Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your thoughts on the royal family of England?

Rate this topic


Dan Bidewell
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why do you put United in quotes?

I think the reason (venturing a guess) why united is in quotations may have something to do with the fact that despite the title, the nations aren't exactly united in spirit. This can be seen in the ill will the Scottish-N. Irish-Welsh-English people still bear towards one another. I still hear the Welsh getting made fun of, though for the life of me I can't figure out why (unless it's for their funny accent).

(Removed reference to part of a post by another member, which was subsequently deleted. - softwareNerd)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason (venturing a guess) why united is in quotations may have something to do with the fact that despite the title, the nations aren't exactly united in spirit. This can be seen in the ill will the Scottish-N. Irish-Welsh-English people still bear towards one another. I still hear the Welsh getting made fun of, though for the life of me I can't figure out why (unless it's for their funny accent).

(Removed reference to part of a post by another member, which was subsequently deleted. - softwareNerd)

I think the British are united in spirit. I would describe myself as English, but I do know that Britain is a lot of what England is about,and in many ways it is the Royall Family who keep the last vestiges of Britishness going. The contribution Scotland has made to Britain, for example, is far greater in proportion to their population or size than you would expect it to be.

Edited by Dan Bidewell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

I put the united, in “United” Kingdom in quotes for a very specific reason.

Unlike the United States, which was composed of 13 colonies that originally volunteered to work together, the “United” Kingdoms, were formed from conquest. Wales was an independent kingdom, and was conquered, as was Scotland, and Ireland.

Hell wasn’t Ireland conquered twice. Once to reform them from their evil pagan ways, then again when Henry VIII decided that he wanted a divorce, and the Pope said no?

Furthermore, I don’t think that the people of the UK, are actually ruled, by the Queen, but she is still an unelected person, who simply because of her bloodline has a great deal to do with how your country is run. However is she, again an unelected official, the only one that can choose a PM?

Also there is the House of Lords. Am I wrong, (and I may be), but do you not have to be from some sort of “royal” lineage, or have been granted that rank to be “elected” a member?

I mean sure a lot of our Senators are rich, and from prominent families, but being poor, and from obscurity does not prohibit one from joining the Senate, only the votes of the constituency does.

Admittedly it is rare, but, we even had a chief of state that was uneducated, and from a family of no account. He even managed to re-unify us during a time of great upheaval in America.

As for English history being the old testament of American history. All I meant was that our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the history of England, however when given the chance to reinstall a monarchy here they did not. Hell if I am not mistaken the whole basis for our legal system is based on British Common law. Also the Founders made a point of enumerating the rights of the individual, and specifically delineating, and limiting the powers of the various branches of government. Sh*t if things had been that way under the crown of England, we still might be part of that “United” Kingdom, instead of being independent.

I will readily admit that things today are not as they would have been under men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Henry, and the like. I would rather be a “retard” in the Colonies, than a “genius” in the Kingdom.

As for an early comment as to whether I was kidding about being in the IRA, had I been raised in Ireland. I was not kidding; I can see how easily I could have been drawn in their ranks, especially if my country was occupied by a foreign power.

Still glad my people were indentured servants.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wales was an independent kingdom, and was conquered, as was Scotland, and Ireland.

Hell wasn’t Ireland conquered twice. Once to reform them from their evil pagan ways, then again when Henry VIII decided that he wanted a divorce, and the Pope said no...

Also there is the House of Lords. Am I wrong, (and I may be), but do you not have to be from some sort of “royal” lineage, or have been granted that rank to be “elected” a member?..,

As for an early comment as to whether I was kidding about being in the IRA, had I been raised in Ireland. I was not kidding; I can see how easily I could have been drawn in their ranks, especially if my country was occupied by a foreign power.

Ireland was conquered and invaded. But Henry VIII was part of the Tudor family, a Welsh dynasty who managed to exploit the rivalries between the House of York and Lancaster for the English throne. Scotland was never conquered. Indeed, the last "invasion" on English soil was from Scotland. England and Scotland were joined under one crown after the throne passed from Elizabeth I to her Scottish cousin (son of Mary Queen of Scots). The United Kingdom came into being with the Act of Union in 1707 when the two countries were united with a joint parliament as well as a crown. In a way you could say that England was subsumed with Scotland into the United Kingdom, the two entered as equals it is only due to its greater population that it acheived such dominance.

Besides which, it was all so long ago - should the English still resent the French because of their invasion in 1066?

Tony Blair has reformed the House of Lords, with only ninety-odd hereditary peers left as a stop-gap measure until the full reform is completed. In a way this is worse than the old system, as the chamber has been stuffed with appointed "Tony's Cronies".

