were not made on the backs of somebody else?

I suppose you can think of the cost of Royal upkeep as being something equivalent to the cost of keeping up the national mall, washington monument, Lincoln and Jefferson memorials in Washington DC, except of course the Royal also provides an unending act in addition to a set of exhibits.

It's not how much the Royals cost, it's the fact they probably don't cost more compare to what people elsewhere pay for much the samething without a second thought.

[Autumnlicious]

To be fair, I don't think everyone would object as much if the British Royal family was miniaturized like the Swedish and Japanese Royal families.

---

It's not how much the Royals cost, it's the fact they probably don't cost more compare to what people elsewhere pay for much the samething without a second thought.

Good thing that Tibs has blasted holes in the tourism argument, which means that "doesn't cost more" statement you made is going to be hard to meet.

---

How many fortunes were not made on the backs of somebody else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Not to mention you make an extremely ill defined and non specific statement, giving you the ability to redefine the bounds while asserting that Shell's statement is somehow incorrect. How convenient.

Assuming the meaning of Shell's statement pertains to royalty in the British Isles, it is noted that they (nobility) appropriated goods (like in every other country with an aristocracy) for their own purposes and have documented their own gains.

I do not understand how historical inertia is a compelling argument against the proposition, which is that the monarchy is no longer needed.

[Anomalocaris]

To be fair, I don't think everyone would object as much if the British Royal family was miniaturized like the Swedish and Japanese Royal families.

---

It's not how much the Royals cost, it's the fact they probably don't cost more compare to what people elsewhere pay for much the samething without a second thought.

Good thing that Tibs has blasted holes in the tourism argument, which means that "doesn't cost more" statement you made is going to be hard to meet.

No, it's not. Does the maintenance of the national mall and all the fixed memorials and monuments around it really pay for itself? If not, then why is the comparison not apt? I understand the annuall invest in Royals is actually relatively modest, and won't be able to pay for even a single day's American presence in Afghanistan.

---

How many fortunes were not made on the backs of somebody else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

It is enough that I know for myself which arguments are sound. There is no need to restrict myself to sound arguments if unsound ones would work just as well.

[Ace Otana]

I've been spending quite some time reconsidering my stance on the subject. If you asked me to step forward if I was against the monarch or step back to support it I wouldn't step either way. Because I don't give a flying fuck. The monarchy doesn't bother me, doesn't affect me and so I have no problems with it.
If the people vote for a republic then I think a republic we should have. After all, that's democracy.

What I'm currently looking into, is - Is there more benefits in having a monarchy than there is the problems they cause?
Depending on the answer, I'll adjust my stance on the matter as such.

[Autumnlicious]

No, it's not. Does the maintenance of the national mall and all the fixed memorials and monuments around it really pay for itself? If not, then why is the comparison not apt? I understand the annuall invest in Royals is actually relatively modest, and won't be able to pay for even a single day's American presence in Afghanistan.

I'd like to see where the fucking overhead of a Royal family somehow negates the costs of their cultural artifacts, like Buckingham Palace.

Really.

And metric by US war cost is fucking ridiculous -- The James Webb Space Telescope costs 8$billion and another Nimitz-class vessel costs 6$billion. Were we to argue relative costs, having another redundant cruiser is more preferable.

You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that an argument has to be sound to be useful.

I know. What a fool I am.

[Brian37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Roy...ly#Funding

Still looking into the history and the current power they have. It may take me from a few hours to several days to research.

Why?

The British monarchy started like every dictatorship in human history for the same stupid credulity of human ignorance. The same thing that lead the Egyptians to power.

Humans from an evolutionary standpoint are pattern seeking. The problem that lead to kings/ Pharaohs/ dictators, was the concept that good fortune was linked to the divine. The flaw in our species evolution is that when we do good or get lucky, some magical being must have helped us.

Now, just like I wouldn't give my land back to Native Americans, I do not expect the Royal Family to become poor. But I am quite sure that they have enough private investments that holding that title is needless.

If we are as a species to move to the future, then we must discard even symbolic Royalty. That is not to say that we should erase history. I think that all palaces should be Museums like the palaces and tombs of Egypt. But we should not give blind worship or titles to people that imply the past where power cannot change. "Queen" "King" "Pharaoh" are all sedentary terms of a feudal past . They are archaic concepts even symbolically.