The Queen Who Stares at Boats

[Minimalist]

Jon Stewart and the Daily Show check out the flotilla.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ju...s-at-boats


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ju...al-jubilee

[Brian37]

I am so sick of that family. I cant tell that country not to support them, but damn man, what exactly does England get from them other than a zoo exhibit for tourism? With all the economic problems and rising cost of living, they blow their fucking money on a party for a family that was started in the dark ages through tyranny?

And when they get dressed up they look like Norman Rockwell and Ru Paul got married. At the wedding the Queen looked like fucking Big Bird. And the men looked like fucking nutcrackers. And all those stupid hats that look like the nightmares of an off off off Broadway play.

That family exists because of the mundane evolutionary worship of wealth, a stupid reflection of our real desire of gaining resources.

It would be tolerable in a good economy, but it sickens me when they jack up tuition and cut jobs and have the fucking nerve to take tax payers money and say "look at me, worship me".

[Anomalocaris]

......what exactly does England get from them other than a zoo exhibit for tourism? ......

Tourism?

A pretense of still naming the head of state for members of the commonwealth?

A sense that what was gained under and for the monarchy wasn't all for nothing?

A rather pretty future queen giving suitably patriotic and aristocratic veneer to voyeurism?

[Brian37]

It IS voyeurism, tax payer voyeurism. I cant tell the citizens they shouldn't support it, but I would suggest they think about the gap between their cost of living and wealth of that family before they throw a tacky party at time when people need jobs and food and cheaper education.

[Napoléon]

I am so sick of that family. I cant tell that country not to support them, but damn man, what exactly does England get from them other than a zoo exhibit for tourism? With all the economic problems and rising cost of living, they blow their fucking money on a party for a family that was started in the dark ages through tyranny?

I'm not the biggest fan of the royal family, but they are certainly a damn sight more to my country than an 'exhibit for tourism'.

And it is more than a little ironic that you suggest that the royal family is wasting money, and you refer to 'economic problems. Hahaha, dude, do you have any fucking clue the amount of money that is made due to the royal family? Or more to the point, how fucked financially we would be without them?

[Brian37]

You really think that? You think that economics is a script? There are countries without royalty that have ups and downs. There is no country that doesn't have ups and downs.

And before you go accusing an outsider of saying they are not needed, there are plenty in that country that think the same.

America has no royalty and we have had booms and depressions. You can do it without them if you want, you just don't want to.

They are merely a relic, living museum pieces and as tacky as any reality show.

Why does one family deserve to keep the gains of tyranny? Certainly they cannot be blamed for the past actions of their ancestors, but knowing that it was wrong, the right thing to do is get rid of that type of head of state and turn it into a government where there is only a president elected by the people.

As long as their is a "Queen or king" of anything, you still are selling a meme of dictatorship. If she is just a figurehead, then she is just superfluous.

They have been reduced to symbolism, sure. But the PM still has to go through the archaic display of kissing her ass. If she is just a person, which all humans are, then pluralism is ill defended by even the symbolic notion that ownership of a state is given to one family.

Only you can decide if you want it our not. I am simply saying you don't need it.

If they got cut off by the tax payers but got to keep what they earned so far and simply became citizens and all you had was a PM, they could still do what they are doing, much like Bill Gates and lots of rich people here in the states that are not royalty do all the time.

But to say any KING in human history was needed for evolution is false. Thinking you need a dictator doesn't mean they are always going to be good, and if people are capable of making babies without being royalty and capable of gaining wealth without being royalty, that is evidence you don't need them and there are plenty humans who do that all the time.

One family does not deserve to live on welfare at that level, and that is what ALL Royalty everywhere in the world does, even if that society supports them willingly.

[Ace Otana]

I agree with Napoleon.

I'm not someone who loves the royals or is someone who'd support them hugely. They do help financially. You know how many thousands have come over? The money they spend over here. Fucking huge.
Also the royal family improve relations with other nations. I actually like the idea of having a Monarchy (with limited power) and a democratic government. A bit of both.
It was the government who got us in this financial mess. Not the Monarchy.
Besides, it's not a dictatorship. We had an English civil war. It was about the Monarchy having too much power. In the end, after the king had his head chopped off, we had both a monarchy and a parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consitutional_monarchy

[Autumnlicious]

Brian does have a good point -- other countries operate just as well sans monarchy.

And you'll be hard pressed to find a unique role that the Queen does that is not already done to greater extant by your diplomats, public relations and proper banking.

Also, the concept of a monarchy is endemically not egalitarian.

It is dictatorial.

In America, people with wealth already can enforce a lot of their will. And they do not have the state backing them, unlike your royalty.

Sickening.

---

do you have any fucking clue the amount of money that is made due to the royal family? Or more to the point, how fucked financially we would be without them?

That's right. Because the fact that they held all the cards in the past through force of arms and tyranny and possess a lot of the gold means that Golden Rule* is ok.

*He who has the gold makes the rules

[Brian37]

They do help financially

Yea, and Christians "help" with charity too, but that doesn't make the entity needed to do it.

The problem I have with the entire idea is that it is still stuck in the past. The same thing that family does could be and is done without being Royal.

Even outside this issue Hitchens said it best paraphrasing "Name me one good thing said or good deed done that a Christian could do that I could not"

So how is any current good that that family produces negate human evolution in that humans have always done good and bad? It has always existed. And since we are the same species that leaves "Royal" a mere label.

Just because a group, a family, a political party, a religion, provides something of benefit to others, does not make them the inventor of goodness.

I really would recommend everyone reading this if they have not yet, read "The New Atheism" By Victor Stinger. It goes into detail why we really are the same species and capable of the same things.

[Tiberius]

Nap & Ace, you really need to look at what the Royal Family actually brings to the country in terms of economics. All the facts and figures I've seen show that they actually cost more than they make. Buckingham Palace isn't even in the top 25 tourist attractions for the UK, and due to it being under the jurisdiction of the Queen, it is only open (partially) 6 weeks of the year.

The whole economics argument for keeping the Royal Family is illogical. The French are a Republic, yet the Palace of Versailles still attracts millions of people (all year round I might add). People do not come to England to see the Queen, they come to see the buildings and history. Getting rid of an archaic form of government would not change that; indeed, it would be a boost to the tourism industry to have all buildings owned by the "Crown" to be controlled by an organisation like the National Trust.

As I say to anyone who brings up the tourism argument though, it really is completely irrelevant. If you understand and believe in freedom and equality, it shouldn't matter if the Queen is responsible for 100% of the country's wealth; it's still an unfair system that does not belong in a democracy.

http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20w.../index.php