As for the IRA comment, would you agree with people who express support for Hammas or the Mujahadein or al-Q'aeda based on the same argument you have used? It is still terrorism; whether it is balaclava'd Feinians blowing up British army servicemen's cars on the back roads of Armagh or bomb on a packed commuter bus in the suburbs of Tel Aviv - or even a 'plane flown into the New York skyline (which I assume you would not support)

Edited by Dan Bidewell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mother's been doing our family geneology, and it appears that the only classification I can rightfully have is "some kind of Northern European". Scots, Irish, Germans . . . prolly some French and Danish, not to mention there's some kind of Native American back there somewhere. I'm Ye Olde American Mutt.

Apparently the Scots in question decided to move to Ireland. Does that make me a vile oppressor?

'Tis a bit silly to dislike the royal family on the basis of what their ancestors did. Of course, it's equally silly to like them for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I don’t think that the people of the UK, are actually ruled, by the Queen, but she is still an unelected person, who simply because of her bloodline has a great deal to do with how your country is run. However is she, again an unelected official, the only one that can choose a PM?

The Queen has absolutely NOTHING to do with how Great Britain is run!

She is there for show in order to liven things up a little and impress the tourists!

Plus, the electorate chooses the Prime Minister not the Queen!

How blatantly wrong do you have to be before you stop talking such rubbish!?

Edited by johny118
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen has absolutely NOTHING to do with how Great Britain is run!

She is there for show in order to liven things up a little and impress the tourists!

Plus, the electorate chooses the Prime Minister not the Queen!

How blatantly wrong do you have to be before you stop talking such rubbish!?

Howdy All,

Maybe I speak complete rubbish, as you say, but all the research that I have done, seems to indicate that I am correct, and that indeed the “Crown”, if not the Queen herself has a great deal of power in the ruling of the England.

http://www.answerbag.com/a_view.php/2726

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarch#Political_role

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page77.asp

If there is information that I am missing please feel free to point it out to me, by indicating sites I should read, instead of just insisting I believe you.

Sure perhaps we don’t have royals to liven things up for tourists; we just have actors, and athletes. Neither of which are paid from the “Civil List” instead they are paid through capitalism.

Perhaps you take my disdain for monarchy in all its forms as a disdain for England. If you do you would be wrong. I have a healthy regard for England, its place in history and its place in western civilization. I just have an extreme dislike for unelected officials that have power over government.

To quote from my favorite comedians, Monty Python:

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR: I am your king!

WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the

purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of

the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to

carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing

swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive

power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some

farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power

just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just

because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd

put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you hear

that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing

me, you saw it didn't you?

Not that I agree with all the political sentiments in the scene but it still cracks me up.

Further instead of just insisting I am retarded or spouting rubbish, educate me. Show me the links.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, the electorate chooses the Prime Minister not the Queen!

How blatantly wrong do you have to be before you stop talking such rubbish!?

After the electorate votes for who they want in parliament, the Queen calls on the leader of thelargest party to form a government. However, it is only tradition and common sense that forces her to do this, she could is she chose call on a member of the House of Lords (i.e. not directly elected) to form a government. Or, in the case of a hung parliament, where there is no clear majority, she may not be able to chose the leader of the largest party. I believe she was very close to doing this in the fifties with Churchill, but decided against it. The Queen, then, does have final say over who is the prime-minister.

To quote from my favorite comedians, Monty Python:

Not that I agree with all the political sentiments in the scene but it still cracks me up.

As an Englishman, I would like to say that I have NEVER, EVER, EVER found Monty Python funny. And I would really like it perhaps if an American could come forward to sponsor the whole lot of them for US citizenship! (I'll even chip in for any costs involved)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Englishman, I would like to say that I have NEVER, EVER, EVER found Monty Python funny. And I would really like it perhaps if an American could come forward to sponsor the whole lot of them for US citizenship! (I'll even chip in for any costs involved)

Hell Dan,

You should move to the States, most people I have know don't think they are funny either. LOL. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Rob

Ireland was conquered and invaded. But Henry VIII was part of the Tudor family, a Welsh dynasty who managed to exploit the rivalries between the House of York and Lancaster for the English throne. Scotland was never conquered. Indeed, the last "invasion" on English soil was from Scotland. England and Scotland were joined under one crown after the throne passed from Elizabeth I to her Scottish cousin (son of Mary Queen of Scots). The United Kingdom came into being with the Act of Union in 1707 when the two countries were united with a joint parliament as well as a crown. In a way you could say that England was subsumed with Scotland into the United Kingdom, the two entered as equals it is only due to its greater population that it acheived such dominance.

