• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion The queen of England has covid

If she pops her clogs maybe we can actually have a conversation about getting rid of this parasitic noncing family for good.

Nah, who am I kidding, knowing this country they'll probably make it illegal to not weep at the mere mention of her.
 
Zellia said:
If she pops her clogs maybe we can actually have a conversation about getting rid of this parasitic noncing family for good.

Nah, who am I kidding, knowing this country they'll probably make it illegal to not weep at the mere mention of her.
Click to expand...
The monarchy is never going
 
crepuscule said:
Of course it is lol, nothing lasts forever
The only question is when
Click to expand...
Too many people in support of it, if Labour put it in a manifesto, that's a sure fire way to lose the election and you can bet the tories and the media would make a massive deal out of it.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
Too many people in support of it, if Labour put it in a manifesto, that's a sure fire way to lose the election and you can bet the tories and the media would make a massive deal out of it.
Click to expand...
You said the monarchy was "never going". That's what I disputed. Of course this strawman is wrong because I never claimed anything of the sort.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
That doesn't necessarily mean the end of the monarchy
Click to expand...
It doesn't and I never claimed it did. I think there is a significant though still quite low chance that the monarchy will end by 2080. I just disagreed with you first when you said it would never end and then when you said it wouldn't end in our lifetimes.
 
I'm still not convinced this isn't a longterm weekend at Bernie's thing.

But if any 95 year old is gonna survive COVID it's gonna be English royalty.
 
crepuscule said:
It doesn't and I never claimed it did. I think there is a significant though still quite low chance that the monarchy will end by 2080. I just disagreed with you first when you said it would never end and then when you said it wouldn't end in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
Then your comment about political stability is irrelevant and pointless to this convo about the end of the monarchy.
 
Gashead said:
Being 95 is a bit of a worry. Covid will be the worst thing to die of because people will never shut up about how it killed the queen as we are in needless lock down 95.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I've asked this before, but how many dead people would it have taken for the lock downs to not be "needless".

Clearly 170,000 wasn't enough for you, did it need to get to a nice round million to be worth saving a bunch of lives?
 
EddyZacianLand said:
Then your comment about political stability is irrelevant and pointless to this convo about the end of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
Only it isn't. If I were to believe that political stability in the UK was going to be similar to the recent past I'd say the end of the monarchy by 2080 would be vanishingly unlikely. But I don't believe that.

So it effects my estimation of the end of the monarchy so it is relevant.
 
crepuscule said:
Only it isn't. If I were to believe that political stability in the UK was going to be similar to the recent past I'd say the end of the monarchy by 2080 would be vanishingly unlikely. But I don't believe that.

So it effects my estimation of the end of the monarchy so it is relevant.
Click to expand...
But I don't get how being politically unstable relates to the end of the monarchy, as the way I see it is that we would have to have a referendum on the matter and so would have to be on party's manifesto, which none would do.
Is there another way I am not seeing??
 
EddyZacianLand said:
But I don't get how being politically unstable relates to the end of the monarchy, as the way I see it is that we would have to have a referendum on the matter and so would have to be on party's manifesto, which none would do.
Is there another way I am not seeing??
Click to expand...

Yeah, the entire royal family could abdicate.

The royal family isn't going anywhere in the current British political climate and there are far bigger fish to fry that take basically all my mental energy in the politics direction before I can get bent out of shape over that.
 
0
EddyZacianLand said:
But I don't get how being politically unstable relates to the end of the monarchy, as the way I see it is that we would have to have a referendum on the matter and so would have to be on party's manifesto, which none would do.
Is there another way I am not seeing??
Click to expand...
Why do you think a referendum is neccesarry? Or a manifesto? None of these are required by our constitutional law which can be changed at parliament's will anyway.

But yes, no parliment elected today would ever attempt to abolish the monarchy, if it even can.

But A. Opinions can change or be changed over time. It is not inconceivable that within our lifetimes even if the basic political structures were to survive that a parliament might be elected that is willing to attempt to abolish the monarchy. And B. You seem to be assuming that current political structures won't (or even can't) themselves be abolished or transformed to an extent that they won't be familiar to us today. This isn't necessarily true either.
 
Linkstrikesback said:
I'm sure I've asked this before, but how many dead people would it have taken for the lock downs to not be "needless".

Clearly 170,000 wasn't enough for you, did it need to get to a nice round million to be worth saving a bunch of lives?
Click to expand...
170,001 so it was so, so close but sadly just missed out.

Do you think 95 lockdowns will be needed? I said it in jest due to it being the same number as the Queens age.
 
0
crepuscule said:
Why do you think a referendum is neccesarry? Or a manifesto? None of these are required by our constitutional law which can be changed at parliament's will anyway.