Besides which, it was all so long ago - should the English still resent the French because of their invasion in 1066?

Tony Blair has reformed the House of Lords, with only ninety-odd hereditary peers left as a stop-gap measure until the full reform is completed. In a way this is worse than the old system, as the chamber has been stuffed with appointed "Tony's Cronies".

As for the IRA comment, would you agree with people who express support for Hammas or the Mujahadein or al-Q'aeda based on the same argument you have used? It is still terrorism; whether it is balaclava'd Feinians blowing up British army servicemen's cars on the back roads of Armagh or bomb on a packed commuter bus in the suburbs of Tel Aviv - or even a 'plane flown into the New York skyline (which I assume you would not support)

Howdy Dan,

Well according to what I have read, Henry VIII was directly involved in the creation of the Church of England.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

This in turn led to another conquest of Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1641

Scotland was never conquered?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#History

Perhaps it may have been a long time ago, but one should not forget ones history, lest he shall be doomed to repeat it.

So there is movement to reform the House of Lords. Perhaps someday you will finally have a truly democratic government.

As for my IRA comments, I challenge you to find an instance of them attacking someone other then their occupiers, unlike the muslim whacko who strike out against all of

Western Civilization. Not that I condone any of their actions mind you. I just understand their angst. I could see how if I had been raised in Ireland, that I might have been drawn into their ranks.

Rob

P.S.

Actually I did help to raise money to support the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians.

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well according to what I have read, Henry VIII was directly involved in the creation of the Church of England.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

This in turn led to another conquest of Ireland.

Scotland was never conquered?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#History

Perhaps it may have been a long time ago, but one should not forget ones history, lest he shall be doomed to repeat it.

As for my IRA comments, I challenge you to find an instance of them attacking someone other then their occupiers, unlike the muslim whacko who strike out against all of

Western Civilization.

Rob

P.S.

Actually I did help to raise money to support the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians.

R.

I have said that Ireland was conquered and invade.

Your link for Scotland states that although England did invade, attack and harrass its northern neighbour (and it went both ways) it wa snot through an invasion that the two countries were brought together but through the crown passing to a Scot and the Act of Union a hundred years or so later.

One quite good example of the IRA attacking someone other than their occupier would be their attack on Warrington (on the English mainland) on 25 February 1993, that killed a twelve-year old boy and a three-year old boy. And can the United Kingdom really be called an occupying power when in democratic election after democratic election for the past eighty years the people of Ulster have elected to remain part of the United Kingdom? And if terrorism os only terrorism if it is against an "occupying power" then does that mean we can give the green light to the daily attacks in Iraq or the Palestine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And is not an attack on one of us an attack on all of us, to paraphrase Mayor Livingstone's speech after the London Underground bomb attacks this summer by British-born islamic fundamentalists?

Do you mean that only attacks by non-Westerners on America are attacks on Western Civilisation?

Edited by Dan Bidewell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

Maybe I speak complete rubbish, as you say, but all the research that I have done, seems to indicate that I am correct, and that indeed the “Crown”, if not the Queen herself has a great deal of power in the ruling of the England.

http://www.answerbag.com/a_view.php/2726

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarch#Political_role

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page77.asp

If there is information that I am missing please feel free to point it out to me, by indicating sites I should read, instead of just insisting I believe you.

These sources (apart from the official website) are complete rubbish. Maybe you should read books written by people with university degrees instead of websites written by Joe Bloggs.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone could not like the British Monarchy. Although I can understand why you disagree with the way part of it is funded, you only have to look at pictures like those below, to see why most British people love the Monarchy:

1.jpg

5.jpg

Just as a beautiful woman is valued BECAUSE she is beautiful, the Royals are valued BECAUSE they are royalty.

Edited by johny118
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a beautiful woman is valued BECAUSE she is beautiful, the Royals are valued BECAUSE they are royalty.
So are you saying that "being royal" is an intrinsic virtue, not related to some fact about them, and you mean that in some cases seeking the unearned is a virtue? Or are you simply saying that they are a virtue because so many people love them? If it's the latter, it's an irrational self-fulfilling prophecy -- people love the Queen because people love the Queen, and you should love what the people (collectively) love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Englishman, I would like to say that I have NEVER, EVER, EVER found Monty Python funny. And I would really like it perhaps if an American could come forward to sponsor the whole lot of them for US citizenship! (I'll even chip in for any costs involved)

I thought Terry Gilliam IS an American. Since he's the director, it kind of explains the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...