But yes, no parliment elected today would ever attempt to abolish the monarchy, if it even can.

But A. Opinions can change or be changed over time. It is not inconceivable that within our lifetimes even if the basic political structures were to survive that a parliament might be elected that is willing to attempt to abolish the monarchy. And B. You seem to be assuming that current political structures won't (or even can't) themselves be abolished or transformed to an extent that they won't be familiar to us today. This isn't necessarily true either.
Click to expand...
Without a referendum, the government would basically be saying to the public, 'We don't give a fuck about how you feel about this enormous change, we don't want the monarchy anymore, so we are getting rid it and there's fuck all you can do to stop us.'
That's undemocratic and quite frankly the work of a dictator. A referendum on the monarchy is something that would need to be on a party's manifesto so the public can vote for that party or against them.

As much as I want the monarchy to be abolished, if its not done through a referendum that the public can vote, so we can see if they truly want it gone, then it should stay.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
Without a referendum, the government would basically be saying to the public, 'We don't give a fuck about how you feel about this enormous change, we don't want the monarchy anymore, so we are getting rid it and there's fuck all you can do to stop us.'
That's undemocratic and quite frankly the work of a dictator.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much correct for the near future.

Though hypothetically consider in 30 years it is revealed that the royals of the future are all Prince Andrews in some undeniable way and that the public turns completely against them. Is it not concievable that parliament would attempt to abolish the monarchy?
A referendum on the monarchy is something that would need to be on a party's manifesto so the public can vote for that party or against them.
Click to expand...
Who's to say that the current system of parties or the convention of parties producing manifestos before elections even exists in fifty years? You are taking a view of this as if you are talking about abolishing the monarchy within five years but you initially stated "never" and then "within our lifetimes".
As much as I want the monarchy to be abolished, if its not done through a referendum that the public can vote, so we can see if they truly want it gone, then it should stay.
Click to expand...
So this is a departure from our previous conservation about what is possible into what should happen. I disagree.
 
As a non-british leftist i say that yes, the monarchy should be abolished.

Having say that. My grandma (89) died last December due to COVID related sequels (kidney failure), her last days were very painful, for her and for me. I can´t in good conscience wish for the same kind of suffering to someone in a similar position.

EddyZacianLand said:
Welp I was hoping this wouldn't go down the same toxic way as Resetera
Click to expand...
Well too late and we can expect other, unrelated threads to go down this way more and more.

Hopefully the mods will do their work , regardless of the type of conversation the thread is having. One of the biggest issues on RE is that the mods let users be as offensive, derailing and shit posting as much as they wanted as long as they were "on the right side" or the conversation, this has contributed in no small part to that place´s demise.
 
0
crepuscule said:
This is pretty much correct for the near future.

Though hypothetically consider in 30 years it is revealed that the royals of the future are all Prince Andrews in some undeniable way and that the public turns completely against them. Is it not concievable that parliament would attempt to abolish the monarchy?

Who's to say that the current system of parties or the convention of parties producing manifestos before elections even exists in fifty years? You are taking a view of this as if you are talking about abolishing the monarchy within five years but you initially stated "never" and then "within our lifetimes".

So this is a departure from our previous conservation about what is possible into what should happen. I disagree.
Click to expand...
Polls can be wrong, so a referendum can show how people actually feel about the monarchy, or we could have a wrong view on how the public actually feels

Unless elections are done away with, we will still have individuals that need to be elected and will need to make pledges to get elected by a leader.

Also keep in mind that people can be against the people the monarchy consists of and also against the UK becoming a Republic.

This video explains that becoming a Republic means more than just not having a monarchy.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
Polls can be wrong, so a referendum can show how people actually feel about the monarchy, or we could have a wrong view on how the public actually feels
Click to expand...
That's correct. But it doesn't relate to the fundamental argument point that I believe there is a significant chance that the monarchy could be abolished within our lifetimes and you do not.
EddyZacianLand said:
Unless elections are done away with, we will still have individuals that need to be elected and will need to make pledges to get elected by a leader.
Click to expand...
Elections being done away with whether by an revolution of some kind, an invasion of some kind, or even by the breakdown of society due to some disaster is in fact a way the monarchy might be abolished in our lifetimes.

EddyZacianLand said:
Also keep in mind that people can be against the people the monarchy consists of and also against the UK becoming a Republic.

This video explains that becoming a Republic means more than just not having a monarchy.
Click to expand...

This is also correct but here you are focusing on one single example of a possible future in which parliament might attempt to abolish the monarchy. The thing we are supposed to be arguing is whether or not there is significant possibility of the monarchy "going anywhere in our lifetimes".

As you keep going away from this argument without resolving it I think I'm going to stop here.
 
Last edited:
crepuscule said:
That's correct. But it doesn't relate to the fundamental argument point that I believe there is a significant chance that the monarchy could be abolished within our lifetimes and you do not.

Elections being done away with wether by an internal revolution of some kind, an external invasion of some kind, or even by the breakdown of society due to some natural disaster is in fact way the monarchy might be abolished in our lifetimes.


This is also correct but here you are focusing on one single example of a possible future in which parliament might attempt to abolish the monarchy. The thing we are supposed to be arguing is whether or not there is significant possibility of the monarchy "going anywhere in our lifetimes".

As you keep going away from this argument without resolving it I think I'm going to stop here.
Click to expand...
OK, I don't see the UK being invaded and being taken over in our lifetime and thus elections being done away in our lifetimes and so the monarchy being abolished.
I don't see that happening at all in our lifetimes and since you say that's in fact the way the monarchy been abolished, then I don't see the monarchy being abolished in our lifetimes.
 
0
A referendum wouldn't get rid of the monarchy but it would be probably closer than expected 60-40 not 80-20

it would be like Scotland's where people publicly say one side and vote the other.
 
0
As a french person it's funny to me to see how a thread about the Queen getting covid has turned into a discussion about the possible end of British monarchy. Joke aside I don't see how the earlier replies here are "toxic", maybe it's because I'm not british but I couldn't care less about the health of any member of the royal family. I didn't care when Trump, Boris Johnson or even Macron got covid either. Yes, covid is a very bad thing, I got it last month and it was awful, but as queen she will have some of the best care and treatments available, this is something most people didn't and won't have. I think it's obvious to say that poor and working class people are way more affected by Covid than upper classes.

I don't see it happening but it will be interesting if her future death (when it will happen, whether it's very soon or not) starts a serious conversation about the abolition of the monarchy. I think it should be abolished and it will happen sooner rather than later but I don't have any hopes of it happening in the next 20ish years
 
Can someone ELI5 saying bad things about the monarchy is toxic or should be frowned upon? Is it because the damage done by the royal family is less "direct" than say, a fascist politician or billionaire CEO?

Like if someone is graphically describing how the queen should die that might be one thing but I'm trying to understand why "fuck the royalty" is bad.
 
Mekanos said:
Can someone ELI5 saying bad things about the monarchy is toxic or should be frowned upon? Is it because the damage done by the royal family is less "direct" than say, a fascist politician or billionaire CEO?

Like if someone is graphically describing how the queen should die that might be one thing but I'm trying to understand why "fuck the royalty" is bad.
Click to expand...
I am more thinking that I am against the whole 'Good she should suffer as much, evil fucking bitch go straight to hell!!'
 
EddyZacianLand said:
I am more thinking that I am against the whole 'Good she should suffer as much, evil fucking bitch go straight to hell!!'
Click to expand...
You immediately jumped to moaning about toxicity as soon as one single poster said 'fuck royalty', which is a good deal less aggressive than your strawman, so let's not pretend that this is about anything other than you wanting to tone police.
 
Zellia said:
You immediately jumped to moaning about toxicity as soon as one single poster said 'fuck royalty', which is a good deal less aggressive than your strawman, so let's not pretend that this is about anything other than you wanting to tone police.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was way too rash on that. That was terrible stupid mistake on my part, Idk why I said it, I have no excuse for it and I deeply apologise for that.
 
0
I wish she'd catch guillotine. The sooner we remove these paedophile-enabling chinless parasites the better.

There's a lot wrong with this miserable little island, and the fish rots from the head.
 
maebe said:
I wish she'd catch guillotine. The sooner we remove these paedophile-enabling chinless parasites the better.

There's a lot wrong with this miserable little island, and the fish rots from the head.
Click to expand...

(1) The Queen is at best a figurehead. Johnson is the head of the state, not her.
(2) The island brought most of the things wrong with it on itself and the existence or not of the Royal family will change precisely nothing about the vast majority of self inflicted problems the UK has.
 
Linkstrikesback said:
(1) The Queen is at best a figurehead. Johnson is the head of the state, not her.
(2) The island brought most of the things wrong with it on itself and the existence or not of the Royal family will change precisely nothing about the vast majority of self inflicted problems the UK has.
Click to expand...
Oh sure. Sure. What I think Johnson and his gang of murdering horse-diddlers deserve is, frankly, unsuitable for public broadcast. And, yeah, removing the inbred bag of bones is unlikely to result in any material change for real people.

But it's worth a punt though, isn't it?

guillotine.gif
 
maebe said:
Oh sure. Sure. What I think Johnson and his gang of murdering horse-diddlers deserve is, frankly, unsuitable for public broadcast. And, yeah, removing the inbred bag of bones is unlikely to result in any material change for real people.

But it's worth a punt though, isn't it?

guillotine.gif
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom